# Why not Nuke the oil leak? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 1, 2010, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458 "2010-06-01T03:53:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Indian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c0e974/32.png) [@Indian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indian)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/61 "2010-06-03T09:51:38Z")
US GOvt says [no.](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/us/03nuke.html?hp) ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/62 "2010-06-03T11:52:58Z")
> [@indian](#): > > US GOvt says [no.](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/us/03nuke.html?hp) Damn bureaucrats. No wonder nothing ever gets nuked. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/63 "2010-06-03T11:57:50Z")
> [@Sinisterniik](#): > > It’s possible that there are no plants or deep-sea dwellers by the leak -in which case, it would be a moot point regardless of radiation leaking. However, life seems to inhabit our entire world. There are no plants at a depth of 5000 feet; sunlight just doesn’t get that far down. There is animal life at that depth though, and in fact right at the well location; the other day I saw some sort of long, skinny fish swimming by in video footage of the well. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/64 "2010-06-03T12:57:14Z")
> [@Ranchoth](#): > > Damn bureaucrats. No wonder nothing ever gets nuked. This was a low level denial: > [@](#): > > Stephanie Mueller, a spokeswoman for the Energy Department, said that neither Energy Secretary Steven Chu nor anyone else was thinking about a nuclear blast under the gulf. The nuclear option was not — and never had been — on the table, federal officials said. > > “It’s crazy,” one senior official said. Come February, Steven Chu will be asked about Meuller’s statement and reply “Who is Stephanie Mueller?” ---
**Author:** ![yoyodyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a9a28c/32.png) [@yoyodyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yoyodyne)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/65 "2010-06-03T13:09:02Z")
> [@Sinisterniik](#): > > Well, I don’t know what type of wildlife is specifically near the oil leak, but I imagine if there was really a problem caused by radiation it would first affect the plant-life on the ocean’s floor. The radiation could then be transmitted up the food chain in a similar manner as to my previously cited report linking thyroid conditions in native people to radiation in the soil (that went from the grass, to the cows, to the humans). > > It’s possible that there are no plants or deep-sea dwellers by the leak -in which case, it would be a moot point regardless of radiation leaking. However, life seems to inhabit our entire world. There’s one hell of a lot of wildlife being killed right now and for a long time to come. ---
**Author:** ![Sinisterniik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/51bf81/32.png) [@Sinisterniik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinisterniik)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/66 "2010-06-03T16:16:15Z")
> [@yoyodyne](#): > > There’s one hell of a lot of wildlife being killed right now and for a long time to come. Indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Sinisterniik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/51bf81/32.png) [@Sinisterniik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinisterniik)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/67 "2010-06-03T16:27:24Z")
> [@Joe Frickin Friday](#): > > There are no plants at a depth of 5000 feet; sunlight just doesn’t get that far down. There is animal life at that depth though, and in fact right at the well location; the other day I saw some sort of long, skinny fish swimming by in video footage of the well. I absolutely can’t comment on the specific plant-life that may or may not be down by the blow-out preventer, but here’s an accurate description of how plants can survive at great depths without sunlight (from [blurtit.com](http://blurtit.com) -not very scientific, I know): > [@](#): > > They don’t undergo the photosynthesis cycle unlike other plants because of the absence of light.They survive entirely by absorbing nutrients present in the soil.The soil is very rich because all dead fish,plankton etc., settles on the deep ocean floor (like an undersea graveyard). Here is an outdated Wired article noting that life exists at least 35,800 ft. below the ocean’s surface: [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/dive.html](http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/dive.html) With a little bit more time I’m sure I could find more up to date figures, but I think it illustrates the point clearly enough. ---
**Author:** ![Sinisterniik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/51bf81/32.png) [@Sinisterniik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinisterniik)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/68 "2010-06-03T17:59:47Z")
> [@Sinisterniik](#): > > I absolutely can’t comment on the specific plant-life that may or may not be down by the blow-out preventer. Here’s another link that backs your assertion, though: [Ocean Zones - body, used, water, process, Earth, life, plants, chemical, form](http://www.scienceclarified.com/Mu-Oi/Ocean-Zones.html) Of note it this selection: > [@](#): > > In 1977, near the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific Ocean, oceanographers discovered deep sea vents and communities of organisms never seen before. These hydrothermal vents are located in regions where molten rock lies just below the surface of the seafloor, producing underwater hot springs. Volcanic “chimneys” form when the escaping superheated water deposits dissolved minerals and gases upon coming in contact with the cold ocean water. Around these vents are bacteria that obtain energy from the oxidation of hydrogen sulfide escaping from the vents—a process called chemosynthesis. These bacteria (primary producers) are then used as food by tube worms, huge clams, mussels, and other organisms (primary consumers) living around the vents. Since these communities are not photosynthesis-based like all other biological communities, they may provide clues to the nature of early life on Earth. So, if you replace “plants” with “producers”, the same effect is theoretically possible. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/69 "2010-06-04T00:26:22Z")
Let’s not lose sight, though, of the question of whether those plants or other wee beasties would be connected to the food chain to the extent that harmful material would find its way into your bowl of gumbo. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/70 "2010-06-04T00:44:25Z")
> [@Sinisterniik](#): > > I’ve cited my sources. If you can’t back up yours, that’s fine. I’m not saying you’re wrong; I’m just saying that you aren’t going to convince me of your side by simply taking a contrary position. > . Calculate the volume of water in the gulf of mexico. Make a guesstimate of how much radioactive material a nuke would create. It aint that much mass wise. Compare that to how much NATURAL radioactive material already exists in the gulf waters. (Hint, there is a bunch of Uranium in seawater). And this IS WORST case, cause you know what they are going to do IF they do use a nuke? They are going to put it so darn far down the hole that virtually none of the radiactive material will escape…cause thats the whole POINT of putting the nuke down there in the first place, so no (or very little) shit (oil or radioactive crap) will come out of the hole anymore. Heck, for that matter, do some research and find out how much radioactive crap is in the OIL itself. ---
**Author:** ![Sinisterniik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/51bf81/32.png) [@Sinisterniik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinisterniik)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/71 "2010-06-04T00:59:10Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Calculate the volume of water in the gulf of mexico. > > Make a guesstimate of how much radioactive material a nuke would create. It aint that much mass wise. > > Compare that to how much NATURAL radioactive material already exists in the gulf waters. (Hint, there is a bunch of Uranium in seawater). > > And this IS WORST case, cause you know what they are going to do IF they do use a nuke? They are going to put it so darn far down the hole that virtually none of the radiactive material will escape…cause thats the whole POINT of putting the nuke down there in the first place, so no (or very little) shit (oil or radioactive crap) will come out of the hole anymore. > > Heck, for that matter, do some research and find out how much radioactive crap is in the OIL itself. I’m talking about the effect on local wildlife, not the entire Gulf of Mexico. Besides… > [@Sinisterniik](#): > > I’ve cited my sources. If you can’t back up yours, that’s fine. I’m not saying you’re wrong; I’m just saying that you aren’t going to convince me of your side by simply taking a contrary position. ---
**Author:** ![Sinisterniik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/51bf81/32.png) [@Sinisterniik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinisterniik)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/72 "2010-06-04T01:05:27Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > Let’s not lose sight, though, of the question of whether those plants or other wee beasties would be connected to the food chain to the extent that harmful material would find its way into your bowl of gumbo. Yeah, I know. I mean it certainly seems unlikely from a practical sense, but so does the idea that radiation would get passed from soil to grass to cow to humans. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t a possibility. I think if I were a scientific researcher trying to track this sort of thing I’d be less worried about the radiation finding its way to humans and more concerned that it would decimate the producers in the area, which appear to be the most likely effected anyway, and in turn populations important to American jobs (like shrimp, for instance) would starve to death. Let me throw out my disclaimer again that I’ve never claimed that radiation would actually do any of this -simply that it’s a variable that needs to be considered. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/73 "2010-06-04T01:16:30Z")
> [@Sinisterniik](#): > > I’m talking about the effect on local wildlife, not the entire Gulf of Mexico. Besides… So, basically, you are the type of guy that would worry about accidentally driving over some forest mice with the fire truck while trying to put out a devastating forest fire? Cause, honestly, thats pretty much the position you appear to have here. Besides the fact we don’t even know if there are any very special mice to worry about down there in the first place. And if there are, they are certainly currently getting large quantities of nasty crude oil spewed on them. Let me say this again. It takes HIGH levels of radiation before animal and plant life is significantly impacted. ---
**Author:** ![Sinisterniik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/51bf81/32.png) [@Sinisterniik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinisterniik)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458/74 "2010-06-04T02:17:33Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > So, basically, you are the type of guy that would worry about accidentally driving over some forest mice with the fire truck while trying to put out a devastating forest fire? > > Cause, honestly, thats pretty much the position you appear to have here. Besides the fact we don’t even know if there are any very special mice to worry about down there in the first place. And if there are, they are certainly currently getting large quantities of nasty crude oil spewed on them. > > Let me say this again. It takes HIGH levels of radiation before animal and plant life is significantly impacted. Well… > [@Sinisterniik](#): > > For the record, I’ve never said that the explosion _would_ cause radiation pollution, just that it’s probably the greatest concern involved. > [@](#): > > I’m sure [the oil] will have a worse effect than the bomb at this point (and as most people have pointed out, the relief wells will probably be drilled faster than the bomb could be employed). I was simply taking issue with your assertions that nuclear blasts don’t harm wildlife beyond the initial blast. > [@](#): > > I’ve cited my sources. If you can’t back up yours, that’s fine. I’m not saying you’re wrong; I’m just saying that you aren’t going to convince me of your side by simply taking a contrary position. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-nuke-the-oil-leak/541458.md?page=3)