That seems to be the same thing as drilling a relief well.
I have no idea if nuclear bomb is appropriate technically, but if it is, I sure hope the treaty doesn’t prevent a best solution.
The treaty doesn’t prevent use in nuclear war, does it? Maybe the U.S. will need to declare war on BP … 
Oh, it is not a fuel-air; we just recently had a thread on this.
Nor is it the same thing as the Daisycutter, that’s an earlier bomb, the BLU-82, which was also conventional high explosive.
Well sure…if you don’t mind waking Godzilla!
(And really, hasn’t New Orleans had enough trouble without that?)
I think that this is the largest issue. Well, not Godzilla, but radiation pollution.
Is that really an issue, though? I’m not saying your post is motivated by this, but a lot of other people out there will see anything connected to nuclear energy and exclaim “oh noez! radiation dude1!!!” without knowing how radiation works. Not that I know all that much about it myself – but wouldnt the tons of seawater above the device prove an effective shield? Is radioactivity something that carried by slow, deep sea currents?
HUNDREDS of sometimes rather large and dirty nuclear weapons were tested ABOVE ground in the dawn of the nuclear era. One small clean one deep in the ocean floor would be nearly undetectable world wide in comparision. There are probably some good technical reasons why nuking the oil leak is a bad idea…but IMO the OMG radiation really isnt one of them.
The issue is not with the number of nuclear tests, but the locations. If you want to open up a banana farm in Micronesia, go ahead:
http://www.bikiniatoll.com/whatrad.html
The threat would not be to the people, but the wildlife populations in the Gulf.
For the record, I’ve never said that the explosion would cause radiation pollution, just that it’s probably the greatest concern involved.
Also many of those above ground tests were just that -above the ground (the bomb “dropped on” Hiroshima exploded 2,000 ft above the city). The negative radiation effects don’t come from the explosion in these cases, but the fallout. This is not necessarily the case when the bomb is detonated below ground.
That doesnt make any sense.
If the radiation levels are low enough that they really dont threaten humans to any measurable extent, how are they going to be REALLY bad for the wildlife? Particularly in comparision to all that nasty crude oil that the explosion is intended to stop.
Given man’s abundant past history of bringing forth a Pandora’s Box of unintended consequences in instances where he’s tried to exert his influence over his environment, the suggestion he utilize a nuclear device as a precise resolution to closing a 7 inch pipe elicits in me a giant WTF?
Yeah. Real life aside, in no conceivable fictional treatment would a plan like this go well (see above comments about Godzilla).
From http://www.urbanhabitat.org/node/165:
If the problem is that you don’t understand how radiation affects us, check out this page (albeit from an extremely pro-nuclear energy site):
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf05.html
I’ve taken graduate level courses in radiation, its health effects, nuclear science…and shit.
So, I might have a clue here thank you very much.
How much strength did/does the 63 test ban treaty actually have? We conducted nuclear tests until 1992. And there’s the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, but Wikipedia says it hasn’t actually entered into force.
And how much radiation leakage would there even be, if it was an operation like the Russian blowout-fixing operation in the film clip*? It wouldn’t be just underwater, but underground.
I’ve been unable to find it again, but I used to have a link an article about the Russian atomic museum at Sarov that claimed that developments of some of the civilian (er…“civil engineering”?) nuclear explosives developed had an extremely low percentage (like, 2%) derived from fission, and the rest from “clean” fusion. Course, that might have been untested, or just commie bluster.
All probably academic, of course, seeing as to do this safely and properly you’d have to drill a shaft for the weapon anyway, and they’re already drilling to put in relief wells, which’ll do the job anyway.
…course, this is BP we’re talking about. Maybe someone should get Putin on the phone, see if we can do business.
*Thank you, Jormungandr btw, for finding that! I’d heard of such operations, but I’d never seen film evidence for one.
Can you please look through your reference material and find where it says that radiation from nuclear blasts are not detrimental to the health of the people, plants, and animals in the affected area?
I wasn’t trying to be insulting -you just seemed so surprised by the idea that radiation could affect the health of local people and wildlife.
Also: I understand that there is a certain base level of radiation all over and that all radiation/all amounts of radiation are not unhealthy for us. I also understand that in general nuclear power in and of itself is not harmful (although the waste can be if not properly contained). However, that doesn’t change the fact that excess exposure to radiation causes ill-health:
http://www.houstontx.gov/health/osphp/Radiation%20Emergencies/Nuclear%20and%20Radiation%20Incidents.pdf
I’ve cited my arguments. I would appreciate if you could back up yours.
Just drill a hole in the bomb housing so that pressures, inside and outside of the bomb are equalized. Given that bombs are set off by conventional explosives, done all the time underwater, I don’t see a problem on that score.
In a word, SO. I’m not saying this is the solution but I’m say IF it’s the solution then an ecological disaster of this size negates the treaty.
Which are supposed to do the job anyway. Come next February, when BP fails to intersect the wellshaft with its 3rd or 4th relief well, the feds might look at the less exacting requirements for placing a nuke near the well and decide “what the hell, we’ve already got a hole drilled close enough for a nuke, let’s give it a try.”
Do some calculations. Tell us how much radiation would be added to gulf of mexico from one small scale nuclear blast deep underground and underwater.
Radiation can be bad? I know that.
One blast is not going to decimate the local wildlife due to radiation. For that matter, you probably wouldnt be able to even measure the negative effect on the overall wildlife populations in the gulf. Radiation levels “might” exceed the extremely conservative values used for humans to ensure safety, but those levels are set so low that “extra” cancers “possibly” caused to humans exposed for decades to it “might” get some cancers very slightly above background levels. Levels like that will do butkis to animals in the wild that only need to survive long enough to breed a bit.
On the other hand, it certainly appears possible that all this nasty crude oil WILL have significant, if not dramatic, effects on local wildlife populations.
Again, IMO, there are plenty of OTHER reasons why a nuke is probably not a good idea, but the OMG radiation isnt one of them.