Russians offer advice on how to stop oil leak, how they've done it before

Nuke that slick - Julia Ioffe - The Moscow Diaries - True/Slant

A few articles like this are out there, just offered one. I offered up this idea last week and it was moved to humor, rightfully so, because I too thought it was a wild one. BUT......apparantly not!!!

The Russians have suggested we nuke the oil spill site underwater to seal the leak. They've done it 5 times in the past, with only 1 time it not working. They've done it 169 times underwater for other purposes, but 5 times to stop a leak.

The Stephen Colbert show last night brougth up this idea, and he made comedy of it, and the official response of the Obama Admin was that the "nuclear option is not on the table". Colbert's response was "Why? The oil spill is using chemical and biological weapons.....because it is that". Funny stuff.

But, the idea is gaining some hesitant interest. The Russians have successfully done it. And suggest we do also. We could try it. It's the only way to stop this thing before August.

scarey as it sounds...it has an 80% chance of success according to the russians...

__________________
"A lie ain't a side of a story. It's just a lie." - Snoop

And not just in theory, in practice. They've tried it 5 times, 4 times it worked perfectly.

I'm gonna go out on a political limb on this...........but............if Bush/Cheney were in office, they'd have nuked that thing by day 3 and the oil would've stopped leaking on April 23rd. Remember that in November when it is still coming out.

But again.....this is the admin that said "Never let a good crisis go to waste". The more damage the oil does, the more their anti-oil agenda swims. Go figure.

yep, it's a limb you are going out on....day three bp told us ''the leak was contained....no problem here!'', in addition to this no one knew all of bp attempts would fail one by one.

AND most importantly, what are the ramifications of the 1 in 5 failure? the sea is poisoned with radiation that attaches to the oil gue and spreads throughout the world via our gulfstream?

thousands of years for radiation to dissipate, while 20 years for oil?

i would need to know much more before jumping on the bandwagon with this...not to say it could not be a method or choice to use, just that we don't need another episode of diving off the bridge before knowing the depth of the water.....in other words we need to know the consequences of failure and whether we are willing to accept such failure....as the failure of the deep water drilling should have been weighted before the dive in.

seems the us is inbetween a rock and hard place...nasa imaging shows the oil moving round florida and up the east coast in 4 to 5 months then into international waters and headed east.

Where Will the Deepwater Horizon Oil End Up?: Scientific American

__________________
"A lie ain't a side of a story. It's just a lie." - Snoop

yep, up to north carolina then off to sea....then to Britain i suppose?

the simulation was done with dye equal to water weight and not with oil and clumps of oil that is sluggish though so the simulation is missing some factors.

That's where you are tripping.
There is no "anti-oil agenda".
Once the gulf is dead there is no reason NOT to drill.........Right ?

did they forget to mention the north sea still glows from all reactors at the bottom???

__________________
"There are no great men, there are only great challenges that ordinary men are forced by circumstances to meet."- ADM William F. Halsey

I think the russians are joking about this. I am not aware of any place they have deep offshore drilling platforms for one, it is a violation of treaties that have been in force decades for two, and the damage the explosion would cause is a lot worse than the damage of the leak. It is like throwing a brick at the window to kill a mosquito.

__________________
"There are no great men, there are only great challenges that ordinary men are forced by circumstances to meet."- ADM William F. Halsey