Karoli at C&L discusses nuking BP’s wild well.
The idea gives me the willies from the git-go. I’m not a physicist, though I know a little bit about physics and a lot about history. Blowing stuff up is seldom an effective choice, though it appeals to the macho and the frustrated and especially the frustrated macho.
Blowing it up is their alternative to getting it u–never mind.
A nugget from Karoli’s post:
As I understand it, the goal with any explosive device is to cause the hole to collapse on itself. According to some experts, the problem with conventional explosives is the same problem other solutions are bumping against: this well is so deep and subject to such severe pressure that there’s no empirical evidence available to support or refute the claim conventional explosives would succeed. If they didn’t succeed, the problem might be made even worse.
This is an incredibly frustrating problem, not only because of the draconian measures needed to stop the spillage, but because we’re being asked to take so much on faith when it comes to the steps needed to stop the leak and clear the oil.
- We’re told dispersants are non-toxic but hazmat suits are needed and the manufacturer’s own instructions recommend they not come in contact with bare skin.
- We haven’t been told what kind of impact dropping all that mud has, particularly when mixed with oil.
- We have no idea how long it will take the microbial agents to eat the oil and clear the water.
We have absolutely no clue as to whether a nuclear device will work and if it does, whether it will do so at the expense of all living things for years to come.
- Worst of all, no one has any faith in the information we’re receiving from BP, because they have not been forthright with us and appear to be acting in their best interests rather than our own.
I wasn’t a rocket scientist in school, but common sense tells me the nuclear option may not be the best one.
Via Bob Cesca.
Addendum, a cup of coffee later: