by leavingwt 65 Replies latest social current
For all we know Shamus, it could work.
Sure. Get the navy in there, blow it up. o
This entire conversation reminds me of a meeting I once had many many many years ago... a 2 hour meeting in a board room about pillows. Nothing but pillows.... I honestly thought that I had heard the ultimate stupidity. Americans getting the naveeey to blow up large resiviors 1500 ish meters in the ocean, is well, stunningly stupider. I'd rather talk about pillows.
What kinds of pillows do you like besnekers?
the posters who are most engaged
Let's try it again. . .(with all due apologies). . .
the posters who are most engorged
or
the posters who are most enraged
Is stupider a word? ** rubs face in pillow, thinks of unicorns and leprocauns **
I'm not enraged at all. I'm stunned at the stupidity of your media.
Are you sure you weren't delusional and saw this on the National Enquirer?
Ok as for DiCaprio, I have grown to respect him. Actually I think he's pretty awesome these days. Gilbert Grape was something, and so was The Departed and even Blood Diamond.
Funny, I gave him zero when he started, and now I think he's damn good. I gave Cruise major credit when he started, now I think he is pure crap.
See? This thread is good for something. We're talking about stutter island and pillows. It's not a total wash after all!
Now now, when speaking of engaged posters, I'm merely talking about........interest, emotion. That's why it would be so damn cool to see!!
Here's some info. . .
So why don't we try it?
There are a few reasons to be cautious. Firstly, the Soviet Union's well explosions were all conducted inland. Creating an underwater explosion to seal off the well would be highly experimental technology, and would not be guaranteed to work. Secondly, the fall-out from a nuclear explosion could create fresh environmental hazards. And thirdly, detonating a nuclear bomb would potentially undermine international anti-nuclear treaties by establishing a new and legitimate "peaceful" use for nukes.
What kind of "fresh environmental hazards" could a nuclear explosion create?
Although the explosion would happen deep underground, radioactive gases could still seep into the Gulf. That said, "it seems a reasonable conjecture that the dissipation of a limited amount of radioactive material across the vast Gulf is preferable to the blanketing of thousands of miles of American coastline in ribbons of tar," says Daniel Foster in the National Review. But the worst case scenario, says Andrew Leonard at Salon, would be a "chain reaction" leading to a massive release of frozen natural gas in the seabed — potentially wiping out most of the life on planet Earth.
Is the U.S. considering the nuclear option?
A five-man team of nuclear physicists has reportedly been dispatched to the Gulf to look at "outside-the-box" solutions to the spill, but the White House says using a nuclear bomb to stem the flow was not even a possibility. "It's crazy," one senior official told The New York Times.
Could we use a conventional bomb?
Experts warn that the well and its surrounding geology are fragile and a less powerful explosion might open up fissures and make the leak essentially unstoppable. Because of the risks, using any kind of explosive device should be an option of last resort.
Personally, I must have a down pillow. Can't sleep unless it's squishy.
LWT, if you get tired of all this foolishness, you just say so, and we'll go back to bombing the well.
a less powerful explosion might open up fissures and make the leak essentially unstoppable. Because of the risks, using any kind of explosive device should be an option of last resort.
And there it is, my biggest fear. I think it's already happened, and we're not being told.
