Cutting-edge physics in all its remarkable strangeness

Is It a Good Idea to Nuke the Oil Leak?

Nuketheoilleak_michiokaku

There was brief speculation in the media about using nuclear weapons to seal up the raging oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. I think this is a bad idea, from a physics point of view. Let me say that my mentor while I was in high school and at Harvard, Edward Teller, father of the H-bomb, was a firm advocate of using nuclear weapons to dig out canals and other grand engineering projects. The logic is this: when an H-bomb is detonated underground, most of its energy is in the form of soft X-rays, which deposit most of their energy in a large sphere, where it is absorbed and the energy turned to intense heat. (In the air, this ball of hot ionized plasma rises rapidly, with cold air coming in from the side, which gives rise to the familiar mushroom cloud).

Underground, we then have a hollow sphere of vaporized gas, with walls that have been glassified from the sand. This hollow sphere is stable from a few hours to a few days, but eventually the weight of the rock collapses the sphere. The result is a sudden collapse of the sphere, often releasing radioactive gas into the environment. In the wake of this explosion, we now have a huge hole, often over 1,000 feet across, which, as envisioned by Dr. Teller, could be used to create canals. The Soviets actually experimented with this method to seal gas leaks during the 1960s and '70s.

If this takes place under the sea floor (which has never been done before), there are bound to be complications. First, there would be the release of dangerous, water-soluble chemicals such as radioactive iodine, strontium, and cesium, which would contaminate the food chain in the Gulf. Second, the "seal" created by the glassified sand is probably unstable. And third, it might actually make the problem worse, creating many mini leaks on the ocean floor.  Determining the precise effect of such an underwater blast would depend on crucial computer simulations of the various layers of rock under the seafloor, which has never been done before.

In other words, this would bea huge science experiment, with unintended consequences. Furthermore, with hurricane season upon us, and predictions of eight or more hurricanes for this season, it means that seawater several hundred feet below the surface of the water could be churned up and then deposited over the South. This seawater, containing oils and radioactive fission products, would magnify the environmental problem.

In summary, it is not a good idea to use nukes to seal up oil leaks.

 

Discuss

Nathanael Buck Lowe
Oil laiden,radioactive tsunamis can't be good. Was this some sort of endgame weapon developed during the cold war? LOL
Toxic Reverend
Toxic Reverend
The censored information from the FDA on medical X-rays and depleted uranium needs to be considered with nuking the oil leak, too. See my blog: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 Epidemiology: Obscured Radiation Reality and "Multiple Combination's" of "The Toxic Lotto" http://toxicreverend.blogspot.com/2010/03/obscured-radion-reality-and-multiple.html Excerpt from the blog (the stories are linked in): Former FDA scientist alleges agency discounted concerns about radiation exposure in medical scans Multiple news releases can be found with the Google search terms; "Dr. Julian Nicholas Food and Drug Administration suppressed radiation" Below, on this blog you will also find links to highly censored stories concerning Depleted Uranium Weapons and the censored information about it's health effects - TR End of excerpt from: http://toxicreverend.blogspot.com/2010/03/obscured-radion-reality-and-multiple.html
Toxic Reverend
Toxic Reverend
"Multiple Combination's" apply to The Toxic Lotto, with regard to chemical exposures (combination), infectious agents (combination), radiation exposures and genetic as well as epigenetic response variations. For scientific reference material, enter epigenetics in the search engine at Science Signaling http://stke.sciencemag.org/ The video linked in below discusses research that showed a variance in genetic signally and not the genetics were responsible for an illness in one identical twin. While the other twin was normal with the same gene. A number of the worlds top Epigenetic researchers are interviewed Epigenetics NOVA "Science Now" Episode Public Broadcast System Archived show video down loadable in a few format versions at http://www.archive.org/details/epigenetics Show credits: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/credits.html#h02 For instance; Toxic chemical exposures can reduce the immune systems ability to deal with sub-clinical (not acute) "stealth" infections, such as mycoplasma's, that can also impair your immune system. As can radiation. Some mycoplasma's were genetically spliced and weaponized and there are a number of other types of "Incapacitating Agents" besides mycoplasma's, too. Many of these infectious agents can multiply in their pathogenic impact when combined with other infectious agents. End of quotes from :> http://toxicreverend.blogspot.com/2010_03_01_archive.html
Chris  Tenaglia
Chris Tenaglia
Bad idea. I see it tearing a rip in the sea floor making it worse. Also a searing hot blast of superheated steam. And possibly igniting the oil and causing fire tornadoes. Don't want that coming ashore.
Susan vandenHam
Susan vandenHam
As usual, very clearly stated and it makes a great deal of sense...to me. Glad that never happened regarding the leak.
Erich R. Thompson
It is never a good idea to nuke anything other than space invaders! :D Harmful amounts of radiation are never a good idea, can everyone agree on this? There are neutron bombs of course, secretly kept private from the public's attention for many years by our government. Such a device would completely wipe all life within it's vicinity (in short the device was made to kill everything with mass amounts of neutrons) but the radiation itself has a much faster "half-life" compared to Hydrogen fusion devices. I do not, however, know of the kinetic force yeild from such a mysterious bomb. It has been many years since the crackpot, defunct, conspiracy-theory blabbing, super genius Uncle Bill told me of such a device of sinister proportions. "What could BP do to handle such a mess?" has been the question asked hundreds of times on media brodcasts since this epic, catastrophic event. A lot more, is my answer. This trillion! dollar company needs to spend even a decent amount of money addressing the issue. Of course my idea of a "decent amount of money" means billions of dollars. Guess what BP, this is the next century and history shows us human nature as a century changes. Mankind has always seemed to "get it together" around the change of a century and now people in America are getting tired of fossil fuels. If BP wants to keep making billions of dollars for a little while longer, until other resources eventually replace fossil fuels, then they need to really start spending money and trying a lot harder. Just my opinion but I have a feeling from listening to customers at my job all day long, that other people may feel that my sentiments are intact.
Robert william spry
when has it ever been a good idea to nuke anything?
Kenneth
Yes, no nuclear bombs in the gulf. But what about using that new giant non-nuclear bomb that they recently tested, or possibly was going to test, near Area 51 a couple years ago? They said it would have a similar mushroom cloud as a nuke would but not nuclear at all. It was going to be used for bunker busting. Could they use this underwater to fix the leak? Or a couple of them? You can find more info here on the Popular Science article, the bomb is called the MOP, "The Massive Ordnance Penetrator". Read about it here: http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-08/pentagon-wants-deploy-largest-non-nuclear-bomb-next-year If it cannot be used underwater I'm sure someone could build something around it and sink it to the bottom and then remotely detonate it.
Brett Etheridge
I don't think the leak could ignite at those depths due to the lack of oxygen, but maybe in some other way. I imagined plugging the hole like this http://doctorlisalove.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/kerplunk1.jpg only in the reverse order somewhat diffusing the leak through the series of metal sheets as the oil travels out of the pipe allowing the pressure to be reduced enough to cap it permanently. I believe the problem with that is that BP doesn't want to cap the leak, they want to stop the leak, but not stop the ability to get the oil with it. the times, they are a changin'.
Brett Etheridge
I think people also think about "nuking" something as making a massive explosion. But at those pressures the explosion would not be as massive, and what's really important is the heat to fuse materials together to clog the hole. Nukes can be small and produce incredible temps, that said, I think Dicyanoacetylene shot from one jet and liquid Oxygen shot from another would be a safer choice for the job if you are trying to fuse materials. My guess is that a Nuclear bomb that would be used on the surface would really be the only option for glassifying materials at those pressures because you probably couldn't ignite anything else. still, I vote for the kerplunk plan of action, the name seems to fit.

Add a Comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register