Slashdot Mirror


Obama Sends Nuclear Experts To Tackle BP Oil Spill

An anonymous reader writes "The US has sent a team of nuclear physicists to help BP plug the 'catastrophic' flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico from its leaking Deepwater Horizon well, as the Obama administration becomes frustrated with the oil giant's inability to control the situation. The five-man team — which includes a man who helped develop the first hydrogen bomb in the 1950s — is the brainchild of Steven Chu, President Obama's Energy Secretary." Let's hope this doesn't mean they actually try the nuclear option. In other offshore drilling news, reader mygoditsfullofdoom informs us that a Venezuelan gas rig has sunk in the Caribbean (with no loss of life). This one is being laid at the feet of Venezuela's state oil company PDVSA, which hasn't exactly been regarded as uber-competent "after President Hugo Chavez fired half the company's managers and senior engineers following a 2002 strike."

389 comments

  1. BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist!! by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Could kdawson's opinion be any more obvious?

  2. Ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Physicists... lol...

    1. Re:Ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      There is nothing wrong with using physicists. They will work hard to stop the oil leak. After all, it lets them show the world that physics can trump chemistry (which is the dream of every physicist)!

    2. Re:Ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yours is the most insightful post on this article.

  3. Can you say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Katrina???

  4. The Nuclear Experts will use the LHC... by jayveekay · · Score: 3, Funny

    They are planning to use the LHC to create a small black hole and drop it into the gusher to suck up all the oil.

    I think that would silence the critics of both the LHC, the oil drilling industry, and Apple's restrictive rules about apps!

    1. Re:The Nuclear Experts will use the LHC... by TheKidWho · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The LHC isn't American.

      Sorry to burst your nertasy.

    2. Re:The Nuclear Experts will use the LHC... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2, Funny

      LHC? Leaking Hydrocarbon Caulker?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:The Nuclear Experts will use the LHC... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      BP isn't American either. Sorry to burst your pendantasy?

    4. Re:The Nuclear Experts will use the LHC... by Klinky · · Score: 1

      Create a blackhole AND use it to stop an oil leak? That would require multitasking!

    5. Re:The Nuclear Experts will use the LHC... by spongman · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hmmm... A vertical shaft containing oil. Isn't that already a blackhole?

    6. Re:The Nuclear Experts will use the LHC... by eclectro · · Score: 3, Funny

      create a small black hole and drop it into the gusher to suck up all the oil.

      First contact with aliens: "Hey idiots, here's your oil back!!"

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    7. Re:The Nuclear Experts will use the LHC... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I believe the correct term is African-American hole, but to you other point, no, I don't think it's 'African-American' enough

    8. Re:The Nuclear Experts will use the LHC... by lonesome+phreak · · Score: 1

      nice one

      --
      Maybe we DID take the blue pill. You wouldn't remember anyway.
    9. Re:The Nuclear Experts will use the LHC... by linzeal · · Score: 1

      I believe the correct term would be a black rod.

    10. Re:The Nuclear Experts will use the LHC... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm... A vertical shaft containing oil. Isn't that already a blackhole?

      So you're suggesting they consult some astrophysicists?

    11. Re:The Nuclear Experts will use the LHC... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As one earthling, I do not think we want to piss of Lrrr from Omicron Persei 8.

    12. Re:The Nuclear Experts will use the LHC... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope the eventual moderator will grasp the fine sarcasm of this post. Thanks for a nice laugh.

    13. Re:The Nuclear Experts will use the LHC... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Don't thank me, thank the political correctness!

    14. Re:The Nuclear Experts will use the LHC... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pendantasy

      Wow. Somebody invents the word malanteau, and malanteaus start appearing all over the place!

  5. not the first time.... by QAChaos · · Score: 1

    the last time had some pretty good results http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater

    1. Re:not the first time.... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Um, it's common knowledge that if you need somebody smart to figure something out, you need a "Rocket Scientist(TM)".

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:not the first time.... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Sure, the dino's all died, but at least they stopped that pesky leak.

  6. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Instead of refuting the Reuters article, or refuting it's relevance to the BP story, you've chosen to attack kdawson. I wonder why...

    It makes you uncomfortable that he seems to have a point, doesn't it?

  7. Nuclear physicists? by Flavio · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Has the oil industry become so corrupted that the only way to get a useful opinion is to recruit a team from a completely different field?

    1. Re:Nuclear physicists? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

      The people in charge were obviously told that in order to fix a problem of such scale, experts with new clear perspective were needed.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Nuclear physicists? by RockoTDF · · Score: 1

      It probably has more to do with the fact that people think physicists can solve anything. I don't know where this comes from.

      --
      There is more to science than physics!

      www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
    3. Re:Nuclear physicists? by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No.

      There are dozens or hundreds of industry people working to solve/address the problem (at a minimum, they are working on the relief well, which has a very high probability of success, it will just take 2 months to complete).

      These 5 people had a meeting where they were briefed in on the specifics of the problem.

      Corruption and lack of imagination are not the problem, the sheer difficulty of the situation they have put themselves into is the problem.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:Nuclear physicists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people in charge were obviously told that in order to fix a problem of such scale, experts with new clear perspective were needed.

      I love how people make a conjecture and say it's obvious (implying that someone who disagrees must not be smart enough to see the why it's true). It's not obvious at all, unless you have another source.

      If you want to get a fresh perspective, then assemble a team of experts in different fields.

    5. Re:Nuclear physicists? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Whoosh, pun fail.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:Nuclear physicists? by thegarbz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Recruiting a team from an unrelated field is quite different from them doing anything bloody useful.

      How is it that you translate the fact that no one has every tried to plug a leak like this in these depths to mean the oil industry is corrupted?

      Or do you think BP's shareholders would be contempt with standing around and doing nothing while millions are wiped off the company's value?

    7. Re:Nuclear physicists? by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's at least three "The Problem"s here.

      1. Stopping the existing leak.
      2. Cleanup and damage mitigation.
      3. Figuring out what is and isn't reasonable to attempt for oil drilling in the future.

      Maybe there's a meta-problem, which is that people will eventually do one, but then act like two is solved as well, and not even bother to address three.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    8. Re:Nuclear physicists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you look into big oil companies, you will find plenty of physicists (mostly coming from the nuclear/theoretical field) developing new technologies for oil search. I know many of them and, trust to me, they do a damn good job!

    9. Re:Nuclear physicists? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Or do you think BP's shareholders would be contempt with standing around
      > and doing nothing while millions are wiped off the company's value?

      Why, yes of course: everyone knows that the sole purpose of a "corporation" is to do as much evil as possible. Business men only make money in order to have it available to spend on evil (and, of course, because making money is evil in and of itself).

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    10. Re:Nuclear physicists? by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      That's our viewpoint.
      BP's viewpoint is

      1. disclaim all responsibility efficiency
      2. reduce litigation and repair costs
      3. restore production at the leak point

      They don't want it plugged permanently, but to rebuild the platform and reuse the shaft
      They don't care about environmental impact outside of how much that costs them. So they prefer to shift the blame than to repair the damage.
      Also, what brings more money than it costs money is reasonable. If the platform brought in more money than it cost BP to solve current problem (say, by shifting the blame), then they'll repeat it.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    11. Re:Nuclear physicists? by SharpFang · · Score: 2, Insightful

      from that everything ever is physics.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    12. Re:Nuclear physicists? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why nuclear physicists, unless they want a nuclear solution, but physicists for a problem like this isn't really that unreasonable. Physics definitely deals with fluid dynamics and oil being a liquid, there you go.

    13. Re:Nuclear physicists? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Or do you think BP's shareholders would be contempt with standing around and doing nothing while millions are wiped off the company's value?

      Why, yes, yes I do feel that they should be held in contempt of the environment in court.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    14. Re:Nuclear physicists? by ngg · · Score: 1

      It probably has more to do with the fact that people think physicists can solve anything. I don't know where this comes from.

      It probably comes from physicists telling people we can solve anything. The public's belief in the awesomeness of physicists helps take away the sting of spending a decade in the post-secondary education system.

    15. Re:Nuclear physicists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on, used golf balls and chunks of old tires - is there a more obvious way of the brits trying to play dumb:
      "well, these Americans don't have a clue that this is working to our benefit in their own stock market as well as relatively speaking on the global marketplace, they think we're dumb, so lets go for a round of golf and get some new cars"
      "what do we do next about the leak?"
      "we throw the old car parts and golf balls in the hole, what else"
      "brilliant"

    16. Re:Nuclear physicists? by smaddox · · Score: 1

      So physicists would be good at finding a cure for cancer? Why didn't we think of this before?!?

    17. Re:Nuclear physicists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure why nuclear physicists, unless they want a nuclear solution,

      Back in the day, the US conducted more underground tests than the USSR did.

      If you're in the business of doing something like that underground, and you don't want to release any of the associated crap into the atmosphere (and into Arizona!), you've gotta know a lot about the underlying rock and how it behaves under stress... and to make sure that the borehole you drilled to emplace the device doesn't become the escape route for the nasty crap.

      Sure, it's possible they're opening the door to using an actual nuke to shut off the leak, but it's equally possible that they're just bringing in some people who happen to have a lot of experience in keeping nasty stuff well-contained in tombs of rock, even (especially!) when there happens to be a long hollow tube that leads directly to the surface.

      Geologists know a lot about rocks, but they're generalists. There are very few people who have ever needed to know about the how to permanently seal up rocks that just happen to have long thin tubes drilled into them. To a petrochemical engineer, this is all new territory, but maybe there are people to whom this is just a minor variation on a problem that was solved more than 50 years ago.

    18. Re:Nuclear physicists? by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      Come now, evil is simply a regrettable but unavoidable byproduct of business. Not unlike oil-soaked otters.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    19. Re:Nuclear physicists? by mangu · · Score: 1

      evil is simply a regrettable but unavoidable byproduct of business

      No, evil is a regrettable but unavoidable byproduct of human nature.

      Altruism is better for the human species and probably for each human individual as well, but too often some humans are too stupid or misinformed to realize this.

    20. Re:Nuclear physicists? by CyberDragon777 · · Score: 1
      --
      We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
    21. Re:Nuclear physicists? by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Sure. DNA multiplication stops in temperatures exceeding 100 centigrades. Just increase the temperature of the patient.

      Wait, you want the patient to actually survive the therapy? Now that was not in the specs... could you define this 'alive' you speak of?

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    22. Re:Nuclear physicists? by Phil-14 · · Score: 1

      No, but it has been decaptialized a lot over the past twenty five years; it's gone from producing 60% of US needs to producing 35%, all the while everyone saying we don't need to drill here. The majors have changed from companies that produce oil to companies that resell oil produced elsewhere by the state-owned companies of the Middle East, and produce in the United States only as a sideline.

      Meanwhile... they're getting their outside experts from the field that has failed to produce and implement a plan for safely storing nuclear waste; we just keep the fuel rods in "temporary" storage tanks mostly co-located with the nuclear plants, and now that we've shut down Yucca Mountain, that's the way it's going to be for the next couple decades as well. They can bring that expertise to cleaning up the oil spill.

      --
      (currently testing something about signatures here)
  8. "Let's hope" by shogun · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm curious at the usage of the phrase "let's hope". A correctly placed nuclear device in the that seals off the oil as well as causing a collapsing void that traps any fission products generated sounds a lot better than pouring yet more megagallons of oil into the ocean.

    (your milage may vary in practice a fair bit from theory of course)

    1. Re:"Let's hope" by eastlight_jim · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've always liked the phrase "In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is". I think it's rather pertinent here!

    2. Re:"Let's hope" by bug1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      +whatcouldpossiblygowrong

      Using nukes will make it a small problem for a long term rather than a big problem for a small time.

      Sounds like something are shortsighted business and political leaders would be interested in.

      Oh yea, and +whatcouldpossiblygowrong

    3. Re:"Let's hope" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To heck with the computer scientist. Nuke. Underwater.

      I'm a programmer and sysadmin, not a physicist or engineer. But this is /. There's some here that can correct me or refine. Let's assume we set of a "small" nuke. Hiroshima style.

      Now--because I can't do the math--I'll take it on faith that it can't start off some chain hydrogen splicing blast underwater.

      The hiroshima blast was equivalent to 54 kilotons of TNT [wikipedia] --. 54 * 4.184 * 10^12 J [wikipedia]

      Now I'll get sloppy. 1J = 1 N M.
      1 N = 1 kg * m / s^2.

      Let's scale this down just for shits and giggles....

      1Liter ~= 1 kg
      1m ^3 ~= 1,000 litre.

      but let's make it a kilometre... 1 km^3 ~= 1 * 10^12 L (wolfram alpha)

      Kinda nice--same scale. So I've got 54*4.184 = 225 dimensionless whatever left over to account for weight/pressure on top, gravity fighting back, friction...and whatever's left in vertical motion.

      Looks to me like there's enough energy to you know...displace 1km^3 of water and cause a FUCKING TIDAL WAVE that would destroy a good chunk of Tx.

      But hey...maybe I just don't know enough.

      But really--nuke...underwater? Radiation? Fish?

      This seems like a horrible idea.

      Any engineer is free to make a 30 second correction telling me why I'm wrong here...

    4. Re:"Let's hope" by sjames · · Score: 1

      Nah, the business and political set are only concerned with the division between costs me and costs society. They want all of it shifted to the latter even at the cost of orders of magnitude greater total cost.

    5. Re:"Let's hope" by sayu · · Score: 1

      I'm far from an engineer, but I can still say quite confidently that you're incredibly wrong. rather than bother with any kind of math myself, I'll just direct you to youtube-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZCFrnL3W5A Both of these tests used the same model of bomb as was dropped on Nagasaki, around 21kt (the bomb used on Hiroshima was only 12kt; no idea where 54kt came from). we won't be destroying Texas any time soon.

    6. Re:"Let's hope" by shermo · · Score: 1

      I always thought that was a misleading phrase since in theory there is plenty of difference between theory and practice. Isn't there? Does anyone really think all our currently accepted scientific theories predict the world accurately under all conditions?

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
  9. Why the bias? by pongo000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's hope this doesn't mean they actually try the nuclear option.

    Thanks for the environmental message. A little late for that, don't you think?

    At this point, a small controlled nuclear explosion to simply fuse the entire mass together into a big piece of molten glass and metal might be what's needed.

    1. Re:Why the bias? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the worry is the alternative - this doesn't work as planned and starts leaking, say, 10 times that amount of oil.

      They could just make it much, much worse.

      There isn't much prior art here.

    2. Re:Why the bias? by ericrost · · Score: 4, Insightful

      http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/05/11/1440206/Oil-Leak-Could-Be-Stopped-With-a-Nuke?from=rss

      Actually, there is, the soviets have used this method five times. Next objection?

    3. Re:Why the bias? by Knuckles · · Score: 2, Informative

      This was a Pravda article. Pravda makes the National Enquirer look like a quality paper.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    4. Re:Why the bias? by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      5 times doesn't count as much experience in my book, and it only worked 4 of the 5 times.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    5. Re:Why the bias? by InfoJunkie777 · · Score: 1

      I agree. I know a little physics. I am not wild about nuclear fallout, but it WOULD close the leak permanently. Maybe burn a little of the crude, although I am not certain of that. It wouldn't have to be huge and as numerous posters and the news story from Russian said, it has an 80% chance of working. BP has farted around for what, three weeks and still no solution?

      --
      Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin. -- Robert A. Heinlein
    6. Re:Why the bias? by winwar · · Score: 1

      "Actually, there is, the soviets have used this method five times. Next objection?"

      Aside from the fact that it failed one out of the five times?

      How about that they never used it under conditions similar to the present case? The article implies that it was used ON LAND rather than under water.

    7. Re:Why the bias? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      20% failure rate. next question?

    8. Re:Why the bias? by adbge · · Score: 1

      The fact that something may not work is not a valid reason not to try. I could understand the objections if the failure would result in catastrophe, but I think the mantra "it can't hurt (much) to try" applies.

      Of course, it might wake Cthulhu, in which case: oil is the least of our worries.

    9. Re:Why the bias? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the kinds of environmental damage the soviets live with today, like areas that you don't leave the paved road without a geiger counter.

    10. Re:Why the bias? by 517714 · · Score: 1

      Six times - five successfully.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    11. Re:Why the bias? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > but I think the mantra "it can't hurt (much) to try" applies.

      That mantra was never meant to be applied to:

      - Nuclear Bombs
      - Large amounts of petrochemicals
      - environmentally sensitive areas

      individually or especially collectively

    12. Re:Why the bias? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aside from the fact that it failed one out of the five times?

      "Failed" in that case simply means "failed to stop the leak". It didn't make things worse, and it wasn't a new Chernobyl or anything like that.

      How about that they never used it under conditions similar to the present case? The article implies that it was used ON LAND rather than under water.

      That's true, and it was also use to seal gas leaks, not oil leaks. However, the physics in this case is very dumb and straightforward - the point is simply to hammer the ground hard enough that all caverns and tunnels collapse. It's not something that should be affected by it being underwater; the main trick would be getting the charge there, and planting it such that it has the maximum effect.

    13. Re:Why the bias? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Not to mention its an ignorant statement. Many modern nuclear warheads have very little fallout. Disbursed in a body of water that large that material would likely be no more harmful than the left overs for an conventional explosive. If they can find and place an appropriate device it would be an excellent solution. Its own consequence being some sea life becomes a bit hard of hearing; which is a lot less of an issue than oil is currently.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    14. Re:Why the bias? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many things begin with an failure rate of 100% and/or zero successes.

      4 out of 5 is not really that bad. Especially when "bad stuff(tm)" is released even on an success.

    15. Re:Why the bias? by ImNotAtWork · · Score: 1

      The difference here is that if it fails (nuclear), the options of fixing it afterward are greatly hampered due to the area now being contaminated (limiting the time that humans can be exposed to the area now). The nuclear option should be the last option used after other methods have been exhausted.

      I'm not opposed to nuclear but I do want to be careful with how it is used.

      --
      open source sub sim. I might start coding again for this. http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/contribute/
  10. It's different when it's someone else! by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When Reagan broke the ATC union, he was standing up to the Big Bad Union. When Chavez did it, he was being an autocratic commie.

    --

    Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
    1. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      When Reagan broke the ATC union, he was standing up to the Big Bad Union. When Chavez did it, he was being an autocratic commie.

      Probably because Chavez IS an autocratic commie.

      One who is driving Venezuela into the ground, by the way.

      Venezuela electricity shortage

      Venezueala oil production decline

      Venezuelan inflation

    2. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Spewns · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When Reagan broke the ATC union, he was standing up to the Big Bad Union. When Chavez did it, he was being an autocratic commie.

      Kind of like when the US bombs someone, they're being heroes, but if anyone tries to bomb the US, they're being terrorists.

    3. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by FuckingNickName · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I see your crushing, err, Google search and raise you an article by Krugman on Reagan's legacy.

    4. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by DesScorp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When Reagan broke the ATC union, he was standing up to the Big Bad Union. When Chavez did it, he was being an autocratic commie.

      When Reagan broke PATCO, A) he had overwhelming support from the public, which was tired of constant strikes and exhorbitant demands, and B) Reagan made sure experienced AC's were in place so safety was maintained.

      Chavez did it because they dared oppose him, and like a Stalinist goon, he chased off all the smart and talented people without replacing them with other smart and talented people. Comparing the two situations is either blind union fanboyism, or silly cheerleading for Chavez.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    5. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by slick7 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Oh like "W" made us a better place to live. Yeah right.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    6. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I see your crushing, err, Google search and raise you an article by Krugman on Reagan's legacy.

      I can use something broad like Google search because those phrases returns lots of documentation for the economic failures Chavez and engendered in Venezeula. You, on the other hand, are forced to cherry-pick ONE result from a biased commentator.

      And even though YOU had to cherry-pick yours lamer-than-a-Thalidomide-dachshund "refutation", you didn't/coudn't refute the fact that Chavez is running Venezeula into the ground.

      And would that be Enron-advisor Paul Krugman?

      Note AGAIN that I'm not cherry-picking results.

    7. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow, when it comes to economics, Reagan may have been wrong, but Chavez is in another world of wrongness. Reagan tried some experiments that turned out bad, Chavez is hitting his head against the wall that says "don't do this!"

      The clearest, most obvious contrast is with inflation. Reagan knew it was a bad thing, and kept it low. Chavez embraces it (prints more money and then threatens anyone who dares to raise prices). This is such an obvious mistake that even high school students understand it. At least Reagan got that right.

      --
      Qxe4
    8. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Reagan tried some experiments that turned out bad

      That's the biggest understatement since Noah said "It looks like rain." And I'd say that those weren't experiments at all, but a concerted effort to sink the entire safety net, not to mention turn around the increasing wealth of the working and middle class that had been going on since WWII. Not to mention arming Iran.

      "End the Cold War" you say? No, he just transformed it into the Forever War on Terror.

      We're just now starting to see the some of the full effects of the virus Reagan injected into our system. May he burn in Hell.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by angelwolf71885 · · Score: 0

      lets see WWII Japan bombed us so we bombed them harder BIN LADEN bombed us so we upgraded them to the stone age

    10. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So then why in the world would Obama constantly point at Reagan's greatest tinkerer, Volker, as a top economic adviser?

    11. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Golias · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When it comes to the two-term administrations of Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton, the first question one must ask any critic is, "what didn't you like, the peace or the prosperity?"

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    12. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Wow, someone drank the dailykos coolaid. Do you think you could get any more emotional about that?

      --
      Qxe4
    13. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by InfoJunkie777 · · Score: 1

      Point of fact, no nation has ever bombed us. Unless you count the WTC attack as a "kerosene bomb". But even then, they were terrorists INDIVIDUALS, not a nation. Even so, I understand your point. The US does tend to have a hypocritical view about use of force.

      --
      Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin. -- Robert A. Heinlein
    14. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by clay_shooter · · Score: 1

      I thought it was an attempt to break the cycle of dependency that held people down across generations. Been to the projects? They were/are people warehouses not neighborhoods.

      Countless proxy wars, the division of Europe and a set of policies where any dictatorship was fine as long as it was on our side? That's the time you want to go back to? No Thanks.

    15. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's not analogous at all. I don't recall the US government sanctioning suicide bombers or intentionally trying to kill civilians. Nor do I recall the DoD having contractors set up IEDs along roads. When the US bombs things it's done generally by air and when things go according to plan the damage is limited to military targets. Yes things do go wrong from time to time, but it's not generally the practice of the US military to intentionally target civilians.

    16. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      or intentionally trying to kill civilians.

      Good one. When you know there are civilians in the area and you bomb anyway but feel bad about it, that makes all the difference.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    17. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by flowerchicken12 · · Score: 1

      Krugman usually loses objectivity when he writes ideological pieces. It is sad that most other great Nobel Memorial Prize winners (who actually believe in free markets and small government) are not as vocal. The majority of Nobel Memorial Prize winners believe that way, btw.

      Reagan sure as hell wasn't perfect, but the economy grew significantly during his term (it tacked on the size of the German economy to the US economy).

      I suspect a lot of people like to bash Reagan because he was so successful, and that is against their socialist ideological world view.

      No one in the internet talks about the Carter inflation and economic mismanagement.

    18. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sure Reagan would have tolerated PATCO and airport managers halting service to demand early elections seven months after a coup attempt.

      --

      Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
    19. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yes things do go wrong from time to time, but it's not generally the practice of the US military to intentionally target civilians."

      So exactly what is the difference, in practical terms, when a civilian is killed by accident versus when one is killed on purpose?

      Attacking insurgents in populated areas is guaranteed to kill civilians. IEDs along roads are designed to kill soldiers but may kill civilians. Why is one okay but the other bad?

    20. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by penix1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Point of fact, no nation has ever bombed us.

      And I bet you can't identify the US on a globe either. Go back to school and pay attention to your history teacher when they cover Pearl Harbor. Here's a hint: Hawaii is one of the fifty states and was one in 1942. Japan most certainly did bomb the US when they sank our pacific Fleet. Just what do you think made the Arizona (among others) blow up?

      And I don't count the WTC terrorist attacks as a bombing. More like a human guided missile than a bombing.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    21. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by celle · · Score: 0, Troll

      "When Reagan broke PATCO, A) he had overwhelming support from the public, which was tired of constant strikes and exhorbitant demands, and B) Reagan made sure experienced AC's were in place so safety was maintained."

      Um, which overwhelming support are you talking about, the general public or the limited public that used and ran the airlines? Exorbitant demands, they were striking to have the already budgeted money released to upgrade the towers instead of hiding the deficit and relief for jobs that were rapidly being overloaded to the point of failure. How many major plane crashes were there in the U.S. after the controller firings during the 1980's? How many people died? Reagan blew it and like everything else he did never took responsibility for it.

      Don't get me started on Reagan, federal highway funds, spending warnings, and the deficit.

    22. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my god you brain dead idiot, you can sure spew liberal talking points, Reagan started the greatest increase in wealth for working and the middle class in the history of the world, the problem, that to do that he had to let the retarded liberals/socialists crank up spending, addict millions of poor to welfare and allow the to destroy the educational system in this nation. We sure are paying for that, miss-educated idiots, that think socialism is great, and America is bad, Christians are evil, Muslims are great, doing good for others is bad, forcing everyone to live in poverty is good. Just like now, the liberals destoryed our economy for the last 8 years when they controlled congress, through their evil programs to force banks to give people loans that should have never gotten them, yet they blamed Bush who was powerless to do anything about it, but did warn the world what they were doing, and of course the liberals called him names, like 6 year olds on a playground.

    23. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by tomhuxley · · Score: 3, Informative

      ::pssttt:: it's a bit quibbly but Hawaii was a territory back then .... it became a state in 1959. There were small bombarding incidents on the mainland in WW2 too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_North_America_during_World_War_II#Japanese_operations

    24. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Your post starts and ends with mythology references. I trust none of the rest of it.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    25. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how you refer to the public that uses airlines as limited... Shouldn't the people *using* a system be a large portion of the concern *of* said system?

    26. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      ...he had overwhelming support from the public...

      Who, I'm sure have a full and complete understanding of the inner workings of air traffic control.

      Johnny, how 'bout some more coffee?
      No, thanks!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    27. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      War of 1812 much?

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    28. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by jbengt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Reagan's greatest tinkerer", I don't buy, but Volker is one of Obama's advisors because he was head of the Federal Reserve during pretty tough economic times.
      By the way, Volker was appointed by Carter, and attacked inflation pretty aggressively. As a consequence,, unemployment worsened and we had a recession. Still, he stuck to his guns and Reagan benefited when inflation was subdued and the inevitable recovery happened about two or three years into Reagan's first term.

    29. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Reagan made sure experienced AC's were in place so safety was maintained."

      Oh REALLY ?

      I was almost killed during that period, when an incompetent controller cleared two aircraft to
      land on the same runway AT THE SAME TIME. I was flying one of those two aircraft, and
      because I WAS paying attention, several people weren't killed in a midair collision.

      You obviously are not a pilot. And you don't know what the fuck you are writing about
      when you write that Reagan "made sure experienced AC's were in place so safety was maintained".

      SHUT THE FUCK UP and quit spewing bullshit when you have no real knowledge of the subject,
      you ignorant cocksucker.

    30. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the first question one must ask any critic is, "what didn't you like, the peace or the prosperity?"

      You'd better hope the critic is not one of the people rendered homeless by Reagan's
      federal budget cuts for housing for people who are literally unable to help themselves.
      This was one of the more shameful acts ever perpetrated by the US government.

      You have a lot to learn about the real world, "Golias". Your worldview is so overly
      simplistic it is comical.

    31. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by InfoJunkie777 · · Score: 1

      Whups! Guess I was thinking of the lower 48. My bad!

      --
      Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin. -- Robert A. Heinlein
    32. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by InfoJunkie777 · · Score: 1

      I think this was more cannonballs, artillery and rockets. But technically you have a point. Guess I was a little quick on the draw. My bad!

      --
      Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin. -- Robert A. Heinlein
    33. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Um, which overwhelming support are you talking about, the general public or the limited public that used and ran the airlines?"

      Both: Reagan's support on this issue in public polls topped 60 percent.

      Even though it's illegal for a Federal worker to strike (a condition of Congress allowing Federal unionization in the fist place), numerous federal unions did it anyway in the late 70's. It wasn't Reagan that started to bust the fed unions; it was Carter. There were 22 strikes by fed unions in the late 70's, and the public was sick of them. And then PATCO threatened the biggest strike of all... 3/4's of their members... during the busiest travel period of the season. The public was sick of it.

      Exorbitant demands, they were striking to have the already budgeted money released to upgrade the towers instead of hiding the deficit and relief for jobs that were rapidly being overloaded to the point of failure.

      They were asking for an across the board 10,000 dollar raise per member, and they already had wages well above the national average. They were also demanding a 32 hour work week and full retirement after 20 years. This is exorbitant, and it killed whatever public sympathy they ever had.

      "How many major plane crashes were there in the U.S. after the controller firings during the 1980's? How many people died? '

      Accident rates didnt' change, much to the chagrin of PATCO, whose members sometimes openly hoped for "aluminum rain" after their firing. The measures that the FAA took... puting supervisors back on duty, bringing in military ATC's, limiting flights during peak hours temporarily while training new controllers... kept the accident rate the same. The following year, when all of the replacement ATC's were in place, the FAA decertified PATCO, with wide public support.

      "Reagan blew it and like everything else he did never took responsibility for it."

      Obviously, America didn't agree. In 1984, Reagan carried every state except for Minnesota. Mondale got a grand total of 13 electoral votes.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    34. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by bstender · · Score: 1

      The only thing mythological with that post is possibly the 'epic-ness' of those run-on sentences!

      --
      look sig is kool
    35. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nagasaki. Hiroshima.

      You should try to recall a little harder.

    36. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 1

      That's an offending false choice and the answer is both. Reagan's "prosperity" was more than offset by the amount of debt he burdened this country with which still needs to be paid someday. If you look at the other features of his "prosperity", perhaps you wouldn't be so enamored with it.

      http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/mayhew/reagan_destroyed_american_dream.htm
      http://prorev.com/worst.htm
      http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id395.htm

      You'll notice the second and third articles directly reference the loss of farm income that in nearly decimated the family farm. Several members of my family and neighbors including my father were forced to declare bankruptcy due the policies in place at the time. If you check out the data, you'll see the scope of this crisis was not limited to my area. Obviously, not all of this was caused by Reagan, but he essentially worsened already bad policies, instituted other "corporate friendly" ones, and failed to act in any meaningful way.

      You might say "good, I'm not a fan of farm subsidies anyway". Well, if you're speaking of today's farm subsidies I would completely agree on some of them, but during the time period they were much more limited. The only widespread mid-west grain farm subsidy I'm aware of was a farm and ranch conservation program which might get you enough money to make the loan payments while the land was in the program.

      Now if you talk about his peace, where do you want to start? The huge amassing of weapons? Supplying the middle-east with them? The Cold War(a.k.a.) The largest waste of money, man power, intelligence, and resources in the history of mankind(the fire Reagan loved stoking)? Or the other conflict he liked to poke with a stick Iran-Iraq(eventually leading the area to it's current state)? Not to mention his corrupt administration which easily surpasses Nixon. Iran-contra? Iran hostage crisis?

      --
      brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
    37. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by bstender · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Reagan sure as hell wasn't perfect, but the economy grew significantly during his term"

      Under Reagan's facile gaze, the economy was sent into the worst* recession in our lifetime. It did then grow, _modestly_, from the hole that it was cast into, but it wasn't until the small business incentives under Clinton that the ice broke. I would go further and say that the economy has never recovered fully from those years.

      You may be making a common mistake of pointing to certain specious statistics describing the "economy" of the top 2% of tax-payers, in which case it was indeed awesome.

      (*excepting Bush's current clusterfuck, following similar pirate-policy)

      --
      look sig is kool
    38. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 4, Informative

      Peace? You are truly a clueless American. No one else would consider those to be peaceful presidencies.

      Eisenhower oversaw the final months of the Korean War and got the US military involved in Vietnam. Still, he was the best of the three.

      Reagon participated in El Salvador's violent civil war, got militarily involved in Lebanon, invaded Grenada, pushed Honduras towards war with Nicaragua, bombed Libya, and attacked Iranian oil platforms.

      Clinton bombed Iraq (repeatedly), Bosnia, Afghanistan, Sudan, and Serbia.

      --
      He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    39. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Obviously, America didn't agree. In 1984, Reagan carried every state except for Minnesota. Mondale got a grand total of 13 electoral votes.

      That's a rather misleading way of assessing public support, however. If we look at percentage of national vote, it is 59% for Reagan vs 41% for Mondale - still impressive, but 59% still don't speak for all of U.S.

    40. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Smauler · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Japanese actually did bomb mainland USA with fire balloons, albeit with very little military effect. There were also other attempts.

    41. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      That question reads somewhat like "so when did you start beating your wife?" - at least for Clinton. There was that whole Balkan involvement clusterfuck: implicit involvement in the genocide and various other crimes is almost a given on account of doing too little, too late, and then going about it in a way which really didn't do much more than blow shit up and spend tax payer money. Really, it was a show for the news: "Look, we're fighting war and our troops aren't dying!"

      If you consider Iran/Contra, then Regan is on the hook, too. But I'd argue that's more of a political event than war.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    42. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Swap those two ego saving rationalizations around and you'll get what another group of shills says.

    43. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Stone2065 · · Score: 1

      Were you even ALIVE when he put all the strikers on the street? Honestly, what's the color of the sky on YOUR planet? He DID end the mainstream Cold War, due to several things of sometimes questionable ethics, but still, at the end of the day, it got DONE. Now, sorry for sounding assholish, but still... it fries my ass to hear people blast off a load of bullshit about shit that happened either before they were born, or at best, when they were still in diapers...

      --
      Stone
    44. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1
      Hawaii is one of the fifty states and was one in 1942.

      And you have the audacity to call others idiots when you don't have a clue about US History? Hawaii was the last state admitted to the Union, in 1959.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    45. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      And I'd say that those weren't experiments at all, but a concerted effort to sink the entire safety net, not to mention turn around the increasing wealth of the working and middle class that had been going on since WWII.

      From which us working/middle class people have yet to recover, one should add. Reagan's policies were a boon to the wealthy and a burden on all the rest of us. His assault and tacit approval of the destruction of unionism alone should be enough make him go down in history as an enemy of the common man.

      Not to mention arming Iran.

      And the people in Afghanistan who eventually became the Taliban.

      "End the Cold War" you say? No, he just transformed it into the Forever War on Terror.

      Yep--the Soviet Union collapsed under it's own weight and the concerted effort of every US presidential administration since the end of WW II. Reagan just happened to benefit from being in office at the right time and I'm sick of his fanboys claiming otherwise. And you're absolutely right--if he hadn't armed the people who became the Taliban, they wouldn't have been able to empower Islamic extremists all over the Middle East. Reagan essentially created the need for the so-called War on Terror.

      That's the biggest understatement since Noah said "It looks like rain."

      Heh--I'm gonna steal that one from you...

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    46. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1 Flamebait for Public Education.

      We were taught that Pearl Harbor was their main arguing point to be granted statehood.
      ;

    47. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hawaii wasn't a state in 1942. But it was a US territory or protectorate.

    48. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      If the goal was to end the "mainstream Cold War" at all costs, he could have bombed Moscow and started a nuclear holocaust.

      As it happens, he didn't do anything quite as bad, but he did the give the world something worse than the Cold War.

    49. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by joebagodonuts · · Score: 1

      Dresden, Tokyo...

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
    50. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by joebagodonuts · · Score: 1

      Decaf, bro...

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
    51. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, when it comes to economics, Reagan may have been wrong....

      Let's be clear here: Reagan could barely remember his own name, let alone devise a supply-side economic policy (marketed as "Reaganomics"). The policies implemented during the the term in which Reagan played the role of a president, were not drawn up by an elected person. A clearer example of the farce that "democracy" has become, in America, cannot be found.

    52. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by tuxgeek · · Score: 1

      Good post
      Unfortunately the youth of today are not old enough to know anything of what reagan was like. All they know is the warm and fuzzy dreck emanating from fox news about how great a humanitarian reagan was.

      I liked reagan back then. Even voted for him. Then found out later what a lying bastard he really was.
      1. Making secret deals with the islamic dictatorship of Iran to undermine the presidency of Carter and influence an upcoming election. The "October Surprise"
      2. Selling weapon systems to Iran after swinging/winning that election
      3. Funneling the money made in the Iran weapon sale through Swiss bank accounts to cover their tracks. Only the RNC knows who's pockets were lined with that money.
      4. Waging his famed "War on Drugs" publicly but secretly trafficking plane loads of cocaine out of central America on CIA operated C130 aircraft, making himself and that scum GHW Bush the biggest drug trafficking kingpins on the planet.
      5. The list goes on ...

      I was once a proud republican, then got over it.
      I still hold many conservative ideals, but believe the rabid right wing conservatives of today have gone off the deep end and into full blown goose stepping Nazi assholeism. Voting republicans today are nothing more than ill-informed ignorant morons that are easily influenced by the lying snake talking heads of fox news and nazi radio.

      Yep, Reagan fucked us up big time. It's all been down hill from there.

      All we can count on today is another republican senator will be found tomorrow sucking dicks in airport bathrooms and/or sodomizing 8 year old boys

      That, and socialism is bad for america
      and our military industrial complex economy is good .. for someone

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    53. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by tuxgeek · · Score: 1

      Oh, and one more thing we can thank reagan/bush for
      They gave us Osama Bin Laden

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    54. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Jerry · · Score: 1

      Under Reagan's facile gaze, the economy was sent into the worst* recession in our lifetime.

      You must be pretty young, or your school books got it wrong.

      The "worst recession in our lifetimes" was pale in comparison to the current economic woes, and the 21% inflation and long lines at the gas pump were on Carter's watch, not Reagan's. That's why Carter didn't win a second term. When ACORN picketed banks in Chicago they were ignored, but when they terrorized bank employees at their homes they forced the beginnings of the NIJA house loans (No Income, Job or Assets -- the SUPPRESSED SNL comedy sketch got it right! http://www.savethisnation.org/apps/videos/videos/show/2394707-mortgage-crisis-skit-pulled-from-snl). They took their campaign to Washington and were successful in getting the Democrats to pass the Community Reinvestment Act, which was ineffective in promoting NIJA loans nationwide UNTIL Clinton signed an Executive Order requiring all banks that do business with the Federal Government to have a certain percentage of NIJA loans. That started the beginning of the housing bubble which was inflated with flatulance of worthless paper. With the full faith and credit of the US government now behind the NIJA loans the greedy Wall Street fatcats saw a GOLDEN opportunity. While Congress and SEC turned their backs and closed their eyes, ears and oversight, the worthless NIJA subprime mortgages were repackaged with good paper and sold to everyone, especially our friends overseas. In 2004 and 2006 CSPAN filmed Congressional hearings about the housing bubble. You can watch and see for yourself who ridiculed those who were concerned and who was responsible for blocking any and all attempts to reign in the situation before it got out of hand.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
      Among other tactics even the race card was played as a device to stop the inquiry.

      Since the collapse Barney Frank and other culpable Congressmen went on a campaign to spin the facts:
      http://biggovernment.com/mrichmond/2010/05/07/barney-frank-video-tip-toeing-through-the-tulips-while-the-housing-bubble-burst/

      The losses in the housing bubble has paled in comparison to the subsequent unsupervised, unmonitored and unaccounted giveaway of TRILLIONS of dollars to fatcats who had already made Billions using the Subprime Mortgages to plunder the uninformed, and to political opportunists on the Left. To a casual observer such wholesale plundering of the US Treasury seems like an organized campaign to totally collapse the American economy and force the country into 2nd or 3rd world status, while holding up Socialism as the "savior". Many communities can no longer support their own infrastructure. After a severe and long winter streets and bridges are in terrible shape and homes and apartments need repairs. Pot hole damages to automobiles is much higher than normal. Add to those stress the affects of a much larger than normal number of citizens being unemployed and, considering that only minimum wage jobs are available, unemployable, the economic woes will only increase. So will the political unrest.

      Both the Republicans and the Democrats have done their very best to destroy the Constitution, even before the RICO Act, continuing with the PATRIOT Act, and HUNDREDS of dictatorial "Executive Orders", neither party can claim clean hands in all the problems that led to the current situation. Their whole job seems to one of taking bribes (a.k.a. "campaign contributions") so they can be reelected in perpetuity, thus they are on a 24/7/365 campaign mode, with marginal time taken out to actually do that for which they were elected. It seems the only time they come back to Washington is to vot

      --

      Running with Linux for over 20 years!

    55. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by InfoJunkie777 · · Score: 1

      The Japanese actually did bomb mainland USA with fire balloons, albeit with very little military effect. There were also other attempts.

      I had no idea. Guess I had better bone up on my WW2 history as concerns attacks on the USA. Thanks for the education.

      --
      Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin. -- Robert A. Heinlein
    56. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ACs are always on the job. No, thank you.

    57. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reagan tried some experiments that turned out bad

      His trickle down stupidity is obviouysly still influentia. That's the US summarised - The Best Stupidity Money Can Buy.

    58. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hawaii is one of the fifty states and was one in 1942

      Sounds like you need to go back to school. Hawaii didn't become a state until 1959. It was only a territory in 1942.

      Hawaii

    59. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by VTI9600 · · Score: 1

      Eisenhower oversaw the final months of the Korean War and got the US military involved in Vietnam. Still, he was the best of the three.

      Eisenhower ended the Korean war and committed a small number of military advisors to South Vietnam before there was any evidence that a full-scale conflict would break out.

      Reagon participated in El Salvador's violent civil war, got militarily involved in Lebanon, invaded Grenada, pushed Honduras towards war with Nicaragua, bombed Libya, and attacked Iranian oil platforms.

      Reagan attacked enemies of the US, and did so with minimal American casualties and without major financial cost.

      Clinton bombed Iraq (repeatedly), Bosnia, Afghanistan, Sudan, and Serbia.

      Clinton offered military air support on behalf of the United Nations and stopped bombing when they politely asked him to...Again, with very few American casualties.

      FTFY

      If you look at any point in history you'll see people fighting with each other. Learn to put things in perspective.

    60. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by VTI9600 · · Score: 1

      When the US bombs someone, they follow the Geneva conventions. When terrorists bomb someone, they go after innocent civillians, they use weapons that don't discriminate amongst targets, and they hide among civillians. That makes the difference.

    61. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Hm... Let me see, IF I was the bad guy, I could just hang around the civilians and operate with impunity in your world right? I mean sure, you would be mad and try to stop me, but I don't have to worry about you shooting a missile up my ass or starting agun fight when civilians are around. Hey, I have a question, if I and my bad men army dress and act like civilians, are we still protected?

      Or are you going to say that humans shields (using civilians to protect against fire) are not valid and become regrettable collateral damage?

    62. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by bstender · · Score: 1

      Well that was sure a lot of specious and inaccurate factoids simply to change the subject. Still a fact that Raygun presided over one of the two worst recessions in the last 30 years.

      No doubt there is lots of room for debate and lots of apples and oranges to account for in comparing macro economic policy over decades, but just as a point of interest, Carter's team fought off an energy crisis and subsequent unemployment successfully with their choices, Reagan's team knocked the bottom out of that expansion. (and i believe the point of that brand of policy is specifically to reduce wage pressure. note that the same philosophy and result happened when Bush's team got their hands on Clinton's expansion)

      --
      look sig is kool
    63. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Or are you going to say that humans shields (using civilians to protect against fire) are not valid and become regrettable collateral damage?

      Nope. I am going to say that two wrongs do not make a right.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    64. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Stone2065 · · Score: 1

      You DO understand the difference between a WAR and a COLD WAR, right? WAR=BOMBING and COLD WAR=NO BOMBING... got it? Plus, try checking my post again. Where did I say his goal was to end the Cold War? I said he was instrumental in it's end... He was instrumental in ending the COLD WAR by way of misinformation leaked to the Soviets (you know, what the Russians were called when there was a SOVIET BLOCK?) that we had the fully functional "Star Wars" system online that would render all of the Soviet missiles irrelevant. Check your history books junior, seeing as it's VERY obvious that you aren't old enough to remember facts like that...

      --
      Stone
    65. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's too bad Carter didn't get a second term and is not remembered kindly. It seems like he was the last President that was willing to put the country through the pain that we're going to have to go through eventually. All those things our "children and grandchildren" will have to do, as the politicians say, he seemed willing to do them at the present. At the least our energy situation would be significantly improved if people had listened to Carter.

    66. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Oh, like Clinton made us a better place to live. Yeah right.

      or

      Oh, like the Democrat congress during W's term made us a better place to live. Yeah right.

      Depending on which actual action you are speaking of. As the deregulation of the banks that caused the banking meltdown was a Clinton idea, not W.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    67. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I didn't say anyone was right, I said I (they) could operate with impunity because it's tabo for you to fire on enemies hiding within civilians.

      You have effectively tied your hands and now you are attempting to avoid the answer to the most basic question of is collateral damage acceptable when it involves innocent civilians around the bad guy. I know two wrong don't make a right, but sometimes you have to do wrong in order for the bigger picture to prevail. People make these calls all the time, sometimes they are speeding to get someone to a place they can get medical attention, sometimes they are people jaywalking in order to snack a wondering child out of traffic, sometimes it's killing the guy who just killed 5 other people and stopped to reload.

    68. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I didn't say anyone was right,

      No, you just implied it because I said it was wrong and you rebutted that. If you were actually agreeing with me, then I apologize for taking your rebuttal as a disagreement.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    69. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by slick7 · · Score: 1

      As the deregulation of the banks that caused the banking meltdown was a Clinton idea, not W.

      Banking deregulation was the idea of the banking industry and not the idea of ANY political figurehead. No politico gains anything from deregulation, unless they receive political contributions (payoffs) from the industry wanting deregulation. Eliot Spitzer was on top of this issue until Washington invoked a 1865 banking rule claiming jurisdiction. So much for Clinton. This also shows that the banking industry was embedded into the U.S. financial system long before Bush (I and II), Clinton or any of the recently previous presidents. In fact Lincoln as well as Kennedy tried to bring monetary system under U.S. government control rather than the Bank of England ( later the Federal Reserve, which by the way, is a separate entity from the U.S. government), and look what happened to them. It has been shown that elected presidents can trace their bloodlines back to English royalty (who happen to be from German descent. Also, there are several presidents that have been Knighted, meaning they owe their allegiance to the Queen. These Knighthoods are by certificate, since kneeling before the Queen and being tapped on the shoulders pertains to British subjects only.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    70. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I'm not agreeing with you. And rebutting your comment doesn't mean I have to take an opposite view to something that wasn't explicitly expressed. Have you heard of the term "a necessary evil"?

      I'm saying that sometimes you have to be in the wrong in order to be safe. It's like you shouldn't strike anyone but when a kid is reaching for a hot stove or a loaded gun or a knife sitting on the table, it's perfectly fine to smack their hands and warn them away from the danger. Surely your smack would not cause the suffering that a burn, gun shot wound, or a cut from a knife could. It doesn't make hitting someone right, but it stops the danger they could have been in no matter how stupid the circumstances involved that allowed them to get to that position.

      There are times when something must be done for the greater good that are not in the right and you should feel bad about it. If you do not, then those times tend to be more and more and eventually inappropriately applied. You can't let terrorist or people trying to kill you operate with impunity simply because you might hurt someone that could be innocent. You can try your best to keep the innocent safe, but in the end, you need to do something about the bad guys- even if it means being less bad but still bad in the process.

    71. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Have you heard of the term "a necessary evil"?

      And yet it is far too easy to convince oneself that an evil is necessary. All those guys using human shields in iraq for example. They whole question would be moot if we weren't there in the first place. No amount of justification in the moment can override the fact that we went in for bullshit reasons knowing full well that there would be plenty of these "necessary evils" - which specifically does make the US guilty of intentionally killing civilians which hedwards disclaimed.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    72. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Lol.. You're funny. And no, being wrong about something does not make your fictional reality any more real. The US did not intentionally kill innocent civilians in Iraq, not even by your messed up logic.

      Those guys using humans shields in Iraq were mostly blowing up the civilians- not military forces. Yes, you heard that right, the majority of collateral damage in Iraq after the invasion wave was in response to people who were beheading and killing innocent civilians in attempts to manipulate the support for their cause through fear. It doesn't matter why or how we got there, what matters is that we were there and something needed to be done. The most common and appropriate analogy I have heard is "we already scrambled the eggs, now we have to do something with them or they will simply and become stinky rotten eggs".

    73. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I may be funny, but YOUR messed up logic is psychotic. You completely abdicate all responsibility for scrambling the eggs. That's the root cause, and no amount of obfuscation based on what came after can change that basic fact.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    74. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      No I do not abdicate all responsibility for scrambling the eggs. I separate the two situations from what happened and what needs to happen now.

      Here is a test for you if you do not understand this concept. Suppose both of us were walking down a path in the woods and found a sign that said "no trespassing". We ignore that sign for whatever reason and come apon another sign that says "danger! falling rock". Ok, for whatever bullshit reason we had, we ignored the no trespassing sign and the danger falling rocks sign and continue. All the sudden, a rock slide happens and you are semi crushed between two rocks, pinned, unable to move away, and I'm not injured or constricted at all. Now, do I ignore your injury and flee on my own because we shouldn't be there in the first place. Or should I stay and render as much assistance as possible, even if that means getting others to help. Now should the others helping and everyone else who trespasses to assist you be in a criminal position because we had bullshit reasons for ignoring the signs and trespassing in a dangerous area?

      Of course the answer is that what we did was separate from what was done afterward. We scrambled the eggs, they did something with them, even if we are part of they. Of course no one would have been there if we didn't use bullshit excuses to trespass in a dangerous area, but that fact is irrelevant to the attempts to save you. Iraq is no different and your attempts to make is some connection outside what it is in reality to future events is nothing more then pathetic.

    75. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      So far all of your analogies have demonstrated complicated abdication.

      Even this one because it fails to acknowledge that when we went into Iraq we knew there would be civilians in harms way. Hell, you even spell out the psychotic denial by saying "what we did was separate from what was done afterward." Change your analogy to put the danger falling rocks sign before the no-trespassing sign and you'd have something relevant.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    76. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Listen, we went into Iraq because there was a need. Now you can dispute the need all you want but that has absolutely no effect on the needs created after the fact. Even if the need was legitimately bullshit, it still doesn't address the fact that we broke a bunch of eggs, scrambled them and now need to do something with them.

      what is psychotic is your insistence that we never do anything that may harm someone who's innocent which has the same effect as allowing the enemies and bad guys to operate with impunity if they use civilians as shields. Tell a cop that he can't fire his weapon on someone else firing their and killing people, because someone else in the crowed my get hit. So according to you, the cop would have to sit there until either the entire crowd has left so no innocent civilians would be casualties, or the guy empties all his ammunition and leaves for another area where the cop can subdue him without risk to innocents. Well, it's worse to allow the guy to continue to kill then it is to accidentally kill someone trying to stop them. And nothing abrogates this like the cop letting the guy into the crowed space with a gun in the first place.

      You are crazy and you need to check your beliefs with reality.

    77. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Listen, we went into Iraq because there was a need.

      You clearly think it was a valid need and that it justified all of the expected civilian casualties.
      You are wrong.

      what is psychotic is your insistence that we never do anything that may harm someone who's innocent

      Eat your words because those are not mine. My insistence is that saying the US has the high moral ground because we do not deliberately target civilians is facetious ass covering. We kill civilians and we do it with plenty of foreknowledge. You want to disclaim the foreknowledge because we don't know the exact specifics and that's psychotic.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    78. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You clearly think it was a valid need and that it justified all of the expected civilian casualties. You are wrong.

      It doesn't matter is it was a valid need or not, we went in and after the fact it was justified to expect civilian casualties.

      Eat your words because those are not mine. My insistence is that saying the US has the high moral ground because we do not deliberately target civilians is facetious ass covering. We kill civilians and we do it with plenty of foreknowledge. You want to disclaim the foreknowledge because we don't know the exact specifics and that's psychotic.

      Jesus christ- are you dense. Having innocent civilians as casualties does not mean they were targeted. Knowing they will be harmed or that there is a good chance of it does not make it a target. Targeting innocent civilians would mean that we didn't target the enemy and targeted the civilians. That's simply false no matter how fucked up you want to spin it. Now on the contrast, the insurgents as well as terrorist have and do target innocent civilians without any expectation of the enemy being there at all. That's not something the US does and you know it.

  11. Why would the nuclear option be bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would the nuclear option be bad? If they're unable to get it stopped up in a few months using conventional methods then some other methods will have to be tried. Unless it would be an acceptable option for BP to just throw up their hands and declare "We can't stop the leak. There's nothing we can do. Maybe it will just stop by itself. Sorry about your Gulf."

    What harm would there be in using a low yield nuclear device to attempt to stop the leak? The well is fairly deep so it isn't as if the cratering from a tiny nuke would be punching through a thin crust and releasing the entire reservoir of oil. Compared to the environmental harm due to the volume of oil being released I'd expect the radioactivity produced from a low yield undersea nuclear detonation would be fairly small potatoes.

    1. Re:Why would the nuclear option be bad? by RockoTDF · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think we should do it just so that some accountant at BP has to enter "Cost of nuclear warhead" into their excel spreadsheet. At least that way we can get a laugh out of this.

      --
      There is more to science than physics!

      www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
    2. Re:Why would the nuclear option be bad? by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      hmm lets see about this

      Small Yield Nuclear warhead = 200,000 pounds
      Transportation of warhead = 10,000 pounds
      13 Scary Fat Blokes to secure and deploy warhead= 25,000 pounds (each)

      Not having to do this again EVER = Priceless

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    3. Re:Why would the nuclear option be bad? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      All the radiation will not be contained and will drift up into the local food supply.
      The TV told me that the gulf region of the US is packed with great areas for fishing, food production and tourism.
      If you want to set the Gulf up as a national sacrifice site with zero long term monitoring, it would be fine.
      Lots of locals will get lumps, blood counts and strange cell test results for many generations.
      The trick is not to notice or report on the cancer clusters as long term testing cost tax payers money.
      What harm would there be in using a low yield nuclear device is really how you view human life - the Soviet way, get the best people out, study the people who stay behind.
      The US view was to stop A bomb testing for a good reason - real people get real sick.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Why would the nuclear option be bad? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that it would be an option to bill BP for that physics package, rather than pay someone to disassemble it under the New START treaty. Win - Win!

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    5. Re:Why would the nuclear option be bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there a numerical value for 'priceless?'

    6. Re:Why would the nuclear option be bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "One meeeleeeon dollars!" *pinky salute*

    7. Re:Why would the nuclear option be bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, it won't be in an excel spreadsheet. It'll be in some more complicated accounting program. Probably with some sort of inventory tracking information.

      Then, 20 years from now after everyone's forgotten about this mess, some BP accountant can wonder why they have the cost for a nuke in their accounting system, and why they apparently stocked them at one point...

    8. Re:Why would the nuclear option be bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US government should bill them for R&D costs, all the way back to Manhattan Project.

      Strongly discouraging future mishaps would just be the tip of the iceberg of such a policy.

  12. Re:Obama is a genius!!! by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

    The Russians claim that it works...

  13. yes, yes he could by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Lets face it, this is the US way. I remember countless jokes about the Mir space station that after years of faithful service was retired while the space shuttle was blowing up all over the place. When you can't be proud of your own stuff, ridicule what others do. It works.

    The Venezuela incident seems without side effect so far, and the firing of all the engineers and directors? Well, BP didn't and that one blew up... so what is the relation? But no worry, logic has nothing to do with propaganda.

    What do you expect from a country where fox-news is not a contradiction in terms?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:yes, yes he could by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Space shuttles were blowing up all over the place? Only one blew up before Mir was retired... you might want to rethink your bullshit.

    2. Re:yes, yes he could by maxume · · Score: 2, Informative

      Only 1 shuttle exploded before Mir was deorbited, and that happened before space-side construction of Mir had even begun.

      Also, calling a hyphenated word a contradiction in terms is pretty bad style.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:yes, yes he could by FuckingNickName · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Jokes would happen during and after recent retirement, being 2001 (remembering that we're talking space science timescales, not Internet meme timescales). By the third week of 2003, 40% of US space shuttles had been destroyed, even while old timers were still tediously proclaiming US victory over the evil Reds.

      SFC would have had a stronger argument if he'd mentioned technical and bureaucratic US space programme fuck-ups in general, rather than just the shuttle... no-one said it was easy, but you don't deserve any slack when you start claiming that you're better than everyone else.

    4. Re:yes, yes he could by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't usually think of trolls as Small Furry Creatures, but you're quite consistent in your mindless knee-jerk anti-US rants.

      People, people, please - don't feed the trolls!

    5. Re:yes, yes he could by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't even think there's a need for hyperbole on this (my, uh, previous post aside). Shuttle and Mir both worked, both developed problems and dangerous conditions developed over time. The only difference is which side of which border they were developed on, and national origin is a piss-poor standard upon which to judge the overall success of a project or decision, or even the ethics underlying such.

      Canning the upper echelon of staff for political reasons rarely, if ever, has good results (I suspect PDVSA had some difficulty replacing that many people with that much experience). Neither does going cheap on the failsafe gear and deciding regulations don't really need to be followed that closely when dealing with complicated, ecologically-significant projects.

      --

      Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
    6. Re:yes, yes he could by phantomfive · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I know it's popular to bash the US, but please, I call for some sanity in country bashing! Both BP and Reuters (who wrote the article about the Venezuela platform) are British countries.

      Ha! What do you expect from a country that puts Dr. Who and Keeping Up Appearances on the same channel! Those self-absorbed chrads!!!

      --
      Qxe4
    7. Re:yes, yes he could by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Both BP and Reuters [...] are British countries.

      News to me. Makes it easy to declare war though.

    8. Re:yes, yes he could by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor NASA. It's not their fault. They just ran out of Germans.

      I imagine ESA - and Ariane - has plenty though (but I hear they're forced to work with French engineers and British waffling). Eppur, si muove!

      Speaking of which, I haven't heard on the Russian nuclear rocket / Apophis deterrent initiative. Political vapor, or gone black - again ?

    9. Re:yes, yes he could by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      The problem with PDVSA was that the management was running the company like it was theirs, not like a property of the state and/or the people of Venezuela. Most people put under the rug the big problem that was the PDVSA strike in 2002, it caused more damage against the venezuelan economy than the current economic crisis. Having the main source of state's revenue in the hands of people that doesn't believe in the necessity of a strong state, ready to sabotage anyway the economy of their nation for their own benefit was suicide. The increase in oil prices from 2003 onward was not only caused by Bush military adventurism, but also because Venezuela and Iran exercised a stronger control in oil production, that benefited their national interest. Now, perhaps the americans or europeans would like better a subservient government that the ones we have had in Mexico, that did everything to keep oil prices down and didn't join OPEC only to became a paria in OCDE, exporting crude oil and buying american refined products. Good for America, really bad for us.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
  14. Re:Obama is a genius!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From space...

  15. Don't you read slashdot? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Just a while ago we were warned by a computer scientist (whatever that is) that this huge oil reservoir is under so much pressure that if 3 miles or rock spits, it could blow up the planet and end life as we know it...

    Presumably kdawson read this slashdot story... oh wait... editor reading story... I see where I went wrong there.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Don't you read slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C'mon people - if you haven't figured out that SmallFurryCreature is really BigAssholeTroll, get a clue. And don't feed the trolls!

  16. Blowing shit up by retech · · Score: 4, Funny

    Blowing something up is always the best option. Detonating a large fuel reserve to stop it from leaking makes perfect sense to me. Absolutely nothing to worry about.

    1. Re:Blowing shit up by zardozap · · Score: 1

      Seriously. Take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

    2. Re:Blowing shit up by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      So how long do we wait for a better option? If you've got one I'd certainly like to hear it, because we've already passed the point where people's livelihoods are being ruined. This isn't exactly a problem where we can afford to spend several years debating the optimal solution. If no one else has a solution, then yes, "blowing something up" is certainly the best option.

    3. Re:Blowing shit up by slick7 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Blowing something up is always the best option. Detonating a large fuel reserve to stop it from leaking makes perfect sense to me. Absolutely nothing to worry about.

      Here, here...and when it doesn't work, we can escalate..er.. I mean surge the situation and then get Haliburton to take matters in hand.
      That shouldn't cost too much, should it?
      I mean they're doing such a fine job in Iraq and Afghanistan that it wouldn't be more that a few trillion, a price any American would gladly pay on top of everything else. (endorsement approved by Halliburton stockholders)

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    4. Re:Blowing shit up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't they just stick a big coin in the hole (narrow side down) and turn it sideways?

    5. Re:Blowing shit up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the most widely used methods of putting out oil well fires is to detonate dynamite in the well fire. The explosion has the effect of both consuming oxygen as well as blowing oxygen away from the fire.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_well_fire

    6. Re:Blowing shit up by winwar · · Score: 1

      "This isn't exactly a problem where we can afford to spend several years debating the optimal solution."

      Why can't we? At the present time the relief well has not even been completed. Until that has been drilled and allowed to work (or not) there is no reason to do something that is untested and irreversible. Yes, that means that a massive amount of oil may continue to flow into the Gulf of Mexico for a number of months.

      But a massive amount has already entered the environment. There is no evidence that another few months will make conditions bad enough to try something that will PERMANENTLY PREVENT any further attempts at stopping the leak.

      The choice has already been made to destroy the environment-that decision was made when offshore drilling first began in the US.

    7. Re:Blowing shit up by The+Snowman · · Score: 2, Funny

      One of the most widely used methods of putting out oil well fires is to detonate dynamite in the well fire. The explosion has the effect of both consuming oxygen as well as blowing oxygen away from the fire.

      Not only is this well not on fire, it is underwater. Last time I checked, water not only doesn't burn, it actually puts out fires.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    8. Re:Blowing shit up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Water burns, if you tickle it right.
      Besides, plasma torches don't care about such insignificant details.

    9. Re:Blowing shit up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any problem on Earth can be solved with the careful application of high explosives.

    10. Re:Blowing shit up by DiEx-15 · · Score: 1

      We are all going to die or glow in the dark aren't we?

    11. Re:Blowing shit up by sjames · · Score: 1

      We will find a solution very quickly IF we immediately replace the paychecks for everyone who has lost their livelihood AND the higher seafood etc. prices for consumers with fat checks from BP.

    12. Re:Blowing shit up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yep. especially when its on the back-door-step of the biggest oil guzzler in the world. No worries...

  17. Hay for Cleanup? by randallman · · Score: 1

    Someone showed me this demonstration today and I don't see any reasons it could not work. It's using hay to soak up the oil. What do you think?

    1. Re:Hay for Cleanup? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      We're talking about an absolutely ludicrous amount of crude oil here. I'm not convinced at all that enough hay could be procured in the time-frame needed to effectively act.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    2. Re:Hay for Cleanup? by Dynedain · · Score: 1

      They're using 5-6 big handfuls of hay to cleanup about 1/2 cup of motor oil (not crude).

      There's 672 cups in a single barrel of oil (1 barrel = 42 gallons).

      The lowest estimate is that there's around 5,000 barrels of oil being released EVERY DAY. The difference in scale is why this, and the hair idea, don't work. They may work for localized cleanup on a specific beach, but like people washing birds with detergent, this isn't a large-scale solution.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    3. Re:Hay for Cleanup? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what will all the horses eat?

    4. Re:Hay for Cleanup? by DotSlashReader · · Score: 4, Interesting

      well, doing some quick back of the napkin math
      he put no more than 1/20th of a gallon of oil into that container and said it took 1 pound of hay to clean that up.
      The explosion and resulting leak happened 25 days ago.
      It's been leaking about 50k barrels per day according to recent (non-computer scientists) estimates.

      At that rate, it's going to require ~525,000 tons of hay.

      According to a quick search for some kind of US hay production values, in 2008 we produced about 145,000,000 tons in 2008
      http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Missouri/Publications/Brochures/Hay_Facts.pdf

      Although noting is said about how much of that was used to feed livestock. However I suspect that it was most of it.

      So this would be less than half a percent of the US annual hay production. That doesn't seem completely unrealistic to me. Difficult and our infrastructure is likely not set up for this kind of thing, sure, but not flat out unrealistic from some 10 minutes worth of estimating. Add in other realistic aspects of the situation however, and things could get out of control pretty easily, but I would at least say this warrants further exploration of this idea.

    5. Re:Hay for Cleanup? by SharpFang · · Score: 2, Funny

      Mow Your Lawn For Saving The Sea action?
      Every white picket fence house donating some hay? ...in no time.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    6. Re:Hay for Cleanup? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, doing some quick back of the napkin math

      I was going to ask about the front of the napkin, but thought and decided better not to.

    7. Re:Hay for Cleanup? by DotSlashReader · · Score: 1

      It's covered in porn doodles.....

    8. Re:Hay for Cleanup? by artisteeternite · · Score: 1

      Also, keep in mind that the plan isn't to use it to clean up all the oil. They just want to use it to help protect the Walton County shore-line in Florida. That's a very small fraction of the oil.

    9. Re:Hay for Cleanup? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may work for localized cleanup on a specific beach, but like people washing birds with detergent, this isn't a large-scale solution.

      That gives me an idea. Anyone got a few million pounds of seagulls? How 'bout getting everyone in NYC to round up a pigeon or two? :)

    10. Re:Hay for Cleanup? by shermo · · Score: 1

      Brilliant - And then feed all the oil soaked hay to cows. We'll have pre-greased steak next year.

      +1 tasty.

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
  18. why not nuclear? by jipn4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sorry, but I don't see a big problem with the "nuclear option". Underground nuclear explosions have been used quite a bit and they are not a significant radiation hazard. The geology of the area is presumably also fairly well understood. I wonder, though, if they even need a nuclear bomb. The drill hole is tiny compared to the 3 miles of rock it goes through. I would think even a conventional explosive placed some distance to the drill hole about a mile or so down into the rock might be enough to shift the rock and seal it off with little risk of making things worse. In any case, it's good to see people besides BP employees are on the case.

    1. Re:why not nuclear? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      I'd prefer to try MOAB before nukes. The hole is pretty small, do we *need* that much power that a nuke is necessary*?

      *if the math says nuke to collapse the tube, then so be it, I'm just wondering if it really requires that much.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:why not nuclear? by Monkey-Man2000 · · Score: 0, Troll

      In any case, it's good to see people besides BP employees are on the case.

      This is most accurrate. At least we're drawing the big boys/girls out when the big boys/girls are required for a national emergency like this (and I like having people like Stephen Chu on our side).

      Any doubters, just consider how McCain/Palin would have reacted in this position because it was inevitable. "Drill, baby, drill," can only get you so far in a catastrophe like this (i.e., the beginning...).

      --
      This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
    3. Re:why not nuclear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      causing earthquakes to stop oil spills sounds like a super bad idea.

      that's like collapsing a house to stop a water leak. It won't work, and now you have many leaks instead of one.

    4. Re:why not nuclear? by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      The problem is there's a hole in the seafloor. Explosives are not known for making *fewer* holes in things.

    5. Re:why not nuclear? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      The hole is much deeper than the sea-floor, USSR has done this, they exploded bombs to stop leaks like that, it collapses the shaft by applying a lot of pressure from above.

      However they did it 6 times and only succeeded 5 times doing that.

      I lived in this city from 86 to 91 and there is at least something to say about living in a place you know is only a few kilometers away from a nuclear crater. In case of the Gulf of Mexico there would be no visible crater though, and the radiation most likely will not make it all the way up from the 5000 feet down and then the place is some 40miles away from the shore, isn't it? Not a big deal, just use a nuke big enough for the job.

      The only problem is that if it does NOT work or even makes the situation worse, then it could become sort of a nuisance for the oceans for the next millennium or something, it would certainly be a problem for the people. I wonder what it takes to block the Guelph of Mexico from the rest of the Atlantic ocean.

    6. Re:why not nuclear? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > I would think even a conventional explosive placed some distance to the
      > drill hole about a mile or so down into the rock might be enough to shift
      > the rock and seal it off with little risk of making things worse.

      Drilling that hole would probably take as long as drilling the relief well.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    7. Re:why not nuclear? by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      I'd prefer to try MOAB before nukes. The hole is pretty small, do we *need* that much power that a nuke is necessary*?

      *if the math says nuke to collapse the tube, then so be it, I'm just wondering if it really requires that much.

      MOAB would require oxygen. Nuke wouldn't.

    8. Re:why not nuclear? by jipn4 · · Score: 1

      However they did it 6 times and only succeeded 5 times doing that.

      The Russians used it to extinguish gas, which sounds harder to me.

      The only problem is that if it does NOT work or even makes the situation worse

      Well, BP is interested in making money, the administration is interested in getting reelected, which gives me some confidence that they'll try to avoid making things worse. And they could still drill a relief well, as before.

    9. Re:why not nuclear? by linzeal · · Score: 1

      11 tons of explosive is not going to do fuck all to sea floor basalt.

    10. Re:why not nuclear? by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      USSR has done this, they exploded bombs to stop leaks like that,.

      Do you have another source for that than the recent article in Pravda? Because Pravda simply does not count.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    11. Re:why not nuclear? by ZonkerWilliam · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Now isn't there a lot of methane locked up in methane clathrate? What would the nuclear "option" do to the ~10^10 m3 of methane down there? I'm thinking bad idea...

    12. Re:why not nuclear? by ffreeloader · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, I think stuffing entire Utah town down that hole would stop the leak, and it wouldn't require any oxygen. We could remove all humans first.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    13. Re:why not nuclear? by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_nuclear_explosions#Soviet_Union:_Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_National_Economy, although it isn't heavily cited. I have heard of such a thing, and have no problems believing the Soviets used nukes for this. When the only tool you have is a hammer....

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    14. Re:why not nuclear? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      The Russians had an 80% success rate on their 5 tries. And nations do bomb testing underwater. It's not a great option, but a small one placed properly probably would cause the rocks to cave in sealing up the whole.

    15. Re:why not nuclear? by blincoln · · Score: 1

      The hole is pretty small, do we *need* that much power that a nuke is necessary*?

      "Need" is such a strong word.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    16. Re:why not nuclear? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      There is no significant radiation hazard with most nuclear weapons. There might be some fallout the first couple of hours/days but a couple of months later there are no significant radiation dosages.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    17. Re:why not nuclear? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Wiki suggests MOAB is high explosive, not fuel-air, got a ref?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    18. Re:why not nuclear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty simple: 1 mile takes about 1/3 the time of 3 miles. They can probably actually get away with 1000 ft if they use conventional explosives.

      All they need to do is shift a few feet of rock by a few feet underground to close the drillhole.

    19. Re:why not nuclear? by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Explosions fracture rock. Rock fractures allow gas to pass. This is why the U.S. used nukes to *increase* gas production.

      I strongly suspect that what the USSR succeeded in doing was extinguishing a large point-source gas flare and replacing it with a whole bunch of small diffuse gas leaks over a square-km area.

      That's not an acceptable solution in this case.

    20. Re:why not nuclear? by lonecrow · · Score: 1

      How many other rigs are nearby? Hopefully the resulting shockwave propogating across the sea floor doesn't open up three more while closing this one.

      By the way, the people responsible should take a lesson from the Japanese and take the honorable way out.

    21. Re:why not nuclear? by wkcole · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sorry, but I don't see a big problem with the "nuclear option".

      Look more closely...

      Underground nuclear explosions have been used quite a bit and they are not a significant radiation hazard. The geology of the area is presumably also fairly well understood.

      Understanding the geology (which is put in question by the accident) is necessary but not sufficient. Sites for underground nuclear tests are not simply understood, they are selected and prepared. They are not selected under a mile of water, and test chambers are not prepared by connecting them to large high-pressure oil and gas deposits.

      I wonder, though, if they even need a nuclear bomb. The drill hole is tiny compared to the 3 miles of rock it goes through. I would think even a conventional explosive placed some distance to the drill hole about a mile or so down into the rock might be enough to shift the rock and seal it off with little risk of making things worse.

      The risk of making things worse is quite real. The root cause of the accident according to some reports was the destabilization of an unrecognized clathrate layer, and setting off a large explosion in that sort of formation would be a crapshoot. Even if the clathrate is a small localized issue, the concept of trying to plug the hole by shattering the cap layer around it carries the risk of trading one pipe of known characteristics in a known location for a giant sieve leaking more gas and oil from a myriad of unknown random seep points.

      There isn't much relevant history to look at for troubleshooting accidents like this one but in general, throwing high-energy chaos at a piece of complex engineering gone wrong is a tactical class that has a vanishingly small success rate. .

    22. Re:why not nuclear? by el_munkie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Methane is quite harmless in the absence of an oxidizer. As it is underwater.

    23. Re:why not nuclear? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      US failed to increase gas production with nukes, the heat from the blast solidified the rock and even turned it into glass under the blast.

    24. Re:why not nuclear? by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      Where in this article does it mention anything about stopping oil leaks? Following the link to Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy. from the paragraph you linked, we find that this program conducted 115 explosions, among then "5 explosions for extinguishing large natural gas fountains", but none about oil wells, and none about underwater wells.

      However, the program caused a number of problems, of course. So don't act as if the suggestion to close the gulf hole with a nuke had any relevant precedents or was in any way a well understood approach. It may come to it that this is the only option left, who knows, but keep in mind that if it opens the bubble and releases the oil instead, it will result in a global extinction event, which would be kind of serious.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    25. Re:why not nuclear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuel-air isn't the only type of explosive that requires oxygen.

      AFAIK Nuclear is the only kind of explosive that doesn't

    26. Re:why not nuclear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Underground nuclear explosions have been used quite a bit and they are not a significant radiation hazard."

      Oh, really?

    27. Re:why not nuclear? by ZonkerWilliam · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Methane is quite harmless in the absence of an oxidizer. As it is underwater

      Didn't say that, thinking releasing all that "super" Greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as a even bigger environmental issue.

    28. Re:why not nuclear? by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      In no way did I say (or think) it is a good idea, and I fully understand that if they open it up, or happen to hit a huge pocket of methane hydrate, then yes, the atmosphere is pretty screwed for human life. That doesn't change the fact that the Soviets used nukes previously in "creative ways". I simply pointed to one easy to find example, and there are others.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    29. Re:why not nuclear? by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      Ok, and thanks :)

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    30. Re:why not nuclear? by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      We already have some pretty good research on what goes on in sea environments when they're nuked (Bikini Atoll). The theory is that the water, a pretty good neutron absorber, tends to grab radioactive particles and disperse them pretty quickly. There are studies ongoing of the ocean sediments that I haven't seen results for yet.

      That said, the food grown on the Atoll itself is pretty deadly to humans, so no, there's no moving back.

      We don't have that problem 3 miles down.

    31. Re:why not nuclear? by MokuMokuRyoushi · · Score: 0

      Sealing up the whole?! Oh gosh, no! We only want to seal up part of it!

      --
      Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
    32. Re:why not nuclear? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      It's the only kind that gets its oxygen from its surroundings.

      All the others have their oxygen pre-placed right next to the fuel, which is how they can detonate (TNT) or deflagrate (gunpowder) so rapidly.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    33. Re:why not nuclear? by khallow · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but I don't see a big problem with the "nuclear option". Underground nuclear explosions have been used quite a bit and they are not a significant radiation hazard. The geology of the area is presumably also fairly well understood. I wonder, though, if they even need a nuclear bomb. The drill hole is tiny compared to the 3 miles of rock it goes through. I would think even a conventional explosive placed some distance to the drill hole about a mile or so down into the rock might be enough to shift the rock and seal it off with little risk of making things worse. In any case, it's good to see people besides BP employees are on the case.

      Let's outline some of the problems I caught. Underground nuclear tests haven't been done in a while and frankly I don't think they are well understood especially for collapsing drill holes. Also, radiation is released during these things, it's not as bad as the typical air burst, but there is significant radiation release. As to the conventional explosive approach, they still have to drill the hole. That's the delay in the current approach.

  19. Re:Obama is a genius!!! by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Russians also thought that this would work.

    They don't exactly have a flawless track-record when it comes to this sort of thing.

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  20. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by linzeal · · Score: 0, Troll

    Hugo Chávez gets all his communism second hand through people like Castro, Che and Marigella (sp) but he is equally dangerous as he is slowly establishing a totalitarian regime. What is frightening is not the political aspects to his debasing of human, civil and corporate rights but the sheer incompetence in his doing so.

    If we allow Venezuela to establish itself in the orbit of the last of the last totalitarian Marxist-Lenist states like Cuba it is going to spread not communism but totalitarianism. What we might eventually have is something like Hoxha again, who went batshit insane after WWII and kept Albania shut almost completely out of the world for 60 years.

  21. Re:Obama is a genius!!! by amRadioHed · · Score: 2, Informative

    It stopped the methane from leaking into our atmosphere, so it did work.

    --
    We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  22. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Antiocheian · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    If we allow Venezuela

    Fuck off

  23. Wrong team! by Ruvim · · Score: 1, Funny

    Where is Bruce Willis and his team? I am sure they'd do it at the last second!

    1. Re:Wrong team! by slick7 · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have Steve Buscemi in charge.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    2. Re:Wrong team! by Ruvim · · Score: 1

      I think it will work... as long as Liv Tyler is there! She could be a publicity director, generating money for the clean-up efforts... or just let her stand there...

  24. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That is what everybody did when Germany started picking on Poland.

    Worked nicely, didn't it?

  25. Reverse Psychology by Bugamn · · Score: 1

    Don't you see? The bias in the article is a prime example of reverse psychology. Notice how many people are already acepting the idea of nuking it.

    1. Re:Reverse Psychology by slick7 · · Score: 1

      And right after that, the revolution begins.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    2. Re:Reverse Psychology by russotto · · Score: 1

      Don't you see? The bias in the article is a prime example of reverse psychology. Notice how many people are already acepting the idea of nuking it.

      This is Slashdot. At least a third were all for nuking it even before reading the earlier article. Another third were horrified at the thought, and the last third thought it was a really cool idea but were afraid (from bitter experience) they'd be thought of as nuts if they didn't act horrified.

  26. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you going to "not allow" Greece to go commie as well? While you're at it, tell me about your creditors - y'know, that government you owe *trillions* of dollars to? I kinda think they will be OK with Venezuela doing the communist polka. I suggest you worry about the controls being leveraged into your own country, for now. The rest of the world isn't seein' a whole lotta open-market democracy happening, any more.

  27. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by FuckingNickName · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Pop quiz:

    Britain declared war on Germany ___ days after the German invasion of Poland.

    Venezuela has invaded ___ allies of the US.

  28. Gas + nuclear explosion by mrv00t · · Score: 0

    Let's hope they will not accidentally nuke the Venezuelan gas rig :)

  29. Crack in the World . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_in_the_World

    Worked fine, the last time it was tried on the silver screens in the 60's . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  30. How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb by esten · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    In mother Russia bomb beats oil.

  31. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't like the WWII example, then feel free to use one of the thousands of others. Darfur for instance.

    There is no shortage of examples of times when outside intervention is not only warranted, but should actually be mandatory.

  32. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1, Funny

    What are you doing on Slashdot when you should be in Venezuela mandatorily fighting Chavez?

  33. Bad reporting by Clsid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am in Venezuela and can tell you that the rig incident in Venezuela was handled much more gracefully than what they show in that link. They managed to break the main pipe and close it before the platform leaned over. The captain of the platform, who is American by the way, was congratulated by Chavez in public TV since he stayed until the very last moment on the platform, only jumping into the water after the platform was over a 45 degree inclination angle. The Venezuelan navy also did a pretty good by-the-book rescue operation, so I don't know why is there so much negativity in the reports I see in the links posted. As far as the problem in the US, I kind of disagree bringing a nuclear physicist to do what can probably be solved by an emergency contract with the Norwegians, by far the best of the world in that field. But I guess when there are no tried solutions, a good idea counts no matter where it comes from.

    1. Re:Bad reporting by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Let me guess, you heard about it on one of the official Venezuelan TV channels? The article doesn't say that it was worse than the BP leak, it just says that sort of thing is becoming more common in Venezuela. Relevant quote:

      After an explosion in 2005 killed five workers at PDVSA's 955,000 barrel per day Paraguana Refining Complex -- one of the biggest refinery complexes in the world -- the manager conceded that the frequency of fires, blasts and oil leaks had almost doubled compared with the previous year.

      Not good.

      --
      Qxe4
    2. Re:Bad reporting by compro01 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And the Texas City refinery explosion also happened that same year and killed 15.

      Neither BP nor PDVSA look to be doing a great job.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    3. Re:Bad reporting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. There has been a dismal increase in incidents at PDVSA's plants, involving fires and destroyed units; the one you mention is perhaps the worst. But PP is correct too - the gas platform incident was comparatively minor (slow sinking, no spill, no casualties) and the platform was rented (overpriced some say).

      If things are ever going to improve here, we need solid truth in front of everyone to develop trust.

    4. Re:Bad reporting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet no worker died on the Venezolan rig. But hey, why pass up on an opportunity to make Hugo Chavez look bad. He fired managers that were striking, such a thing doesn't happen in the States. In the States they only fire the low paid unskilled staff. You know, the ones that actually have a good reason to go on strike (low pay, bad working conditions).

  34. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Incubusxp · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Fuck You!! What do you know of whats happening in my country? Venezuela is becoming FREE. Let us be. We dont want War, we just want to develop our country and be happy. With Chavez we will have that.

  35. the is a measure thrice cut once thing by RobertLTux · · Score: 1, Informative

    the problem is if they make a mistake in the maths then things could go very bad very quickly (like chunks of tar washing up in Australia kind of bad).
    so i would think that they would need a couple guys that didn't get a c minus in astro^Hnuclear physics to make sure of things.

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    1. Re:the is a measure thrice cut once thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you thought that they WEREN'T gonna quadruple-check their calcs first?

  36. They don't really want to stop the flow by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    The problem until now was that they didn't really want to stop the flow. They wanted to continue production. The government is now forcing them to stop the flow and abandon production.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:They don't really want to stop the flow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This nonsense again? The idea that letting the well run wild is somehow a good thing for BP financially is nuts for all sorts of reasons even if you exclude the cleanup issue. I'm not wasting my time repeating myself. They're also working on a new option -- putting a collection pipe directly on there, but that's going to be trickier than the cofferdam approach they tried. Clogging with hydrates might still be an issue further up the pipe as the oil and gas cool down to ambient temperatures on their way to the surface too.

    2. Re:They don't really want to stop the flow by slick7 · · Score: 1

      The problem until now was that they didn't really want to stop the flow. They wanted to continue production. The government is now forcing them to stop the flow and abandon production.

      Yeah like that'll happen in America. The politicians can use that for their re-election campaign funded by the oil lobbyists, paid for by public taxes.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    3. Re:They don't really want to stop the flow by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The problem until now was that they didn't really want to stop the flow. They wanted to continue production. The government is now forcing them to stop the flow and abandon production.

      It would be trivial to replace the well head and riser pipes, then they can bore through a cement plug in the existing well casing and restart production again. These types of well kill operations such as bullheading aren't uncommon and reopening the well would be similar to various Workover tasks. The truth is everybody though the well was plugged and capped when it blew anyways.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  37. risk and reward by fermion · · Score: 4, Insightful
    My main problem with this is that BP and Transocean seem to be more conerned about limiting liability than solving the problem. BP doesn't seem to be interested in releasing video so the experts don't know if they are dealing with a situation that is 5 or 5 million barrels a day. For planning such a number is important. Transocean is in court trying to claim it is a cruise line so that it can cap liability to a few tens of million. Of course most of BP actions are intended to limit charges of negligence so they can limit liability to $75 million. Total exposure for both companies if all the effort succeed is $100 million.

    So the oil still flows, and the government has to step in for what should be a problem solved by the private sector that has claimed they are more than capable of regulating themselves. The private businesses that are destroyed from Louisiana to Florida due to BP negligence will be limited to fighting over the $75 million dollars, hardly enough when all your memorial weekeend guests have cancelled.

    Here is the thing. I am one of the few people not in the oil industry that will actively defend the high price of gasoline, and even say it go higher. Oil production is risky, and the rewards should be commiserate. What I find maddening is that when the risk does manifest, the executives claim they have no money to pay for liabiliy. BP has made a profit of 5.5 billion this quarter. It is only natural that all that is forfiet to pay for the accident. That is how the free market works. As long as one is efficient and keeps one nose clean, one can make a huge profit. On big mistake an put one out of business. We should not be making laws to protect incompetent firms, any more than we should have laws to protect incompetent employees.

    And for those who think there is a greater competency issue in the Venezuela explosion, remember that BP is responsible for the death of 11 good people, while no one died in the Venezuela situation. If you think that killing people is competent, something is wrong.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:risk and reward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where the bloody fuck is the U.S. Navy, BP releasing video??? WTF does it have to do with their rights???

    2. Re:risk and reward by adbge · · Score: 1

      One thing occurs to me: BP can look towards limiting liability and fixing the problem at the same time.

      Now, I'm not sure if BP is doing all that it can, but I think often people see a company doing one thing and forget that it could be doing other things in parallel.

    3. Re:risk and reward by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Response so far:
      - 13,000 personnel deployed
      - 530 vessels on site
      - 1.2 million feet of boom deployed
      - 120 flights to apply dispersant
      - 14 staging areas set-up to protect shoreline

      In comparison the Exxon Valdez has a 11000 people community response "along with some Exxon employees" to help the clean-up. (Wikipedia) Yeah they may not be doing ALL it can, but this is a frigging huge response to a huge incident. Talent has been flown in from all over the world in an effort to attack this thing on every front. I love how people complain about the $75million liability. Maybe you'll have a look at the company report next financial year. They so far have already provided $100million in grants to the 4 most affected states to assist them with the clean-up. Even if the $75M liability holds, it'll be a piss a lake compared to what they are already spending. Two relief wells cost a lot to drill, the engineering of the first two failed containment domes, the top hat, all the people... The response here is staggering and I bet you won't find such a collection of equipment, personnel and resources outside of a world war.

    4. Re:risk and reward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/commiserate/commensurate/

    5. Re:risk and reward by u38cg · · Score: 1

      I think BP is more worried about fixing the leak than dealing with PR at the moment - and frankly, broadcasting pictures of fluffy kittens at this point in time would not be particularly effective. And BP are already aware that they will be paying out a lot more than the statutory cap - because if they don't they know that this is not an administration and Congress that will stand by and let them.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    6. Re:risk and reward by Splab · · Score: 1

      BP is not a US company, thus when they said they would foot the bill, they more than likely meant every single word of it.

      Remember, this is a huge bill right now, but BP is one of the largest energy companies in the world, and while they might be able to steer clear in the US, the rest of the world would punish them dearly for not cleaning up and not reacting proper. Think they could keep drilling other places in the world if they ignored a spill?

    7. Re:risk and reward by jayveekay · · Score: 1

      BP has made a profit of 5.5 billion this quarter. It is only natural that all that is forfiet to pay for the accident. That is how the free market works.

      The free market actually works like this: BP takes 10 million of that profit and uses it to buy enough congressmen to pass laws that limit their liability. They take another 50 million and buy lawyers to tangle up for a couple decades whatever legal cases do get thrown at them.

      BP has done the math and concluded that the way to maximize profit is to buy politicians (which really means buy voters to get those politicians reelected) and lawyers rather than take prudent steps to ensure safety. That's the free market at work.

    8. Re:risk and reward by khallow · · Score: 1

      My main problem with this is that BP and Transocean seem to be more conerned about limiting liability than solving the problem.

      As they should be. Just because there's a big oil leak, doesn't mean that BP and Transocean should slit their throats over it. We have a society that clobbers people legally, if they admit fault or release information.

  38. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Greece can go commie if they want too. As a general rule, Europe is populated by sensible people capable of making informed and responsible decisions.

    Contrast this with South America, which is populated by 3 types of people: un-educated peasants, druglords, and warlords.

  39. FEAR NUCLEAR!! by RJBeery · · Score: 1

    What's up with the "Let's hope this doesn't mean they actually try the nuclear option" commentary? If the world's top physicists (not necessarily implying that Obama's and Chu have assembled such) were to claim that the nuclear option is a valid one and worth any potential risks then why wouldn't we do it? I expect Slashdot to be more Science-friendly than the typical "OMG NUKULAR == BAD!" crowd. I am not for nuclear proliferation but that doesn't mean that we must AVOID finding practical uses for them.

    1. Re:FEAR NUCLEAR!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, dude, it's Obama we're talking about here.

      BTW: I thought the PATRIOT act would be repealed under the man. What happened there, ObamaBitches? You got screwed by the man yet again.

    2. Re:FEAR NUCLEAR!! by Mashiki · · Score: 0, Troll

      Half the people on /. are environuts, another part don't know the science and claim that they do. Don't expect it to change overnight as in the US they've had 30 odd years of anti-nuclear BS shoved down their throats by environmentalists who want the world back in the stone age.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:FEAR NUCLEAR!! by antigravity · · Score: 1

      Why not just freeze it? Supercooling + concrete.

    4. Re:FEAR NUCLEAR!! by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      For this, you'd need geophysicists and demolition eperts.
      Nuclear physicists will know how to make a bomb to explode, sure, but how will they know how to make it seal the leak instead of blowing up a mile-wide hole to the oil deposit?

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    5. Re:FEAR NUCLEAR!! by Mashiki · · Score: 0, Troll

      I see I struck a few nerves. Remember mods, there's a difference between trolling and telling the truth as it is; and the truth you don't want to hear.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  40. Nuclear option by HangingChad · · Score: 1

    Dust off and nuke the site from orbit.

    It's the only way to be sure.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:Nuclear option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some One had to say it!

  41. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by FuckingNickName · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Contrast this with South America, which is populated by 3 types of people: un-educated peasants, druglords, and warlords.

    Oh, at least 4! You're forgetting the resident agents of the appropriate US government department who've spent the past 50+ years trying to keep them that way.

  42. I'm not an expert but by BudAaron · · Score: 2, Informative

    I spent a number of years as part of a team testing nuclear devices. They could be used as Russia has done to cut this off but at a mile deep I'd be worried to death about the potential for unexpected side effects. It may be the only option we have given the current failures but the chance of a catastrophic failure is far more likely than the LHC producing a large black hole.

    1. Re:I'm not an expert but by gay358 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think that there are at least two things that might make using nuclear bomb difficult in this case:

      1) Water pressure is high because the sea is so deep. Ordinary nuclear device probably won't work at that kind of pressure and needs thick protective case, which makes the diameter of the bomb even larger.

      2) In order to prevent radioactive leak, the bomb should be detonated deep underground. But it is not easy to dig several hundreds of meters deep well, when the sea depth is 1.5 kilometers. They could use oil drilling equipment to do this, but even that would take some time and the diameter of the well might not be enough for the nuclear device.

    2. Re:I'm not an expert but by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      I'd be worried to death

      Um, so, keep worrying and you won't have to worry about posting any more? :)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    3. Re:I'm not an expert but by adbge · · Score: 1

      To be fair, most everything is more likely than the LHC producing a (catastrophic) black hole.

  43. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Spewns · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If we allow Venezuela

    Fuck off

    I'd like to apologize on behalf of the people in my country, the United States. We're extremely paranoid, uneducated, and religious, and our entire every day consists of being endlessly pummeled by sophisticated government and corporate public relations/propaganda, making us impressively easy to manipulate. We do indeed have the mindset that we (as a country) have an inherent, God-given right to allow or disallow Venezuela (or anyone else in the world, for that matter) to do anything, and there's no real sign that we'll cease acting on that mindset anytime soon.

  44. Re:Obama is a genius!!! by Z00L00K · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It may have a chance to work on land based situations, but it can also cause a major disaster.

    In the mexican gulf there is a lot of hydrocarbons dissolved into the water, and there is a risk that you can get this "mint in a soda" effect if you are unlucky. And on a gigantic scale. In worst case it can be a termination event. It may not be that, but there is still a risk of a tsunami and other nasty things to happen if things goes wrong. Imagine New Orleans and a large area along the south coast of the US drowned again...

    The fishing industry may be in deep trouble for decades due to this accident regardless.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  45. Are they really trying to plug it up? by zogger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Are they trying to plug the leak, or are they really trying to salvage the bore there and get back to pumping oil?

    The reason I ask is..why not a chernobyl style containment effort. Drop a 200 (whatever, hugemongous, the biggest they can move) ton solid concrete and steel cube on that thing, then add to it, until the leak totally stops. The first big chunk would smash the pipe flat, effectively sealing it.

    It has looked to me right along as more an effort to salvage what they did so far, not actually just plug it up.

    1. Re:Are they really trying to plug it up? by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

      Are they trying to plug the leak, or are they really trying to salvage the bore there and get back to pumping oil?

      They're trying to plug the leak. At the same time, there's another drilling platform nearby drilling another well, which will be used to take the pressure off and get back to pumping oil. But that will take months.

      Bear in mind that this is all going on a mile down. That's 160 atmospheres, and at that pressure, the water temperature is forced to 4C because that's the lowest density of water. Under those conditions, methane is a solid, and methane ice from escaping natural gas is clogging up the repair operation.

      Once the hole is plugged, or at least slowed down, it takes about four months to four years for natural processes to dispose of the oil. The heavy components like asphalt sink; the light ones like gasoline evaporate off. Fishing and tourism might suffer for a while, but that's not a big deal.

    2. Re:Are they really trying to plug it up? by auLucifer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Concrete of that size would take a hell of a long time to cure so isn't feasible. I remember watching the documentary about the Hoover damn and if they poured it all at once it'd take centuries and as it was the blocks they were pouring was taking days to cure with coolent running through the slabs. Plus concrete is brittle and pourous and there's no gaurantee it'll survive the 5000 feet descent.
      I think I'll leave the guessing to those that are smarter then I am and are employed to do it to fix the problem then throw out my own crazy ideas.

      --
      If I was witty I'd put something funny here but, as it stands, I am not and have just wasted seconds of your life
    3. Re:Are they really trying to plug it up? by John+Hasler · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      > Fishing and tourism might suffer for a while, but that's not a big deal.

      It isn't the world-ending catastrophe the greens are hoping for, but it's still a pretty serious mess.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    4. Re:Are they really trying to plug it up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what the fuck are you talking about. temperature forced to 4C? where the fuck does the energy go? or the entropy.

      there are a lot of things you can force with enough pressure, but temperature isn't one of them

      gb2statisticalphysicsclass

    5. Re:Are they really trying to plug it up? by khallow · · Score: 1

      what the fuck are you talking about. temperature forced to 4C? where the fuck does the energy go? or the entropy.

      That's the temperature at which water is densest. What it means is that unless there's a lot of heating, energy tends to be transferred from that layer to some layer above it simply because that is a lower energy state for the entire ocean (lower energy states are more likely in low temperature systems, which this is approximately).

    6. Re:Are they really trying to plug it up? by pongo000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fishing and tourism might suffer for a while, but that's not a big deal.

      Unless your family's livelihood depends upon fishing and tourism. Then it's a very big deal.

    7. Re:Are they really trying to plug it up? by adbge · · Score: 1

      The only reason that they haven't done this (that I think is realistic) is that the logistics of such are just not practical. Gathering something heavy enough, large enough, and that can survive at that depth might be very costly.

      This is of course just speculation, but perhaps it would be cheaper to use explosives to displace material already on the sea floor than to move a block of concrete to the location. Or maybe, as you suggest, they just aren't interested in plugging the leak.

    8. Re:Are they really trying to plug it up? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      That relief well is the only solution they have that will work.

      Everything else is just for show, since doing nothing for the months that will take is not something the public will accept.

      So they are doing all the things they know will fail just so it looks like they are doing something (other than the something that is the fix, but is slow wqhich they are quietly going about).

      Of course one of those hail marys might stick, you never know. I'd need really good odds to put money on it though.

    9. Re:Are they really trying to plug it up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Navy degaussing equipment used as heating coils.
      Philadelphia is your only concern. >:->

    10. Re:Are they really trying to plug it up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they trying to plug the leak, or are they really trying to salvage the bore there and get back to pumping oil?

      They're trying to plug the leak. At the same time, there's another drilling platform nearby drilling another well,
      which will be used to take the pressure off and get back to pumping oil. But that will take months.

      Bear in mind that this is all going on a mile down. That's 160 atmospheres, and at that pressure, the water temperature is forced to 4C because that's the lowest density of water. Under those conditions, methane is a solid, and methane ice from escaping natural gas is clogging up the repair operation.

      Once the hole is plugged, or at least slowed down, it takes about four months to four years for natural processes to dispose of the oil. The heavy components like asphalt sink; the light ones like gasoline evaporate off. Fishing and tourism might suffer for a while, but that's not a big deal.

      wow i didn't know gasoline was coming straight outta there too, i should take my boat...

    11. Re:Are they really trying to plug it up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a little surprised why they don't just cross drill into the pipe at intervals with self-tapping screws. Every "bump" in the road acts to increase velocity but drop volume passing, reducing psi; this is similar to putting your thumb over the end of a water hose, and overall acts as a dam to the pipe for anything downstream (bernoulli principle or something if I recall, I'm probably wrong though, it's the same reason why a vacuum siphon works). Further down the pipe (upstream), they can cross drill and dump material using a "hollow" screw, catching on the downstream drill sections, slowing flow.

      Unfortunately, all the major solutions they've tried so far are about them tackling the leak at once. For that, any solution they go for will be an all or nothing style--capture, smashing, nuking, clogging, crimping (that failed), dropping blocks. Because BP won't reveal volume estimates, it's difficult to say what the psi is on this; I've read 8,500psi and 15,000psi on 2 different news articles.

      Anyways, the point is all their solutions are like one small person trying to move a dead suv, by herself. Not going to happen. Give them time and a screwdriver and a reciprocating saw or hammer though, and that suv gets moved, just not how you thought.

      Of course, those pressure reports, if true, are so absurd, you're talking 2000 tons of pressure overall, so maybe the concern is whatever they crossdrill, the material will just rip right off or the tapping screw won't punch through or get pushed back. There's also the affect on the pipe; I don't know what thickness it is, just the diameter. But if hydraulic rams can't crimp it, it's gotta be a hell of a thick pipe and/or good material, so even cross drilling at the same level might be effective--5 cross drills, you get a lattice, one downstream larger bore, start dumping granite spheres, they'll catch on the upstream lattice.

      And yes, they do have hollow screws. I've made them for hobby work *because* I read about them in industry rags. The tip is solid, the back end is solid, the middle is structually sound with a space, the 3 are welded together (I use adhesive), and the inner door is magnet activated, but on something this size, a timer would work. They also have ones which screw into a hollow screw themselves and open up. Good for dump debris to be caught upstream. Hell, something similar came from NASA (that found commercial use to screw together stair handrails seamlessly). Any decent machinist could design and machine one in a couple of hours, much less the government and like the 4th largest multinational company like BP.

      3timespidoh

    12. Re:Are they really trying to plug it up? by awarrenfells · · Score: 1

      Not a big deal? I beg to differ sir. I live on the emerald coast not far from Pensacola, and it is a VERY big deal. Even if none of it makes it his far, which thus far very little has, just the threat alone is started to adversely affect businesses here as people [tourists, etc] decide not to come because of the "threat" of oil. Fishermen and shrimp boat captains all over the coast are suffering because they have been banned from going out into the waters to make their catch, and it is probably better than the alternative.

      You mean it is not a big deal to YOU, but it is certainly a big deal.

      So far we have been lucky that the winds have kept it mostly off shore [ though the wetlands in Louisiana are not quite as lucky] but dead sea animals are washing up on shore every day as the oil leak, oil off-gassing, and God knows what chemicals BP is dumping into the Gulf, changes the PH of the surrounding water.

      I hope no one likes shrimp, for I see a good spike in shrimp prices in the near future, and that is only one of many things I see coming down the pipe from all of this.

    13. Re:Are they really trying to plug it up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, if fishing in the gulf suffers, it's not big deal.

      In fact, lets get rid of all fishermen. And farmers. Then there won't be any food for people to eat, people will die, no one will be driving their cars, and there will be no need for oil.

      Problem solved!

  46. Re:Obama is a genius!!! by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Informative

    You have also a burning coal mine in the US that has forced at least one town, Centralia, PA to be more or less abandoned.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  47. Gamma Ray Imaging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Steven Chu's "nuclear" team is presumably following up on his suggestion that BP should use high-energy gamma-ray imaging to get a more precise picture of the leaking pipe. "Nuclear" doesn't always mean explosions...

  48. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sure whether insightful or funny was the warranted mod. There really should be a combined mod... "+1 Funnily Insightful" or something

  49. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Contrast this with South America, which is populated by 3 types of people: un-educated peasants, druglords, and warlords.

    Oh, at least 4! You're forgetting the resident agents of the appropriate US government department who've spent the past 50+ years trying to keep them that way.

    The warlords would include that set.

  50. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Antiocheian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is no shortage of examples of times when outside intervention is not only warranted, but should actually be mandatory.

    Yes, that's why I told you to fuck off. The Iraq civil war might have been prevented if bullies like you were convinced to fuck off instead of invading it for Windmills of Mass Destruction.

  51. Re:Obama is a genius!!! by thoughtfulbloke · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, if we use oil drillers to use nukes to stop an asteroid catastrophe, it only makes sense to bring in the nuclear scientists to deal with an out of control oil well.

  52. Ok, why? by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

    Yes I get that they're wicked smart, they're nuclear physcists and all. However since probably none of that is applicable what does having a bunch of super smart newbies get you? (I'd rather have one smart guy with relevant experience than a bunch of geniuses who are trying to learn it while they're working.)

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  53. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Compuser · · Score: 1

    2 (http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/ww2time.htm)
    1 (http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/1092.cfm)

    What's my prize?

  54. MOAB is a fuel-air bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    using it under water doesn't sound too effective.

  55. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Oh, there should have been intervention long before Germany invaded Poland. If action had been taken right after Hitler crossed the Rhine, as had been agreed, Germany never would have invaded Poland to begin with. It was allowed in the name of maintaining peace, but peace never belongs to cowards. It takes courage, vigilance, and bravery.

    --
    Qxe4
  56. Chu - Gamma ray imaging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the early successes of this scheme was the use of gamma ray imaging to find the state of the stuck valve. That was suggested by Secretary Chu himself (he is a Nobel laureate experimental physicist and knows a thing or two about gamma rays). The BP guys said it wouldn't work, but did it anyway and it worked. I think I'd be sending NASA folks rather than nuke folks but it's clear there are smart nerds in the government with something to contribute.

    The article about the gamma ray operation on The Atlantic.

  57. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by linzeal · · Score: 1

    We no longer have to invade a country anymore to change its politics, that has been true since WWII. Saddam made the invasion of Iraq inevitable after he showed that he was prone to invading neighboring countries in the region and threatened to upset decades of hegemony that have allowed the US, Europe and China access to the largest energy market on the planet.

    Force and Force Multipliers we have at our disposal include assassination and agitprop, automated air strikes are new but somewhat effective. Socioeconomic options are also available including economic and political sanctions, price manipulation of their export commodities and turning their friends against them on the world stage for trivial and substantial policy matters.

    If Saddam or one of his sons were still in power, there would no civil war because he would still be using state power to crush any opposition i.e. totalitarianism. This is a man who wasted the lives of millions of his own people as well as killed millions of Iranians, 10's of thousands of Kuwaitis and would never of stopped unless the US or some outside power overthrew his government. What is happening now in Iraq is a tragedy of epic proportions but it does not address the reality that Iraq led under Hussein would of eventually been over run by either the US, Saudi Arabia or Iran because he was destabilizing the whole region. Worse than that if he had restarted his program for WMD he had running before 1991 than Israel could of started a regional conflict by attacking him. Do you think the Saudis or the Iranians would of made better occupiers because there was no way that the Hussein regime would be allowed to remain in power after he attacked Kuwait.

  58. Terribly inaccurate - team is multidisciplinary. by Shag · · Score: 5, Informative

    As a far better article over at PopSci notes, the team includes a variety of physicists and engineers, only two of whom have done anything in the nuclear field.

    While Richard Garwin did design the first proof-of-concept H-bomb way back in 1951, he spent most of his career at IBM, and held a symposium after the first Gulf War on how to close all those burning oil wells in Kuwait.

    And although Tom Hunter has a couple degrees in nuclear engineering and is (until he retires in July) director of Sandia National Lab, his strengths appear to be more in the area of managing "big science" these days.

    George Cooper, Alexander Slocum and Jonathan I Katz, though? Not nuke guys.

    --
    Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
  59. IDK it worked for the russians 4 out of 5 times... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just food for thought....

  60. You are talking to a Fabian by linzeal · · Score: 1

    I have no problem with communism as I am a socialist albeit more of a Fabian than a fan of Marx, but I do have a substantial problem with totalitarianism. Force and Political Will is what is needed in dealing with any regime that would usurp the will of the people for the will of a single party or worse a single individual, no matter how charismatic he may be or how much of the population they claim to represent.

    An open society is one in which one can have political change without violence. Once the threshold has been crossed and a country engages itself in methodologies, machinations or outright mechanized force against dissent it is the responsibility of all mankind but esp those who would claim the banner of human and civil liberties to confront them online, at home and if needed in the streets.

  61. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by linzeal · · Score: 1

    You must be benefiting but millions of your countrymen are still disenfranchised through his comically inept and violent rule .

  62. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    declared war, sure...
    no military activity followed the declaration for months though.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  63. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This should not be modded flamebait, kdawson is pushing his opinion into the main post rather than in a comment like everyone else. Clearly, he's a biased editor, this isn't a discussion, it's a fact. You can not, BY DEFINITION, put your opinion into an article and NOT be biased.

    Anyway, why shouldn't we use the nuclear option to control the oil leak? This is an ENGINEERING problem, not a fucking moral one. Let the engineers decide of a nuclear bomb would best control the oil leak.

    Nonsense statements like "nuclear weapons are always bad" don't help anyone. According to the previous article on slashdot the Russians have used nuclear blasts five times to control things like this with an 80% success rate. Obviously, there are risks and problems, just like there are with every option. If the ENGINEERS (not idiots that think "nuclear ANYTHING is ALWAYS bad") decide that a nuclear blast is the best option then we should go for it.

    Tell me, kdawson, where did you get your degree in nuclear engineering? You don't have one? Well then how about your degree in environmental engineering? No? Then how can you say that the nuclear option is a bad idea before trained scientists that actually know what they're doing have even evaluated the situation?

    --
    -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
  64. Re:Obama is a genius!!! by ae1294 · · Score: 1

    You have also a burning coal mine in the US that has forced at least one town, Centralia, PA to be more or less abandoned.

    NO! the town you're thinking of was called Silent Hill, duh... ;-)

  65. Re:Terribly inaccurate - team is multidisciplinary by wholestrawpenny · · Score: 1

    Of course, leave it to kdawson to sensationalize it. Too good to check the facts, you see :).

  66. Why do we need nuclear physicists? by dhollist · · Score: 1

    If the cold temperatures and static pressure caused the containment dome's outlet to plug, why not use liquid nitrogen to cool the leaking wellhead to cause it to plug with hydrates? From the CBC website: ... a "large volume of hydrates," material similar to ice crystals, has formed inside the box, Suttles said Saturday. The hydrates — which are formed when gas combines with water under certain pressure and temperatures — have plugged an area at the top of the dome's interior.

    1. Re:Why do we need nuclear physicists? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      "Nuclear" physicists distracts people from the blow-out preventer, extra shut-off question and why the industry lobbied against them in the USA.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Why do we need nuclear physicists? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget about not requiring a relief well.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    3. Re:Why do we need nuclear physicists? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      When liquid nitrogen boils it would expand to 700 times it's size, also the oil moves very quickly and under immense pressure (which is why it's so hard to plug to begin with). Pouring liquid nitrogen down the well head would likely result in simply slightly cooler oil coming out the top.

    4. Re:Why do we need nuclear physicists? by dhollist · · Score: 1

      I wasn't suggesting injecting liquid nitrogen into the well, but rather cooling the wellhead with it in to facilitate the formation of the same hydrate crystals that plugged the containment dome. I know there's a large flow rate of crude oil through the "pipe" but media reports indicate that it's already highly viscous due to the low temperatures at that depth. It doesn't seem beyond the capabilities of the nation that put men on the moon to deliver a sufficient quantity of liquid nitrogen to slow, then stop the flow of oil through the wellhead.

    5. Re:Why do we need nuclear physicists? by Hartree · · Score: 1

      "Why do we need nuclear physicists?"

      Because they know more physics than you do.

      (Sorry, but you left yourself wide open for that one. :)

      To cool the pipe and contents as you say, you have to move a lot of heat. Liquid nitrogen is good for cooling things to very low temperatures, but it doesn't have as high a heat capacity as a lot of other coolants. It also is limited in how much heat it can remove quickly by the Leydenfrost effect. It tends to form a sheathing blanket of nitrogen gas around what it's cooling. Thats why when a group I worked with was trying to vitrify water to study its electrical properties, we used liquid argon instead which doesn't do that as much.

      Now, you either have to send down a very large tank of LN, or pipe it from the surface. If you pipe it down, you've got a mile or so of piping that you have to send it through surrounded by lots of water at a much higher temperature. That means you have to make the pipes very good insulators, like Dewar type vacumn insulation surrounding with an air space and something waterproof. Getting together a mile or more of that would take more than a bit of time.

      For sending down a tank of LN, the amount needed would be pretty substantial. you've got a 21 inch well pipe spewing as much as 210,000-1,100,000 gallons per day (estimate from wikipedia). That fluid is an oil methane and water mix that likely has a much higher heat capacity than than the LN. It's also being replaced constantly with equally warm fluid from below until you actually get it frozen for some way down the pipe. And, it's moving quite fast. (Beginning to see the problem? Ever notice how fast moving rivers tend not to freeze easily in winter? The fluid was moving slower where it froze.)

      You'd have to use prohibitively large amounts of LN to freeze it, and you'd have a research project just getting the design right and testing it before you spent millions on harware that would take a looong time to have custom made.

      Other coolants would be better than LN, but still I think it's not going to be all that easy.

      Just because it worked in Terminator 2 doesn't mean it's a good option in real life. There are better ways to stop it.

      There's one obvious way that BP has avoided. Cutting the drill pipe just above the blowout preventer and using off the shelf well control hardware to attach a valve body to it. Once the valve body is in place, you can close it off. One of the several problems with that is, if it fails you're left with a massively greater flow rate of oil. Another is the lack of dexterity of the robot manipulators they're using. I have little knowledge of welding and cutting at that depth, but I'd guess it's not straightforward.

      BP is trying things that won't make the spill rate radically worse. There may come a point where they have to change that strategy.

  67. Re:Obama is a genius!!! by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

    Sure, I'm very much aware of Centralia, and have been near there on more than one occasion. I didn't mention it because the mine fire at Centralia was the result of negligence (kind of like the BP oil spill really...), not the result of engineers trying to fix something.

    If you are trying to point out that the US fucks shit up as well as the Russians, then sure, that'd be a great example. I was only trying to point out that sometimes the Russians don't think their "fixes" through.

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  68. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Incubusxp · · Score: 0, Troll

    benefiting? Im a collegue student, with a minimum wage job at an electronic store. I do lots of volunteer job's with a lot of movements of our glorius revolution helping a lot of people in need. Like i always say, dont talk abot my country if you dont live in it. dissentmagazine is imperial propaganda, paid by US ONG's and CIA or whatever organization is behind the curtains of the USA goverment.

  69. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by InfoJunkie777 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    God bless the USDIA and their evil overlords the CIA plus the DEA who keeps the warlords in business.

    --
    Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin. -- Robert A. Heinlein
  70. Re:IDK it worked for the russians 4 out of 5 times by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Soviets viewed 4 out of 5 of their citizens as disposable too.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  71. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by adbge · · Score: 1

    The point of the GP is that Britain/Poland/ETC should have declared war on Germany earlier (during the invasion of the sudetenland, for example). Essentially, you're saying Britain should not have preemptively struck Hitler, which (considering hindsight) is asinine.

  72. Re:Terribly inaccurate - team is multidisciplinary by Thing+1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    George Cooper, Alexander Slocum and Jonathan I Katz, though? Not nuke guys.

    Wait, what? No, really? He's back?

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  73. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Saddam made the invasion of Iraq inevitable after he asked permission from the US to invade Kuwait and was told "no problem" by Bush I

    Fixed that for you.

  74. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by linzeal · · Score: 1

    Cite source and verse.

  75. re Nuclear by freddieb · · Score: 1

    I was wondering if that might work..ie nuke it...assuming the blast would liquefy the rock and seal the leak. Or maybe pump a couple of tons of concrete into the area. The temperature may be too cold for concrete.

  76. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by linzeal · · Score: 0, Troll

    You don't even begin to speak for me, I'm an eclectic not ecclesiastical political realist; people that apologize for other people suffer from either delusions of grandeur, Jerusalem syndrome or some other deep-seated messiah complex. I believe you are the more likely of us to hold to some religious belief, watch scrolling news networks and buy products based upon exposure to wantonly egregious displays of craven consumerism synchronized to the beats of your favorite popular music band. Yeah, I'm solidly against allowing a country to slip into the shackles of slavery because their version of the populist pied piper deposed a more hated regime.

    En Garde, motherfucker.

  77. The Japanese found underwater nukes were very bad by TarPitt · · Score: 1
    --
    If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
  78. It Came from the White House by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Officials at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have identified a new contagion from the oil-spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The new contagion has the potential to rid the planet of Republicans. Obama has ordered the US Army Disease Development Labs to Weaponize the new contagion. However, a variant of the contagion has now been identified, which targets the Chief Executive. Barak Hussain Obama. Fearing the worst, Obama, together with officials from Treasury, Justice and Defense have a plan in place to halt the contagion from the Gulf of Mexico.

    First, a 200 mile wide boarder zone facing the Gulf is being enacted. All people within the border zone will be exterminated. The zone included all of Florida, parts of Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas in the US, and much of Mexico and all of Cuba. except the eastern end of the island. Banks within the zone and Cities affected are being contacted by officials of Treasure and Justice. Bank accounts and all monetary instruments are being transfered to ownership of Barak Hussain Obama. Bank officials have been warned not to divulge information regarding ownership transfers by the Secret Service on orders to commit Assassination of reluctant bank officials and those noncompliant by Barak Hussian Obama. All monetary instrument transfers will be carried out by the Internal Revenue Service, on orders from Barak Hussain Obama.

    Elements of the US Army are beginning forward-deployed to parts of Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas with munitions and fuel supplies. The US Air Force High-Altitude High-Energy Battle Laser (HAHEB) platform is being readied at Kirkland AFB in New Mexico. The US Air Force Strategic Defense Command is taking charge of targeting and assault operations on all affected cites.

    The "Cleansing" operations called "Operation Bright Light" will commence with a strategic nuclear missile attach on Mexico City, Mexican Political and Military Officials, Havana, and all Cuban Political and Military Officials. This will be followed by a cleansing of all US cities in the affected zone, including ops against States Officials and National Guards. Following this, the US Air Force will launch Operation Glass Earth, using their HAHEB to incinerate the 200 mile zone producing a 1-inch layer of silicate glass from the heat of the laser throughout the zone. With successful completion of the operation, President Barak Hussain Obama will have achieved the extermination of at least 25 million human beings.

    While operations are ongoing, President Obama will contact foreign leaders to announce the emergence of Empire America, wherein President Barak Hussain Obama outlaws the US Congress and US Federal Courts System, establishing himself as Emperor, The Immortal Sovereignty over All Human Beings. As example of his Supreme Ssovereignty, Emperor Barak Hussain Obama I calls to the White House, the Ambassadors of all Foreign Powers, In front of Live Video Feeds, He, Emperor I, orders the killing of all Foreign Ambassadors. As with the killing, Emperor I, Barak Hussain Obama, dictates, "This is Empire America ... I ... am Emperor." And with those words, a darkness descends upon the peoples of the Earth.

  79. The better nuclear option by wiredlogic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Obama should just issue an executive order dissolving the corporate charters of Transocean and the US subsidiaries of BP using his authority to protect our territorial waters.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  80. Re:Obama is a genius!!! by LBt1st · · Score: 1

    As long as it doesn't turn into another Bravo incident I have no problem with them nuking it. It wouldn't take a large blast and no one has more experience with bombs then the US. The fallout would probably be less damaging then the oil has already done.
    This is coming from someone living on the west coast of FL.

  81. How big will be the damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take a look at this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsD0FDLOKGA

    The damages to the ecosystem might be irreparable and of unimaginable consequences.

    Really sad, indeed.

  82. You can't blame them by Asaf.Zamir · · Score: 1

    You can't blame the oil companies, it's not like they have the funds to deal with catastrophes .. "Oh bob, it's ok, it's a 50$ bill.. we use it as toilet paper.. just like the citizens"

  83. ...and so it begins... Crack in the World! by dirtydog · · Score: 1

    All this talk of dropping nukes in places where we can't really predict the outcome inspired me to look up a movie I watched as a kid.

    http://blackholereviews.blogspot.com/2008/04/crack-in-world-1965-apocalypse-back.html

    In the end, the rodents always win...

  84. The final solution by falken0905 · · Score: 1

    Cobalt Thorium-G

  85. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Antiocheian · · Score: 1

    We no longer have to invade a country anymore to change its politics

    No problem then. If you are going to ask a country politely for "Regime Change" it's all fine.

  86. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Araxen · · Score: 1

    Faux News told kdawson that the nuclear option is bad I bet.

    It's not like an uninhabitable part of the Gulf is going to become even more uninhabitable because we use a small nuke there. Whatever gets that leak closes ASAP is what I am for and so should everybody else.

  87. Re:Terribly inaccurate - team is multidisciplinary by shiftless · · Score: 1

    I hear the government keeps certain "dead" persons in cryogenic storage, to be revived in case of emergency or time of great need I suppose..

  88. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by tobiah · · Score: 1

    Anyway, why shouldn't we use the nuclear option to control the oil leak?

    Time for ocean to recover from leak: 100-200 years.

    Half life of Plutonium-239: 24,000 years.

    --
    "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
  89. Radioactive Oil Spill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, if they blow it up with a nuke, we will have radioactive oil spilling all over the place. (instead of regular oil, which is already bad enough)

    As far as I understand the situation, the problem with the hole is that the oil pours out with high pressure from below. Like pinching a needle into a balloon, or something. So, just dropping heavy stuff on top of it will not really stop it, unless it really seals off the high pressure.

    And blowing it up (with a nuke) might just worsen the situation even more.

  90. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Cantus · · Score: 1

    Contrast this with South America, which is populated by 3 types of people: un-educated peasants, druglords, and warlords.

    Wow, the sheer ignorance of your comment is frightening, although not that surprising.

  91. Re:Terribly inaccurate - team is multidisciplinary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -Looming threat to the planet
    -Drilling
    -Nuclear Warheads

    Why isn't Bruce Willis on the list?

  92. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by WNight · · Score: 1

    If we'd sent peace-keepers to Afghanistan back in the 90s we might not be at war there now. And, having found ourselves 90% of the way into Iraq the first time we should have taken Saddam with us, when the Iraqis and the rest of the world agreed.

    Too timid is almost as bad as too aggressive. Dictators are like spousal abusers - not someone you can leave in control of innocents.

    The problem is that the USA has a record of removing governments for profit and expedience, not the bad ones. But that doesn't mean all intervention is bad.

  93. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by WNight · · Score: 1

    he was destabilizing the whole region

    That's the problem, the only concern was destabilization. If he'd made the oil-tankers flow on time we'd have let him come up with some cultural excuse to invade anyone.

    We really need to have a zero-tolerance policy on dictators/abusive governments.

    Of course, by any rational standard (war crimes, etc) ours fails...

  94. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

    50%. Decades of FARC border skirmishes and difficult diplomacy after the US installs military bases in Colombia to "help in the fight against rebels and drug traffickers" (uhuh) != Chavez invading Colombia.

    Yes, Venezuela is more sympathetic toward FARC than the US, pointing out the hypocrisy of labelling them terrorists and negotiating for release of hostages rather than "hurr bomb them all!". In similar logic, the US invaded England because it did nothing about American support for the Provisional IRA and Clinton helped push the Good Friday agreements.

  95. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

    Hindsight's always about how obvious it is that the evil foetus should have been aborted in the first trimester, isn't it?

  96. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by WNight · · Score: 1

    U.S. Ambassador in Iraq, April Glaspie: [The USA] has no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts.
    It's tenuous to call it permission, but Saddam may have seen it as such - after all, who wouldn't have an opinion on a thing they didn't want you to do?

  97. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Contrast this with South America, which is populated by 3 types of people: un-educated peasants, druglords, and warlords.

    I guess that you are an "un-educated" peasant of somewhere else.

  98. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

    Now it could be argued that Britain/France "could have done more" during the Phoney War - I mean, things go really well and quick when you roll in with all guns blazing, as US in Afghanistan and Iraq - but you're wrong. To give some examples:

    1. The French Saar offensive began on 7 September.
    2. HMS Courageous was sunk on 17 September.
    3. The Luftwaffe attacked warships in Scotland from 16 October, with casualties on both sides.

  99. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

    Hindsight cannot rationally be considered in deciding whether some decision was asinine. A fool is someone who ignores or misjudges available data rather than data which does not exist.

    I know it's easy as an American in 2010 to think that war is something which happens "over there" with buttons and rockets, but when your (France, Britain) population has been through the Great War not 20 years before, of course you want to avoid war again. Better to ask: how would Europe have developed through the 20th century if its countries were as trigger-happy as your idea of hindsight would want them to be? If, at each opportunity for war, they'd forgotten how horrible it was the previous time?

  100. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by linzeal · · Score: 1

    We put him in power in the first place, we just did nit realize how hard it would be to dislodge him once we did.

  101. Lessons are NOT learned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Faster , Quicker, Cheaper, and deny everything in case of trouble is still the motto.

    And they are still silent on why the BOP is jammed - or was it defective to begin with?
    Reports claim there was no warning before the boom - something else not working?
    The BOP, note, was the only safety. No secondary backup - whoops.

    Lets See. A number of rigs have sunk. Lowish risk. Amount of people being blown up acceptable.
    Would they 'graft' onto the pipe something to plug it for a 1 in 100,000 event?
    Will Obama say, right, you gotta install several stoppers in case one should fail or in case the rig sinks. They did not have sufficient booms/ and whatever in case of a leak.

    Conclusion: After this, extra backups and fallbacks need to be added in law. No more slap happy
    drilling with a 'nah - not needed' mentality.

  102. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    If you don't like the WWII example, then feel free to use one of the thousands of others. Darfur for instance.

    You still have to come up with one that's even remotely relevant. Last I checked, there isn't an ongoing or planned genocide in Venezuela.

  103. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I'm solidly against allowing a country to slip into the shackles of slavery because their version of the populist pied piper deposed a more hated regime.

    What, precisely, do you propose, considering the widespread popular support Chavez and his policies enjoy in his country?

  104. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "Time for ocean to recover from leak: 100-200 years.

    Half life of Plutonium-239: 24,000 years."

    Making up numbers: priceless.

  105. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by linzeal · · Score: 1

    Agitprop and sabatoge.

  106. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's plenty of propaganda coming out of U.S., but it doesn't seem to be working. Most likely because a great deal of it is very American-centric, and assumes core values that are to the right of most people outside of U.S.

    And sabotage? Seriously? What are you proposing, blowing up factories so that the evil socialism couldn't possibly succeed?

  107. Arming Iran? by mangu · · Score: 1

    Not to mention arming Iran.

    The US arming Iran stopped when the Ayatollah came into power. The last US president who sold weapons to Iran was Carter.

    The US did give military support to the mujahideen in Afghanistan, but those are the only Muslim militants that got weapns from the USA.

    "End the Cold War" you say? No, he just transformed it into the Forever War on Terror.

    This came 13 years after Reagan left the US presidency.

    1. Re:Arming Iran? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The last US president who sold weapons to Iran was Carter.

      Reagan didn't sell weapons to Iran, he gave then to Iran, trading for hostages.

      Of course, the deal involved asking Iran to hang on to those hostages until Reagan could be safely elected president.

      On the great anime Boondocks, little Huey Freeman likes to say "Ronald Reagan is the Devil".

      It's the truth.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  108. Underwater nukes by mangu · · Score: 1

    Any engineer is free to make a 30 second correction telling me why I'm wrong here...

    I'm an engineer. Underwater nuclear explosions have been done before. As a matter of fact, some of the first nuclear tests after WWII were done underwater. Look here

    Notice how the water rises as an almost perfect vertical cylinder (and lifting ships vertically). That will not cause a tidal wave.

    There are numerous reasons why a nuclear blast would *not* be a solution for this oil leak, but the danger of tidal waves is not one of them.

  109. america uber alles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why cannot your americans do anything without bashing your enemies iran or venezuela?

  110. shaped by zogger · · Score: 1

    I read some speculation elsewhere about using two very small shaped charges, opposite sides of the pipe, to smash it flat. Pinch it closed in other words. Supposedly it wouldn't take much either.

    Yes, it just looks to me like they are claiming to want to plug the leak for public consumption, but their efforts look way more like trying to salvage the pipe and get it working again.

  111. Re:Obama is a genius!!! by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

    I'd imagine that you'd use a small enough bomb that the deposit of hydrocarbons, which are still under a substantial amount of rock below the ocean floor, would be unaffected.

  112. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Answers:

    Britain declared war on Germany 2 days after the German invasion of Poland (on 3 September 1939)

    Venezuela has invaded 0 allies of the US (as far as I am aware they have not invaded any countries at all).

  113. Freeze it by currently_awake · · Score: 1

    Spray the well head/pipe with liquid nitrogen and freeze the oil. It's not a permanent solution, but it'll buy you time.

  114. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But Colombia - with US live intel (and the HW / HR it pressuposes) - did invade Equador. And has carried out over-border ops in Venezuela. To catch (PR) terrorrists.

    I'd be pissed off myself. Popularly enfranchised Dictator or not.

    That is suspiciously akin to the pre-WWII Poland excuse.

  115. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you mean...
    Oil rigs, perhaps ? And seducing corruptible oil admins with (crony micro-middle-class) aristocratic delusions ?

    Really, now.

    That would *never* work. Not in L.A. :D

  116. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Stone2065 · · Score: 1

    I hear ya, and you're also missing another use for small nukes... mining. Using a pocket nuke to blast loose a bunch of granite is an acceptable use for nukes as well, without the news being blasted about "oh my god!!! We're heading for nuclear winter!!! Oh the carnage!!!" etc...

    --
    Stone
  117. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This post is a wonderful example of grammatic incompetence leading to a simplistic, self-absorbed world view.

  118. Risks and benefits? by Raven_Stark · · Score: 1

    Assuming anyone is really considering the nuclear option, do we even have enough data to do a reasonably accurate risk-benefit analysis? For instance, can we really know that a nuke will not fracture the rock and allow oil and gas to continue to spew, but now from hundreds of unsealable places? What was the failure mode for the Russian's use of the bomb technique? Unless there is excellent data that says to a very high degree of certainty that the nuclear option is less risky than letting the damn thing leak for another two months, I can't see using it.

    Of course, after reading TFA, it looks like this is yet more political FUD from Slashdot. When are kdawson and timothy going to be fired? As best as I can tell, they are both paranoid nitwits with political agendas and a severe lack of nerdhood and it shows in their work.

    --
    http://www.marxist.com/
  119. Create more leaks? by KingTank · · Score: 1

    Sounds to me like using a nuke would create a risk of causing fractures in the sea bed that would release even more oil from different locations. I'm surprised this idea hasn't gotten much attention http://www.fastcompany.com/1646820/could-the-gulf-oil-spill-could-cleaned-up-by-supertankers. Although its just a cleanup idea that wouldn't stop the leak.

  120. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    It was pretty clear what Hitler was trying to do. Hitler broke multiple peace treaties, and lied many times. There was no excuse for letting him get away with all that they did.

    --
    Qxe4
  121. crimp by zogger · · Score: 1

    Crimping the pipe seems a good idea, that's why I brought up that idea I had read about using two shaped charges on the pipe. They can make shaped charges stronger than their hydraulic crimpers, that's just adding more kaboom. They must know the pipe specs internally, so I would imagine any decent UDT guy could design the charges.

    And that is exactly why I think they are trying to salvage the pipe, and not just stop the flow. The PR disaster if they admitted that would be terrible, so instead they are trying the salvage operation, but keep maintaining they want to stop the flow. Sure they want to stop it..and eventually open it back up again. That's two distinctly different goals. Seems if they had a *permanent* stop in mind, it would be loads easier, several techniques would or could work, the shaped charge crimping, or my idea of just a huge big heavy plug smack dab on top of the thing, then add to it. Or both, the crimping first, then the big mambo kahuna weight on top of it.

    OK, I just checked, the largest ocean going crane can move 14,200 tons! That's a hella large plug to drop on something 21 inches in diameter, I don't care what pressure that flow is at, something that hugemongous is gonna smash it way down to bedrock. As to what to use, any old random used bulk tank. Fill it with scrap concrete chunks, put a little wet around that to fill it out, weld it shut again, add some lift points, drop that sucker right over that pipe. They could tow it out to the scene empty or almost empty, fill it up over the target, then drop it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saipem_7000

  122. Re:Terribly inaccurate - team is multidisciplinary by MokuMokuRyoushi · · Score: 0

    Why the hell haven't they defrosted Powers yet then?!

    --
    Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
  123. Where's the NR-2 ? by speedlaw · · Score: 1

    So, if we all get our info from BP, at least all the public info.... The US has black assets that go down that far, and can work at that depth. A spy sub isn't set up to fix oil leaks, but can't we at least use it to get some NON BP info ? I doubt it would give away strategic info as commercial devices are already there. At least someone would have an idea of the real output....which I doubt we are getting from Bonus Pollution.

  124. i totally get it by shnull · · Score: 1

    Beter risking blowing the planet into deep space than to have a world without oil, right ? Very shortighted, very ego-maniacal ... very homo sapien ... i's about time they got extinct anyway ...

    --
    beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
  125. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    Look. From a Pole's viewpoint it really sounds like explanation of a blonde who totalled a car against a wall and claims "But I was honking!"

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2