Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Obama Sends Nuclear Experts To Tackle BP Oil Spill

Posted by kdawson on from the step-aside dept.

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."

6 of 389 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    2. 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
    3. 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.
  2. 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.

  3. 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.