|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Nuke it? |
| Yes |
|
35% |
[ 7 ] |
| No |
|
65% |
[ 13 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 20 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Jandar
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 1:14 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
(BP) rep Randy Prescott made a comment,
"Louisana isn't the only place that has shrimp."
His office number is (713)323-4093
His email is [email protected].
Give him a call or send an email. Tell him
"BP isn't the only place that has fuel either!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sounds very very dangerous. What happens if it doesn't close it? Right now they have a structure that they can work with. After a nuclear explosion no structures just oil gushing out of a crevice. The Russians have only tried it on natural gas which is very different from oil and it was on the surface. No way are they going to use nuclear weapons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 2:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kotakji wrote: |
| While its generally a good thing that nuclear weapons have a strong stigma attached to them, it does result in the general populace thinking that the radiation effects of a nuke are far more terrible than in reality. The vast majority of dangerous radiation exposure comes from immediate burst exposure. Besides for the plan to work, I believe the nuke has to be buried underneath the seabed. |
This is true. Awhile back I downloaded the official "Nuclear War Survival Skills" guide (just for kicks), and was surprised to learn that fallout is nowhere near as devastating as most people think. The main problem is the gamma radiation if you are near the main blast - it can penetrate most thin barriers. But alpha and beta radiation are easier to guard against. Not to say that a nuclear war would be a picnic or anything, but the such extreme fictional accounts like On the Beach are quite unlikely.
In the case of an underwater nuke in the middle of the ocean the effects of electromagnetic radiation would be nil. Particulate radiation would be a slight concern (ie. contaminating the food chain), but a single explosion would basically be negligible (it's not like they'd be using a 'dirty bomb').
| Quote: |
| The real problem with a nuclear solution that I've heard is that there is a chance (perhaps small) that it might just crack the whole thing open and make it worse. |
Anyway, yeah this is the main problem. Probably not a great idea... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Btw, I wonder if this sort of thing ever happens naturally. I mean, oil is a highly abundant natural substance, so surely it has leaked out in the ocean on its own at times? (like after an earthquake). This is obviously an unfortunate thing to happen right in the Gulf of Mexico so close to home, but is it really such a huge "cataclysm" as the media is painting it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Btw, I wonder if this sort of thing ever happens naturally. I mean, oil is a highly abundant natural substance, so surely it has leaked out in the ocean on its own at times? (like after an earthquake). This is obviously an unfortunate thing to happen right in the Gulf of Mexico so close to home, but is it really such a huge "cataclysm" as the media is painting it? |
yes, there are (or were) places where oil has leaked out naturally. It just hasn't leaked out at this level.
I'm also surprised no one has brought up Alaska. How is the area that was damaged by the Valdez incident these days? Is it still ruined? Or back to normal? I personally have no idea. You'd think someone in the media would get a clue and do a story on that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| but is it really such a huge "cataclysm" as the media is painting it? |
I was waiting for you to chime in.
Yes, its a terrible disaster ...which if you would know if you knew the bare basics of ecology .
Who are you quoting when you say "cataclysm" exactly, or did you just make that up?
| BucheonBum wrote: |
| How is the area that was damaged by the Valdez incident these days? |
I read something about that recently. Of the larger species that were present in the affected area originally, some have returned while others have never recovered. The oil is still there, its just sunk or buried below the surface of the sand. Which means it is still hindering the life of a host of micro-organisms which are the foundation of the food chain. Scientists guess that it will take several more decades for the area to fully recover.
But lets remember that Exxon Valdez was a much smaller and more localised disaster than what we're dealing with @ deepwater horizon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Btw, I wonder if this sort of thing ever happens naturally. I mean, oil is a highly abundant natural substance, so surely it has leaked out in the ocean on its own at times? (like after an earthquake). This is obviously an unfortunate thing to happen right in the Gulf of Mexico so close to home, but is it really such a huge "cataclysm" as the media is painting it? |
yes, there are (or were) places where oil has leaked out naturally. It just hasn't leaked out at this level. |
Is this true? Maybe it hasn't leaked out at this level (and this close to shore) in recent history, but we haven't been drilling for oil for long. There's such a natural abundance of oil in the world that I find it hard to believe it hasn't happened before naturally. Basically what I'm wondering is how long it takes for all the effects to go away: 20-30 years? 100 years? Surely it's not the end of the world though (and I say this not as an apologist for BP, but simply because I'd like to get it into perspective and know what the future holds).
| Quote: |
| I'm also surprised no one has brought up Alaska. How is the area that was damaged by the Valdez incident these days? Is it still ruined? Or back to normal? I personally have no idea. You'd think someone in the media would get a clue and do a story on that. |
I'd also like to know about this (from experts, not someone like nautilus). As I understand it, the oil is still contaminating the area to this day. However, it is not a dead zone. I think most of the damage happens during the main spill, which pretty much wipes everything out, but then it bounces back after a few years. However, the toxic hydrocarbons continue to linger and can negatively impact fisheries etc. The only thing I'm not sure of is for how long.
Keep in mind that oil is toxic to most life, but it's still an abundant, natural substance and breaks down - it's not like nuclear waste. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
Keep in mind that oil is toxic to most life, but it's still an abundant, natural substance and breaks down - it's not like nuclear waste. |
True, but for the most part petroleum requires an organic process to break down quickly. Polycarbons have very strong bonds and mere salt water will do very little to catalyze its decomposition. Even over time, the polycarbons will break down into smaller polycarbons, many of which may remain toxic to the microorganisms likely to encounter them.
I think nautilus, for the most part, has made a fair assessment: Larger organisms will return first, but without the smaller organisms forming the base of the ecosystem recovery will be slow.
I've been reading and hearing a lot about people having an emotional reaction to the oil spill. People seem to be genuinely freaking out about this, even if they've never been to the Gulf nor ever plan to.
But this is a consequence of our level of industrialization. A peaceful, safe, mutually survivable co-existence between man and his technology and nature is a very perilous endeavor. One cannot walk that line by theory alone. These are the experiences we must endure and accept as normal if we are to consume in such great volume our natural resources.
To seek to mitigate these risks is noble. To believe these risks preventable in order to justify one's consumption is naive and counterproductive. Expect more spills and leaks in the future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| To seek to mitigate these risks is noble. To believe these risks preventable in order to justify one's consumption is naive and counterproductive. Expect more spills and leaks in the future. |
It happens on a very frequent basis in the Niger Delta. No one says anything (besides the rebels there) because, well, who cares about West Africa? Sad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Quote: |
| To seek to mitigate these risks is noble. To believe these risks preventable in order to justify one's consumption is naive and counterproductive. Expect more spills and leaks in the future. |
It happens on a very frequent basis in the Niger Delta. No one says anything (besides the rebels there) because, well, who cares about West Africa? Sad. |
Such circumstances are indeed unfortunate. But what incentive do they have (or, to a different extent, we) to increase their investment in the wells while still expecting the same return?
We are fortunate in America that such affairs are as rare as they are. Ultimately, the best we can do to mitigate similar events in the future is to petition the government for better regulators. The regulations themselves exist, but what of the regulators?
The stories of drugs, women, and cash for regulators and agency enforcers are numerous.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| .38 Special wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Keep in mind that oil is toxic to most life, but it's still an abundant, natural substance and breaks down - it's not like nuclear waste. |
True, but for the most part petroleum requires an organic process to break down quickly. Polycarbons have very strong bonds and mere salt water will do very little to catalyze its decomposition. Even over time, the polycarbons will break down into smaller polycarbons, many of which may remain toxic to the microorganisms likely to encounter them.
I think nautilus, for the most part, has made a fair assessment: Larger organisms will return first, but without the smaller organisms forming the base of the ecosystem recovery will be slow. |
Define slow. If it's 50 years or less, then it sucks but it's not the end of the world, is it? If it's 10,000 years, then yeah, I'd be pretty alarmed. Somehow I think it's going to be okay.
| Quote: |
But this is a consequence of our level of industrialization. A peaceful, safe, mutually survivable co-existence between man and his technology and nature is a very perilous endeavor. One cannot walk that line by theory alone. These are the experiences we must endure and accept as normal if we are to consume in such great volume our natural resources.
To seek to mitigate these risks is noble. To believe these risks preventable in order to justify one's consumption is naive and counterproductive. Expect more spills and leaks in the future. |
Oil is a useful commodity, worth the risk of drilling. However, we need to stop depending on it alone, stop subsidizing the big oil companies, and open the door to new technologies that have hitherto been suppressed. This will require a quantum leap in our society, including abandoning the monetary system we have at present (which goes hand in hand with oil) and reverting to a free market economy (in other words, it's a way off). In the meantime BP should be made to pay full damages and receive no bailout cash from the government. However, that is very unlikely to happen... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| .38 Special wrote: |
| We are fortunate in America that such affairs are as rare as they are. Ultimately, the best we can do to mitigate similar events in the future is to petition the government for better regulators. The regulations themselves exist, but what of the regulators? |
Why on earth would you petition the government to regulate better? You might as well go petition the mafia...
Seriously, if we put enough pressure on the government to fix this mess, they'll probably just end up writing BP a blank check (to keep its stock from going down - too big to fail and all that), and cleaning the mess up on our dime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| .38 Special wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Quote: |
| To seek to mitigate these risks is noble. To believe these risks preventable in order to justify one's consumption is naive and counterproductive. Expect more spills and leaks in the future. |
It happens on a very frequent basis in the Niger Delta. No one says anything (besides the rebels there) because, well, who cares about West Africa? Sad. |
Such circumstances are indeed unfortunate. But what incentive do they have (or, to a different extent, we) to increase their investment in the wells while still expecting the same return?
We are fortunate in America that such affairs are as rare as they are. Ultimately, the best we can do to mitigate similar events in the future is to petition the government for better regulators. The regulations themselves exist, but what of the regulators?
The stories of drugs, women, and cash for regulators and agency enforcers are numerous. |
The government caused this problem like all the others:
| Quote: |
United States law requires payment of 8 cents per barrel of oil to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for all oil imported or produced. For this payment,
operators of offshore oil platforms (among others) are limited in liability to $75 million for damages (which can be paid by the fund),
but are not indemnified from the cost of cleanup. As of 2010, before payouts related to the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion, the fund stood at $1.6 billion |
BP and other drillers can and do take risks in this socialist system because of the government regulations. Socialism is the cause of all legal deliberate pollution around the world and the indirect cause of most accidental man-made pollution.
If we want to reduce our reliance on oil, or imported fuels, or conserve energy, or make the best use of alternative sources ... all of these things can be accomplished by ending all government subsidies in transportation, infrastructure, housing and other energy producing, distribution or consuming activities.
If we want a clean environment we need to privatize all land, air and water resources and end all the caps, regulations, rules and subsidies that encourage risk, accidents and polluters.
AS to using nuclear weapons of any kind to seal this leak ... that is one of the worst and dumbest ideas ever considered. I was surprised to find out this wasn't just a joke thread. Engineers have trouble lowering caps onto pipes or even cutting pipes at this depth and they have no experience digging the required insertion tubes and lowering nuclear devices into them at this depth underwater. And the outcome of the explosion is unpredictable. Government caused this operation to be too risky already, but taking chances thousands of times greater by the government again? People are really dumb. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| .38 Special wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Keep in mind that oil is toxic to most life, but it's still an abundant, natural substance and breaks down - it's not like nuclear waste. |
True, but for the most part petroleum requires an organic process to break down quickly. Polycarbons have very strong bonds and mere salt water will do very little to catalyze its decomposition. Even over time, the polycarbons will break down into smaller polycarbons, many of which may remain toxic to the microorganisms likely to encounter them.
I think nautilus, for the most part, has made a fair assessment: Larger organisms will return first, but without the smaller organisms forming the base of the ecosystem recovery will be slow. |
Define slow. If it's 50 years or less, then it sucks but it's not the end of the world, is it? If it's 10,000 years, then yeah, I'd be pretty alarmed. Somehow I think it's going to be okay.
|
I'm not familiar with the science of the matter so I cannot say. Plastics, for example (which are derived from petroleum), can take upwards of 15,000 years to decompose.
The oil will eventually be buried to a depth where it is no longer a major threat to the ecosystem. Unfortunately, much of what is to cover it is the consequence of present life. Sort of a catch-22.
Yeah, everything is going to be okay. I don't disagree with you there. Eventually, everything will go back to normal. But it's going to be a while. The marine life, the birds, migratory creatures, and the people who base their livelihoods on the preceding, however, have been dealt an enormous blow. The kill-zone is enormous.
| Quote: |
| Oil is a useful commodity, worth the risk of drilling. However, we need to stop depending on it alone, stop subsidizing the big oil companies, and open the door to new technologies that have hitherto been suppressed. This will require a quantum leap in our society, including abandoning the monetary system we have at present (which goes hand in hand with oil) and reverting to a free market economy (in other words, it's a way off). In the meantime BP should be made to pay full damages and receive no bailout cash from the government. However, that is very unlikely to happen... |
Indeed, BP and the government will be having lots of long talks for a while, in which executives will tell politicians how important they are and how important the services they supply are to the American people. No doubt the hammer will fall gently upon them. Also, as ontheway has indicated, there all ready are protections in place for these corporations.
But oil, like governments, are a necessary evil. In many ways we suffer because of both, in others we prosper. How you feel about oil consumption, outside the practical realms of environmentalism and national security and economics, is largely a personal opinion. My personal opinion is that we have the technology to do away with much of our oil usage -- what we lack is initiative.
| Quote: |
Why on earth would you petition the government to regulate better? You might as well go petition the mafia... |
Petitioning the government to install better regulators to help prevent future oil rig explosions might seem futile, but I assure you the effect is greater than complaining about it on the internet 
Over all, while such failures are inevitable, we can minimize the risk. Not taking meth and looking up porn when you should be inspecting equipment is a good start. But that's government for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From what I've been reading, the stuff they spray on the oil to disperse it is more toxic than the oil itself. Seriously, crude oil isn't exactly the worst thing out there - it won't even kill someone unless they drink it (you could jump into a pool of it and drench yourself and you'd be okay). The detergents on the other hand are causing health problems to people cleaning up the spill (as well as the ecosystem).
Btw, don't they have bacteria that can eat oil? I thought it was commonly found in marshes (where oil leaks naturally). Why the hell aren't they a) using it, or b) reporting anything about it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
