Am I the only one noticing these rumors?

The latest rumors are saying:
1) The nuclear option (30kt) for sealing the leak(s) is still on the table.
2) A massive evacuation of affected areas is being planned.
3) The "affected areas" may extend 200 miles inland.

Facts:
1) Daily oil output is still not known but the number keeps being increased.
2) Gov. Jindal has requested funding for up to 6,000 LNG troops for up to 90 days to assist in oil cleanup, evacuation, and securing of critical infrastructure. That request has been granted. No Actual Mobilization has been seen other than the 600 who are building barriars along coastal islands.
3) Fumes from the leak are being blamed for causing health problems among workers.

What are y'all's thoughts on this subject, WITHOUT violating Forum Rules???

It is certainly an enviromental disaster, but the rumours are clearly OTT.
I doubt that a nuclear weapon will be used to seal the well, and IF this dramatic option IS decided on, I doubt that any evacuation would be needed, a small nuke, detonated in a deep hole submerged in deep water is unlikely to have much effect on land. The area would probably be closed to shipping.

The main concern is the damage to wildlife and fisheries which is very severe, the direct effects on human health are probably limited to those directly exposed, for example by assisting with the clean up.

Small numbers may need to be evacuated from communities right on the affected coastline.

As for the affected area extending 200 miles inland, that depends on how you define affected. But I would not expect any significant effect that far away.

Hurricane Alex might scupper the nuke option, I doubt if they have the time to drill the hole to put the nuke down by the middle of next week.

Am Fear - I agree - unless of course they've been drilling for the Nuke option since disaster day -5 or something like that. I'm not buying the full scale evacuation. I think it'd be cheaper to make BP pay damages than to make BP finance an evacuation.

rumours from unnamed sources aren't worth repeating. When there are reputable sources people who want to be believed give them. When they don't it's because it's made up.
The Sock

It is a disaster that was waiting to happen and “Drill Baby Drill” has become "Spill Baby Spill"

Of course you are going to get a lot of the foil hat crowd posting their stuff, and considering the lack of solid information from reliable sources the paranoids are justified in their suspicions.
The only real problem with the paranoids is that they go from suspicion to forming elaborate theories based only on the lack of information.

Perhaps our resident oil well plumber can shed some light on the subject of what the options actually are? Blast?

My research into the "nuclear option" quickly led to documents showing that the local radiological contamination from undersea detonations was orders of magnitude worse than that created by atmospheric detonations. Essentially, all the fallout was contained by the seawater.

The question may become, which is worse, localized radioactive contamination, or widespread oil contamination. Of course, we already have the widespread oil contamination, so it may be too late to choose. Rather than either/or, it may be both!

Full disclaimer: I just bought a home on the beach in the Northeast. I sure hope we don't get seriously fouled this far north!

Nuke? No way.

No American president would set off a nuke on or anywhere near American soil, for any reason (other than testing -- which we haven't done since 1992).

Everyone in the hemisphere would flip and just about everyone in our 50 states, for good reason.

Who would trust the federal government to nuke an oil leak? Nothing about this disastrous episode in our history inspires confidence in government.

I had not heard of this "option" until this thread.

Can hardly bear to look at the news reports anymore. The Gulf debacle is horrifying, depressing and heart-wrenching. I am so very sorry for everyone and everything in and along the Gulf that are being directly affected.

IMHO, both sides have acted in a very adolescent manner and we now suffer from it. It is too bad.

We now sit almost helpless as entire industries are destroyed and wildlife are eradicated. It makes me sick.

My $.02

I agree that there is no way we ever would nuke the leak.

However, I have read that the oil in the water will increase the temp of the water and potentially increase the force of a hurricane making landfall. That might be the reason for the additional NG troops on the ground or maybe they are just there to assist with clean-up if a storm blows more in. I wouldn't read much into that other than perhaps good planning on the Gov's part. Better to have more NG troops on hand than not enough!

Nuking the oil leak makes for perfect sense, the only objections would be from BP who would lose all the work/money putting the original hole in the ground in the first place. Nuclear testing has been done before underground, in the sea, in space, in fact anywhere the government was expecting to fight a war. A sub sea underground nuke is also much more environmentally friendly than 50,000 barrels of oil per day every day for the next 6 months being released into the Gulf of Mexico.

And what proof do you have that this would actually work? Again, no American President is going to try that experiment! The political fall-out would be hotter than the nuke.

Russia have quite a positive experience nuking the burning gas holes underground (and no, Chernobyl is a completely different story ). They aren't afraid to use the mighty nuclear energy if necessary. I'm sure their engineers have some calculations and plans already, but I'm also sure that after decades of nuclear fear propaganda in US it's almost impossible to convince Americans to follow them.

LOL -- I'll take that bet.

Has a nuclear remedy been discussed in the mainstream media?

Would think the media would be blasting, so to speak, that news all over the place.

Summary: radioactive debris would remain in the gulf a lot longer than crude oil.

Long version of answer:
The nuke option should be the final option a year or more from now if nothing else works. The Russian nukes were used to extinguish land-based well fires not deep-sea wells. The pressure wave from the detonation "blew out' the fire like a birthday candle, the bombs didn't seal the wells by converting the ground to molten slag. There's no fire at the BP well so the main purpose nuking it like the Russians did is a false pretense.

you may not believe me, but everything you hear about this oil killing the Gulf is wrong. Bacteria in the ocean is EXTREMELY good at using crude oil as a food source. Oil has been seeping into the water naturally for millions of years and creatures have evolved that feed on it. Like any time when food becomes abundent, the populations of critters that eat it explodes. The bacteria consume the oil and convert it into the same harmless nutritional building blocks that your stomach does to a carrot.

Along with the bacteria, the sun also does a wonderful job of quickly degrading the oil. The UV light easily breaks the oil apart into smaller and smaller peices which make it even better food. Basically, any oil in the Gulf has a very short lifespan before it is gone without a trace.

Now, during the time it is present some animals, sadly will die from encountering it. This sucks, but the populations will quickly return to normal once the oil is gone.

The half-life of radioactive debris is MUCH longer than crude oil.

The only place the oil causes long lasting damage is where it hits shore. Once on the beach or coating plants in the wetlands the normal biodegradation mechanisms stop working. This means the oil needs to be prevented from reaching the beach. Luckily the well is very far offshore so only a small amount (relatively speaking) has reached the shore.

I think the best way of stopping the oil flow is with the two side wells they are currently digging. It's a slow, tricky process but it's not a novel, new process. There are thousands of wells out in the Gulf and up until 50-some days ago 30-80 new ones were being drilled every month. We know how to drill well. The question is will people be able to sit still and not make matters worse while waiting for these side wells to do their job.

-Blast

Not true. The "blow nuke" is just one of the recent events of this kind. Here is the historical facts:

http://www.livescience.com/technology/russia-nuke-gulf-oil-well-100512.html

and

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-a-nuke-could-plug-the-oil-well-2010-5

Yes, not deep sea, but real sealing. There is no much difference except a different geology of the seabed crust. And almost no nuclear waste, because it's all deep under the ground.

However, the sea biology facts are very reassuring. Thanks!

All three sound like somebodies vivid imagination and will not happen.

Blast, I'm disappointed! You were actually in the position to advocate detonating a nuclear warhead! Live up to your name, man!

Really though, thanks for the levelheaded analysis of what's going on. Very informative (and in line with what my web research tells me).

Jesselp

This is nothing more than tin-foil rumor! I am down here, and have several friends at LSU and GOHSEP who are inolved. I've heard nothing like this from them, nor has there been anything serious in the press. And the NG request seems prudent if, as it appears, a larger cleanup effort is called for.

This rumor is just that - another case of speculatuon plus tangential fact equals "truth".

This is indeed a huge disaster, our second, but please - let's keep discussion to the facts. This thread is out-of-bounds. Alan/Doug - can you close this?

Sure they can. But why? By your request?

Why close it? Because this is slam in the middle of survivalist, black heliocopter terrarory. That's not what ETS is about. See the "Why this is not a survivalist site" disclaimer at the home page (and see who helped write it...)

I don't see any trouble discussing the false rumors within the Natural Disasters sub-forum. We're looking into the possible threats and their probabilities simply in order to be prepared for any "side effects".

By the way, the http://forums.equipped.org/rules.html page has several links missing. It looks like some maintenance required there.

It might be sci fi, but it's not black helicopters. It's survivalism for fish, perhaps. And I don't at all see how this conversation is out of bounds.

Since there evidently is precedence for the nuke tactic (news to me) in regard to at least gas wells, then it strikes me as not even sci fi.

I have no idea if it's a credible solution to the spill. I certainly don't think it's a politically viable option now or in the future. But it's still an interesting conversation at this point.

Not like ETS is humming with strictly germane activity and lots of new things to talk about in the world of survival.

Any new developments in signal mirrors lately? I have a knife or two and a few axes we haven't discussed.... zzzzzzzzzzz

Interesting! I hadn't seen these newer case studies.

The chance of a nuke working depends a lot on the type of rock where they need to squeeze the pipe. I don't know anything about the formation in which this well is located but I can probably ask around and find out. I wonder what sort of formation surrounded the point of detonation in the Russian nuke? Too brittle and everything shatters, too soft and the same result occurs and in both cases your job just got a whole lot tougher. As much as I like big booms, the people making the decision will need to really study the rock before making such a decision.

You know what would be cool? If they raffled off the chance to press the dentonator button!

-Blast

Blast, that was a great succinct summary earlier. Thanks, quite reassuring.

NPR discussed the explosive option a couple weeks ago. Their expert said the seabed in the area was sand down for several hundred feet. So there was a chance the explosion would seal the well, but it was more likely it would just rupture the pipe further down and lead to oil seeping up EVERYWHERE through the sand.

I watched a segment about it on CNN over the weekend. You can check it out here .

First off, they are NOT going to nuke it. Potentially converting a disastrous oil leak from a pipe into a radioactive crater leaking radioactive oil would most definitely not be an improvement. On land it might be an option but at a mile down and then having to be placed in drill hole, a hole we would have to create, with considerable precision it is just not going to happen.

Second, if this might be done it would be undertaken with conventional explosives. A lot of the research we have undertaken has been centered on how to substitute conventional explosives with precision targeting to accomplish strategic goals without the problems associated with nuclear weapons.

Over time nuclear weapons systems have drifted toward smaller yields delivered with precision instead of high yields delivers in the general vicinity. Like a shotgun high yields are used to compensate for weak targeting and scattered delivery. Point being that in a war if you can guarantee delivery to within a few feet a conventional warhead work as well as a nukes. And they are cheaper and easier to clean up afterward.

But here again blowing the well, using nuclear or conventional explosives, won't necessarily guarantee that the flow stops. You could shatter or split the casing hundreds of feet below ground and make the situation worse.

Third, there isn't going to be any significant evacuation. Nobody is sure exactly how toxic the oil is. It clearly isn't immediately toxic if you don't have any serious medical conditions. People with asthma and heart conditions may want to steer clear of the oil and any fumes but most of the short term effects seen seem to be from the smell and the heat. Evacuation of the population has not even been seriously considered.

People should deeply contemplate why they go to internet sites that promote these sorts of stories. Being spoon-fed fantasy worse-case scenarios doesn't help anyone prepare for anything.

Wow, what a mess, we really need to get off oil energy as much as we can. The problem is that we need to change mindsets first somehow. It won't do any good to have clean, sustainable energy if people are going to be still using the same amount (or using more) energy.

We need each and every person to stop using so much gosh darn energy. We need to revamp how we do things. With the age of the Internet, every job that does not absolutely require a commute should not involve a commute. We all need to get rid of gas guzzlers and big boats.

It's no longer theory that we're killing ourselves with all the excesses we have. We're actually killing ourselves. We're actually thinking about setting off a nuclear blast to help stop an oil leak. Lord, help us.

Yes, I have heard the nuclear option discussed on CNN. My brain did not allow me to process the idea because of its strangeness.

Granted the nuke solution does have a certain PR problem for the individual whose authority is required to go ahead with such a plan, so I'll think I'll just wait and watch the USGS earthquake map for the US for the Mag 3.8 in that area of the Gulf coast and the miraculous stemming of the oil flow from the pipe on the BP web cam.


Why all the fuss over using a nuke anyway if it is a technical solution to solving the problem. I mean this is not exactly the other side of the moon!

For every 100 calories of energy in your food, 60 will originate for direct solar and 40 from hydrocarbon sources i.e. oil and gas. This doesn't include the energy associated with storage, packaging and transportation. The world would literally starve using the unsustainable methods of modern agriculture if we did get of the oil teat.

The energy is the only key to the modern civilization development. The Humankind in a whole is far beyond the point of returning back to the nature. If we start to use less energy the progress will simply stop or most likely reverse. It's the law of nature already.

It's better to ask: who and how makes the energy today and why all of the cleaner alternatives aren't working.

We're killing ourselves the way we're doing things with energy right now. So, we'll kill ourselves eventually, whether it's by dangerous oil drilling, getting off oil, starving ourselves, or whatever. Any other energy source, even if clean, will do absolutely no good if we don't change the premises. The premises are that real jobs require long commutes to the office, that we need big nasty vehicles, etc.

With all the technological advancements in communications within the last 20 years, it's possible to change dramatically how we do things in order to save a tremendous amount of energy. Instead, most people want to rely on the scientists and engineers to figure out a way to give us all the energy spoils that we think we need when we really don't.

Every person and every corporation needs to point the finger inward, instead of outward to others. If a sufficient number of people think it's not possible to revolutionize our mindsets, then it's actually NOT possible.

MSNB just now had a segment about the potential human health hazards for the workers and urged breathing devices for those in close proximity to the oil.

My bad, as I'd not seen the CNN segment over the weekend, thanks for sharing the link. Unless they can get this thing capped and fast, I'm sure there will be lots of options discussed by the media.

BP only cares about their bottom line and is NOT to be trusted. CNN has interviewed people near the Gulf who claim BP is NOT allowing workers to wear gas masks. According to the people, BP does not want the gas masks on television because the gas masks would be bad for BP's public image.

By the way, I have also seen and heard reports of cleanup workers getting extremely sick from working in the oil disaster area.

Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. Why hasn't the solution that worked in the 1979 Gulf spill been tried yet?

30 years ago they tried all of the same crap that isn't working now and 9 months after the leak began they finally drilled 2 relief well adjacent to the leak and eventually got control of the leak and capped it.

Drill the damn relief wells and ebb the leak, then cap it. This should be done before any other cockamamie hood or ridiculous nuclear option is even mentioned out loud.

To answer Wilman800's original questions: Nope, I haven't heard of any of those options. The main reason is that I am so disgusted with the blame game and grandstanding from all parties that I ignore the news when they start talking about it.

According to Tony Hayward, that's probably just food poisoning. Uh-huh, yeah, that must be it.

But this is being done already, isn't it?

My understanding is that relief wells are being planned and prepared, but it will take some months to complete. The other Mcgyver-stuff is on a "might as well try it, it would be good if it actually worked"-basis while the relief wells are being done.


If this is not true, then please enlighten me.

No offence wildman but why do you keep spreading these rumours? Has one of them ever turned out to be true?
Asking 'Am I the only one noticing these rumors?' is just a way of slipping it in here.
There are plenty of the black helicopter sites that believe this stuff if you want to disucss it.
ETS is specifically not for it.
The Sock

A nuke option includes putting the device 18,000ft below the seabed. Radiation would not be a problem. When the seabed above the nuke collapses in a bowl shape, that might create a small tsunami effect on nearby shores & that would create a problem. Per the theory & Russian experience, the blast would shift the strata, thus crushing the hole closed. I feel that it could easily open up other rifts allowing oil to leak to the surface.

It's my understanding that areas getting fumes would be possibly evacuated because of health hazards. I believe that the excuse would be bought by many but I have trouble believing it to be an actual threat to human life, based on my work experience. I absolutely don't believe that a 200 mile evacuation inland could be justified on those grounds.

Evacuation was briefly mentioned as a possibility on WAFB TY Ch 9 in Baton Rouge, La this morning.

I stand corrected on the evacuation then. The radio isn't an unimpeachable source. But it's not these completely bonkers people who think the government is going to enslave them either.
Is anyone seriously suggesting the nuclear option?
The Sock

Yes, according to CNN, several scientists are seriously suggesting the nuclear option. This link was provided above.

http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/11/nuke-the-oil-well/

Thanks. that's reassuring!
The Sock

BP had 2 rigs on scene and started drilling the relief wells in less than 2 weeks time. It will take 2 - 3 months to get one completed which means using Directional Drilling techniques to intercept the 7 7/8 - 9 3/4 inch hole.

BP has been trying other ideas, in the meantime. That sounds smart to me, IMO!

You're right, sorta, The Sock. Perhaps I'm merely spreading antenna to gather more SigInt & HumInt. Then again, perhaps I'm trying to lead a group of horses near a water trough so they will explore the scent and find the water on their own. Then again, maybe I'm just another tin foil hatted fool!

They've been holding lotteries to push the plungers on old bridges over the last few years with all proceeds going to charities.

I'll buy the tickets to blow up the old Greenville Mississippi Bridge across the Miss River, but I'd pass on the nuke option lottery.

But that's just me.

The nuclear option bothers me a bit simply because as I understand it they are dealing with a massive high pressure reservoir (call it a containment vessel). As wildman800 alluded, a nuc' could possibly solve one problem and create others. As Blast indicated, a nuc might work and then again, it might not. If it doesn't work, the problem is way worse.

Everyone (including BP) is in a hurry to fix this thing, but they really need to do it right and avoid making knee-jerk decisions that could make the problem worse than it is.

Does anybody have an informative link that describes in detail the Russian nuclear option? I just saw a video clip that showed the Russian option being performed on land. The commentator said that the nuclear fixed the leak, put forth a little more analysis, and then that was basically the end of the video. I'd like more analysis than that. Did the blast really stop the leak 100% or were other small leaks on land created? Another poster above brought up a good point about BP having ironclad control over the video down there. How do we know there are not other smaller leaks in the surrounding area? If there are other leaks, such a situation could become worse if we nuke the area. Also, apparently the Russians were successful 4 out of 5 times. I'd be interested in reading about the 1 failure.

As you've already discovered, it's hard to get full data from the Russians or any other govt, including our own.

I believe that is because such information could very dangerous in the wrong hands. I can think of one application having to do with deep underground facilities.

Rumors, media frenzy and a large pack of whoever trying to push their agenda... Hard facts and truth really do have a though time.

One particular statement that made it into Norwegian headlines was that "Why wasn't Norway or the Netherlands involved"? I'd like to toss in some hard facts about that particular statement. I don't know much about the Dutch involvement, but I would guess their reply would be pretty similar to the Norwegian.

1) Norwegian authorities were asked about capabilities and replied with an exhaustive list at the 12th of May. I don't know the exact contents of that list, but the national capabilities include a set of crisis management plans unique to our region, deals with private companies (that are to drop whatever they're doing and help with the spill) and finally some hardware (oil lenses) stored at several locations. That hardware is really the only government-owned asset transferable to the Gulf. Apparently, the U.S. coast guard does not think that flying a limited quantity of oil lenses across the Atlantic would make much of a difference to anything.


2) The most important asset in a situation like this is professional crews and vessels. They are emplyed, owned and run by private companies, not the government. Those companies, including a few Norwegian ones and probably several Dutch companies, are already operating at full steam in the Gulf. Arrangements are made directly with the companies and not with the Dutch or Norwegian authorities.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong wildman; but I get the feeling you really think the government is looking for an excuse to impose martial law, or round up people into prison camps.
The Sock

The Sock, I'm not looking for that at all. It would be TEOTWAWKI.

I look for trends, after following money trails. I've watched several money trails go in several unusual places, like the Doomsday Seed Vault. I've seen many countries invest big bucks in establishing several such seed vaults. Seeing how tight govt budgets are, what future needs do they foresee to make such investments? The same is true here concerning the large amt of underground construction that's been getting financed over the last 10-20 years.

It's obvious to me that plans are being or are completed for an evac. I think they will stay in the file unless a hurricane would show up that the surge could push contamination inland.

Speaking for myself, I am on the western edge of the envelope and about 50 miles north of GoM.

Patience is, unfortunately, not a politically viable virtue.

Someone must be seen 'doing' something.

The most constructive criticism I've read was that they should be drilling more than two side wells. The claim was that historically each well has about a 60% chance of working, so counting on only two is too risky. Maybe they're a lot better at doing this now than the 60% figure, but given the multiple-month lead time, it does seem like starting up a couple more drilling operations would be a good step.

Normally, only one relief well is drilled. BP started two. BUT, one of the relief wells has been stopped @ 8,000 + ft. They want to shift the BOP to the other well?? Or they want to reinspect that BOP?? I've heard both stories.

I see where this could actually be another reason and intent but I don't have a clue as to that probability. No, there's insufficient info available to explore that possibility to be discussed now.

The remaining relief well is now down to 13,000 + ft and still drilling.

The government (or various agencies thereof) is always drawing up plans. Some plans are updated whenever even mildly appropriate (say evacuation plans) even if the probability of execution is low. Some of this is good preparedness and practice but in reality a major driver is probably a concern that not having a plan (or having an outdated plan) would be ... uhm ... unfortunate(?) for those in various leadership positions if the low order probability event with nasty consequences should somehow turn up.

Somewhere deep in the vaults I am sure we have plans for invading our good neighbors to the North and South (Mexico and Canada) and they get pulled out dusted off and updated occasionally. Don't ever expect to need them, but any good government organization needs a Plan to fall back on, no matter what happens.

Sarcastic tone aside, plans are good and the effort in developing plans for unlikely events will help you cope when something happens. Experience says you won't get everything right but at least with a plan you have something solid to start from.

- Eric

A friend in Central Louisiana and Mississipii who owns large amounts of land, is now receiving phone calls from Gulf Coast residents who want to buy some of his land. It sounds like more and more people are thinking that the oil leak is "The End Of Their World As They Knew It".

Some opinion is suggesting that the only solution to the current disaster is the nuclear option. Even the relief wells may fail as noted in the detailed analysis in the link below.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967

http://video.godlikeproductions.com/video/Simmons_Says_Nuclear_Device_Only_Option_to_Stop_Oil_Flow

The reserves for the oil field have been estimated at 2-3 billion barrels. i.e. 8-12,000 Exon Valdez's worth.

Not the first time I've heard this scenario presented, but that first link is the best analysis I've read so far about this catastrophic situation of the "roof" of the oil deposit eventually collapsing and turning it into an impossible-to-stop gusher.

I have no way of evaluating how plausible it is for the seabed to eventually give way over the oil deposit (this risk is the crux of this worst case scenario), so I'll just have to take people's word that it is possible. In that case, watching the undersea video feed reminds me of watching the Twin Towers burn, wondering what's going to come next.

I don't doubt the ingenuity and resolve of the technical people actually working on stopping the leak, and I'm optimistic that they will eventually succeed, but that is truly a sad scenario if it ever does occur.

If we are going to wallow in rumor, worse-case fantasies based on nothing, conspiracies, and crack nightmares we might as well go all the way. At least when you go far enough out there it gets entertaining.

This articles has interesting stuff from the guy who brought you alien bases on the moon. There is even a variation that has Gestapo agents from WW2 Germany in leather trench coats in cahoots with the aliens on the moon. And what fever dream is complete without a Gestapo agent with a bad accent and a limp. So I'll take my alien moon bases with dueling scars and black leather, thank-you very much.

Hard to beat that whopper.

But the present story he is promoting isn't bad, in a pedestrian but workmanlike way, for wild creativity. This story has huge gas bubbles that will smother everyone near the coast, then explode in sheets of flame, and send a huge tsunami toward Florida at "600 miles per hour". This would be pure high-test crazy a few years ago but a few recent films have upped the ante so everyone has to kick their game up a few notches. Still, not a bad first attempt.

Not to be outdone another guy fantasizes about a similar, but more toxic, steam driven tsunami rushing 200 miles inland creating a toxic dead zone. Steam is so 'last century'. The first story had toxic gas, fire and floods so it is clearly superior.

Then again if the second guy could have the ginormous steam explosion break loose a fault or two and have both the Yellowstone and Tennessee super-volcanoes erupt he would have a spectacle of imaginary doomsmanship worthy of Cecil B. DeMille. Haven't these guys learned that with such stories you can't lack courage and pull back. You have to 'go big'.


http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/06/bp-spill-and-bermuda-triangle

Bah, he left out the crazed, flaming sharks riding the crest of the tsunami, burning and eating anyone in there path.

-Blast

if nothing else the increase in rumors is a good case study.are people buying more survival supply's along the coast?.gearing up to move out fast or just writing this all off as crazy talk?

IMHO the exaggeration of threats and wild stories tends to numb people to real and practical issues.

Imaging your eating a can of beans. Why you might be doing is anyone's guess. But there you are.

Case one: Someone comes in a voice both and breathless and panicked he tells you - DON"T EAT THE BEANS BECAUSE THERE ARE ALIEN LARVA INSIDE THE CAN. ALIENS WILL COME OUT OF YOU CHEST IN 24 HOURS.

You - Ummm ... sure. Get bent. And you finish off your beans.


Case two: Your eating your beans and someone comes over, introduces himself and tells you that 'Dude, I saw on the news this morning that that brand of beans is on a recall list because it is heavily infected with botulism. You might not want to eat it'

You - You stop eating and try to find out about any recall. If you start to feel sick you get yourself to a hospital.

Tsunamis traveling at 600 mph - <blink>

News that the vapors from the oil might make people with breathing difficulties sick ... You call your aunt with asthma because she lives right on the beach. You offer to put her up in your home. Which is 25 miles inland.

In my experience you don't get better response by exaggeration the situation. You might get a panicked, emotional response but it won't last, as soon as they slow down and thing most adults will start asking questions, and after that they don't listen to you.

The problem is that on the internet nobody knows your name and you can change your name like changing underwear. Many times I've seen the same people referencing the same e-mail alarmist drivel, going from site to site reposting it like it was a revelation from God. Ive also seen it go around the circle and the person that started the rumor use someone else reposting it as confirmation of their story.

This is basically how "intelligence" was confirmed going into Iraq. Set your standards low and use people retelling your rumor to confirm your story and you can 'confirm' anything.

Funny thing is that while it looks like there are always new stories if you keep track of them you start to find patterns. The whole 'toxic tsunami' coming ashore seems pretty much like the rumors in the 70s about the chance that USSR would sink a ship or ships full of uranium deep off our coast to take advantage of the dynamics of deep water 'linear stacked', 'open ended', nuclear detonations.

The physics was supposed to be that if you packed uranium around a nuclear weapon and sank it deep the high pressure would allow the small weapon to create a much larger explosion that would, at the end of the sequence, detonate the 'hydrogen in the seawater' to create a weapon of nearly unlimited power.

The story was that the Russians either had, or would sink a line of such bomb ships along the east coast and detonate them all at one. The mythology was this would send a huge radioactive wave twenty miles inland and destroy the entire east coast.

It was pretty gripping stuff if you were young, gullible, easily excited, and had a desire to have 'insider' 'intelligence information' from 'special' sources.

So what we have here is a non-nuclear version of the same story transposed onto the Gulf Coast with Jews, or somebody (insert favorite villain here) making/allowing it to happen.