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?