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.