The lying US government's denial is only a confirmation.
"Nuclear blast option on oil leak? US says no; Latest effort to stem flow of crude fails" by William J. Broad, New York Times | June 3, 2010
The chatter began weeks ago as armchair engineers brainstormed for ways to stop the torrent of oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico: What about nuking the well?
Related: Nuking the Gulf Spill Shut
Decades ago, the Soviet Union reportedly used nuclear blasts to seal off runaway gas wells, inserting a bomb deep underground and letting its fiery heat melt the surrounding rock to shut off the flow. Why not try it here?
Because you might rip a hole spewing oil a quarter mile wide and destroy the gulf?
The idea has gained fans with each failed attempt to stem the leak and each new setback — yesterday, the latest effort stalled when a wire saw being used to slice through the riser pipe got stuck.
“Probably the only thing we can do is create a weapon system and send it down 18,000 feet and detonate it, hopefully encasing the oil,’’ Matt Simmons, a Houston energy specialist and investment banker, told Bloomberg News on Friday, attributing the nuclear idea to “all the best scientists.’’
Or as CNN reporter John Roberts suggested last week, “Drill a hole, drop a nuke in, and seal up the well.’’
This week, with the failure of the “top kill’’ attempt, the buzz had grown loud enough that federal officials felt compelled to respond....
The atomic option is perhaps the wildest among a flood of ideas proposed by bloggers, scientists, and others, along with the kibitzers....
The who?
See: The New York Times Speaks the Chosen Language
Yeah, they have internalized the stuff so much I'll bet they don't even know they are using those kinds of words.
In theory, the nuclear option seems attractive because the extreme heat might create a tough seal. An atom bomb generates temperatures hotter than the surface of the sun and, detonated underground, can turn acres of porous rock into a glassy plug, much like a huge stopper in a leaky bottle....
In theory?
And if it DOESN'T WORK?
Whatever the technical merits of using nuclear explosions for constructive purposes, the end of the Cold War brought wide agreement among nations to give up the conduct of all nuclear blasts, even for peaceful purposes.
I'm sorry; I fail to see anything constructive or peaceful in a nuclear bomb.
The United States, after conducting more than 1,000 nuclear test explosions, detonated the last one in 1992, shaking the ground at the Nevada test site....
Oh, WE HAVE DONE 1,000 of them and are lecturing others about exploding even one, huh?
Gotta love that US HYPOCRISY!
--more--"
USrael and her MSM agents are just itching to drop a nuclear bomb on something, aren't it?
