Quote:
Originally Posted by CityLightsLikeRain
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. One in five chance of failure? Odds are horrible. I really hope this option isn't seriously considered.
|
you sure about that?
i'm quite certain if you polled random people on the street and asked them if they thought a 4 out of 5 chance to win the lotto was acceptable odds they'd be ALL OVER IT. if you keep reading past the headline it also mentions that the Russians have successfully used nukes underwater up to 169 times for more mundane purposes. 'failure' in this case means oil keeps flowing freely, not the ocean turns to fire.
this whole thing is getting ire because of the bogeyman of the N word and 3 eyed fish on The Simpsons. the biggest concern i see is the proximity to heavily populated areas and the potential effects on their potable water. then again, which is easier to clean, heavy water or crude?
so far all the plans have revolved around containing the spill in a way that the oil could continue to be exploited in the future. this one proposes to actually stop the flow of oil. which brings up the REAL question - Does anyone actually want to
stop the flow of oil in the Gulf of Mexico?