Is the Oil Spill a lot worse than what we are hearing?

[SSC]

The obvious answer is probably yes. Are the Russian scientists correct? If they are is our own government hiding that from us?

 

http://beforeitsnews.com/news/76/057/Scientists_Warn_Gulf_Of_Mexico_Sea_Floor_Fractured_Beyond_Repair.html

 

http://www.eutimes.net/2010/05/toxic-oil-spill-rains-warned-could-destroy-north-america/

[Clyde]

Wow. Don't read that if you're looking to get your week off to a positive start. YIKES.

[True blue (and gold)]

Wow. Don't read that if you're looking to get your week off to a positive start. YIKES.

 

Agreed. It leaves me feeling fairly ill.

[SSC]

Wow. Don't read that if you're looking to get your week off to a positive start. YIKES.

 

My biggest concern is that the answer may be in front of them, but b/c of politics it may never be used. I don't claim to have any idea what is going on or how to stop it. I do however have a feeling that we are lied to every single day by poiliticians about the spill. I know BP will lie to us. I feel the media will tell us what the government as a whole wants us to hear. Should we be a lot more worried than we are? A few days ago I saw a clip on a national news site about raining oil in Louisiana. The clip was pulled a couple hours later and I can't find it on news sites anymore. I do think it's on youtube though. I just have grave concern that b/c of politics and media we have no clue what is really going on.

[Clyde]

My biggest concern is that the answer may be in front of them, but b/c of politics it may never be used. I don't claim to have any idea what is going on or how to stop it. I do however have a feeling that we are lied to every single day by poiliticians about the spill. I know BP will lie to us. UI feel the media will tell us what the government as a whole wants us to hear. Should we be a lot mroe worried than we are?

 

In the last Rolling Stone(before the McChrystal issue) there was an article about BP and the administration both lying about how many gallons were being spilled. Is that good or bad? I'd argue there is a time for the public to not know everything. Is this one of them?

[stickymitts]

Nuke it.

[SSC]

In the last Rolling Stone(before the McChrystal issue) there was an article about BP and the administration both lying about how many gallons were being spilled. Is that good or bad? I'd argue there is a time for the public to not know everything. Is this one of them?

 

Not knowing everything and telling Russian scientists that they can look at the info but not divulge anything to the American people or media are different IMO. My biggest concern w/ the government is where do they draw the line? Sure don't tell us how much oil is actually being leaked b/c they really don't know, but do tell us there may be 8 leaks and some credible scientists think the oil leaking is the least of the problems.

[stickymitts]

In the last Rolling Stone(before the McChrystal issue) there was an article about BP and the administration both lying about how many gallons were being spilled. Is that good or bad? I'd argue there is a time for the public to not know everything. Is this one of them?

 

It is good for BP. Maybe if the public knew how much was really pouring into the Gulf there would be enough public outrage to actually get our government off their butt and figure something out. Surely we aren't okay with the fact that Russian scientists are, "the only human beings to have actually been to the Gulf of Mexico oil leak site."

[True blue (and gold)]

Nuke it.

 

I cautiously agree with you. From the readings I've done, this seems to be perhaps the most reasonable option.

[sportsfan41]

Did anyone read any of the comments below the first article, like the ones stating that the article is a hoax by an author thats infamous for these type of articles?

[Clyde]

I cautiously agree with you. From the readings I've done, this seems to be perhaps the most reasonable option.

 

What's the downside to the nuke option? I'm guessing it will take a while for the fish population to build up again ie lost jobs for the locals. What else?

[stickymitts]

^ What would be the result if it doesn't work? More oil at a faster rate?

[Blue Magic]

^ What would be the result if it doesn't work? More oil at a faster rate?

 

Would they do it if they weren't 100% sure it was going to work?

[stickymitts]

Would they do it if they weren't 100% sure it was going to work?

 

They have thus far.

[True blue (and gold)]

What's the downside to the nuke option? I'm guessing it will take a while for the fish population to build up again ie lost jobs for the locals. What else?

 

I'd say that there are going to be many downside to it, including what you mentioned. I really don't know much about the precedent that has been set, so that's something that I need to look into further.

 

I've read some information that says that a relief well would be ineffective at this point. It seems like an explosion might be the only way, heaven forbid.