3 ms·
Except it didn't contain the damage, at least according to the documentary The Big Fix. Instead of having a highly visible oil slick, the dispersant (Corexit)
by filoeleven 11y ago
Except it didn't contain the damage, at least according to the documentary The Big Fix. Instead of having a highly visible oil slick, the dispersant (Corexit) spread it out. It also had the effect of making the oil more bioavailable and therefore damaging to wildlife and humans. Lots of gulf coast folks are showing symptoms of being affected by the oil, the Corexit, or both.
I'd love to hear people who live in the affected area chime in, as I don't have any corroborating evidence beyond what's offered by the documentary, but it suggests that the use of a dispersant created a much bigger public health problem than it solved.
- Amezarak 11y agoI live on the Mississippi coast. It was definitely a big deal when it happened since fishing/seafood is one of the major industries here. I heard lots of reports of folks who were doing the cleanup who were affected by the dispersants. I haven't heard of anyone getting sick from going out on the water or eating coast seafood, and I feel perfectly safe myself eating them. (I certainly don't like the idea of eating oil and dispersants, but I don't weight it as a very high-risk activity.) From time to time you still see oil or tar in the bayous or on the beach, but it's become increasingly uncommon. Fishermen have vociferously complained that it affected seafood harvests. Unfortunately a lot of the "cleanup" money is being wasted on things like gigabit Internet (which I would love, but come on) and damming up the biggest continental US river to create two recreational lakes in the middle of nowhere. (Coincidentally a county supervisor owns a lot of land that will have to be bought up by the county.)