3 ms·
I would make sure that it sunk too if I was dumping toxic stuff in the ocean... That is what BP did when they had that huge oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico... T
by vaccinator 6y ago
I would make sure that it sunk too if I was dumping toxic stuff in the ocean... That is what BP did when they had that huge oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico... The dispersant (Corexit[1]) that they used to sink the oil was even more toxic then the oil itself, but at least it hid the mess.
1. https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/04/bp-corexit-deepwater-horizon-epa-dispersant/ https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/04/bp-corexit-d...
- hanniabu 6y agoI'm still amazed they're able to use that stuff
- sschueller 6y agoCorexit was a way bigger crime than the oil spill itself and a huge amount of profit was made selling the chemical. Discusting.
- vaccinator 6y agoI still boycott BP, to this day. But I am probably a minority. In some areas in Florida, they purchased most gas stations after the spill happened, so it is sometime not easy to avoid them.
- the_pwner224 6y agoI didn't bother boycotting BP because I assumed that all the big oil companies are similarly corrupt, put profit over the environment to the same degree, cover up their incidents, etc. BP is just the one that got unlucky and had a PR disaster about it. The article mentioned above implies that Corexit is commonly used - so nothing special about BP here. > Corexit is a go-to product for energy companies like BP when they’re dealing with massive spills. Wikipedia shows that BP's usage was by a very wide margin the largest use of Corexit, so I suppose I'm going to stop buying BP too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corexit#Use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corexit#Use
- vaccinator 6y agoIt wasn't a huge PR mess for no reason...