34 ms·

i suggest you investigate the side effects of corexit that have emerged since the incident

by frontline 12y ago

sliverstorm 12y ago
Corexit is a dispersant, not a bacteria that eats oil.
- andreasvc 12y ago
  The comment you're replying to is arguing that corexit is harmful.
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    Obviously, but what does that comment have to do with anything? So corexit is harmful. My gp was talking about nuclear explosions and bacteria, not corexit.
    - tempestn 12y ago
      The grandparent also said, "so it wasn't quite as big of an environmental disaster as first expected." The comment about corexit would appear to refer to that part. You could argue that it was or wasn't as big of a disaster as expected, but the corexit comment was certainly relevant regardless.
      - mason240 12y ago
        It wasn't relevant. Damage from corexit would have be factored into initial concerns.
ChuckMcM 12y ago
I note that the FDA didn't find a problem with food safety (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/RecallsOutbreaksEmergencies/UCM250307.pdf http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/RecallsOutbreaksEmergencie...) the Wikipedia page references an unreliable Vice/MotherJones article. Not finding much on its side effects from research though. Do you have some additional pointers? these guys http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=24108904 http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=24108904 suggest that it doesn't help the bacteria work, but doesn't suggest any enhanced toxicity.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- thenmar 12y ago
  Here's the wikipedia page for anyone curious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corexit#Toxicity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corexit#Toxicity There are plenty of links to reliable sources there. Which page were you looking at?
  - ChuckMcM 12y ago
    I was mostly using Google Scholar to look for peer reviewed work with the keywords 'corexit toxicity' There are a about a dozen papers on the first page, of the ones I could read without jumping various firewalls the conclusions tended toward 'less toxic' than 'more toxic'. Would love to see a meta analysis too but didn't dig one up.

i suggest you investigate the side effects of corexit that have emerged since the incident

sliverstorm 12y ago

Corexit is a dispersant, not a bacteria that eats oil.

andreasvc 12y ago
The comment you're replying to is arguing that corexit is harmful.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Obviously, but what does that comment have to do with anything? So corexit is harmful. My gp was talking about nuclear explosions and bacteria, not corexit.
  - tempestn 12y ago
    The grandparent also said, "so it wasn't quite as big of an environmental disaster as first expected." The comment about corexit would appear to refer to that part. You could argue that it was or wasn't as big of a disaster as expected, but the corexit comment was certainly relevant regardless.
    - mason240 12y ago
      It wasn't relevant. Damage from corexit would have be factored into initial concerns.

ChuckMcM 12y ago

I note that the FDA didn't find a problem with food safety (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/RecallsOutbreaksEmergencies/UCM250307.pdf http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/RecallsOutbreaksEmergencie...) the Wikipedia page references an unreliable Vice/MotherJones article. Not finding much on its side effects from research though. Do you have some additional pointers? these guys http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=24108904 http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=24108904 suggest that it doesn't help the bacteria work, but doesn't suggest any enhanced toxicity.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
thenmar 12y ago
Here's the wikipedia page for anyone curious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corexit#Toxicity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corexit#Toxicity There are plenty of links to reliable sources there. Which page were you looking at?
- ChuckMcM 12y ago
  I was mostly using Google Scholar to look for peer reviewed work with the keywords 'corexit toxicity' There are a about a dozen papers on the first page, of the ones I could read without jumping various firewalls the conclusions tended toward 'less toxic' than 'more toxic'. Would love to see a meta analysis too but didn't dig one up.