Originally posted by niteboy82
Originally posted by justadood
reply to post by StealthKix
I'll check back later to see how many of you will say i am claiming corexitt is benign.
I'm not quite sure what else you expect with the post you made. Corexit is more dangerous than the oil itself, yet you still think its best to use
the corexit instead of just working to collect the oil, prevent it from hitting marshland. For that matter, maybe getting on top of fixing the
Great question. My issue is I see no evidence to suggest there is any magic tool that will collect all the oil if it is 'merely' floating on the
surface. There is much media hype about skimmers like "A Whale" and booms and whatnot, but the REALITY is, these things end up having very little
practical impact. Oil ROUTINELY surges over booms, and the skimmers pick up very little oil. It will take all the skimmers available in the world
DECADES to clean up all this oil (not to mention the more that is still coming) and in the meantime, it will make its way to the shores and open
So, NO, i dont think corexitt is the best thing to use. It appear quite obvious BP is using it because they have financial connections to the company
who provides it. But I ABSOLUTELY dont think that using a dispersant is inherently bad. In fact, if you'll do a little research about big spills
around the world, you will discover dispersants clean it up faster than anything else.
It's obvious that you don't believe that corexit is benign, I just wonder how harmless you think it is in comparison to the oil.
Well, i would like to believe its obvious, but i have had some pretty crazy responses on this forum, so i have found it necessary to make numerous
qualifications to avid being called a 'shill'.
As for your second sentence, i dont think it is harmless. All evidence available implies it is actually VERY VERY bad, and even worse when mixed with
oil. But the evidence ALSO suggests that it does indeed break the crude down into smaller bits that allow microbes better access to it, greatly
speeding up its decomposition. No one int he scientific community really seems to dispute that, from what ive seen.
So, my point, as i illustrated in my previous post, is that people who are claiming the "ONLY" reason BP is using it is to hide it may not be
entirely accurate. it would also appear they are ALSO using it because it does indeed have some useful side effects.
So yes, i think they should be using dispersants on this oil. It is VERY effective. But, no, i dont think they should use corexit.
Also, how come every spell checker out there STILL doesnt recognize 'dispersants'?