posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:45 AM
reply to post by AlteredTom
From what I understand, and I'm not well-read on this thread (but do know a lot about Corexit), so please excuse me - the scenario would be this:
The LC dose of Corexit is greater on small organisms then larger, more complex ones. This means that a fish or shrimp may need 100mgs to die, while I
may only take 50mg.
For example, if fish were taken from the Gulf, that were high in Corexit, blended and processed into fish emulsion and then sprayed onto crops (as is
common practice as an ingredient along with other chemicals) The animals eating those crops would be more susceptible to the Corexit then the fish.
It's all in the MSDS sheet, and I highly recommend you take a look at it.
Another way of saying it would be - If I ate some shrimp (and Corexit exhibits an 80% accumulation on mud and sand) the shrimp itself may seem healthy
(as they are more simple organisms then us) but the damage that I may suffer from eating those shrimp may well be enough to make me very sick (or
Basically, simple animals store the Corexit while not showing any signs of poisoning, while larger animals may well find that dose deadly.
And another thing - Corexit is a marine chemical, and is not designed to be highly volatile and the withholding periods for land-based application has
not been determined.
Anyway, I don't know the answers, I just know Corexit. It's nasty stuff.
If the OP can link fish emulsion taken from the Gulf and localise it to the areas effected by other animal deaths, I would be prone to agree.