It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by DragonFire1024
Even if they started to decontaminate now, it would make no difference if they are still using "dispersants."
This has been rehashed in many old threads when this disaster first came to light. Dispersants are not all that evil, and all the health effects associated with dispersants are also associated with every other soap on the market. Your local car wash puts out as many toxic chemicals every year as the oil spill did. A dispersant is really just a soap and an astringent.
The brand name is important for two reasons.
#1. it shows a hole in the original story. No researcher would have used that brand name without being 100% certain, and the only way to be certain was to have proprietary information, and the only way to have that information is to sign a non-disclosure agreement, so it proves the original source is a liar.
#2. It is important to distinguish if the dispersants came from the Gulf where Corexit was used, or the local car wash where a million other types of dispersants that are 99% the same formula as Corexit was used. The only way to attach it to the Gulf spill is to be certain it really was Corexit.
For the record, I live 15 minutes from the Gulf Coast, and I have a good friend that runs a Marine lab here, and there have not been any toxic effects detected in my area. Zero. Now Louisianna did have some bad effects in the marshland and breeding grounds, and it did impact the shrimp and fisheries, and I suspect it will still impact for awhile, but the point is that this particular article from the OP is FALSE.
The impact you speak of, has yet to begin.