Worse, the toxins in this unholy mix of Corexit and crude actually penetrate wet skin faster than dry skin (photos above)—the author describes it as the equivalent of a built-in accelerant—though you'd never know it unless you happened to look under fluorescent light in the 370nm spectrum. The stuff can't be wiped off. It's absorbed into the skin.

And it isn't going away. Other findings from monitoring sites between Waveland, Mississippi, and Cape San Blas, Florida over the past two years:

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012 ... dispersant

Thanks...

Yes, this Corexit didn't even correct it and it's toxic as can be. Who manufactures this unholy product?

Probably your Tax dollars....

I find it interesting that Corexit was banned in the UK but HEY! it's okay to use it on the BP (British Petroleum lol) spill in the Gulf. All it did was sink the oil to the bottom of the ocean floor and kill everything.

Stormborn

Well, not exactly.

Corexit is a dispersant, kind of like a powerful soap. Like the oil, Corexit floats on the surface of water. It separates the crude oil sheet into microscopic droplets. These tiny droplets distribute themselves in the water, effectively out of sight (because the are invisible to the naked eye), but still there nonetheless. Because the droplets are microscopic, they are now readily absorbed into anything living in the waters where they are present. Instead of a known threat that living things can try to avoid, the crude oil becomes an invisible threat that permeates the water and all living things found in that water.

In theory, the oil droplets are more quickly broken down by natural processes, but I suspect that humans don't really have a clue what they are messing with.

As usual.

Gulf Seafood anyone?

Gulf seafood deformities alarm scientists
Eyeless shrimp and fish with lesions are becoming common, with BP oil pollution believed to be the likely cause.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/04/201241682318260912.html?utm_content=features&utm_campaign=features&utm_source=twitter&utm_term=rss&utm_medium=tweet

Gulf Seafood Deformities Raise Questions Among Scientists And Fisherman (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/18/gulf-seafood-deformities-raise-questions_n_1434268.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Check out this report Chico.



http://www.desmogblog.com/bp-oil-disper ... ing-agents

Interesting. A dispersant does just the opposite of a coagulant. So which is it? Someone has got their story wrong.

Even if oil "coagulates", it still won't sink, since it is less dense than water.

I agree, Chico. It is interesting and a conundrum. I referenced that article to point out that we really have no clue what Corexit truly is. I am unaware of any disclosure of Corexit's true chemical nature. Perhaps someone here has more up to date material?

Is this article true? I really do not know. I find it odd, the report is out there considering "everything is fine" and the problem has been solved. If it is, part of the Corexit compound not only caused coagulation, but also caused the oil to sink to the ocean floor. This seems plausible considering that shrimp, crabs and lobsters are all bottom feeders and we are seeing deformities reported.

Stormborm

PS I wouldn't touch any seafood coming from the Gulf, personally.