Are They Still Applying Corexit...?

I am currently a resident of the Gulf of Mexico. I grew up in a small town just north of pascagoula MS and I am now living in Mexico Beach Florida (Which is on the very outermost edge of where the spill reached. They found only a few tarballs here and the further west you go from here the closer you are to the spill. Google earth it if you want.). I live literally on the waters of the gulf where the spraying of corexit is taking place. I have heard from the accounts of family members who worked for BP that the spraying still continues to this day during the cover of night. Now keep in mind this is only speculation. Also, many of the people who helped the company during the clean up are experiencing problems similar to the ones listed in this thread (I work as an echo tech for the hospital here in town). The water is considered "too dangerous to drink" even though people are still using it on a regular basis. I myself am having terrible digestive problems since we moved to the area as well as difficulty breathing and heart arrhythmias from time to time. My fiance is experiencing problems of extreme fatigue almost to the point of exhaustion. We are both in our twenties and are "healthy" according to most standards. I don't have any facts or proof that the spraying continues, however, I am open to answer any questions you might have about the gulf seeing as I live so close.

reply to post by iterationzero

hi iterationzero
the issue is not with the nalco material safety data sheet. i have the pdf on that material. this issue stems from a statement i gave earlier where stephen fry and friend were visiting the gulf area and were stood with bp officials on a derrick. one of the officials stated it was the first time a bio-engineered microbe has been used to tackle this tragedy.
no i do not know what this guy meant by this so i tried to contact various individuals around the coast to get a grip on whether this was the case.
thanks for the input.
regards f

reply to post by nathanscottecho


hi nathan
many thanks for posting. i spent a good 2 days searching and attempting contact with individuals around the coast. i got one reply from a guy called bill who informed me on the 12/12/2010 quote: 'Louisiana has been devastated as oil remains on shores, marshes, oyster-beds & within the waters of the Gulf.
The fishing industry & processors are all but shut-down.
BP's $20 Billion compensation-fund for suffered losses, is slow, in administration. Forms are numerous & confusing.
Future damages ,caused by the BP-Horizon spill are, as yet unknown.'
and also added: '1- Louisiana Bucket Brigade
2- Louisiana Shrimp Association
3- Louisiana Fishermen's Association.' links for further information.

Would it be possible for you to keep us updated on you and your girlfriends situation with regards to the difficulties you are facing? i feel if you post here many many people will appreciate your input and it will contribute to an otherwise worrying lack of information. this situation it seems continues and the more input from individuals the better informed everyone can become.
regards f

reply to post by fakedirt


I understand what you're claiming. I've handled samples of both of those Corexit products and had them analyzed for the purposes of reverse engineering. The product compositions match the MSDS. There's no microbiological component to either of them.

reply to post by iterationzero

hi iterationzero
i appreciate the reply back. with regards to the organic sulphic component, can this in some form alter already existing microbes present within the sea column?
i am at a loss to explain what i heard and watched with regards to stephen fry and friend attending the informal meeting. lack of data allowance restricts me from looking for the documentary on the bbc i player.
i will attempt to contact mr fry instead and hopefully gather further info on this.
regards f

reply to post by fakedirt


If by "alter" you mean in some mutagenic way, probably not. One of the main concepts of using dispersants, either in general or in an application like this, is that you don't want the active components to readily break down or react with other things. Regarding anionic surfactants, like DOSS, I'd say this applies to bacteria just as well. The net anionic surface charge of the phospholipid bilayer which forms the outer membrane of a bacterial cell would at least hinder interaction with other anionics, if not outright repel them.

reply to post by iterationzero


hi iterationzero
i kinda get what you are saying after reading your statement several times. i will wrap my head round it after some further research.
regards the stepthen fry contact situation, i'm afraid i'd have more chance receiving back an email from kim jong il!
i am working on a contact within the bbc to either confirm or supply a link to said footage.
furthermore i was sifting through many many pages on the effects to people around the gulf.
there are loose statements regarding the disintegration of the oesophagus lining. bleeding from anus etc.
i am wondering if you have noticed any reports. furthermore if this is the case, would the dispersant have played a part in the health impact or would it have occured without it.
regards f

He rebuketh the sea, and maketh it dry, and drieth up all the rivers: Bashan languisheth, and Carmel, and the flower of Lebanon languisheth.