posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 11:11 AM
Something has just occured to me. Obviously , it is the duty of the FDA to ensure that consumables are safe to eat, or in some other manner, ingest.
In order to achieve this goal, one must assume that tests of a scientific nature are run on foodstuffs and so on, to make certain that they are
healthy or at the very least, do not pose a serious and immediate threat to health and life.
That begs the following questions:
1) Were the seafood products ever actually tested?
2) If so, how were they deemed safe, when clearly , they are not?
3) If the seafood from the area was NOT tested, what was the excuse given for that, and how was it justified by the responsible parties.
4) Are the government of the U.S.A. going to provide healthcare, at no charge to the affected parties, for those who have become ill as a result of
consuming contaminated seafood?
5) Has anyone been fired over this, and if not, why ?
The fact is this one should have been a no brainer. Corexit, oil, and countless other pollutants were released as part of the initial incident, and
as part of the clean up afterward. Most of the chemicals that featured in the event as a whole were carcinogenic in nature, or contained compounds
that were, so you would have thought that anyone with a reasonable grounding in public health, would have been all over that like flies on a ten day
old corpse. That this has not seemed to be the case so far.