Hacker News Reader

Comment by frontline | Hacker News Reader

i suggest you investigate the side effects of corexit that have emerged since the incident

I note that the FDA didn't find a problem with food safety (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/RecallsOutbreaksEmergencie...) the Wikipedia page references an unreliable Vice/MotherJones article. Not finding much on its side effects from research though. Do you have some additional pointers?

these guys http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=24108904 suggest that it doesn't help the bacteria work, but doesn't suggest any enhanced toxicity.

Here's the wikipedia page for anyone curious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corexit#Toxicity

There are plenty of links to reliable sources there. Which page were you looking at?

I was mostly using Google Scholar to look for peer reviewed work with the keywords 'corexit toxicity' There are a about a dozen papers on the first page, of the ones I could read without jumping various firewalls the conclusions tended toward 'less toxic' than 'more toxic'. Would love to see a meta analysis too but didn't dig one up.

Corexit is a dispersant, not a bacteria that eats oil.

The comment you're replying to is arguing that corexit is harmful.

Obviously, but what does that comment have to do with anything? So corexit is harmful. My gp was talking about nuclear explosions and bacteria, not corexit.

The grandparent also said, "so it wasn't quite as big of an environmental disaster as first expected." The comment about corexit would appear to refer to that part.

You could argue that it was or wasn't as big of a disaster as expected, but the corexit comment was certainly relevant regardless.

It wasn't relevant.

Damage from corexit would have be factored into initial concerns.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com