It's an important question. Oil and Corexit are toxic even neurotoxic. Brain lesions even.
Gulf States, Feds Report on Seafood
Release date: 12/09/2005
The states of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana, along with U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have analyzed hundreds of samples of fish and shellfish from the waters affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. To date, the data show no reason for concern about consuming seafood from the Gulf region due to the hurricanes.
As always, fishermen should avoid catching seafood in areas with visible oil sheens or slicks, and should only harvest live seafood
http://yosemite.epa.gov/...
That was then, in 2005.
Before hundreds of millions of gallons of oil and millions of gallons of Corexit were added to the Gulf.
So, in 2005 shellfish was at risk from oil slicks from a hurricane or two.
What does that mean now? Well, dah. If crab larvae have drops of oil under their shell, drops made small enough by Corexit, how can we believe that it is safe to eat seafood just because a Professional Sea Food Smeller says it doesn't smell contaminated?
Isn't BP liable for the fishermen's (and all the attendant businesses) loss of income until everyone is completely convinced the seafood is safe to eat? And what will that take? Certainly more than verbal assurances and smell tests.
The safety of the Gulf seafood begs the question:
If it smells like oil, or if it tastes like oil, it's contaminated with oil. Ok, we understand this.
But what does Corexit smell like?
To add to our suspicions of safety, how can we know it is even safe to breathe the air? Walk on the beach? And swim in the water?
This clip of Dr. Ricki Ott is amazing. Most of us have already seen this, so I dropped some quotes from the clip below.
Even if only 25% of what she says is verifiable, I can see no reason to not warn parents about the beach this summer if they care about the well-being of children more than the well-being of the economy (which can be argued does affect the well-being of the children). But isn't the potential of lifetime health issues much worse than hard times for a season.
Here's some quotes from the clip:
"Children are getting rashes"
"By the time you can smell it, it's too late"
"I'm not willing to say the air is safe"
"Katrina took water as far inland as far as 500 miles"
"It's a good summer to have a respirator ready"
"Just because you can't see oil, doesn't mean it isn't there"
"The illnesses that are rampant across the four state area. Identical symtomology. We have a problem. Federal officials need to sound the alarm"
Here's a great website about how to detect contaminated seafood
http://www.flseagrant.org/...
However, I don't seem to be able to find any information on how to discern if seafood is contaminated with Corexit?
By now, sadly, we have learned a great deal about Corexit and its toxic risks:
Corexit 9500 is a solvent originally developed by Exxon and now manufactured by the Nalco (owned by Goldman Sachs) of Naperville, Illinois. Corexit is is four times more toxic than oil (oil is toxic at 11 ppm (parts per million), Corexit 9500 at only 2.61ppm).
Read more: http://www.thegic.org/...
It seems like there is a concerted effort on the part of BP, the government (local, state, and federal), and the media to down play the toxic risks of the BP disaster, made worse by using a dispersant banned in it's own home country.
It seems the Corexit strategy worked. Out of sight, out of mind. Move on, all fixed.
But, wait! It's bubbling out of the ground. It's buried. You can't see it, but hermit crabs digging their holes have helped reveal the fact that the oil/corexit is buried:
http://www.youtube.com/...
Here's some quotes from the clip:
"When we stepped on the ground, oil squirted out of a crab hole"
"This island was ground zero"
"What happened"
"Part of the barrier island chain"
"this whole area got hit first"
"Anyone flying over, you'd never know there was a problem"
"Han finds oil in the water, you can see the oil that's coming out of their if you did a little"
"We found a lot of dead hermit crabs. When the crabs dig down, they create holes, that's where the oil bubbles up. If it weren't for the hermit crabs, we wouldn't have known this oil was here"
"I would think one of the things we should ask BP to do is take soil samples all in this area and see how deep the oil is"
Here's a map of the 57-83 thousands square miles that have been contaminated:
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/...
The closed area now measures 57,539 sq mi (149,026 sq
km) and covers about 24% of the Gulf of Mexico
exclusive economic zone. Before the southern area was
re-opened, 83,927 miles (217,371 sq km), or roughly
35% of federal waters of the Gulf, were closed to
fishing. NOAA will continue to evaluate the need for
fisheries closures based on the evolving nature of the
spill and will re-open closed areas as appropriate.
The re-opened area was originally closed as a
precaution, because light oil sheen that had been
observed in the northeastern Gulf was projected to enter
the loop current and move south. Since mid-June,
NOAA data has shown no oil in the area, and United
States Coast Guard observers flying over the area in the
last 30 days have also not seen any oil.
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/...
The map doesn't indicate the fishing areas near the coast are opened yet?
The New York Times happy talk article linked here is interesting. If you read the comments attached to the article, it becomes clear that the readers don't buy it and won't be buying/eating the Gulf seafood.
U.S. Finds Most Oil From Spill Poses Little Additional Risk
http://www.nytimes.com/...
And yet, oil/corexit is found under the shell of crab larvae? And it takes very little Corexit to be toxic? And BP bought out (paid off) local scientists/labs? And so on, concern, after concern, after concern. Is it any wonder people aren't believing the FDA and others regarding the safety of Gulf seafood?
Our hearts break for the fisherman and their families; however, I wonder if we will ever know if eating their shellfish for the next little while is safe?
If you think about it, BP's liability payments to the fishing industry in the Gulf and all the fisherman whose income has been decimated, will be less IF the FDA claims that the shellfish is just fine to eat as soon as possible. The sooner the FDA claims 'all is well', the less BP will have to pay.
Then again, what is safe anymore, really.
It took over 20 years to resolve the Valdez liabilities. So much for fair and timely restitution.
Do we really have to wait twenty years to learn that the children exposed to this unnecessary travesty have higher cancer rates? Shorter lives? Have offspring with higher risk of birth defects?
Or will the EPA and the FDA stand up, grow some, and be truthful and honest to all those already exposed and those still in potential harms way?
Can someone with power just stand up and say
"It would be a good idea to keep the kids off the beach and out of the water for a season?
ABOUT DR. OTT:
I couldn't find a lot of info on line. Does someone have her biography? Where she got her PhD?
Dr. Ott is the author of Sound Truth and Corporate Myth$: The Legacy of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill and Not One Drop: Promises, Betrayal, and Courage in the Wake of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (Chelsea Green, 2008). She is also the founder of three nonprofit organizations that deal with lingering harm from man-made environmental disaster.
http://www.rikiott.com/...
Colby graduate in 1976 it appears
http://www.colby.edu/...