On May 17, 4:28*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 03:48:25 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote:
"We shall see" is the real answer to most all right now.

Um, that's what I said about a day ot two after this happened...

Dave
Think ity, bity, teeny, tiny creatures. Think way smaller than 22s or
the rumored 28s. Think itzy bitzy. Then think soap and worse.

Ooooh...I thought he was talking about CARTOON plankters...

And IAC, it's not soap, it's Corexit, IIRC, 9500A. *It's not what was used with
Ixtoc (a different Corexit/Nalco/Exxon product, 9527, from the same family) but
this is less toxic on its own and in use - unfortunately, there is no way to
truly test this kind of thing, so "less toxic" can only mean so much until
"real-world" results are seen. *From what I understand, lab results are at least
promising insofar as "less toxic" goes. *Research after Ixtoc was scant and
somewhat scattered (there is a report out there - check the Oxford Journals if
you can/wish), and while the effects of the 9527 weren't "none," they weren't as
bad as one might guess, either. *So hopefully with the 9500, things won't be too
bad. *At the end of the day, it will remain a "we'll see..."

HTH,
R



g.