I've never been a tree hugger nor do I belong to Greenpeace but I am just a senior who is an avid surf fisherman. To that end I can't understand why the EPA allowed this dispersant to be used near/on such a delicate wetlands and in a large fish producing area.
To re-cap..........
For starters, the EPA allowed BP to spray a chemical dispersant, a product called Corexit, to break up oil right as it came out of BP's broken well nearly a mile below the surface. The idea was to save shorelines from being clobbered with vast waves of crude. In practice, the use of dispersants that had never been tested that far beneath the surface has made the oil much more difficult to track than it would have been in a single, massive slick. And environmentalists and marine biologists still aren't convinced the chemicals are safe for sea life.
The EPA halted underwater spraying while it tested samples collected by BP, then allowed it to resume once the results came back to the agency's satisfaction. Further tests are ongoing, and crews quit spraying dispersant once the well was contained this week, Jackson said. I don't know how it came back as being satisfactory having been label by the MSDS sheets with warning and now locals developing all sort of rashes.

As we all know, the oil did come ashore, dispite using this disperant. So the area got both harmful oil and harmful dispersant. I am thankful the loop current hasn't made the oil come arount the tip of Florida and flow northward.

spraying it by planes (air) at night ..... 187 million gallons were used

rashes signify that the body is loaded with toxins and the normal organs
that are dealing with them are over saturated