In addition to widespread eyewitness accounts and internet rumours, HistoryTours’s Youtube channel features several videos documenting oily residue after a rain on the streets of River Ridge, Louisiana (screen capture above). There is some speculation that Corexit, the solvent being used to disperse the Gulf Oil Spill by BP in massive-never-before-seen amounts, is allowing crude oil to evaporate and rain oil onto the land.

There is also the possibility that these scenes are staged and it seems unlikely that oil would evaporate. We really aren’t able to verify the authenticity of the source of the oil in these videos.

However, there is one indisputable fact: Corexit is a very dangerous solvent that could put all life on the planet at risk. There is shocking evidence that Corexit is four times more dangerous to aquatic life than crude oil and that it can in fact evaporate in high temperatures and may have already entered the atmosphere and rained down on land and sea. The effects of this rain are devastating and Corexit is suspected in widespread crop damage as well as a host of adverse health effects in humans and animals.

The EPA has posted information on Corexit and approved its use in the Gulf Spill, but they have also ordered BP to use less of it and find a safer alternative.

So why is BP continuing to add massive quantities of an incredibly harmful solvent that could compound a somewhat isolated disaster into worldwide catastrophe? Quite simply, it hides the scale of the spill and prevents photo opportunities of oiled birds and animals, as illustrated in this "helpful" video provided by Nalco, the manufacturer of Corexit. Which reinforces the opinion that BP has taken a callous attitude toward the spill and the environment in general in favor of spin and profits.

Ultimately, we do not claim to be experts on this and both sides of the equation do seem to be loaded with misleading rumors and internet speculation. But the fact does remain, Corexit has never been used on this scale and something seems to be causing horrifying and unusual damage inland near the spill.

Can we really afford to take further risks by "testing" a highly unstable product on our oceans, lands, and living creatures during one of the biggest environmental disasters in human history?