3 ms·

I agree with your Niger Delta comment, but not with your 2nd point. It really comes down to defining what "worst" means and I'm not sure is that simple to compa

by fserb 16y ago

I agree with your Niger Delta comment, but not with your 2nd point. It really comes down to defining what "worst" means and I'm not sure is that simple to compare all those completely unique disasters (and it's even harder to put the pacific gyre - I assume you're talking about the garbage patch - on the same category as bhopal/chernobyl) specially when you consider the probable long term effects they might have. Regarding your 1st point, I think the different shades of black on the map reflect the density. Even though we still don't know what a 'light grey' or 'black' looks like in practice.

retube 16y ago
I agree with you that quantifying the size of a disaster is difficult. But I would say that rendering a 1000 square miles of land utterly uninhabitable for generations probably beats the damage caused to the US coast (Chernobyl). Or that 500,000 people rendered severely ill with long-term respiratory and realted health problems, thousands of deaths, premature babies with congenital defects, the destruction of farming land and poisoning of water for decades also probably tops Deepwater Horizon (Bhopal) And guess what? Union carbide still haven't cleaned it up over 25 years later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
- angusgr 16y ago
  This is an interesting one, because I think you're entirely right. The tough question I see is this: would exaggerating, downplaying or relativising the severity of the BP Spill increase or decrease the chances of more catastrophes like Chernobyl & Bhopal? The prospect of continuing abuses by oil companies in poorer parts of the world? Would it increase or decrease the chances of catastrophes like those being dealt with and cleaned up? I'm not wording those questions like I know the answer, cos I really don't. Optimistically, I try to hope that more environmental awareness is always a good thing.
- shrikant 16y ago
  Obligated to mention here that Union Carbide is owned by Dow Chemical.

by fserb 16y ago

retube 16y ago

I agree with you that quantifying the size of a disaster is difficult. But I would say that rendering a 1000 square miles of land utterly uninhabitable for generations probably beats the damage caused to the US coast (Chernobyl). Or that 500,000 people rendered severely ill with long-term respiratory and realted health problems, thousands of deaths, premature babies with congenital defects, the destruction of farming land and poisoning of water for decades also probably tops Deepwater Horizon (Bhopal) And guess what? Union carbide still haven't cleaned it up over 25 years later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

angusgr 16y ago
This is an interesting one, because I think you're entirely right. The tough question I see is this: would exaggerating, downplaying or relativising the severity of the BP Spill increase or decrease the chances of more catastrophes like Chernobyl & Bhopal? The prospect of continuing abuses by oil companies in poorer parts of the world? Would it increase or decrease the chances of catastrophes like those being dealt with and cleaned up? I'm not wording those questions like I know the answer, cos I really don't. Optimistically, I try to hope that more environmental awareness is always a good thing.
shrikant 16y ago
Obligated to mention here that Union Carbide is owned by Dow Chemical.