3 ms·
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 gene
by 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 agoThis 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 agoObligated to mention here that Union Carbide is owned by Dow Chemical.