4 ms·

Bhopal disaster

35 points by dustingetz 16y ago

jgoewert 16y ago
Nifty... that sets an interesting precident that makes me believe the US should do the same thing with Tony Hayward and his cronies.
hugh3 16y ago
From the guidelines: You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it. I'd suggest changing it just to the linked page's title "Bhopal disaster" (context: at the time of writing the title is "1984: US company's negligence kills 15,000 people in India" since, as mentioned in the article, it is disputed whether Union Carbide was negligent. Union Carbide still maintains the disaster was the result of sabotage. update: Thanks editors!
- michaelcampbell 16y ago
  And sabotage or not, there was plenty of blame to go around, and not limited to policies and processes that can be rightfully put on the corporate office; much of the tactical damage control and safety issues were pretty much in the complete purview of the local populace actually working there, some of which reportedly RAN AWAY rather the performing prescribed safety procedures.
- lutorm 16y ago
  Yeah, the title seems slanted. It's an interesting question though, that of negligence. If you handle a deadly chemical and manage to kill 15000 people, it's pretty clear that someone didn't consider the possible consequences (or didn't care enough). I'm usually not much for scapegoating, but I think this is one of the cases where it is incumbent upon you to make sure you don't kill people. (And sabotage or not, it's still your responsibility to safeguard the facilities if the potential consequences of a leak are that dire.)
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Yes, my complaint about the title shouldn't be taken as a complete endorsement of Union Carbide's view of events. If you choose to put a tank of poison gas within death range of fifteen thousand people, especially of the "if any water ever gets in this tank will explode" variety, you have to bear at least partial responsibility for whatever happens.
    - hga 16y ago
      Read the center of this item which is cited by stretchwithme elsewhere but not hotlinked: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-2089-mutual_plunder.aspx http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-2089-mutual_plunder.aspx It agrees with my recollection of the reporting at the time, that when Union Carbide built the plant in 1969 it was in a deserted area and that the victims moved there later (according to this account, due to the actions of local planners).
      - hugh3 16y ago
        Ah yes, well if that's the case then we should definitely heap some blame on the local planners who allowed residential zones so close to the big scary gas canister of death.
  - sliverstorm 16y ago
    > ... sabotage or not, it's still your responsibility to safeguard the facilities... Half of sabotage is breaking safeguards. Not that precautions and defenses shouldn't exist, but asking for safeguards that are still safe after being sabotaged is like asking cryptologists to design a system that is still secure after it's been compromised.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  It was almost certainly sabotage, chemical plants (including the UC plant at Bhopal) are designed to make accidents like this impossible. After the fact investigations all failed to reproduce the alleged accident mechanism. Also, completely coincidentally, UC was involved in a dispute with the union. Lastly, "US Company" is inaccurate. The plant was only 50.9% US owned, and 49.1% Indian owned.
  - byrneseyeview 16y ago
    So it should be "US company kills 7,635 people on a pro-rata basis."
  - dman 16y ago
    Can you please provide some proof / reference for the sabotage claim ?
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      According to the wikipedia article, the various investigations (by UCC, the government, outside consultants) all failed to reproduce the failure mode alleged to be behind the disaster (water backflow into the mic tank). There doesn't seem to be direct evidence of sabotage, only circumstantial - all the accidental failure modes were ruled out, so what remains is deliberate introduction of water. http://www.bhopalfacts.com/pdfs/casestdy.pdf http://www.bhopalfacts.com/pdfs/casestdy.pdf Note that the Indian government significantly inhibited any external investigation into the disaster.
stretchwithme 16y ago
Here's another perspective on this: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-2089-mutual_plunder.aspx The government did quite a bit to weaken this facility in an effort to "create jobs". Union Carbide's big mistake was continuing to do business there when the government kept changing the terms for the deal they had. But that's what governments always do.
yock 16y ago
What? We're linking to Wikipedia articles now and calling it news?
- jmm 16y ago
  I get what you're saying. But it is an interesting engineering failure story. Was one of our case studies in engineering ethics class...

35 points by dustingetz 16y ago

Nifty... that sets an interesting precident that makes me believe the US should do the same thing with Tony Hayward and his cronies.

hugh3 16y ago

From the guidelines: You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it. I'd suggest changing it just to the linked page's title "Bhopal disaster" (context: at the time of writing the title is "1984: US company's negligence kills 15,000 people in India" since, as mentioned in the article, it is disputed whether Union Carbide was negligent. Union Carbide still maintains the disaster was the result of sabotage. update: Thanks editors!

michaelcampbell 16y ago
And sabotage or not, there was plenty of blame to go around, and not limited to policies and processes that can be rightfully put on the corporate office; much of the tactical damage control and safety issues were pretty much in the complete purview of the local populace actually working there, some of which reportedly RAN AWAY rather the performing prescribed safety procedures.
lutorm 16y ago
Yeah, the title seems slanted. It's an interesting question though, that of negligence. If you handle a deadly chemical and manage to kill 15000 people, it's pretty clear that someone didn't consider the possible consequences (or didn't care enough). I'm usually not much for scapegoating, but I think this is one of the cases where it is incumbent upon you to make sure you don't kill people. (And sabotage or not, it's still your responsibility to safeguard the facilities if the potential consequences of a leak are that dire.)
- hugh3 16y ago
  Yes, my complaint about the title shouldn't be taken as a complete endorsement of Union Carbide's view of events. If you choose to put a tank of poison gas within death range of fifteen thousand people, especially of the "if any water ever gets in this tank will explode" variety, you have to bear at least partial responsibility for whatever happens.
  - hga 16y ago
    Read the center of this item which is cited by stretchwithme elsewhere but not hotlinked: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-2089-mutual_plunder.aspx http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-2089-mutual_plunder.aspx It agrees with my recollection of the reporting at the time, that when Union Carbide built the plant in 1969 it was in a deserted area and that the victims moved there later (according to this account, due to the actions of local planners).
    - hugh3 16y ago
      Ah yes, well if that's the case then we should definitely heap some blame on the local planners who allowed residential zones so close to the big scary gas canister of death.
- sliverstorm 16y ago
  > ... sabotage or not, it's still your responsibility to safeguard the facilities... Half of sabotage is breaking safeguards. Not that precautions and defenses shouldn't exist, but asking for safeguards that are still safe after being sabotaged is like asking cryptologists to design a system that is still secure after it's been compromised.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
It was almost certainly sabotage, chemical plants (including the UC plant at Bhopal) are designed to make accidents like this impossible. After the fact investigations all failed to reproduce the alleged accident mechanism. Also, completely coincidentally, UC was involved in a dispute with the union. Lastly, "US Company" is inaccurate. The plant was only 50.9% US owned, and 49.1% Indian owned.
- byrneseyeview 16y ago
  So it should be "US company kills 7,635 people on a pro-rata basis."
- dman 16y ago
  Can you please provide some proof / reference for the sabotage claim ?
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    According to the wikipedia article, the various investigations (by UCC, the government, outside consultants) all failed to reproduce the failure mode alleged to be behind the disaster (water backflow into the mic tank). There doesn't seem to be direct evidence of sabotage, only circumstantial - all the accidental failure modes were ruled out, so what remains is deliberate introduction of water. http://www.bhopalfacts.com/pdfs/casestdy.pdf http://www.bhopalfacts.com/pdfs/casestdy.pdf Note that the Indian government significantly inhibited any external investigation into the disaster.

stretchwithme 16y ago

Here's another perspective on this: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-2089-mutual_plunder.aspx The government did quite a bit to weaken this facility in an effort to "create jobs". Union Carbide's big mistake was continuing to do business there when the government kept changing the terms for the deal they had. But that's what governments always do.

yock 16y ago

What? We're linking to Wikipedia articles now and calling it news?

jmm 16y ago
I get what you're saying. But it is an interesting engineering failure story. Was one of our case studies in engineering ethics class...