The Bhopal Chemical Spill Disaster: Who’s to Blame? [new The Good Life column]

The opening of my latest column at EveryJoe:

“The long-term estimated death toll from the 1984 Bhopal disaster in India is about 15,000 people.

“To put that in context, consider that the estimated immediate death toll from the Soviet Union’s 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster is 4,000. The death toll from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear radiation leak in 2011 is zero. And the death toll from the USA’s 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident is also zero.

“In the high-tech society we strive to be, it is essential that we learn the causes of disasters so that we can correct our mistakes. Technology lessens many of life’s risks, but handled badly it can add other serious risks.

“So Bhopal is rightly a major case to learn from. A hazardous chemical, methyl isocyanate (MIC), used in the making of agricultural pesticides, was spilled and tragically many people died or were maimed …” [Read more here.]

the-good-life-bhopal-disaster

Previous column in The Good Life series: How Smart and Well-Read was Adolf Hitler?

4 thoughts on “The Bhopal Chemical Spill Disaster: Who’s to Blame? [new The Good Life column]”

  1. In the view of UCC, “the ruling reaffirms UCC’s long-held positions and finally puts to rest—both procedurally and substantively—the issues raised in the class action complaint first filed against Union Carbide in 1999 by Haseena Bi and several organisations representing the residents of Bhopal”. All were released on bail shortly after the verdict.

  2. The “Corporate Negligence” point of view argues that the disaster was caused by a potent combination of under-maintained and decaying facilities, a weak attitude towards safety, and an undertrained workforce, culminating in worker actions that inadvertently enabled water to penetrate the MIC tanks in the absence of properly working safeguards. The “Worker Sabotage” point of view argues that it was not physically possible for the water to enter the tank without concerted human effort, and that extensive testimony and engineering analysis leads to a conclusion that water entered the tank when a rogue individual employee hooked a water hose directly to an empty valve on the side of the tank.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *