Bhopal Disaster Revisited [updated] 810
On December 3, 1984, a chemical plant run by Union Carbide and located in Bhopal, India
released about 40 tons of a toxic gas which was an intermediate chemical used in creating pesticides. (That is, the plant was in the business of creating chemicals deadly to life.) Safety at the plant had not been a concern of management; numerous safety systems were offline or non-functional. The gas cloud drifted over the city and killed thousands of people, and inflicted permanent injury to hundreds of thousands more. It was the worst industrial accident to date. Today, the site remains a contaminated wasteland, unusable and never cleaned up. The survivors have been minimally compensated, but as time passes, enough of them have died that compensation may now be in the works. Update: 12/03 15:51 GMT by M : Whoops, just kidding, the Reuters story linked there is wrong; the BBC was apparently hoaxed into putting a Dow spokesman on TV who wasn't actually a Dow spokesman. Dow has no plans to clean up the facility and no plans to compensate the survivors. Hope this clears things up.
I shudder to think ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I shudder to think that this means that there are so few remaining survivors that a pay out is financially feasible for Union Carbide.
The business of creating chemicals deadly to life (Score:5, Insightful)
gone bust (Score:2, Insightful)
I think governments should be responsible for the actions of companies that belong to them - which implies companies must belong to a government. After all, the government(s) will be profiting from illegal acts via taxation.
Dow got off light.... (Score:3, Insightful)
So that's what a life is worth to a multinational corporation?
Proof that capitalism is bad! (Score:3, Insightful)
-- Greg
Food for thought (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why outsourcing is bad for america (Score:2, Insightful)
However, this incident highlights that in America and the rest of the world where labor is given the respect and government protection that it deserves, companies that want to do business simply can't compete. How can any company who locates itself in a country with labor protections compete against companies that can simply *kill* their workforce by locating themselves in countries who turn a blind eye to such behavior.
The USA, and other countries with labor protection need to stop doing business with companies who take advantage of countries without proper protection. Why do we have labor laws when we allow and even *encourage* businesses to locate in places without them?
Re:Dow-chem chairman Warren Anderson (Score:5, Insightful)
When you hear shit like "the terrorists hate our freedom," think of Bhopal. Around 3k people died on 9/11. In Bhopal, the lasting death toll is somewhere around 15,000. I wonder if Anderson would have been allowed to settle if 15,000 Americans had died.
Mod me down if you want, I have karma to burn. But I'd sure like to see some magnetic yellow ribbons to support the victims of US multinational homicide. Mox
Bullshit. (Score:4, Insightful)
Blaming the strikers is just stupid as management made the decision to keep the plant running.
As bad as it was, it was good for india (Score:2, Insightful)
All we can do is hope that they take this tragedy and move towards standards of business and living that will move them towards a better life style.
factually wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations are not people (Score:4, Insightful)
- They exist because they are legally entitled to exist.
- They exist to make money.
Therefore, they will do nothing unless they are legally compelled to do it, or unless it will make them money, either now or in the future.See this movie. [thecorporation.tv]
Tragedy of immense proportions, with no end (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a story of corruption, of not having any fail safe mechanisms or adequate safety measures, of negligence, of politicians willingly selling their souls and of those who they represent and of a system which failed to protect its own.
A thousand fingers could be pointed and in this horrible disaster, anywhere you point, you can find guilty who are still sheltered by the law, by the money they have willingly spent for their own defense and none for the people who suffered.
Union Carbide / Warren Anderson and Dow Chemical - Till now, they have chosen not to accept any form of responsibility and instead suggest sabotage. Union Carbide had spent a paltry sum before they agreed to pay 470 million of which hardly one third has been paid to its victims for the lack of any judicial oversight and sadly, corruption at the heart of the system. Even the 470 million that hopefully will be disbursed one day, hardly 2000 dollars will go to the families of those who died and 500$ to those who lost everything but their lives. Hardly a sum for the cost of a human life...
Union Carbide's response [bhopal.com] cleverly attempts to distance itself from the tragedy by calling the Bhopal plant owned by an indian firm. Clever, but it also serves to belittle the scope of this disaster and the lives that were snuffed out.
Would this be the same outcome if this had happened elsewhere, or in the developed world? And wouldnt a proper clean up in order or long completed if this were anywhere else.
Warren Anderson never saw the inside of a prison and still lives quite contently in Florida or NY and the US judicial system has done its part by denying the extradition requests by India. The Indian system on the other hand has comfortably chosen to neglect the cries for justice and has happily moved on..
Rediff.com [rediff.com] has a sombre look at the tragedy, its victims, those who were forgotten, and those who still suffer.
One more reason not to trust corporations..
Also no additional compensation is planned and Dow has not apologized or owned up to this tragedy as the last part of the slashdot post. It is a hoax and was unknowingly perpetrated by a BBC interview. Read the AP article first (it drips accountability which is the last thing Dow or any corporation would do)and the proof its a hoax [rediff.com]
Re:Just wait.. (Score:1, Insightful)
(and yes I am fully aware that the Japanese government still have failed to recognize the "comfort women" and some of their politicos have claimed that the war crimes of imperial japan were exaggerated - those are their own ethical problems and divorced from those faced by the US)
Re:Dow-chem chairman Warren Anderson (Score:5, Insightful)
A foreign company was responsible for large-scale devastation and deaths in thousands, and yet the management of the company get away scot-free.
Don't you think it's a little unfair? Swindling money and getting away with it (a la Enron) is one thing, but killing people and getting away with it is another.
Over 15,000 people were killed and thousands more have been scarred for life. The entire ecological system in that city is in ruins and there is no life or vegetation growing there.
There is something called responsibility for your actions. Just because you are a corporation does not excuse you from that. American or not.
Re:Food for thought (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Proof that capitalism is bad! (Score:5, Insightful)
When you, through negligence, ignorance, or malice, are responsible for something so heinous as to cause massive death and suffering to a large number of people, refuse to stand up for your actions, and have a government immorally protecting you from just punishment, you are shit. Walking excrement.
It has nothing to do with hating progress, capitalism, democracy, freedom, America, and my god won't somebody finally think of the children? Nobody is suggesting gas bombing the homes of animal researchers, or not funding stem cell research because it kills innocent gobs of discarded embryos. Nor is anyone advocating communism, or returning back to the fucking trees.
The actions, or failure to take them, of a company killed a large number of people and crippled others, in addition to causing a serious environmental disaster. Those in that company required both ethically and, in many countries, legally to take responsibility for such an action have not only been too spineless to face the consequences of their faulty leadership, but have even refused to compensate those whose lives their actions destroyed.
What would you think if Dow sent a cloud of dioxin gas over Hoboken? If IG Farben contributed directly to the deaths of a few thousand measly Jews? There's a reason for government relations to PREVENT this sort of thing, not circumscribe your precious freedoms to drop hunks of plutonium in neighborhod rivers, god forbid.
Ever heard of the phrase "the buck stops here"? Look it up. Your malformed opinions piss me off.
Re:gone bust (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, be a corporation. That's good for the banks, tax and writing cheques. But, full personal legal liability if you fark up. Pleasant side effect of stopping trusts and shelter companies from hiding assets.
Shareholders, workers and directors alike.
Would certainly make most people think twice about signing off on shonky practices. Someone must have made a decision to turn off, or cut maintenance to, inbuilt safety systems.
interesting to note... (Score:2, Insightful)
But, you know, if Julia Roberts has twins...
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
to anyone who mentions DOW (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dow-chem chairman Warren Anderson (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as we continue to allow company officers to bear no responsibility for the actions of a company we will continue to see events like this. It makes no sense whatsoever that the offices should not be held accountable for the offenses of the company. They are in the position of responsibility. That word apparently doesn't mean what it used to, because they are seldom expected to actually take responsibility. They have all of the benefits and none of the drawbacks.
Personally I think that if we're not going to punish the company officers then we have only one other solution. If corporations want to be treated as a person (and in many ways they are) we should treat them as a person and accept them to assume the responsibility for their actions. Therefore if a company kills thousands of people it is a mass murderer and it should be destroyed or incarcerated permanently without chance of parole, its resources sold at auction to pay for the legal action... and maybe even to provide restitutions.
US$500M is nothing compared to even one human life lost in the pursuit of greed. Can there be any doubt that the safety measures were skimped on simply to save money? When people die due to someone's greed then the perpetrator should suffer more than a loss of money.
Re:Dow-chem chairman Warren Anderson (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dow-chem chairman Warren Anderson (Score:2, Insightful)
"Deadly to life"- could there be a dumber comment? (Score:2, Insightful)
Jeez, could your bias be any more obvious?
Pesticides are not "deadly to life"; they're first and foremost deadly to insects...and because of this property, they dramatically cut the losses in raising food crops, allowing more people to be fed on less farmland, which means that more land can remain uncultivated.
Next up: anti-biotics kill germs, and thus are "deadly to life".
And after that: suregons use hot water and soap in the prep room before operating...two things that are "deadly to life".
And after that: farmers use combines to harvest grains...which results in all of the plants being killed. More "deadly to life" technology!
Pfffttt.
Re:Dow-chem chairman Warren Anderson (Score:5, Insightful)
If you continue your line of thought, you could say that the terrorists of 11/9 only wanted to do material damage, but human lives was lost by accident.
Re:Sabatoge (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't need to blame an incident like this on sabotage if it can be explained by human stupidity and lack of proper safety procedures.
I don't know what scares me most... (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dow-chem chairman Warren Anderson (Score:5, Insightful)
9/11 was a direct attack. Bhopal was an accident. Analogies are dangerous when missused.
Blatant disregard for safety procedures and lax management make accidents? If I blatantly disregard the law and fail to secure my child in a seat belt, then get into an accident, I am criminally liable for his injuries. If I oversaw a chemical plant, failed to ensure safety systems were online and safety precautions were taken by my workers, and an "accident" occurred, I should be liable.
9/11 could be the same thing -- our government had information but failed to act on it. As far as I am concerned, our government is criminally liable for failing to do *anything* about 9/11 before it happened, even if just acknowledging the possibility and making a token gesture by alerting the FBI.
Re:Dow-chem chairman Warren Anderson (Score:5, Insightful)
Those 15,000 Indians were not killed for any such passionate reasons - they simply weren't worth enough to bother protecting. They were killed for money, for the price of a few intelligent safety measures. The perpetrators of that crime not only didn't die in its commission, they haven't been punished.
Re:Dow-chem chairman Warren Anderson (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dow-chem chairman Warren Anderson (Score:2, Insightful)
An "accident" which is a direct consequence of wilful negligence on this scale is no accident, it is a situation waiting to happen.
God knows how many other similar situations like this exist in the world, but those responsible are putting people's lives just as surely at risk. If anything, the profit-line motivation makes them more criminally culpable than terrorists attempting to underline a political or religious point.
Re:Dow-chem chairman Warren Anderson (Score:5, Insightful)
This is true, but it does not absolve Union Carbide and its executives of responsibility. On 9/11, the deaths were the result of a deliberate attempt to kill. In Bhopal, the deaths were a foreseeable result of reckless neglect of safety and concern only for money. In the United States, that would be roughly the difference between first- and second-degree murder*.
If a similar accident took place on U.S. soil, the press, the public, and the politicians would be screaming for blood. Do you think that Dow Chemical could 'accidentally' release a few tons of (say) chlorine, kill a couple thousand people, and then close the book on it with a million or two in settlements and a mea culpa?
*Yes, yes. IANAL.
Re:Both sides? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've read that the refrigerant safety system (meant to slow/stop the chemical reaction that takes place if water gets into the storage tank) had been shut down and the freon shipped TO ANOTHER PLANT. That wasn't the act of a disgruntled employee, that was management.
Lea
Re:Dow-chem chairman Warren Anderson (Score:4, Insightful)
So, a company builds a plant and generates a whole bunch of binders full of safety procedures.
They then hire people who've got experience in chemical manufacturing and train them on the excepted way to run the plant (based off of the safety procedures).
Now, when these people don't follow procedures, don't keep equipment properly maintained and an accident (such as not closing a value so that when the system was flushed out with water, water would inavertently enter a tank full of a chemical that reacts explosively with water, whose fault is it?
Is it the fault of the operators of the plant?
Is it the fault of the company for not doing enough oversight?
I don't know enough about the Bhopal accident, but I'm suspecting it was probably a bit inbetween.
Re:interesting to note... (Score:2, Insightful)
Because as we all know the massive UN/French Oil for Food corruption (netting Saddam over $20 billion and the French over $1 billion), the French killing of unarmed protestors in the Ivory Coast, without first firing warning shots, (the videos are out there for anyone to see), and the ineptitude of the UN in doing absolutely anything about the problems in Africa are all getting tons of play in the European press!
But, you know, David Blunkett might get to see someone who he thinks might be his son.
Re:Dow-chem chairman Warren Anderson (Score:4, Insightful)
If a person is head of a multi-national company with 150,000 employees, is that person personally criminally liable for the actions of every single employee?
He is responsible for having procedures in place that it does not happen.
Re:Dow-chem chairman Warren Anderson (Score:5, Insightful)
However, if someone is flagrantly negligent, then its another story. For example, If I have a factory with a machine. Workers are paid to use this machine. I fail in my duties to maintain the machine and it explodes injuring workers. That is my fault because I failed to perform my duty to the best of my abilities.
What it comes down to is responsibility. UC had a responsibility to make the plant safer and not explode. They failed and are responsible for the effects. 9/11 they have a responsibility to protect the country. In order to hold anyone liable you have to examine each individuals personal responsibility and then evaluate how well they performed vs. how they could have performed and what the effects of their failures where. A much more complicated affair.
As for the grocery clerk, I'm not responsible for his security.
Re:DEAD WRONG! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Dow-chem chairman Warren Anderson (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are the Captain of the ship, you should go down with the ship.
"If a person is head of a multi-national company with 150,000 employees, is that person personally criminally liable for the actions of every single employee?"
If he's negligent in properly running the factory, yes. He is the boss. That's why he gets paid big dollars. If he's not doing his job then he should pay the price. If he can't handle the responsibility then he has no business being in that position. However, if the incident occurs due to the failure of a single workman, then sure he's off the hook. This disaster was due to gross negligence that took place undoubtedly at the behest of the senior executive staff of the company. They should pay. They should pay dearly.
Corporations and the people who work for those corporations need to be held responsible for their actions. This shit goes too damn far.
Monday morning quarterbacking (Score:3, Insightful)
I know it's quite popular to think of large organizations as having some sort of collective brain (like the Borg on ST:TNG), but this just isn't the case. In the 9/11 case, one person in the government had information that an attack was planned by Islamic terrorists, another person had information that Islamic flight school students were acting very suspiciously, but these two people never met. They never talked to each other, they didn't even know the other person existed, let alone what information they had. Could somebody have put it all together? Possibly, yes. But it wasn't likely, and it didn't happen.
As for the token gesture you mention, that was already done -- the FBI (which is part of the government after all) was the organization that knew about the flight school students. Perhaps you meant the FAA or the airlines? Then I would agree. Also, a case could also be made that not having hijacker-resistant cockpit doors was negligent (it's not like 9/11 was the first airplane hijacking).
The Bhopal case is entirely different from 9/11. UC was in the business of making dangerous chemicals. Everything at that plant was under direct control of UC. If UC officials neglected proper safety procedures (I take no position on whether they did), they should be held criminally liable for damages caused.
Blame the Indian Government. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:quick linux question (Score:2, Insightful)
LOL MICAHEL
You're a complete fuck you and you know it. Why don't you get your head out of your ass and actually look past the "AMERIKAN CORPORATIONS ARE TEH SUCK!" viewpoint you have.
They have compensated to the tune of almost $500,000,000 and they have helped to clean the site up.
WHERE'S your BULLSHIT outrage against the Indian government for doing nothing? They had a 51% share in the plant for fuck sakes.
"Nothing" is right (Score:1, Insightful)
If he had done "something" instead of "nothing", the lives of thousands of people would have been spared.
Re:Fine, Gather evidence and try him in the USA. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometime accidents just happen, but when 4000+ people are dead, we should probably find out how.
Re:Dow-chem chairman Warren Anderson (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dow-chem chairman Warren Anderson (Score:2, Insightful)
What does that have to do with this? Just because DOW is a US company, suddenly this is "US multinational homicide"? Explain why the ENTIRE US is responsible for what one company does?
Oh, right. You weren't interested in making a lucid point, you wanted to jump on the oh-so-popular-on-slashdot bandwagon against anything from the US.
Sigh. I'm so tired of that. Really. You sound foolish, and contribute nothing to the conversation. I'm sure you can do better, so do us all a favor and try a little harder to think things through next time.
Re:I shudder to think ... (Score:3, Insightful)
And btw, $4000 is not even close to enough compensation; no matter where it is paid. It may be more than that woman might have ever seen otherwise, but it still amounts to a trivial fine to pay for killing someone's loved one.
Re:Dow-chem chairman Warren Anderson (Score:1, Insightful)
So, when it fucks up, he fucked up. He's not the guy with the hand on the switch, but he is -- make no mistake -- responsible for that switch. He's ultimately responsible for making sure the maintenance and safety is done correctly, even if he delegates the management of those facets of the company to somebody else.
Re:Fine, Gather evidence and try him in the USA. (Score:2, Insightful)
A few things, that really isn't fair on India
The government of India was the majority stakeholder. As such they knew or should have known the legal issues arising from a major industrial accident.
all those people who don't have much money are not going to come to the US and testify (also it would be easy from some key wittness to not get visa in time etc.).
Video deposition would be suffcient for the majority of witnesses. The rest could be on per-diem and the Indian government would have to plead special damages in order to re-coup their costs. If a key witness (that is a party required for just ajudication) was unavailable due to visa issues, I have no doubt that the federal judge in the case would start leaning on whoever it took to get the matter resolved.
If you are going to do business in another country, why shouldn't you have held accountable by it's laws?
If the contract with UC, the same one that gave India 51% ownership, specified that any legal action would be taken in the US then that was the contract that they signed. The clause that specified where legal action should commence is neither burdensome nor onerous.
Why should India lawyers before force into another legal system that they don't know?
There are a couple of ways to answer this. First, if they are a common-law country, then the method of how you prove a case is the same (case law nad statue law). Second, India would contract with a US law firm to do all of the sheparding through the federal court system. In some Federal courts the entire process is scheduled to a degree that significant understanding of the underlying complexities is not required. Third, if the Indian government can not find a lawyer experienced with US Federal civil practice to act as pointman then maybe they should think twice before letting a US corporation set up shop there.
What would happen if the it was an India who commited a crime the US, should he be tried in India?
Depends, is the citizen a private citizen or a corporate citizen? If the person is a private citizen then, much like a private US citizen abroad, they would be tried in the host country unless there was an agreement between host country and home country to extradite the individual. In the case of a corporate citizen then it would depend on the nature of the contract which the corporation is party to.
All that aside, my guess is that the Indian government does not want to try the case in Federal civil court because of the linient discovery requirments that might uncover information embarassing to themselves. With a public case like this, it is unlikely that a judge would order the records sealed.
Re:Monday morning quarterbacking (Score:3, Insightful)
That one person was George W. Bush, President of the United States of American and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. On August 6, 2001, he received an intelligence brief entitled Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States [gwu.edu] . On September 11, 2001, the President and the armed forces which he directly and absolutely commands had 1 hour's warning (from 8:40, when they first learned of the hijacking of AA Flight 11, to 9:37 when AA Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon) to use the Air Force to protect command installations in Washington. He did not. Instead he read a story about a pet goat. 9/11 is not an example of organizational breakdown, it is an example of the gross and absolute malfeasance of one single person.
Re:Dow-chem chairman Warren Anderson (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, that kind of Good Samaritan law I agree with, but the kind you talk aobut, to make it *mandatory* that you do a good deed seems to be treading on dangerously thin ethical ice - it's a bit like mandatory tithing.
Re:Dow-chem chairman Warren Anderson (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not compare?
Osama believes the lives of thousands of innocent Americans are less important than his insane plans for Islam.
The US believes the lives of thousands of innocent Indians are less important than avoiding a precedent of holding corporations and their executives accountable for mass slaughter.
Our position on corporate negligence is no less despicable than Osama's on terrorism, and at least as deadly.
BTW, an accident is only an accident if you shoulder responsiblity for it. If you shirk it, then it becomes something worse.
Re:Dow-chem chairman Warren Anderson (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, I do agree that more head should have rolled though, particularly in the CIA...
Re:Dow-chem chairman Warren Anderson (Score:2, Insightful)
The details of the Bhopal disaster are well-documented. There is no new detail to speak of. UC is obviously, blatantly, indefensably guilty of ignoring critical safety precautions that directly resulted in this massive loss of life. And you, danheskett, sit there behind your keyboard and actually try to explain away and defend these actions with the most blinkered, ignorant red herrings and non sequiturs. Its fucking astonishing, and sickening. Why on earth you would deign to take this position is a mystery, unpenetrated by your bloviatings. Warren Anderson should go to jail and UC should have to pay restitution. Forget Indian law, forget corporate non-person responsability. They should do what's right. They haven't. It's a massive crime, and it's just that simple.
Re:Dow-chem chairman Warren Anderson (Score:2, Insightful)
Although your last statement may appear harsh(sorry you got modded down), it's closer to the truth about the man than most people will admit. It seems that the election was decided by the very things you mention. It would be sad to think that such whackos really do outnember the rest of us. It helps me to understand why blacks and some other minorities feel so disenfranchised. Turns out that they are. They could all vote for the same thing, and they will still lose. Now we can add any reasonable person to that list. It shows that fear, uncertainty, and doubt will always win. Unless the 49% of the electorate that loses has some voice in their gov't, American style democracy is doomed, and will descend into total mayhem. What little respect the people have for their gov't then will completely disappear. Only a nationwide epiphany can possibly save them now. Otherwise the violent revolution cycle will once again repeat itself, and of course the final result will be the same as the last revolution. And also of course in the meantime there will be many more Bhopal type disasters to come.(There. I'm back on topic.). The real failure to prosecute those bastards is really our failure. We didn't demand it. We failed to put people in charge that would demand it. Same applies to the Micosoft case, the Ford Pinto, the space shuttle, 9/11...you name it. I know that only I can be responsible for my own personal misfortunes, and nobody else, no matter what. I also feel that we are all partialy responsible for what happened in Bhopal. For our species to survive we do indeed need to care for each other. This every man for himself mentality that we suffer now is unsustainable.
Re:Fine, Gather evidence and try him in the USA. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Dow-chem chairman Warren Anderson (Score:3, Insightful)
That's just hand-waving. Look at what India did over here! Ignore the man behind the curtain.
You're talking about criminal liability as if it had something to do with morality or what is best for society. It doesn't, and you shouldn't pretend it does. Laws are made primarily by people who were put in power by people with financial power, and who are indebted to the people who got them where they are today. If you think that laws reflect the will of the people, and/or are intended to help them, you are sadly deluded. The laws are intended to help the people who have the clout to get them passed, nothing more.
He is the CEO. He is supposed to be responsible for the company. He is not held responsible because of the way the laws of the world are laid out - to protect the already-rich so they can get richer, killing people in the process. He is as responsible for the deaths of those people as if he did throw a switch, because managing the company is his responsibility. Not just to make money, however, but also to behave responsibly. Failing to hold anyone responsible for this gross failure to maintain safety standards is clearly not the answer.
Does nothing? Who paid you to write this shit? Or are you a CEO already? Putting the CEOs in prison when shit like this happens means the other CEOs will care about safety measures. It doesn't work to prevent ordinary, run-of-the-mill crimes because people who commit those crimes are deluded and/or desperate and they don't care about the consequences - they [feel that they] have nothing to lose. These people are different. They are in a position to prevent things like this from happening, but they don't because it would take away from their salary, and because they are not punished if they fail to do so. By making apologies for them as you are doing you are helping things like this happen - in other words, you are guilty of helping people murder people through negligence. It's murder because these people realize they're running companies that could kill people, and they decide not to make sure they're not doing something that WILL kill people. It's premeditated. And you're helping. Congratulations.
Again, this is plain handwaving. This is a horrible thing but it's not what we're talking about right now. The fact (assuming that it is a fact) that the money has not been spent to help the people who were harmed, and/or those who have survived them, is a separate issue. I agree it is worthy of discussion and inspection, but you're trying to distract people from the root problem. That problem
Re:Blame the Indian Government. (Score:4, Insightful)
BUT... blame for the tragedy is primarily on UCC.
> That business in India could have easily been located in the United States,
Not so "easily" when it was selling the factory's output to India itself. Take off your outsourcing goggles please!
> If you want to prevent Bhopals, insist that foreign
> governments have rules to make companies paying the same wages
> and same safety standards as their western counterparts.
Same standards, sure, by all means. As for equivalent wages, would you like to impose them on Americans workers _exporting_ to Bangladesh?