Dow Chemical sues Bhopal survivors

[Kropotkin]

The source is obviously biased, but that doesn't have to mean it's wrong.

[TheBirdMan]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
The source is obviously biased, but that doesn't have to mean it's wrong.

It might be *just* a little "colored" .

[Arrian]

Dow handled the Bhopal incident horribly, and obviously continues to do so.

Part of the problem, IIRC, is that the Indian government accepted a settlement with Dow that was ridiculously small, on behalf of those hurt/killed. The government bargained away their claims for peanuts, and has done a bad job of distributing what little cash it got out of Dow.

I think Dow's conduct was poor, but so was that of the Indian government.

-Arrian

[MichaeltheGreat]

Multinational manufacturers would **** their pants if anything like US strict liability doctrine was adopted globally for toxics cases.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Arrian
Dow handled the Bhopal incident horribly, and obviously continues to do so.

Part of the problem, IIRC, is that the Indian government accepted a settlement with Dow that was ridiculously small, on behalf of those hurt/killed. The government bargained away their claims for peanuts, and has done a bad job of distributing what little cash it got out of Dow.

I think Dow's conduct was poor, but so was that of the Indian government.

-Arrian

Dow didn't have anything to do with the Bhopal incident. At the time it occurred (1984), Union Carbide was an independent corporation. Dow didn't attempt a takeover until 2000. However, it is interesting to note that Dow shareholders filed a suit against the company claiming that Union Carbide still had potential problems relating to the Bhopal incident. Check out http://www.bhopal.net/asianage.html

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by TheBirdMan
Well I doubt they would be making this up, and if you check their website there is a report from the actual protest too.

This seems to be to trivial for the major news media.

If you imply that the protest might have been violent - Indian women in a violent protest - now that would be reported all over the world.

I find the devil is in the detail, and/or the lack thereof. There may be a reason for this action other than that given by Greenpeace.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
The source is obviously biased, but that doesn't have to mean it's wrong.

You can be factually correct and be nowhere near wrong whilst still giving misrepresentation.

[Kropotkin]

Yes that's what I said, more or less. So?

[Dauphin]

I see a difference in what I said and in what you said.

Your statement gave me the impression that you think it doesn't matter that its biased. If thats not your intent, I misinterpreted it.

[Arrian]

MtG,

The way successor liability works, it doesn't really matter that it was Union Carbide back then (assuming Dow acquired assets + liabilities, which is standard). It's Dow's problem now - except (unless my recollection of the settlement is incorrect), Dow doesn't really have any legal liability anymore.

-Arrian (who should have remembered that it was Union Carbide, though)

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Multinational manufacturers would **** their pants if anything like US strict liability doctrine was adopted globally for toxics cases.

There were a couple of issues which made this case pretty complicated.

First, Union Carbide claimed that their Indian subsidiary was negligent. There was pretty good evidence to back this (eg, safety devices had been disabled, the methyl isocyanate tank was filled beyond its safe design capacity), and Union Carbide won this point in court. The Indian subsidiary would have been found guilty under either a negligence or a strict liability standard. Only problem was that the Indian subsidiary's assets were insufficient to cover the claims.

Second, many of the people who were injured and later died left the vicinity of the plant right after the incident. This, combined with the latency of some of the diseases, has made it very difficult to track the number of people ultimately killed as a result of the incident, and helps explain some of the low payout to date.

I suspect that the suit against the protestors is not serious, but is part of the ongoing legal manouvering. All that said, it was pretty stupid to sue them.

edit: clarification of negligence and strict liability

[Provost Harrison]

Well it sounds like the most ridiculous move, certainly adding insult to injury for the survivors and families involved in the Bhopal disaster. There may be something else to the story, but nothing I can think of can justify a lawsuit against protestors protesting about the thing they did wrong. It sounds very, very sick...

[Kropotkin]

DS: No that was not my intention. As a reply to earlier post that rightfully said that it was biased I wanted to point out that even if a text is it doesn't per definition mean that the text is useless. Often one has to get by with more or less biased sources. It's important to aknowledge this and get what one can from it non the less.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
You know, this kind of crap makes me sick. If companies like Dow would do the right thing in the first place they would find it so much cheaper and beneficial in the long run.

I won't go into the details but Tylenol did this very well in the 1980s.

Probably because consumers directly buy Tylenol products and put them in their mouth. People wouldn't do that if they thought they were lethal.

Also, all the evidence here points to a serial killer who hasn't (I think) been caught, and not any wrong doing on the part of Johnson and Johnson (Tylenol parent co.). The saving of the Tylenol brand name is considered on of the great P.R. campaigns in history.

[alva]

Dow Chemical sues Bhopal survivors

*sigh*
How low can you go.....