Chapter 2. Chemical Catastrophe Key words and terms:

Chemical plant Failure Foreseeable Disabled Animal modelling Toxicity Medical monitoring

Reaction vessel Overheat Settlement Remuneration Gene-damaging chemical Expose Surveillance

Text 12. The Bhopal Catastrophe

Late one evening in early December 1984, at the Union Carbide chemical plant in Bhopal, India, something went seriously wrong with reaction vessel designed to use methyl isocyanate (MIC), a precursor for the synthesis of a pesticide. Because of the failure of a cooling system, water entering the reactor caused an exothermic reaction: the reaction mixture overheated and exploded. Union Carbide claimed that it had been sabotage; the Indian government, that it had been a foreseeable accident.

Before the week was over, more than 2,000 people had died. Over the new few months, more than 1,000 other people were disabled by blindness and lung damage, and at least 8,000 others were injured. Eventually, 3,500 people died as a result of their injuries. In February 1989, Union Carbide and the Indian government agreed on $470 million settlement that was ordered by India's Supreme Court. But, more than two years later, the victims of the explosion had yet to receive any remuneration for their injuries or suffering.

In spite of assurances that the 8,000 were only "injured" and not "disabled", the damage from the explosion at Bhopal may go much deeper. Preliminary clinical investigations and a recently completed animal modelling of this accident raised the threatening possibility that human contact with MIC should never have been allowed in the first place. Only after the accident were two studies initiated to test the toxicity of MIC. It was reported that MIC was found to be a potent gene-damaging chemical and a potential carcinogen.

To study its properties, researchers subjected standard cancer bioassay rats and mice to just two hours of exposure to MIC, an exposure that was "designed to approximate the exposure of survivors of the Bhopal incident". In break with tradition, the doses chosen were absurdly low by comparison to normal cancer tests in which lifelong exposure to maximally tolerated doses is the rule. Yet the results were still alarming.

Among the incidental findings there were two disturbing facts: only the youngest animals could survive even two hours of exposure to the highest tested dose; and between 35 to 40 percent of all exposed animals had permanent lung damage when examined two years after the transient exposure. Translated into human terms, these data imply that as many as 70,000 to 80,000 of the 200,000 persons the Indian government believed to have been exposed to MIC develop permanent lung disorders. The most disturbing observation was the occurrence of cancer in the exposed animals. At a minimum, the findings clearly point to the need for increased surveillance or medical monitoring of the population.

Why did the authors of these studies not make even this seemingly harmless recommendation? The roots of this dilemma are embedded in two traditions in science: One is the belief that scientists must work within the lines of an "informed scepticism" that guarantees neutrality. The second is the requirement that conclusions regarding causation should be postponed until completely positive data, often linked to reproducible epidemiologic studies, are collected. The position of scientists faced with Bhopal-like data contrasts markedly to the role of public health officials who must often warn or alert the public at a much lower level of certainty of risk.

The passivity of researchers and industrialists alike when it comes to extrapolating animal data to human risk contributes to permissiveness*. All too often, it is still only after the fact of mass exposures, such as those at Bhopal, that studies reveal the composing chemicals in producing "unforeseen" harm.

_______________________________

* попустительство

Exercise 1. Answer the following questions:

1) What caused the explosion at the chemical plant in Bhopal?

2) What injuries did people get? Were there any casualties?

3) How did the government decide to help victims? What was really done?

4) Were there any previous studies about the toxicity of this chemical?

5) Describe the experiment, which was conducted to study the properties of the substance.

6) What disturbing facts were discovered during this experiment?

7) In your opinion, what measures could have been taken in this case?

Exercise 2. Complete the following sentences with the correct form of the word:

1) Our company offers a competitive __________ package, including a company car.

a) remuneratively b) remuneration

c) remunerative d) remunerate

2) A ____________ chemical substance changes when it is mixed with another chemical substance.

a) reaction b) react c) reactive d) reactivate

3) Government ____________ are going through the financial records of many companies.

a) investigation b) investigative c) investigators d) investigate

4) When this devastating earthquake happened, relief agencies sent __________ kits to the scene of accident.

a) survive b) survivor c) survival d) survived

5) There were __________ in the crowd of fans leaving the stadium.

a) disturbance b) disturbing c) disturb d) disturbances

6) After the car accident he was given a $1000 in ____________ by the insurance company.

a) settle b) settlement c) settler d) unsettled

Exercise 3. Find in the text the words with the opposite meaning to those given below:

a) warming _____________________________________________________

b) unpredictable _________________________________________________

c) final _________________________________________________________

d) state _________________________________________________________

e) excluded _____________________________________________________

f) activity _______________________________________________________

g) reassuring_____________________________________________________

Exercise 4. The aftermath of major disasters normally follows a pattern. In what order would these events normally occur?

a) organising relief supplies

b) first aid at the scene of the accident

c) a search for survivors

d) evacuation of seriously injured

e) investigation into the causes

Exercise 5. Optional task. Develop your communication skills.

Complaining, threatening, calming people down. Study the expressions in the box.

Complaining

We're not happy (about)…

We're really annoyed / upset / disappointed (about)…

I object to...

I'd like to complain about...

Threatening

If you ... we'll... Unless you ...we'll...

We warn you we'll...

We're warning you ...

You'd better not... or else...

Calming people down

Oh, come on now.

Don't worry. It's not as bad as you think.

Try not to worry about it too much!

There's no point in getting upset about it!

Work in pairs. One of you is a representative of local community that some time ago suffered from the explosion at the chemical plant and was promised some remuneration, which still wasn't paid out. Another student is a manager of the company responsible for it. Role-play the dialogue between them; the local leader is complaining to the manager and threatening him that unless the settlement is paid the community will take some measures. The manager is trying to calm him down and offering some solution to the problem.