Union Carbide and Bhopal

Union Carbide and Bhopal

Introduction Around 1 a.m. on Monday, the 3rd of December, 1984, in a densely populated region in the city of Bhopal, Central India, a poisonous vapor burst from the tall stacks of the Union Carbide pesticide plant. This vapor was a highly toxic cloud of methyl isocyanate. Of the 800,000 people living in Bhopal at the time, 2,000 died immediately, and as many as 300,000 were injured. In addition, about 7,000 animals were injured, of which about one thousand were killed. “A series of studies made five years later showed that many of the survivors were still suffering from one or several of the following ailments: partial or complete blindness, gastrointestinal disorders, impaired immune systems, post traumatic stress disorders, and menstrual problems in women. A rise in spontaneous abortions, stillbirths, and offspring with genetic defects was also noted.” (The Bhopal Disaster) This incident we now refer to as the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, which has also been called “Hiroshima of the Chemical Industry” one of the worst commercial industrial disasters in history.(Cohen)

After the incidence, over the next few years, numerous studies were conducted, many theories were explored, and the involved parties accused each other. In this paper, I will try to explore the various causes offered for the tragedy. In the course of my research for this case study, I came across many articles that put blame on various people and groups involved in the tragedy. I found one document particularly interesting from a rhetorical standpoint. This document, titled Union Carbide: Disaster at Bhopal , was authored by the retired Vice President of Health, Safety and Environmental Programs in Union Carbide Corporation. So for this paper, I would also like to rhetorically analyze this document and also, try to explore the various image restoration strategies that Union Carbide Corporation used through the course of the crisis.

The Tragedy: Possible Causes The post-accident analysis of the process showed that the accident started when a tank containing methyl isocyanate (MIC) leaked. MIC is an extremely reactive chemical and is used in production of the insecticide carbaryl. It is presumed that the scientific reason for the accident at Bhopal is that water entered the tank where about 40 cubic meters of MIC was stored. When water and MIC mixed, an exothermic chemical reaction started, producing a lot of heat. As a result, the safety valve of the tank burst because of the increase in pressure. This burst was so violent that the coating of concrete around the tank also broke. It is presumed that between 20 and 30 tonnes of MIC were released during the hour that the leak took place. The gas leaked from a 30 m high chimney and this height was not enough to reduce the effects of the discharge. The reason was that the high moisture content (aerosol) in the discharge when evaporating, gave rise to a heavy gas which rapidly sank to the ground. The weather egged on this process. The conditions on the fateful day were typical for a clear night in the region, with a weak wind which frequently changed direction, which in turn helped the gas to cover more area in a shorter period of time (about one hour). The weak wind and the weak vertical turbulence caused a slow dilution of gas and thus allowed the poisonous gas to spread over considerable distances. (Chemical Accidents...)

Many different terms have been used to describe the events in Bhopal that early morning of December 3, 1984: accident, disaster, catastrophe, crisis and also as sabotage, conspiracy, massacre, and experiment, whichever best suited the arguments that would help to pin the ‘blame’ on somebody. In his book titled The Bhopal Tragedy: Language, Logic and Politics in the Production of a Hazard, the authorWilliam Bogard “Each of these descriptions, in its own way, minimizes the problem of human agency and intention, and thus refuses to address directly the issue of responsibility.”(ix) Bogard goes on to point out that the best way to describe this incidence would be a tragedy because, “In calling Bhopal a tragedy, we are still permitted to say that intention and agency were involved in how the event unfolded and that responsibility must ultimately rest with someone or some group. But unlike saying that Bhopal was the deliberate result of sabotage, a conspiracy, or some diabolical experiment involving human guinea pigs- charges that are virtually impossible to prove in any case- a tragedy, in contrast, emerges out of a complex of confused and misguided intentions, many of which may be honorable in themselves but when forged to the actual chain of events produce the worst possible outcome.”(Bogard, ix) In the last twelve years, numerous studies have been conducted on the incident and there are numerous deductions. In most of the studies, the two main agencies analyzed were the Union Carbide Corporation and the Indian Government