Bhopal disaster

The Bhopal disaster was an industrial disaster that occurred in the city of Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India, resulting in the immediate deaths of more than 3,000 people, according to the Indian Supreme Court. A more probable figure is that 8,000 died within two weeks, and it is estimated that an additional 8,000 have since died from gas related diseases.^[1][2]

The incident took place in the early hours of the morning of December 3, 1984, in the heart of the city of Bhopal in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh. A Union Carbide subsidiary pesticide plant released 42 tonnes of methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas, exposing at least 520,000 people to toxic gases. The Bhopal disaster is frequently cited as the world's worst industrial disaster.^{[1][2][3][4][5]} The International Medical Commission on Bhopal was established in 1993 to respond to the disasters.

Contents 1 Background and causes, summary 1.1 Public information 2 Contributing factors 2.1 Plant location 2.2 Plant production process 2.3 Work conditions 2.4 Equipment and safety regulations 3 Previous warnings and accidents 4 The leakage 4.1 Time line, summary 5 Health effects 5.1 Short term health effects 5.2 Hydrogen cyanide or not? 5.3 Long term health effects 6 Aftermath of the leakage 6.1 Compensation from Union Carbide 6.2 Economic rehabilitation 6.3 Occupational rehabilitation 6.4 Habitation rehabilitation 6.5 Health care 6.6 Environmental rehabilitation 7 Union Carbide’s defense 7.1 Investigation into possible sabotage 7.2 Safety and equipment issues 7.3 Response 8 Long-term fallout 8.1 Legal action against Union Carbide 8.1.1 Legal proceedings leading to the settlement 8.1.2 Charges against Warren Anderson and others 9 Changes in corporate identity 9.1 Sale of Union Carbide India Limited 9.2 Acquisition of Union Carbide by Dow Chemical Company 10 Ongoing contamination 10.1 Criticisms of clean-up operations 11 Additional settlement funds hoax 12 See also 13 Notes 14 References 14.1 Books, reports 14.2 Papers 14.3 Reports, no author's name 14.3.1 Union Carbide Corporation 14.3.2 Health research 14.3.3 Contamination of site 14.3.4 Mixed 14.4 Presentations 15 External links 15.1 Websites 15.2 Reportage, films, music 15.3 Photos 15.4 Texts

Background and causes, summary

The Union Carbide India, Limited (UCIL) plant was established in 1969 near Bhopal. 51% was owned by Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) and 49% by Indian authorities. It produced the pesticide carbaryl (trademark Sevin). Methyl isocyanate (MIC), an intermediate in carbaryl manufacture, was also used. In 1979 a plant for producing MIC was added to the site. MIC was used instead of less toxic (but more expensive) materials, and UCC was aware of the substance's properties and how it had to be handled.^[6][7][8]

During the night of December, 1984, large amounts of water entered tank 610, containing 42 tonnes of methyl isocyanate. The resulting reaction generated a major increase in the temperature inside the tank to over 200°C (400°F), raising the pressure to a level the tank was not designed to withstand. This forced the emergency venting of pressure from the MIC holding tank, releasing a large volume of toxic gases. The reaction was sped up by the presence of iron from corroding non-stainless steel pipelines. A mixture of poisonous gases flooded the city of Bhopal. Massive panic resulted as people woke up in a cloud of gas that burned their lungs. Thousands died from the gases and many were trampled in the panic.

Theories for how the water entered the tank differ. At the time, workers were cleaning out pipes with water, and some claim that because of bad maintenance and leaking valves, it was possible for the water to leak into tank 610.^[3] UCC maintains that this was not possible, and that it was an act of sabotage by a "disgruntled worker" who introduced water directly into the tank.^[9] However, the company's investigation team found no evidence of the necessary connection.^[10]

The 1985 reports^[10][11][12] give a quite clear picture of what led to the disaster and how it developed, although they differ in details.

Factors leading to this huge gas leak include:

• The use of hazardous chemicals (MIC) instead of less dangerous ones
• Storing these chemicals in large tanks instead of several smaller ones
• Possible corroding material in pipelines
• Poor maintenance after the plant ceased production in the early 1980s
• Failure of several safety systems (due to poor maintenance and regulations)

Plant design and economic pressures to reduce expenses contributed most to the actual leak. The problem was then made worse by the plant's location near a densely populated area, non-existent catastrophe plans, shortcomings in health care and socio-economic rehabilitation, etc. Analysis shows that the parties responsible for the magnitude of the disaster are the two owners, Union Carbide Corporation and the Government of India, and to some extent, the Government of Madhya Pradesh.^[1][2][13]

Public information

Much speculation arose in the aftermath. The closing of the plant to outsiders (including UCC) by the Indian government, and the failure to make data public contributed to the confusion. The CSIR report^[12] was formally released 15 years after the disaster. The authors of the ICMR studies^[14] on health effects were forbidden to publish their data until after 1994. UCC has still not released their research about the disaster.

UCC and the Government of India maintained until 1994, when the International Medical Commission on Bhopal met, that MIC had no long term health effects.^[1][2]

Contributing factors

• The deficiencies in the Bhopal plant design can be summarised as: choosing a dangerous method of manufacturing pesticides; large-scale storage of MIC prior to selling; location close to a densely populated area; under-dimensioning of the safety features; dependence on manual operations.^[1][2]
• Deficiencies in the management of UCIL can be summarised: lack of skilled operators because of the staffing policy; reduction of safety management because of reducing the staff; insufficient maintenance of the plant; lack of emergency response plans.^[1][2][15]

Plant location

A long-term cause of the catastrophe was the location of the plant; authorities had tried and failed to persuade Carbide to build the plant away from densely-populated areas. Carbide explained their refusal on the expense that such a move would incur.^[2][16]

Plant production process

Union Carbide produced their pesticide, Sevin (the name of carbaryl), using MIC as an intermediate. Until 1979, MIC was imported from USA.^[2] Other manufacturers, such as Bayer, made Sevin without MIC, though at greater manufacturing costs.^[16]

The Bhopal process, or "route", was to react methyl amine with phosgene to form MIC; the MIC was then reacted with 1-naphthol to form the final product. This route is different to the MIC free route used elsewhere with the same raw materials in a different manufacturing order, with phosgene first reacted with the naphthol to form a chloroformate ester which is then reacted with methyl amine.

It seems that at least some of the technology used was more or less unproven.^[17]

In the early 1980s, the demand for pesticides had fallen though production continued leading to buildup of stores of unused MIC.^[2][16]

Work conditions

Attempts to reduce expenses affected the factory’s employees and their conditions.

• Kurzman argues that “cuts... meant less stringent quality control and thus looser safety rules. A pipe leaked? Don’t replace it, employees said they were told... MIC workers needed more training? They could do with less. Promotions were halted, seriously affecting employee morale and driving some of the most skilled... elsewhere”.^[18]
• Workers were forced to use English manuals, despite the fact that only a few had a grasp of the language.^[3][19]
• By 1984, only six of the original twelve operators were still working with MIC and the number of supervisory personnel was also cut in half. No maintenance supervisor was placed on the night shift and instrument readings were taken every two hours, rather than the previous and required one-hour readings.^[3][18]
• Workers made complaints about the cuts through their union but were ignored. One employee was fired after going on a 15-day hunger strike. 70% of the plant’s employees were fined before the disaster for refusing to deviate from the proper safety regulations under pressure from management.^[3][18]
• In addition, some observers, such as those writing in the Trade Environmental Database (TED) Case Studies as part of the Mandala Project from American University, have pointed to “serious communication problems and management gaps between Union Carbide and its Indian operation”, characterised by “the parent companies [sic] hands-off approach to its overseas operation” and “cross-cultural barriers”.^[20]
• The personnel management policy led to an exodus of skilled personnel to better and safer jobs.^[3][15]

Equipment and safety regulations

• It emerged in 1998, during civil action suits in India, that, unlike Union Carbide plants in the USA, its Indian subsidiary plants were not prepared for problems. No action plans had been established to cope with incidents of this magnitude. This included not informing local authorities of the quantities or dangers of chemicals used and manufactured at Bhopal.^{[1][2][3][16]}
• The MIC tank’s alarms had not worked for 4 years.^{[1][2][3][21]}
• There was only one manual back-up system, not the four-stage system used in the USA.^{[1][2][3][21]}
• The flare tower and the vent gas scrubber had been out of service for 5 months before the disaster. The gas scrubber therefore did not treat escaping gases with sodium hydroxide (caustic soda), which might have brought the concentration down to a safe level.^[21] Even if the scrubber had been working, according to Weir, investigations in the aftermath of the disaster discovered that the maximum pressure it could handle was only one-quarter of that which was present in the accident. Furthermore, the flare tower itself was improperly designed and could only hold one-quarter of the volume of gas that was leaked in 1984.^{[1][2][3][22]}
• To reduce energy costs, the refrigeration system, designed to inhibit the volatilization of MIC, had been left idle – the MIC was kept at 20 degrees Celsius, not the 4.5 degrees advised by the manual, and some of the coolant was being used elsewhere.^{[1][2][3][21]}
• The steam boiler, intended to clean the pipes, was out of action for unknown reasons.^{[1][2][3][21]}
• Slip-blind plates that would have prevented water from pipes being cleaned from leaking into the MIC tanks via faulty valves were not installed. Their installation had been omitted from the cleaning checklist.^[1][2][3]
• Water sprays designed to “knock down” gas leaks were poorly designed – set to 13 metres and below, they could not spray high enough to reduce the concentration of escaping gas.^{[1][2][3][21]}
• The MIC tank had been malfunctioning for roughly a week. Other tanks had been used for that week, rather than repairing the broken one, which was left to “stew”. The build-up in temperature and pressure is believed to have affected the magnitude of the gas release.^{[1][2][3][21]}
• Carbon-steel valves were used at the factory, despite the fact that they corrode when exposed to acid.^[16] On the night of the disaster, a leaking carbon-steel valve was found, allowing water to enter the MIC tanks. The pipe was not repaired because it was believed it would take too much time and be too expensive.^{[1][2][3][21]}
• UCC admitted in their own investigation report that most of the safety systems were not functioning on the night of the December 3, 1984.^[11]
• Themistocles D'Silva contends that the design of the MIC plant, following government guidelines, was "Indianized" by UCIL engineers to maximize the use of indigenous materials and products. It also dispensed with the use of sophisticated instrumentation as not appropriate for the Indian plant. Because of the unavailability of electronic parts in India, the Indian engineers preferred pneumatic instrumentation.^[23]

Previous warnings and accidents

A series of prior warnings and MIC-related accidents had occured:

• In 1976, the two trade unions reacted because of pollution within the plant.^[1][2][15]
• In 1981, a worker was splashed with phosgene. In panic he ripped off his mask, thus inhaling a large amount of phosgene gas; he died 72 hours later.^[1][2][15]
• In January 1982, there was a phosgene leak, when 24 workers were exposed and had to be admitted to hospital. None of the workers had been ordered to wear protective masks.
• In February 1982, an MIC leak affected 18 workers.^[1][2][15]
• In August 1982, a chemical engineer came into contact with liquid MIC, resulting in burns over 30 percent of his body.^[1][2][15]
• In October 1982, there was a leak of MIC, methylcarbaryl chloride, chloroform and hydrochloric acid. In attempting to stop the leak, the MIC supervisor suffered intensive chemical burns and two other workers were severely exposed to the gases.^[1][2][15]
• During 1983 and 1984, leaks of the following substances regularly took place in the MIC plant: MIC, chlorine, monomethylamine, phosgene, and carbon tetrachloride, sometimes in combination.^[1][2][15]
• Reports issued months before the incident by scientists within the Union Carbide corporation warned of the possibility of an accident almost identical to that which occurred in Bhopal. The reports were ignored and never reached senior staff.^[2][16]
• Union Carbide was warned by American experts who visited the plant after 1981 of the potential of a “runaway reaction” in the MIC storage tank; local Indian authorities warned the company of problems on several occasions from 1979 onwards. Again, these warnings were not heeded.^[2][16]

The leakage

• In November 1984, most of the safety systems were not functioning. Many valves and lines were in poor condition. Tank 610 contained 42 tonnes MIC, much more than allowed according to safety rules.^[1][2]
• During the nights of 2-3 December, large amounts of water entered tank 610. A runaway reaction started, which was accelerated by contaminants, high temperatures and other factors. The reaction generated a major increase in the temperature inside the tank to over 200°C (400°F). This forced the emergency venting of pressure from the MIC holding tank, releasing a large volume of toxic gases. The reaction was sped up by the presence of iron from corroding non-stainless steel pipelines.^[1][2]
• We know that workers cleaned pipelines with water. They were not told by the supervisor to add a slip-blind water isolation plate. Because of this, and of the bad maintenance, the workers consider it possible for water to have accidentally entered the MIC tank.^[1][2][3]
• UCC maintains that a "disgruntled worker" deliberately connected a hose to a pressure gauge. However, this would hardly have been possible if the safety rules had been followed.^[1][2][9]
• UCC's investigation team found no evidence of the suggested connection.^[10]

Time line, summary

At the plant^[1][2]

• 21.00 Water cleaning of pipes starts.
• 22.00 Water enters 610. Reaction starts.
• 22.30 Gases are emited from the VGS-tower.
• 00.30 The large siren sounds and is turned off.
• 00.50 The siren is heard within the plant area. The workers escape.

Outside^[1][2]

• 22.30 First sensations felt. Suffocation, cough, burning eyes, vomiting.
• 1.00 Police are alerted. Residents evacuate. UC-director denies a possible leak.
• 2.00 The first people reached Hamidia hospital. Symptoms include visual impairment and blindness, respiratory difficulties, frothing at the mouth, and vomiting.
• 2.10 The alarm is heard outside the plant.
• 4.00 The gases are brought under control.
• 6.00 The police's loudspeaker says: "Everything is normal".

Health effects

Short term health effects

• Apart from MIC the gas cloud may have contained phosgene, hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride, nitrous oxides, monomethyl amine (MMA) and carbon dioxide, either produced in the storage tank or in the atmosphere.^[1][2] All these gases, except carbon dioxide, are acutely toxic at levels well below 500 ppm.

• The gas cloud, composed mainly of materials more dense than the surrounding air, stayed close to the ground and spread outwards through the surrounding community. The initial effects of gas exposure were coughing, vomiting, severe eye irritation and a feeling of suffocation. People awoken by these symptoms fled away from the plant. Those who ran inhaled more than those who had a vehicle. Due to their height, children and other people of lower stature inhaled relatively higher concentrations. Many people were trampled trying to escape.^[1][2]

• Thousands of people had succumbed to gas exposure by the morning hours. There were mass funerals and mass cremations as well as bodies being disposed of in the Narmada river. 170,000 people were treated at hospitals and temporary dispensaries. 2,000 buffaloes, goats, and other animals had to be collected and buried. Within a few days, leaves on trees went yellow and fell off. Supplies including food became scarce due to safety fears by the suppliers. Fishing was prohibited as well which caused further supply shortages.^[1][2]

• A total of 36 wards were marked by the authorities as being "gas affected", affecting a population of 520,000. Of these, 200,000 were below 15 years of age, and 3,000 were pregnant women. In 1991, 3,928 deaths had been certified. Independent organizations recorded 8,000 dead the first days. Other estimations vary between 10,000 and 20,000. It is estimated that 10,000 have died since the accident from gas related diseases. Another 100,000 to 200,000 people are estimated to have permanent injuries.^[1][2]

• The acute symptoms were burning in the respiratory tract and eyes, blepharospasm, breathlessness, stomach pains and vomiting. The causes of deaths were choking, reflexogenic circulatory collapse and pulmonary oedema. Findings during autopsies revealed changes not only in the lungs but also cerebral oedema, tubular necrosis of the kidneys, fatty generation of the liver and necrotising enteritis.^[24] The stillbirth rate increased by up to 300 % and neonatal mortality rate by 200 %.^[1][2]

Hydrogen cyanide or not?

• The issue of hydrogen cyanide being present in the gas mixture or not is still a controversy.^[24][25] MIC starts breaking down to hydrogen cyanide (HCN) already at 200^oC. Concentrations of 300 ppm can lead to immediate collapse. Many of the deaths and acute symptoms could be explained by HCN exposure.

• The non-toxic antidote sodium thiosulfate (NaTs) in intravenous injections increases the rate of conversion from cyanide to non-toxic thiocyanate. Treatment was suggested early, but because of confusion within the medical establishments, it was not used on larger scale until June 1985.^[1][2]

Long term health effects

• The quality of the epidemiological and clinical research varies. Reported and studied symptoms are eye problems, respiratory difficulties, immune and neurological disorders, cardiac failure secondary to lung injury, female reproductive difficulties, and birth defects among children born to affected women. Other symptoms and diseases are often ascribed to the gas exposure, but there is no good research supporting this.^[1][2]

• Union Carbide as well as the Indian Government long denied permanent injuries by MIC and the other gases. In January, 1994, the International Medical Commission on Bhopal (IMCB) visited Bhopal to investigate the health status among the survivors as well as the health care system and the socio-economic rehabilitation.

• The reports from Indian Council of Medical Research^[14] were not completely released until around 2003.

• For a review of the research on the health effects of the Bhopal disaster, see Dhara & Dhara (2002).^[26]

Aftermath of the leakage

• Medical staff were completely unprepared for the thousands of casualties.^[1][2]
• Doctors and hospitals were not informed of proper treatment methods for MIC gas inhalation. They were told to simply give cough medicine and eye-drops to their patients.^[1][2]
• The gases immediately caused visible damage to the trees. Within a few days, all the leaves fell off.^[1][2]
• 2,000 bloated animal carcasses had to be disposed of.^[1][2]
• "Operation Faith": On December 16, the tanks 611 and 619 were emptied of the remaining MIC. This led to a second mass evacuation from Bhopal.^[1][2]
• Complaints of a lack of information or misinformation were widespread. Not even the medical doctor at the Bhopal plant had proper information about the properties of the gases. An Indian Government spokesman said that "Carbide is more interested in getting information from us than in helping our relief work."^[1][2]
• As of 2008, UCC has not released information about the possible composition of the cloud.^[1][2]
• Formal statements were issued that air, water, vegetation and foodstuffs were safe within the city. At the same time, people were informed that poultry was unaffected, but were warned not to consume fish.^[1][2]

Compensation from Union Carbide

• The Government of India passed the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Act that gave the government rights to represent all victims in or outside India.^[1][2]
• UCC offered US$ 350 million, the insurance sum.^[1][2]
• The Government of India claimed US$ 350 billion from UCC.^[1][2]
• In 1989, a settlement was reached where UCC agreed to pay US$ 470 million (the insurance sum, plus interest) in a full and final settlement of its civil and criminal liability.^[1][2]
• When UCC wanted to sell its shares in UCIL, it was directed by the Supreme Court to finance a 500-bed hospital for the medical care of the survivors. Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research Centre (BMHRC) was inaugurated in 1998. It was obliged to give free care for survivors for eight years.^[1][2]

Economic rehabilitation

• After the accident, no one under the age of 18 was registered. The number of children exposed to the gases were at least 200,000.^[1][2]
• Immediate relief was decided two days after the tragedy.^[1][2]
• Relief measures commenced in 1985 when food was distributed for a short period and ration cards were distributed.^[1][2]
• Widow pension of the rate of Rs 200/per month (later Rs 750) was provided.^[1][2]
• One-time ex-gratia payment of Rs 1,500 to families with monthly income Rs 500 or less was decided.^[1][2]
• Each claimant was to be categorised by a doctor. In court, the claimants were expected to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that death or injury in each case was attributable to exposure. In 1992, 44 percent of the claimants still had to be medically examined.^[1][2]
• From 1990 interim relief of Rs 200 was paid to everyone in the family who was born before the disaster.^[1][2]
• The final compensation (including interim relief) for personal injury was for the majority Rs 25,000 (US$ 830). For death claim, the average sum paid out was Rs 62,000.^[1][2]
• Effects of interim relief were more children sent to school, more money spent on treatment, more money spent on food, improvement of housing conditions.^[1][2]
• The management of registration and distribution of relief showed many shortcomings.^[27]
• In 2007, 1,029,517 cases were registered and decided. Number of awarded cases were 574,304 and number of rejected cases 455,213. Total compensation awarded was Rs.1,546.47 crores.^[28]
• Because of the smallness of the sums paid and the denial of interest to the claimants, a sum as large as Rs 10 billion is expected to be left over after all claims have been disposed of.^[1][2]

Occupational rehabilitation

• 33 of the 50 planned worksheds for gas victims started. All except one was closed down by 1992.^[1][2]
• 1986, the MP government invested in the Special Industrial Area Bhopal. 152 of the planned 200 worksheds were built. In 2000, 16 were partially functioning.^[1][2]
• It is estimated that 50,000 persons need alternative jobs, and that less than 100 gas victims have found regular employment under the government's scheme.^[1][2]

Habitation rehabilitation

• 2,486 flats in two and four story buildings were constructed in the "Widows colony" outside Bhopal. The water did not reach the upper floors. It was not possible to keep cattle. Infrastructure like buses, schools etc was missing for at least a decade.^[1][2]

Health care

• In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, the health care system became tremendously overloaded. Within weeks, the State Government established a number of hospitals, clinics and mobile units in the gas-affected area.^[1][2]
• Radical health groups set up JSK (the People's Health Centre) that was working a few years from 1985.^[1][2]
• Since the leakage, a very large number of private practitioners have opened in Bhopal. In the severely affected areas, nearly 70 percent do not appear to be professionally qualified.^[1][2]
• The Government of India has focused primarily on increasing the hospital-based services for gas victims. Several hospitals have been built after the disaster. In 1994, there were approximately 1.25 beds per 1,000, compared to the recommendation from the World bank of 1.0 beds per 1,000 in developing countries.^[1][2]
• The Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research Centre (BMHRC) is a 350-bedded super speciality hospital. Heart surgery and hemodialysis of kidneys are done. Major specialities missing are gynaecology, obstetrics and paediatrics. Eight mini-units (outreach health centres) were started. Free health care for gas victims should be offered until 2006.^[1][2] The management has faced problems with strikes, and the quality of the health care is disputed.^[29][30][31]
• Sambhavna Trust is a charitable trust that registered in 1995. The clinic gives modern and Ayurvedic treatments to gas victims, free of charge.^[1][2][32]

Environmental rehabilitation

• When the factory was closed down in 1985-1986, pipes drums and tanks were cleaned and sold off. The MIC and the Sevin plants are still there, as are storages of different residues. Isolation material is falling down and spreading.^[2]

• The area around the plant was used as a dumping area for hazardous chemicals. In 1982 tubewells in the vicinity of the UCC factory had to be abandoned.^[2] UCC's laboratory tests in 1989 revealed that soil and water samples collected from near the factory and inside the plant were toxic to fish.^[33] Several other studies has shown polluted soil and groundwater in the area.^[2].

• Reported polluting compounds are, among others, napthol, naphthalene, Sevin, tarry residue, mercury, toxic organochlorines, volatile organochlorine compounds, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, hexachloroethane, hexachlorobutadiene, pesticide HCH, halo-organics. It is plausible that these chemicals have some negative health effects on those exposed, but there is no scientific evidence.^[2]

• In order to provide safe drinking water to the population around the UCC factory, there is a scheme for improvement of water supply.^[28]
• In December 2008, there was still no clear agreement about cleaning up the site.

Union Carbide’s defense

Now owned by Dow Chemical Company, Union Carbide denies allegations against it on its website dedicated to the tragedy. The corporation believes that the accident was the result of sabotage, stating that safety systems were in place and operative. It also stresses that it did all it could to alleviate human suffering following the disaster.^[34]

Investigation into possible sabotage

The company cites an investigation conducted by the engineering consulting firm Arthur D. Little, which concluded that a single employee secretly and deliberately introduced a large amount of water into the MIC tank by removing a meter and connecting a water hose directly to the tank through the metering port.^[9] Carbide claims such a large amount of water could not have found its way into the tank by accident, and safety systems were not designed to deal with intentional sabotage. UC says that the rest of the plant staff falsified numerous records to distance themselves from the incident, and that the Indian Government impeded its investigation and declined to prosecute the employee responsible, presumably because that would weaken its allegations of negligence against Union Carbide.

Union Carbide has never publicly named or identified the employee it claims sabotaged its Bhopal plant or attempted to prosecute. Nevertheless, on the company’s Bhopal Information Center website, Carbide claims that “the Indian authorities are well aware of the identity of the employee and the nature of the evidence against him”.^[35]

Safety and equipment issues

The corporation denies the claim that the valves on the tank were malfunctioning, claiming that “documented evidence gathered after the incident showed that the valve close to the plant's water-washing operation was closed and leak-tight. Furthermore, process safety systems – in place and operational – would have prevented water from entering the tank by accident”. Carbide states that the safety concerns identified in 1982 were all allayed before 1984 and “none of them had anything to do with the incident”.^[35]

The company admits that “the safety systems in place could not have prevented a chemical reaction of this magnitude from causing a leak”. According to Carbide, “in designing the plant's safety systems, a chemical reaction of this magnitude was not factored in” because “the tank's gas storage system was designed to automatically prevent such a large amount of water from being inadvertently introduced into the system” and “process safety systems – in place and operational – would have prevented water from entering the tank by accident”. Instead, they claim that “employee sabotage – not faulty design or operation – was the cause of the tragedy”.^[35]

Response

The company stresses the “immediate action” taken after the disaster and their continued commitment to helping the victims. On December 4th, the day following the leak, Union Carbide sent material aid and several international medical experts to assist the medical facilities in Bhopal.^[35]

Carbide put $2 million into the Indian Prime Minister’s immediate disaster relief fund on 11th December 1984.^[35] The corporation established the Employees' Bhopal Relief Fund in February 1985, which raised more than $5 million for immediate relief.^[36]

In August 1987, Carbide made an additional $4.6 million in humanitarian interim relief available.^[36]

Union Carbide also undertook several steps to provide continuing aid to the victims of the Bhopal disaster after the court ruling, including:

• The sale of its 50.9 percent interest in UCIL in April 1992 and establishment of a charitable trust to contribute to the building of a local hospital. The sale was finalized in November 1994. The hospital was begun in October 1995 and was opened in 2001. The company provided a fund with around $90 million from sale of its UCIL stock. In 1991, the trust had amounted approximately $100 million. The hospital caters for the treatment of heart, lung and eye problems.^[34]
• Providing "a $2.2 million grant to Arizona State University to establish a vocational-technical center in Bhopal, which was constructed and opened, but was later closed and leveled by the government”.^[37]
• Donating $5 million to the Indian Red Cross.^[37]
• Developing the Responsible Care system with other members of the chemical industry as a response to the Bhopal crisis, which is designed “to help prevent such an event in the future by improving community awareness, emergency preparedness and process safety standards”.^[36]

Long-term fallout

Legal action against Union Carbide has dominated the aftermath of the disaster. However, other issues have also continued to develop. These include the problems of ongoing contamination, criticisms of the clean-up operation undertaken by Union Carbide, and a 2004 hoax.

Time-line 1984-2004: See "Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Fact Sheet", Hindustan Times, Dec 3, 2004^[38]

Legal action against Union Carbide

Legal issues began affecting Union Carbide, the US and Indian governments, the local authorities in Bhopal and the victims of the disaster immediately after the catastrophe.

Legal proceedings leading to the settlement

On 14th December 1984, the Chairman and CEO of Union Carbide, Warren Anderson, addressed the US Congress, stressing the company’s “commitment to safety” and promising to ensure that a similar accident “cannot happen again”. However, the Indian Government passed the Bhopal Gas Leak Act in March 1985, allowing the Government of India to act as the legal representative for victims of the disaster,^[36] leading to the beginning of legal wrangling.

March 1986 saw Union Carbide propose a settlement figure, endorsed by plaintiffs’ US attorneys, of $350 million that would, according to the company, “generate a fund for Bhopal victims of between $500-600 million over 20 years”. In May, litigation was transferred from the US to Indian courts by US District Court Judge. Following an appeal of this decision, the US Court of Appeals affirmed the transfer, judging, in January 1987, that UCIL was a “separate entity, owned, managed and operated exclusively by Indian citizens in India”.^[36] The judge in the US granted Carbide’s forum request, thus moving the case to India. This meant that, under US federal law, the company had to submit to Indian jurisdiction.

Litigation continued in India during 1988. The Government of India claimed US$ 350 billion from UCC.^[1][2] The Indian Supreme Court told both sides to come to an agreement and “start with a clean slate” in November 1988.^[36] Eventually, in an out-of-court settlement reached in 1989 , Union Carbide agreed to pay US$ 470 million for damages caused in the Bhopal disaster, 15% of the original $3 billion claimed in the lawsuit.^[2] By the end of October 2003, according to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy Relief and Rehabilitation Department, compensation had been awarded to 554,895 people for injuries received and 15,310 survivors of those killed. The average amount to families of the dead was $2,200.^[39]

Throughout 1990, the Indian Supreme Court heard appeals against the settlement from “activist petitions”. Nonetheless, in October 1991, the Supreme Court upheld the original $470 million, dismissing any other outstanding petitions that challenged the original decision. The decision set aside a “portion of settlement that quashed criminal prosecutions that were pending at the time of settlement”. The Court ordered the Indian government “to purchase, out of settlement fund, a group medical insurance policy to cover 100,000 persons who may later develop symptoms” and cover any shortfall in the settlement fund. It also “requests” that Carbide and its subsidiary “voluntarily” fund a hospital in Bhopal, at an estimated $17 million, to specifically treat victims of the Bhopal disaster. The company agreed to this.^[36] However, the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal notes that the Court also reinstated criminal charges.

Charges against Warren Anderson and others

The Chairman and CEO of Union Carbide, Warren Anderson, had been arrested and released on bail by the Madhya Pradesh Police in Bhopal on December 7, 1984. This caused controversy as his trip to Bhopal was conditional on an initial promise by Indian authorities not to arrest him. Anderson has since refused to return to India.

Beginning in 1991, the local authorities from Bhopal charged Warren Anderson, who had retired in 1986, with manslaughter, a crime that carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. Anderson has so far avoided an international arrest warrant and a US court summons. He was declared a fugitive from justice by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Bhopal on February 1, 1992 for failing to appear at the court hearings in a culpable homicide case in which he was named the chief defendant. Orders were passed to the Government of India to press for an extradition from the United States, with whom India had an extradition treaty in place. He went missing for several years, until he was discovered by Greenpeace “living a life of luxury in the Hamptons”. The Bhopal Medical Appeal believe that “neither the American nor the Indian government seem interested in disturbing him with an extradition”. Some allege that the Indian government has hesitated to put forth a strong case of extradition to the United States, fearing backlash from foreign investors who have become more important players in the Indian economy following liberalization. A seemingly apathetic attitude from the US government, which has failed to pursue the case, has also led to strong protests in the past, most notably by Greenpeace. A plea by India's Central Bureau of Investigation to dilute the charges from culpable homicide to criminal negligence has since been dismissed by the Indian courts.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear appeal of the decision of the lower federal courts in October 1993, meaning that victims of the Bhopal disaster could not seek damages in a US court.^[36]

Meanwhile, very little of the money from the settlement reached with Union Carbide went to the survivors, and people in the area feel betrayed not only by Union Carbide (and chairman Warren Anderson), but also by their own politicians.^[1][2]On the anniversary of the tragedy, effigies of Anderson and politicians are burnt.

In July 2004, the Indian Supreme Court ordered the Indian government to release any remaining settlement funds to victims. The deadline for this release was extended by the Indian Supreme Court In April 2005, giving the Indian government until 30th April 2006 after a request from the Welfare Commission for Bhopal Gas Victims. The fund is believed to amount to $500 million after earning interest “from money remaining after all claims had been paid”.^[36]

August 2006 saw the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City upheld the dismissal of remaining claims in the case of Bano v. Union Carbide Corporation. This move blocked plaintiffs' motions for class certification and claims for property damages and remediation. In the view of Carbide, “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 organizations representing the residents of Bhopal”. In September 2006, the Welfare Commission for Bhopal Gas Victims announced that all original compensation claims and revised petitions had been “cleared".^[36]

Criminal charges are proceeding against former Union Carbide India Limited employees including: Former UCIL Chairman Shri Keshub Mahindra; presently Chairman-cum managing Director Shri Vijay Gokhale; former Vice-President Functioning In charge, Shri Kishor Kamdar; former works manager Shri J. Mukund; and former Production manager A.P. Division, Shri S.P. Choudhury.

Federal class action litigation, Sahu v. Union Carbide et al.^[40], is presently pending on appeal before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. The litigation seeks damages for personal injury, medical monitoring^[41] and injunctive relief in the form of cleanup^[42] of the drinking water supplies^[43] for residential areas near the Bhopal plant^[44] A related complaint seeking similar relief for property damage claimants is stayed pending the outcome of the Sahu appeal before the federal district court in the Southern District of New York.

Changes in corporate identity

Sale of Union Carbide India Limited

Union Carbide sold its Indian subsidiary, which had operated the Bhopal plant, to Eveready Industries India Limited, in 1994.

Acquisition of Union Carbide by Dow Chemical Company

The Dow Chemical Company purchased Union Carbide in 2001 for $10.3 billion in stock and debt. Dow has publicly stated several times that the Union Carbide settlement payments have already fulfilled Dow's financial responsibility for the disaster.

Some Dow stockholders filed suits to stop the acquisition, noting the outstanding liabilities for the Bhopal disaster.^[45] The acquisition has gained criticism from the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal, as it is apparently “contrary to established merger law” in that “Dow denies any responsibility for Carbide’s Bhopal liabilities”. According to the Bhopal Medical Appeal, Carbide “remains liable for the environmental devastation” as environmental damage was not included in the 1989 settlement, despite ongoing contamination issues.^[45]

Ongoing contamination

The contamination in the site itself and the surrounding areas did not arise directly from the Bhopal disaster, but rather from the materials processed at the plant and the conditions under which those materials were processed. The area around the plant was used as a dumping ground area for hazardous chemicals. Between 1969 and 1977, all effluents were dumped in an open pit. From then on, neutralisation with hydrochloric acid was undertaken. The effluents went to two evaporation ponds. In the rainy seasons, the effluents used to overflow. It is also said that lots of chemicals are buried in the grounds.^[2]

Already in 1982 tubewells in the vicinity of the UCC factory had to be abandoned. In 1991 the municipal authorities declared water from over 100 tubewells to be unfit for drinking.^[2]

After closing the factory, pipes, drums and tanks from the production union were cleaned and sold off to local entrepreneurs. The MIC plant, the Sevin plant,the tanks and the control room are still there, as are storages of different residues. Isolation material is spreading all over the place.^[2]

Carbide's laboratory tests in 1989 revealed that soil and water samples collected from near the factory were toxic to fish. 21 sites inside the plant were highly polluted. In 1994 it was reported that 21 % of the factory premises were seriously contaminated with chemicals.^[33][46][47]

Studies made by Greenpeace and others from soil, groundwater, wellwater and vegetables from the residential areas around UCIL and from the UCIL factory area show contamination with a row of toxic heavy metals and chemical compounds.^{[46][47][48][49][50]}

Substances found, according to the reports, are naphthol, naphthalene, Sevin, tarry residues, alpha napthol, mercury, organochlorines, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, hexachlorethane, hexachlorobuta-diene, pesticide HCH (BHC), volatile organic compounds and halo-organics. Many of these contaminants were also found in breast milk.

In 2002, an inquiry found a number of toxins, including mercury, lead, 1,3,5 trichlorobenzene, dichloromethane and chloroform, in nursing women’s breast milk. Well water and groundwater tests conducted in the surrounding areas in 1999 showed mercury levels to be at “20,000 and 6 million times” higher than expected levels; heavy metals and organochlorines were present in the soil. Chemicals that have been linked to various forms of cancer were also discovered, as well as trichloroethene, known to impair fetal development, at 50 times above safety limits specified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).^[45]

In an investigation broadcast on BBC Radio 5 on November 14, 2004^[51], it was reported that the site is still contaminated with 'thousands' of metric tons of toxic chemicals, including benzene hexachloride and mercury, held in open containers or loose on the ground. A sample of drinking water from a well near the site had levels of contamination 500 times higher than the maximum limits recommended by the World Health Organization.^[52] Some areas are reportedly so polluted that anyone entering the area for more than ten minutes is likely to lose consciousness. Rainfall causes run-off, polluting local wells and boreholes. Surveys of local residents, with a control population in a similarly poor area away from the plant, are reported to reveal higher levels of various diseases around the plant.

Criticisms of clean-up operations

Lack of political willpower has led to a stalemate on the issue of cleaning up the plant and its environs of hundreds of tonnes of toxic waste, which has been left untouched. Environmentalists have warned that the waste is a potential minefield in the heart of the city, and the resulting contamination may lead to decades of slow poisoning, and diseases affecting the nervous system, liver and kidneys in humans. According to activists, there are studies showing that the rates of cancer and other ailments are high in the region.^[53] Activists have demanded that Dow clean up this toxic waste, and have pressed the government of India to demand more money from Dow.

Carbide states that “after the incident, UCIL began clean-up work at the site under the direction of Indian central and state government authorities”, which was continued after 1994 by the successor to UCIL, Eveready Industries, until 1998, when it was placed under the authority of the Madhya Pradesh Government.^[36] Critics of the clean-up undertaken by Carbide, such as the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal, claim that “several internal studies” by the corporation, which evidenced “severe contamination”, were not made public; the Indian authorities were also refused access. They believe that Union Carbide “continued directing operations” in Bhopal until “at least 1995” through Hayaran, the US trained site manager, even after the sale of its UCIL stock. The successor, Eveready Industries, abruptly relinquished the site lease to one department of the State Government while being supervised by another department on an extensive clean up programme. The Madhya Pradesh authorities have announced that they will “pursue both Dow and Eveready” to conduct the clean-up as joint tortfeasors.

The International Campaign view Carbide’s sale of UCIL in 1994 as a strategy “to escape the Indian courts, who threatened Carbide’s assets due to their non-appearance in the criminal case”. The successor, Eveready Industries India, Limited (EIIL), ended its 99 year lease in 1998 and turned over control of the site to the state government of the Madhya Pradesh.^[34] Currently, the Madhya Pradesh Government is trying to legally force Dow and EIIL to finance clean-up operations.

Additional settlement funds hoax

On December 3, 2004, the twentieth anniversary of the disaster, a man claiming to be a Dow representative named Jude Finisterra was interviewed on the BBC. He claimed that the company had agreed to clean up the site and compensate those harmed in the incident. (video) Immediately afterward, Dow's share price fell 4.2% in 23 minutes, for a loss of $2 billion in market value (The Yes Men). Dow quickly issued a statement saying that they had no employee by that name — that he was an impostor, not affiliated with Dow, and that his claims were a hoax. The BBC broadcast a correction and an apology. The statement was widely carried (Z-net).

"Jude Finisterra" was actually Andy Bichlbaum, a member of the activist prankster group The Yes Men. In 2002, The Yes Men issued a phony press release explaining why Dow refused to take responsibility for the disaster and started up a website, DowEthics.com, designed to look like the Dow website but give what they felt was a more accurate cast on the events. In 2004, a producer for BBC News emailed them through the website requesting an interview, which they gladly obliged (The Yes Men).

Taking credit for the prank in an interview on Democracy Now!, Bichlbaum explains how his fake name was derived: "Jude is the patron saint of impossible causes and Finisterra means the end of the Earth". He explained that he settled on this approach (taking responsibility) because it would show people precisely how Dow could help the situation as well as likely garnering major media attention in the US, which had largely ignored the disaster's anniversaries, when Dow attempted to correct the statement (Democracy Now!).

After the original interview was revealed as a hoax, Bichlbaum appeared in a follow-up interview on the United Kingdom's Channel 4 news (video). During the interview he was repeatedly asked if he had considered the emotions and reaction of the people of Bhopal when producing the hoax. According to the interviewer, "there were many people in tears" upon having learned of the hoax. Each time, Bichlbaum said that, in comparison, what distress he had caused the people was minimal to that for which Dow was responsible.

See also

• Lake Nyos, a natural disaster involving carbon dioxide.

Notes

References

Books, reports

• Browning, Jackson (1993). Jack A. Gottschalk. ed. (PDF). Union Carbide: Disaster at Bhopal. Crisis Response: Inside Stories on Managing Image Under Siege. Detroit. http://www.bhopal.com/pdfs/browning.pdf. "Union Carbide's former vice-president of health, safety and environmental programs tells how he dealt with the catastrophe from a PR point of view.". 

• Cassels, J. (1993). The Uncertain Promise Of Law: Lessons From Bhopal. University Of Toronto Press.

• ChouhanTR and others (1994, 2004). Bhopal: the Inside Story – Carbide Workers Speak Out on the World's Worst Industrial Disaster. USA: The Apex Press. ISBN 1-891843-30-3.  India: Other India Press ISBN 81-85569-65-7 Main author Chouhan was an operator at the plant. Contains many technical details.

• D'Silva, Themistocles (2006). The Black Box of Bhopal: A Closer Look at the World's Deadliest Industrial Disaster. Victoria, B.C.: Trafford. ISBN 1-4120-8412-1. Written by an employed at UCC.

• Eckerman, Ingrid (2001). "Chemical Industry and Public Health - Bhopal as an example" (PDF). Essay for MPH. A short overview, 57 pages, 82 references.

• Eckerman, Ingrid (2004). The Bhopal Saga - Causes and Consequences of the World's Largest Industrial Disaster [1]. India: Universities Press. ISBN 81-7371-515-7.  Preview All known facts 1960s - 2003, systematized and analysed. 283 pages, over 200 references.

• de Grazia, Alfred (1985) (HTML). A Cloud over Bhopal - Causes, Consequences and Constructive Solutions. ISBN 0-940268-09-9. http://www.grazian-archive.com/governing/bhopal/Publishers%20Note.html. "The first book on the Bhopal disaster, written on-site a few weeks after the accident.". 

• Hanna B, Morehouse W, Sarangi S (2005). The Bhopal Reader. Remembering Twenty Years of the World's Worst Industrial Disaster. USA: The Apex Press. ISBN 1-891843-32-X USA, 81-85569-70-3 India.  Reprinting and annotating landmark writing from across the years.

• Kalelkar AS, Little AD. (1998). Investigation of Large-magnitude incidents: Bhopal as a Case Study.. http://bhopal.bard.edu/resources/documents/1988ArthurD.Littlereport.pdf.  London: The Institution of Chemical Engineers Conference on Preventing Major Chemical Accidents

• Kurzman, D. (1987). A Killing Wind: Inside Union Carbide and the Bhopal Catastrophe. New York: McGraw-Hill.

• Kovel, J (2002). The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World?. London: Zed Books. 

• Labunska I, Stephenson A, Brigden K, Stringer R, Santillo D, Johnston P.A. (1999). The Bhopal Legacy. Toxic contaminants at the former Union Carbide factory site,Bhopal, India: 15 years after the Bhopal accident. http://webdrive.service.emory.edu/users/vdhara/www.BhopalPublications/Environmental%20Health/Greenpeace%20Bhopal%20Report.pdf. Greenpeace Research Laboratories, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter UK

• Lapierre, Dominique; Moro, Javier (2001). Five Minutes Past Midnight in Bhopal. New York, NY: Warner Books. ISBN 0-446-53088-3.  A novel, based on facts, that describes the development from the 1960s to the disaster itself. Very thrilling.

• Singh, Moti (2008). Unfolding the Betrayal of Bhopal Gas Tragedy. Delhi, India: B.R. Publishing Corporation. ISBN 8176466220.  The chief coordinator of rescue operations at the district level writes rather critically on how the administration and bureaucracy functioned after the disaster.
• Shrishti (2002). Toxic present - toxic future. A report on Human and Environmental Chemical Contamination around the Bhopal disaster site. Delhi: The Other Media. 

• Stringer R, Labunska I, Brigden K, Santillo D. (2002). "Chemical Stockpiles at Union Carbide India Limited in Bhopal: An investigation". Greenpeace Research Laboratories.

• Varadarajan S et al (1985). Report on Scientific Studies on the Factors Related to Bhopal Toxic Gas Leakage. New Delhi: Indian Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. 

• Weir, D (1987). The Bhopal Syndrome: Pesticides, Environment and Health. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books

Papers

• Broughton E (2005). "The Bhopal disaster and its aftermath: A review" 6 pages. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-4-6. 10 May 2005

• Dhara, V. Ramana; Dhara, Rosaline (Sept/Oct 2002). "The Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal: A review of health effects" (reprint). Archives of Environmental Health 391-404.

• D'Silva TDJ, Lopes A, Jones RL, Singhawangcha S, Chan JK (1986). "Studies of methyl isocyanate chemistry in the Bhopal incident". J. Org. Chem. 51 (20): 3781–3788. doi:10.1021/jo00370a007. 

• Eckerman, Ingrid (2005). "The Bhopal gas leak: Analyses of causes and consequences by three different models.". Journal of Loss Prevention in the process industry 2005:18;213-217.

• Eckerman, Ingrid (2006). "The Bhopal Disaster 1984 - working conditions and the role of the trade unions." (PDF). Asian Pacific Newsletter on occupational health and safety. Vol 13, No 2;48-49

• Gassert TH, Dhara VR, (Sep 2005.). "Debate on cyanide poisoning in Bhopal victims." (PDF). Current Science. (Response) Vol 89, nr 6

• Jasanoff, Sheila (2007). "Bhopal’s Trials of Knowledge and Ignorance". Isis 98: 344–350. doi:10.1086/518194. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/518194. 

• Lepowski, W. "Ten Years Later: Bhopal". Chemical and Engineering News, 19 December 1994.

• Rice, Annie; ILO (2006). "Bhopal Revisited - the tragedy of lessons ignored" (PDF). Asian Pacific Newsletter on occupational health and safety. Vol 13, No 2;46-47

• Sriramachari S (2004). "The Bhopal gas tragedy: An environmental disaster". Current Science 86: 905–920. http://webdrive.service.emory.edu/users/vdhara/www.BhopalPublications/Toxicology/Current%20Science%20article%20&%20critique/Curr%20Science%20Bhopal%20article%20Sriramachari.pdf. 

Reports, no author's name

Union Carbide Corporation

• Methyl Isocyanate. Union Carbide F-41443A - 7/76.  Union Carbide Corporation, New York (1976)
• Carbon monoxide, Phosgene and Methyl isocyanate. Unit Safety Procedures Manual.  Union Carbide India Limited, Agricultural Products Division: Bhopal (1978)
• Operating Manual Part II. Methyl Isocyanate Unit. Union Carbide India Limited, Agricultural Products Division (1979). 
• Bhopal Methyl Isocyanate Incident. Investigation Team Report. Union Carbide Corporation, Danbury, CT (1985). 
• Presence of Toxic Ingredients in Soil/Water Samples Inside Plant Premises.  Union Carbide Corporation, USA (1989)

Health research

• Health Effects of the Toxic Gas Leak from the Union Carbide Methyl Isocyanate Plant in Bhopal. Technical report on Population Based Long Term, Epidemiological Studies (1985-1994).  Bhopal Gas Disaster Research Centre, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal (2003?) Contains the studies performed by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR).

• "Health and Epidemiology Papers About the Bhopal Disaster".

Contamination of site

• A Report on Mercury Contamination of Groundwater near the Union Carbide Factory at Bhopal.  Peoples' Science Institute, Dehra Doon (2001)
• Foul Debris. The UCIL plant is still a health hazard.  Down to Earth, Dec 15 (2003).

Mixed

• "Bhopal Disaster". Trade Environmental Database. TED case studies no. 233, American University, Washington (1 Nov 1997).

• "Chemical Terrorism Fact Sheet: Methyl Isocyanate.". CSB&EI, Saint Louis University School of Public Health, USA

• The Trade Union Report on Bhopal.  ICFTU-ICEF, Geneva, Switzerland (1985) See The Bhopal Memory Project

• "Unproven technology". Bhopal.net (14 Nov 2002).

• "Clouds of injustice. Bhopal disaster 20 years on". Amnesty International, London (2004). Summary Executive summary
• The Bhopal Memory Project Old reports from UCC, the trade union and other material have been scanned and can be found here.

Presentations

• Eckerman, Ingrid. "The Bhopal Saga - Causes and Consequences of the World's Largest Industrial Disaster." (PDF). Power point presentation in easy English (2008)

• Eckerman, Ingrid. "The Bhopal Gas Leak - too late for good epidemiology." (PDF). Poster presentation (2007)

External links

Websites

• The Bhopal Library The Apex Press, New York
• International Campaign For Justice in Bhopal
• Bhopal Medical Appeal and Sambhavna Trust Clinic
• Students for Bhopal
• Bhopal Information Center (UCC:s Bhopal Web Site)
• Bhopal Gas Tragedy Relief & Rehabilitation Department,The official website of the Government of Madhya Pradesh
• Fake Dow website by The Yes Men
• The Encyclopedia of Earth "Bhopal, India"

Reportage, films, music

• Twenty Years Without Justice: The Bhopal Chemical Disaster International Campaign for Justice for Bhopal video
• Bhopal.fm Arts website with broadcasting, photos, music and videos
• "One Night in Bhopal". BBC News.
• It happened in Bhopal part 1 Reportage 27 Aug 2007 (Youtube)
• It happened in Bhopal part 2 Reportage 27 Aug 2007 (Youtube)
• Sambhavna Trust Clinic Webreportage 2007
• BBC News 2004 A film and a reportage

Photos

• Pablo Bartholomew The most welknown photos from December 1984
• The Ghosts of Bhopal slideshow from the Common Language Project
• World Press Photo of the Year for 1984 - Child killed by the poisonous gas leak in the Union Carbide chemical plant disaster.

Texts

• Animal's People A fictionalized story of a Bhopal survivors that recreates present day Bhopal for the reader
• Bhopal Gas Tragedy A railway officer describes how he received victims coming by train. (2002)

Dow Chemical Co. Corporate Directors: Arnold Allemang · Jacqueline Barton · J. Michael Cook · Jeff Fettig · Barbara Franklin · Andrew Liveris · Keith McKennon · Pedro Reinhard · James Ringler · Harold Shapiro · Ruth Shaw · William Stavropoulos · Paul Stern Assets & Products: Lorsban · Polystyrene (Styrofoam) · Saran Wrap · Silly Putty · Union Carbide Annual Revenue: $40.2 billion USD (▲23% FY 2004) · Employees: 43,203 · Stock Symbols: NYSE: DOW · Website: www.dow.com