I just tweeted this post. I am not an advocate a ruining DOW but as a Michigander, I know that chemical spills last forever. (See PBB in cow feed) Here in the United States we have entrepreneurs that see the benefits of doing that clean up work. Bhopal, India is forgotten.
How Dow Chemical Can End the Bhopal Tragedy (DOW): http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/07/27/how-dow-chemical-can-end-the-bhopal-tragedy.aspx#.UCBy0RZX4-M.twitter

When was the last time you stopped to think about the one thing you can’t live without?

I don’t mean the Internet or sex! I’m talking about water.

Without clean drinking water, life could not go on. This is why it’s so important that we know what is in our water. For the past sixty-five years, city governments nationwide have been adding a controversial substance called fluoride to municipal water supplies.

You probably recognize the word fluoride from the back of your toothpaste tube or from your visits to the dentist. But the fluoride added to our water is not the same as that in our toothpaste. The chemical added to our water is a fluorine compound called hexafluorosilicic acid that is generated as a by-product from the phosphate fertilizer industry.

Phosphates are minerals that are used to make fertilizer, and phosphate mining industry is a giant moneymaker. Fluorides result from the production of fertilizers as well as in the manufacturing of steel, aluminum, glass, cement and Uranium enrichment for the nuclear industry. Previously, the lack of government regulation allowed gaseous fluorides to go up factory smokestacks and straight into the air. Anything and anyone living downwind would get poisoned by these fumes. Cattle and vegetation would wither and die from these gases. That’s why environmental regulations now require giant filtration systems called “wet scrubbers” inside the smokestacks to keep these toxic chemicals from escaping into the air. Fluorosilicic acid is condensed to a water-based solution along with all the other contaminants that result from the mining operations and is put into large cooling pools. They then ship this industrial toxic waste in special hazard tanker trucks, unrefined, having sold it to municipalities for water fluoridation.

By selling their fluoride waste as a product for this purpose, companies avoid  the huge cost of disposing of these chemicals in the environment safely in accordance with regulations. Back in the 1930’s, a band of industrial corporations, including Monsanto, U.S. Steel, Union Carbide, Reynolds, and the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) and ALCAN, the leading producers of aluminium, had been cheaply disposing of their fluoride waste, mostly sodium fluoride, into the environment for years. This changed when their toxic waste became the target of negative press and embarrassing and expensive lawsuits written up in the local and national news. A 1933 toxicology report by the USDA had warned of fluoride’s toxicity, singling out the aluminum industry as the biggest culprit.

The new potential of legal liability due to the exposure of workers and communities to industrial fluoride scared these corporations. Knowing that disposing of industrial fluoride waste safely was expensive, ALCOA employed biochemist Gerald Cox in 1936, to argue for fluoride’s dental benefits through experimentation on rats. The nuclear industry had their equivalent in Harold Hodge, a pharmacologist and toxicologist. Cox, neither a doctor nor a dentist, concluded that fluoride strengthened and protected teeth against decay and began to tour the country promoting water fluoridation on behalf of his employers. Interestingly, Cox’s findings ran contrary to the position originally held by the American Dental Association (ADA) on water fluoridation.

In 1944, the Journal of the American Dental Association published the following statement:

“We do know that the use of drinking water containing as little as 1.2 to 3.0 parts per million of fluoride will cause such developmental disturbances as osteosclerosis, spondylosis, and osteopetrosis, and we cannot afford to run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances…”

In spite of this warning by the ADA, Grand Rapids, Michigan became the first community to fluoridate its drinking water the very next year.

In 1947 Oscar R. Ewing, a paid attorney for ALCOA, was picked to head the Federal Security Agency.  In this position he oversaw the Public Health Service or PHS (which is now the Department of Health and Human Services). This enabled him to change the Code of Federal Regulations, and place all control of drinking water fluoridation in the hands of his own department. Making clear his lingering ties to the aluminum industry and their expensive toxic waste, Ewing made fluoridation promotion one of the first official policies of the PHS. Over the next three years, 87 additional American cities began fluoridating their water.

The study that is often referred to in fluoride’s defense was conducted by the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) of the United States Public Health Service (USPHS). It sought to determine whether there was a relationship between fluoridation and tooth decay. Released in 1988, the multi-million dollar nationwide survey examined 39,000 U.S. school children aged 5-17 from 84 different fluoridated and non-fluoridated geographical areas.

Surprisingly, the study uncovered a declining trend in tooth decay rates in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas, mostly due to overall better hygiene. The overriding conclusion from the extensive study was that there is no relationship between tooth decay and fluoride ingestion. Despite this consensus, this study is still commonly cited to link lowered decay rates in fluoridated areas. A seldom-reported fact is that the same trend was found in non-fluoridated areas too.

Fluoride overexposure can bring serious health risks. The most common affliction due to over-consumption is called fluorosis, a condition characterized by a discoloration of teeth or changes in bone density. An excess of fluoride eats away at the enamel of your teeth, causing craters and surface discoloration. Dental fluorosis is the first clear and obvious sign that your body is being poisoned by too much fluoride, and cases can range from mild to severe. This occurs because only 50% of all fluoride taken in by the body is excreted. The remaining fluoride is disseminated throughout the body, accumulating in our bones, pineal gland and other tissues. In Karnataka, India, an excess of fluoride has turned the ground water into a slow poison, crippling at least 10,000 people.

The Director of the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Dr D. Nagaraj, says that “due to fluoride concentration in water, many people in districts [in Karnataka, India] like Dharwad and Tumkur have spinal cord diseases. These are progressive diseases, after decades of consumption. People are battling with permanent disabilities.”

Alarmingly, a 1991 study by the U.S. Public Health Service found that the rates of osteosarcoma, a deadly type of bone cancer, were significantly higher in fluoridated communities than in non-fluoridated communities. The Harvard School of Dental Medicine found the same link in study done ten years later. Additional studies have associated fluoride ingestion with other serious health problems, including chromosomal damage, morphological changes to their kidneys and brain, hypo activity (or inactivity), damage to the thyroid gland, skeletal fluorosis, osteoporosis, liver cancer, and fertility problems.

The most distressing findings come from over 20 human studies done in China, India, Iran and Mexico that show a substantial lowering of IQ in fluoridated areas. The ingestion of fluoride has been shown to increase the gastrointestinal absorption of aluminum by over 600%, and the absorption of heavy metals like aluminum is known to have a direct correlation to Alzheimer’s disease and other neurological brain disorders such as dementia, Parkinson’s, ADD and ADHD. Although a direct correlation between Alzheimer’s disease and fluoride ingestion is still tentatively and relatively inconclusive, it is interesting to note that the rate of Alzheimer’s is twice as high in America than in Europe, where many countries have banned fluoridation. Also interesting to note is that the rate of increase of neurological disorders have increased with the increase in the prevalence of fluoridation in North America.

Many countries around the world are skeptical of the benefits of adding fluoride to drinking water. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan and China have all recognized that water fluoridation is not a safe and fair practice.

In the U.S., if you want to find out whether you’re drinking fluoridated water, the first thing you can do is access your city’s fluoridation status on the Center for Disease Control’s website in its oral health section. Most cities in Canada that have web sites have some propaganda message about the claimed benefits of fluoridation.

If your water is fluoridated, it’s not a lost cause.  You can speak out in your community or at city council meetings to let your local representatives know your concerns.  To remove fluoride from your water you have a couple of options. You can equip your home with water filtration systems like those at Equinox or Burkey. Filters like Pur and Brita do not remove fluoride.  If you buy bottled drinking water, removes almost all fluoride: only distillation takes it all out.

If your city is planning to fluoridate you can stop it! Activists all over North America have successfully fought off fluoridation since 1987 and they’re at it again. There is still a chance to put a halt to the fluoridation process in your own city.

Whether or not you support water fluoridation, the real issue here is having a choice. No chemical, no matter what its supposed benefits are, should be forced upon the public without their consent.  Having access to clean water should be a fundamental right for every human being.

“Water is the lifeblood of our bodies, our economy, our nation and our well-being.” -Stephen Johnson. To continue with fluoridation of the water supply is criminally irresponsible and a reckless disregard for its effects on human health and the environment. Mass medication is not an option in non emergency situations.

After numerous attempts to get data from city officials proving the benefits of mass fluoridation, I kept getting referred back to either the respective city’s Medical Officer of Health or indirectly asked to look elsewhere. All fluoridation cessation advocates and activists have yet to find any legitimate website or group presence that irrefutably proves any benefits for fluoridation. Neither is there any information anywhere that irrefutably proves that there are no adverse health effects from water fluoridation. Lack of research is not proof of lack of harm. If you don’t look, you don’t find. And no government agencies in fluoridating countries are funding research in the possibility of adverse health effects from fluoridation.

As much as we would like to believe that our highly paid medical bureaucrats with all those letters after their names know what they’re doing and talking about in medicine, that’s not the case when it comes to that contaminated acid pollutant banned by the EPA used for water fluoridation. They all claim and repeat that: “it’s safe and effective.” Unfortunately, that’s a false claim based on lack of knowledge and misinformation in the case of water fluoridation chemicals that they disparagingly call fluoride.

With this most pertinent information, can anyone NOT see that fluoridation of the water supply is a blatant, illogical absurdity that has to stop? Please do something to stop the insanity of fluoridation. Please contact me today to find out how. Please write to your city Councillor and ask that something be done to stop fluoridation.

Based on an article by Abby Martin, mediaroots.org

Richard Hudon
Rich.Hudon@ffo-olf.org

http://ffo-olf.org/

To help us with our public awareness campaign, please contribute to the cause with a donation. Make your cheque, bank draft or money order to Fluoridation-Free Ottawa and mail or deliver it c/o 1385 Matheson Rd, Ottawa, K1J 8B5. Any amount will help or $10, $20, $50, $100 or more. Receipts for business purposes issued on request. Tax receipts not available: we can not get charitable status for tax purposes.

by Staff Writers
New Delhi (AFP)

Terra Daily

clean up Bhopal now unauthorized rally for Bhopal (Mumbai, India - 2002)

Related Links
Our Polluted World and Cleaning It Up

Olympic organisers should consider the ethical, environmental and human rights records of multinational companies before awarding them lucrative sponsorship deals, according to London’s elected politicians.

The London Assembly today passed a motion criticising the International Olympic Committee’s selection of Dow Chemical Company as a worldwide partner, in a deal said to be worth $100m over 10 years.

The Assembly said that the decision to do business with Dow, which is the 100 per cent shareholder of Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), whose Indian subsidiary was responsible for the world’s worst ever industrial disaster in Bhopal, had damaged the reputation of London 2012.

The London Organising Committee of the Olympics and Paralympics Games (Locog) was also criticised today for doing a ‘local deal’ with Dow, to provide decorative wrap for the main stadium which was described by one assembly member as a an “architectural nicety, but totally unnecessary.”

Dow, which denies that it has any responsibility for the Bhopal disaster or outstanding contamination of water and soil in the Indian city, bought UCC in 2001 – 17 years after the gas disaster claimed as many as 25,000 lives.

Several members of the London Assembly said Dow could not absolve legal or moral responsibilities with regards to Bhopal.

Darren Johnson, Green Party member, said: “Dow was not involved at the time and did not own the Union Carbide plant at the time. But it now owns the company wholly, including those subsidiaries involved the water contamination today, and so it cannot absolve those liabilities because of a take-over a deal.”

Labour’s Navin Shah, who proposed the motion, said: “The issues around Dow’s on-going court cases are complex but they are on-going and very real. The Olympics have become a big business, and money talks in the end. The IOC remains a faceless and shameless organisation, colluding with organisation involved in environmental and human rights abuses.”

Tory member Andrew Boff, whose Party members opposed the motion, accused his Assembly colleagues of relying on media reports rather than the facts. “The idea that Dow Chemicals has a responsibility for the tragedy does not meet the test for natural justice,” said Boff.

Concerns about other major sponsors and Olympic partner such as McDonalds, criticised on the basis of the obesity epidemic, were also raised during the debate. The world biggest McDonalds has been built in the London Olympic park.

Mr Shah said it was too late for London but that the IOC should act for future Games and “[have] criteria for partners that conform to their own priorities and keep out the likes of Dow Chemicals.”

Lib Dem Stephen Knight said the IOC was good at protecting the commercial brand of the Olympics, but not the ethical brand – which should be kept “sacrosanct”.

The following motion was passed with a majority of 16 to seven:

Read Full Article Here

Related articles

• Gas tragedy victims to hold ‘Bhopal Olympics’ (thehindu.com)
• Olympics: Bhopal victims organise protest Games (terradaily.com)
• Bhopal and the sound of silence (blogs.independent.co.uk)
• US court absolves Union Carbide of liability in Bhopal tragedy (thehindu.com)
• Bhopal: A Silent Picture (morningstaronline.co.uk)
• Activists to Appeal U.S. Court’s Bhopal Verdict (ipsnews.net)
• Exhibition Highlights Link Between Olympics and Bhopal Disaster (theepochtimes.com)
• In ‘Bhopal: A Silent Picture,’ Artist Recalls the 1984 Disaster (india.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Legacy of Bhopal disaster poisons Olympics (bbc.co.uk)
• London Assembly says Olympic organisers should consider ethical, environmental and human rights records of sponsors (independent.co.uk)

Sambhavna is a short documentary by Joe Malone about the Bhopal gas disaster and the Sambhavna Clinic in Bhopal.

Despite George Cadbury’s renowned ethical values as highlighted in the first part of this series, business managers have had the opinion that ethics and corporate social responsibility are not compatible with business practice because they do not increase wealth for shareholders (Matten et al., 2003).  Ethical business principles however go beyond creation of wealth for shareholders, as they require businesses to be socially responsible and exhibit respect for all stakeholders and not just the shareholders. This view is supported by the Caux Round Table CRT (2009) which promotes ethical and responsible business principles with consideration for key stakeholders like employees, customers, shareholders, suppliers, competitors and communities.

Multinational companies were reluctant to sign up to these principles as they considered them to be western-oriented and not practical in non-western countries where they may be operating (Werhane, 2010).  It could be argued that as business increasingly tends towards globalisation, it could be in the best interest of multinationals to operate the same standards of business practices as would be obtainable in their various home countries. The concluding part of this series on integrating ethics in corporate strategy focuses on the infamous tragic disaster in Bhopal India.

In December 1984, a leak from Union Carbide’s pesticide factory in Bhopal, India, killed at least 3000 people with  15000 people reported to have died since then; making it world’s worst industrial disaster (BBC, 2010). Mac Sheoin (2010) argued that the Union Carbide’s was unethical in the employment of “harvest strategy” which essentially involved radical cost cutting through reduced capital investment and staff reduction all in a bid to make as much profit as possible before a planned exit from the Indian market. Mac Sheoin (2010) also suggested that the Indian Government being the dominant external stakeholder failed to carry out adequate inspection of the pesticide factory despite repeated concerns raised by employees and their union on health and safety issues at the factory. The Bhopal disaster can be argued to be a case of egoistic decision gone wrong.

 Trotter et al (1989) attributed ineffective crisis management and poor media (CSR) relations during and immediately after the crisis as being destructive to the public image of the Union Carbide which today holds the unenviable record of the world’s worst industrial accident and largest civil lawsuit in history. As was suggested by Mach Sheoin (2010), the strategy employed by the Union carbide executives was morally unethical as they knowingly under staffed their work force for profit-making; without any concern to the rights of the employees and the danger their strategy could pose to the residents of Bhopal. While their strategy could be argued to be within the limits of classical economic CSR theory, it failed to compensate for the altruistic and strategic CSR theories which involve respect for the rights and expectations of the society and their employees (Lantos 2002).

 CONCLUDING:

With the continuous progress being  made in the field of CSR and Business Ethics, it can be said that Friedman’s notion of business being instrument for profit maximization for shareholders may no longer be valid in today’s business climate;   there now exist an increased level of stakeholder awareness which can impact on the operation and profitability of business. Most governments now expect corporations to act and be seen as corporate responsible citizens with responsibility to a wider group of stakeholders as against being answerable to just the shareholders. The Environmental Protection Agency in the United States was essentially established as a result of Union Carbide’s pollution cases in the 1960′s while the Sabarley Oxley Act was as a direct consequence of the fraudulent actions of Enron, WorldCom and Arthur Anderson. In view of the increased expectations placed on businesses, it can be suggested that organizations should think of sustainability in the long-term than profitability in the short-term while making their decisions.

 As suggested by Aston Cadbury, companies should take social, environmental and ethical considerations into account when making investment decisions in order to create sustainability in terms of brand image. Technological developments in the areas of internet and electronic communications have made it easier for dissemination of information – the activities of a business in one obscure part of the world can be known through faster means of communication – hence organisations should take cognizance of the fact that globalisation and expansion of business into new territories come with added responsibility as well. In ending this essay, it will be important to repeat the words of Mike Emmot of Chartered Institute of Personnel Development who in a paper delivered in 2002 issued the following statement “CSR is a strategic issue because it requires companies to examine why they are in business and what they need to do to stay in business” (Emmot 2002 cited Cadbury 2006)

The emphasis of business ethics is on moral rights and wrongs as opposed to commercial, strategic or economically wrong and right decisions.  To buttress this view, the New York Stock Exchange stressed that that their recently released Code of Business Conducts for listed companies cannot be effective if management and employees lack business ethics (Mortimer, 2008). Crane and Matten (2010) suggest that the failure or success of a business organisation largely depends on the ethics or lack of it in the given organisation and that the ethical dilemmas that companies face externally or internally will be instrumental in the long term sustainability of companies. 

The 2-part series aim to highlight the benefits of incorporating ethical and corporate social responsibility policies in organizational strategies. The first section will review the benefits of integrating ethical and CSR principles in company’s corporate strategy and the possible limitations that organizations may face in achieving these. A comparative case study examining Cadbury’s century old policy and the approach employed by Union will be used to look closely at the effects and the dilemmas of integrating ethics and CSR in real life companies. For the purpose of this essay, Cadbury and Union Carbide will be used as comparative case studies. The essay will stress the importance of ethical and CSR strategies through the review of these case studies with emphasis on ethical principles, stakeholders and stakeholder’s dialogue. Lastly, the final section will conclude the essay with a summary of relevant argument to validate the importance of CSR and ethics to company strategy. 

 CADBURY AND THE BOER WAR: THE ETHICAL MANAGER:

Cadbury (1987) stated that an ethical manager will always choose to follow the right course of action while making business decisions. According to Cadbury (1987), George Cadbury the founder of Cadbury being a Quaker and pacifist would rather not profit from a war as it was against his religious beliefs and values. Having been commissioned by Her Majesty to supply chocolates to troops during the Boer War (1899–1902), and despite the fact that his company was going through harsh economic conditions during this period, he chose to supply the chocolates at a cost price rather than profiting from the war. This decision saved him from potential backlash from the public who would have been in support of the war and at the same time kept his workforce from retrenchment (Cadbury 1987).

The Cadbury case illustrates a classical example of an ethical decision integrating principles of virtue, egoism, utilitarianism and duty (Mortimer, 2008). The decision to supply the chocolates at a cost price was egoistic as the consequence yielded personal satisfaction for the decision maker. It also demonstrated virtue ethics as George Cadbury upheld his religious belief in making the decision despite the opportunity that was abound for him to make profit from the supplies. It can also be argued that Cadbury achieved utility for his employees and the wider society, by keeping the jobs of his workers and satisfying the expectation of the British society who were in support of the war. Lastly, as supported by (Fisher and Lovell 2003), Cadbury’s decision in supplying the chocolates albeit at cost price illustrate ethics of duty as he fulfilled his duty and obligation to  Queen Victoria and the society.  The argument would be the extent of utility achieved especially for the employees of Cadbury as utilitarianism cannot be measured (Mortimer, 2008). In as much the employees kept their jobs during the economic hardship, maybe the employees themselves would have been happier if the chocolates were supplied at a profit as this could have reflected in their wages as well.

 It can also be argued that Cadbury’s decision however ethical it might be, did not satisfy the classical economic theory of CSR   as his decision was not profitable to the company nor did he aim to maximize sales revenue (Carroll, 1979). It can also be argued that he fulfilled the stakeholder theory of CSR as his decision showed consideration for his employees, the society as well as the Monarchy (Carroll, 1979). It can therefore be argued that a company might be ethical and not be socially responsible and vice versa. It also validates the argument that the culture and overall strategy of an organization is actually down to the decision maker. Cadbury’s strategic decisions were rooted in moral virtues and egoism, made possible because his family was the sole owner of Cadbury at that point in time (Cadbury, 1987). It can therefore be argued that George Cadbury could not have achieved the consequences he desired from his decision if the company was a public liability company as the question of agency theory could have come in play.

Cadbury (1987) admits that conflict of interest between businesses and ethical principles are common in business practice. He suggested weighting of the various conflicting interests and balancing personal ethics against that of employees’ interest as well as external stakeholders as a solution to this dilemma. This highlights the need for companies to employ stakeholder engagement through dialogue in resolving crisis whenever they arise. This improves stakeholder relations and sustains the brand and reputation of companies. Mortimer (2008) argued that while making egoistic decision, the decision maker might need to consider not just what is ‘right’ but what is ‘better’, as the ‘better’ decision leads to enlightened egoism. The enlightened egoistic decision can be argued as being instrumental to long-term benefits for the Cadbury brand and consequential in sustaining the company through the harsh economic period of the early nineteenth century.

Continues…..

Why is Dow responsible for the situation?
No one disputes the fact that Dow bought Union Carbide after the disaster occurred.
But when Dow purchased Union Carbide, it took on liability for the Bhopal tragedy.
It would be terribly convenient for Dow and other massive corporations
if the slate was wiped clean when a company was purchased.

But Dow didn’t just buy the profit sheet,
the shares and the expertise from Union Carbide.
They also bought their legacy,
the environmental tragedy ofBhopal
and the responsibility for it.

Dow must ensure that the site is cleaned up,
the victims finally get true justice and proper compensation.
If a company could escape liability for its malpractices
by arranging a merger or takeover,
then companies would be able to abuse human rights
and damage the environment with impunity. 

Poet’s note:

What happened inBhopal?

OnDecember 2-3, 1984, as the people of the central Indian town ofBhopalslept, an explosion caused over 40 tons of a deadly toxic gas, methyl isocyanate (MIC), and other gases from the Union Carbide India Limited pesticide plant. The company executives could have warned the public, but instead they chose not to sound the emergency alarm bell in town.

The event occurred in the early hours of the morning ofDec 3rd 1984, at approximately12:30 a.m.By2am, most of the MIC had been dispersed over an area of 25 miles (40km), and the first deaths were reported to the police by3am. By morning, there had been 1,000 reported deaths, some as far as 5 miles (8 km) from the plant. 90,000 patients were seen in local hospitals and clinics within the first 24 hours, and in total, about 200,000 people suffered acute effects of the leak.

The preventableBhopaldisaster has claimed over 20,000 lives, and it is not over yet because members of the community continue to suffer from chronic health problems, cancer and birth defects.

How has Dow responded?

Dow claims that it is not responsible for the 1984Bhopalgas tragedy in any way. Despite that, they hired the same public relations firm that worked to tell people tobacco didn’t cause cancer, and that Foxconn hired to repair its public image around working conditions in Apple factories inChina.

Union Carbide paid $470 million in compensation to existing victims in 1989, amounting to less than $500 per victim whether they were blinded by the gas, developed terminal cancer from exposure, or suffered debilitating birth defects. To date, neither Union Carbide nor Dow has paid to clean up the site, and they have refused to even decommission the factory after the accident.

http://sumofus.org/campaigns/london-olympics/