From: gary@cdthq.UUCP (Gary Heston)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 20:01:21 CST
Organization: Garys' Home for Obsolete Computers

dipand@microsoft.com (Dipan Dewan) writes:

> In article <Psw4TB2w161w@cdthq.UUCP> gary@cdthq.UUCP (Gary Heston) writes:
> >cooper@casey.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Bob.Cooper) writes:
> >
> >> What are peoples thought on the Food Lion ordeal?  There have been may
> >> times in past history where bad news sent the stock sharply downward for
> >> a short while only to be followed by steady increase back to earlier
> >> levels.  Didn't Union Carbide fall into this catagory?
> >
> >Presuming you're referring to the Bophal thing, I believe UC was in
> >the position of being a basically sound company that suffered some
> >*very* bad publicity due to two acts of stupidity; one on the part
> >of some UC employees, and one on the part of the residents of Bophal
> >(when the warning sirens went off, all the residents started running
> >*toward* the plant to see what was happening). The majority of UC was
> >not and has not been run in that manner.
> 
> I know that this is not the right place to refute this, but I believe
> that this needs a better perspective. UC in Bhopal, India allowed MIC
> (methyl iso cyanate, or some such poison) into the air from a pesticide
> factory operated by their subsidiary in India. The leak occurred late
> at night when most people were asleep. They were woken by the
> pungent odor. That was not sufficient to tell them to run
> _away_ from the UC pesticide plant. Around 20,000 people died! :(

There were, however, warning sirens around the plant for just such
a situation; perhaps there should have been more. Building such a
facility that close to a population center was also not wise, but
I can't hold UC to total blame for that; the local government 
permitted it (and probably actually encouraged it).

> The company is liable for the damage caused by the negligence
> of their employees. Exxon was rightly sued for damages when their
> ship leaked oil -- BTW, the damage caused, in human terms was
> comparatively less, to put it mildly. Of course, in Bhopal, the
> people who lost their lives were from a poor country, but that
> can't make it excusable.

Rich country or poor doesn't matter to me, it was something that
was probably preventable, and could have guarded against better
than it had been. I haven't made any statement that UC wasn't
responsible for it, and I understand that there has been legal 
action involving a settlement. I don't have any idea what the 
current status of that is, however.

> Warning people with sirens when releasing poison is not enough.
> That would be like the Exxon Valdez justifying that spill by
> claiming that it had tooted its horn!

The sirens were there to reduce casualties in an accident. I don't
think there was anyone near the Valdez to be warned away, other than
some otters and birds, who wouldn't have gone far anyway. Using the
sirens doesn't justify the leak, it attemts to mitigate the damage.

> To make this posting relevant to misc.invest :), let me point out
> that such incidents are another reason for "socially responsible"
> investing!

Unfortunanly, there are always those whos' only concern is to 
maximize profit no matter what it might cost others, in money
or suffering. Defensive investing against them might also
be considered socially responsible; so far, I don't think I'm
in that category.

I do wish to thank you for the reasonable tone of your posting.
I've responded to one other via email, since I'm not real
interested in flamewars, but if that person wants to post an
unedited copy of my response to him, he has my permission.

In any case, Bhopal was a tragedy, and I'm not trying to make
light of it.

Gary Heston, at home....
gary@cdthq.uucp
Newsgroups: misc.invest