[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

Re: E-M:/ Terry Miller Midland Daily News



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enviro-Mich message from "Robert Isaac" <rjisaac@gmail.com>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the Students for Bhopal Website (
http://www.studentsforbhopal.org/DowIsLiable.htm )

Dow has also sought to elude responsibility for a cleanup by shifting
the blame. Although the site has always been owned by the State
Government of Madhya Pradesh, it was leased by Carbide for its
pesticide factory. Carbide returned this lease to the State Government
in 1998, but without fulfilling one of its key provisions: that the
site be returned in a pristine state. Carbide itself acknowledges this
was a condition for the lease in this document.

Although polluter pays is the law in India, Dow has argued that the
current owner of the land, the Madhya Pradesh government, is
responsible for the cleanup. Dow has also argued that the $300 million
accrued through interest on Union Carbide's original 1989 settlement -
which the Indian Supreme Court ruled in July 2004 exists solely to
compensate the Bhopal victims for the loss of their health, their
livelihoods, and their loved ones - should be used to pay for a
cleanup, turning the polluter pays principle entirely on its head. In
summary, Dow has said both that local government should pay for the
clean up AND that gas survivors should pay - the first is in
contravention of lawful principle and common sense, while the second
contradicts all notions of human decency.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If Dow Chemical refuses to clean up Bhopal twenty-two years after the
worst chemical accident in history, why should we expect them to clean
up Dioxin in Midland without being forced to?  The science is on our
side ( http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3308_21234-43808--,00.html
) yet they fail to act.

No company should be allowed to produce products which are harmful to those
who purchase or use them.
If the product is harmful, the company should correct the problem at its
expense

The biggest problem with this is that there is nothing that Dow Chemical makes that isn't harmful in some way, shape, or form. Yet their plastic resin is used in everything from medical to auto to computer circuit boards. There is no escape from their products and none of them (having read the MSDS's for a few of their polyethylene and ABS resins) is safe to be around at process temperatures or even in their raw states (I've had my head in enough of their raw resin containers to know. My previous job was the lead material handler / material blender for a small medical parts supplier).


On 8/6/06, delavan@earthlink.net <delavan@earthlink.net> wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enviro-Mich message from "" <delavan@earthlink.net>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 . .we must reiterate that Dow's sole and unique responsibility is to its
shareholders, and Dow
CANNOT do anything that goes against its bottom line unless forced to  by
law. . .
                                        Escerpt from Robert Isaac's message.

If this is indeed the situation, then I offer that it is totally
unacceptable.  Read on.
Dow is in business because it manufactures products which people of the
world have been convinced are desirable.
So these people buy the product, fully expecting it to be safe to use.
So the company's first responsibility is to those people who buy their
products.
No company should be allowed to produce products which are harmful to those
who purchase or use them.
If the product is harmful, the company should correct the problem at its
expense.
When the product is not harmful, then and only then should profit.   (Of
course the company has operating expenses.)
Once there is a profit, the company's responsibilities are to the health
and welfare of its employees.
After health and welfare of employees the company may set aside funds for
research.
Once the health and welfare of its employees are implemented and research
funds allocated, then the CEO salary and benefits may be addressed.
CEO total salary and benefits should never be outageous--never more than
four to eight times the "average" of all its employees.
Finally, the company may address its responsibilities to its shareholders.
***********************************************************
Someone needs to put the brakes on companies that run rough shod over the
people.  If we need improved laws to stop pollution, production of harmful
products, misuse of effluent, unreasonable distribution of company funds
(see above procedure) so be it.
Delavan

delavan@earthlink.net





==============================================================
ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"
==============================================================


============================================================== ENVIRO-MICH: Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action. Archives at http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"
==============================================================