Talk:Union Carbide

Archives (Index)

2013 2015 2017 2021

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CJTheReader.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Agent Orange

Union Carbide didn't make Agent Orange. With a few well known exceptions such as polyvinyl chloride, Carbide wasn't into chlorine chemistry. WVhybrid (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Union Carbide may not have been "into" chlorine chemistry, but they did produce chlorinated intermediates to make urethane chemicals like TDI and blowing agents, ag chemicals like Sevin, and ethylene oxide and propylene oxide at their Institute and South Charleston, WV plants.Sandcherry (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This article says they did produce Agent Orange in their Homebush plant in Sydney. Part of the cause for the dioxin contamination of Sydney Harbour.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/the-poison-that-got-away-20101029-177i0.html?autostart=1 +|||||||||||||||||||||||||+ (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Another article says the same thing. http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/35014/newsDate/10-Feb-2006/story.htm Sandcherry (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Article Comments

There are almost no cites in this article. Need internal cites for all of article - especially for claims like "was $120 million more than plaintiffs’ lawyers had told U.S. Courts was fair." Where is this from??? Iammaggieryan 02:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am attempting to edit in cites to refute the biased nature of the article. There are, of course, many theories out there. This article seems to be written by a corporate drone - why the paragraph detailing company response? Iammaggieryan 03:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the entire section on the disaster needs to be removed from the article. It already has its own article, and it can be better covered there. It's just one event that happened to the company, not the defining event of the company, as it seems to be here. I vote to remove it, though give it maybe a paragraph of mention. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Frecklefoot. The article seems to be focussed on this one thing which already has it's own article. I vote to remove it as well. The article should be more about what the company did/does, less about Bhopal. --Copperman 10:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this article should link to the bhopal disaster, at least. DO you fellas work for union carbide? "Just one event"? The greatest industrial disaster in history should be simply glossed over as "just one event"?

I agree, Bhopal disaster is one of the worst industrial disasters in world history. It is (and should be) considered a defining event. There are other examples where pages on parent companies have discussion about a particular event, e.g http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chisso_Corporation Salil.gokhale 16:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The Union Carbide Rhodes site was not part of the Sydney Olympic Games. (The Wikipedia article is wrong in this regard - The main Olympic site was to the about 2km south west - Perusal of Sydney maps will reveal this.) The Union Carbide site was too heavily contaminated. In 1997 the New South Wales Government initiated investigations into cleaning up the site to make it suitable for residential development. The site is adjacent to the Rhodes railway station. They believed new technologies would make remediation possible. As a result of these investigations, remediation of the site was undertaken between 2005 and 2011. (The web site http://www.rhodesremediation.com.au/ contains much info on this.). The cost of this remediation appears to have been paid for by the private developers who developed appartment buildings on the site. It also seems that the NSW government allowed an increase in residential densities to compensate the private developers for the cost. The total cost of the remediation conducted 2005 - 2011 was $81 (see slide 7 of the "Ian Brookman, Thiess: The future landscape of remediation" slide pack http://www.slideshare.net/informaoz/ian-brookman). The web page http://www.rhodesremediation.com.au/index.php?q=overview gives a larger value of approx 100M. The $81M figure is likely to be more reliable as it wasgiven by a senior manager from Theis the contactor who wasawarded the contact to clean up the site.

There was also remediation done around about 1990 which cost $30 which was paid for by Union Carbide (see page 1.3 of http://www.rhodesremediation.com.au/files/downloads/Lednez/MAINEISREPORT.pdf - 352 page report). This was done as a result of a notice under the "Environmentally Hazardous Chemicals Act 1985' issued by the NSW State Pollution Control Commission - See page 1.1 of the above report. This remediated the eastern side of the site. An attempt was made to encapsualte waste on the western side of the site - the homebush bay side. btw Homebush Bay is a bay with river water in it - The upper reaches of Sydney Harbour. (Union Carbide had been dumping contaminated waste into mangroves in Homebush Bay as to reclaim additional land.) - This to my way of thinking was completely reckless behaviour by Union Carbide and why the contamination now is now almost completely impossible to remove. Trying to remove it just stirrs it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.95.142 (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)