6 great reasons to give up shrimp for good

Celticguy said:
If it's frozen it's not fresh. Doesn't prevent it from being tasty though. Truly fresh shrimp are hard to come by.
Click to expand...

well they were fresh when he got them and they've been in the deep freezer since then. He was waiting to cook them for when I came home for the holiday break.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
well given all the oil spills in the Gulf....
Click to expand...

Yes I remember all the doom and gloom merchants on here having a field day with BP. Those prawns should be good, the grifters in Louisiana and in the Obama admin managed to nearly bankrupt BP over them. Contrast that with Bhopal where over 20,000 people, not shrimps, died and in excess of 200,000 people still suffer today. Apparently brown people count for less than shrimps in the US.
 
Borboletta said:
Contrast that with Bhopal where over 20,000 people, not shrimps, died and in excess of 200,000 people still suffer today. Apparently brown people count for less than shrimps in the US.
Click to expand...

That was sabotage...

The Arthur D. Little report concludes that it is likely 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.

UCC claims the plant staff falsified numerous records to distance themselves from the incident and absolve themselves of blame, and that the Indian Government impeded its investigation and declined to prosecute the employee responsible, presumably because that would weaken its allegations of negligence by Union Carbide.[56]

The evidence in favor of this point of view includes:
1.A key witness (the "tea boy") testified that when he entered the control room at 12:15am, prior to the disaster, the "atmosphere was tense and quiet".
2.Another key witness (the "instrument supervisor") testified that when he arrived at the scene immediately following the incident, he noticed that the local pressure indicator on the critical Tank 610 was missing, and that he had found a hose lying next to the empty manhead created by the missing pressure indicator, and that the hose had had water running out of it.
3.This testimony was corroborated by other witnesses.
4.Graphological analysis revealed major attempts to alter logfiles and destroy log evidence.
5.Other logfiles show that the control team had attempted to purge 1 ton of material out of Tank 610 immediately prior to the disaster. An attempt was then made to cover up this transfer via log alteration. Water is heavier than MIC, and the transfer line is attached to the bottom of the tank. The Arthur D. Little report concludes from this that the transfer was an effort to transfer water out of Tank 610 that had been discovered there.
6.A third key witness (the "off-duty employee of another unit") stated that "he had been told by a close friend of one of the MIC operators that water had entered through a tube that had been connected to the tank." This had been discovered by the other MIC operators (so the story was recounted) who then tried to open and close valves to prevent the release.
7.A fourth key witness (the "operator from a different unit") stated that after the release, two MIC operators had told him that water had entered the tank through a pressure gauge.

The Little report argues that this evidence demonstrates that the following chronology took place:
At 10:20pm, the tank was at normal pressure, indicating the absence of water.
At 10:45pm, a shift change took change, during which time the MIC storage area "would be completely deserted".
During this period, a "disgruntled operator entered the storage area and hooked up one of the readily available rubber water hoses to Tank 610, with the intention of contaminating and spoiling the tank's contents."
Water began to flow, beginning the chemical reaction that caused the disaster.
After midnight, control room operators saw the pressure rising and realized there was a problem with Tank 610. They discovered the water connection, and decided to transfer one ton of the contents out to try and remove the water.
The disaster then occurred, a major release of poisonous gas.
The cover-up activities discovered during the investigation then took place.
 
ChoppedLiver said:
That was sabotage...

The Arthur D. Little report concludes that it is likely 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.

UCC claims the plant staff falsified numerous records to distance themselves from the incident and absolve themselves of blame, and that the Indian Government impeded its investigation and declined to prosecute the employee responsible, presumably because that would weaken its allegations of negligence by Union Carbide.[56]

The evidence in favor of this point of view includes:
1.A key witness (the "tea boy") testified that when he entered the control room at 12:15am, prior to the disaster, the "atmosphere was tense and quiet".
2.Another key witness (the "instrument supervisor") testified that when he arrived at the scene immediately following the incident, he noticed that the local pressure indicator on the critical Tank 610 was missing, and that he had found a hose lying next to the empty manhead created by the missing pressure indicator, and that the hose had had water running out of it.
3.This testimony was corroborated by other witnesses.
4.Graphological analysis revealed major attempts to alter logfiles and destroy log evidence.
5.Other logfiles show that the control team had attempted to purge 1 ton of material out of Tank 610 immediately prior to the disaster. An attempt was then made to cover up this transfer via log alteration. Water is heavier than MIC, and the transfer line is attached to the bottom of the tank. The Arthur D. Little report concludes from this that the transfer was an effort to transfer water out of Tank 610 that had been discovered there.
6.A third key witness (the "off-duty employee of another unit") stated that "he had been told by a close friend of one of the MIC operators that water had entered through a tube that had been connected to the tank." This had been discovered by the other MIC operators (so the story was recounted) who then tried to open and close valves to prevent the release.
7.A fourth key witness (the "operator from a different unit") stated that after the release, two MIC operators had told him that water had entered the tank through a pressure gauge.

The Little report argues that this evidence demonstrates that the following chronology took place:
At 10:20pm, the tank was at normal pressure, indicating the absence of water.
At 10:45pm, a shift change took change, during which time the MIC storage area "would be completely deserted".
During this period, a "disgruntled operator entered the storage area and hooked up one of the readily available rubber water hoses to Tank 610, with the intention of contaminating and spoiling the tank's contents."
Water began to flow, beginning the chemical reaction that caused the disaster.
After midnight, control room operators saw the pressure rising and realized there was a problem with Tank 610. They discovered the water connection, and decided to transfer one ton of the contents out to try and remove the water.
The disaster then occurred, a major release of poisonous gas.
The cover-up activities discovered during the investigation then took place.
Click to expand...

Is this the same Arthur D Little that was hired by Union Carbide to write that report?

Alarmed by comment about contamination in the local press, Carbide hastily conducted its own private investigation. In 1989, Union Carbide management began the “Site Rehabilitation Project –Bhopal Plant,” which was shortly to become the “Bhopal Site Rehabilitation and Assets Recovery Project.” Internal documents on the project show that Union Carbide hired its appointed consultant, Arthur D Little (ADL), to be “Primarily Responsible For All Aspects of Site Rehabilitation Efforts” (UCC Internal Document 02271) and to find the cheapest possible method of site rehabilitation. (Previously, as UCC’s consultant directly after the disaster, ADL came up with the bogus Sabotage Theory to explain why the disaster occurred in the first place.) Though the record shows that the Indian government and the Madhya Pradesh state government cooperated fully with UCIL and UCC throughout their site remediation activities, further documents reveal that UCC attempted to actively conceal the existence, nature and scale of the developing problem of environmental contamination at the Bhopal site.

The key document, an internal Union Carbide study entitled the “Presence of Toxic Ingredients In Soil/Water Samples Inside Plant Premises,” gives a frightening insight into the cover-up perpetuated by Union Carbide. “The seriousness of the issue needs no elaboration. Samples drawn in June-July ’89 from land-fill areas and effluent treatment pits inside the plant were sent to R and D. They consisted nine soil/solid samples and eight liquid samples. The solid samples had organic contamination varying from 10% to 100% and contained known ingredients like napthol and naphthalene in substantial quantities. Majority of the liquid samples contained napthol and/or Sevin in quantities far more than permitted by ISI for onland disposal. All samples caused 100% mortality to fish in toxicity assessment studies and were to be diluted several fold to render them suitable for survival of fish.”

Nevertheless Carbide issued no public warning of the danger. An internal UCC memo referred to the need for secrecy, suggesting that the information should be kept “for our own understanding.” Not only did UCC fail to warn people living nearby, it vociferously denied that there was a problem and, incredibly, wrote to the Gas Relief Minister criticizing those who were trying to make people aware of the danger, suggesting the news reports were “mischievous attempts to cause panic.” Meanwhile in the USA, UCC tried to portray Bhopal activists and their supporters as “communists” who aimed “to restructure US society into something unrecognizable and probably unworkable.”

Carbide could argue that the gas disaster had been an accident, but deliberately withholding vital information while people are being poisoned is premeditated and wicked. It seems that Union Carbide learned nothing from the gas disaster, except that its “reckless and depraved indifference” would probably never be punished.

1990 BGIA Study

The Bhopal Group for Information & Action (BGIA) is one of the groups on the ground in Bhopal representing survivors. In early 1990 BGIA contacted a government research center, including the State Research Laboratory of Bhopal, regarding analysis of soil and groundwater samples from the vicinity of the factory site. The BGIA was told that anything connected with Union Carbide was highly sensitive and required clearance from top officials. Analysis by independent agencies was pursued instead. 
 In April 1990 BGIA sent sediment from the Solar Evaporation Ponds, soil samples taken from near the ponds, and community well water from the Jai Prakash Nagar neighborhood (which is located next to the factory) to the Citizen’s Environmental Laboratory, Boston (CEL).
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.bhopal.net/what-happened/contamination/evidence-carbide-doesnt-want/
 
Borboletta said:
Yes I remember all the doom and gloom merchants on here having a field day with BP. Those prawns should be good, the grifters in Louisiana and in the Obama admin managed to nearly bankrupt BP over them. Contrast that with Bhopal where over 20,000 people, not shrimps, died and in excess of 200,000 people still suffer today. Apparently brown people count for less than shrimps in the US.
Click to expand...
take that up with the Indian Government.
The US government did ahight bringing BP to justice and don't hijack our shrimp thread. Start a new one if you want to discuss the misdeeds of large chemical companies.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
take that up with the Indian Government.
The US government did ahight bringing BP to justice and don't hijack our shrimp thread. Start a new one if you want to discuss the misdeeds of large chemical companies.
Click to expand...

I have many times and the question of Bhopal was studiously avoided for the most part. Except for Superfreak who consistently argued that $400 million was more than enough of a settlement for all those brown people's lives. BP was taken to the cleaners by avaricious lawyers, crooked politicians and a president with an anti-British axe to grind. Was BP guilty, yes it was but then again so were Transocean, Cameron International and Halliburton? They all got off with derisory fines compared to BP, which we over here attribute to them being US companies with powerful lobbyists in Washington.

There was also the issue of the Piper Alpha where 167 men died and the crooks involved namely Occidental Petroleum got off virtually scot free but then no shrimps were harmed by that disaster. I am also minded by the way Exxon has fought the authorities over the Exxon Valdez disaster, that court battle is still going on but none of you have ever so much as mentioned that fact.



You may now return to your precious shrimps!


exxon-whale_2860645c.jpg

A local fisherman inspects a dead California gray whale on the northern shore of Latouche Island in 1989

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ska-oil-spill-the-court-battle-continues.html
 
Last edited:
Borboletta said:
I have many times and the question of Bhopal was studiously avoided for the most part. Except for Superfreak who consistently argued that $400 million was more than enough of a settlement for all those brown people's lives. BP was taken to the cleaners by avaricious lawyers, crooked politicians and a president with an anti-British axe to grind. Was BP guilty, yes it was but then again so were Transocean, Cameron International and Halliburton? They all got off with derisory fines compared to BP, which we over here attribute to them being US companies with powerful lobbyists in Washington.

There was also the issue of the Piper Alpha where 167 men died and the crooks involved namely Occidental Petroleum got off virtually scot free but then no shrimps were harmed by that disaster. I am also minded by the way Exxon has fought the authorities over the Exxon Valdez disaster, that court battle is still going on but none of you have ever so much as mentioned that fact.



You may now return to your precious shrimps!


exxon-whale_2860645c.jpg

A local fisherman inspects a dead California gray whale on the northern shore of Latouche Island in 1989

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ska-oil-spill-the-court-battle-continues.html
Click to expand...
Well of course they fought it. That's what corporations do. But let stick to shrimp on this thread!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top