Editorial
The Bhopal hoax

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

The hoax played against British Broadcasting Corp. Friday is the downside of the Internet: Though it can instantly communicate knowledge and truth, it also can instantly communicate lies.

Friday was the 20-year anniversary of the disaster at Bhopal, India, in which a cloud of pesticide chemical from a Union Carbide plant killed 3,800 people and seriously injured many others. It was the worst chemical disaster in memory.

It has also been used as a symbol of Western exploitation of people in poor countries. Apparently, the hoax was in that vein. On Friday, the BBC ran an interview with a man who purported to be from Dow Chemical Corp., owners of Union Carbide since 1999. The man said Dow Chemical was taking full responsibility for the disaster and was setting up a $12 billion compensation fund.

He was lying, and the BBC apologized for being taken in. On the same day, a press release arrived from "Dow Chemical Corporation" warning us of the BBC hoax, and discussing Bhopal — except that the press release was another hoax.

It directed us to a Web page at www.dowethics.com. There was the Dow-in-a-diamond logo, the corporate motto, "Living. Improved Daily," and a photo of a doctor and a baby, all from the real Web page at www.dow.com. But the things on it were different. Purporting to be a company explaining itself, it used callous language designed to anger the reader.

For the record, Dow Chemical never operated the plant in India. It wasn't Dow's plant. It was a plant owned by Carbide, the Indian government and private investors. Carbide settled the claims from the accident for $450 million, years before Carbide was bought by Dow. Whether the $450 million was enough may be argued, but it was accepted by the government of India.

Companies, like individuals, have identities. It is simply not fair to blame Dow for something Carbide did, just to make a political point. Indeed, if one has to create an elaborate hoax in order to make one's point, we wonder how valid that point is.