Everyday Scientist

RIP ACC

One of the greatest science-fiction writers of all time, Arthur C. Clark, died today at his home in Sri Lanka. Not only was he a great “hard” sci-fi writer, but he shaped our scientific world by promoting the use geosychronous orbit, which is essential to global communication today.

RIP.

great science fairs

Some great science fair projects here:

Runner-up would be electroworms.

Political Science Update: New Hampshire Primaries

It’s Clinton for the Dems, and McCain for the GOP.

Like I did with Huckabee, I dug around to see where McCain stood on science. I was glad to find that he opposes the politicization of science. Source. That is, he accepts that humans are contributing to global warming, and that that’s a problem. He accepts evolution. Source. He introduced the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act of 2006, which aimed to improve communication among scientists. His voting record is pro-stem cell research. I can’t figure out whether he wants to grow a budget for scientific endeavors, and his website is still nothing like Hillary Clinton’s website, but I think I’m safe in saying McCain is at least not an enemy to science.

However, he’s been pandering to the Evangelical constituency, and it’s not clear what this might lead to. On the one hand, he’s pushing for energy independence and cleaner energy—although some might buck at this because he supports funding nuclear energy—on the other, he’s hanging out with the Bob Jones crowd who accept 6-day Creationism and believe the Founding Fathers were all devout Christians. Only time will tell.

In the meantime, he would pose a formidable foe to Hillary Clinton, as evinced in the most recent polls taken in December asking who people would vote for between McCain and Clinton:

Fox News: 47% McCain / 42% Clinton
Zogby: 49% McCain / 42% Clinton
CNN: 50% McCain / 48% Clinton

Source.

With McCain mildly pro-science and Clinton avidly pro-science, I’d say this poses some risks toward science’s future, but it’d still be better than what’s come before.

Political Science Update: Iowa Caucus

The Iowa Caucuses have concluded with Obama winning the Dems’ caucus, and Huckabee winning the GOP’s. What do the Iowa Caucuses mean for science? First, the caucuses are not good predictors of who will win their respective party’s nomination. Iowa gets it wrong about as often as it gets it right:

George McGovern finished second in 1972—the year the modern caucus process started—and still won the Democratic nod. When Jimmy Carter won the presidency in 1976, he finished second in the Iowa caucus to “uncommitted.” George H.W. Bush defeated Ronald Reagan in the 1980 caucus. George H.W. Bush finished third in Iowa in 1988 and won the presidency that year. Michael Dukakis finished third in the 1988 caucus and won the Democratic nomination. Bill Clinton took third place in Iowa in 1992, with 3 percent; Harkin won 76 percent. Source.

Nevertheless, Iowa is supposedly important in shaping the candidates’ platforms. It serves as America’s veritable test kitchen for candidates’ White House recipes. (Too much metaphor?) Candidates can try out what works and what doesn’t. Obama tried out the ol’ “time for a change” theme, and it seems to have worked better than Clinton’s “I’ve got the experience,” and Edwards’ “I’ve got the compassion” narratives. Huckabee won by offering up the image of a regular Conservative Christian good ol’ boy, over Romney’s “I’m Mormon, but I like to kill terrorists like the rest of you!” approach, Giuliani’s “I am 9/11” slogan, and John McCain’s “I was tortured once, but I believe in a strong….”

Specifically, as to science, as you’ll recall, Sam kindly pointed out that Obama pitched a pro-science platform, but painted that platform in broad and Monet-esque strokes. And Huckabee avoided science, more or less, aside from saying that he opposed stem cell research. To be fair, I dug around a bit more to see what Huckabee’s views were on science. I didn’t find much more. He appears to reject or withhold judgment as to evolution, claiming the question of evolution is irrelevant to the presidency. (I would disagree with Huckabee here. Acceptance of evolution might indicate an amicable view toward science, particularly in light of all the recent hostility surrounding evolution curricula in schools. And rejection of or indecisiveness toward evolution might even more strongly indicate an ignorance, apprehension, suspicion, or hostility toward science. I would say evolution is a “barometric” topic of sorts.) Also, Popular Mechanics quotes Huckabee as follows with regard to energy and climate change:

a.) “Achieve energy independence by the end of my second term.”
b.) “We have to explore, we have to conserve, and we have to pursue all avenues of alternative energy: nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, biodiesel, and biomass.”
c.) “We will remove red tape that slows innovation. We will set aside a federal research and development budget that will be matched by the private sector to seek the best new products in alternative fuels. Our free market will sort out what makes the most sense economically and will reward consumer preferences.”
d.) “If we are energy independent, we will be able not just to take care of our own needs and protect our economy, we will also create jobs and grow our economy by developing technologies that we can sell to the rest of the world to meet their needs.” Source.

I’m guessing this was just a response to Evangelicals warming up to the problems surrounding global warming. It doesn’t seem terribly pro-science. That said, to the extent the caucuses have taught the candidates something about science (and it probably hasn’t), my guess is that it told the Dems that a vague science agenda is preferable; and the GOP, that de-emphasizing science in favor of faith is the smart card. For both parties, generalities are better. Some past elections would suggest as much. For instance, Gore had a very specific and detailed agenda, much like (Hillary) Clinton does now, and he lost out to (G.W.) Bush who called Gore’s approach “fuzzy math.” Similarly, Perot didn’t gain cool points against (Bill) Clinton and (not the banana) Dole when he pulled out his chart with a detailed explanation of his plan. (Nevermind whether it was a good plan).

All that aside, what if Iowa has it right this time? What if the general election is a showdown between Obama and Huckabee? So far, it looks like Obama has the lead, at least according to mid-December polls. Here’s the rundown:

Fox News’ poll (biased?): Obama 35% / Huckabee 21%

NBC survey: Obama 48% / Huckabee 36%.Gallup: Obama 53% / Huckabee 42%.

Zogby (who?): Obama 47% / Huckabee 42%.

CNN: Obama 55% / Huckabee 40%.

So if Iowa is any indication—and it isn’t—then science is on the up and up!

political science: conclusion

I guess Clinton wins the science race. At least so far. Maybe others will catch up before too long.

Do you want to see the candidates debate about science? Maybe there will be a debate someday, if you vote here:
http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php.

You can check which members of Congress encouraged adequate NSF and DOE science funding here.

Jordan and Kendall mentioned that Popular Mechanics has helped us along the way by compiling quotes from the leading candidates on several geek-oriented issues, including “science/education.” Don’t be fooled by the number of checks by any candidate’s name. They get checks so long as they say something about the issue, no matter how vapid. But check them for updates.

political science part 5: the republicans

I should be up front about this: I’m not a fan of Republicans right now. But we should give ’em the benefit of our many justified doubts and see if any of the Republican candidates have anything nice to say about science. From Popular Mechanics’ compilation of quotes, we find a few tiny tidbits:

Rudy Giuliani: “Promote science and mathematics through technical certification or an associate degree.”

Mitt Romney: “Emphasize math and science, while promoting innovative approaches such as charter schools and public-private partnerships, to ensure American workers have the intellectual capital and skills to compete in the 21st century economy.”

“Governor Romney will ensure that the workers of the future have the intellectual capital and skills they need to compete in the new global marketplace.”

Fred Thompson: “Encourage students to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and math.”

Wow. This is sad. And this is digging really deep on their websites. All the Democrat candidates said things like this, but I left out those lamest statements.

There, I gave the Republicans the benefit of my doubt. I gave them a big chance to stand up and say, I disagree with the Bush Administration’s anti-science attitude. But they are all basically silent on the topic. And there’s there another side that indicates that they’re science’s antigonists:

Mitt Romney said, “What became clear during the cloning debate is how the harsh logic of an absolute right to abortion had cheapened the value of human life to the point that rational people saw a human embryo as nothing more than mere research material to be used, and then destroyed.” Fred Thompson “opposes embryonic stem cell research.” And Mike Huckabee said, “I am opposed to research on embryonic stem cells.”

And, in general, the Republicans spend a lot more space on their websites complaining about stem cells and lovin’ on Jesus than ever suggesting that they would be even luke-warm toward science.

They all lose the science race. Lose lose lose.

political science part 4: joe biden

I really like Biden: I think he speaks his mind and has a lot of experience with good results. Maybe speaking his mind sometimes gets him in trouble for not being politically correct or when his words are taken out of context, but I’m impressed by a politician who doesn’t tip-toe all the time.

I had trouble finding information on science on Joe Biden’s website, but maybe because it has so much impressive information and detailed plans (check out his thoughtful plans for Iraq) and I just got lost. So I emailed his campaign and they responded in a couple days with this (emphasis mine):

Developments in aeronautics, science and technology drive American business and further our place in an ever changing global economy. Joe Biden believes we must make an investment in one of our greatest resources, American innovation, through supporting scientific research. Joe Biden supports stem cell research and he supported the successful effort several years ago to double the NIH budget and believes we should not lose the momentum generated toward cures for diseases of all kinds. He supports continued increased investments and recently joined with those advocating to increase the agency’s budget by 6.7 percent each of the next three fiscal years. Joe Biden also believes that we need a substantial national commitment and would support an Apollo Project of $50 billion to dramatically increase investment in energy and climate change research and technology so that that United States becomes the world leader in developing and exporting alternative energy and energy efficiency technology.

Not too many specifics or detailed plans here, which is a little disappointing. But Biden has demonstrated many years of support for scientific research funding; and his attitude toward science is obviously one of respect instead of the disdain we see from the current Administration.

I think Clinton still wins in the science race, mainly for the details and plans she’s laid out on her website. Regardless, all four candidates I’ve summarized so far (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Biden) exhibit respect for science and demonstrate—in their words and their actions—that they would support scientific research efforts in this country during their Presidency and beyond.

political science part 3: john edwards

Here’s a good introduction to John Edwards’ attitudes toward science and toward the current administration (from the Edwards website): “George W. Bush has presided over the most anti-science administration in American history, censoring research and slanting policy—on climate change, on air pollution, on stem cell research—to advance a narrow political agenda.”

And: “The key to our future success lies in our nation’s labs and testing rooms, but federal funding for physical science research as a share of GDP has been on a 30 year decline. The NIH used to fund four out of 10 grant applications; now it funds less than two out of 10.”

OK, so what would John do for us? His campaign website promises to build a new energy economy while cutting greenhouse-gas emissions, better our primary- and secondary- education system when it comes to science and math, expand access to college, strengthen the internet, provide universal healthcare, and remove political requirements for scientific appointments. Here’s an important paragraph:

Supporting American Ingenuity: The most important factor for America’s future prosperity is investment in education, science, technology and innovation. As president, Edwards will make the Research and Experimentation tax credit permanent. The credit has expired or nearly expired 11 times in the last 25 years, discouraging companies from making long-term commitments to research. Ideological debates at NIH about things like stem cell technology have drained resources from promising research. Edwards will increase spending on basic research at the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health and lift stifling research restrictions. He will also modernize our patent laws—which haven’t been updated in 50 years—to provide incentives for research.

This is nowhere near the detail that the Clinton campaign has included on their website. Nevertheless, it seems that President Edwards would turn around the most dramatically stupid Bush policies and attitudes toward science and research. It’s really, really satisfying to read so many pro-science views coming from the current batch of (Democrat*) candidates for President!

* We will eventually write a post summarizing the Republican candidates’ attitudes and planned policies toward science. But it’s really hard to find positive statements coming from any of them so far.

political science part 2: hillary clinton

Hillary Clinton is the second candidate in this series. Bill Plait over at Bad Astronomy already posted about some of Clinton’s comments on science this press release; enjoy his analysis and readers’ comments here.

There’s actually a lot of information about science and innovation on Clinton’s website! (And I think most of it is new in the last few weeks.) I’ll summarize by listing the main points. I suggest you go read the details at the Clinton website.

General attitude toward science:

According to her press release, Clinton claims that she would sign an executive order that:

• Rescinds President Bush’s ban on ethical embryonic stem cell research and promotes stem cell research that complies with the highest ethical standards.
• Bans political appointees from altering or removing scientific conclusions in government publications without any legitimate basis for doing so, and prohibits unwarranted suppression of public statements by government scientists.
• Directs all department and agency heads to submit annual reports on the steps they have taken to (1) safeguard against instances of political pressure threatening scientific integrity; and (2) promote openness and transparency in decision-making.
• Reverses President Bush’s new directive that dramatically expands political appointees’ control over agency rulemaking.
• Revives and expands the national assessment on climate change, going above and beyond the requirements imposed by Congress.
• Restoring the science advisor’s direct access to the President.
• Working to re-establish the Office of Technology Assessment.
• Protecting the integrity and independence of federal scientific advisory committees.
• Strengthening whistleblower protections for those who disclose potential instances of political interference with science.

All of this is easy to say and to come across at pro-science (or at least not anti-science); that’s easy in comparison to Bush. But what if she didn’t have that on her website? I think it’s important for a candidate to distance oneself from the current Administration’s ridiculously anti-science stance.

Plans for funding:

Clinton has a very detailed plan for funding science research in the US. Here is her 9-point plan:

1. Establish a $50-billion Strategic Energy Fund.
2. Increase the basic research budgets 50% over 10 years at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and the Defense Department.
   • Increase research focus on the physical sciences and engineering.
   • Require that federal research agencies set aside at least 8% of their research budgets for discretionary funding of high-risk research.
   • Ensure that e-science initiatives are adequately funded.
   • Boost support for multidisciplinary research in areas such as the intersection of bio, info, and nanotechnologies.
3. Increase the NIH budget by 50% over 5 years and aim to double it over 10 years.
   • Increase investment in the non-health applications of biotechnology in order to fuel 21st century industry.
4. Direct the federal agencies to award prizes in order to accomplish specific innovation goals.
5. Triple the number of NSF fellowships and increase the size of each award by 33 percent.
6. Support initiatives to bring more women and minorities into the math, science, and engineering professions.
7. Support initiatives to establish leadership in broadband.
8. Overhaul the R&E tax credit to make the U.S. a more attractive location for high-paying jobs.
9. Restore integrity to science policy.

I’m really impressed with this. I can’t find anything wrong with any one of these points. Her plan to increase funding for science is spelled out: 50% for the NSF over 10 years; 50% for NIH over five years and double in 10. The nine-point plan is clearly directed at scientists: who else would care about how many NSF fellowships there are each year?

This is better planned than Obama‘s idea listed on his website. That’s not to say that Clinton would actually do a better job promoting science, but she obviously had someone do some careful planning and research into the entire concept of science funding.

Now I’m really curious to see if Obama and the other campaigns revamp their websites to add more information about science. But I’m not holding my breath.

political science part 1: barack obama

Out of curiosity, I started reading how the different presidential candidates stand on science, science funding, and research. Some of the candidates even have information about it right on their websites! So I’ll try to convey to you all what I discover. Part 1 is Barack Obama, next will be Hillary Clinton, then Joe Biden and John Edwards. Stay tuned…

There’s not tons of information on Obama’s website specifically about scientific research, but there is this paragraph (emphases are mine):

Barack Obama supports doubling federal funding for basic research, changing the posture of our federal government from being one of the most anti-science administrations in American history to one that embraces science and technology. This will foster home-grown innovation, help ensure the competitiveness of US technology-based businesses, and ensure that 21st century jobs can and will grow in America. As a share of the Gross Domestic Product, American federal investment in the physical sciences and engineering research has dropped by half since 1970. Yet, it often has been federally-supported basic research that has generated the innovation to create markets and drive economic growth. For example, one recent report demonstrated how federally supported research in fiber optics and lasers helped spur the telecommunications revolution.

Obama also commented on the US patent system:

A system that produces timely, high-quality patents is essential for global competitiveness in the 21st century. By improving predictability and clarity in our patent system, we will help foster an environment that encourages innovation. Giving the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) the resources to improve patent quality and opening up the patent process to citizen review will reduce the uncertainty and wasteful litigation that is currently a significant drag on innovation. With better informational resources, the Patent and Trademark Office could offer patent applicants who know they have significant inventions the option of a rigorous and public peer review that would produce a “gold-plated” patent much less vulnerable to court challenge. Where dubious patents are being asserted, the PTO could conduct low-cost, timely administrative proceedings to determine patent validity. As president, Barack Obama will ensure that our patent laws protect legitimate rights while not stifling innovation and collaboration.

There’s more information on the official Obama website here. But not too much more. Nothing really specific. Still, doubling the federal budget for scientific research would be quite impressive.

Research Investments into Sustainable Energy – In Perspective

See graph below the fold… Read more of this post…

hot gum!

Who wants to help me?

Here’s an email my PI received. First of all, it’s pretty cute that some high-school student is emailing professors at Stanford for some help. Secondly, it’s even cuter that the profs actually read the email!

Hi,

My name is [redacted] and I’m a highschool student who is currently doing an Honors Chemistry project. My idea that I’m experimenting with is that I’m going to try to determine if there is a temperature change or a chemical change that affects the feeling of the mouth when gum is chewed. I was actually doing quite well with my ideas, but now I’m kind of stuck, so I was wondering if somebody in the chemistry department could e-mail me back or possibly help me.

My idea that I was going with is that I wanted to first start out and (using a mouth thermometer) get a starting temperature of a person’s mouth before chewing gum. Then, I wanted to pick a brand of gum in both mint and cinnamon flavors and seperately measure if there is an increasing or decreasing temperature change. My hypothesis is that there will not be a significant change at all, so that’s where the chemistry part comes in. I wanted to then somehow test saliva samples or something with the different chemicals of gum to determine which ingredient creates the “feeling” that the mouth is hot or cold. Except I really have no idea how to go about doing that.

Do you think someone could give me some ideas within the next day or so and let me know/point me in the right direction on how I should go about doing this experiment? That would be amazing, thank you!

My first thought was to look at two flavors of the same brand of gum, find the ingredients that are different, buy those (food-grade) chemicals, and taste them! But most gums just list “natural and artificial flavoring” in the ingredients, so that wouldn’t work. Separating the different ingredients in the gum is a possibility, but probably too difficult.

Another option is to guess the flavors the manufacturers used for cinnamon and mint (an educated guess, but doing some research about flavorings). I bet they use menthol for the mint. I don’t know what they use for the spicy cinnamon, but I know that capsaicin is the chemical that makes chili peppers taste “hot” (by interfering with the pain receptors in your mouth). You could use capsaicin and menthol on saliva samples and measure changes in the temperature or whatever. These would be good estimates of the chemicals they use as flavoring in gum.

Other thoughts? Would there be a very simple way of separating the flavor ingredient without a column or TLC plates? Maybe a paper towel? Or maybe the student could just dissolve the gum in warm water and use the solution of all the ingredients.

But I don’t know what they would measure in the saliva sample (gross!) that could relate to taste.

Alice in Neurologyland

I came across a delightful article about the neurology of Alice in Wonderland (via boingboing, if you must know). If you’re a fan of Jabberwocky, the article is a fun read.

My favorite quote:

Sadly this hypothesis is not amenable to empirical investigation since Humpty Dumpty apparently suffered irreversible traumatic injuries in falling from a wall, thereby confounding any further assessment.

citizen kane wins the peace prize!

I shouldn’t post twice in the same day, but look, Citizen Kane won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize:

I’m surprised that Gore won, mostly because his was the only name I actually heard floated.

I can’t believe the Nobel Committee overlooked George Walker Bush for yet another year! How can they ignore the wonderful work he’s done reshaping the Middle East and torturing Germans? Maybe Bush still has a chance for an Ig Nobel Peace Prize, like Teller in 1991.

Let’s Be Fair to Dow

[Editor’s note: This is a follow-up of a previous post. Apparently, Charles disagrees with me. -Sam]

Let’s be fair to Dow here.

The Bhopal pesticide plant explosion was a horrible incident by all accounts! The disaster caused around 8,000 immediate deaths. 12,000 deaths have been linked to the disaster, and another 100,000 or so people suffer lingering health risks.

To start with, let’s see what Union Carbide has tried to do to rectify the situation:

1. The day of the explosion (December 4th, 1984), Union Carbide sent material aid and medical experts to Bhopal to assist with treatment.
2. Carbide donated an immediate $2 million into the Indian Prime Minister’s disaster relief fund within 1 week after the incident (December 11th, 1984).
3. 3 months after the incident (February 1985), Carbide established the “Employee’s Bhopal Relief Fund” which raised more than $5 million for immediate relief.
4. 5 months after the incident (April 1985), Carbide paid for Indian medical experts to take part in training of treatment techniques.
5. Less than 3 years after the incident (August 1987), made an additional $4.6 million for humanitarian relief.
6. In 1989, Carbide settled with the Indian Government in the Indian court system for $470 million. The settlement was paid in full almost immediately. In the settlement it was agreed that the state government of Madya Pradesh would take full responsibility for the site cleanup.
7. In April 1992, Carbide sold 50.9% of it’s shares of UCIL (Union Carbide of India Limited – the subsidiary responsible for the incident) to fund a $90 million trust fund for the establishment of a Bhopal hospital treating heart, lung, and eye ailments. As of 2001, when the hospital opened it’s doors, the trust had amounted an estimated $100 million.
8. In addition, Carbide provided $2.2 million to Arizona State University to establish a vocational-technical training center in Bhopal (which was later closed) and $5 million to the Indian Red Cross.
9. Carbide developed the “Responsible Care” system with other members of the chemical community to “help prevent such an event [as Bhopal] in the future by improving community awareness, emergency preparedness, and process safety standards.”

So, over the course of the 20 years between the incident and the purchase of Union Carbide by Dow Chemical, Union Carbide had spent almost $600 million towards the cleanup and relief efforts.

Now, let’s compare the 1989 $470 million dollar settlement ($686.2 million in 2007 dollars) against other U.S. settlements by chemical companies:

The largest Superfund site in the U.S. today is the Hudson River, in which over 500 tons of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have been dumped over the course of 80 years (most by GE in the last 30 years). The estimated cost is $500 million. GE has formed an agreement with the EPA to pay a total of $7.62 million and donate scientists and manpower to the initial sampling and cleanup effort. Unknown population affected over 80 year period. PCB’s have been linked to cancer, although GE denies that there are increased cancer risks in the area.

The 2nd largest settlement in Superfund history, and the largest settlement involving a chemical company, was the Sikes Disposal Pits near Crosby, an illegal toxic waste dump used by a variety of petrochemical companies, which has affected an estimated 10,000 people. 30 chemical companies were sued successfully for an estimated $120 million in cleanup costs.

The Love Canal incident in 1953, which prompted the creation of Superfund, occurred when the Hooker Chemical Company covered area over a toxic dump with dirt and sold it the city of Love Canal for $1 an acre. Numerous houses and a school were built on the site. Unknown numbers of people were affected, but over 221 families were evacuated by 1981. People from the area suffered larger than average rates of birth defects and miscarriages. The government finally sued and won around $129 million for cleanup costs in 1995.

Of course, the scale of the disaster in the Bhopal case makes these other cases pale in comparison. That’s why criminal charges are proceeding against 6 UCIL members (including the former Chairman of UCIL, the Managing Director, the Vice-President Functioning in charge, the Works Manager, and the Production Manager). That’s also why the parent company of Union Carbide paid out so much both to the Indian Government (which it HAS to work through for environmental cleanup) and directly to the victims (around 20% of the money Carbide spent went to medical training, immediate humanitarian aid, and the establishment of hospitals and medical trust funds).

And also, granted, much of the money (specifically the $470 million) did not reach the victims families and was not spent on cleanup, but that’s due to the incompetence and/or corruption of the Indian government. In April 2005, the Indian Supreme Court ruled the government had to release remaining settlement funds to the victims and their families. After taking into account accrued interest, the remaining settlement amount is estimated at $330 million (See NYT article cited below). It is certainly NOT Union Carbide or Dow’s fault that the Indian government and sat on the money instead of using it for cleanup or victims reparations. Remember, part of the $470 million settlement was that the local government be responsible for cleanup (presumably using part of the settlement for cleanup).

Now, Union Carbide can’t take what happened back – I’m sure they would like to if they could. No one wants to be responsible for up to 20,000 deaths. But they can’t, so they spent more on the cleanup efforts than any other single U.S. corporation for a chemical spill or dumping in the short history of corporate environmental responsibility. Not only more, but almost 5 times more (6-7 times more in current dollars).

So where is the justification, legal or moral, for the Indian Government to sue Dow, who was NOT responsible for the incident, for $22 million when they are sitting on $330 million from the initial settlement? Why should Dow pay for the cleanup when Union Carbide already paid for the cleanup as part of it’s 1989 settlement, and paid more than any other single U.S. corporation in history (that I could find) for a chemical spill!

If Dow were to accept any responsibility, it would set a very dangerous precedent. Can you imagine a world where a company is sued by a government and settles: the case is closed. That company is acquired 15 years later. The government now sues the new corporation even though the previous acquisition has already fulfilled its legal and financial obligations. That’s legally and morally irresponsible, especially considering the goverment in question has 70% of the intial settlement still on-hand.

Bhopal Sources:

Wikipedia Article on Bhopal with Citations

Union Carbide Bhopal Information Center

New York Times Article from 2004: “Bhopal Victims Not Fully Paid, Rights Group Says.”

Other Sources:

EPA: Hudson River Superfund Site

EPA: Sikes Disposal Pits Superfund Site

DOJ: Fiscal Year 2001 Accomplishments (Including Sikes Disposal Pits Settlement)

EPA: Love Canal History

DOJ: Press Release on Love Canal Settlement