http://www.nature.com/news/exxon-valdez-laid-to-rest-1.11141
The fine, but unlucky Exxon Valdez, born in the shipyards of NASSCO has finally reached its graveyard. After the disaster in 1989 it was refitted and pottered around until Exxon sold it in 2008 to a Chinese firm. The new owners promptly renamed it euphoniously as the Dong Fang Ocean. Unfortunately, the Exxon Valdez bad luck hit its new owners as the Dong Fang Ocean collided at sea in 2010, suffering extensive damage.
Acquired by various scrap merchants, it was tossed around for some time, acquiring a new name in the process - the Oriental Nicety, to be planned for scrapping in our world famous facility of Alang. Our local environmental groups fought a long battle in our Supreme Court to stall the scrapping, claiming possible injuries to workers. But they were defeated. The Oriental Nicety was finally driven up the beach some weeks ago, not without a little drama.
The ship responsible for one of history's worst environment disasters -- the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill off Alaska – rumbled on to the tide-flooded Alang ship recycling yard in Gujarat at exactly 4 pm on Thursday, never to sail again.
Neatly positioned behind two, orange-coloured chemical tankers a third each of it's size, the vessel dropped anchor five minutes later and cut it's engine within another five.
As the high tide dropped back sometime afterwards, it's 15-member crew walked ashore after three days short of four months since they boarded the vessel on it's uncertain last voyage.
The ill-fated vessel, however, almost maintained it's luck till the end.
Originally scheduled to beach on Wednesday afternoon, it was postponed because the ship's anchor got stuck in the mud just two nautical miles offshore, where it was stationed the previous evening.
So what next? Well, the Alang shipbreaking works has acquired a cool-looking website, explaining why we should be doing this breaking job for a ship constructed in the USA. You see, we, together with our neighbours are in the competitive forefront of the shipbreaking "industry". And why is this? Well, shipbreaking is nasty, dangerous work - and someone's got to do it. There's a Canadian documentary on Alang which I haven't located yet, but this is a nice documentary of the ships being cut apart with blowtorches, skilfully, almost casually, and nary a hard hat on view.
But of course shipbreaking is not for the faint of heart.
"On average, one worker dies in the yards a week and every day a worker is injured. It seems like nobody really cares. Workers are easily replaceable to the yard owners: if one is lost they know another 10 are waiting to replace him. The government collects the taxes and turns a blind eye," says Muhammed Shahin, an officer with local watchdog group Young Power in Social Action.
"Explosions of leftover gas and fumes in the tanks are the prime cause of accidents in the yards," he says. Other accidents are caused by falls – because the men are not given safety harnesses – or workers being crushed by falling beams or plates, or electrocuted.
---
According to the YPSA, most workers wear no protective gear and many work barefoot. "There is hardly any testing system for the use of cranes, lifting machinery or a motorised pulley. The yards re-use ropes and chains recovered from the broken ships without testing their strength. Fires, gas explosions, falling steel plates, exposure to poisons from bunker oil, lubricants, paints and cargo slop have left thousands with respiratory diseases," says Shahin.
So why do we carry on? Its big business.
When the rusty, old supertanker Lara 1 reached Bangladesh two weeks ago, the captain stoked up its engines for the last time and rammed it as far up the beach at Chittagong as possible. The 70-metre tall, 400-metre long iron colossus now squats in the mud in the Rising Steel ship breaking yard, waiting to be picked over by an army of young men risking their lives for little more than £1 a day.
---
Beyond it, stretched along 12 miles of what just a decade ago was a pristine sandy beach, ore carriers, container ships, gas tankers, cruise liners and cargo ships of every size and description are being dismantled by hand in 140 similar yards. Every year more than 250 redundant ships, many from Britain and Europe, come here to be broken up.
It will take gangs of oxyacetylene cutters nearly six months to dismember the 42,000-tonne Lara 1. In the first week, say its owners, oils, toxic sludges and other waste will be pumped out, parts of the bow and some bulkheads will be removed and the recycling will start. The cable, the steel, the generators, funnels, propellers, lifeboats, companionways, sinks, toilets, even the lightbulbs and every nut and bolt of the Lara 1 will be sold on the Bangladesh market, to be turned into construction materials, girders, metal sheets and furniture. The sheet metal will be used for riverboats and coastal craft.
"Every bit of this ship will be recycled, reused and resold. Nothing will go to waste. This ship will help build Bangladesh. We dismantle 2.5m tonnes of steel a year from Chittagong, but we need four million tonnes to keep growing," says Hefazatur Rahman, chairman of the Mostafa group of industries, which paid $20m to buy the Lara 1 for scrap, and could make $10m profit if world steel prices rise in the next year.
---
What is certain is that shipbreaking has become essential to Bangladesh's breakneck industrial growth. Apart from providing nearly half the steel the country of 160 million people uses a year, the government collects £70m in revenue from an industry that employs more than 20,000 people directly and as many indirectly.
And back to the Exxon Valdez - Oriental Nicety. A possibly drunk skipper had caused one of the the world's largest oil spills. That, providentially, led to regulations, changes, improvements.
Oddly, the net impact of the catastrophe may have been positive. In 1990, the United States passed the Oil Pollution Act (OPA): a powerful piece of legislation that required oil tankers in US waters to have double hulls. It also boosted the government's ability to respond to spills; provided up to US$1 billion to deal with individual accidents; increased penalties for oil companies responsible for spills; and required businesses to draw up exhaustive plans for handling spills.
But now, 500 men will be working for 4 months to cut it up. And because we have learned little, and care less, the Exxon Valdez will continue to extract a toll until its final gasp.
One worker a day, on average, dies on the job, some from explosions or falls, but many will contract cancers caused by asbestos, PCBs and other toxic substances.



Great diary!
(#289093).
A fitting end
(#289100)to a cursed ship.
And the tale of the hard life of shipbreakers is heartbreaking. And a cautionary tale: this is what "business unfettered by burdensome regulation" looks like. I know a few dead and sick workers wouldn't be worthy of notice to the former CEO of Bain Capital.
"I've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)
US corporations are mindful of workers issues
(#289131)the risk of media, lawsuits, regulatory overseeing and consumer awareness ensure it. Corporate responsibility doesn't take centre stage for nothing. Its not just regulation that controls business practice.
Over here OTOH, (and in other 3rd world states I am pretty sure) business interests are pretty much unfettered. You really cannot draw parallels between your financiers/businessmen/politicians wishing less regulation and ours.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Our business owners are envious of yours nt
(#289133).
I blame it all on the Internet
Unfair. n/t
(#289135)-
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Most Cartoon Versions Of Reality Are -nt-
(#289136).
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Let's put it this way
(#289137)the political party that represents our moneyed interests are envious of your lack of regulations. At least that's what they keep telling us, from eliminating the EPA to eliminating public sector unions to eliminating regulations in general.
I blame it all on the Internet
Coming from someone
(#289138)who consistently describes envy as the reason for taxation, I'm pretty sure you don't have a leg to stand on here.
I blame it all on the Internet
?
(#289141)-
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
That Particular Bit Of Rules Evading Snark Is Directed At Me
(#289143)You can ignore it.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
If we got rid of rule evading
(#289235)If we got rid of rule evading snark we'd be left with sports-related posts and booze-tasting diaries.
Let me remind you about Dow Corning Wright
(#289142)A company bankrupted by inappropriate lawsuits.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Which Is Why Trial Lawyers Will Fight Tort Reform To The Death
(#289144)They make scads of money off of mass tort cases that have no medical or scientific merit, and tort reform would shut that little party down rather painfully.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
As I get ready to do my next 12 hour ED shift...
(#289146)let me say I agree with you. I'd love to see tort reform, and for some of these law firms that clamor for mass tort cases dissolved and the lawyers involved get real jobs.
But malpractice, unfortunately, does exist, and I'd hate to see all protections for injured patients thrown out the window. There has to be a recognition of the difference between a bad outcome and bad medical care. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand.
"I've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)
12 hours is a long time
(#289147)to keep up erectile dysfunction. Can't you sue somebody?
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
Eggselent!
(#289213)nt
In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.
Or vice-versa...
(#289232)that was painful.
"I've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)
Let this be a warning to you guys, especially Darth
(#289233)[link]
I blame it all on the Internet
Hank, this is the ultimate result if the
(#289250)anti-circumcision crowd gets their way.
In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.
Well, That's Only Half A Darwin Award
(#289254)Better luck next time for that guy.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Consequences, externalities & risk... a drastic evolution.
(#289157)It's funny, but per the discussion below was just this weekend talking about how rapidly attitudes toward risk & loss have changed in American culture.
I would say it's been no more than a paltry 100 years since the attitude toward risk and workplace safety in this country were identical to if not worse than those embraced by the Chittagong ship scrappers. Mining accidents, farming accidents, child laborers swept into textile machines. Food adulterants, patent medicines filled with laudanum, heavy metals, formaldehyde, etc., contaminated drinking water were all common. Lead based paint & gasoline, uranium-based ceramics. The 20th century saw a breathtaking revolution in thinking about workplace safety and public safety.
But even within my lifetime the changes are noticeable. When I grew up, nobody wore seatbelts, we flung burning cigarettes and garbage out along the highway. Dad drove everywhere with a can of Coors (the old child-choker removable pulltabs) propped in his crotch. People smoked on airplanes, airports, nurseries, doctors' offices. There were no earthquake construction codes in California. It was common to barricade all but one set of doors to nightclubs & concert halls.
I wonder what's driving this evolution towards ever-greater awareness of externalities, the ramifications of risk. Is it America's famous litigiousness, and the ever-growing likelihood of getting sued for indirectly harming someone or indirectly benefitting from harming people? Seems likely. But there's also the news and the slowly but relentlessly expanding awareness of far-flung consequences. It probably also has to do with increasing wealth & luxury: if the alternative is to use risky farm equipment or starve, you might be willing to risk a foot or an eye.
M Aurelius was probably right.
I think it's knowledge and technology
(#289160)By knowledge I mean that the species is becoming more self-aware with time, so people are more able to connect the dots of actions and consequences.
By technology I mean the idea that we can fix problems by applying organized thought to them.
These two factors were present 100 years ago in the bourgeoisie, the professional and business classes. But I would argue that they were absent from the working class and rural populations.
So, to the 19th century farmer, a farm accident is simply a tragedy, an Act of God. Remember, this was a time when people could die from an infection even from minor injuries, when weather prediction was basically nonexistent. Stuff simply happened, so the mental frame was fatalistic.
And what were early factory workers if not transplanted farmers? Fatalism does not go away just because you move to the city. You need literacy, media, and new generations in order to get new modes of thought. Somebody has to see a statistic where the number of farm accidents under X condition are N per year but under Y condition are M per year. Then it shifts from a fatality to a math observation, and thus an engineering problem. It becomes clear that the loss is not actually a necessary cost of doing business. It thus becomes a stupid loss, and even humans will eventually correct obviously stupid behavior.
Of course, those who profit from stupid behavior will fight tooth and nail for it. We are still far from being out of the woods here. Tobacco laid an effective road map for the defense of stupid behavior and the oil companies are following it. Yet the balance of the forces at work seem to barely favor intelligence, so over time wisdom seems to improve. But it is a slow, slow process, and it might be too slow to save us from ourselves.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
Sorry to Be Glib
(#289162)But risk abatement is what civilization does; the rising wealth and luxury you note permit* more kinds of risk abatement.
------------
*Demand? There's more wealth at stake in advanced, wealthy and luxurious societies.
Great list of remediated risks in that penultimate 'graf, BTW (although California began developing seismic building codes all the way back in 1906).
Finally, the Japanese are positively nuts over safety and risk abatement. For example. The aftermath of what appeared to be a relatively minor fender-bender we happened upon on the bus ride from Narita airport to Yokohama, was attended to by several safety vehicles, lights all aflashing, a dozen dudes in yellow coveralls, orange reflective vests, white helmets, a mile of safety cones ahead of the wreck, closing the lane, and an illuminated sign on a small trailer announcing trouble ahead (I assume) along with a coverall dude waving a flashlight and encouraging motorists to slow down.
For the same mishap here there'd be a tow truck and maybe a couple of flares.
Here's another one: sidewalks, in newer parts of town (Japanese streets in older parts are notoriously narrow) feature bright yellow rubberized, ridged or bumped pathways, to help the blind or infirm find their way.
On the other hand: Fukushima.
A Common But Misleading View
(#289165)Concerns about safety certainly show up in advanced societies, but are they a function of wealth?
I don't think so. I think they are a function of knowledge. Knowledge does track correlate with wealth, so it can look like safety correlates with wealth. And it might, to some extent. But knowledge is more important.
The reason is that safety often is less costly. Accidents are very expensive. For example, a fatal car crash costs the car, the value of the lost economic activity of the occupants, the medical care of the survivors, who may be disabled for life, time spent by the authorities dealing with the crash site, time wasted by other drivers waiting for the accident to be cleared, etc. It costs the car manufacturer a customer for future sales too.
The cumulative cost of accidents, toxic products and so on is high and is a drag on economic performance for a country. A country with little wealth would thus be squandering precious resources by allowing itself to have poor safety practices. This is what most (but not all) poor countries do, however. Why? I'd say their body politic lacks awareness and analytical capability to determine true costs. Literacy is probably low and older agrarian modes of thinking may yet be prevalent. The culture is simply less able to respond to complexity.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
The Footnote About "Demand"
(#289169)covers most of your reply. When things are worth more, they're more worth protecting. From there, you apply tour best tools. For us those tools are education and knowledge.
For the Aztecs it was blood sacrifice.
I hope mmghosh finds his way here; he's sure to have insights first worlders aren't privvy to.
But you still need a mechanism
(#289174)..to force those involved in commercial activity to acknowledge and incorporate safety measures into their business models, as opposed to externalizing costs the market alone won't bear. That mechanism is government regulation. The often heard but rarely defined conservative trope of 'government red tape'. Unless you have a mature system of governance, capable of efficient regulation and enforcement there isn't a mechanism available to most market sectors, capable of turning knowledge and innovation into better safety practices. This can be seen clearly in the aviation industry. High end products like the Gulfstreams, Falcons and Bombardier aircraft built to carry the highest net worth individuals incorporate the latest cutting edge safety technologies and are built to safety/redundancy standards far in excess of government airworthiness standards. Mass consumption products destined for the airlines however, tend to be built to the minimum standards of government imposed airworthiness standards, incorporating only the minimum safety equipment required by government regulation.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
A friend and I were just talking about this
(#289163)We're both in our low-mid forties and remember the 7-month pregnant women with a wine in one hand and a smoke in the other, neighborhood dads all in the backyard all half-in-the-bag playing lawn darts with kids running all over the place. Seatbelts? Pffffft, I remember sliding all away across the rear couch seats to the other side of the Matador. Ahh the irony of bike helmets; we wear them so we don't fall and get knocked retarded but it used to be that it was only the retarded kids that wore them.
In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.
So is seatbelt legislation is a good thing or a bad thing?
(#289201)No buts!
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Oh, there will be buts Mannish,
(#289210)There will be buts and you'll like them. Seatbelt laws vary from state to state so what we're talking about are a bunch of different laws. To cut through all that let's assume a standard, say seatbelts worn by all occupants and car seats for children 4 and under. Assuming one is operating on a state road then the law is fine. It's well within the authority of the state and the facts plainly show that seatbelts reduce deaths, lessen the seriousness of injury and help the driver maintain control of his vehicle thereby reducing risk to others. Shift off of that standard and assumption and we start running into the 'buts'.
OTOH, any regulation of drunken lawn darts, horseshoes or quoits, is an affront to the constitution and everything our founding fathers stood for.
In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.