Boston Molasses Disaster

Proper training and protocols may have solved or prevented the problem. With more problems to add to the list of chain reactions from the accident, the government had to change industry safety which in turn, increased industry safety. New study groups were used to research the incident. New organizations had to be created to conduct proper training implementing the safety measures for the power plant operators. Many new publications had to be brought into existence to have better oversight of nuclear power plant operations. A

The Texas City disaster took place on April 16th, 1947, with the detonation of 2300 tons of ammonium nitrate, near the Texas City docks. The Grandcamp was set to embark on an assigned trip to Europe to help in the reconstruction of various countries in the aftermath of the Second World War. The ships were loaded with 32.5 % ammonium nitrate fertilizer, which is a high explosive used in military and mining operations. The result of which was a DDT which is a deflagration to detonation causing a massive explosion leading to many deaths, destroyed homes, and the surroundings being ruined. The leading causes of this horrific tragedy were poor transportation and storing laws of ammonium nitrate which was a main component in the disaster, if these two components had have been handled with more care the lives of innocent people would not have been lost.

On January 15, 1919, one of the most tragic and strange disasters occurred in Boston, Massachusetts. It was around forty degrees that day, when two days previously it had been only two degrees. At 12:30 PM 2,300,000 gallons of molasses spilled into the streets near Keany Square after the tank holding it exploded, most think due to a combination of poor design and the drastic temperature flux. The aftermath was tragic, with twenty one deaths and one hundred and fifty injured. The company who owned the tank was quick to blame others, but soon it was found that the tank was poorly constructed, and if more time had been taken, the Boston Molasses Disaster would never have happened.

A lack of personal responsibility can cause many problems. Not only for the person who is making the choice not to take personal responsibility but for the people around them. One such example related to law enforcement could be if an officer with a department vehicle doesn't get the

The second accident at the "Timken Steel Faircrest plant" company which a is an employee fall down more than 40 feet which led to several broken bones because of just a small mistake. The problem is when he made a maintenance on a crane he wasn't ware Certified safety harness which it could safe his live from the risk. I used to do a maintenance on more than one cran and my company doesn't allow me to go without waring a Certified safety harness because they have to keep all the employees a way from all the risk and even if they didn't told me to ware it, I will not go up to the cran without it, do the fact that no one knows what will happen and even if I am good at this job, I have to work safely. I agree that this company should teach all

Benge, R v (1865) pre-SCJA 1873 D, a foreman platelayer misread the timetable as to when a train was to arrive. He placed a flagman at the wrong distance giving insufficient warning to the driver. A train left the rails at a spot where rails had been taken up and not replaced. The negligence was that D did not take the correct care to make sure he was working at the right time, when any reasonable person would have known how dangerous the job can be and to double check they are correct.

The source of what became known as the “Great Molasses Flood” was a 50-foot-tall steel holding tank located on Commercial Street in Boston’s North End. On January 15, 1919, a crowded section of Boston was rocked by a massive tidal wave--not of water, but of molasses. The bizarre deluge came after a molasses holding tank burst and sent 2.3 million gallons of the dark-brown syrup swirling through the city streets. 21 people were killed and over 150 people were injured. (The Great)

The Company also violated 29 C.F.R. § 1926.652(a)(1) for failing to protect employees from cave-ins (www.osha.gov):  Williams had reason to know that its employees would enter the trench on the day of the collapse and had actual knowledge that two of its employees entered the trench prior to the cave-in. It is unavailing for Williams to argue that employees must take greater care to avoid placing themselves in harm's way or that management can “expect an employee not [to] intentionally place himself in danger.” Such a claim misconstrues the purpose of

The American Red Cross team had 50 volunteers to help lead by Clara Barton. It was a major diester it overflowed all the dams and got into people’s house and destoryed their values. May 31st it was already flooding

During interviews that were conducted during the investigation, it became evident that a lot of employees are no understanding of the OSHA regulations and had received no training on trench safety. The second violation states that Williams did not ensure that their employees did not have to travel more than twenty-five feet to a safe zone. The trench that the employees were working was more than forty-five feet long and only had one exit. At the time of the collapse the employees in question were deep into the trench trying to clean out the water pumps that were in place. This causes a hazard for them because they were unable to reach safety or escape once the walls collapsed. The third violation stated the there was no “competent person” on the job that had extensive knowledge of trench safety. It is regulation by OSHA to have at least one person on cite that is able to spot existing and potential hazards on the job cite. During the investigation it was clear that no employees had knowledge of OSHA or any of the regulations related to trench safety. The fourth and final violation was that Williams failed to ensure that the walls of the excavation were either sloped or supported. It was stated early in the case that the support provided by a hydraulic jack was removed the night before the collapse causes the walls and work environment to be un-stable.

The driver of the truck got out and left walking in a casual manner. A few minutes after the driver left the truck, the truck blew up and became a fireball. With enough blasting power to cause destruction to the building and leaving 168 people dead. There were 19 children, along with infants in the daycare part of the building was included in that number among the dead. There

Negligence is when someone is failing to do something that a reasonable person would do in a similar situation or, doing something that a reasonable person did not do in a similar situation.

In some aspects I can say they had the right idea in mind before the disaster, but not on the right track. Honestly if a company is doing business safety needs to be a concern. They know the risks involved with this line of work. As well employees do to, but without your employees a company is nothing. Eleven people died that did not have to. Yes they make have had some things planned which is great for them at that time. Although not having things up to standards is not excuse. Especially when that is such a dangerous line of work. Not to mention their carelessness to standards impacted so many.

The series of ethical issues that took place leading to the disaster are complex, and other factors such as economic and political issues arose after the catastrophe happened. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the ethical issues that took place before the disaster happened, and investigate the moral obligations, social responsibility and justice at an individual and organizational level. The ethical dilemma is broken down into three categories, which include the company’s management priority to reduce costs and time, neglecting safety issues addressed by staff, human misjudgment and errors in neglecting pressure reading; and finally, overlooking the technical design flaws that were not tested by BP before installing to use. The

Although the accident was caused by a mechanical failure, it spiralled out of control because of an insufficient safety system. BP acted inefficiently and their carelessness cost the lives of people and damaged the environment, nevertheless this does not mean they acted in an unethical way as