One of the more shocking revelations from the recently released but redacted HSE investigation report into the Rhodia/Solvay fire is the manner in which the defendants attempted to illicit personal information about those affected by their toxic gas leak, directly from The Health and Safety Executive!
The preceding paragraphs are redacted , however the HSE leave in the timeline of 21st November 2011 where they respond “to Rhodia’s query of 15th November 2011 regarding off site person’s affected by the incident. “
It is incredible that this company are so unaware of data protection legislation that they believe they should be given the names of those they affected. The final sentence can only make those in the know about how this company and the chemicals industry in general operate to try to close PR disasters like this laugh out loud and role their eyes.
As if “the services of the company doctor” will provide those affected with any form of reassurance about the ailments suffered. This appears to suggest that any other NHS doctor or medical staff that saw to the individuals were fucking useless. Of course there is absolutely no altruism here, it is a cynical attempt to obtain the medical records of those that they affected, and whom no doubt may have pursued the services of criminal injury lawyers, whose “company doctors” may have taken a very different view of what occurred, and what the long term affects may be.
It is also worth bearing in mind the utter charlatans that have masqueraded as “health and medical advisers” at the Trinity Street site over the years. Their “expertise” allowed people to suffer asbestosis in later life as well as conning workers into believing that bad teeth caused phossy jaw instead of the wretched chemicals that they were handling.
And as for the chemicals that they came into contact with, well I’m fairly sure I know where that “advise” would have led. “Small amounts” no doubt. We are certainly aware of the lies and misinformation that they were putting out about what went into rattlechain lagoon.
When they are directly refused the information, Rhodia persist in badgering the HSE for information that would assist their mitigation and probable denials that anyone had been affected, by wanting to ascertain “generic information”. From this had it been provided, they would no doubt have produced impact zones based on their previous underestimations of the chemicals released and their affects off site.
The symptoms of course would have been used against those claiming to have been affected. How would people, unfamiliar with such chemicals know or be able to explain how they had been affected by them if they are unfamiliar with those chemicals? It is very unlikely that the HSE would have given them any advice to assist them.
The final paragraph again shows the denials and rebuttals of a company who operate on PR spin. They deny asking the HSE for personal data of the witnesses, but the HSE have clear evidence that they did ask for this. It is unfortunate and deliberate that the HSE have redacted this sentence, and there is no good reason for this, except perhaps protecting the blushes of the individual from Rhodia who made the request, though I could certainly guess.
