{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018365472910927456, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0036730945821854912, 'mean_word_length': 5.123595505617978, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Incident, accident, catastrophe: cyanide on the Danube.

It has been described as the worst disaster since Chernobyl. In January 2000, a retaining wall failed at the Aurul gold processing plant in Romania, releasing a wave of cyanide and heavy metals that moved quickly from one river to the next through Romania, Hungary, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, killing tens of thousands of fish and other forms of wildlife and poisoning drinking-water supplies. This paper examines how and why the chemical spill at Baia Mare occurred and how responses to it emerged from circumstances at the global, local and immediate levels. The spill demonstrates the importance of the flow of information in framing and interpreting disasters, suggesting that such an event can go unnoticed or be viewed as catastrophic, depending on the political, historical and personal struggles that lead to its publicity. The paper offers a framework for understanding why the spill was alternately perceived as an incident, an accident and a catastrophe based on changing perceptions of culpability.