Chemical fire extinguisher leak kills eight in Thai bank
DeeperDive is a beta AI feature. Refer to full articles for the facts.
[BANGKOK] Eight people died and seven were injured when they accidentally triggered a fire extinguisher system in the headquarters of a major Thai bank, releasing a suffocating cloud of chemicals, officials said Monday.
The accident occurred late Sunday night in the basement of the Siam Commercial Bank (SCB), one of the country's largest financial institutions.
SCB said contractors had been working to improve the building's chemical fire extinguishers but mistakenly set off the system, releasing chemicals that likely caused oxygen levels to plummet.
"The work may have triggered (the) Pyrogen aerosol which, once it works, will decrease oxygen, that could cause people's injuries and death," the bank said in a statement.
Pyrogen manufactures a type of aerosol fire extinguisher that is used in places where putting out a fire with water would damage documents or electrical equipment.
On its website the company says its aerosol does not deplete oxygen. But it also advises against using it in occupied rooms and says "accidental exposure should be limited to five minutes".
Navigate Asia in
a new global order
Get the insights delivered to your inbox.
Bangkok's Erawan emergency medical centre said five people were killed at the scene while three died in hospital.
Seven workers were injured and remained in hospital, the centre added.
"SCB would like to express its sympathy to those injured and killed," the bank said in its statement, adding it was cooperating with police.
The bank said the rest of the building was not affected and was open for business.
AFP
Share with us your feedback on BT's products and services
TRENDING NOW
Vietnam formalises new state leadership, redefining ‘four pillars’ power balance
‘Largest Singapore commercial S-Reit proxy’: analysts say buy CICT shares after Paragon acquisition
From 1MDB to ‘corporate mafia’: Is Malaysia facing a new governance test?
Why where you park your joint venture matters: Lessons from a US$689 million shareholder dispute