Nothing being done for Lanyu
Your editorial late last year (“Living in a nuclear wasteland,” Dec. 2, 2011, page 8) was an informative summary outlining the Tao Aborigines’ dilemma, praiseworthy in its attempt to put a spotlight on this issue in the run-up to January’s presidential election.
However, this is not just an election-year issue. The storage site of low-level radioactive waste used by government-owned Taiwan Power Co (Taipower) for decades is a public health issue that urgently needs to be addressed, both in the short and long term. With this letter, I want to raise additional points regarding this debate and suggest ways the scientific community could do more.
First, no scientific articles have been published on the issue of radioactive contamination of Lanyu (蘭嶼), also known as Orchid Island. A search on PubMed, the database of scientific journals, yields zero results for articles published on this issue. Why isn’t it monitored more closely by the scientific community?
It must be noted that Huh Chih-an’s (扈治安) study at Academia Sinica was funded by Taipower, thus making it difficult for him to report his findings to the public. He was, however, able to discuss his research at a joint symposium on International Collaborative Study among Taiwan, Lithuania and Latvia at National Ocean University in Keelung on Oct. 26 last year.
Fortunately, Peter Chang (張武修) of Taipei Medical University’s School of Public Health photographed slides from this presentation, so when Huh declined to comment on the breaking story of Lanyu’s increased cesium-137 levels, Chang was the only person who could intelligently interpret Huh’s results for the general public. If Chang had not attended Huh’s presentation, the story might never have emerged. However, as a scientist, isn’t Huh ultimately obliged to serve the public by making a full disclosure of his findings?
Further, the world-class brainpower at Academia Sinica need not be funded at all by outside interests to conduct whatever research they deem important. Shouldn’t Academia Sinica take the responsibility to continue this research themselves — independently — instead of acting passively and only responding to requests from those with potentially vested interests?
Taipower’s response to the public outcry has been to throw money at the problem in the hope that it goes away. This has come in the form of attempts to placate Lanyu’s Aboriginal community with free electricity and some monetary compensation.
However, the fact remains: The government’s electric company duped the entire island; gross fraudulence affecting the health and well-being of 4,000 residents with illicit storage of toxic waste — and this is material that nobody can say what its long-term effects and risks are. Not only did Taipower trick Lanyu residents for years by telling them the dumpsite was a fishing cannery, the fraud goes back even further: Deceiving the island’s (illiterate) representative into signing the initial contract in the first place.
There is a crisis in public confidence at play, which authorities have yet to address. How could anyone trust Taipower to act in service to the public now? When rusting barrels were repackaged recently, the process was kept secret.
All of Taipower’s actions should at the bare minimum be held to the strictest standards of transparency.
Trista di Genov
Taipei
US support is bipartisan
Your opinion page rarely makes me as angry as I was the other day, reading the claptrap by Li Thian-hok (李天福) (“US Taiwanese should vote GOP,” March 16, page 8)
The US’ policy toward Taiwan — to defend it from Chinese military action — is not a partisan policy. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats own that policy. It has even-handed support from members of both parties and from the US public.
Former US president Richard Nixon — a Republican — set in motion the decision to restore normal diplomatic relationships between the US and China and former US president Jimmy Carter — a Democrat — formalized the decision. Furthermore, the Taiwan Relations Act was overwhelmingly passed by the US House of Representatives and US Senate with bipartisan support (345-55 and 85-4 respectively).
Taiwan has many supporters in both political parties and it is easy to find examples within both parties of people who kowtow to the Chinese Communist Party.
There is no reason supporters of Taiwan should automatically decide to vote Republican. Any claim to the contrary is just flat wrong.
Jim Walsh
Taipei
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS