National Taiwan University’s College of Public Health on Thursday last week held a news conference to announce the results of its new study into the health risks to Changhua County residents from a naphtha cracker in Mailiao Township (麥寮) in neighboring Yunlin County.
Formosa Plastics Group representatives have asserted the company’s innocence, saying that the findings are “completely unrelated” to the plant’s operations and calling on the research team to assemble a panel of specialists to review its findings prior to publication to avoid “spreading panic among the public and squandering public resources.”
However, what the public really wants is to know is why the urine samples of residents of Taisi (台西) and Dingjhuang (頂庄) villages in Changhua County’s Dacheng Township (大城) — which lies about 8km north of the industrial zone where the plant is located — contain a cocktail of heavy metals and other pollutants at levels that are demonstrably higher than those of residents living in areas farther from the plant?
Why is it that, when the wind blows from the direction of the naphtha plant during the summer months, equipment at Yongguan Elementary School in Dacheng Township’s Gongguan Village (公館) measures high levels of benzene, a carcinogen?
The public would also very much like to know why Taisi Village residents are 2.66 times more likely to develop cancer than the residents of other villages in Dacheng Township — and 2.29 times more at risk than Jhutang Township (竹塘) residents. In addition, why is it impossible to ascertain who and what is responsible for this prevalence?
Who is able to provide frightened Taisi and Dingjhuang residents with answers to these questions? Having been left without help for so many years, they are filled with despair, rage and indignation.
If it is not the case that these phenomena were already in existence before Formosa Plastics turned up, then perhaps it is pure coincidence that they only began to appear once the naphtha cracker commenced operations.
To argue that there is no causal relationship between the naphtha cracker, evidence of carcinogens and a high risk of cancer — and pretending that this is all some sort of a fantastic coincidence — is surely asking people to suspend their rationality.
It is doubtful whether Formosa Plastics’ strategy of adopting an attitude of “nothing to do with us, ask someone else” will be sufficient to isolate it from the objective facts: The existence of carcinogens and a high risk of cancer in areas not far from the plant.
It is also highly doubtful whether the company’s attempt to slander the university’s research team by saying it is “spreading panic among the public and squandering public resources” would dispel doubts and dissenting opinions, and prove beyond question that the naphtha cracker is safe and has nothing to do with the carcinogens and high prevalence of cancer.
In April last year, a steel mill in Vietnam owned by Formosa Plastics was implicated in the illegal discharge of toxic wastewater linked to the sudden deaths of fish in the country’s central region.
Following the protests of local residents, Formosa Plastics said that the wastewater was managed in accordance with the conclusions of the plant’s environmental impact assessment before being released into the sea and that there had not been one instance of non-compliance.
The company said the Vietnamese government at the beginning of April last year publicly announced that it had identified the cause of the problem, which it attributed to algal bloom that had no direct connection with the Formosa Plastics steel mill.
This type of outright denial is heard time and again in Taiwan and it always seems to be effective. However, it is clearly different in Vietnam because two months later, the Vietnamese government slapped a US$500 million fine on the “wholly innocent” steel mill. Not only did Formosa Plastics raise no objection, choosing to pay the fine immediately, it also issued an apology for the illegal discharge.
It is certainly odd that despite initial claims that the plant was operating in accordance with laws and regulations, two months later the company paid a massive fine without hesitation and issued a public apology.
If following a short two-month investigation the Vietnamese authorities were able to get Formosa Plastics to accept responsibility, pay a large fine and publicly apologize for the pollution it caused, why are the Taiwanese authorities unable to do the same?
It is high time that justice is done to the defenseless villagers of Taisi and Dingjhuang, who have for 16 years been forced to endure the effects of Formosa Plastics’ polluting naphtha cracker.
Chang Kuo-tsai is a former deputy secretary-general of the Taiwan Association of University Professors and a retired associate professor at National Hsinchu University of Education.
Translated by Edward Jones
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS