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
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
A report by the US-based Jamestown Foundation on Tuesday last week warned that China is operating illegal oil drilling inside Taiwan’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Taiwan-controlled Pratas Island (Dongsha, 東沙群島), marking a sharp escalation in Beijing’s “gray zone” tactics. The report said that, starting in July, state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp installed 12 permanent or semi-permanent oil rig structures and dozens of associated ships deep inside Taiwan’s EEZ about 48km from the restricted waters of Pratas Island in the northeast of the South China Sea, islands that are home to a Taiwanese garrison. The rigs not only typify
RSS