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
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry