A fire and subsequent explosions at Launch Technologies Co’s (明揚國際) golf ball factory at Pingtung Technology Industrial Park (屏東科技產業園區) on Friday killed at least nine people, prompting questions over how such a catastrophe could have occurred.
Despite how near Pingtung is to Kaohsiung, the industries of these two places are drastically different. Kaohsiung is an industrial hub, whereas Pingtung relies on agriculture.
Although Pingtung might be less polluted, it also has fewer job opportunities. The Pingtung County Government, with support from the central government, has arranged a series of measures to revitalize local industries, including the establishment of low polluting industrial parks with high technology and agriculture firms. Since the opening of the parks, the factories inside have been monitored in accordance to strict regulations. No corporation should cause safety problems or environmental damage.
Pingtung Technology Industrial Park is conveniently located near Kaoping Bridge (高屏大橋). The factories in the park are supposed to be low-polluting ones, as essentially any factory not listed on the Ministry of Economic Affairs’ “low-pollution industries list” can be defined as such.
Launch Technologies Co’s plant is not on the ministry’s list, as the materials it uses to manufacture golf balls are not hazardous. Nearby residents had never protested against the factory, nor was it difficult for the corporation to hire workers. It is indeed surprising that such a disaster could have happened.
While the cause of the fire is under investigation, initial findings suggest it was triggered by a leak of volatile chemicals. Some chemicals can be categorized as stable, but once exposed to vibrations or contact with light or elements such as water, a chemical reaction can result, which can be exothermic and even lead to an explosion.
When trying to extinguish a fire, the cause of the blaze must be understood to determine which method should be used, such as dry powder extinguishers or water.
In addition to chemical factors, attention should be given to physical ones. Nanoparticles can create such physical factors. In a confined space, if the concentration of some small particles reaches its maximum, a dust explosion can occur. A similar explosion once happened in a Japanese rice barn. Another example is the 2015 explosion and fire during a party at Formosa Fun Coast (八仙海岸) water park, which kill 15 people and injured nearly 500.
When using chemicals, all corporations should refer to material safety data sheets. The documents lay out each substance’s chemical and physical properties, and toxicity, as well as proper storage and management procedures. Factories should follow these guidelines, while local fire service agencies should also understand such information. Only in doing so can the correct measures be implemented when a catastrophe occurs.
Meanwhile, people should not rely on the authorities to revise the laws and unnecessarily regulate matters after each incident, as that can inconvenience industries. Corporations and factories should be able to manage themselves, and people in the industry typically know much more about the raw materials and substances they use than government officials. The companies should take the responsibility to educate and train their employees to understand the characteristics of the materials they use. After all, it is a corporation’s fundamental duty to protect the safety of its employees.
Chen Wen-ching works in environmental services.
Translated by Emma Liu
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
On Monday last week, American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Raymond Greene met with Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers to discuss Taiwan-US defense cooperation, on the heels of a separate meeting the previous week with Minister of National Defense Minister Wellington Koo (顧立雄). Departing from the usual convention of not advertising interactions with senior national security officials, the AIT posted photos of both meetings on Facebook, seemingly putting the ruling and opposition parties on public notice to obtain bipartisan support for Taiwan’s defense budget and other initiatives. Over the past year, increasing Taiwan’s defense budget has been a sore spot
Media said that several pan-blue figures — among them former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), former KMT legislator Lee De-wei (李德維), former KMT Central Committee member Vincent Hsu (徐正文), New Party Chairman Wu Cheng-tien (吳成典), former New Party legislator Chou chuan (周荃) and New Party Deputy Secretary-General You Chih-pin (游智彬) — yesterday attended the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) military parade commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. China’s Xinhua news agency reported that foreign leaders were present alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean leader Kim
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) is expected to be summoned by the Taipei City Police Department after a rally in Taipei on Saturday last week resulted in injuries to eight police officers. The Ministry of the Interior on Sunday said that police had collected evidence of obstruction of public officials and coercion by an estimated 1,000 “disorderly” demonstrators. The rally — led by Huang to mark one year since a raid by Taipei prosecutors on then-TPP chairman and former Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) — might have contravened the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法), as the organizers had