A fire in a lithium battery warehouse in New Taipei City’s Shenkeng District (深坑) on Tuesday last week emitted plumes of smoke that polluted a broad area of the city and neighboring Taipei.
The administration of Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) issued a toothless five-point statement after the incident that could hardly calm the anger of people living in these cities.
Residents were left wondering how poisonous the air was and whether the city government would determine who was responsible for the fire and provide compensation to those affected.
In a statement, Chiang expressed sympathy with the affected residents. He also called on the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection to inspect the scene of the blaze and the surrounding areas.
However, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Clinical Poison Center director Yen Tzung-hai (顏宗海) said that burning lithium batteries could emit hydrogen fluoride — a highly toxic gas that could damage respiratory tracts and lungs and cause pneumonitis if inhaled in sufficient quantities.
Does Chiang and his administration think this is just “general air pollution”?
Following the fire, medical specialists urged residents in the affected areas — including New Taipei City’s Zhonghe (中和), Yonghe (中和) and Xindian (新店) districts and the Muzha (木柵) area of Taipei’s Wenshan District (文山) — to keep their doors and windows closed all day. They also advised residents to avoid going outside, and wear N95 masks if they must go out.
They especially advised people with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to seek medical attention as soon as possible if they experience chest tightness or wheezing.
Chiang and his administration do not seem to have fully grasped the situation, as they only asked the Department of Environmental Protection to test the air quality in affected areas.
Surely they should have asked health departments and specialists to join the effort in helping everyone affected fully understand the health risks associated with a lithium battery fire.
As for the New Taipei City Government, its initial actions were also insufficient.
The New Taipei City Department of Environmental Protection said that it would pursue legal action should it determine that there was a “spontaneous combustion due to improper management ... that causes odorous pollutants or toxic gases,” as stipulated under Article 32 of the Air Pollution Control Act (空氣污染防制法).
The department’s response was too conservative and was unable to dispel the fears of residents nor resolve any threat or damage to their health.
Residents of Taipei and New Taipei City need politicians who are willing and capable of taking responsibility in emergencies, not civil servants who are only capable of doing the bare minimum in accordance with the law.
Consider the response of Shenkeng-based Kinpo Group. As a private enterprise, it took the initiative to safeguard its employees’ health by allowing them to work from home after the incident.
Looking at how efficiently a business like Kinpo responded, should the Taipei and New Taipei City governments not act as quickly to determine who was responsible for this toxic incident?
Should they not also promise to compensate the affected residents?
Reggie Sun is deputy director of the New Party’s public opinion research center.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS