Pollution: It's here, it's worsening

A friend of mine passed these four stories to me, outraged. The EPA is obviously doing a terrible job; indeed, it frequently sides with developers against the environment (for example). What can be done about these stories? She wrote:

"The following news stories, all recent, are extremely worrisome. You can buy organic fruit and vegetables or grow your own to avoid some of the exposure to toxins, but you cannot avoid breathing. How is it in anyone's best interest to encourage highly polluting and energy-intensive industries on a small island? Taiwan's power generation from coal-fired plants and nuclear power plants is killing us."

The translations are hers; the issues, everyone's.

++++++++++

Doctors rally after pollution survey - The China Post
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/2011/12/23/326751/Doctors-rally.htm
TAIPEI, Taiwan --Taiwan's air quality ranked an abysmal 35 out of 38 countries surveyed by the World Health Organization (WHO), with Taipei at number 551 out of the 565 cities profiled, boasting an air quality on par with “smoker's paradise” Lebanon.

++++++++++

Taiwan uses too much pesticide, 5.5 times higher than that in the U.S. Pesticide residues are also too high. There are 541 types of approved pesticides in Taiwan. For every hectare of farmland Taiwan uses an average of 11 kilograms of pesticide. The average in the U.S. is 2 kilograms. These figures were published in a report from Taiwan's Control Yuan yesterday.
http://www.epochtimes.com/b5/1/2/13/n46958.htm
台灣使用農藥過量 高出美國5。5倍 蔬菜水果農藥殘留過多
台灣監察院昨天公布的「農藥濫用影響國人健康及生態環境」報告中指出，台灣核准使用的農藥有541种，台灣單位耕地面積農藥使用量為每公頃十一公斤，而美國為二公斤，台灣比美國高出五．五倍。台灣農民使用農藥已明顯過量，對生態環境造成了嚴重衝擊。

++++++++++

Full report on the Orchid Island nuclear waste radiation issue
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8-mCqMRHgw

++++++++++

And this report from Taiwan's Environmental Information Center on the growing nuclear waste issue just at the No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant.
http://e-info.org.tw/node/72556
環保署今（21）日召開「核能一廠用過核燃料中期貯存計畫第二次變更內容對照表專案小組審查會議」，北海岸在地居民與環保團體於會前召開記者會，反對核能一廠繼續興建乾式貯存設施，並呼籲將使用年限的問題納入本次變更內容的討論。
The EPA today (Dec. 21) organized a task force meeting to review a second set of changes to the spent nuclear fuel medium-term storage plan for the first No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant. At a press conferences held immediately before the review meeting, north coast residents living near the nuclear power plant and environmental groups voiced their opposition to the continued dry storage facility of the No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant and called for the issue of setting a deadline for the spent nuclear storage to be included for discussion in this review meeting.
核一廠用過核燃料中期貯存計畫在2008年8月27日的環評會議中決議，開發單位應依承諾將用過核燃料於設施使用40年後移出，且貯存設施不得轉作最終處置場所。但環團表示，去（2010）年12月，原能會放射性物料管理局長邱賜聰直言核一廠乾式貯存場使用年限屆滿後不排除再繼續使用，而今年11月28日的核廢料政策環評中的資料更證實了邱賜聰的說法；既然當初環評條件的承諾已經無法得到保證，環評的效力令人質疑，而這一次的變更內容對照表中對使用年限的問題卻依舊隻字不提。
The plan for medium-term storage of spent nuclear fuel from the No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant was decided upon at the August 27, 2008 environmental impact assessment (EIA) meeting, the terms of which stipulates the removal of the spent fuel from the facility after 40 years of use and that the facility not become the long-term storage site. Environmental groups pointed out, however, that in December of last year (2010), the Radioactive Materials Management Bureau Chief of the Atomic Energy Commission, Chiu Hsi-tsung, directly said that he does not rule out the continued use of the facility after the 40-year period, which was confirmed at last month's November 28th nuclear waste policy EIA meeting. If the conditions stipulated in the first EIA cannot be guaranteed, the effectiveness of the environmental impact assessment process will come under doubt. Moreover, the current EIA review meeting does not even include an agenda item for discussing the time limit issue.
環團質疑，最早，政府告訴北海岸居民，40年後核電廠就會走；後來，核一廠乾式貯存環評會議，環評結論告訴北海岸居民，40年後核廢料就會走；現在，核電廠還沒走、核廢料又會逾期擺放。政府「只求現在過關，不管未來問題」的態度，讓北海岸居民要等幾個40年？
Environmental groups point out that from the start the government told the north coast residents that the nuclear power plant would be gone after 40 years. Later, the EIA concluding report on the No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant Dry Storage Facility for the spent fuel told the residents that the nuclear waste would be gone after 40 years. And now, the nuclear power plant is not gone and the nuclear waste will continue to be stored on-site past the deadline for removing it. The government's attitude of "just getting things approved without any regard for the future problems" - is this to say that the north coast residents have to wait perhaps several more 40-year periods?
北海岸居民則擔心，核一廠乾式貯存未完工，原能會官員就坦誠將逾期使用，而在政府對核廢料最終去處毫無頭緒的狀況看，很可能直接就讓「中」期貯存變成最「終」處置。
The north coast residents now worry that the dry storage facility for the No. 1 nuclear power plant waste has not been completed and that the AEC has already admitted that it will continue to be used for storage past the deadline. Also, as the government does not appear to have solution to the final storage site problem, they are also worried that the medium-term storage site will become the final storage site for the spent nuclear fuel.

++++++++++

To this list she sent, I'd like to add another, the Alangyi Trail, pristine coast to be destroyed for a highway.

The Alangyi Trail, a 12km hiking trail along the Pacific coastline between Taitung County’s Nantian Village (南田) and Pingtung County’s Syuhai Village (旭海), is being threatened by the planned construction of Provincial Highway No. 26. A section of the planned highway would run alongside the trail.

Taiwan's construction-industrial state has metastasized into a giant tumor that is slowly killing its host by polluting land, water, and sky. The question is, when will the people of Taiwan say, enough!
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.