[Editor's Note] Nuclear "Fallout"

The misery index has been climbing in Taiwan, and people have nearly reached the point where they can't take any more. Policy disputes, a cabinet reshuffle, the slumping stock market and rising unemployment-as if all this weren't enough, Typhoon Xangsane (a mere "medium-strength" typhoon) came and wreaked havoc, bringing serious flooding to the Taipei-Keelung area and causing dreadful loss of life and property.

We've seen more than our share of disaster in Taiwan over the past year or so, what with the 921 Earthquake, the botched rescue attempt at Pachang Creek in July, and now Typhoon Xangsane. But what have we learned from it all?

Judging from the controversy surrounding the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, it seems, regrettably, that we've learned absolutely nothing.

Chinese people believe that it's better to be safe than sorry. But the recent succession of disasters presents us with little evidence of that spirit. After the 921 Earthquake the question of shoddy building practices came under scrutiny, and the Pachang Creek Incident was followed by a major shake-up within the emergency rescue services. Now, in the wake of Typhoon Xangsane, attention has focused on the flood-control work along the Keelung River. How come we always have to wait until after the event before sitting up and taking notice? Must we always wait until someone dies?

The Fourth Nuclear Power Plant is a perfect example. Even the US and Japan, countries where levels of safety awareness are immeasurably higher than in Taiwan, have had serious nuclear accidents. We all remember Chernobyl in the USSR, and Three-Mile Island in the US. We know how severe and long-lasting the consequences of those accidents were. Yet both occurred in relatively sparsely populated regions. How would Taiwan, less than 400 km long and 150 km wide, survive a comparable disaster? Can anyone guarantee that an accident like that could never happen here?

Maybe some would point to the safe record of Nuclear Plants One and Two. But how true is that? Have we already forgotten about the deformed fish that turned up off the Northeast coast several years ago? Taiwan is an island and we depend on the resources of our mountains and seas. But if all we care about is rapid economic development and a burgeoning consumer culture, at the price of a wrecked natural environment, then we are fated to see endless replays of the destruction, such as flooding and landslides, that can be triggered by earthquakes and typhoons.

During the past 30 years Taiwan has created an economic miracle for itself. But if we carry on slavishly pursuing economic development and paying no regard to the sounds of the forest and the voices of society's disadvantaged, can we really expect to enjoy another 30 years of the same? How bitter will the price be that the next generation has to pay for the current generation's pursuit of economic growth?

From a humanitarian standpoint, no-one should be building nuclear power plants so long as the problem of what to do with nuclear waste remains unresolved. At present it gets dumped on the sea floor or in uninhabited parts of economically backward countries. But how long can this go on, and how long before the waste begins to leak? And should the residents of affluent countries really be dumping their waste on the doorsteps of poorer neighbors?

Even though there is a case to be made for the safety of nuclear power, who in their right mind would choose to live next door to a nuclear power plant? In the township of Kungliao, where the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant has been under construction, the residents are united in total opposition to the project. Can we really just ignore their objections? Are nuclear power plants fine so long as they're not in our own backyard?

In a matter as obvious as this, do we really need the input of experts? Where is the expert who dares state categorically that there will never be a nuclear accident in Taiwan, and that the nuclear waste problem will be solved in the foreseeable future? The experts we need to hear from are those who can tell us how to develop a new national energy policy, including the most economical, least polluting forms of power production, along with methods for reducing energy consumption to levels that are sustainable for all mankind. What's the point of economic development if it robs us of health and life?

A further issue of concern for the people of Taiwan is the push to recall the president and vice-president, sparked by the controversy surrounding the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. Can our democratically elected leaders really be removed from office that lightly? Recall is an option when leaders are involved in outright corruption, major policy blunders, and actions harmful to national security. But if it becomes a tool for settling partisan disputes at the cost of serious political instability, then it can cause more damage than it solves. Our legislators and opposition party leaders are among the brightest and best in the land, with the long-term peace and security of the nation at heart. Isn't it about time that they displayed their talent for negotiation and showed the courage to compromise, in order to do a better job of resolving the current crisis?

Nothing in the world is perfect; every decision has its pros and cons. Democracy, by its nature, doesn't offer black-and-white choices. We hope the politicians can keep the big picture in mind and make the right kinds of choice, and not let the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant-the fate of which is still in the balance-give rise to the first ever politically created "nuclear incident."