Early August Evening in Beijing

This is a highly-compressed 1080p video composed of 43 indvidual photos taken in illustration mode with a Sony RX100. Each photo was individually processed with FastStone Viewer, then put together in OpenShot Video editing software.

The audio sample was taken from the same location with my Sony digital recording just after shooting the image sequences.

This animation short was made as a proof of concept, so there are still some areas to work on. 

Viewed on a larger screen, there is a bit of noise in some of the images. Secondly, due to the lightness of the small tripod and camera, I actually moved the position of the frame by mistake a few times, which had an impact on the smoothness of the animation effect. Moreover, in the process of taking the different images, I kept adjusting the aperture and shutter speeds, which led to a wide variance in exposures. 

A fixed aperture and shutter speed setting would have enhanced the uniformity of the comic effect and made for more consistent expsoures.

Unfortunately the buffering speed of the camera limits the ability to shorten the gap between image sequences and the RX100 (1st generation) does not allow for the use of the burst function in illustration mode.

Emperor Xi - Satirical Electronic Music

Emperor Xi - Satirical Electronic Music  (Click on this link to hear the track)

Photo by Chris Harry

This is my first upload on SoundCloud. It's a combination of a field recording of crickets in Eastern Beijing, along with a digital drum track and voices from online text-to-speech engines. I combined the tracks manually with a Sony digital recorder. This track was completed using Nero Wave Editor.

It is a satirical musical invention poking fun at China's dictator, Xi Jinping.

Please feel free to share any tips, hints, criticisms or suggestions!

Sight beyond Seeing - 3D Art by Wang Lang

     An overview and exploration of Wang Lang's hand-painted 3D works of art. Requires red-and-blue 3D glasses in order to fully experience the three-dimensional effect of the art works presented. All elements of the video, including script translation, narration, photography, music, video editing, audio mixing, layout and design by Chris Harry.

Solid Waste Adorns Beijing’s Grand Canal World Heritage Site

“美离”中国：大运河系列一

Solid Waste Adorns Beijing’s Grand Canal World Heritage Site “美离”中国：大运河系列一

Here's an image I took of the pollution in the Grand Canal in Beijing after the devastating and fatal floods from July of 2012. According to various statistics, at least several dozen or so people died because of a faulty drainage system, although we will probably never know the true number of fatalities due to the government's pathological fear of the truth. One China Daily estimate put the figure at 77 deaths. A rule of thumb for gauging Communist Party statistics is to at least double or triple figures formally announced by the Chinese government that reveal any inadequacies or mistakes in governance.

As I understand it, the drainage system was donated and built by the Russians in the fifties, but was never even finished, nor has it ever been substantially upgraded or repaired since. Please feel to correct my information if you feel I have made any inaccurate statements.

A lot of this solid waste is still hanging on the side of the bridge over a year later! This is how the Chinese government treats a UNESCO World Heritage Site and its people’s human right to existence in the capital of China.

Although, it is only fair to add that both ordinary citizens and companies are actively contributing to the pollution of the waterways across China and there are signs forbidding dumping and fishing. Still, there is no visible attempt to curtail any of these so-called illegal activities, nor is there any systematic dredging or cleanup effort being undertaken that I’ve seen in 18 years of living in China. I do, however, genuinely pity the misguided fools who continue to fish for a toxic “free lunch”！

Imagine how many jobs could be created for underprivileged and financially challenged citizens if a serious effort was made to at least clear out the solid waste from China’s river systems. Even if many toxic chemicals and heavy metals remained, it would still be a cosmetic coup for the formalist's school of leadership.

I was positive that they would undertake such a policy in preparation for the 2008 Olympic Games, as it is a no-brainer, but the government’s vow of a Green Olympics quickly turned brown. A clearer example of unconditional entitlement by a dictatorial regime could hardly be found.

Not exactly the “Chinese Dream” from the propaganda murals so wastefully and superfluously plastered across the city at the expense of the Chinese taxpayers!

On a positive note, the Pearl River along the Shatian District of Guangzhou is no longer as thick, chunky and dark as French Onion Soup, like it used to be back in the early nineties.

Xi Jinping makes light of Beijing’s heavy air pollution

     In reference to Beijing’s air pollution, Xi Jinping said, “we mustn’t be impatient in the face of problems” and that we should, “adopt a calm and collected life approach toward these problems.” When describing the coal pollution and severe sandstorms of his youth in Beijing he further added, “Back then we didn’t have PM2.5, but we did have PM250.” According to the report by China’s Phoenix News, all those around him laughed aloud in response.

     Evidently, he seized the opportunity to make a light joke about heavy air pollution in Beijing and he almost appears nostalgic and accepting of the fact that Beijing has faced serious air pollution for half a century.

     Perhaps instead he should have said PM二百五 (er bai wu – another way of saying 250 in Chinese), which is also colloquial Chinese for a “dimwit” or “someone who says or does inappropriate or foolish things”.  

 

     On a more serious note, however, he seems to be attempting to defuse the issue by implying that Beijing’s air pollution was even worse back when he was a young boy, although I imagine very few people would find this convincing. Ironically, one could just as easily interpret his comments as a blunt admission that Beijing has been facing serious pollution for the last 50 years or so, most of the period in which China has been under communist rule. Perhaps it is also a subtle jab at the U.S. embassy's monitoring and publishing of air pollution in Beijing, despite being curtly requested by an unamused Beijing government to refrain from doing so. 

     Either way, it smacks of ill-advised hubris, but it is also consistent with so many of his bold pronouncements of late, inasmuch as it hints at the new ruler's confidence in his ability to control the course of events in China, quite likely stemming from his princeling pedigree as part of the red aristocratic elite which controls most of China's wealth and now has 4 members out of 7 in the inner sanctum of absolute power - the standing committee of China's politburo.

     In my humble view, it shows a serious lack of good judgement, and it will certainly not gain him any points in China or internationally. In a worst case scenario, PM er bai wu could become a damning and sarcastic sound bite that could easily gain traction among Chinese micro-bloggers and Chinese society at large that pokes fun at the leader’s cavalier approach to China’s serious and growing environmental crisis. Surely he would not want to go down in history as the leader who was smug about smog.

习近平把北京的严重污染当笑话看待

提到空气污染时，习近平说“不用着急”要“淡定面对它”。他还说小时候北京“没有PM2.5,但是有PM250”。对严重污染如此淡薄，还把它当作笑话来看待，连小布什很可能都不会犯这么低级的错误。如果把它说成PM二百五会不会取得更大的笑声呢？

Translation and Chinese/English commentary by Chris Harry

News source: Phoenix news report by Du Ping

Update: Bill Bishop seems to have already made a veiled reference to PM二百五(er bai wu) on Sina's Weibo Microblog today (March 7th, 2013). 

Graffiti-style activism or playful art?

草泥马戈壁－不跟你玩儿！

Graffiti-style activism or playful art?

Dedicated to artist Ai Weiwei and writer Bei Feng
Graffiti Stencil Art by BOBBBB
Photo: Chris Harry
Written by Chris Harry

     I discovered this small graffiti artwork stencilled on an alleyway wall next to Houhai in Beijing. I thought I'd put this up in honour of Ai Weiwei, Bei Feng and all of the other brave Chinese citizens and activists who openly challenge the Communist Party of China in their demands for artistic freedom, pluralism and the protection of human and legal rights. As I walked around Houhai, which is part of the core of the traditional city of Beijing, I started to notice an increase in the presence of street art. Though it may not be everyone's cup of tea, it does seem to hint at the effects of globalisation, a more defiant youth demographic and perhaps even the eventual rise of pluralism to the mainstream in Chinese society; so whether or not you may think that street artists deface or beautify the urban landscape, I personally feel that the spread of graffiti in Beijing foreshadows a political sea change in a positive, more vibrant cultural direction. For many westerners, graffiti might be viewed as a form of vandalism, a vestige of gang culture or simply something you take for granted or even appreciate. In China, graffiti was almost non-existent until very recently, so it’s growing presence seems to presage a more globally-connected, less parochial and insular socio-political environment taking root, one that begins to admire the ideals of civil disobedience, or at the very least, just plain disobedience for the fun of it. Of course, for many Chinese sprayers it’s probably just seen as hip western culture to be emulated, but I can’t help thinking it has broader ramifications.
     The first part of the Chinese title I chose to impose on this piece of Chinese street art refers to a verbal insult directed at the government/Internet censors and often used by the famous Chinese artist and outspoken critic of the government, Ai Weiwei. This expletive verbal phrase originally refers to words in English that begin with the letters F Y M and C. Let’s just say that it’s a pretty graphic phrase about someone's mother which I can't repeat here and used in Chinese as a rather biting insult. But the interesting thing is that, in order to get around the censors, Chinese Internet users changed all of the characters from the original swear words into other characters which still sounded the same, so the result (the same as the title here) is something like "Grass mud horse Gobi", which is a code phrase for the original verbal insult that could get past the censors and still carry the same impact and meaning - the effect of which is not unlike the refrain in Rage Against the Machine’s famous anti-establishment anthem, “F*** you I won’t do what you tell me”.
     The second part of the title literally means, "Not going to play with you!” in reference to a campaign started by blog writer, Bei Feng, who promoted an icon of a person sticking their tongue out (in protest). The writer suggested that everyone should place this icon on their Sina microblog sites (China's largest blog/twitter site) as a show of solidarity in support of the universal values of democracy and human rights. He then explained that this campaign would expose those who were working for the interests of the party, as they would be afraid to participate in this campaign and endanger the privileges and personal gains they enjoy as lackeys under the party's control (N.B. not his exact words, my paraphrasing).
     One of the great ironies of this is that many forms of direct political expression in the form of graffiti promoting, say, the boycotting of Japanese goods or any other such expressions of anti-Japanese sentiment spray-painted on public property by politically-inspired individuals in recent years almost always get painted over. At the same time, the government spares no expense to produce a seemingly endless stream of television serials depicting the evil-doings of the Japanese in China during the Pacific War and the invasion of China. It’s as though Chinese television was stuck in a permanent time warp of Japanese invasion! Nor does the government miss a single opportunity to criticize the Japanese whenever it arises. Yet, at the same time, the average citizen is not allowed to express his anger or hatred toward Japanese through graffiti, even though such nationalistic sentiments are in large part stoked and painstakingly nurtured by the government’s own perpetual and overtly anti-Japanese propaganda campaign which has been ongoing for the last 62 years.
     While I would agree that expressions of hatred toward other peoples or countries spray-painted on public property should be erased, this example shows the hypocrisy of the government. If the government were brutally honest about outlining a policy to this effect, it might read something like this: “Only officially-sanctioned communist hatred of Japanese is allowed! The Communist Party of China has sole rights on any form of political expression in any way, shape or form. All other forms of political expression or thought - explicit or implicit - are a direct and punishable infringement of the intellectual propaganda rights of the People’s Fascist (Oops, I meant Communist!) Republic of China!”
     Graffiti appears not to be officially banned, but in the past it always seemed to be painted over immediately. Perhaps the fact that there is more of it means it is harder to keep up with painting it over. It also may be an indication that the party has much bigger concerns, such as extinguishing the flames of protest across the country occurring at an increasing rate, year by year, as well as ensuring a smooth transition of power to the next group of leaders without further widening the open rifts between different factions in the party. Even my wife, who is proud of her country and culture, and who generally steers away from political discourse, last night questioned whether the Communist Party of China could even last for another ten years without at least the emergence of one or more real opposition parties. This is the kind of question even normally apolitical citizens are asking themselves more and more these days. I give it between twenty to thirty years myself.
     While no sensible person would want to see China slide into anarchy and chaos, something has to give. Hopefully, it can start from the top and take the shape of positive political reform. In the long term, there really is no other viable alternative.

Loopholes in Environmental Impact Assessment

Loopholes in Environmental Impact Assessment
Written by Guan Zhong

     The following article presents a very real and disturbing example of the threat of pollution to the ecology of Beijing and to the health of its population and how local citizens were able to expose attempts by local government departments to hide the dangers posed by a proposed refuse incineration plant. It is significant for its universality, yet at the same time for revealing the serious challenges to environmental protection faced in China. The fact that the attempt by certain key government institutions to hoodwink local citizens was effectively uncovered and made known to the public says volumes about the advancement of political rights and improvements in terms of the transparency of the press in China. On the down side, it is nothing short of terrifying to imagine that the central government, even here in the nation’s capital, was either unaware of, indifferent to, or supportive of a project which would have devastating implications for the city’s environment, including the poisoning of Beijing’s only source of drinking water.

     Liulitun should loom large as a key chapter in any future written history of the management and disposal of domestic refuse in China. Not only are the residents in Liulitun fighting for the environmental rights and rights to existence that they deserve with wisdom, rationality, and persistence, they are also setting a brave and effective example for people living in Shanghai, Nanjing, Wuhan, and other cities, in fighting for their legitimate rights and interests.
     Due to suspicions and doubts raised toward the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report of a local project, the residents of Liulitun studied the report in great detail, only to discover one problem after another. And by seizing upon so many fundamental errors with the EIA, they were finally able to protect their rights with confidence and conviction. In the face of strong public resistance, the question of whether or not to build a refuse incineration power plant in Liulitun has become a real dilemma. The root of the stalemate, and a series of related consequences, lies in the Environmental Impact Assessment of the project that was released by the Beijing Academy of Environmental Sciences.

EIA Supports Incineration

     Liulitun’s domestic refuse landfill site - the first phase of which was finished in 1999 and the second in 2001 - is the only domestic waste disposal facility in Beijing’s Haidian District. It was designed to handle 1,500 tons of garbage per day. Although not originally anticipated, the first phase had been fully filled within 5 years due to the increase in refuse resulting from an accelerated rate of urbanization. Based on the current refuse disposal requirements of 2,700 tons per day, the capacity of the project’s second phase will run out in 2013. Such a predicament presents a truly serious issue in urgent need of resolution.
Entrusted by the Environmental and Urban Landscape Services Center of the District of Haidian, the Beijing Academy of Environmental sciences undertook an assessment of the environmental impact of the proposed landfill and drew up an environmental impact assessment report. According to the report: “The project is feasible in terms of environmental protection, based on the condition that its implementation and design adhere to carrying out measures for the prevention and control of pollution as mentioned in the report.”
The report by the Beijing Academy of Environmental Sciences entitled, “An Environmental Impact Assessment of the Refuse Incineration Power Plant and Comprehensive Treatment Plant of Beijing’s Haidian District” was submitted by the Beijing Environmental Protection Agency, as environmental review document [2005] 1066, to the Municipal Administrative Management Commissioner of Haidain District on November 11, 2005, and posted on the Internet on January 30, 2007. The review states, “The construction of a refuse incineration power plant and a comprehensive treatment plant to the southwest of the Liulitun waste landfill has been officially approved. The proposed project is designed to dispose of 1,600 tons of waste per day, including 1,200 tons to be incinerated for power generation, and 400 tons for composting, at a total investment cost of 1 billion RMB.” The report had given the green light for the construction of the project. However, this news aroused a great stir in Liulitun. People had heard about the refuse incineration plant, but they felt the environment impact assessment on the Internet lacked credibility and were greatly shocked by the fact that the key arguments and conclusions of the assessment flew in the face of basic common sense. The malodorous gas from the garbage landfill had already affected the daily life of the residents and the number of people living near the landfill with respiratory disease as well a high incidence of tumors had clearly increased. One Liulitun resident, named Huang Shiping, who has been studying the EIA over the past several years, said: “The garbage landfill brings great harm to residents here and there is lack of strong supervision by the government. The EIA is neither objective nor scientific. Support for an incineration project here would only make it worse for Liulitun residents who have already suffered greatly.”

Project’s Site Selection Fraught with Huge Risks

     The EIA concludes that, “The proposed site of the project has been selected to be located to the southwest of the Liulitun waste landfill. The project, which has already been listed in the White Paper on Beijing’s Domestic Refuse Disposal, is in accordance with urban development planning.”
There is an obvious contradiction in the statement, “… in accordance with urban development planning”. According to the Beijing Municipal Comprehensive Plan (2004-2020), the area behind the Haidian mountains has been designated as an important base for high-tech development and research and innovation in Beijing. It is a key tourist area of the city’s northwest, which should step up the pace of its development in order to fully realize urbanization. The establishment of ecological, pastoral, and modernized natural ecological systems should be combined with an urban ecological system to form a comprehensive new city district. A High quality and collectively based developmental mode should be maintained and emphasis should be placed on harmony with the surrounding natural landscape. When referring to the building of a refuse incineration power plant designed to burn 1,200 tons of garbage per day how can one possibly speak of “high quality” or “emphasizing harmony with the surrounding natural landscape”? Item 3 of article 134 in Chapter 12 of the comprehensive plan regarding municipal infrastructure clearly states, “Waste pollution is forbidden in water conservation areas and other key areas.” So how can one speak of keeping water conservation areas free of waste pollution when the proposed site for building a refuse incineration power plant is only 1 kilometer away from the Jingmi diversion canal, Beijing’s only water supply channel?
     Special topographic and climatic conditions adverse to the diffusion of pollutants also exacerbate pollution and increase environmental risks. The planned location for waste incineration is in the northwest part of Beijing. According to standards outlined in The Guiding Principles for Atmospheric Environmental Assessment, the proposed site is located in an area of complex topography, which is surrounded by the foothills of Baiwang Mountain in the south, and the Yan mountain range in the west. Thus, the area has a lower solar radiation grade. In addition, the cooling of the ground surface in the area is sped up by the Jingmi diversion canal, which flows from west to east every evening. The surrounding Baiwangshan foothills form a 'dustpan' topography, which decreases the angle of wind direction and wind speed in the area. All of the aforementioned unfavorable topography and climatic conditions lead to highly stable atmospheric conditions, which may easily form a thermal inversion layer and frequently produce pollution from smoke and fume at high concentrations. Owing to the increased range in pollution caused by the thermal inversion layer’s effect on downwind pollution, in conjunction with Beijing’s dustpan topography which is surrounded on three sides by mountains, the dissipation of pollutants is made more difficult. At the same time, it also brings higher risks and exacerbates atmospheric pollution in the areas upwind of and surrounding the Liulitun Waste Incineration Power Plant.
     The waste incineration factory would, in reality, increase rather than decrease the threat caused by pollution. According to the Environmental Impact Assessment, “Atmospheric projection results predict a very slight influence on the atmospheric conditions in the residential areas being assessed.” However, this viewpoint is, in fact, very difficult to support. As stated by the laws of conservation of mass, we can only change the state of matter, but not its mass. As much research work done both domestically and abroad reveals, aside from the residue created after the incineration of 1 ton of household garbage, the remainder can only be converted into approximately 5,000 cubic meters of gas. Thus, it is apparent that the harm brought about by incineration to the surrounding residents would be increased. The former brick factory, cement plant, and refuse landfill have created an enormous strain on the environment, so it would be intolerable for the citizens, already unable to bear any further affects caused by pollution, to see black fumes spewing out from an 80-meter high chimney all day. Research done by the Ecological Environmental Research Center of the Chinese Academy of Science in 1999 showed the emission of acidic gases such as carbon dioxide, sulfur oxide, and nitrogen oxide would contribute to global warming and acidification. The impact on acidification from incineration is ten times as great as that for sanitary landfills, sixteen times greater than that of simple landfills, and four times that caused by comprehensive treatment. It is a huge irony to describe such a project, which aggravates pollution problems, as a measure for alleviating pollution.

A Misinterpretation of ‘Protective Distance’

     According to the results of the Environmental Assessment report, “Considering the requirements of environmental security, it is necessary to establish a sanitary protective distance of 300 meters. At present, there are no environmentally sensitive targets within a distance of 300 meters.” But the distance mentioned above refers to the protective distance from the odorous stench of a sanitary landfill site, while here it is misrepresented as the appropriate protective distance to safeguard against the effects of gaseous pollution from an incineration plant.
     Closely connected to protective distance is the concept of sensitive targets. A military unit is located to the north of the planned Liulitun incineration plant, the Xiliu Construction workers dormitory is located within 200 meters, and the Yongyou Software Park is located within 500 meters of the proposed site. With respect to the Liulitun incineration plant - including the seismic belt, the Jingmi diversion canal, over 200, 000 local residents, the Beijing Botanical Garden, the Fragrance Hill Park, the Yuan Ming Yuan Relics Park, the Summer Palace, and the site of a military unit - which of these cannot be considered as sensitive targets? As Huang Shiping points out, the planned incineration plant is only 7 kilometers away from Yuquan Mountain and the Summer Palace, a world cultural heritage site and a state-level imperial garden, and is also within 5 kilometers distance of Fragrance Hill Park - a natural scenic spot, the Beijing Botanical Garden - an ecological natural reserve, the Daoxiang Lake Manmade Wetland Park, and the Baiwang Mountain Forest Park. As to the question of whether or not such areas are sensitive, the answer could not be more obvious.
Surrounding the planned incineration plant site are many scientific research institutes and high-tech enterprises, such as the Beijing Aerospace City (an astronaut training center), the Zhongguancun Science and Technology Park, and the Yongfeng Industrial Base, etc., among which Yongyou Software Park is only 200 meters away from the refuse landfill, and less than 500 meters away from the planned incineration power plant. At the same time, many medium and large-sized residential areas have been built in the vicinity, such as Yihe Villas, Qianqiu Gardens, Jade Water Gardens, Baiwang Jasmine Gardens, Zhonghai Fenglian Villas, Autumn Dew Gardens, Summer Rain Gardens, Baoli West Hill Forest Gardens, etc. In addition, there are also plans to build more residential complexes and residential services projects, including the Capital Iron and Steel Co. Estate, the Beijing University International Hospital, Phoenix City, and so on. The site chosen for the incineration plant is next to several Science and Technology Parks such as the Yongfeng High-tech Industrial Base, Zhongguancun Software Park, Aerospace City, the Shangdi Information Industry Base, etc. - an area comprised of a population of several hundred thousand employees and residents. It is truly inconceivable that building a refuse incineration plant in such a densely populated residential area could not be considered ‘sensitive’.

Persistent Shadow of Dioxins Hard to Dispel

     The EIA report states: “The refuse incineration plant intends to invite bids for the use of advanced and mature foreign technology and equipment, while dioxin emission levels will meet EU Standards.” During administrative review pleadings on dioxin emission standards, the Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau stated: “In terms of dioxin, which is of concern to the general public, our national emission standard is 1 nanogram per normal cubic meter, while there are even stricter controls set in the design of this project, so that emission concentrations may also meet the strictest current standards of developed nations of 0.1 nanograms per normal cubic meter. This figure is beyond dispute in international academic circles and there are no related control threshold values with respect to environmental risks.” Yet this conclusion is overly absolute and does not match up the reality of the situation. The incineration of refuse at high temperatures inevitably produces dioxins, as does the cooling process. Although applicable in theory, based on many years of practice both domestically and abroad, the technology of preventing the production of dioxins in the rapid cooling process, as well as the absorption of dioxins, has yet to meet with satisfying results and, in many cases, has led to failures. The EIA report claims that the detection of dioxins can only be carried out by examining the concentration of carbon monoxide in the smoke produced by incinerating refuse, so as to indirectly measure the concentration of dioxin emissions. According to section 7.3.3 of “The Technical Standards for Domestic Waste Incineration Engineering”: “In 1977, it was first reported in Austria that dioxins were detected from within the electrostatic device of a domestic waste incinerator furnace. The concentrations of dioxins in the smoke from the vent of an electrostatic precipitator with a temperature of less than 300°C are 100 times greater than that from the vent of a refuse incinerator furnace at a temperature of 800°C.” Thus, re-synthesis of dioxin will occur at temperatures below 800°C. Furthermore, the primary heavy metal component in domestic waste is copper, which acts as a catalyst for producing dioxin. Therefore, merely depending on testing carbon monoxide emission concentrations to determine the emission concentration of dioxin is unreliable. Internationally speaking, it is currently impossible to conduct on-line detection of dioxins.

Deliberately Avoiding the Question of Water Pollution

     The “EIA Report” deliberately chose less stringent monitoring of the quality of surface water and groundwater within the area of the proposed project by avoiding examining the impact of incinerated pollutants such as dioxins, heavy metals, mercury and other substances on the surface water, especially on that of the Jingmi diversion canal. The incineration of refuse converts solid waste into highly toxic gaseous pollutants. Dioxins and heavy metals produced by refuse incineration have an enormously harmful effect on humans, as well as on animals and plants. The project’s EIA report calculates, “the highest ground-level concentrations of dioxins would occur at a distance of 1,332 meters downwind of the chimney” while the proposed site for the Liulitun incineration plant is only 1,114 meters away from the Jingmi diversion canal - a key protected zone of the municipality of Beijing - and precisely the area in which the maximum concentration of heavy metals and dioxins would occur. Gases resulting from the incineration of refuse would cause varying degrees of pollution within a five-kilometer-wide radius, resulting in irreversible damage to the unique ecological environment of Beijing’s West Mountain area, while the surrounding downwind and downstream terrain will aid in creating even more widespread pollution.
     The EIA report has deliberately avoided characteristic pollutants. In the EIA report there are a total of 11 items for testing underground water quality including: pH, total hardness, total dissolved solids, chloride, ammonia nitrogen, nitrate, nitrite, sulfate, volatile phenols, total bacterial count, and total coliform bacterial count. In fact, the required inspection items for the testing of groundwater quality standards are as follows: pH, ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, salt, volatile phenols, cyanide, arsenic, mercury, chromium (hexavalent), total hardness, lead, fluorine, cadmium, iron, manganese, total dissolved solids, permanganate index, sulfate, chloride, coliform bacteria, as well as other items to reflect the main issues associated with water quality in the area around the proposed project site. This means that characteristic pollutant heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury, chromium (hexavalent), lead, fluorine, cadmium, iron, manganese, etc., which comprise more than 10 items, were simply not included in the scope of EIA testing. Not surprisingly, the EIA report claimed: “According to four test points of drinking water of groundwater streams in samples taken from four drinking water wells at depths of 80 to 100 meters, the water is of good quality and meets all the necessary requirements for drinking water.” Heavy metals, such as arsenic, mercury, chromium (hexavalent), lead, fluorine, cadmium, iron, manganese, etc., accounting for more than ten sensitive items which would reflect the main water quality issues of the Liulitun area, were simply not tested. Thus, it would be odd indeed if testing results showed that water quality failed to meet drinking water quality requirements.

Erroneous Facts Concerning Public Participation

     As the EIA report describes: “A total of 100 questionnaires were issued during the evaluation period and 85 of them were returned. According to statistics, 100% of respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the current state of the landfill, while 71% agreed to the waste incineration project, and 51% agreed to waste incineration in addition to comprehensive treatment. ” In response, the local residents of Liulitun sent out 400 of their own questionnaires and 387 were returned within a week, of which 358 were valid. Statistical analysis indicated that 98% of people were opposed to the building of the Liulitun incineration plant, while 2% were indifferent. 97.5% of respondents believed that the proposed waste incineration power plant’s pollution prevention and control measures were unreliable, and 96.9% of people believed environmental pollution caused by the building of a refuse incineration plant to be unacceptable. 93.2% of people believed the building of the refuse incineration power plant would have a negative impact on economic development in the surrounding area, while 94.9% of people believed that the incineration plant would have a harmful influence on the lives of the local residents. 95.5% of the people did not accept the argument that the proposed refuse incineration power plant would reduce the impact of the landfill on the surrounding environment. Analysis of the survey also showed that only 3.9% of people believed that the proposed waste incineration power plant would benefit their living and working conditions and that only 6.2% of people believed that it would be beneficial to the development of the local economy.

Originally translated by George Liu
Re-translated and edited by Chris Harry