By This article in the Chosun Ilbo comes off as very sensationalist and shows why USFK leadership is probably very nervous for being blamed for pollution that has nothing to do with them:
The head of the U.S. side of the joint Korea-U.S. investigative team (center) answers questions from reporters during a press briefing on the results of the investigation into underground water sources near Camp Carroll in Chilgok, North Gyeongsang Province on Thursday.
Traces of tetrachloroethylene, also known as perchloroethene or PCE, have been found in the underground stream and groundwater near a U.S. Forces Korea base. The findings follow the discovery of small traces of dioxin in the groundwater there, apparently as a result of the dumping of the lethal defoliant Agent Orange at Camp Carroll in Chilgok, North Gyeongsang Province.
PCE, chiefly found in solvents, is a carcinogen that attacks the nervous system and can cause reproductive problems.
A spokesman for a joint Korea-U.S. team that is inspecting the area said Thursday, 0.026 mg of PCE per liter of water was detected in a groundwater well in Waegwan, one of the underground streams in 10 areas the team inspected. The amount exceeds the 0.01 mg acceptable level for drinking water. It has yet to be determined whether the pollutant came from the camp. [Chosun Ilbo]
First of all there has been no evidence found that proves agent orange was buried at Camp Carroll as the article claims. There has been simply allegations with no evidence to support it. Secondly if you read the rest of the article and buried at the end is the fact the dioxin that was detected is nothing more than non-harmful trace amounts. This is consistent with ground water tests done in the past around the camp that also found non-harmful or unusual levels of dioxin. If there was all this agent orange buried there than why is there so little dioxin in the ground water? Maybe because there never was any agent orange there in the first place.
the pollutant found has not been linked to Camp Carroll and could have just as easily come from pollution from someone else in Waegwan. The substance they found was perchloroethene which is a chemical primarily used in dry cleaning. It is interesting that the Chosun Ilbo doesn’t point that out. This substance could have been dumped by a dry cleaning business in town for all we know. Expect to see more of this as substances in the ground water in cities near US bases will be found and then attempts to blame it on USFK. The other thing to expect is that no matter what USFK does it won’t be good enough for the usual suspects who will demand more. Now that only trace amounts of dioxin have been found in the ground water they will next demand that USFK dig up all of Camp Carroll to confirm there is nothing buried there and on and on to keep this issue alive.
She hasn’t seen...
7:19 pm on June 17th, 2011 1
Does that “head of the U.S. side of the joint Korea-U.S. investigative team (center)” know Korea language? If not don’t you think he should have somebody around telling him what the hell is being said in order for him to refute the dry cleaning claims?
7:25 pm on June 17th, 2011 2
That is why the USFK Pollutor!! issue has been and always will be for the media, anti-USFK groups, and any politicians wanting to score some easy points: Since it involves USFK, all possible sense of context is absolutely meaningless to the Korean public, and since there is some type of pollution around every US base in the country, as there is around pretty much every factory area or urban-congested area (including medieum sized cities), they can generate this much USFK Pollutor!! any time they feel like it.
7:43 pm on June 17th, 2011 3
Since when have _Koreans_ ever been involved in the dry-cleaning industry?
Oh. Wait. Never mind.
8:38 pm on June 17th, 2011 4
A couple notes.
First, I’d want to see the results of samples taken well away from USFK (or ROK) military bases to use as a baseline. That is, is there any possibility that these small amounts are “static” that would be there simply by virtue of this being a populated area? That point is being made when they say that, “it has yet to be determined whether the pollutant came from the camp.”
Second, I don’t know how “sensationalist” this article really is. In fact, it makes clear that, “most of the chemicals may already have decayed” because they were buried so long ago, making the traces found now possibly not from USFK dumping of Agent Orange.
This article seems to be simple listing facts with the case, and it’s not so far off from the Western media reports on the discovery of trace amounts of dioxin. It’s not as if the Korean media is making a story out of whole cloth; this all began when Americans formerly stationed in South Korea went to the American press about this.
8:49 pm on June 17th, 2011 5
Yes, the story was triggered by the former American soldiers, and the Korean media has jumped all over it. Over 60 articles within a month.
It works with and breeds the Uncle Pollutor!! mentality that has been one of the long running, useful tools to keep an acceptable level of discontent with US forces in Korea.
Lack of context and proportion are standard aspects of how it works.
They don’t look around at other areas/entities in Korea and they don’t pump out this volume of stories.
11:24 pm on June 17th, 2011 6
An important point: Koreans, even pro-US Koreans, think USFK has grossly polluted Korea with little to no regard for Korean lives, and there is nothing Korea can do about it.
The Korean media helps breed that sentiment with coverage like this (and worse in the past).
12:01 am on June 18th, 2011 7
This is all about next year’s Korean elections.
12:34 am on June 18th, 2011 8
I always did like extra starch and dioxin in my BDU’s.
3:01 am on June 18th, 2011 9
Who is the USFK’s “man” in the 2012 Korean elections? We’d better get someone because the NK and Chinese have someone, and we all know it.
3:40 am on June 18th, 2011 10
I know for a fact that these installations are also contaminated with dihydrogen monoxide.
Dihydrogen monoxide:
* is called “hydroxyl acid”, the substance is the major component of acid rain.
* contributes to the “greenhouse effect”.
* may cause severe burns.
* is fatal if inhaled.
* contributes to the erosion.
* accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
* may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
* has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:
* as an industrial solvent and coolant.
* in nuclear power plants.
* in the production of Styrofoam.
* as a fire retardant.
* in many forms of cruel animal research.
* in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
* as an additive in certain “junk-foods” and other food products.
But what are we going to do about it?
3:48 am on June 18th, 2011 11
Again, this is NOt about the “truth”- this is about creating a negative perception of USFK ahead of the 2012 Korean elections.
4:07 am on June 18th, 2011 12
usinkorea wrote:
Your two statements ignore that NGOs, environmental groups, and the media also cover corporate pollution stories as well.
Try doing a Google search for “수질 오염” and, say, “삼성,” and see how many times more hits you’ll get than “수질 오염” and “미군.”
I think the bigger distortion going on here is that the English-language blogs which generally don’t pay attention to environmental or pollution-related stories involving Korean entities instead shine a spotlight on such stories involving USFK.
It’s similar to how English-language blogs pore over stories about wrongdoing involving English teachers but generally ignore similar stories when the perpetrator is a Korean national, because of a lack of interest and such stories not being prominent in the English-language media.
That the chinboistas will take this story and try to milk it for all they can and then turn it over and try to milk it again is a given, because that’s what the Pyongyang-sponsored far left does, but that doesn’t make the CSI’s coverage “sensationalist.”
4:11 am on June 18th, 2011 13
Setting aside for a moment that the elections are a year and a half away and the length of the electoral process is quite truncated compared to that of the US, what on earth does the conservative, Sino-phobic, anti-DPRK Chosun Ilbo have to gain from “creating a negative impression of USFK ahead of the 2012 Korean elections”?
I can think of a lot of things they would have to lose by spinning a pro-Pyongyang leftist into power, but not much that they’d have to gain.
Let me put this another way: How could/should the CSI have reported this story so that it wouldn’t seem “sensationalist” but it would still get the facts out about an on-going story that was sparked by a confession by an American soldier?
4:28 am on June 18th, 2011 14
What did I say when the first GIK wrote the first blog about AO?
4:28 am on June 18th, 2011 15
Are they “contaminated” with it, in that there is “dihydrogen monoxide” where there shouldn’t be?
The DHMO hoax has taken on a new life, going beyond what it was originally supposed to point out, by people who end up punking their own selves by using it.
Unless a person can state the actual scientific name for water, they shouldn’t be wielding the DHMO hoax around.
4:34 am on June 18th, 2011 16
What did you say?
Did you say that the Korean media was going to run with this? If so, thank you, Captain Obvious.
Agent Orange is a very sensitive topic in South Korea, and it was to be expected that this story of American military personnel saying they’d buried (or seen buried) Agent Orange would have legs.
4:39 am on June 18th, 2011 17
I remember a counselor at an orphanage forcing salicylic acid down the throats of some children and smearing Hyaluronic Acid on others.
OOOOOOOOOO Scarryyyyyyyyyyyyyy
4:43 am on June 18th, 2011 18
Kushibo,
Why don’t you do it?
You have the Korean language skills. And you have a blog. Dig into the archives of the Korean press and put together an article and links to a volume of anti-pollution stories by them focusing on one of the major or medieum-sized Korean companies. Then, come over here and post a link to your research.
I did a check a few years ago – using my low level Korean skills, and what I found was that the Korean press did NOT cover Korean companies like this.
What I found was that they would not name Korean companies in their coverage unless it was a small business. They went out of their way to avoid telling the audience who owned and operated a factory cluster near a heavily polluted river or they would mosaic out the logo and name on company trucks and the fatory wall when covering air pollution affecting trees in an area.
It’s easy to come over here, as you do, and speak against the research others do by saying it is just a bunch of misguided expat bloggers making a mountain out of a mole hill.
GI Korea has done much work on this issue in the past when it has come up. I have too.
If you want to make your point, then do it.
You have Korean-language skills I wish I had. Go for it.
4:55 am on June 18th, 2011 19
15. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) recommendation for a name is oxidane.
5:11 am on June 18th, 2011 20
usinkorea wrote:
I’ve done it. It’s there. It is so overwhelming in number that it would be too daunting a task to carve it down into something useful for this discussion other than that the media and many of these groups focus on Korean entities’ pollution, your lack of attention to it notwithstanding.
But if you like, I’ll give you an example. Samsung is being accused by labor groups (some of the chinboista) of having conditions that have caused leukemia among its workers. Did you know that? It’s an on-going story, with a recent wave of news reports in Korean when the story was picked up in the US by some minor reporters. There are over two million hits for 삼성 (Samsung) and 백혈병 (leukemia).
It’s also worth noting that many of these groups, in fact, much of the green NGO movement itself (including the non-chinboista groups), got there start with awareness of and reaction to Doosan’s dumping of phenol in the Naktong River way back, well before the embalming fluid incident or anything else.
I really don’t get what people are getting at here. The article in question say the level of dioxin is 2.6 times the acceptable level for drinking water but it hasn’t been “determined whether the pollutant came from the camp.” How is this sensationalist? What are they supposed to do differently?
Should they not be reporting the story at all? How could they do this story in a way that would be acceptable to you? Or is it only acceptable if they don’t report it?
Is it possible that stuff was buried? Is still buried? Or do military bases remain in a pristine condition and this is all a story out of whole cloth?
5:16 am on June 18th, 2011 21
LLP wrote:
And did you know that before you wrote #10? Asking, not saying.
We actually do a lot of things about it. Oxidane is in fact already highly regulated, and parents can be arrested or have their children taken away from them if they leave their children around it unintended.
Anyway, the hoax started out as a way to show how gullibly people can support something without knowing all the facts, but it has since morphed into a way of demonstrating how corporate entities can lie or manipulate facts to deceive a gullible public enough to have them do their bidding.
5:20 am on June 18th, 2011 22
” your lack of attention to it notwithstanding”
Instead of taking shots, do it.
Write a post on it at your blog. A detailed article that puts in as much time and energy and depth into the coverage as GI Korea or I have done in the English-language sources.
Do it.
Show us a mountain of coverage focused on Hyundai or Samsun or Korean military bases.
Do a write up showing the mountain of coverage for the Samsung story.
If there is so much information about it in the Korean press, you should be able to take a 3 month or 6 month or 12 month period and put together a quick, convincing post.
Do it.
5:32 am on June 18th, 2011 23
Is this story sensationalist against Samsung? (Bear in mind it is largely coming from Korean-language sources about Samsung.)
The claims being made here remind me of the Evan Ramstad article on Yahae! magazine and these claims:
Such a claim can only be made if you ignore everything in Korean. As I noted, Mr Ramstad’s statement would only be true if you ignored all the glowing coverage of Harisu in the Korean-language media.
And that is one of the fundamental problems of the English-language K-blogosphere: they see only what they can find with an English-language flashlight, and then they use those discoveries to build what they want to believe is true or, I guess, what they think is going on even in the dark areas they cannot see.
5:36 am on June 18th, 2011 24
My Korean language skills are basic. It would be easy for me to end up looking like as @ss with this, but here was a quick stab:
Archives
Your search – 삼성 백혈병 source:중앙 source:일보 – did not match any documents.
5:39 am on June 18th, 2011 25
I don’t need to. It’s right there. I pointed out a single subject that has a mountain of stuff written about it.
You cataloging the various ways that the media addresses this is not worthless. What I call foul on is your apparent conclusions that (a) USFK is the only one that gets press or NGO scrutiny, or (b) the focus on the USFK-related story in this instance is somehow unwarranted.
Your complaints about unfair media treatment notwithstanding, USFK is not the only target of environmental groups and it’s not the only subject of the media’s environmental stories. It’s not even the only target of the pro-Pyongyang chinboistas.
But if you really think this news story triggered by an American who says he buried stuff in Korea is really so out of line, how should the CSI story in question have been written?
5:41 am on June 18th, 2011 26
” they see only what they can find with an English-language flashlight”
Then why don’t you do the work…?
Educate people instead of doing quick hitters against the effort others have made…
Do the work.
You make it sound like it would be a piece of cake to do.
Go to the Chosun Ilbo, Joongang Ilbo, Donga Ilbo archives and show us how they have piled onto a pollution story involing Samsung or Hyundai. Show us the mountain of stories like that.
Do it. Stop saying it is all out there and certain K-blogs just don’t have the time or Korean skills or attention span to show it.
Why don’t YOU SHOW IT…
5:44 am on June 18th, 2011 27
No need to do that — the Samsung leukemia story alone was covered quite extensively in places like the Hankyoreh and the Kyunghyang. I don’t believe it was as extensively or as diligently covered in the conservative press, but that’s par for the course. Anyway, Samsung can’t even fart without the Hankyoreh doing a feature story on it.
That’s not to make excuses for the Chosun story linked above — it makes assumptions about the source of the dioxin (namely, that it came from USFK burying Agent Orange on base) that have yet to be proven. Whether that’s due to bad reporting or a bad translation, I don’t know as I haven’t seen the Korean original.
5:50 am on June 18th, 2011 28
usinkorea wrote:
Seriously?
5:53 am on June 18th, 2011 29
I’d still like to see it.
If it is that obvious, it should be easy to show.
I was interested enough, and had enough time at the time, to do the best I could with the Korean-language archives of the major newspapers, and what I found was what I stated above. (I looked some into the TV evening news broadcasts too).
If the Korean press does the same kind of periodic carpet-bombing of pollution stories against a Korean corporation or Korean military bases as they do USFK, then it should not been too difficult for someone with Korean language skills to put together an article showing that.
I don’t have the language skills to guage the effort, but other readers here do.
I’d like to see someone actually show how the Korean press covers specific pollutors.
(The Hankyeoreh is a kinda special case, isn’t it? Even I didn’t quote much from them when reviewing an anti-USFK/US issue, and I never went to their archives to dig when doing any of issues I covered over the years.
And do they have the same weight (in readership) that the bigger names have?
5:56 am on June 18th, 2011 30
The link turned up garbage when I clicked it.
I went to Google News and the archive search and used the search terms shown.
Anyway – do the work.
Instead of saying that it is so obvious there is a ton of material out there showing the Korean press pummling Korean chaebol over this or that pollution issue — show it.
Use your language skills. Use your blog. Make the case.
6:01 am on June 18th, 2011 31
Robert (#27), thanks for chiming in.
usinkorea, please note the second paragraph of #25: I’m not knocking “the efforts [you] have made” to catalog media excesses on USFK-related topics, but the faulty (and somewhat self-serving) conclusions you tend to draw from it.
The efforts are noteworthy. Were your blog still up, I would fill my chinboista post with links to it.
6:10 am on June 18th, 2011 32
It’s all RIGHT THERE. In those links you say are garbage: the mountain of links connecting it. Any blog post I would write would just be to links that you can’t open or can’t read. It’s all RIGHT THERE. A whole bunch of stuff related to Samsung’s semiconductors and accusations it is causing death by leukemia… and that is just one that popped up in a general search for Samsung and pollution, which itself is simply the sole chaebol I checked.
And the Marmot himself coming in at #27 with what he wrote negates any need to refute your claim that USFK is getting uniquely bad treatment by the media on the environmental front.
I’ve got more important things in life than to don the Captain Obvious uniform and keep pointing out things that are being willfully ignored by someone who desperately wants to believe in the USFK-is-such-a-victim agenda.
6:14 am on June 18th, 2011 33
OK. I still would like to see a similar effort put into showing us all the point you are making (which Robert seconded).
I would like to see one or more of the K-bloggers who have the Korean language skills use their skill, time, and energy to add this kind of depth to the issue.
It is too easy to come over onto someone else’s site for a short comment or series of comments – saying they are too far off base – attempting to in effect negative the time and energy they have put into covering an issue –
– when you have the means to do a much more indepth refutation of your own.
Do the work and show how the Korean press does the same kind of thing to a Korean corporation or Korean military bases.
Again, I tried as best I could such a project about 6 years ago, and what I saw did not match what you are saying.
I could have been wrong then given how low my language skills were. Times could also have changed.
But, show it. Do the research and write it up.
6:25 am on June 18th, 2011 34
–sigh–
Do the work. You like to take the cheap shots, but you don’t want to put aside some time to prove it?
Go into the archives of the big Korean press and show how they cover big Korean pollutors they same way they do USFK or the US Embassy.
Others have taken the time to do it with the English press.
If you are going to come and take cheap shots at me or others as well as dismiss the effort as you have, then put your time into showing it.
6:46 am on June 18th, 2011 35
I don’t know why the link Kushibo put up turned up computer gibberish when I clicked it. I bought my computer in Korea and am using Korean Windows 7.
Anyway, I took out the search terms and plugged them into Google. Maybe some people with the Korean language skills can check it out.
삼성 + 반도체+백혈병+중앙일보
I use the archives of each of the big named Korean newspapers when I am preparing for one of these write ups.
7:34 am on June 18th, 2011 36
Here is a link to a search of the Joongang website using the search terms Kushibo provided.
It is a 1 year site-specific search of the JAD using the search terms Kushibo provided.
삼성 반도체 백혈병 (site:Joins.com)
7:34 am on June 18th, 2011 37
I’ll do it.
8:21 am on June 18th, 2011 38
http://animemangasociety.com/koreablog/?p=41
I did a quick and dirty one.
8:48 am on June 18th, 2011 39
Thanks for checking on this.
I’m not sure a Naver news-wide search is the way to go.
What I do to check on the Korean (English) press is what I’d do in the US. I wouldn’t use a Google News search, because it is too inclusive and broad.
What I do for the English versions is use Google’s advanced search feature. I plug 1 paper’s website into the Site category, put in my key words, and then set a time limit.
Below are the site addresses for the key newspapers.
http://www.donga.com
Joins.com
http://www.chosun.com
I’d also be interested in a search for terms like “water pollution” or “pollution” and then along with the name of some of Korea’s corporations.
8:55 am on June 18th, 2011 40
What search terms (in Korean) are you using?
I plugged 에이전트 오렌지 into Naver and news and got 733.
Regardless, if I were doing the search, I’d still want to limit it to the largest national newspapers…
9:22 am on June 18th, 2011 41
I used 주한미군 + 에이전트 오렌지 so that I didn’t get flooded with every instance of agent orange ever mentioned. If I’d done the same for 백혈병 alone it would have been nuts. Plus I only used the 뉴스 tab and not 통합검색
9:24 am on June 18th, 2011 42
One last thing before bed (and I can’t make this comment at your site):
You said you will look at the Korean-language news the next 5 days to compare…
…But, that is a short time, and since the USFK items is current, even if it turns out more in the news the next five days, you would expect it too, naturally.
I would be intersted to know if you see any pollution stories involving larger Korean companies with their names mentioned, because when I did the best I could a few years ago looking into the KBS TV news archives, what I found were general pollution stories but nothing that named names except for small businesses. They went so far as to mosaic out the names and logos of factories and trucks near factories on the few pollution stories I watched.
Anyway, a search of the archives of the major outlets for a 6-month or full year would be more telling. What I’m seeing with the big newspapers and the Samsung story is about 30-50 hits, but there is no way I can even skim the headlines to tell what use to make of each link….
9:26 am on June 18th, 2011 43
I only used the Korean Agent Organge and the news tab, because I figured any news article with Agent Orange would include the US military. (Of course, that would pull in Vietnam War stories too.) I don’t have the language skills to see about putting a time limit on the search – which is important….
9:31 am on June 18th, 2011 44
http://news.search.naver.com/search.naver?sm=tab_hty&where=news&query=%B9%E9%C7%F7%BA%B4+%BB%EF%BC%BA
Samsung and leukemia still yield more results than agent orange alone…
4100 something…
9:42 am on June 18th, 2011 45
Oh, I was talking about actually watching the news… so I’d have to sit through a whole hour + looking up words I don’t know and pausing the news program. Anyway, here’s a ton of links to archived Korean news from completely trustworthy and legitimate Chinese language sites that would never practice any form of violating intellectual property rights…
http://www.bada.us/common/app/movie.html?act=list&ct=12
This is what I’ll be using.
9:46 am on June 18th, 2011 46
44 But that is a full news search. That is very broad in terms of what it considers “news” sources.
A targeted search of the newspapers with large national circulations would mean much more (especially with a time-limit – 1 year or 6 months). Then it would help to know what kind of coverage – like a selection of typical headlines and so.
The type of search that is going to have credibility would take time…
9:51 am on June 18th, 2011 47
46 – You don’t have to spend the whole hour.
You can go to KBS and SBS and MBC and use their search engines to pull up specific segments (and limit the timeframe) from the archives.
As I remember it, you could specify specific news shows too, at least on one or more of the sites. I seem to remember I was able to target the afternoon (5 or 6 PM) and the evening (9 PM) primary national news shows.
And that was maybe 4 to 6 years ago…
And you don’t have to worry about copyright, unless things have changed much. The major stations are government-funded and have their stuff up for access for free.
10:01 am on June 18th, 2011 48
Here is a quick look at the KBS news VOD search using “pollution”
1:51 pm on June 18th, 2011 49
usinkorea wrote:
It makes sense that you would find that because it’s a different type of story. It is about “general problems” of that nature, not specific incidents.
The Samsung leukemia situation, the Doosan phenol dumping, specific USFK cases, etc., are a different matter.
If you were to make the case that the media feels freer to directly state USFK’s name where they wouldn’t necessarily state the name of a Korean corporation in the same situation, that sounds like a good working assumption. Simply put, the media is not really afraid of USFK using libel laws to sue.
Maybe they should (at least if damaging misinformation is reported). Can they?
2:04 pm on June 18th, 2011 50
usinkorea wrote:
Again, usinkorea, I’m not saying your cataloging of English-language blogs and press on USFK is useless, though you appear to be thinking that I’m “taking cheap shots” at that.
Rather, I’m questioning what seems to be an underlying premise of yours and the resulting conclusion, that media treatment of USFK on environmental issues is unique and other corporations in Korea do not meet with such coverage.
But the Samsung leukemia story alone refutes the uniqueness notion, and The Marmot himself verifies as such. I have provided up above a link to an English-language article that presents the meat of the story that is told over and over again in Korean. There is, therefore, no real need to do an in-depth analysis of anything. It’s all right there: USFK, like other corporate entities in South Korea, can be heavily scrutinized over accusations of environmental wrongdoing.
Arguing against the uniqueness aspect of this does not diminish the value of cataloging the reports, so please don’t take anything I’ve said as an attack or cheap shot on that. I think I’ve said that several times now.
But then the question remains whether the media reports are unwarranted, as GI Korea himself calls this one “sensationalist.” I have asked several times (#13, #20) and so far got no response (unless I missed it, in which case I apologize): How could/should the CSI have reported this story so that it wouldn’t seem “sensationalist” but it would still get the facts out about an on-going story that was sparked by a confession by an American soldier?
The CSI article seems to contain enough mitigating information — they don’t know whether USFK is the source, the Agent Orange chemicals would have broken down by now, etc. — that I think “sensationalist” is not a fair description.
4:24 pm on June 18th, 2011 51
19, 21,
Really, a pissing match over the name for water?
PS. Kushibo,
You clearly don’t know anything about chemical nomenclature. The IUPAC standard does not aim to produce a single name for inorganic compounds (unless they’ve changed approach since my days in the laboratory, organic compounds are a different story). Fact is, “dihydrogen monoxide” is an acceptable name because it is consistent with its chemical formula. Even “hydrogen oxide” would be acceptable because the numerical prefix is often dropped in molecules with covalent bonds. Another acceptable scientific name is simply ‘water’.
4:43 pm on June 18th, 2011 52
Teadrinker, I know enough that dihydrogen monoxide would not be standard. In fact, it’s basically a made-up name for the purpose of the hoax.
Water’s common scientific nomenclature, other that oxidane, would focus not on the number of oxygen or hydrogen atoms, but on the hydroxyl component and characteristics of water that make it so essential. It is a soup of OH- and H+.
At any rate, it was not a “pissing match” over the name. Rather, it’s a statement that the use of the DHMO hoax’s terminology and “facts” is an abused process that goes beyond the very valid point of the original. Those who think “dihydrogen monoxide” is the most common, or even common at all, out themselves as people who misuse the hoax, often revealing more about their own ignorance even as they try to lord their inside knowledge over the unsuspecting.
That was the point of asking.
9:06 pm on June 18th, 2011 53
Hope people needs to be understand about Maximum Contaminant Level for PCE in drinking water. Certainly, 26 ppb of PCE in groundwater exceeds US’s drinking water protection level – 5 ppb. Korea has 10 ppb? If so, all people in Korea has twice risk. I have seen a PCE concentration more than 10,000 ppb from a dry cleaner operation. USFK should ask Korean gov. to test all dry cleaners within one mile from a base.
9:17 pm on June 18th, 2011 54
도토리: 딱 좋은 생각이군요! That’s a great idea!
9:18 pm on June 18th, 2011 55
This will probably be the last time I comment on or read this thread…
52
No, the instances were specific. A long, I believe multiple day, report on stunted tree growth in Ulsan. The TV report included shots of factories and trucks pulling in and out of the factory area, but they mosaiced out the logos and text. I had to google to find out Ulsan is a major Hyundai area of operation.
The other I remember was about water pollution. It specifically focused on two areas – 1 upstream from a cluster of factors operated by another chaebol; 1 downstream. Of course, the pollution downstream was much higher. They did not name names.
I am sure a key reason why they would not name names is the nature of liable law in Korea. Another is probably advertising money and other things the chaebol could do to the careers of people who cross them and do to individual news shows or even stations.
Knowing the reasons why something happens as it does does not negate the fact it happens.
“There is, therefore, no real need to do an in-depth analysis of anything.”
So, stating that something happens and being seconded by one other blogger who knows Korean too is just as good as taking the time and effort to make your case so that everyone (at least those with Korean language skills) can see and verify it?
GI Korea should not have wasted all that time and energy painstakingly researching each of the issues he has done. Pretty much 75% of his readership (or at least the commenters) already had some knowledge about them and agreed with him. Case closed…
Everybody — Kushibo and Marmot said its so. Enough said…
I wish my professors had let me give a 5 minute oral report and been done with those 20 page papers…
OK. Enough being a smartass (I just got up).
If the Korean media has jumped all over the Samsung leukemia story has been jumped on by the major media with both feet, just show it.
Do a review of the media coverage. You have examples here where GI Korea has taken the time and energy to do an in-depth, detailed report on more than 1 pollution story and several other in-depth articles covering pretty much each of the core, recurring issues that make up South Korea’s anti-US/USFK habit.
And he provided extensive links in each so that readers could check the primary sources.
Do that with the Samsung leukemia story.
It would be (if done with diligence) a valuable contribution to the K-blogs.
I think it would also help if you could show another example of the Korean media pounding the chaebol over pollution, because 1 incident doesn’t mark a trend, and many of us have seen these USFK pollutor stories come up regularly over the years.
My problem with your approach, beside the unncessary snide comments, is that you seek to damage the work others have done the quick and easy way.
I don’t remember exactly, but I believe it was you, here, who complained somewhat once that on my site I didn’t have a comment section. This is why.
To me at least, it is a pain in the @ss to go through the trouble of digging up all that source material, sifting through it, and taking all the trouble it takes it write up a report trying hard to make your case — only to have someone do a drive-by on you.
Marmot said: “No need to do that — the Samsung leukemia story alone was covered quite extensively in places like the Hankyoreh and the Kyunghyang. I don’t believe it was as extensively or as diligently covered in the conservative press, but that’s par for the course.”
Yes, there is a need to actually present a case, but I’ve already mentioned that.
More importantly – “I don’t believe it was as extensively or as diligently covered in the conservative press, but that’s par for the course.”
That’s important.
I could be wrong. But, I’ve never taken the Hanky seriously. It’s been my understanding that most Koreans don’t take it too seriously either – that they consider it a far-left, fringish outlet. I thought its circulation numbers dwarfed those of the other (conservative) papers?
(I don’t know anything about the other paper mentioned. I did a google and it said it was a “progressive” paper too.)
When I was doing detailed reports on the key anti-US/USFK issues, I put the Hanky along side Ohmy(gosh!!)news and the anti-US/USFK NGOs.
When I was looking into how the Korean media was covering a story, I did not search the Hanky archives, and if I quoted from them, it was rare.
So, how extensively was this Samsung story covered in the press?
Are there other similar or pollution related items that have gained the same kind of press as this latest USFK pollution story or the others GI Korea has taken the time to do in-depth coverage of?
If so, why don’t one of the Korean-language readers here who have a blog write it up?
If you don’t have a blog, email it to me, and I’ll put it up here.
If the Korean media thumps a chaebol or the Korean military as hard as it does USFK, then a detailed article showing that would be valuable addition in the K-blogs.
But, it should take more than a “Yes, they do. Trust me.”
Pretty much all of us have been to college. We know how to make our case. We also know that making a case is more valuable than just making a statement – whether or not someone says you are right.
And if people like GI Korea (and myself before I took my site down) have taken the time to present a detailed report that readers can dig into and verify –
— it would be nice if others wanting to nullify it, and who have the required skills, would make a similar effort to make their own case.
Lastly, to answer the question on how should the Korean media have handled the latest Uncle Pollutor! incident:
Many fewer articles.
Initial reporting of the claims by the former US soldiers along with notes on measures planned by USFK and the SK government to verify the claims.
Then, wait to see what turns up.
As with each of these Uncle Pollutor! stories, context would be a great addition. Context about the nature of environmental concern having changed over the decades. Context about how Korean entities have handled such pollution in the past. Context about the level of pollution in similar areas of Korea. And so on.
The news coverage on this Agent Orange claim is not as inflammatory as others have been.
In fact, if this reporting were happening in isolation, the volume of it would not be too troublesome though still too much.
But, it isn’t.
The reason why the Uncle Pollutor! item is so useful in keeping an acceptable level of discontent with USFK is that it is always available and feeds on itself.
Like we have seen in the latest coverage, the articles quickly and naturally go beyond the specific trigger to drag up previous USFK pollution stories, and “newer” items like the need to test for pollution around all USFK bases.
The net result is Koreans of all stripes, from neutral to pro-US to anti-US, take it for granted USFK has had almost no concern for Korean lives and has greatly polluted Korea.
7:07 am on June 19th, 2011 56
This issue has the potential to be the new anti-USA issue in Korea, however such potential has not materialized yet, so I think people here are overacting so far.
There are extensive media coverage, but most of them are not sensationalist, just reporting the facts, just exploring a good news material, just like GI is doing here.
There are no candle vigil, no rallies, no internet rumors, but I thing it just a matter of time until korean authorities find some real evidences (if they find it) to some of those anti-USA evidences are reported in the news.
Korea is a democracy so authorities, media, prosecutors, are just doing their part in a democratic society, nothing less, nothing more.
As a korean, I would like to see the American government doing something about the contamination (if evidence is found) but I don’t need to see Americans hanged in the trees nor Obama on his knees begging unconditional forgiveness to Korea … and I think most Koreans think the same way … and I’m sure if evidence if found our governments will settle the issue for the sake of the long and stable alliance between Korea and the USA, so lets chill for now …
7:23 am on June 19th, 2011 57
#55,
You “know enough”…Are you so sure? Dude, I was a chemist.
Yes, the IUPAC suggests oxydane, but dihydrogen monoxide is fine and so is hydrogen oxide (for the reasons I’ve already explained). Two other words for water, hydroxic acid and hydroxylic acid, are not ideal for obvious reasons (I’ll let you figure that one out since you “known enough”).
Fact is, there isn’t just one accepted name for water or any other molecule. You’d understand that if you knew the reason behind the creation of IUPAC nomenclature. Simply put, the IUPAC wants chemists to use names which clearly reflect molecular structure, it wants people to stay away from vague industrial terms and copyrighted names, names which may be commonly known in one country but not in another. That doesn’t mean any of the other names are unacceptable in any way. And so, dihydrogen monoxide, hydrogen oxide, hydroxic acid, hydroxylic acid, and oxydane are all H2O.
With that said…Based on my years of experience working in a laboratory, I can assure you that the most commonly used name for water amongst scientists who communicate in English is “water” because that’s the one everybody understands. You’d probably be laughed out of any lab if you ever asked for some “oxydane”.
7:28 am on June 19th, 2011 58
PS. Do you even know what hydroxyl is? A soup of OH and H…Not quite. You forget the covalent bond, buddy.
7:41 am on June 19th, 2011 59
In any case, I’m with Kushibo concerning how English language K-bloggers are distorting the importance of this story, and how it seems much more so to their readership, because they aren’t paying attention to other stories about pollution in the local media. Hell, as I’m typing this I’m watching on MBC a report on how companies hired to dispose liquid waste from Korean army bases are dumping the waste illegally.
4:35 pm on June 19th, 2011 60
62
Did they name names? Were any of the companies doing the dumping more than small buisnesses?
When I checked, the pollution stories were either generic stories on pollution problems or targeted small businesses. When it involved larger businesses, they went out of their way not to name them.
Do you think they will run a series of reports following up on these companies dumping the wastes? A series of stories spanning a couple of months?
Will the newspapers and TV media do several stories a week for two or three months on this dumping?
There are two reasons why even tame Uncle Pollutor!! stories are important in the anti-US/USFK culture:
1. The volume of stories makes sure average Koreans hear about it and blow the level of importance of individual cases out of proportion.
2. Each new case of exaggerated storytelling fits into the larger narrative that has been cultivated for years and years. Each new exaggerated case is a reminder of the other, older exaggerated cases.
Again, this is why even pro-US Koreans take it for granted that USFK has grossly polluted Korea with little regard for Korean lives. It is simply taken as a given in Korean society.
5:22 pm on June 19th, 2011 61
#59 Dr. Yu – there has already been at least one protest outside the gates of Cp. Carroll on Saturday…got the warning e-mail about it on Friday. I’m sure this is only the beginning, since it takes a bit of time for the anti-US hate groups to bus all the protesters in from Seoul…
5:50 pm on June 19th, 2011 62
Last note on this.
Why is too much coverage of this issue important? Besides the two items I mentioned last comment is this:
How do you think small items like Cows Gone Wild! explode into protests with tens of thousands of average citizens participating?
Preparation. Conditioning.
That is the media’s involvement. They are not (usually) propaganda organs like the Hanky or Ohmy(gosh)news, but the way they cover USFK/US related stories does contribute to the continuation of the myths and exaggerations and lack of context and so on…which make the larger explosions possible.
That is why they relative quiet during most of the Roh and in much of Lee’s presidency helped allow things to get better.
One can hope that this latest, fairly mild spike in exaggerated coverage will not become common again…
8:23 am on June 20th, 2011 63
Fact is that USFK must have its own water supply plan so needs to keep acceptable groundwater quality. If not, guess who is going to drink it. US is obligated to protect its own people regardless the frantic media. As a same token, Koran government, its agency (research institute, university) and political group should demonstrate that there are no other sources around the base. But I have not heard any news that Korean gov. has investigated any industrial sites and dry cleaners. It seems to me that the Korean news media is focusing only few targets; those big companies know how to treat the Korean media. And Korean gov. likes to blind their eyes because they do not have a resource or expertise. It seems that by banging USFK, those political group like to have a political gain and Korean media wants to be treated with ?? So, I do not think USFK needs to respond to Korean media until Korean gov. demonstrates that there are no other sources. Again USFK really needs to have a scientific and defensible data based on the standard practice in US. The problem I see is that I am not sure how they have investigated the base site. Few sampling? GPR? what wavelength? Not disclosable data? Good luck! In US those are called “incompetent” and will not be acceptable to any local city/county, state, even USEPA.
4:23 pm on June 20th, 2011 64
In response to Kushibo, I thought I made the sensationalism in posting quite clear. The article is linking small trace amounts of dioxin that were found as well in earlier water tests to the dumping of Agent Orange at Camp Carroll even though the evidence uncovered says there was no Agent Orange buried at Camp Carroll. Maybe it is a bad translation like Robert suggests but regardless this is bad reporting.
Also it made no reference to the fact that PCE is primarily used in dry cleaning. When I read about this chemical being found the first thing I thought of was, well what is this chemical used for? I’m sure the reporter did the same thing. That is why I am confident that the reporter intentionally left out that the chemcial is used in dry cleaning because than it deflects blame away from USFK.
As far as the Samsung leukemia case I had one posting on the ROK Drop on this and left it at that because I think it had little interest with ROK Drop readers. Plus the Samsung case is not a pollution case, it is a work place occupational health and safety case. It wasn’t like Samsung was dumping stuff in the Han River and people were getting leukemia from it. People were getting leukemia after working on DRAM chips on their assembly line. As far as the pollution of the Naktong River I have repeatedly pointed this out on the ROK Drop as something that is far worse than anything USFK has done. I have also pointed out the pollution of the Han River. Here is an excerpt from my GI Myths article:
So when is the Korean media and NGO’s going to start taking water samples at POSCO and other Korean heavy industry sites if they care so much about water pollution now?
8:55 am on June 21st, 2011 65
Well, all major Korean companies such as POSCO, Samsung, and refineries do not allow people to take any sample at their facilities except their favored buddies. Also, Korean gov. does not have a NPDES program to regulate discharges from all industries and waste treatment plants. Fact is that the MB Admin. has deregulated or ignored the env. regulation in Korea. Papa & mama’s dry cleaner? They do not have any figure. In US, there are numerous reports on PCE contamination resulted from dry cleaners. As I know, few years ago there was a study for groundwater quality beneath the city of Daegu conducted by some professor. Guess what? High PCE and TCE. But he could not publish it due to a pressure from the government. When I met Korean official, I asked why they did not consider it. The answer was that Korea has sufficient surface water supply so they do not need groundwater. Again, this is a political game.