 |
| On the morning of the 19th, a press conference is being held at the participation solidarity in Jongno-gu, Seoul,’What’s wrong with the court ruling that SK, Aekyung, E-Mart’s humidifier disinfectant, innocence?’ 2021.1.19/News1 © News1 Reporter Jinhwan Kim |
Academic experts said, “As a result of being ignorant of scientific methodology, former CEOs and employees of SK Chemicals and former representatives of Aekyung Industrial, accused of manufacturing and selling humidifier disinfectants using raw materials toxic to the human body, were acquitted at the first trial. Criticized.
‘Humidifier Disinfectant Advancement Bureau Network’ (Humidifier Net), an organization that works to investigate the truth of the humidifier disinfectant disaster and prevent recurrence, held a press conference on the 2nd floor of the Participation Solidarity on the morning of the 19th and said, It had to be done, and the causal relationship related to the health victims had to be comprehensively recognized.”
Earlier, the 23rd Division of the Seoul Central District Court’s Criminal Agreement (President Judge Yoo Young-geun) sentenced each innocent to former SK Chemicals CEO Hong Ji-ho and Ahn Yong-chan, former CEO of Aekyung Industrial, who were indicted on charges such as business negligence. At the time, the court said, “The Ministry of Environment’s comprehensive report, which summarizes all the tests and research results, is based on inhalation toxicity tests and epidemiological investigations in animal experiments. It is difficult to say that the general causal relationship for triggered exacerbation has been proven.”
At the press conference on this day, academic experts such as Baek Do-myeong, a professor at Seoul National University Graduate School of Public Health, who testified at CMIT and MIT-related trials, as well as officials from the Korean Environmental Health Association, re-explained the harmfulness of CMIT and MIT.
At the trial, experts criticized that various studies were reported by experts, such as animal test results and environmental exposure investigation results with statements from victims, but criticized that the court had solved cases that had to be resolved through scientific methods through criminal methods. The scientific method does not use 100% confidence, and despite the existence of various variables such as measurement errors, the court demanded a’clear causal relationship’.
The Korean Environmental Health Association said about the court that day, △Even though the victim was present, the evidence of the damage was found in animal experiments.△Environmental diseases are non-specific and widespread in exposure, so science, not the court, should do so to determine the impact of the victim’s health. Despite the possibility of causing lung damage in a toxicity test against MIT, the court criticized that it was unable to admit the validity of the ruling, saying that the court did not respect it.
In particular, in a study conducted by the researchers from 2018 to 2019, they pointed out that the court had tolerated the’scientific fact’ of finding inflammation and degeneration in the upper respiratory tract of mice exposed to inhalation to CMIT and MIT. At the time, the researchers said, “Although it did not cause pulmonary fibrosis in the lower respiratory tract of the experimental animal, considering the differences in the anatomical structure of the respiratory tract, the induction of lung damage such as pulmonary fibrosis cannot be excluded.”
Professor Park Tae-Hyun of the Graduate School of Law of Kangwon University said, “This case was an unprecedented trial in which prosecution and trial were carried out by relying on science to verify the causal relationship.” He said, “It was generally denied the credibility of the findings of experts, asking for proof like any other criminal trial.”
Professor Park said, “The court pointed out that the testimony of experts is assertive and there is room for bias, which is ignorant of the attitude of scientists and lack of understanding of the scientific methodology. “Please judge again.”