南部地區可能發生5公尺以上海嘯的說法，主要是根據《臺灣采訪冊》於1830年訪談、記載的1781年「加藤港暴漲」事件之詮釋，及據此衍生的數學模式模擬。然「加藤港暴漲」事件發生當時，高雄、屏東平原已經納入清帝國「鳳山縣」治理，「加藤港」屬於「港東里」的行政範圍。這場災害是事發49年後才經採訪、記錄，不僅沒有發生當時的相關官方紀錄，記載事件的發生位置、漲水高度或水平距離錯誤、不明，重大災害更僅導致一位不孝悍婦喪命，且至今亦尚未發現任何海嘯的地質紀錄，更甚者是同時期之颱風、地震災害紀錄都相對完整。本文依據文獻、古地圖資料分析，說明加藤港的正確位置，及「加藤港暴漲」被認為是兩波波高分別是3至5公尺海嘯的說法，是奉命採訪的官員對恩貢生錯誤、不詳盡報導做的不明確記錄，再加上現代學者對「暴漲」現象做的狹隘詮釋所形成的。「加藤港暴漲」事件的真實性疑點太多，是「海嘯」的說法更是脫離現實，早應該認定為不實傳言或假新聞而予以「結案」處理，無需繼續推敲、討論。不過「加藤港暴漲」是海嘯的真偽，與高屏海岸是否曾經發生海嘯，純屬不同議題。全世界的海岸都有面臨「海嘯危險」的可能性，高屏海岸當然也不例外，但「可能性」畢竟與「事實」不同，「危險」與「風險」是不同的概念，高屏海岸是否有海嘯災害的地質記錄和未來面臨的「海嘯風險」才是需要進一步研究和確認的主題。

Many modern researchers have claimed a high possibility of a historical tsunami strike in southwestern Taiwan based on a piece of Qing dynasty historical record, mainly from the sentence 'The violently rising (water) in Ka-tȇng Harbor', and based their tsunami model on 'the historical fact'. This rumored 1781 event was recorded in 1830 in the 'Taiwan Interviews' by interviewing a local, imperial examinee of special occasion. Although the piece of history was heavily adopted as a reason to study tsunami or validate modeled tsunami scenarios, most researchers treated this piece of history as an ambiguous fact without validating the record. This investigation demonstrates that at the time of the 'violent rising water' event in the Ka-tȇng Harbor, both Kaohsiung and Pingtung plain were incorporated into the local government system in the Qing dynasty as 'Fengshan County'. The place of the event 'Ka-tȇng Harbor' belonged to Kangtung-Li (East harbor area), which was falsely claimed to be in Kanghsi-Li (West harbor area). The 1781 'natural hazard' was not seen in any official document at the time, while contemporary earthquake and typhoon hazards were recorded in detail. The event was also recorded 49 years after it occurred, with a very ambiguous water rising distance (unclear whether horizontal or vertical), and mentioning only one fatality, who happened to be a bad female who supposedly often mistreated the elders. The ambiguous, dubious records need a formal examination. This investigation analyzes literature and maps made in different eras to identify the real location of Ka-tȇng Harbor. The original records were analyzed to examine why the historical record was interpreted as 'two waves of tsunamis with wave heights 3 to 5 meters'. Our analysis shows that the Ka-tȇng Harbor event did not agree with contemporary historical records and had many suspicious claims that could be counterproductive to real tsunami research for this region. Although our research indicates that the historical record of the Ka-tȇng Harbor event contains more erroneous information than fact, and can lead to inaccurate research results, the risk of tsunami in southwestern Taiwan needs to be evaluated. Researchers need to uncover more direct evidence of paleotsunamis and evaluate the possibility of any tsunami scenarios raised by researchers. Relying on unverified historical record for paleotsunami research harms the important work needed for our society.