Making Sense of the Pollution

Lauren McCarthy | Jan 28, 2013 6:00 pm | 3 comments | 2939 reads

With the “air-pocalypse” and giant domes over international schools, it’s easy to jump on the alarmist bandwagon and swear we’ll make plans to leave. It's especially easy on afternoons like these, when buildings a block away are mere hazy outlines. Luckily, there are cooler heads in the city who are providing some useful information on exactly what this pollution means for those that have to live (and breathe) with it.

Beijing Cream have posted (and kindly uploaded on Youku) a 30-minute discussion between Fons Tuinstra (president of the China Speakers Bureau) and Richard Brubaker (of All Roads Lead to China.com) about Beijing’s pollution, from its causes to its effects. The video below not only breaks down the city’s air problems into coherent and straightforward details but also addresses the efforts being made by the government.

Meanwhile, Dr. Richard Saint Cyr has several pollution-specific posts that work at separating fact from fiction. Some of his most recent topical blogs include looking at how pollution compares to smoking, a syllabus on Pollution 101 and an Economic Observer podcast on the costs of living in a polluted city.

For a full list of air pollution posts on MyHealth Beijing, click here.

Photo: @rashiq of IGers Beijing

Comments

New comments are displayed first.

Comments

bluefish's picture bluefish Submitted by Guest on Tue, 01/29/2013 - 10:57

I'm mystified by the opening paragraph. An alarmist, is someone who invents or exaggerates danger by false or exaggerated reports, with the intention of spreading panic.

I've not met or read any of these alarmists. Are you suggesting that an international school's intention to protect the children in their care is alarmist? It's alarmist for anyone to suggest that they should leave the city?

Far from alarmist, that's actually a pretty smart idea. What happens to developing lungs, brains, immune systems with pollution of this type and severity at regular intervals throughout childhood? Can you tell us? Have you looked through NIEHS air pollution studies and dismissed the children's study in Mexico City, which showed wide-spread lung damage in the children? Or any of the studies linking pollution, in cities with levels far lower than this one regulary posts, to lung cancer, rises in blood pressure, asthma and even lower IQ's for children who's mothers are exposed to a lot of pollutiion while pregnant? (Thats the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University study, if you need help finding it.) Plenty of these studies are observational and bear further research, but they are sufficiently concerning that people ought to know about them and take them into account. And again: they are mostly done in cities with pollution levels far, far below what we see normally, not just during the worst times, here in Beijing. People shouldn't be castigated for choosing to move away in the interest of their own health and that of their families.

So far I haven't met anyone rushing about insisting that we all have to leave or we'll all die (which would be alarmist). I've only met people discussing it like rational beings, and people making the personal decision to leave for themselves. Who are you to call these people alarmist?

But thank goodness. We've got some guy who runs a website or something to tell us why it happens. That will make everything ok....

jorobone's picture jorobone Submitted by Guest on Tue, 01/29/2013 - 07:28

Look outside right now (7:26am Tuesday morning). It's not the highest PM 2.5 reading I've seen but it's the least visibility I've ever seen in 3 years here. I'll be moving back to America in less than a month.

Validate your mobile phone number to post comments.