Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

Roadside

No Action Talk Only meanwhile roadside polution levels in December will be high to very high at CWB,, Mongkok and Central roadside stations without the need of monitoring equipment to report this

Well, the United States already has strict emissions controls and PM2.5 LAWS !

EPD collaborates with United States EPA to expand opportunities in environmental protection

Hong Kong (HKSAR) – The Environmental Protection Department (EPD) today (October 26) signed a Statement of Intent with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) that outlines a joint commitment for closer cooperation.

The joint statement was signed by Director of Environmental Protection, Ms Anissa Wong, on behalf of the department in the presence of Assistant Administrator of the US EPA, Mr Malcolm Jackson, at the Eco Expo Asia being held in Hong Kong. Under the agreement the EPD and the US EPA agree to leverage on their existing relationship to expand regional cooperation to promote “low carbon, high technology and low pollution” communities and expand capacity in environmental protection.

“Over the years, United States and Hong Kong environmental professionals have collaborated in capacity building and technical exchanges in many areas. The signing of thisStatement of Intent signifies the furtherance of our cooperation in environmental and sustainable development.We look forward to the exciting opportunities and fruitful exchanges under the strengthened partnership, which will help us move along the pathway of low pollution, low carbon development,” said Ms Wong.

By deepening collaboration between Hong Kong and the United States, the two agencies will seek to jointly address environmental challenges of mutual concern and drive further collaboration efforts in the region.

“Interdependent economies require sustainable development to continue to thrive. The US EPA and HK EPD recognise that pollution and environmental challenges are not confined by geographic or economic boundaries.

Through our collaboration we intend to promote and strengthen regional partnerships to advance shared environmental and health priorities,” said a spokesperson for the US EPA.

Collaboration between the two sides will focus on fundamental challenges, including air and water quality protection and waste management. Both sides believe that these efforts will protect the shared environment as well as support the development of practical and cost-effective environmental solutions that drive innovation and technology, environmental jobs, and economic opportunities.

Source: HKSAR Government

Truck replacement programme introduced at Port of Tacoma

http://www.portworld.com/news/i107922/Truck_replacement_programme_introduced_at_Port_of_Tacoma

http://i.pmcdn.net/z/img/107922_10124_3_s.jpg

Nov. 4, 2011

By 2015, about 80% of trucks serving the port will be required to have model year 2007 or newer engines.

The Port of Tacoma has introduced a voluntary programme in the Tacoma Tideflat offering truck owners a financial incentive to purchase newer, lower-emission trucks to improve air quality in the region.

The Truck Scrappage and Replacements for Air in Puget Sound (Tacoma ScRAPS) is part of the port’s Clean Truck programme which targets heavy-duty trucks with pre-1994 model year engines that operate in the Tacoma area.

Under the programme, eligible truck owners will receive a $30,000 incentive when they scrap their pre-1994 truck and purchase a new one with a model year 2007 engine or newer.

An incentive of $5,000 will also be offered to truck owners that scrap their pre-1994 truck and purchase a truck with a model year engine from 1994 to 2006.

Currently, trucks serving at port terminals are required to have model year 1994 or newer engines.

By 2015, about 80% of trucks serving the port will be required to have model year 2007 or newer engines.

The programme is operated through a partnership between the City of Tacoma and Cascade Sierra Solutions.

Truck owners interested in learning if they qualify for the programme can call  (253) 617-3201 or visit the Tacoma ScRAPS office at 2002 Stewart St. in Tacoma on weekdays from 8:00am to 5pm.

Seeing Through the Smog

http://hk.asia-city.com/city-living/article/seeing-through-smog

In addition to all the particles and toxic gases floating through our city’s air, there’s a lot of misinformation, too. We tracked down the experts and combed research reports to debunk common myths about air pollution. We’re not gonna lie—some of the stats, and the general apathy towards the issue, are pretty scary. But since staying indoors all day isn’t an option, arming ourselves with knowledge is the next best thing, and it’s the first step toward a long-term solution. The air itself may not be crystal clear now (or ever) but we hope you come to see the situation a little more clearly.

By HK staff | published Oct 20, 2011

Seeing Through the Smog

Seeing Through the Smog

Seeing Through the Smog

China, rather than local sources, is the main reason for all of our air pollution problems.

False.
Hongkongers shy away from taking responsibility for the air pollution problem afflicting our city. We have an easy scapegoat—which to argue that it’s factories and other sources on the mainland that emit most of the pollutants that invade our air, and that Hong Kong itself only plays a minor role. That is definitely not true—just look at the statistics.
A research study conducted by the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology in 2007 showed that local sources are the primary factors contributing to air pollution 53 percent of the time. Regional sources, on the other hand, are crucial influences on air pollution only 36 percent of the time.
At a local level, exhaust from vehicles (cars, trucks, buses stopped end-to-end in traffic) and marine transportation (yes, all those container ships constantly chugging through our waters) are major sources of pollutants. It is difficult for pollutants to disperse, especially in such a densely populated city, where they stagnate along the roads, trapped in by high-rise buildings that create urban canyons. At the same time, Hong Kong’s power plants, from Tuen Mun’s to Lamma’s—which burn coal in order to generate electricity—also plays a major role in dirtying our air. – Grace Tsoi
It can give me asthma, respiratory illnesses or other health problems.
Sad but true.
Lots of stuff suspended in our air—Including tiny particles, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, ozone, smog, carbon monoxide and lead—has been linked to everything from heart and lung illnesses to diabetes to simple irritation of the eyes, nose and throat—especially for children and the elderly, according to information compiled by Clean Air Network. Studies are constantly underway, but thus far HKU researchers have pointed out that there are correlations between air pollution and visits to your general practitioner, hospital stays and premature deaths.
On an anecdotal level, online forums like Geoxpat are full of threads by newly arrived residents who face a number of health issues upon moving to Hong Kong. Granted, those could be from living in a place with an array of viruses and other disease carriers that their immune systems aren’t yet equipped to fight off, but experts say that the pollution sure doesn’t help.
Respected institutions, ranging from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in the US to the World Health Organization, have published papers on the negative health effects of air pollution. Back in 1974, an American institution called the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences started to fund research that eventually showed a link between air pollution and respiratory health.
According to the NIEHS, it found that “people living in the more polluted cities had a higher risk of hospitalization and early death from lung cancer and other respiratory diseases than those living in the less polluted cities”—and those kinds of correlations continue to be studied to this day. Even the Hong Kong government, which tends to downplay the impact of air pollution on the city, acknowledges on the Centre for Health Protection website that “[t]he impact of air pollution on human health has been widely recognized.”
Most recently, a study published earlier this year by HKU researchers found that all those days when you can’t see the other side of the harbor or the top of the ICC (okay, when there’s low visibility in general due to pollution, rather than to rain clouds) have a direct correlation with the city’s increased mortality rates. “The results show that for each 6.5 kilometers [of] reduction in visibility, there is a 1.13% increase in all natural (non-accidental) causes of death, accounting for about 450 deaths,” researchers write. “By applying the visibility measurement result, over the four years from 2007-2010, poor visibility was associated with 1,200 deaths annually in Hong Kong, a total of 4,800 additional deaths.”
Most of that was due to respiratory and cardiovascular disease. It’s not that the smogginess necessarily caused death, but merely that it serves as a reliable, easily interpretable indicator by which to measure how many pollutants are in the air that day.
That’s not to say that everyone has to cower inside on days when it looks like grey soup outside the window—more on that later—but it’s one more notch of evidence that the health effects of air pollution aren’t anything to scoff at. – Hana R. Alberts
If the Air Pollution Index (API) is more than 101, the government advises certain at-risk populations to avoid exercise and outdoor activities; if it’s more than 201, the general public is given the same recommendations. But if the API is less than 100, there’s nothing to worry about.
NOPE.
You’d think measuring air pollution would be pretty straightforward, but it’s not. The government keeps its own readings, which are presented in a list of measurements taken at various points, from hotspots like Central to green, idyllic spots like Tap Mun (whose readings, by the way, aren’t that low). These are taken from stations on top of buildings, which don’t reflect the extent of roadside pollution, a.k.a. just how much the buses spew exhaust in your face as you’re waiting at the crosswalk.
There are three roadside monitoring stations that measure just how bad the air is in the traffic-jammed streets of Central, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok. Just for reference, at the Central roadside measuring station, as of Oct 16, 98 out of 289 days so far this year have been alert days.
Advocacy groups like Clean Air Network and Clear the Air take issue with how the Hong Kong government measures air pollution—and how it interprets the readings. To put it simply, the World Health Organization has more stringent guidelines for what it considers to be the maximum amount of pollutants in the air; meanwhile, according to CAN, Hong Kong’s Air Quality Objectives “permit pollutant levels two to four times greater than those recommended” by the WHO.
In any case, API levels of 101-200 are classified as high, and 201-500 as severe—meaning the public is advised to refrain from physical exertion or even outdoor activities during those days. As Environmental Protection Department Information Officer YF Chau explains, “API is a simple way of describing air pollution levels. In Hong Kong, the API converts air pollution data from several types of pollutants into a value ranging from 0 to 500. We report the real-time general and roadside APIs hourly. These pollutants are nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, ozone, carbon monoxide and respirable suspended particulates. An index is calculated for each of the five pollutants and the highest index is reported as the API of that hour.”
But does this mean we are A-OK when API levels are below 100? Not according to Jia Yu-ling, education and research manager at Clean Air Network. “The API is a simplified index for assessing general air quality levels, but the standards are based on the government’s own Air Quality Objectives (AQO), and these objectives are very outdated—they’re more than 20 years old and backwards compared to standards from the World Health Organization,” she says.
Even the government acknowledges that lower API levels don’t translate to complete safety. For levels from 51-100, the EPD website says: “Long-term effects may, however, be observed if exposed at such level persistently for months or years.”
Even if the API isn’t below the danger zone, it doesn’t mean it’s safe to go out, Jia asserts: “There is no research [out there] based on what level API will be safe.” As CAN’s website further explains, “[Even if] pollutant levels are considered unsafe under the WHO Air Quality Guidelines, they may not result in an API reading in excess of 100. When the API is below 100 but pollution exceeds the [World Health Organization recommendations], you must make a judgment call for yourself about the advisability of venturing outside in a highly trafficked are.”
There’s a lot of jargon involved in these kinds of analyses, but it’s all a complicated way of saying that everything’s not peachy keen if it looks like a clear day and the air pollution measurements aren’t sky-high. There’s still plenty of risk, it’s just a matter of how we choose to deal with it. – Adele Wong
It’s not safe to exercise outside because of it.
True, technically—but let’s not get all alarmist and agoraphobic here.
Just because our smoggy air can carry short- and long-term health effects doesn’t mean that we should stay indoors all day and avoid inhaling when we’re outside. That’s just not viable.
Exercising is a bit different, though, because while running or biking, we breathe hard to take in more oxygen to support our physical exertion, meaning that we’re inhaling more of the stuff that’s in the air (remember the tiny particles and the lead and all the rest of it) and introducing it to our respiratory and circulatory systems. “Athletes typically take in 10 to 20 times as much air,” than regular folks, an American university professor told the New York Times in 2007. Many media reports, too, have documented how athletes fear the effects of air pollution on their bodies—take, for example, the way many competitors were wary of the air quality in Beijing ahead of the 2008 Olympics.
According to a report called “The Air We Breathe: A Public Health Dialogue,” on policy think tank Civic Exchange’s website, dated from 2009, “Hong Kong’s average pollution levels are so high that in recent years there have been only about 30 days per year when it would be truly safe to do exercise.” This stat was determined by HKU researchers based on the number of days and the amount by which Hong Kong’s air pollution exceeds the WHO guidelines, and also took into account that exercise inevitably means that you take in more air in a shorter time span, “increasing exposure to pollution and amplifying damage to the body.”
“Anyone taking exercise in Hong Kong needs to be aware of the risks air pollution poses to their health,” then-HKU professor Anthony Hedley said in the report. “People here are caught in an impossible dilemma—regular exercise is absolutely necessary for good heath—but most of the time it also increases exposure to the harmful effects of air pollution.” (Hedley himself, incidentally, moved away from Hong Kong earlier this year in a very public and drastic statement about Hong Kong’s air quality.)
Now for some practical advice: Hak-Kan Lai, a research assistant professor at HKU’s school of public health whose research focuses on the intersection of air pollution and health, recommends people work out at 6am, like he does.
“The best would be even earlier. If people are capable of waking up even earlier, it would be better,” he says, adding that people should always exercise away from busy highways: “Try to jog somewhere far away from the roads.” – Hana R. Alberts
Moving out to the New Territories or to outlying islands can reduce the negative effects of air pollution on our bodies.
TRUE (ish).
For many Hongkongers, one solution to the air pollution problem is to simply move house. As pollution worsens and property prices in the city get even higher, rural areas such as Sai Kung, Tai Po and the outlying islands can seem like more attractive options—particularly for those with young families. But are we just kidding ourselves? Can we really significantly protect ourselves and our loved ones from the negative effects of air pollution just by moving out of town? We
took a closer look at the Environmental Protection Department’s air pollution readings for the first three quarters of 2011 at Tap Mun (an island in outback Sai Kung) Tung Chung (Lantau) and Central.
While the air quality out in the boondocks is better than in the town center, with a total of 1,974 “Low” Air Pollution Index (API) hours (82 days) logged in Tung Chung and 1,841 hours (77 days) logged in Tap Mun, it still pales in comparison to the “High to Very High” bad air hours, of which there were 2,550 (100 days) and 2,095 (87 days) respectively. However, you’re better off there than in Central, where roadside stations logged a shocking 5,563 hours (231 days) of “High to Very High” readings, and, um… zero “Low” readings for the year so far.
“Is Lantau safer? Generally, yes,” says Jia Yi-ling, education and research manager at the Clean Air Network. “There’s less traffic and more open space, so pollution can better disperse. But that doesn’t mean it’s safe. In general, air pollution in Hong Kong is bad, no matter how far you move.”
So there you have it: Sai Kung and the outlying islands might have better air, but working on a relative scale here—you’re still better off emigrating to New Zealand. – Sarah Fung
Smokers and tobacco use are a negligible part of air pollution.
FALSE.
There is no denying the impact of cigarette smoke on the air. “Tobacco smoke, including the smoke exhaled by the smoker and the smoke emitted from the burning tobacco at the tip of a cigarette or cigar, is one of the important sources of indoor air pollutants. It contains more than 4,000 individual chemical compounds.
Many toxic agents and more than 50 carcinogens have been identified in cigarette smoke,” says YF Chau, information officer at the Environmental Protection Department. Since the city’s indoor smoking ban, enacted in 2007 and extended to bars, clubs and mahjong parlors in 2009, James Middleton says that the situation has gotten a bit better, although government enforcement of the ban is still inadequate.
But what about outdoor smokers? “Tobacco smoke plumes are as dangerous outdoors to bystanders,” Middleton says. A Stanford University study in 2007 also points out that smoking outdoors is very harmful.
“Some folks have expressed the opinion that exposure to outdoor tobacco smoke is insignificant, because it dissipates quickly into the air,” assistant professor and lead author of the study Neil Klepeis told the Stanford University News service. “But our findings show that a person sitting or standing next to a smoker outdoors can breathe in wisps of smoke that are many times more concentrated than normal background air pollution levels.”
“It is undeniable that tobacco use deteriorates air quality,” says Angel Tam of the Hong Kong Council of Smoking and Health. But it does far more than that—it also costs the city human lives. According to Middleton, 7,000 people die every year in Hong Kong because of cigarette smoke, and 23 percent of them are passive smokers—meaning they don’t smoke themselves but inhale cigarette smoke from those around them.
That’s approximately 1,600 people dying each year from inhaling toxic cigarette smoke from the environment. Sidestream smoke, which is let off into the ether while someone holds a smoldering cigarette, cigar or pipe, is five to 53 percent more toxic than what the smoker inhales himself, says Middleton.
It’s not exactly the same as the carbon monoxide in bus exhaust or the tiny throat- and lung-clogging particles emitted by a coal-burning power plant, but it’s just one more item to add to a long list of worrying air problems for Hongkongers. – Adele Wong
If everyone had electric cars, and the buses switched off of diesel, we wouldn’t have problems anymore.
False.
It would help, no doubt about it—but it’s highly unlikely. “Car emissions [are the] second largest source of pollution in Hong Kong,” says CAN’s Jia Tu-lin. Clean Air Network believes focusing on reducing the number of commercial vehicles running on diesel is an important step to protect Hongkongers’ health. They make up 20 percent of vehicles on the road but pose the biggest health threat.
“A lot of buses in Hong Kong today have old engines [which] are highly polluting,” says Jia. “If those buses can switch to newer engines, roadside pollution will be reduced.”
Clear the Air’s Middleton thinks big bus terminals should be built in areas skirting the densest parts of the city that would act as massive interchanges where you could change from a regular bus to an electric one, meaning that only electric buses would run through the busiest parts of the city.
It would prevent us from further damaging our air quality, and it would also be more efficient, given the glut of buses trolling the streets and emitting noxious exhaust that are less than full.
“Walk around 10:30 in the morning in Central and just count the number of buses and how many people are on them,“ Middleton says. “We call the buses moving advertising billboards, because that’s all they do for 90 percent of the day.”
But what about electric cars? Less than 100 electric cars were registered by the end of last year. And while it’s a good goal to get gas-guzzlers off the streets eventually, there’s a long road
ahead—both for engineers working on affordable technology like batteries and charging time and for advocates to encourage adoption of the technology among drivers who prefer the status of brand-name vehicles. – Katie Kenny
The government recognizes the problem, and is doing everything it can to help abate it.
Yes and no.
The Hong Kong government has cited air pollution as an important issue in its policy addresses from both 2011 and 2010, and Pearl Ng, assistant information officer at the Environmental Protection Bureau, states that “the government has accorded top priority to combat our air pollution.”
Some of the measures put forward to combat air pollution include switching to zero-emission, electric buses; subsidizing public transport vehicles that utilize liquefied petroleum gas (LPG); and drafting a proposal for updating the air quality objectives (AQOs). However, the government has been consistently criticized by both mainstream media outlets and local environmental groups for not doing nearly enough.
“Donald Tsang looks out and sees a blue sky and he thinks the air is clean,” said Clear the Air’s Middleton, referring to a 2006 interview with the Hong Kong Journal where Tsang stated that “the air is not all that bad… the air quality today is not inferior to Washington, D.C.,” when, in fact, Hong Kong’s air pollution was about 4.5 times as bad.
“The government is doing something, but not enough,” adds Joanne Ooi, chief executive of Clean Air Network. “Although Tsang announced two major initiatives in this year’s policy address… he has yet to deliver on his stated promise to announce new Air Quality Objectives before the end of this year. Without new AQOs, Hong Kong is still missing the cornerstone of a clean air regime, leading Clean Air Network to question Tsang’s understanding of the connection between air and health.” – Leanne Mirandilla
If I buy an air purifier, I can protect myself from pollution.
Half-true.
Step into any Fortress store, and you’ll see that air purifiers are all the rage.
Available in every kind of shape and size, these machines promise to remove harmful airbound substances from our homes. But how effective are they really?
Suzanne Cheung, head of environmental management at the Business Environment Counsel, warns against placing too much trust in air purifiers to improve your living environment.
“Firstly, it depends what kind of pollution you are trying to stay away from. Common pollutants at home include dust, mites, tobacco smoke, VOCs and adhesives—particularly in newly renovated homes. If you want to get rid of these pollutants, then an air purifier can help you get rid of those.”
In terms of Hong Kong’s general air quality however, Cheung advises caution. “Air purifiers are not magic machines. Most of them will get rid of dust, but for very fine particles, the commercially available ones are not so effective.” There are some on the market, however, that are able to filter smaller particles, but these are usually very large.
Before buying an air purifier, no matter what purpose it’s for, Cheung recommends looking for certification from a third party so you know that it can live up to the manufacturer’s claims. “If you want to properly purify the air in a larger room, you’ll need on that’s at least half the height of your door,” advises Cheung. For small Hong Kong flats, it may be impractical—but those are the costs. – Sarah Fung
There’s nothing I can do to help.
Absolute tripe.
There’s plenty that an ordinary Hongkonger can do—and most of these don’t involve any radical lifestyle changes.
“[A] simple action [is to] use public transport more and drive less. If driving is necessary, try [using an] electric or hybrid,” CAN’s Ooi suggests. Adds Middleton of Clear the Air, “Keep out of the streets of Causeway Bay and… Mong Kok” to limit exposure to roadside air pollution.
People can also shake things up by expressing their concern. “People can express their point of view by [attending] public forums or [using] social media to encourage decision makers to take action,” Ooi advises.
Middleton, however, favors a more hard-nosed approach: “Force the government to act. Yes, get in the streets. That’s the one thing Beijing doesn’t like to see. If you get 100,000 people in the streets of Hong Kong complaining about the lack of action on pollution, then things will happen.” – Leanne Mirandilla

China, rather than local sources, is the main reason for all of our air pollution problems.False.Hongkongers shy away from taking responsibility for the air pollution problem afflicting our city. We have an easy scapegoat—which to argue that it’s factories and other sources on the mainland that emit most of the pollutants that invade our air, and that Hong Kong itself only plays a minor role. That is definitely not true—just look at the statistics.A research study conducted by the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology in 2007 showed that local sources are the primary factors contributing to air pollution 53 percent of the time. Regional sources, on the other hand, are crucial influences on air pollution only 36 percent of the time.At a local level, exhaust from vehicles (cars, trucks, buses stopped end-to-end in traffic) and marine transportation (yes, all those container ships constantly chugging through our waters) are major sources of pollutants. It is difficult for pollutants to disperse, especially in such a densely populated city, where they stagnate along the roads, trapped in by high-rise buildings that create urban canyons. At the same time, Hong Kong’s power plants, from Tuen Mun’s to Lamma’s—which burn coal in order to generate electricity—also plays a major role in dirtying our air. – Grace TsoiIt can give me asthma, respiratory illnesses or other health problems.Sad but true.Lots of stuff suspended in our air—Including tiny particles, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, ozone, smog, carbon monoxide and lead—has been linked to everything from heart and lung illnesses to diabetes to simple irritation of the eyes, nose and throat—especially for children and the elderly, according to information compiled by Clean Air Network. Studies are constantly underway, but thus far HKU researchers have pointed out that there are correlations between air pollution and visits to your general practitioner, hospital stays and premature deaths.On an anecdotal level, online forums like Geoxpat are full of threads by newly arrived residents who face a number of health issues upon moving to Hong Kong. Granted, those could be from living in a place with an array of viruses and other disease carriers that their immune systems aren’t yet equipped to fight off, but experts say that the pollution sure doesn’t help.Respected institutions, ranging from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in the US to the World Health Organization, have published papers on the negative health effects of air pollution. Back in 1974, an American institution called the National Institute of Environmental HealthSciences started to fund research that eventually showed a link between air pollution and respiratory health.According to the NIEHS, it found that “people living in the more polluted cities had a higher risk of hospitalization and early death from lung cancer and other respiratory diseases than those living in the less polluted cities”—and those kinds of correlations continue to be studied to this day. Even the Hong Kong government, which tends to downplay the impact of air pollution on the city, acknowledges on the Centre for Health Protection website that “[t]he impact of air pollution on human health has been widely recognized.”Most recently, a study published earlier this year by HKU researchers found that all those days when you can’t see the other side of the harbor or the top of the ICC (okay, when there’s low visibility in general due to pollution, rather than to rain clouds) have a direct correlation with the city’s increased mortality rates. “The results show that for each 6.5 kilometers [of] reduction in visibility, there is a 1.13% increase in all natural (non-accidental) causes of death, accounting for about 450 deaths,” researchers write. “By applying the visibility measurement result, over the four years from 2007-2010, poor visibility was associated with 1,200 deaths annually in Hong Kong, a total of 4,800 additional deaths.”Most of that was due to respiratory and cardiovascular disease. It’s not that the smogginess necessarily caused death, but merely that it serves as a reliable, easily interpretable indicator by which to measure how many pollutants are in the air that day.That’s not to say that everyone has to cower inside on days when it looks like grey soup outside the window—more on that later—but it’s one more notch of evidence that the health effects of air pollution aren’t anything to scoff at. – Hana R. AlbertsIf the Air Pollution Index (API) is more than 101, the government advises certain at-risk populations to avoid exercise and outdoor activities; if it’s more than 201, the general public is given the same recommendations. But if the API is less than 100, there’s nothing to worry about.NOPE.You’d think measuring air pollution would be pretty straightforward, but it’s not. The government keeps its own readings, which are presented in a list of measurements taken at various points, from hotspots like Central to green, idyllic spots like Tap Mun (whose readings, by the way, aren’t that low). These are taken from stations on top of buildings, which don’t reflect the extent of roadside pollution, a.k.a. just how much the buses spew exhaust in your face as you’re waiting at the crosswalk.There are three roadside monitoring stations that measure just how bad the air is in the traffic-jammed streets of Central, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok. Just for reference, at the Central roadside measuring station, as of Oct 16, 98 out of 289 days so far this year have been alert days.Advocacy groups like Clean Air Network and Clear the Air take issue with how the Hong Kong government measures air pollution—and how it interprets the readings. To put it simply, the World Health Organization has more stringent guidelines for what it considers to be the maximum amount of pollutants in the air; meanwhile, according to CAN, Hong Kong’s Air Quality Objectives “permit pollutant levels two to four times greater than those recommended” by the WHO.In any case, API levels of 101-200 are classified as high, and 201-500 as severe—meaning the public is advised to refrain from physical exertion or even outdoor activities during those days. As Environmental Protection Department Information Officer YF Chau explains, “API is a simple way of describing air pollution levels. In Hong Kong, the API converts air pollution data from several types of pollutants into a value ranging from 0 to 500. We report the real-time general and roadside APIs hourly. These pollutants are nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, ozone, carbon monoxide and respirable suspended particulates. An index is calculated for each of the five pollutants and the highest index is reported as the API of that hour.”But does this mean we are A-OK when API levels are below 100? Not according to Jia Yu-ling, education and research manager at Clean Air Network. “The API is a simplified index for assessing general air quality levels, but the standards are based on the government’s own Air Quality Objectives (AQO), and these objectives are very outdated—they’re more than 20 years old and backwards compared to standards from the World Health Organization,” she says.Even the government acknowledges that lower API levels don’t translate to complete safety. For levels from 51-100, the EPD website says: “Long-term effects may, however, be observed if exposed at such level persistently for months or years.”Even if the API isn’t below the danger zone, it doesn’t mean it’s safe to go out, Jia asserts: “There is no research [out there] based on what level API will be safe.” As CAN’s website further explains, “[Even if] pollutant levels are considered unsafe under the WHO Air Quality Guidelines, they may not result in an API reading in excess of 100. When the API is below 100 but pollution exceeds the [World Health Organization recommendations], you must make a judgment call for yourself about the advisability of venturing outside in a highly trafficked are.”There’s a lot of jargon involved in these kinds of analyses, but it’s all a complicated way of saying that everything’s not peachy keen if it looks like a clear day and the air pollution measurements aren’t sky-high. There’s still plenty of risk, it’s just a matter of how we choose to deal with it. – Adele WongIt’s not safe to exercise outside because of it.True, technically—but let’s not get all alarmist and agoraphobic here.Just because our smoggy air can carry short- and long-term health effects doesn’t mean that we should stay indoors all day and avoid inhaling when we’re outside. That’s just not viable.Exercising is a bit different, though, because while running or biking, we breathe hard to take in more oxygen to support our physical exertion, meaning that we’re inhaling more of the stuff that’s in the air (remember the tiny particles and the lead and all the rest of it) and introducing it to our respiratory and circulatory systems. “Athletes typically take in 10 to 20 times as much air,” than regular folks, an American university professor told the New York Times in 2007. Many media reports, too, have documented how athletes fear the effects of air pollution on their bodies—take, for example, the way many competitors were wary of the air quality in Beijing ahead of the 2008 Olympics.According to a report called “The Air We Breathe: A Public Health Dialogue,” on policy think tank Civic Exchange’s website, dated from 2009, “Hong Kong’s average pollution levels are so high that in recent years there have been only about 30 days per year when it would be truly safe to do exercise.” This stat was determined by HKU researchers based on the number of days and the amount by which Hong Kong’s air pollution exceeds the WHO guidelines, and also took into account that exercise inevitably means that you take in more air in a shorter time span, “increasing exposure to pollution and amplifying damage to the body.”“Anyone taking exercise in Hong Kong needs to be aware of the risks air pollution poses to their health,” then-HKU professor Anthony Hedley said in the report. “People here are caught in an impossible dilemma—regular exercise is absolutely necessary for good heath—but most of the time it also increases exposure to the harmful effects of air pollution.” (Hedley himself, incidentally, moved away from Hong Kong earlier this year in a very public and drastic statement about Hong Kong’s air quality.)Now for some practical advice: Hak-Kan Lai, a research assistant professor at HKU’s school of public health whose research focuses on the intersection of air pollution and health, recommends people work out at 6am, like he does.“The best would be even earlier. If people are capable of waking up even earlier, it would be better,” he says, adding that people should always exercise away from busy highways: “Try to jog somewhere far away from the roads.” – Hana R. AlbertsMoving out to the New Territories or to outlying islands can reduce the negative effects of air pollution on our bodies.TRUE (ish).For many Hongkongers, one solution to the air pollution problem is to simply move house. As pollution worsens and property prices in the city get even higher, rural areas such as Sai Kung, Tai Po and the outlying islands can seem like more attractive options—particularly for those with young families. But are we just kidding ourselves? Can we really significantly protect ourselves and our loved ones from the negative effects of air pollution just by moving out of town? Wetook a closer look at the Environmental Protection Department’s air pollution readings for the first three quarters of 2011 at Tap Mun (an island in outback Sai Kung) Tung Chung (Lantau) and Central.While the air quality out in the boondocks is better than in the town center, with a total of 1,974 “Low” Air Pollution Index (API) hours (82 days) logged in Tung Chung and 1,841 hours (77 days) logged in Tap Mun, it still pales in comparison to the “High to Very High” bad air hours, of which there were 2,550 (100 days) and 2,095 (87 days) respectively. However, you’re better off there than in Central, where roadside stations logged a shocking 5,563 hours (231 days) of “High to Very High” readings, and, um… zero “Low” readings for the year so far.“Is Lantau safer? Generally, yes,” says Jia Yi-ling, education and research manager at the Clean Air Network. “There’s less traffic and more open space, so pollution can better disperse. But that doesn’t mean it’s safe. In general, air pollution in Hong Kong is bad, no matter how far you move.”So there you have it: Sai Kung and the outlying islands might have better air, but working on a relative scale here—you’re still better off emigrating to New Zealand. – Sarah FungSmokers and tobacco use are a negligible part of air pollution.FALSE.There is no denying the impact of cigarette smoke on the air. “Tobacco smoke, including the smoke exhaled by the smoker and the smoke emitted from the burning tobacco at the tip of a cigarette or cigar, is one of the important sources of indoor air pollutants. It contains more than 4,000 individual chemical compounds.Many toxic agents and more than 50 carcinogens have been identified in cigarette smoke,” says YF Chau, information officer at the Environmental Protection Department. Since the city’s indoor smoking ban, enacted in 2007 and extended to bars, clubs and mahjong parlors in 2009, James Middleton says that the situation has gotten a bit better, although government enforcement of the ban is still inadequate.But what about outdoor smokers? “Tobacco smoke plumes are as dangerous outdoors to bystanders,” Middleton says. A Stanford University study in 2007 also points out that smoking outdoors is very harmful.“Some folks have expressed the opinion that exposure to outdoor tobacco smoke is insignificant, because it dissipates quickly into the air,” assistant professor and lead author of the study Neil Klepeis told the Stanford University News service. “But our findings show that a person sitting or standing next to a smoker outdoors can breathe in wisps of smoke that are many times more concentrated than normal background air pollution levels.”“It is undeniable that tobacco use deteriorates air quality,” says Angel Tam of the Hong Kong Council of Smoking and Health. But it does far more than that—it also costs the city human lives. According to Middleton, 7,000 people die every year in Hong Kong because of cigarette smoke, and 23 percent of them are passive smokers—meaning they don’t smoke themselves but inhale cigarette smoke from those around them.That’s approximately 1,600 people dying each year from inhaling toxic cigarette smoke from the environment. Sidestream smoke, which is let off into the ether while someone holds a smoldering cigarette, cigar or pipe, is five to 53 percent more toxic than what the smoker inhales himself, says Middleton.It’s not exactly the same as the carbon monoxide in bus exhaust or the tiny throat- and lung-clogging particles emitted by a coal-burning power plant, but it’s just one more item to add to a long list of worrying air problems for Hongkongers. – Adele WongIf everyone had electric cars, and the buses switched off of diesel, we wouldn’t have problems anymore.False.It would help, no doubt about it—but it’s highly unlikely. “Car emissions [are the] second largest source of pollution in Hong Kong,” says CAN’s Jia Tu-lin. Clean Air Network believes focusing on reducing the number of commercial vehicles running on diesel is an important step to protect Hongkongers’ health. They make up 20 percent of vehicles on the road but pose the biggest health threat.“A lot of buses in Hong Kong today have old engines [which] are highly polluting,” says Jia. “If those buses can switch to newer engines, roadside pollution will be reduced.”Clear the Air’s Middleton thinks big bus terminals should be built in areas skirting the densest parts of the city that would act as massive interchanges where you could change from a regular bus to an electric one, meaning that only electric buses would run through the busiest parts of the city.It would prevent us from further damaging our air quality, and it would also be more efficient, given the glut of buses trolling the streets and emitting noxious exhaust that are less than full.“Walk around 10:30 in the morning in Central and just count the number of buses and how many people are on them,“ Middleton says. “We call the buses moving advertising billboards, because that’s all they do for 90 percent of the day.”But what about electric cars? Less than 100 electric cars were registered by the end of last year. And while it’s a good goal to get gas-guzzlers off the streets eventually, there’s a long roadahead—both for engineers working on affordable technology like batteries and charging time and for advocates to encourage adoption of the technology among drivers who prefer the status of brand-name vehicles. – Katie KennyThe government recognizes the problem, and is doing everything it can to help abate it.Yes and no.The Hong Kong government has cited air pollution as an important issue in its policy addresses from both 2011 and 2010, and Pearl Ng, assistant information officer at the Environmental Protection Bureau, states that “the government has accorded top priority to combat our air pollution.”Some of the measures put forward to combat air pollution include switching to zero-emission, electric buses; subsidizing public transport vehicles that utilize liquefied petroleum gas (LPG); and drafting a proposal for updating the air quality objectives (AQOs). However, the government has been consistently criticized by both mainstream media outlets and local environmental groups for not doing nearly enough.“Donald Tsang looks out and sees a blue sky and he thinks the air is clean,” said Clear the Air’s Middleton, referring to a 2006 interview with the Hong Kong Journal where Tsang stated that “the air is not all that bad… the air quality today is not inferior to Washington, D.C.,” when, in fact, Hong Kong’s air pollution was about 4.5 times as bad.“The government is doing something, but not enough,” adds Joanne Ooi, chief executive of Clean Air Network. “Although Tsang announced two major initiatives in this year’s policy address… he has yet to deliver on his stated promise to announce new Air Quality Objectives before the end of this year. Without new AQOs, Hong Kong is still missing the cornerstone of a clean air regime, leading Clean Air Network to question Tsang’s understanding of the connection between air and health.” – Leanne MirandillaIf I buy an air purifier, I can protect myself from pollution.Half-true.Step into any Fortress store, and you’ll see that air purifiers are all the rage.Available in every kind of shape and size, these machines promise to remove harmful airbound substances from our homes. But how effective are they really?Suzanne Cheung, head of environmental management at the Business Environment Counsel, warns against placing too much trust in air purifiers to improve your living environment.“Firstly, it depends what kind of pollution you are trying to stay away from. Common pollutants at home include dust, mites, tobacco smoke, VOCs and adhesives—particularly in newly renovated homes. If you want to get rid of these pollutants, then an air purifier can help you get rid of those.”In terms of Hong Kong’s general air quality however, Cheung advises caution. “Air purifiers are not magic machines. Most of them will get rid of dust, but for very fine particles, the commercially available ones are not so effective.” There are some on the market, however, that are able to filter smaller particles, but these are usually very large.Before buying an air purifier, no matter what purpose it’s for, Cheung recommends looking for certification from a third party so you know that it can live up to the manufacturer’s claims. “If you want to properly purify the air in a larger room, you’ll need on that’s at least half the height of your door,” advises Cheung. For small Hong Kong flats, it may be impractical—but those are the costs. – Sarah FungThere’s nothing I can do to help.Absolute tripe.There’s plenty that an ordinary Hongkonger can do—and most of these don’t involve any radical lifestyle changes.“[A] simple action [is to] use public transport more and drive less. If driving is necessary, try [using an] electric or hybrid,” CAN’s Ooi suggests. Adds Middleton of Clear the Air, “Keep out of the streets of Causeway Bay and… Mong Kok” to limit exposure to roadside air pollution.People can also shake things up by expressing their concern. “People can express their point of view by [attending] public forums or [using] social media to encourage decision makers to take action,” Ooi advises.Middleton, however, favors a more hard-nosed approach: “Force the government to act. Yes, get in the streets. That’s the one thing Beijing doesn’t like to see. If you get 100,000 people in the streets of Hong Kong complaining about the lack of action on pollution, then things will happen.” – Leanne Mirandilla

Wake Up and Smell the Pollution by HK staff | HK Magazine Online

April 2010 – respirable suspended fine particulates levels (PM2.5) in micrograms per cubic meter of air (the most lethal form of pollution)

Let’s see some cities in the world PM2.5 levels:

Vancouver 4.8, Sydney 7.0, Hobart 7.1, Perth 8, Stavanger 8.1, Adelaide 8.1, Washington DC 10.7, Madrid 13.1, London 13.5,Los Angeles-Long Beach port 14.8,

Hannover 15.4, Rotterdam 17.9,Singapore 19, Metro Manila 21, Paris 22.9, Dar es Salaam 23, Athens 27.4, Beirut 31, Lima 34.2, Krakow 35.5,

HONG KONG CENTRAL ROADSIDE 36 ! , Dakar 38, Accra 49.8

The (no political will to act) TSANG Pollution Legacy – good riddance !

http://hk.asia-city.com/health/article/wake-and-smell-pollution

Wake Up and Smell the Pollution

June Ng and Jakki Phillips head into the smog to investigate Hong Kong’s bad air crisis.

By HK staff | published Apr 01, 2010

Wake Up and Smell the Pollution

Hong Kong’s air pollution index hit an alarming record of 500

Wake Up and Smell the Pollution

One of the five pollutants in the air – Carbon Monoxide

Wake Up and Smell the Pollution

Satelite image of Hong Kong

Wake Up and Smell the Pollution

Common kind of mask cannot filter out particulates less than 10 micrometers

Hong Kong’s air pollution. You know it’s always been there, and you know on some level that you’re breathing bad air every day, but once you get used to it, you kind of forget about it. Until one day, our sky turns completely yellow and a sickly haze literally engulfs us all.

Without the sudden arrival of a severe sandstorm late last month, we might not have had the crucial wake-up call to our worsening air pollution that we desperately need. And though the cloud has lifted, the government still has its head buried in the sand. When faced with the city’s air pollution index (API) hitting an alarming record high of 500, their less than confidence-boosting response was to claim, “It’s really just sand you’re seeing, not pollution.” Considering that this figure was more than double the previous record high API of 202 in July 2008, you would think the government would take bold and decisive action when faced with a truly alarming reading. Perhaps a few announcements outlining a pollution-busting action plan rather than simply blaming sand from the mainland?

So with the sandstorm thankfully behind us, now is a great time to take a good, hard look at the mess we’re in and figure out just how we got here. How bad is our air pollution problem? Can we expect more choking sandstorms? What’s the government going to do about our air pollution woes? We also look into how you can prepare for the next sand storm, and finally, what you can do to help. Hold your breath, and here we go.

What Exactly is in the Air?

There are six pollutants contributing to our bad air: sulfur dioxide, particulate matters, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone and lead. Last year the Air Quality Objectives Review (AQO) was carried out to re-examine and reset the standard acceptable levels for these pollutants. The original guidelines were drawn up in 1987 and based on WHO guidelines of the time. But, rather shockingly, the government chose only to meet WHO’s entry-level standards—which are for developing countries—rather than adopting levels for developed countries.

For example, the proposed annual objective for the pollutant PM10 (particulates of 10 micrometers or less) is 50 μg/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter), only slightly lower than existing outdated levels of 55μg/m3; while PM2.5, the most dangerous particulate because it is respirable, gets a target of 35μg/m3 (the target for developed countries is 10μg/m3). The objective proposed for sulfur dioxide will be 125 μg/m3, yet the WHO guideline is 20 μg/m3. Mike Kilburn from think tank Civic Exchange says the government only wants to follow the levels for developing countries because it means we’re “allowed” to have dirtier air. This means pollution statistics won’t look so bad and it will seem like we don’t have many bad air days because higher levels of toxic particulates are deemed “acceptable.”

For example, official government data from last year only shows us suffering 40 dirty days, that is, days considered to have excessive pollution levels. If we had to meet WHO guidelines for developed countries our pollution levels would regularly exceed the targets and we’d probably end up with 300 dirty days which would reflect badly in government pollution records. And there is more worrying news. The biggest power company, CLP, recently announced its emissions of nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and respirable suspended particulates have increased by six percent, 20 percent and 30 percent respectively. The rise occurred after they lowered the proportion of natural gas in the fuel mix because they were worried gas in the South China Sea might run out in 2012. But in 2008 the mainland government promised power companies in Hong Kong a steady natural gas supply. But until our government builds the pipelines, the power companies will continue to conserve gas and as a consequence, further pollute our air.

Christian Masset of Clear The Air, an environmental NGO that has been advocating the improvement of air quality in Hong Kong since 1997, thinks the government isn’t doing enough to tackle major polluters in the private sector such as the power companies and bus companies. He says: “We have been talking to the government about introducing an ‘agglomerator’ when burning fuel, which is a technology that can cut down 90 percent of respirable suspended particulates. But after a year-and-a-half they still say they need more time to study.”

Public transport is also a big problem as there are still many Euro I and II buses on the road, together with heavy diesel vehicles. (The “Euro Emissions Standard” is a measurement of vehicle emissions used in EU countries; the higher the number, the lower the emissions). Lau also says a contributing reason for traffic pollution is the inadequate subsidy program for converting heavy trucks from diesel to cleaner models such as Euro IV or above. He says that while the owner of a diesel taxi can get a one-off $40,000 grant to convert to LPG, the subsidiary for trucks varies and can be as low as $10,000. The result of the taxi scheme is that 99 percent now operate in this cleaner mode while the truck scheme has been far less successful. As for bunker-fueled ferries and container ships (the cheapest, and by far most toxic type of fuel), while there are regulations in many countries that stipulate they must switch to low-sulfur fuel when entering the port of the city, there are no such rules in Hong Kong. “The government’s slow pace in dealing with things shows whether they think tackling air pollution is an urgent matter,” says Prentice Koo from Greenpeace.

Don’t Be Blinded by the Sandstorm

While the sandstorm’s heavy dust content did contribute to the record high pollution readings of up to 500, we mustn’t forget that for four days before the storm struck, the Air Pollution Index (API) was at the “very high” level in urban areas such as Causeway Bay, Mong Kok, Central/Western and Eastern District. Our air was bad to start with long before the sandstorm rolled into town.

But while the government rightly encouraged “contingency measures” such as urging people to use public transport as much as possible, drivers to turn off their engines while stationary, asking power companies to use cleaner fuel, and even smokers to smoke less, why aren’t they actively trying to bring down the pollution on a regular basis, or issuing people with guidelines on what to do during a bar air day? Secretary of the Environmental Bureau Edward Yau claims that air pollution, unlike typhoons, would not affect people’s daily routines.

Greenpeace climate change campaigner Prentice Koo is upset by the government’s response, which he thinks is irresponsible. He says: “Edward Yau said air pollution would not affect people’s daily lives as much as a typhoon does. But it does affect our health.” Professor Anthony Hedley, professor of Community Medicine at the University of Hong Kong, says, “the sandstorm is definitely a potential health hazard and will have caused many problems such as eye and skin irritation and upper respiratory symptoms. However, the sandstorm will probably not be as toxic as Hong Kong’s usual daily mix of combustion particles and gases, that throughout the year is caused by Hong Kong’s own pollution emissions from traffic, shipping, port activities and power generation.”

The severe index reading may, in fact, be a timely wake-up call reminding us how unacceptable our air pollution levels are. Professor Alexis Lau, a meteorologist with the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology says: “Although the API surge to 500 was due to the sandstorm, that doesn’t mean that our air is fine and that there aren’t things we can do to reduce pollution here.” According to Lau, the last time Hong Kong had a similar crisis was in 1996—but the concentration of pollutants in the air was half that of the recent scare. Also deeply concerned about Hong Kong’s pollution levels is Mike Kilburn, the environmental program manager of local think tank Civic Exchange. He says: “The sandstorm has helped make people aware that air pollution is an issue, and the government has to respond to the public.”

Does the Air Quality Index Work?

Yes, it does work—but the statistics will be a day old by the time you read them. The Environmental Protection Department (EPD) reports the real-time general and roadside APIs hourly and these indices are calculated by comparing the measured concentrations of the major air pollutants with their respective health-related Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) established under the Air Pollution Control Ordinance. Some data used to calculate the so-called hourly “real-time” indices are not actually real-time—the amount of total suspended particulate and respirable suspended particulates (RSP) are measured 24 hours ahead of the time published on the website, meaning that the API doesn’t truly reflect what is going on at any given moment.

Also, the API is only determined by the highest concentration of one of five pollutants in the air (sulfur dioxide, particulate matters, nitrogen dioxide, together with ozone and carbon monoxide). Therefore, the index fails to address the pollution levels of the other four. But not many Hongkongers are aware of this. Edwin Lau from Friends of the Earth says the government has a responsibility to educate the public about how the index is formed. “The government should break down all the scientific data to a laymen level so people can understand.” It is also technologically feasible to calculate a real-time index although the government doesn’t provide the service. Professor Anthony Hedley founded his own Hedley Index (hedleyindex.sph.hku.hk) last year that gives true real-time pollution levels across the city. The website also calculates the value of tangible and intangible loss caused by pollution, for example, the cost of health care or lost productivity due to pollution. “The present API is totally useless as an instrument for risk communication,” says Hedley. “The so-called ‘health advisories’ issued by the EPD, without any authority whatsoever from the public health specialists in Hong Kong, are seriously misleading. There is very little possibility that any measures taken on the basis of these so-called health warnings will benefit anyone.”

He also stresses that the damage pollutants do to our health occurs at levels below the air quality objectives because they are so lax. The Council for Sustainable Development has suggested the government set up a three-tier warning system for air pollution, similar to the rain storm warnings, which allows people to work from home on days with a high pollution index. Environmental Secretary Edward Yau has not promised that the department will consider it.

Why Weren’t We Warned?

Less than 24 hours before Hong Kong’s pollution levels rocketed to record-breaking highs of 500—the API was predicting levels of only 180. So why was the forecast so inaccurate? The most obvious reason, as previously mentioned, is because the guidelines on acceptable particulate levels are out of date, but there is also the fact that the Hong Kong Observatory does not have equipment to detect or forecast sandstorms. Greenpeace campaigner Prentice Koo says, “Everyone knows Hong Kong does not suffer from earthquakes but we still have a warning system developed for them. Shouldn’t we do the same for sandstorms that could have a direct impact on us?” Although the Hong Kong Observatory does not have the technology to predict sandstorms, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University does. According to Janet Nichol, a professor at the department of land surveying and geo-informatics at Poly U, the government could make reasonable predictions with the same technology and data that they have. The EPD say they will collaborate more with the Observatory to analyze sandstorm patterns and will make better use of their network with the mainland to issue an early notice. But there is currently no news regarding the implementation of a sandstorm warning system.

The Impact of Desertification

When Hong Kong was choked by pollution last week, we were actually feeling the impact of severe environmental degradation in China. The harmful air quality was partly caused by a sandstorm originating in northern China that blew loose dust and dirt mixed with industrial pollution down south, adding to Hong Kong’s already serious smog problem. It was China’s worst sandstorm in more than a year, affecting 270 million people across 16 provinces. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences estimates that there are 24 sandstorms a year, six times the number 50 years ago, according to China Daily. The increase is the result of desertification caused by deforestation, overgrazing, drought and urban sprawl. China’s government has invested huge sums of money in projects aimed at stopping the relentless spread of sand, such as tree planting and the protection of existing foliage. But rising temperatures, increased pressures on water resources and 30 years of huge economic growth has meant limited success. In fact, China Daily reports that about 30,000 square miles of China’s grassland turned into desert over only the last few decades. So, with the number of sandstorms in China increasing and more of the country’s land crumbling to dust, we should prepare ourselves for more sore throats, headaches and stinging eyes.

Our current API is divided into five bands: Low (0 to 25), Medium (26 to 50), High (51 to 100), Very High (101 to 200) and Severe (201 to 500). When it reaches “very high” to “severe” levels, people with existing heart or respiratory illnesses may notice a mild to significant aggravation of their conditions.

What About the Animals?

While there is no official research about the effect of air pollution on animals in Hong Kong, Andy Cornish, the conservation director of the World Wide Fund (WWF), says “if people are dying prematurely because of polluted air, it will affect animals too. And if migratory birds saw a sandstorm coming, out of instinct, they would fly away.”

So what about our four-legged friends? It turns out dogs get the same health issues as humans when the pollution index is high. Vet Justin Chu says: “Even healthy dogs might get a sore throat, or develop itchy eyes or skin. But it will be worse for old dogs and those with lung and heart disease.” You’ll know if your dog is suffering from pollution if it has a hoarse bark, watery nose or keeps licking its lips. If your pet displays any of these symptoms on a bad air day, Chu’s advice is to keep them indoors. Cats are less likely to be affected by pollution because they go outside less.

The Not-So Great Outdoors

What’s the point of having mountains to hike up, trails to run along and a sea to swim in if soaring pollution levels result in government warnings telling us to “stay indoors and avoid physical exertion”? Lister Woo has been dragon boating in Hong Kong for more than 15 years but was forced to cancel his training session for the first time ever last week. “It’s never happened before and we wouldn’t cancel our practice unless we thought it could be bad for our health. We saw the government warning and decided not to risk it.” Woo paddles for the Hong Kong International Paddle Club, which will compete in the world dragon boat championships in Macau at the end of July. “It’s worrying because if we have to cancel more training sessions it could affect our performance at the competition.”

Keith Chan has been running in Hong Kong for 30 years and is the founder of HKrunners.com. He says: “I was going to go for a run last week but when I saw how high the index was, I decided against it. I definitely think pollution is getting worse and it’s affecting runners all over Hong Kong. Many people now avoid running at night because the traffic fumes are so bad. Some people only run in the hills to avoid the city center pollution. It’s a shame that pollution gets in the way of people doing a sport they enjoy.” Pollution levels above 200 are considered “severe” and carry a government warning telling us to “reduce physical exertion and outdoor activities.”

Pollution in Central reached dangerous levels one out of every eight days last year. But as outdoor sports grow in popularity in Hong Kong, more people will be risking their health in order to pursue their passions. Richard Thornton is the president of the Hong Kong Dragons Triathlon Club and says the quality of air here is a growing concern for his members. He says: “The thought of pushing hard in a training session at near maximum heart rate and swallowing lungfuls of Hong Kong’s air is becoming more distressing because all triathletes want to train, but then feel restricted because of the pollution levels. The effects of training in these conditions can definitely be felt afterward. It would be a shame to see participation in such a great sport dwindle as people shy away due to air pollution concerns.”

It’s not just local sporting clubs and associations that are struggling against the fumes. Some international runners refuse to take part in the Hong Kong marathon because of poor air quality and concerns were raised as to whether it was safe for teams to train before the Rugby Sevens. With the tourism board promoting Hong Kong as a hiking destination, we should also consider the impact air pollution has on the tourism industry. Winnie Leung is a volunteer hiking guide who regularly takes out groups of tourists. She says: “I cancelled three hikes last week because of the pollution, which meant disappointing a lot of people. Unless Hong Kong can clean up its act, I worry hikers will go elsewhere and our tourism will suffer.”

Leung’s sentiments are shared by Michael Pieper who runs his own hiking website (www.hiking-hong-kong.com) and Facebook hiking group. He says: “High pollution levels in Hong Kong can be directly related to the number of visitors to my hiking website. When there are blue skies, visitor numbers soar and likewise when pollution skyrockets, visitor numbers drop right off. There is only so much that I can do to promote Hong Kong’s vast array of hiking trails. The rest comes from the government’s commitment to caring for the health of its people by cleaning up our dirty skies.”

Also see: how to protect yourself during the next bad air day.

EU Euro standards upgraded

Euro standards comitology regulations published
On 16 June a regulation (566/2011) was published that introduces further amendments to the Euro 5 and Euro 6 standards for light-duty road vehicles. It includes measurement procedures for particle mass and particle number. These are required to implement theEuro 5b stage, which starts on 1 September 2011 for new types and 1 January 2013 for all new vehicles. From stage 5b the particulate mass limit is 4.5 mg/km and the particle number limit is 6.0 x 1011 #/kWh for all compression ignition engines.

On 25 June the first implementing regulation (582/2011) for the Euro VI standards for heavy-duty vehicles was published. Among other things, it redefines the emission limit values to match the world-harmonised test cycles (WHTC transient cycle and WHSC stationary cycle), and incorporates particle number limits for compression ignition engines, at the levels of 6.0 and 8.0 x 1011 #/kWh, depending on test cycle. Particle number limits for positive ignition engines have yet to be defined.

Official Journal: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOIndex.do

Pollution news

Reducing greenhouse gases from traffic
The European Commission wants your views on measures that can cut CO2 emissions from road vehicles. The results of the public consultation will feed into the Commission’s decision-making on EU regulations for cars, vans and heavy-duty vehicles. In “A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050”, the commission estimates that the emissions from the transport sector will need to drop by 50-70 per cent by 2050. The consultation is open until 9 December 2011.

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/news/articles/news_2011092101_en.htm

The Hong Kong EPD is offering a prize for anyone who can find a similar consultation on its website.

Road transport pollution control
In light of rapid developments in automotive technology, persistent air quality problems in urban areas, and the experience gained in implementing the existing legislation, the European Commission on 5 September launched a public consultation on measures to reduce emissions from the road transport sector. Among the measures considered are mandatory fuel consumption meters in all new cars and the mandatory installation of gear shift indicators (GSI) in light-duty vehicles. These and other measures related to emissions from motor vehicles are open for public consultation until 28 October 2011

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/documents/consultations/2011-emission-standards/index_en.htm

Review of EU air quality
On 6 June, the European Commission officially launched its 2011-2013 review of air quality legislation. Updates of key legislation such as the National Emission Ceilings (NEC) Directive and the Ambient Air Quality Directive will be discussed, together with linkages to policies on climate, transport and agriculture. The Commission invites member states, industry, NGOs and the wider public to express their views on how to improve Europe’s air legislation.

Three written consultations were launched in June 2011: one for the members of a newly established expert group, one for the wider public, and a third one for air quality professionals. The consultation is open until 15 October 2011.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/review_air_policy.htm

Particle pollution killing people
In many cities air pollution is reaching levels that threaten people’s health according to a new compilation of air quality data by the World Health Organization (WHO). The information includes data from nearly 1100 cities across 91 countries, including capital cities and cities with more than 100,000 residents.

WHO estimates that more than two million people die every year from breathing in tiny particles present in indoor and outdoor air pollution. These tiny particles can cause heart disease, lung cancer, asthma, and acute lower respiratory infections. The WHO air quality guideline for PM10 is 20 micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m3) as an annual average, but the data released today shows that the average PM10 level in some cities has reached up to 300 µg/m3.

Average PM10 levels in European cities range between 29 and 42 µg/m3, the data show. This compares with a world average of 71 µg/m3. The highest average PM10 levels are in the eastern Mediterranean region with a range of 137-142 µg/m3, followed by Southeast Asia.

For 2008, the estimated mortality attributable to outdoor air pollution in cities amounts to 1.34 million premature deaths. If the WHO guidelines had been universally met, an estimated 1.09 million deaths could have been prevented in 2008.

“Local actions, national policies and international agreements are all needed to curb pollution and reduce its widespread health effects,” said Dr Michal Krzyzanowski, Head of the WHO European Centre for Environment and Health. “Data from air quality monitoring that is released today, identify regions where action is most needed and allows us to assess the effectiveness of implemented policies and actions.”

Sources: WHO press release 26 September 2011, and ENDS Europe Daily, 27 September 2011

Air pollution from US power plants to be cut
The new Cross-State Air Pollution Rule by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) replaces and strengthens the 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). By 2014, this rule and other state and EPA actions are expected to reduce SO2 emissions by 73 per cent from 2005 levels, and NOx emissions by 54 per cent.

According to the EPA, the new rule, which affects 27 states in the eastern half of the country, will reduce smog and soot pollution in communities that are home to 240 million Americans, preventing up to 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 19,000 cases of acute bronchitis, 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 1.8 million sick days a year beginning in 2014, thus achieving up to US$280 billion in annual health benefits. The benefits far outweigh the US$800 million projected to be spent annually on this rule in 2014 and the roughly US$1.6 billion per year in capital investments already underway as a result of CAIR.

The rule will level the playing field for power plants that are already controlling air pollutant emissions, by requiring more facilities to do the same.

Source: US EPA, 7 July 2011

Tougher US car fuel efficiency standard
The Obama administration and 13 automakers agreed in July to boost the fuel economy of cars and light-duty trucks sold in the United States to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. The new agreement more than doubles the current Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, Standard of 24.1 miles per gallon. Achieving the fuel efficiency goals is expected to save American drivers US$1.7 trillion dollars in fuel costs, and by 2025 result in an average fuel saving of over US$8,000 per vehicle. The new standards are expected to result in savings of 12 billion barrels of oil in total.

The standards also curb carbon pollution, requiring performance equivalent to 163 grams per mile of CO2. The administration says the standards will cut more than six billion metric tons of greenhouse gas over the life of the programme.

Source: Environmental News Service, 2 August 2011
Web link: http://yosemite.epa.gov/

Fuel efficiency rule for US heavy duty trucks
The first national fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions standards for medium and heavy-duty trucks and buses in the United States were announced on 9 August, covering vehicles made between 2014 and 2018. Heavy-duty vehicles account for 17 per cent of transportation oil use and 12 per cent of all US oil consumption. Nearly six per cent of all US greenhouse gas emissions and 20 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector in 2007 were produced by heavy-duty vehicles.
The businesses that operate and own these commercial vehicles are expected to save some US$50 billion in fuel costs and more than 500 million barrels of oil over the life of the programme. Greenhouse gas emissions are expected to be cut by 270 million metric tons.

Source: Environmental News Service, 9 August 2011
Web link: www.epa.gov/

Car-free Sunday for smog-struck Milan

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15230753

Milan's cathedral

The northern Italian city of Milan banned all traffic from its streets for 10 hours on Sunday in an attempt to reduce smog.

The measure, first imposed on a trial basis in 2007, is triggered whenever pollution exceeds the statutory limit for 12 consecutive days.

Satellite imagery shows Milan to be one of the most polluted cities in Europe.

An estimated 120,000 vehicles will be affected by the move, according to the Corriere della Sera newspaper.

The most polluting vehicles have been banned from driving through the city centre since Thursday.

But on Sunday, there was no traffic between 0800 and 1800 local time (06:00-16:00 GMT).

The ban is imposed when pollution exceeds 50 micrograms of particulates per cubic metre of air over 12 days. The last time the full ban was in force was in February.

The move is not popular with all environmentalists, who argue that the city’s public transport system should be improved to discourage people from using their cars.

Local Green Party councillor Enrico Fedrighini said cars with three or four people inside should be offered free parking, for example.

“One or two car-free Sundays each month won’t do anything to tackle the smog crisis,” he told Corriere della Sera.

Public transport was to be bolstered during the day, with an extra metro trains and buses operating.

Locator map

Air pollution from traffic impairs brain

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8815901/Air-pollution-from-traffic-impairs-brain.html

Science

Air pollution in cities and beside roads can impair the way the brain functions, two new studies have revealed.

Air pollution from traffic impairs brain

The study examined the average lifetime exposure to traffic-related pollution Photo: REX

By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent

8:00AM BST 09 Oct 2011

Scientists have found living in areas with high levels of traffic pollution can reduce people’s performance in cognitive tests.

They found that people older than 51 who had lived in polluted areas had lower cognitive scores than those who had been exposed to lower levels of pollution during their life time even after their results had been adjusted for social and educative status.

A second study in animals has also revealed that fine airborne particulates that are typically emitted by diesel engines can lead to learning and memory problems by reducing the growth of neurons in the brain.

Dr Melinda Power, from the department of epidemiology and environmental health at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, said that long term exposure to air pollution related to traffic seemed to affect the way the brain functions.

She said: “Cognitive decline and impairment in the elderly is a huge public health issue. Our study suggests that traffic-related air pollution, particularly diesel exhaust, may play a role.

Related Articles

03 Jun 2010

11 May 2010

01 Sep 2009

“Our results suggest an adverse effect of traffic related air pollution on global cognitive function in older men.

“When we explored the potential for effect modification, our results suggest the effect of traffic-related air pollution on cognition may be greater in smokers or overweight and obese individuals.

“Although we looked at the effect in men, I believe the findings are applicable to women as well.”

The study examined the average lifetime exposure to traffic-related pollution and the cognitive test scores of 680 men aged between 51-years-old and 97-years-old.

It found that those living in areas that were exposed to twice as much black carbon as low pollution areas were 1.3 times more likely to have lower cognitive scores.

The researchers also found that if black carbon levels doubled in one area compared to another, the effect on the cognitive functions of people from that area were equivalent to ageing by nearly two years.

Dr Power added: “Traffic-related air pollution is a complex mixture of gases and particles.

“Traffic-related air pollution appears to cause inflammation and oxidative stress in the brain. There is also evidence that ultrafine particulates can get into the brain and cause dysfunction.”

In the second, separate study in mice, researchers at Ohio State University in Columbus found that exposure to fine particles of pollution known as PM2.5s caused increases in the levels of inflammatory molecules in the animals’ brains.

They found that mice exposed to air polluted with the particles for ten months showed signs of impairment of their learning and memory abilities compared to those that been given filtered air.

The researchers found that a part of the animals’ brains known as the hippocampus, which is responsible for memory and learning, had also suffered decreased neuron growth in the mice exposed to the pollution.

Laura Fonken, from the behavioural neuroscience program at the university, said: “These data suggest that long-term exposure to particulate air pollution levels typical of exposure in major cities around the globe an alter the affective responses and impair cognition.”

Particulate air pollution has already been linked with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and scientists have found pollution from diesel engines can harden the arteries and increase the risk of heart attacks.

It is estimated that more than 20 towns and cities in Britain are emitting pollution at twice the levels specified by the World Health Organisation.

An official report by the Committee on the Medial Effects of Air Pollutants said that air pollution in the UK takes around two years off the lives of 200,000 people.

The UK has one of the worst rates of air pollution in Europe and last year the Government was warned it may face a £300 million fine for failing to meet European air quality standards.

Hong Kong has one of the highest roadside PM2.5 levels in the world.

“Exposure to PM _2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) over a few hours to weeks can trigger cardiovascular disease–related mortality and nonfatal events;

longer-term exposure (eg, a few years) increases the risk for cardiovascular mortality to an even greater extent than exposures over a few days and r

educes life expectancy within more highly exposed segments of the population by several months to a few years;

reductions in PM levels are associated with decreases in cardiovascular mortality within a time frame as short as a few years; and many credible

pathological mechanisms have been elucidated that lend biological plausibility to these findings. It is the opinion of the

writing group that the overall evidence is consistent with a causal relationship between PM2.5 exposure and

cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. This body of evidence has grown and been strengthened substantially since the

first American Heart Association scientific statement was published. Finally, PM2.5 exposure is deemed a modifiable

factor that contributes to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. (Circulation. 2010;121:2331-2378.)”

Download PDF : 2331.full

CTA Letter to the Panel on the Environment

Download full PDF : CTAletterPanelPM2.5