Slashdot Mirror


Breathing Beijing's Air Is the Equivalent of Smoking Almost 40 Cigarettes a Day

iONiUM writes: The Economist has a story about how bad the air quality is in Beijing. Due to public outcry the Chinese government has created almost 1,000 air quality monitoring stations, and the findings aren't good. They report: "Pollution is sky-high everywhere in China. Some 83% of Chinese are exposed to air that, in America, would be deemed by the Environmental Protection Agency either to be unhealthy or unhealthy for sensitive groups. Almost half the population of China experiences levels of PM2.5 that are above America's highest threshold. That is even worse than the satellite data had suggested. Berkeley Earth's scientific director, Richard Muller, says breathing Beijing's air is the equivalent of smoking almost 40 cigarettes a day and calculates that air pollution causes 1.6m deaths a year in China, or 17% of the total. A previous estimate, based on a study of pollution in the Huai river basin (which lies between the Yellow and Yangzi rivers), put the toll at 1.2m deaths a year—still high."

36 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. not shock by arbiter1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    First, If you ever seen pictures in china of the pollution sadly that number isn't a big surprise

    1. Re:not shock by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      The Chinese are avid smokers anyway, so not a big deal.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    2. Re:not shock by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, yeah, it's probably better for them to breathe the local air through a filter tip.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:not shock by captainpanic · · Score: 2

      It's not a big surprise to the Chinese either. They know, and they are trying to fix it. But the undertaking to fix this is a huge one, and I doubt we'll see any real results in the next 5 years.
      They are however working on regulations for large power stations and car emissions, ot my knowledge. I wonder if they also work on regulations for the smaller processes - some factories have a very dirty and inefficient combusion, no gas cleaning whatsoever, and a low chimney. These need to be cleaned up badly.

    4. Re:not shock by davester666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's all false propaganda. Western lies and deceit. We all breath pure mountain air, straight from the Himilaya's!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    5. Re: not shock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is what unregulated industry looks like. Everybody remember this the next time some libertarian pops off about the market deciding such things, or how there's no such thing as externalities. Making super cheap stuff is easy if you don't have to pay all your costs but can dump them on other people to (in this case literally) suck up.

    6. Re: not shock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Under libertarianism, you cant agress against others.

      Exactly when does your pollution become an aggression against me? And the mechanism to deal with this under a libertarian regime would be what exactly? You know, since you hate government and all.

      Pollution is not ok under libertariranism and never has been.

      Says you. Funny, I've never seen externalities addressed by libertarianism. You can spin it any way you want, but if the communists in China (which the economy itself is becoming a hybrid communist/capitalist model) were libertarian the shit would still be happening.

      Go fucking live in Somalia and leave the adults to get work done, please.

    7. Re: not shock by jandrese · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you envision a libertarian paradise with strongly enforced environmental regulations? I daresay you have a unique take on libertarianism.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    8. Re: not shock by alexgieg · · Score: 2, Informative

      Exactly when does your pollution become an aggression against me?

      The idea is basically that you can make as much pollution you want within your private property, for as long as you want, provided you never, ever, dump that population into anyone else's private property, because dumping anything on another's private property without explicit permission is a violation of the other's private property's rights.

      So, anytime a factory produces air pollution and it gets carried by the wind over the factory's borders into a neighbor's land, or anytime a factory produces chemical pollution and it penetrates water lines etc., that's a violation of everyone who got that pollution.

      The exception is if the other property owner signed a contract with you by means of which he explicitly allows you to dump their pollution on their terrain. Other than that however, no, in a purely libertarian society you cannot dump pollutants anywhere you want.

      And the mechanism to deal with this under a libertarian regime would be what exactly?

      Suing the shit out of polluters for violation of property rights until they either start preventing any of their pollutants from leaving their own land and air, or until they go bankrupt, with judges of course being hard core defenders of the property rights of everyone involved, meaning those who had their properties' violated by polluters winning against polluters every single time.

      Now, I don't know if any of the above is feasible, but that's the libertarian theory on pollution anyway, because the idea among libertarians is always that the hardest property rights are preserved, in every situation imaginable, the better off everyone is. Thus, the key to understanding libertarianism's solution to any problem is this: think how that situation can be (re)thought in terms of property rights, check which property is being violated, fix that violation, and the problem is solved.

      PS.: Obviously, the above applies to "minimum government libertarianism" (a.k.a, minarchism), in which judges and tribunals are expected to exist and to act. The much more radical anarchocapitalist branch of libertarianism, for which no government should exist at all, also has solutions to the problems above, but they tend to involve a lot more guns than the minarchist alternative, as in, A is violating B's property rights? B has the right to shot until A stops. Most libertarians aren't anarchocapitalists though. Anarchocapitalism is loud and visible, but a minority position. Most libertarians have way more common sense than going that route.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    9. Re: not shock by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Under libertarianism, you cant agress against others. Pollution is not ok under libertariranism and never has been. The pollution on china is a tratdegy of the commons, the state has not allowed people the right to own air nor defended or even acknowledged any such right exists.

      How about we just be honest and say that libertarianism means whatever a libertarian says it means at any time in any situation?

      And what air do you own as an individual? The air around your face? The air on your property? And how do you propose to put fences around the air you own? How would "the state" allow people the right to own air? Can I rent some air?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:not shock by GNious · · Score: 3, Funny

      Perri'air?

    11. Re: not shock by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with this view is:

      1) What if Big Company A dumps the pollution on their land, but it seeps into the groundwater and poisons wells off their land. They didn't put the pollution off their land. Do they need to contain the pollution in some manner? What if that containment fails? What if it is properly contained but an exceptional event occurs and it leaks? Exactly what constitutes proper containment? Before long, you have environmental laws passed and enforced again.

      2) What if Big Company A pollutes and the victims are Poor People B who don't have the financial resources for a legal battle? Can big companies do whatever they want provided that they do it to people who can't afford to fight back?

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    12. Re: not shock by RoccamOccam · · Score: 2

      This is hilarious. Projecting the results from a cradle-to-grave communist all-controlling government onto a theoretical libertarian society, when the two philosophies are polar opposites.

      Perhaps you should be warning against a continuance of US big-government statism, instead, as the elimination of private property rights contributed heavily to the problems in China.

    13. Re: not shock by flink · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How are issues with odors and other types of pollution resolved by the tort law as it stands now? Would a factory that started spewing poisonous gases be liable for any downwind damages? You are right though that "own air" is a poor choice of words.

      If my lungs are destroyed by your factory, it's not much solace to me if my heirs get some money 5 years after I'm dead. I'd much rather have a strongly enforced regulation that prevents you from doing it in the first place.

    14. Re:not shock by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      What's the matter, Colonel Sandurz? Chicken?

  2. I don't understand metric by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

    What's that pipeloads of tobacco per semifortnight?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:I don't understand metric by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Funny

      depends, corncob or calabash?

  3. Beijing is not China by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yet another article that assumes Beijing = China. Sigh. It's like there's only one city in China. Imagine if European journalists assumed New York City was all there was to know about the entire USA. And China is even bigger, and has four times the population! I think the problem is due to the fact that most Western journalists live in Beijing, and they are not really interested in reporting about anywhere else other than where they live. This is called closed-mindedness and provincialism if it occurs in rural people, but now it's suddenly acceptable?

    If you want the real story, watch Chai Jing's documentary "Under the Dome" which tells you about all of China, not just the capital city. It was banned by the government so you know it's good. China has laws, but they're not enforced and the government regulators are either corrupt or falling down on the job. If they actually do crack down and take heavily polluting trucks off the road, they'll be accused of slaughtering the peasants with excessive regulations. Considering the history of the Communist Party in China, this accusation hurts badly and the CCP is anxious to bury this part of its Marxist past.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Beijing is not China by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Where are you seeing that assumption made? As far as i can see, the article and summary both clearly make distinctions between conditions in Bejing and throughout the country as a whole.

      For instance:

      Pollution is sky-high everywhere in China. Some 83% of Chinese are exposed to air that, in America, would be deemed by the Environmental Protection Agency either to be unhealthy or unhealthy for sensitive groups. Almost half the population of China experiences levels of PM2.5 that are above America’s highest threshold.

      Agree that people should watch that documentary though - it's very good.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:Beijing is not China by Namarrgon · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not that I expect anyone to RTFA of course, but the article is actually a report on Berkeley Earth's study on the 1500-site national air-reporting system, and most of the figures given are for all of China. The only specific Beijing reference is the "40 packs a day" metaphor.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    3. Re:Beijing is not China by tlambert · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yet another article that assumes Beijing = China. Sigh. It's like there's only one city in China. Imagine if European journalists assumed New York City was all there was to know about the entire USA. And China is even bigger, and has four times the population! I think the problem is due to the fact that most Western journalists live in Beijing, and they are not really interested in reporting about anywhere else other than where they live.

      It's pretty bad in most areas of China where there are actually monitoring stations (which is where there are actually people). Here's a pointer to an interactive map which demonstrates it graphically

      http://aqicn.org/map/californi...

      One has to wonder what the hell is going on in Kashi and diqu zhan Hotan, which are near the Kyrgystan border, and have the highest and second highest (respectively) "bad" numbers of any reporting stations in the world.

      This is called closed-mindedness and provincialism if it occurs in rural people, but now it's suddenly acceptable?

      Actually, it's called "journalists are assigned "minders" and are only permitted to go wherever the heck the government lets them go, and nowhere else, so they only see what the government allows them to see". Welcome to China; new employee orientation for the state controlled media for foreign journalists is on alternate Tuesdays.

    4. Re:Beijing is not China by BadDreamer · · Score: 2

      This article makes no assumptions of the kind you assume it is making. You clearly didn't as much as open TFA or it would have been plain as day your assumption about its assumptions is incorrect. This is called closed-mindedness and lack of a clue if it occurs in normal people, but now it's suddenly acceptable?

      If you want the real story, RTFA.

  4. We're breathing Beijing's air all over the planet by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    Can we call it an 'invasion' or 'chemical warfare' and do our thing? If the borders can't stop the smog, why should they be able to stop us?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  5. It's actually just like cigarettes. by timrod · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There's an exhibit called Bodies Revealed that showcases preserved human bodies - all of them from China - to show what our insides look like and just how big some of our organs are (they had one display that was just nerves, which was absolutely astounding). One of the exhibits shows off the lungs. I don't know if there are any pictures, but there are MASSIVE black spots on the lungs, the kind you'd expect to see in someone who smoked a lot. I remember the tour guide saying when someone asked that the black spots weren't from smoking, but from breathing in polluted air day after day. They weren't quite as bad as smoker's lungs, which get damaged over time from the heat of the cigarette smoke, but apart from that were identical in every way.

  6. And it's not even in the top 10 worst. by Harlequin80 · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to this report no Chinese city gets into the top 10 most polluted....
    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/world...

    According to this 1 Xi'an is the worst in the world. With Phoenix being the worst American city at 97th worst, LA is 107th, London 171st
    http://www.numbeo.com/pollutio...

    1. Re:And it's not even in the top 10 worst. by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      According to this report no Chinese city gets into the top 10 most polluted.... http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/world...

      According to this 1 Xi'an is the worst in the world. With Phoenix being the worst American city at 97th worst, LA is 107th, London 171st http://www.numbeo.com/pollutio...

      Xi'an makes one list but not the other, that just comes to show how reliable these lists are. The rule of thumb here is that when you are going to work and you find yourself wishing that you could echolocate like a bat to find the subway station because you can't see your hand in front of your face due to smog then it's time to consider moving to a cleaner place. The sad thing is that many cities in China fit that description because of the fact that for decades the Chinese Govt. has not cared one bit about environmental issues because it lowered production costs. There are free market pundits in the west who'd like us to follow the Chinese example based on the premise that environmental regulations get in the way of companies making profit. If you want to know where that leads take a look at China. However, the Chinese public is getting fed up with this and that explosion in Tianjin is just the latest drop into the cup of their dissatisfaction (It's absolutely unbelievable that those firemen were sent into a hazardous chemicals storage facility without knowing what was kept there, simply because even the facilities operators didn't know). It will be interesting to watch what happens when that cup fills up and flows over.

  7. Article is a bit old, but current data is similar by piojo · · Score: 3, Informative

    This article is from April, and their data collection was presumably from some time before that. However, if you check the following map (updated hourly), it looks like the air is still terrible, despite China making some attempts to solve this problem:

    http://aqicn.org/map/china/

    --
    A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
  8. Re:Capitalism is killing them by NixieBunny · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The progressives are responsible for making our air clean. The big cities in America used to look like China is now, but the EPA was created to do something about it, and has succeeded admirably. People rag about the government overreaching, but this is one shining example of the government solving a big problem. Unfortunately, the EPA has been hamstrung by the conservative Congress, which seems to think that keeping our air from becoming all polluted again is too much of a price for industry to pay. Assholes.

    --
    The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
  9. Yeah, that's a teensy bit down from Hiller. by tlambert · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When I lived in the Bay Area, there was a fire at a recycling plant that caused some reading to go 400, or 500 or something in Redwood City. It might have been particulates, not sure.

    Yeah, that's a teensy bit down from Hiller. There was some suspicion of them not being able to handle the recycling load, and "accidentally" setting the materials on fire (the plant itself was untouched). Other theories included spontaneous combustion due to thermal rise during decomposition (only it was mostly paper).

    It was particulates in the 76 or so today, due to smoke from the wild fires (which are actually pretty far away). Everyone got an emergency services robocall. Most places in China are about that, according to the monitoring mapping service (aqicn.org), but there are some that are running about double. Highest I saw was a 953 on the China/Kyrgystan border (kinda insane), and a couple real hotspots around Beijing.

    I found it interesting that they shut down the San Francisco station (it must have been showing numbers that were unfavorable to San Francisco tourism). Worst in the U.S. is Medford Oregon; most other hot spots are in Washington State. There's a 229 in the Czech Republic. Russia has exactly one monitoring station; I'm going to guess it reports whatever Putin wants.

    If you are interested in the world map (navigable Google Maps map), it's here (I left it centered on China):
    http://aqicn.org/map/californi...

  10. At least it's free by Laxator2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Cigarettes are quite expensive, so getting 40 a day for free is not that bad.

    That being said, Beijing is located is a small depression and that results in all the heavier particles in the air hovering over the city instead of dispersing over a larger area.

    This effect is strongest in the winter, as I experienced it when I visited the city about a decade ago. However, there are spontaneous "clearing events" when sudden winds blow away the smoke, and then the difference in the quality of the air is quite striking.

  11. Re: What about Los Angeles (L.A.)? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't worry, we get just as annoyed when non smokers whine and bitch near us. Whole lotta air on the planet. Nobody's forcing you to breathe near me.

  12. Re:Capitalism is killing them by Viol8 · · Score: 2

    Achieved its goals?

    Tell us, how did you travel from your alternative pollution free earth? Wormhole?

  13. Re:Capitalism is killing them by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Informative

    Two words. Delta Smelt. That is what happens when you have rabid environmental policies run amok.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  14. Re: Capitalism is killing them by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

    Nixon was a moderate Republican. Just like Kennedy was a moderate Democrat. Neither could be nominated today by the batshit crazy extremists of left and right that rise up out of the fever swamp to infest the American political landscape.

  15. Re:Capitalism is killing them by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 2

    >Environmentalism long ago turned from actually improving the environment, to being an anti-business tool wielded by extreme leftists.

    LOL, no. You sound like a victim of hate radio, wingnut blogs, or Fox News.

  16. Re:Capitalism is killing them by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

    Seattle is ruled by Republicans...

    O RLY? Since when?

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?