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
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
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
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
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
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
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 chaging time and for advocates to encourage adoption of the technology among drivers who prefer the status of brand-name vehicles. - Katie Kenny
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
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
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
Copyright © 2004–2012 Asia City Online Ltd. All rights reserved. | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy
![[f]](/sites/all/themes/asiacity/images/icon-bw-facebook.png){kind=icon}
Join on Facebook![[t]](/sites/all/themes/asiacity/images/icon-bw-twitter.png){kind=icon}
Follow on Twitter
Send us Feedback
Contact Us