Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Haven’t stayed, but often walked past this place; looks like rooms will be clean and fine – tho may be some better rooms amongst holiday flats (more variation in room quality there I think).
Breakfast only with deluxe rooms. Prices higher Fridays; and higher still Saturdays.
Website: B & BCimaron has continued approaching Hong Kong – following Joint Typhoon Warning Center forecast. JTWC now forecasting it will encounter increasing shear as it nears the coast; instead of making landfall just west of Hong Kong, it will weaken and turn west before reaching the coast (early afternoon tomorrow). Looks set to come close enough to make it real blustery here, surely with plenty of rain (hooray! – clean up some pollution). HK Obs forecast is rather similar, but has Cimaron turning earlier than JTWC. Over at MIT Storms page, there’s a variety of forecast tracks – three even show it making sudden leap southwards, towards either south or south-southwest.
Just noticed the European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts is forecasting Cimaron will linger in S China Sea, albeit dwindling; only making landfall in n Vietnam around 9 November. That’s a long time for a storm to hang around; but, also a long time in the world of weather forecasting.
Just to show that forecasting typhoon tracks and intensities remains tough, some widely differing forecasts for Cimaron.
It’s lately tracked northwest, in direction of Hong Kong.
HK Observatory forecasts abrupt turn to the west, then even heading south-southwest, on towards Vietnam.
Joint Typhoon Warning Center forecast is more “interesting” for Hong Kong – has the storm maintaining strength, and heading for Pearl River delta. But also, it could weaken, and would then move westwards.
A briefing prepared for the World Bank notes:
Quote:The PM damage to lung defenses manifests itself in the form of health effects such as acute respiratory infection (both upper and lower respiratory tract infections), chronic obstructive lung disease (especially bronchitis), asthma attacks, cardiovascular disease, and lung cancer. Further, recent research has increasingly shown that particles can also affect other parts of the body, including the nervous system, by physically moving out of the airways and into the blood stream [4]. Thus particle deposition in airways can set off a chain of events, potentially affecting parts of the body other than just the respiratory tract.As can be expected, the changes in the body are likely to be more severe in cases where the body’s defenses are already weak or previously damaged. Hence, certain population subgroups, such as the elderly, children, and individuals with existing respiratory or cardiovascular diseases, are at increased risk from exposure to PM.
pdf file: The Science of Health Impacts of Particulate Matter [which was] available from South Asia Urban Air Quality Management – Improving health for all urban populations, begins:
Quote:South Asian cities record some of the highest levels of outdoor particulate pollution worldwide. Scientific research over the last two decades has demonstrated that particulate matter is the major pollutant of concern from the health perspective. Current research is focusing on questions relating to particulate matter characteristics such as size, number, and composition, and the mechanisms by which it causes health impacts. This briefing note presents the current understanding of the answers to those questions.Post edited by: Martin, at: 2006/10/31 21:10
From US Environmental Protection Agency site:
Quote:Batteries of scientific studies have linked particulate matter, especially fine particles (alone or in combination with other air pollutants), with a series of significant health problems, including: Premature death; Respiratory related hospital admissions and emergency room visits; Aggravated asthma; Acute respiratory symptoms, including aggravated coughing and difficult or painful breathing; Chronic bronchitis; Decreased lung function that can be experienced as shortness of breath; and Work and school absences.HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PARTICULATE MATTER
Wisconsin Dept of Natural Resources notes:
Quote:Some of the smallest particles, called respirable particulates, lodge in the lung capillaries and alveoli, causing the following effects: Slowing down the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the blood, causing shortness of breath. Straining the heart, because it must work harder to compensate for oxygen loss. The people most sensitive to these conditions include those with heart problems, or respiratory diseases like emphysema, bronchitis and asthma. The elderly and children are also very sensitive. The adverse health effects from particulate matter exposure are often not immediately noticed. Particulates can accumulate in the lungs after repeated, long-term exposure causing respiratory distress and other health problems.Particle Pollution: Total Suspended Particulates
from Ontario Ministry of the Environment:
Quote:The greatest effect on health is from particles 2.5 microns or less in diameter. Exposure to fine particulate matter has been associated with hospital admissions and several serious health effects, including premature death. People with asthma, cardiovascular or lung disease, as well as children and elderly people, are considered to be the most sensitive to the effects of fine particulate matter. Adverse health effects have been associated with exposure to PM2.5 over both short periods (such as a day) and longer periods (a year or more). Fine particulate matter is also responsible for environmental effects such as corrosion, soiling, damage to vegetation and reduced visibility.Post edited by: Martin, at: 2006/10/31 17:43
It appears that particulates from vehicles may be among causes of ischemic heart diseases (in which heart tissue may receive too little blood).
Can We Identify Sources of Fine Particles Responsible for Exercise-Induced Ischemia on Days with Elevated Air Pollution? The ULTRA StudyTyphoon Cimaron indeed heading for Vietnam.
Number One signal now up, as it’s closer to us; tho forecasts are for it to continue moving roughly west, HK Observatory forecasting that the typhoon coupled with arrival of northeast monsoon will lead to occasionally strong winds tonight and tomorrow.
Post edited by: Martin, at: 2006/10/31 16:05
I sent the following letter to the editor of the South China Morning Post; edited version appeared on Friday 27 October:
Three months into the Hong Kong Government’s Action Blue Sky Campaign, we are shrouded below the greyest autumn skies I’ve seen – even on days when there are few or no clouds in the sky.
Chief Executive Donald Tsang has lately tried to obfuscate the issue, suggesting the air pollution problem is chiefly a matter of reduced visibility, and small particulates “may not affect us”. Now, just as he seems befuddled by pollution, Mr Tsang may not be too familiar with the Internet, and a search engine called Google, but to help him I have employed both to look for information on “respirable suspended particles”. And I have readily found information indicating they indeed affect our health.
For instance, in a report by CNN, I found: ‘According to an article in “Heart,” the journal of the British Cardiac Society: “Epidemiology has clearly shown a link between increases in particulate air pollution and deaths and admissions caused by heart failure, myocardial infarction and arrhythmia.”
‘While scientists have yet to fully explain exactly how the presence of the ultra-fine pollutants causes increased heart disease, “the association of air pollution with cardiac mortality and morbidity is beyond doubt,” the journal says.
‘Many pollution researchers believe vehicle exhausts pump out microscopic specks of carbon which are coated with chemicals such as chromium, peroxide and hydrocarbons resulting from the burnt fuel.’
Given such information, we might hope “strong government” would result in robust action, not simply yet more talking, with some moves towards more fuel efficient vehicles even as the government opts to buy gas-guzzling luxury cars, and plans more highways, and the huge bridge to Zhuhai.
The huge bridge scheme should be abandoned if the government is serious about the Action Blue Sky Campaign. For not only will the bridge increase road traffic, especially container vehicles, in western Hong Kong, it is also aimed at spurring development on the west shores of the Pearl River. This increased development will in turn increase air pollution, condemning us to ever greyer skies, and a rising toll from noxious gases, and particulates.
The CNN report – which I also cited in post above- is at:
Invisible enemy spurs health worries
Asia confronts growing problem of ultrafine particlesJust followed up on the Marine Dept reply to Charles Frew (which he posted in first post in this thread):
I live on Cheung Chau, and Charles Frew has forwarded me your correspondence regarding a smoky ferry from Cheung Chau. I have previously complained to First Ferry and (via the EPD) the Marine Dept regarding smoky ferries; though First Ferry indicated they planned to reduce the smoke, I haven’t seen an improvement.
I was startled to see, in your email to Mr Frew, “Vessel emitting dark smoke along the harbour to discomfort the public could be considered as an instant of public nuisance”
This is not a “public nuisance” issue.
As many scientists – including Professor Anthony Hedley, head of the Dept of Community Medicine of the University of Hong Kong, to whom I am cc’ing this email – have shown, smoky emissions can cause serious health problems, and can even be life threatening.
Thus, this is a public health issue. I am concerned that your failure to mention this is further evidence that the HK government is adopting a head-in-the-sand-approach to air pollution: as if by not acknowledging the potential severity of impacts on public health, air pollution will be less of an issue.
CEO Donald Tsang has lately indicated the problem is chiefly cosmetic: do we have nice blue skies. This is a worrisome attitude, which I hope is not prevalent within the Marine Dept. – as a significant proportion of our air pollution is from shipping.I live on Cheung Chau, and often see ferries belching smoke, especially as they leave piers. Heard of a v few people complaining, but not much happening. One seemed especially bad in February; I sent email with photos (inc the one here) to Env Protection Dept – from where it was forwarded to Marine Dept. Marine Dept replied to me:
Quote:I refer to your complaint dated 21 February 2006 addressed to EPD. According to your information provided, we identified that the ferry sailing from Central to Cheung Chau at 18:30 of 19 February 2006 was "Xin Chao". A follow-up check was conducted on 27 February 2006. It was found that the smoke emission was within Shade 1 and 2 limit of the Ringelmann Chart. There was smoke darker than shade 2 of the Ringelmann Chart during departure and berthing period and the duration was around 20 seconds each. From technical point of view, the smoke emission was not beyond the limit. Please feel free to contact the undersigned should you have any queries. M.Y. Chan Senior Surveyor of Ships Local Vessels Safety Section for Director of MarineI’d never heard of the Ringelmann Chart; via quick googling, turns out this was devised in late 19th century: shows shades of grey from light to black; smoke can be compared against the chart. Imprecise, but fairly easy to use.
Short history of visible emissions and opacity
Earlier, in August 2005, I emailed First Ferry about smoky ferries; had this reply:
Quote:Thank you for your comments. The vessels are required to undergo annual docking and upon meeting all the requirement, are granted licenses to operate by Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government. We noted your concern and concur with your goodself that smoke emission shall be reduced. For those aged-old ordinary vessels, we have been conducting regular maintenance and trial schemes to keep those vessels at their optimal performance. Thank you for your patronage and comments. Regards, Fiona Fong Customer Service Division New World First Ferry Services LimitedNow, ECMWF forecasting trop storm (judging by their chart), and heading for Vietnam, rather than near HK.
Too bad if we’re not affected by this; could do with plenty of rain to wash the smog from the sky, for a little while anyway.I’ve done short article on this site, on ways it might be possible to clean air (partly, anyway) indoors – chiefly using filters; but also with help from plants.
Might be worth a read; comments welcome (tho ideally in a new thread).Hello, Donald Tsang, hope you have a little time to read about health impacts of respirable suspended particles. Try, for instance, this CNN item, which mentions Hong Kong, and includes:
Quote:What is most disturbing, is the increasing evidence of a link between ultrafine particle pollution and an incidence of heart disease. According to an article in "Heart," the journal of the British Cardiac Society: "Epidemiology has clearly shown a link between increases in particulate air pollution and deaths and admissions caused by heart failure, myocardial infarction and arrhythmia." While scientists have yet to fully explain exactly how the presence of the ultra-fine pollutants causes increased heart disease, "the association of air pollution with cardiac mortality and morbidity is beyond doubt," the journal says. Many pollution researchers believe vehicle exhausts pump out microscopic specks of carbon which are coated with chemicals such as chromium, peroxide and hydrocarbons resulting from the burnt fuel. These particles measure less than one-tenth of a micron across. They are so small that they can pass easily through the walls of a human lung and penetrate into the body’s red blood cells. From there, they wreak health havoc, penetrating the body’s cells and disabling them. Recent laboratory studies suggest these ultrafine particles can be up to 50 times more damaging than bigger particles, possibly triggering heart attacks. Diesel emissions are thought to be disproportionately responsible for pumping out ultra-fine particles, making people living or working close to major transport routes especially vulnerable.Invisible enemy spurs health worries Asia confronts growing problem of ultrafine particles See also new thread I’ve started: Airborne particulates in Hong Kong – health risks
So, three months since the Hong Kong Government launched the Action Blue Sky Campaign, the autumn skies are whiter and greyer than I can ever remember – and this even when there are few or no clouds in the sky.
Now have Donald Tsang pretty much giving up on achieving cleaner air in foreseeable future, and blathering about pollution as if it’s cosmetic issue rather than public health crisis.
Media articles continue, inc in Taipei Times:
Quote:…
While environmental, tourism and business lobbies urge the government to take action to restore Hong Kong’s formerly clear skies, Chief Executive Donald Tsang (曾è”權) told local radio that the pall of pollution hanging over the city is a crisis of visibility rather than of public health.In comments on the radio and during a major speech to businessmen, Tsang stressed the problems of murky skies caused by rising smog rather than evidence that emissions are causing severe health problems.
“Why do people feel that they don’t see, that the air is poorer? It is a question of visibility,” Tsang told a phone-in program on local RTHK radio over the weekend.
“Is the air right? Not so,” he said. “Small particulates, which [are] coming from the mainland [China] may not affect us or [what] we breathe, but it affects our feeling that the air is not as good as before,” he said.
Later, in a speech to the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, he reiterated his position by trying to separate the issue of visibility from air quality.
“Visibility, of course, is a question of degree. We are talking about small particulates. Do not equate visibility directly with just very bad air. We are doing our best. Visibility is important. What about blue skies? Blue skies implies visibility and for that reason that certainly is my priority,” he said.
…
Pollution has become a hot political issue in Hong Kong as smog levels have risen to often dangerous levels. Poor air quality cut visibility to less than 1km on more than 50 days last year.More worrying, however, is evidence from the medical community that pollution-related illnesses such as bronchitis and asthma are claiming lives in ever greater numbers.
The key tourism industry is also complaining about the problem, with a tour guides association saying 10 percent of customers had gone down with smog-related illnesses while holidaying there.
…email newsletter from Christine Loh, of Civic Exchange: This may turn out to be a bad week for Donald Tsang’s (DT) career as a politician. As Hong Kong takes more pounding in the international media (NY Times has an editorial [see above]) on its poor air quality, DT showed he has yet to grasp the basics of air pollution. He needs now to make quick amends to show he is in command of at least his own knowledge. Most importantly, the government needs to acknowledge air pollution and public health are linked. A. How DT sees the air problem … radio transcript Backchat RTHK 8:00-8:30 am October 13 “… let me tell you the facts. There have been improvements … There are major pollutants in the air. There are sulphur dioxide … nitrogen oxides of all kinds and there are the Respirable Suspended Particulates, and then the fourth one is volatile organic compounds. Now, as far as NOx, the nitrogen oxide, and RSP and VOC are concerned, since 1997 each of these things have declined in terms of percentage. NOx has declined by 16% since 1997, and RSP 28% and VOC by 23%. Now we have only one problem sulphur dioxide. Sulphur dioxide in fact has increased by 47% and the main emitter of this is our power stations so that’s the reasons we are concentrating our efforts in improving and upgrading our power stations and we are doing that in the context of the next scheme of control we are negotiating with the power companies and I am determined, and I’ve said so in my policy address, and we will certainly resolve this question once and for all as far as the power companies are concerned. Now why do people feel that they don’t see that the air is poorer? It is a question of visibility. Is the air right, not so so the road side air quality but what we see into the air that is a small particle, that is small particulates which is coming from the mainland that may not effect us or the thing we breath but it effects our feeling that the air is not as good as before. Now this is something that we need a different set of solutions. We are working as you know with Guangdong Authorities to make sure that we have a concerted effort, to make a concerted effort to resolve that problem and you will see from my policy address that we are working on that … We must make sure that ourselves, we have to make sure that the community is good for our people and is welcoming to all sorts of people, businessmen coming here to work, expatriates coming here to live here, to settle the family and tourist coming here happily and I am certainly will work hard to towards those goalsâ€. B. What Tsang tried to say … see if you agree 1. There is haze i.e. loss of visibility. 3. The small particulates which come from the mainland are the main causes of the haze. 4. The haze “may not effect us or the thing we breathe but it effects our feeling that the air is not as good as beforeâ€. 5. Roadside air pollution is poor. C. What is wrong with what Tsang said? 1. A large amount (70%+) of the particulates originate across the border, and yes, they affect the entire visibility of the region BUT to claim the loss of visibility “may not affect us or the thing we breathe†is UNTRUE. 2. Particulates are one of the most damaging pollutants to health because the smaller particles can penetrate into our blood and organs. The loss of visibility is an excellent indicator of worsening pollution. 3. To also say that it is the loss of visibility that gives people the “feeling†that the air is not as good as before implies the impact is more a “feeling†than a reality when it is clearly a reality. D. Observations … refusal to make the health link 1. DT’s incoherence and tortuous statement indicates his government is trying desperately not to make the direct link between air pollution and public health. 2. If an honest admission of the link was made, the government would need to show the people it must do very much more and do it quickly to improve air quality to the point where pollution no longer poses a significant health risk as it does at present. 4. Hong Kong people must make DT pledge during his election campaign to serve a 5-year term (2007-2012) to show a convincing comprehensive plan to clean-up. p.s. Civic Exchange presented such a plan to DT on 11/9/2006 – “An Air Management Planâ€
