Wednesday, February 15, 2006
The HK government has announced it will conduct a review of safety guidelines for next year's race. Let's hope the pollution issue is not dodged in favor of only looking into issues of overcrowding.
In last Sunday's race, about double the number of participants compared to 2005 required medical attention. Five thousand runners, or about 12% of all runners required medical attention. Add to this the number of people that suffered mild asthma attacks and did not report them (me) and it seems fair to guess the number of participants experiencing medical concerns would be a few percentage points higher.
One runner on Sunday's race has passed away, and other - a 33 year old with no medical history, remains in critical condition with likely brain damage.
Today's 'Letters' page in the SCMP includes a letter from M. Douglas, please see my excerpts:
If you are not aware of the Greenpeace air pollution index, it can be found here. It compares the air quality the government claims that HK has with the standards of the EU...
...It is great that HK finally has some sports that have captivated much of the population - now it is time for everyone to realise that the government has done very little to maintain a living environment in which these events can take place.
Renewal of the Citybus license for another 10 years, without even requiring new, state-of-the-art diesel traps on every vehicle, is a perfect case in point...
Can someone with leadership qualities stand up and end the apathy towards air pollution in this city?
The SCMP is asking readers to voice their opinion on whether marathon entrants over the age of 45 should be required to have a medical check-up. Post your thoughts to talkback@scmp.com You may want to emphasize that it would be more valuable that the city implement environmental criteria for the race as pollution does not discriminate by race!
Reference: The Hong Kong Standard, SCMP (un-linkable)
In last Sunday's race, about double the number of participants compared to 2005 required medical attention. Five thousand runners, or about 12% of all runners required medical attention. Add to this the number of people that suffered mild asthma attacks and did not report them (me) and it seems fair to guess the number of participants experiencing medical concerns would be a few percentage points higher.
One runner on Sunday's race has passed away, and other - a 33 year old with no medical history, remains in critical condition with likely brain damage.
Today's 'Letters' page in the SCMP includes a letter from M. Douglas, please see my excerpts:
If you are not aware of the Greenpeace air pollution index, it can be found here. It compares the air quality the government claims that HK has with the standards of the EU...
...It is great that HK finally has some sports that have captivated much of the population - now it is time for everyone to realise that the government has done very little to maintain a living environment in which these events can take place.
Renewal of the Citybus license for another 10 years, without even requiring new, state-of-the-art diesel traps on every vehicle, is a perfect case in point...
Can someone with leadership qualities stand up and end the apathy towards air pollution in this city?
The SCMP is asking readers to voice their opinion on whether marathon entrants over the age of 45 should be required to have a medical check-up. Post your thoughts to talkback@scmp.com You may want to emphasize that it would be more valuable that the city implement environmental criteria for the race as pollution does not discriminate by race!
Reference: The Hong Kong Standard, SCMP (un-linkable)
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Condolences to the family and friends of Tsang Kam-yin that passed away today after becoming critically ill while participating in Sunday's marathon (see government press release).
While it is impossible to ascertain the role that the severe pollution levels may have had on Mr. Tsang, the toxic air quality on that day should certainly be seriously considered as a contributor. We await a confirmation or denial of this being a factor in Mr. Tsang's death from the government.
It is very disappointing, that two days after nearly 40,000 citizens undertook strenuous exercise during environmental conditions that were dangerous to health, Hong Kong's Department of Health has issued no notice or recommendations to the community. Shame on you Dr. Lam, please re-read your mission statement.
While it is impossible to ascertain the role that the severe pollution levels may have had on Mr. Tsang, the toxic air quality on that day should certainly be seriously considered as a contributor. We await a confirmation or denial of this being a factor in Mr. Tsang's death from the government.
It is very disappointing, that two days after nearly 40,000 citizens undertook strenuous exercise during environmental conditions that were dangerous to health, Hong Kong's Department of Health has issued no notice or recommendations to the community. Shame on you Dr. Lam, please re-read your mission statement.
Annelise Connell of Clear the Air wrote back to me with additional information you'll find interesting, and frightening...
1. Health considerations and risks of running in smoggy environments. Click here (also, see the comment left in the previous blog entry regarding the effects of specific chemicals).
2. Hong Kong's Air Pollution Index (API) guidelines are relatively lax compared to those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Using Hong Kong's index, the U.S. EPA would suggest that NO ONE should do strenuous exercise when the reading is above 88 (readings on Marathon day were well over 100). Click here for more.
Also, please see the press release that Clear the Air posted regarding the marathon (hopefully SCMP will also publish this) here.
Lastly, for a summary of the average pollution readings in January 2006 (using Hong Kong's relatively lax health suggestions), click here.
1. Health considerations and risks of running in smoggy environments. Click here (also, see the comment left in the previous blog entry regarding the effects of specific chemicals).
2. Hong Kong's Air Pollution Index (API) guidelines are relatively lax compared to those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Using Hong Kong's index, the U.S. EPA would suggest that NO ONE should do strenuous exercise when the reading is above 88 (readings on Marathon day were well over 100). Click here for more.
Also, please see the press release that Clear the Air posted regarding the marathon (hopefully SCMP will also publish this) here.
Lastly, for a summary of the average pollution readings in January 2006 (using Hong Kong's relatively lax health suggestions), click here.
Monday, February 13, 2006
First entry, and letter being submitted today to the South China Morning Post:
Isn't it ironic that in Hong Kong it is becoming more healthy to sit still rather than exercise? Yesterday's marathon resulted in the first asthma attack I've ever experienced - the density of pollution was obvious to everyone who remembers blue skies. Although its intention is clearly good, it seems Standard Chartered's highly effective promotion and sponsorship of the run in polluted Hong Kong is morally unconscionable if not economically unwise. The fourty thousand citizens encouraged to get out and run may become relatively suceptible to future illnesses that will detract from their quality of life. The suspended respiratory particulates they inhaled on Sunday are now lodged permanently in their lungs, and may unfortunately become their most permanent souvenir of their run.
How does Standard Chartered evaluate the social and economic benefits of sponsoring the run in the context of Hong Kong's notoriously toxic pollution? By withdrawing their sponsorship, the Bank would deliver a long overdue wake-up call to the government that the city's failing environment and its ambitions to be a World City are completely incompatible.
************
With this blog, I welcome your thoughts and feedback as to what we can do to make Hong Kong a clean city again. As the structure of the Hong Kong government allows greatest representation to functional constituencies and their underlying corporates, I think it is imperative to encourage Hong Kong corporates to address their social and political responsibilities to our community. I welcome your suggestions and feedback.
Isn't it ironic that in Hong Kong it is becoming more healthy to sit still rather than exercise? Yesterday's marathon resulted in the first asthma attack I've ever experienced - the density of pollution was obvious to everyone who remembers blue skies. Although its intention is clearly good, it seems Standard Chartered's highly effective promotion and sponsorship of the run in polluted Hong Kong is morally unconscionable if not economically unwise. The fourty thousand citizens encouraged to get out and run may become relatively suceptible to future illnesses that will detract from their quality of life. The suspended respiratory particulates they inhaled on Sunday are now lodged permanently in their lungs, and may unfortunately become their most permanent souvenir of their run.
How does Standard Chartered evaluate the social and economic benefits of sponsoring the run in the context of Hong Kong's notoriously toxic pollution? By withdrawing their sponsorship, the Bank would deliver a long overdue wake-up call to the government that the city's failing environment and its ambitions to be a World City are completely incompatible.
************
With this blog, I welcome your thoughts and feedback as to what we can do to make Hong Kong a clean city again. As the structure of the Hong Kong government allows greatest representation to functional constituencies and their underlying corporates, I think it is imperative to encourage Hong Kong corporates to address their social and political responsibilities to our community. I welcome your suggestions and feedback.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)