LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-china-air-pollution-20130709,0,1377450.story
Just the thought of not being able to breathe freely brings me much discomfort and seems unthinkable. This is not the case in Beijing, China, where the northern Chinese population has a decreased life expectancy while living in a pollution-heavy atmosphere. The article regarding this issue is organized in such a way that a main thesis is proposed with an ample amount of research to certify the claims made by the article. It states that the "main correlation between air pollution and health" is the decreasing life span followed by it. It is unfortunate that the atmosphere in the country is doused with pollution, but even with this circumstance, there are solutions proposed towards the end to rectify the situation.
Many measures have to be taken to ensure healthy atmospheric conditions, such as shutting down large industries emitting harmful air quality as well as using environment friendly vehicles. Referring back to the article, researcher Chen and his team concluded that with the exposure to 100 micrograms of pollution, life spans are cut down by 3 years. With the amount of pollution exposed to China, 3 years is a minimal decrease compared to the decrease that the pollution existing will have on life spans. The amount of premature deaths in China also affects its economy and industrial base, where population scarcity fails to foster modern urban development.
Towards the end of the article, Hongbin Li suggests to monitor the gasoline and heating that major factories and raise the standards on these procedures. I agree with his assertion maintaining that the cost and sacrifices made to get rid of pollution are small prices to pay for saving millions of lives. Health overrules any other matters such as industry or politics, because without healthy people society would not be able to function. In conclusion, the dense pollution in China that has people wearing masks all day needs to be removed at any cost for the sake of saving an entire population.
You highlight a very important issue worth discussing, Shivani. The study does quite a good job backing up its findings with hard facts. That being said, I wonder whether there is more to this article and its source's evidence than an appeal to science. For instance, writer Julie Makinen notes the following: "the researchers estimated that the 500 million residents of northern China in the 1990s collectively lost 2.5 billion years from their lives." The reference of 2.5 billion is staggering, is it not? However, what if the statement were re-written as such: "the researchers estimated that the 500 million residents of norther China in the 1990s" EACH LOST 5 YEARS FROM THEIR LIVES. Is the effect different? Notice that the facts haven't changed (admittedly, I had to use a calculator to figure out that 2.5 billion divided by 500 million is 5!). What does this tell you about the relaying of facts?
ReplyDeleteGenerally a well written post, though I couldn't help but notice the misplaced modifier in your second paragraph: "Referring back to the article, researcher Chen. . . ." Do be mindful of this.