
Saturday's brutal - but short-lived - high pollution event raised a question in my mind that I'm not sure the answer to. From a health perspective, should we worry more about these short-lived extreme pollution spikes or long-term elevated baseline levels? For PM10 specifically, the WHO gives both daily and annual targets (50 and 20 ug/m^3, respectively). Granted, Beijing's air quality regularly exceeds both, but which is likely to cause more damage?
Lastly, it should be noted about the above table that I have done a direct conversion from API to PM10 concentration using the formulas at the bottom of this post, although this is an imperfect system because China does not list the primary pollutant for APIs below 50. Given the fact that PM10 is almost always the primary pollutant when the API is above 50, I think it's a reasonable approximation.
2 comments:
i don't want to think about the possible accumulated damage i've done to myself after three years here. i'm certainly not as good of a runner and i definitely get colds more often...at the same time, i look at all the 70 year-old men who congregate around my building at night chain smoking their zhongnanhai's, and i think: "hey, i'm gonna be okay!"
I have no real data other than a general idea as a practicing pediatrician. Given that caveat, I would say long term lower exposure would be more dangerous/worrisome than periodic individual spikes, as long as the latter are not immediately toxic, e.g., smoke inhalation in a fire. An analogous situation would be the ill effects of chronic idiopathic (non-specific) moderate high blood pressure versus suddenly very high pressure with a known cause which is definitively treated (like a benign tumor).
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.