Disappointed by HK

[gilleshk]

Hence the word "appear" in my first post... Numbers vary greatly in HK from day to day depending on a variety of factors and I would imagine that London is no different. I only had a quick look at a couple of stations in London and I don't know the city well enough to know if these stations were representative of the whole however the initial appearance is that it seems much worse in HK.

Cities are polluted, that's a given and HK is worse than most Western cities I've been in for any kind of time. That's fairly easy to feel if you exercise for any length of time and it doesn't matter all that much if you're in Sai Kung or CWB for many of the pollutants, it does make a difference for the particulates but that's only part of a much larger equation. In any case, I respect and understand someone's decision not to want to expose their children to these level of pollution even though London is certainly not the cleanest city in Europe.

[gmi]

There is any amount of data available from the EPD on air quality, and I have no reason to doubt the genuineness of any of it. Your ability to interpret the data does, however, seem to be somewhat limited. The monitoring station at Tap Mun is the most remote Sai Kung one. You can find lots of raw data for it and all the other monitoring stations on the EPD website, and some useful analysis for the annual figures for 2010 here: http://www.epd-asg.gov.hk/english/re...010e_final.pdf

The EPD is a government department. I'd argue that they have a vested interest in the data that they make available, so I'd say that it is indeed questionable. Particularly in HK where pollution is a contentious issue.

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that my ability to interpret date is limited when my comments have been quite general and you have no idea what data I have looked at.

[gilleshk]

The EPD is a government department. I'd argue that they have a vested interest in the data that they make available, so I'd say that it is indeed questionable. Particularly in HK where pollution is a contentious issue.

That could be said about most of the data in most countries and cities. There are almost always a vested interest in any data/studies published whether it's because of funding, reputation or a slew of other possible pressures... It's not a very coherent argument since it could be raised in any discussion and it doesn't really leave much room for any kind of rationality unless you support it with other numbers that might come from a more credible source.

[PDLM]

@gmi,

Have you actually looked at any EPD data? (I mean the actual underlying data that is published on their website, not the sanitised press release version that the government propaganda team puts out.)

[hullexile]

The EPD is a government department. I'd argue that they have a vested interest in the data that they make available, so I'd say that it is indeed questionable. Particularly in HK where pollution is a contentious issue.

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that my ability to interpret date is limited when my comments have been quite general and you have no idea what data I have looked at.

I thought he was replying to Gilles who had looked at data.

[Morrison]

OIC - if the data doesn't agree with your opinion then it must the data that's wrong. Hmmm.

well, if you prefer blindly trusting data then fine, it's a convenient way of life.
you are media's darling.

[PDLM]

What else do you propose? I don't have the resources to set up my own network of monitoring stations.

I can be as critical as anyone of data and analysis that I think deserves it, but I see nothing to suggest that the data which the EPD publishes is anything but accurate, and I haven't seen anything from the lobbying organisations that has a problem with the EPD's raw data either, except in that they don't collect as much detail on particulates of different sizes as the lobbying groups would like.

[gmi]

That could be said about most of the data in most countries and cities. There are almost always a vested interest in any data/studies published whether it's because of funding, reputation or a slew of other possible pressures... It's not a very coherent argument since it could be raised in any discussion and it doesn't really leave much room for any kind of rationality unless you support it with other numbers that might come from a more credible source.

You're right, that could be said of the most data around the world. But just because that is the case doesn't mean that you shouldn't question any one data source, in this case the EPD.

I merely saying that it is questionable, nothing more!

It would be equally incoherent to take one source as being the absolute truth as it would be to dismiss something outright!

[gmi]

@gmi,

Have you actually looked at any EPD data? (I mean the actual underlying data that is published on their website, not the sanitised press release version that the government propaganda team puts out.)

Yes I have. And I'm not saying its incorrect.

But the fact that they santise their information, and that its often inconsistent with other sources (which may be incorrect) makes me question to what extent they'd be willing to mislead me if it was in their interest. I'm willing to accept I may just be paranoid.....but its not unfounded.

[dumbdonkey]

There is no perfect city in the world. NYC has random violence. London has high taxes and high living expenses, also random violence and riots.


The best way to avoid all these is to dig a hole in the ground.