An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:
What does this tell us? Does it not tell us that the study’s expert authors recognised that a 24-hour averaging time would cause the air quality index to lag behind actual pollutant concentrations which is similar to the critics’ argument that a 24-hour averaging period is too slow? It’s amazing how a little context easily debunks the commenter’s argument.
Furthermore, Appendix 1 of
the report goes on to illustrate how the organisers of a 10 km race had in Nov 2006 decided to let the race go ahead despite hazy skies on account of the API reading in the locality being a mere 52. As a result, 43 people suffered from discomfort with 5 being admitted to hospital for treatment. The study’s authors go on to note that, in complete opposite to the commenter’s position that:
It is logical to assume that the organizers would postpone or cancel the race if they are aware of the rapid rise of the RSP concentrations. However, the use of the hourly API at Yuen Long (which was 52 and representative of the past 24-hour average concentration of RSP) as evidence that the air quality of Yuen Long was acceptable at the time of the race was a mistake and probably contributed to this incident. Instead, the hourly RSP concentration reported at 8am would much better information on the air quality to the organizers.
Which is precisely what supporters of an hourly spot PSI reading are saying. The study as quoted actually supports their position.
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com.
26-06-2013, 01:10 AM
Truths & half-truths on foreign sources of PSI measurement
