对中国雾霾的事,应该说实话!

能备就备吧。我上回回去遇到连续4、5天雾霾,脖子附近起疹子,而且一直咳嗽,但是后来离开了雾霾的地区就好了。
你有证据是雾霾导致的吗?你吸烟吗?:evil::jiayou::jiayou::jiayou:
 
的确是深刻体验过文革的人呀,总结得就是精炼。:good:
说的很符合9981所谓的“揭画皮”的过程嘛。:D:D:D
9981的揭画皮,纯属多此一举。他肯定没有仔细看过你跟在我后面的某些帖子。:)
 
我不吸烟。我也没拿土共的好处,所以我赶快逃离了。:monster:
你文科生不懂科学,你那是水土不服的表现,到外面去,在雾霾里跑步,在雾霾学会呼吸,或者开始抽烟,那么你就不会抱怨,或者没资格再抱怨了:evil::evil::evil:
 
9981的揭画皮,纯属多此一举。他肯定没有仔细看过你跟在我后面的某些帖子。:)
哦哟,你们科学教的果然相通相知嘛,连对方看了什么帖子没看什么贴子都了解得一清二楚。
你又说对了,的确是多余啊,因为就没有搞对有画皮的对象嘛。画皮都批在你们教主身上呢,我前面就提醒了,教主可是一直为土共站台洗地的,你们要注意紧跟形势仔细体会哦,别不小心搞的你们自己精神分裂了。:)
 
你文科生不懂科学,你那是水土不服的表现,到外面去,在雾霾里跑步,在雾霾学会呼吸,或者开始抽烟,那么你就不会抱怨,或者没资格再抱怨了:evil::evil::evil:
我又不是科学教的,干嘛要跟教主保持一致?:kan:
我是进来看科学教徒如何精神分裂的。:evil::evil::evil:
 
要不把这个贴关了, 大家都去看骂战贴吧, 两边跑太累了 ...
 
文革里的人是不论心里如何想,表面都要和党保持一致,这里有些人是真心把教主当神,要说区别吧,那就是发自内心,我觉得比那些没办法只能说假话的文革中的群众更可悲
文革里的人吧,不论心里如何想,表面都要和党保持一致;这里的有些人吧,不论方舟子的观点是什么,只要方舟子没他长得好看,他们就认为是恶魔说话,一定要批判。要说区别吧,那就是文革以毛主席为准,这里某些人以相貌为准。比如韩寒林志颖这样长得讨他们喜欢的,就比较容易让他们觉得能接受。我觉得比那些没办法只能说假话的文革中的群众更天真,比街头的阿姨大妈更可爱。:)

玩笑之后,说点正经的。臭农民,你到底反对方舟子关于雾霾的那个言论?一个月相当于5根烟?那也是他引用美国人研究的结论。你要批判,就拿出你认为正确的根据来。要么,你说说在北京雾霾中生活一个月相当于几根烟呢?
 
文革里的人吧,不论心里如何想,表面都要和党保持一致;这里的有些人吧,不论方舟子的观点是什么,只要方舟子没他长得好看,他们就认为是恶魔说话,一定要批判。要说区别吧,那就是文革以毛主席为准,这里某些人以相貌为准。比如韩寒林志颖这样长得讨他们喜欢的,就比较容易让他们觉得能接受。我觉得比那些没办法只能说假话的文革中的群众更天真,比街头的阿姨大妈更可爱。:)

玩笑之后,说点正经的。臭农民,你到底反对方舟子关于雾霾的那个言论?一个月相当于5根烟?那也是他引用美国人研究的结论。你要批判,就拿出你认为正确的根据来。要么,你说说在北京雾霾中生活一个月相当于几根烟呢?

前一段话,因为你是中国出来的博士,水平有限,就不和你计较了,不进行解说辅导工作了
直接到后一段话吧,如果他不同意所谓美国医生的说法,他拿出来说什么啊?
按照你的理解,那啥也别说了,你先把雾霾一个月相当于5根烟的详细证据拿出来,否则没必要接着讨论
 
你承认不承认结果另说, 文章先贴出来。

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/02/one-month-beijing-smoking-5-cigarettes/1186/

One Month in Beijing = Smoking 5 Cigarettes
largest.jpg

Reuters
BEIJING—No one would call Beijing a healthy city.

Cars, bikes, motorcycles, rickshaws and carts speed up as pedestrians scamper across the street.

"If they’re freaking out about air pollution and they’re five or ten kilograms overweight, they’re really missing the point."

Eating and drinking present a continual risk, with regular news reports about people getting sick from tainted milk, contaminated pork, adulterated noodles, rice, watermelons, bean sprouts, wine.

But the biggest worry for many is the city’s abysmal air pollution, so bad on some days that residents can taste it and the airport occasionally shuts down as thick smog obscures the runways.

One man has taken up the quixotic job of understanding what Beijing’s epic air pollution means for human health. Dr. Richard Saint Cyr, a family practitioner, runs an English-language website called My Health Beijing, which explores a range of health issues including food safety, traditional Chinese medicine, hepatitis, cell phone towers, childhood obesity, and just about any matter that keeps a fretful urbanite up at night.

The hottest topic on his site by far, though, is air pollution in the city called “the Big Gray.” Not long ago, Saint Cyr posted an article calculating the actual harm of Beijing air. He wrote:

“One of life’s great mysteries is finally answered: ‘living in polluted City XYZ is equivalent to smoking how many cigarettes a day?’ ….. I’ve been asked that question many times by patients and by the media — and now I know what to tell them: a day in Beijing is like smoking one sixth of a cigarette. More specifically, on an average day in Beijing an average adult inhales a total of 1.8mg of PM2.5 particles from air pollution, which is 1/6 of the average 12mg of PM2.5 particles inhaled from an average cigarette. Yes, that’s a very strange number, but if I’ve done the math correctly, it is indeed true.”

In an interview, Saint Cyr says calculating that information was “strangely reassuring. I actually felt a little bit better about living here.”

But the truth is that his estimates—which he based on public health research, the U.S. Embassy in Beijing’s hourly data measuring particulate matter of 2.5 micrograms in diameter or less, and the accepted data on the effects of air pollution on heart disease and lung cancer—still suggest that all Beijing residents are, in effect, cigarette smokers, however moderate.

Saint Cyr has also calculated the effects of Beijing’s “beyond index” days, which occur when the meter goes above 500 particulates per cubic meter. This is the number that the U.S. Embassy accidentally described as “crazy bad” in 2010, a cause for endless jokes, tag lines, and commentary.

Crazy bad days, according to Saint Cyr, are the equivalent of 75 percent of one cigarette a day. “So if you don’t smoke and you are really healthy, it is something to think about,” he admits, although he argues that the health effects of being overweight and inactive are far worse than a little air pollution. “My overall theme is that people, if they’re freaking out about air pollution and they’re five or ten kilograms overweight, they’re really missing the point about their relative risks, what they’re gonna die of,” he says.

At the same time, Saint Cyr acknowledges that mortality from air pollution is a problem in Beijing. Lung cancer, heart disease, and strokes all rise in polluted cities like Beijing. In China, the individual risk might not be significant but because of the size of the population, the pollution could mean that “hundreds of thousands die prematurely,” he says.

Air quality in Beijing isn’t expected to improve any time soon, but the transparency of reporting took a great leap forward just before the lunar new year, when the Beijing Municipal Environmental Monitoring Center started to publish its own 2.5 particulate matter readings. On his website, Saint Cyr compared the readings from the U.S. Embassy and the Chinese, and found that the numbers were comparable. That’s a dramatic improvement over the city’s earlier monitoring system, which limited itself to a daily report on larger particulates of 10 micrograms and had the audacity to claim that there were 286 “blue sky days” in 2011.

The city started reporting its findings just in time to get one that nearly broke the charts. After a riotous, hours-long celebration heralding the Year of the Dragon that began after dark on Jan. 23, the number peaked at 1,593 micrograms of particulate matter, almost all of it sulfur dioxide from the explosions.

On “hazardous” days and nights like that one, Richard Saint Cyr advises wearing a face mask outside the home and using air purifiers inside. That, and “you pray for the wind in Beijing.”
 
贴个文章就好了,详细的论点数据呢?以为别人不会GOOGLE啊?INTERNET上发言没几万亿也有几亿吧?实在有点好笑啊,要不要我也GOOGLE几个说那雾霾导致大量肺病肺癌的文章啊?这就是论据?搞得跟CCTV那前主播一个样子,典型文科思维嘛:dx:

明天被大巴撞死的可能也很大类
 
是我不跟你计较, 先把文章贴出来。 而且他只是打个比方而不是真的说雾霾相当于香烟。 方提供的思考方式可以帮助国人正确认识雾霾, 而不是一味恐慌。

“One of life’s great mysteries is finally answered: ‘living in polluted City XYZ is equivalent to smoking how many cigarettes a day?’ ….. I’ve been asked that question many times by patients and by the media — and now I know what to tell them: a day in Beijing is like smoking one sixth of a cigarette. More specifically, on an average day in Beijing an average adult inhales a total of 1.8mg of PM2.5 particles from air pollution, which is 1/6 of the average 12mg of PM2.5 particles inhaled from an average cigarette. Yes, that’s a very strange number, but if I’ve done the math correctly, it is indeed true.”
 
看来你是真理解了那文章的意思,人是说不要太恐慌,就象我说的,人被大巴撞死的可能性也很大
你再回头看看教主的说发?
不太理解,他放个P,就一定要说是香的吗?
他说的话,他的认识不可以是错的吗
 
后退
顶部