What is the main point and the purpose of the article?
The article addresses that China air quality description is unclear and not exact so it’s easy for the public to misunderstand the description and current air quality situation, which would compromise the public health. The purpose of the article is to call for more precise and intelligible air quality description that would accurately describe effect of the air quality level on the public health.
Does the way the article is written encourage you to take sides on the issue? Explain.
The article encourages me to think that the current air quality description is inaccurate and need to be improved to prevent further damage to public health. The article points out the air pollution index description China used when pollution level is in range of 101-200 is “slight pollution” and “light pollution” while U.S. uses “unhealthy” to describe the pollution of the same level. This would let the public underestimate the health damage to be outside. Moreover, it references the WHO suggestion of upper limit of PM 10 and compares that with the China’s description of the upper limit to show the inaccuracy of China’s description.
List the sources the author(s) use to support the claims on air pollution (i.e. scientific evidence, expert, government official, citizens, etc.). Provide names and short descriptions.
Hao Li, received Doctor of Science from Leibniz University of Hanover in 1994, returned to China and got post-doctoral position inBeijing Medical University but she was worried about environmental situation in China and resigned in 1996 to become an environmental science popularization volunteer. From 2000-2004, she was selected as an “Environmental Herald” by SEPA (now MEP, Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People's Republic of China). In 2008, she became member of Chinese Academy of Sciences old scientist science popularization lecture group.
The World Health Organization is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) that is concerned with international public health.
What bias did the author bring to the writing of this article?
I didn’t notice bias in this article. The article compares China air pollution index description with the one in America and point out that the one used in China is less understandable and accurate and need to be improved, which is a reasonable conclusion based on fact.
How (if at all) are health disparities, or other equity issues addressed in the article or report?
The health disparities are not clearly addressed in the article. But there may be some equity problems in how well are people informed of air quality report. For example, people with less access to Internet or certain app would less likely to get the information.
What three points, details or references from the article did you follow up on to advance your understanding of the issued and actors described in the article?
I followed up on Hao Li which is mentioned in the article. She was majored in Biochemistry in college and had done her doctoral research in Immunobiology. She published some reports that evaluate China environmental health problems in light of immunology.
Full citation and abstract (include link if exists)
刘毅, 空气质量"轻微污染"和"轻度污染"有什么区别?，http://env.people.com.cn/GB/16369596.html, 2015-10-21
Yi Liu, What’s the difference between “slight pollution” and “light pollution”, http://env.people.com.cn/GB/16369596.html, accessed 10/21/2015
What is the main point and the purpose of the article?
The article addresses that China air quality description is unclear and not exact so it’s easy for the public to misunderstand the description and current air quality situation, which would compromise the public health. The purpose of the article is to call for more precise and intelligible air quality description that would accurately describe effect of the air quality level on the public health.
文章强调了中国空气质量的描述不清，不准确，因此很容易让公众误解空气质量评语和目前的空气质量状况，这将危及公众健康。本文的目的是为了呼吁更精确和易懂的空气质量的描述，这个准确的描述将准确写出空气质量水平对公众健康的影响。
Does the way the article is written encourage you to take sides on the issue? Explain.
The article encourages me to think that the current air quality description is inaccurate and need to be improved to prevent further damage to public health. The article points out the air pollution index description China used when pollution level is in range of 101-200 is “slight pollution” and “light pollution” while U.S. uses “unhealthy” to describe the pollution of the same level. This would let the public underestimate the health damage to be outside. Moreover, it references the WHO suggestion of upper limit of PM 10 and compares that with the China’s description of the upper limit to show the inaccuracy of China’s description.
文章鼓励我认为目前中国的空气质量的描述是不准确，以防止进一步损害公众健康必须改进。文章指出，中国使用的空气污染指数评语在污染水平101-200的范围内是“轻微污染”和“轻度污染”，而美国采用“不健康”来形容这一级别的污染。这将让公众低估在户外的健康危害。此外，它引用的世界卫生组织建议的PM 10的上限并比较中国对这个上限的描述来显示中国描述的不准确。
List the sources the author(s) use to support the claims on air pollution (i.e. scientific evidence, expert, government official, citizens, etc.). Provide names and short descriptions.
Hao Li, received Doctor of Science from Leibniz University of Hanover in 1994, returned to China and got post-doctoral position inBeijing Medical University but she was worried about environmental situation in China and resigned in 1996 to become an environmental science popularization volunteer. From 2000-2004, she was selected as an “Environmental Herald” by SEPA (now MEP, Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People's Republic of China). In 2008, she became member of Chinese Academy of Sciences old scientist science popularization lecture group.
The World Health Organization is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) that is concerned with international public health.
李皓, 1994年获得德国汉诺威大学自然科学博士学位。1995年回国到北京医科大学免疫系做博士后出于对当时中国环境状况的极度忧虑，1996年辞职成为环境科普志愿者。2000年至2004年为国家环保总局环境使者。2008年成为“中科院老科学家科普演讲团”成员。
世界卫生组织（简称世卫组织或世卫）是联合国属下的专门机构，国际最大的公共卫生组织, 世界卫生组织的宗旨是使全世界人民获得尽可能高水平的健康。
What bias did the author bring to the writing of this article?
I didn’t notice bias in this article. The article compares China air pollution index description with the one in America and point out that the one used in China is less understandable and accurate and need to be improved, which is a reasonable conclusion based on fact.
我没有注意到这篇文章的偏见。文章比较了中国的空气污染指数评语与美国的评语，并指出中国使用的是不容易理解的，不准确的还有待提高，这是基于事实得出的合理结论。
How (if at all) are health disparities, or other equity issues addressed in the article or report?
The health disparities are not clearly addressed in the article. But there may be some equity problems in how well are people informed of air quality report. For example, people with less access to Internet or certain app would less likely to get the information.
健康差距没有明确在文章中提到。但在公众能有多好地获悉空气质量报告上一些可能会有公平问题。例如，与互联网或某些应用程序接触的机会较少的人就不太可能得到这个信息。
What three points, details or references from the article did you follow up on to advance your understanding of the issued and actors described in the article?
I followed up on Hao Li which is mentioned in the article. She was majored in Biochemistry in college and had done her doctoral research in Immunobiology. She published some reports that evaluate China environmental health problems in light of immunology.
我跟进了文中提到的李皓。她的大学专业是生物化学，她的博士研究是免疫学。她最近几年发表一些报告用免疫学的理论评估了中国环境健康问题。