EasyTyler

So with everyone's help; I'm not going to die. I was pretty sure of that, sorry if I mislead anyone! I still question why everyone seems to underestimate the problem in general: Thanks - I should have compared it - you're right; so here's my research: Current index in Melbourne: 17 (Average 13 Micrograms per Square meter - it's currently "high" for us) Dandenong: 34 I'm not sure that counts much against: 845 http://www.melbournetimesweekly.com.au/story/1231580/beijings-crazy-air-day/ A Lancet study published last month said a record 3.2m people died worldwide from air pollution in 2010, four times the number a decade earlier, with 1.2 million of those deaths in East Asia. This ranked pollution for the first time in the world's top 10 list of killer diseases, mostly because of vehicle exhaust. I wonder what scale "bad air" comes under if our own definition of acceptable, is double digits? 100? 200? Maybe 400 - then double that. :eek:Wake up and smell the smog:eek:

You keep saying one of the greatest, I don't see it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/propertypicturegalleries/9477990/The-worlds-10-best-cities-to-live-in.html?frame=2311071 No sign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_most_livable_cities Ditto above http://www.cntraveler.com/readers-choice-awards/top-cities-in-the-world-charleston-cape-town-bangkok-vancouver-photos#slide=1 Again Don't get me wrong, China does appeal; but to say that there's no evidence to suggest it's detrimental is a bit naive. I'm sensing that it's offending you because of a personal experience you had their some time ago perhaps?

I hear what you're saying.. I understand that but I'm not sure anyone actually read the link I posted. We're talking about a scale that originally went up to 300; translated into "Hazardous" that was smashed a weekend or two ago at 755, leaving the air quality people unable to reclassify it. Is air conditioning able to cope with that? Especially if modern equipment was only designed for normal industrious levels; presumably set some time ago. Anyway - moot point - but just a thought. Currently everyone on this thread seems to have jumped to the defence of "the man"; I didn't think big corporates were that well liked over here. It's surprising that nobody actually thought a company sending a team (FYI it's probably up to 80-100) abroad might choose somewhere safer, rather than just downright cheap! In the UK I suffered chest infections but have been clear over the last 5 years; I'm not about to risk my health and so will apply to the doctors (at my own cost) for a note... feels like I'm at school.

Love it! Someone called Blossom born just inside the hippy era is calling me Soft

I've been told that we have a big meeting where most of the region will be in Beijing for a meeting. While this is great and all, I've got serious concerns for health. China must be a cheap option of us to all travel there, however I am seriously concerned nobody has given people's heath consideration. If you're unfamiliar or wonder why I sound so ungrateful then checkout the Australian: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/chinese-question-official-solutions-as-pollution-returns-to-blanket-beijing/story-e6frg6so-1226560414616 So the last thing I want to do is go there and then get sick; work I enjoy but it's not something I want to get ill over! So - can I be "made" to go? My contract probably says I need to travel, as I meet customers all the time. But this is an internal "all hands" kind of thing. Advice appreciated!