Football
Associated Press 17y

Bad weather day in Beijing as thick haze, pollution blanket city

BEIJING -- Beijing weather forecasters chose Wednesday to
talk up improved technology, meaning more precise predictions for
the 2008 Olympics.

They picked a bad day to talk about the weather.

Even by Beijing standards -- the city is one of Asia's most
polluted -- Wednesday stood out. By early afternoon, a thick haze
significantly reduced visibility. At street level, soot and humid
air produced a fog of pollution.

After several days with temperatures hovering near 100 degrees,
a rainstorm cooled but further darkened the city with vehicles
using headlights most of the afternoon.

Zhai Xiaohui, a spokesman for the Beijing Municipal Bureau of
Environmental Protection, described the city as "slightly polluted
today."

However, a teacher in a Beijing school said it was worse than
that.

"Actually, it is a terrible day," said the teacher at
Beijing's Yuetan Middle School, who identified herself as Ms. Yang.
"It's extremely sultry and polluted. But it is normal in Beijing.
Our students will have outdoor exercises on such days, unless when
there are sandstorms."

Health officials warned this week about the possibility of
heatstroke, and on Tuesday the Beijing Electric Power Co. said
demand was the highest in history.

Beijing's filthy air is one of the biggest concerns of the
International Olympic Committee and 2008 Olympic organizers, who
worry that elite athletes may be unable to perform under such
conditions.

Chinese officials are seeking air pollution tips from the
Research Triangle Park in North Carolina to help combat smog and
other problems in Beijing.

A group of Chinese air modelers, engineers and meteorologists
recently completed three weeks of training at RTI International, a
research institute based at RTP, where they learned to use
state-of-the-art computer modeling to forecast air pollution.

Beijing's goal is to meet national air standards before it hosts
the Olympics. The city is particularly focused on combatting
particle pollution, which can cause breathing problems and reduced
visibility. That pollution is caused by emissions from power
plants, diesel engines and wind-blown dust. High ozone levels,
which occur on sunny days when nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons
emitted by car tailpipes, power plants and factories react in the
air, are also a problem.

RTI scientists helped assemble computer models to help Chinese
environmental officials understand the consequences of emissions
throughout the region. The company will also provide a technical
foundation for Chinese officials to decide which additional
pollution controls to adopt.

Beijing officials have closed several chemical and steel plants
on the city's edge. Many polluters will shut down -- or cut back --
during the Games, and much dust-producing construction to modernize
the capital will be curtailed.

The city has 3 million vehicles and will have 3.3 million when
the Games open. Half of them may be kept off the roads during the
Olympic's 17-day run.

Wang Yubin, assistant chief engineer with the Beijing
Meteorological Bureau, has previously said that historical records
show there's a 50 percent chance of rain for the August 8, 2008,
opening ceremony -- and the same probability of rain during the
closing ceremony.

He told reporters Wednesday that forecasting for the 2008
Olympics would be more precise than before.

He said a 72-hour forecast, with updates every three hours, was
better than anything used in the past two Olympics in Athens and
Sydney.

"It has been hard for us to achieve this, but we have. It's a
big development."

He also acknowledged that earlier claims that Chinese scientists
can seed clouds to produce rain -- or disperse rainmaking clouds --
is immature technology.

"Dispersal is more difficult than rainfall enhancement," Wang
said. "In rainfall dispersal, we are still in the experimental
stage but we are continuing our efforts."

China has tinkered with artificial rainmaking for decades,
though the technology is questioned. In 2003, the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences questioned the science behind it as "too
weak."

^ Back to Top ^