Is Japan full of polution?
 

Is Japan a bad place to live because of the polution?
Or is that just a lie, that people say to keep people away?

Im sorry, but im just wondering if its true or false about what people have told me about Japan being poluted.

Or,

Is Japan a good place to live in because there is hardly any polution in the air?

I don`t really think Japan is all that polluted these days. There were some pollution issues in the past, but Japan has been working pretty hard to cut down a lot of it. I`d say that in my experience, even the more polluted areas of Tokyo do not even come close to any other large city in Asia... And are probably on par with the pollution levels in any large US city.

so that means that Tokyo is a healthier place to live then in the U.S.?

No, that isn`t what I am saying. I am saying that the pollution levels are about the same as they are in a large city in the US. There is a lot more to healthiness than pollution, and there are a lot of differences between cities.

oh, okay so its okay to live in Tokyo, because it would be about the same as living in the U.S.

well thats good, so here i come Tokyo.
oh wait i have a year to go.:(
i so wish i was 16 already, then i could see the beautiful Tokyo.:)

Why would pollution be a concern for a trip? Also, why do you have to wait till you are 16? If you have the fund, then might as well....

Pollution is still an issue in some area, Tokyo Bay is like the ultimate mercury dump...

That's also what I thought, if pollution is a big enough reason to not go to Japan, I think you should stay home.

comparison regarding air pollution
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/D.../table3_13.pdf

What conclusions do you make from this data, Blimp?

Thanks for the info...

Looking at that chart, I have to say that for the number of people and businesses in such a small area - Tokyo has some great air quality.

my very personal conclusion of the data is that the air pollution is worse (not necessarily bad) for the three mentioned japanese cities than i thought. now, may i ask the reason behind you asking me for my conclusion?

I asked because it wasn't obvious to me what kinds of conclusions I should come up with lists of numbers and population densities of a bunch of cities around the world. In short, the link didn't mean much to me, so I was wondering what it meant to you.

Thinking about it, I have to wonder a bit - how are they taking this data? And where? Because if the air quality in Tokyo is anything like the air quality in Nagoya - there are areas with great crystal clear air, and areas with an abundance of factories that aren`t that great. It varies a LOT with location.

If they are only taking a few samples around the city and averaging them - or (doubtful) taking a single sample somewhere... Then things could look drastically worse or better than reality.

I know the air in my little town is very very clean, as they test the crap out of it every single week or so. There is a trash incinerator nearby, and the deal with the city is that they`ll only allow it to be here if there is NO increase in pollution. This serious testing by the town has had the effect of making everywhere else around be conscious of their pollution... And the air is great at this point.

ok....
first, the document connected to the link i sent mentions nothing about population densities, so i am not sure what list you are looking at. second, the list has apart from population for each listed city also three variables (perhaps this what you refer to as "numbers") that hopefully* gives a relatively good picture of the air quality of the city in question.

*i say hopefully since i am not an expert on air pollution or air quality, but will have to take the authors' word that these are indeed good indicator for air pollution.

You are right...population, not population densities.

I ask because without knowing what a "good number" or a "bad number" is, it is hard for me to know what the numbers mean. So Tokyo has less particulate matter than Athens, but a higher population. But is has 7 times the population of Bogota but more particles per 1000.

I am not being lazy when I say it is hard for me to know what these numbers MEAN, as I am not sure what population adds to the equation, besides number of people in "danger". And what is population without population density or the city's actual size?

some answers to your questions can be found in the column to the right, "about the data".

i didn't know either what a good or bad number was, but it says in the column to the right that:
The current World Health Organization (WHO) air quality guidelines are annual mean concentrations of 20 micrograms per cubic meter for particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and 40 micrograms for nitrogen dioxide and daily mean concentrations of 20 micrograms per cubic meter for sulfur dioxide.

concerning the population figure, i don't know, your guess is as good as mine. however, when i made my conclusion i disregarded the population data, since it has no bearing on the question "is japan polluted?". now, air pollution is only one factor to the overall picture, so perhaps someone else can contribute by finding other factors and data for these.

But we are still only looking at strictly from air pollution's perspective though right? Water quality and audible quality is not considered?

Unfortunately that doesn`t really help.

Japan doesn`t quite have the same sort of zoning limitations as a lot of other locations, so a "residential" area doesn`t necessarily mean that every 4th building is a mini factory or business.

I don`t mean to imply that their data is wrong, or that it isn`t accurate. I just am sort of wondering aloud how they calculated this, as Japan is a hard place to measure due to the way cities are mixed.

i don't know how well these quotes answers your question but it is the best i could do with my limited knowledge.
The data on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide concentrations are based on reports from urban monitoring sites. Annual means (measured in micrograms per cubic meter) are average concentrations observed at these sites. Coverage is not comprehensive because not all cities have monitoring systems.

The data on concentrations of particulate matter are estimates, for selected cities, of average annual concentrations in residential areas away from air pollution “hotspots,” such as industrial districts and transport corridors.

could you pls elaborate on the last sentence in your post. the sentence ending with "....., as Japan is a hard place to measure due to the way cities are mixed."

In a lot of countries, there are some pretty strict rules in place about where you can build homes, factories, etc. The US is a very good example - being split very clearly into residential, industrial and commercial areas.

Japan, however, is much more loose when it comes to zoning. Heavy industry is pushed off into certain areas, as is some commercial... But otherwise, as long as you follow the construction rules for the land plot you can build pretty much anything. So you will find extremely mixed neighborhoods - single family homes next to a factory next to a huge condo complex next to a small farm next to a one story business next to a ... etc etc etc.

In some areas those factories will generate more pollution than others. So in my opinion, it is very hard to find a solely residential area in order to get a reading. You`d pretty much always be in a mixed area, and not all mixed areas are equal in their air quality. And if they did manage to find a residential only area, chances are it`s an extreme exception so would not be accurate for the majority of residences.

well i want to make sure i have enough money saved up, and so far i only have $1,000 dollars saved up.>_<

First some information that isn't included in the chart but could be helpful in interpetting the data.

Particulate matter is mostly associated with the burning of solids like, wood, paper, coal, and garbage. It is also a common byproduct of burning diesel fuel. It is the result of incomplete combustion products, also know as ash, becoming airborn. Most 1st world countries have very tight restrictions on the size and quantity of particulate matter than can be emitted from industrial facilities.

Sulfur dioxide is a common byproduct of burning coal and heavy petroleum products. It is the primary contributor to acid rain. It is formed when sulfur containing hydorcarbons are burnt. It can be carried long distances and not dissipate, often creating pollution problems far from the industrial source. It is also expelled by volcanos.

Nitrogen dioxide polution is most commonly associated with gasonline engines. It and other nitrogen oxide compounds, commonly refereed to as NOx, are produced when combustion temperatures are extremely high and breaks down the naturaly occuring Nitrogen and Oxygen molecules in air and the now free nitrogen and oxygen atoms meet up. It is one of the compounds, along with carbon monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbons, that are regulated in gasoline engine exhaust.


Here is how I would interpret the data.

Yokohoma has a large industrial area nearby but not neccesarily in the population center. There is probably a stable and usually predictable wind pattern. I get this from the high sulfur dioxide levels while having a low nitrogen dioxide level in comparison to other first world countries that might be expected to have a similar numbers of cars. If there was a low or unpredictable wind patterns I would expect higher Nitrogen Dioxide levels like those in LA where the lack of predictable winds traps polution in the area. You would also see higher particulate matter in this situation, though not on the scale as that seen in the Chinese cities with similar sulfur dioxide levels. It is also possible Yokohoma is on top of a volcano and has very few cars. But I doubt that:D .

Both Okaka-Kobe and Tokyo have a large number of automobiles. I wouldn't expect too much industrial production to be near or the winds blow away from the population areas. There is possibly low winds in the region. I say this because of the relatively low sulfur dioxide levels while having high nitrogen dioxide levels.

It certainly isn't Beijing where I use to ride by a petroleum refiner on the way to class, but they do burn their garbage in their lawns out in the countryside. That being said, no bloody noses or congested sinuses so far due to air quality (Beijing).

Beijing is geographically challenged in terms of pollution. At least Tokyo is next to the sea so bad air can readily just drift to nowhere. Beijing has mountains up the north which acts like a barrier that traps all the pollutants coming from the industrial south. Unless you get wind, the air is always... well crap.

I think Tokyo is pretty damn clean given you can count the number of trees in the city with one hand.

comparing it to L.A. or Beijing, China I don't think its polluted. But ironically its the reason why my family was sent there lol

wow thats a lot to read, i'll have to read it tomorrow.>.< but thank you for the information.>^_^<