It occurs to me, after reading this story a second time and reviewing the latest comments posted to this thread, that this is a science story that wasn't report

It occurs to me, after reading this story a second time and reviewing the latest comments posted to this thread, that this is a science story that wasn't reported by a science journalist. It's not at all clear--only a company spokesman is quoted on the point--that the machine even WORKS. It's also not at all clear, even if the machine is effective at reducing air pollution (where is the independent evidence?), that it is as good for that or as inexpensive for that as other measures that might be taken to reduce air pollution. The town I grew up in has much less air pollution today than it had when I was young. The newly industrialized countries of east Asia (I am most familiar with Taiwan, but the fact is the same in other countries in the region) have less air pollution today than they had in their worst years. There is a lot known about technology and a lot known about effective regulation for reducing air pollution. This story really needs an experienced science reporter, not a rookie in international reporting, to tell the accurate story about what's the best thing to do to handle China's horrific problem with air pollution.[1] [1] "Study Links Polluted Air in China to 1.6 Million Deaths a Year" (New York Times 13 August 2015) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/world/asia/study-links-polluted-air-in-china-to-1-6-million-deaths-a-year.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/world/asia/study-links-pol... Chinese version of story: "研究称中国每年有160万人死于空气污染" http://cn.nytimes.com/china/20150814/c14pollution/ http://cn.nytimes.com/china/20150814/c14pollution/ Other recent QZ articles about China, by other authors: http://qz.com/on/chinas-transition/ http://qz.com/on/chinas-transition/