3 ms·
Knowing there is no way those numbers are right I point out it's dodgy looking, get viciously downvoted (probably by some kind of yay US crowd who dislike peopl
by contingencies 7y ago
Knowing there is no way those numbers are right I point out it's dodgy looking, get viciously downvoted (probably by some kind of yay US crowd who dislike people living in China having an opinion) but when the source is quoted has literally been corrected by its own authors.[0] Typical HN.
[0] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.est.7b06377/suppl_file/es7b06377_si_002.pdf https://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.est.7b06377/suppl...
- romaaeterna 7y agoI don't know what is "typical HN", but what you have linked to was only a correction in the table headings. They say in the correction notice that it "does not affect the data, only the table headings." They had switched "Model 1" and "Model 2" in the original. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.7b06377 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.7b06377
- contingencies 7y agoOK. Actually the reason I felt it was unlikely to be correct was that I have lived in both river deltas (a year each in Shanghai, Shenzhen, Zhuhai) as well as travelled extensively (Suzhou, Yangzhou, upper Yangtse, Jiangmen, etc.) and suspect given the manufacturing and residential density and geographic expanse of the lower PRD, it should have significant garbage versus Yangtse. How was the data gathered? Satellite? When was it gathered? The 2017 paper probably uses 2015 or earlier data, there have been substantial improvements on environmental issues in the PRD region (really China-wide) of late, but I'd still be surprised if it's substantially cleaner in plastic refuse terms than the Yangtse.