It's not smog, it's haze

With the Olympics having kicked off a few days ago (was I the only one who fell asleep during the interminable opening ceremonies? Jeez; someone needed an editor), I'm fascinated at the political tug of war over the Beijing Smog Problem. To the naked eye, it's obvious that the Chinese capital has a lot of it -- in fact the air particulate matter on opening day was nearly three time that of Los Angeles and at levels that would normally keep school kids indoors during recess in my hometown So Cal (yes, that happened here. Not anymore, because air quality is so much better, but in the 70s, at least 10 times a year).

This is why I'm laughing out loud that this ridiculous story posted by Reuters in which some UN dork chastises the media for ragging on Beijing smog. The part I like is his comparison to the massively successful Los Angeles games in 1984 and its so-called smog problem. Which is crap. I lived in LA back then, and the air quality during the games was fine. The staggering woman marathoner he refers to staggered because it was really hot the day and she was dehydrated. It wasn't smog. Jeez.

It's apparent that Beijing suffers from a helacious inversion layer (or what we call fog), in which moist air traps in the smog. Kudos to them for trying to curb traffic to cut down on emissions, but in a city of 16 million, there's only so much you can do. LA's saving grace in '84 were the ocean breezes that sweeps everything away. Beijing's air is stagnant and still. The opening ceremonies made me sweat, and I was in my cool home sucking down a brew.

The athletes can compete in this environment because they're in world-class shape. If you or I tried to ride our bikes 150 miles in the chemical soup that passed for Beijing air last Saturday, we'd collapse in an asthmatic heap.

Photo credit: Getty Images

Smoking is bad for you

OK, I'll admit it -- I like smoking. I enjoyed smoking. I miss it sometimes. But, geez, the data keeps piling up on all the bad things smoking does for you: cancer, lung problems, heart disease, and on and on and on. And you stink, too. Teeth, yuck. So the folks at Health.com put together this little survey showing what your heart attack risk is if you do or you don't smoke. (Little hint: smoking is not good for you here, either.) What was interesting is that the risk gap shrinks significantly in your 60s. So when I hit my 60s, should I start lighting up again? Na. I like breathing.

Since I live in California, my drinking establishments have been smoke free for 10 years now, and frankly, we're better off for it. It's nice to see how the rest of the country ... and the world ... is following our lead and nixing cigs in bars and restaurants. Last year I was in Paris, and I was even surprised at how few Parisian were sucking down the cancer sticks. I reminded them that they were being good Americans. That went over well.