中大公布第二批校園環境檢測結果





香港中文大學（中大） 早前委託獨立認可實驗室於不同時間在校園不同地點，抽取空氣、水質及泥土樣本，並送往化驗。大學已收到了第二批校園環境檢測結果。



因應有大學成員對校園可能殘留CS（鄰-氯代苯亞甲基丙二腈）的疑慮，校方已經進一步安排樣本檢測，預計將於二至三星期後收到結果，並盡快公布。



今日（12月12日）公布的第二批校園環境檢測結果包括13個泥土樣本（#1至#12 、S8）以及兩個水樣本（W9、W10）的化驗結果，摘要及參考水平如下﹕



(1) 泥土樣本



表一﹕泥土樣本（#1 至#12）

污染物

測試結果

參考水平

參考文件

二噁英

0.0037至0.0059 毫微克/克

1毫微克/克

香港環保署發出的「按風險釐定的土壤污染整治標準（公園）」

總多氯聯苯

< 0.2毫克/公斤

0.756毫克/公斤

多環芳香烴

< 0.500至2.05毫克/公斤

3.83至10,000毫克/公斤





表二﹕泥土樣本（S8）

污染物

測試結果

參考水平

參考文件

二噁英

0.12 毫微克/克

1毫微克/克

香港環保署發出的「按風險釐定的土壤污染整治標準（公園）」

總氰化物

< 1 毫克/公斤

4,900毫克/公斤

總多氯聯苯

< 0.200毫克/公斤

0.756毫克/公斤

多環芳香烴

< 0.500毫克/公斤

3.83至10,000毫克/公斤





(2) 水樣本



表三﹕水樣本（W9 及 W10）

污染物

測試結果

參考水平

參考文件

二噁英

4.6至4.7 皮克/公升

30皮克/公升

美國國家環境保護局（USEPA）建議的飲用水標準

總氰化物

< 0.05毫克/公升

0.2毫克/公升

總多氯聯苯

< 0.50 微克/公升

0.5 微克/公升

多環芳香烴

< 0.1 微克/公升

0.1 至 0.4 微克/公升





結論



(1) 泥土樣本



化驗結果顯示12個泥土樣本（#1至#12）的二噁英含量遠低於香港環保署在2007年發出的《按風險釐定的土地污染整治標準的使用指引》中「按風險釐定的土壤污染整治標準（公園）」之數值。這表示二噁英在這些泥土（#1至#12）的含量水平並不顯著，化驗結果與距離2號橋較遠位置的泥土樣本 （S1至S7、S9） 相若 （見表一）。





至於總多氯聯苯的化驗結果，所有泥土樣本 （#1 - #12）都遠低於前述由香港環保署發出的使用指引中（公園）標準之總多氯聯苯含量 (0.756毫克/公斤)。（見表一）



關於泥土樣本 (#1 - #12) 中多環芳香烴的含量，全部均低於參考文件中所規定的水平 （見表一）。 至於多環芳香烴中個別的化合物含量，可於此處瀏覽。



一個含有黑色煙熏物質的泥土樣本 （S8），在夏鼎基運動場裡被火燒焦的墊褥附近採集。測試結果顯示二噁英的含量相比其他泥土樣本為高，但仍相等於使用指引中的參考水平大約十分之一。這個略高的數值可能是由燃燒塑膠或墊褥的塑料部分引起。S8的其他測試參數例如總氰化物、總多氯聯苯和多環芳香烴，它們的含量遠低於在相關參考文件所規定的最低數值（見表二）。



(2) 水樣本



兩個水樣本從賽馬會研究生宿舍（一座）採集。化驗結果顯示兩個水樣本（W9 及 W10）中二噁英含量介乎4.6至4.7皮克/升。根據美國國家環境保護局建議的飲用水標準，其水樣本 （W9 & W10）中二噁英含量並不顯著。其他測試參數例如總氰化物、總多氯聯苯和多環芳香烴，它們的含量遠低於在相關參考文件所規定的最低數值 （見表三）。



從上述結論可見，這些污染物在泥土（#1 至 #12、S8）和水（W9 及W10）樣本的含量對健康的危害不顯著。



至於其他測試結果，大學收到後盡快公布。



相關數據可於此處瀏覽。







CUHK Releases the Second Batch of Test Results on Campus Environment



The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) earlier appointed an independent accredited laboratory to collect air, water and soil samples at various locations and at different times on campus and sent them for testing. The University has just received the second batch of test results.



In addition, in response to the concerns of some University members over the level of CS (2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile) on CUHK campus, the University has arranged to conduct another round of tests. The results will be announced as soon as they are received in 2-3 weeks’ time.



Here is the summary of the second batch of test results including 13 soil samples (#1-#12 & S8) and 2 water samples (W9 & W10) compared with the guidance notes/international standards.



(1) Soil samples



Table 1: For soil samples (#1 - #12)

Contaminant

Test results

Reference Level

Reference Document

Dioxins

0.0037-0.0059 ng/g

1 ng/g

Risk-Based Remediation Goals (RBRGs) for Soil – Public Parks, published by Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department

Total PCBs

< 0.2 mg/kg

0.756 mg/kg

PAHs

< 0.500-2.05 mg/kg

3.83-10,000 mg/kg



Table 2﹕For soil sample (S8)

Contaminant

Test results

Reference Level

Reference Document

Dioxins

0.12 ng/g

1 ng/g

Risk-Based Remediation Goals (RBRGs) for Soil – Public Parks, published by Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department

Total Cyanide

< 1 mg/kg

4,900 mg/kg

Total PCBs

< 0.200 mg/kg

0.756 mg/kg

PAHs

< 0.500 mg/kg

3.83-10,000mg/kg



(2) Water samples



Table 3: For water samples (W9 & W10)

Contaminant

Test results

Reference Level

Reference Document

Dioxins

4.6-4.7 pg/L

30 pg/L

Drinking Water Standards from USEPA

Total Cyanide

< 0.05 mg/L

0.2 mg/L

Total PCBs

< 0.50 µg/L

0.5 µg/L

PAHs

< 0.1 µg/L

0.1-0.4 µg/L



Conclusion



(1) Soil samples



Among the 12 soil samples (#1-#12), the dioxins (I-TEQ) are well below the Risk-Based Remediation Goals (RBRGs) of dioxins in soil (I-TEQ) for public parks as quoted in the Guidance Manual for Use of Risk-Based Remediation Goals for Contaminated Land Management published by Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department (HKEPD) in 2007. This indicates that the dioxins (I-TEQ) levels in these soil samples (#1 - #12) are not significant, and the results are comparable to soil samples (S1-S7 & S9) collected in the more distant locations away from No. 2 Bridge (see table 1).



Based on the test results of Total Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), all soil samples (#1 - #12) are lower than the respective limits of PCBs level (0.756 mg/kg) for public parks cited in the aforementioned Guidance Manual from HKEPD (see table 1).



Regarding the Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) levels for these soil samples (#1 - #12), all of them are below the level as required by the reference document (see table 1). For the figures of individual PAH compounds, please click here.



A soil sample with black-smoked materials (S8) was collected in the vicinity of the burned mattress in Sir Philip Haddon-Cave Sports Field. The test result of the dioxins (I-TEQ) level is relatively higher than that of other soil samples though it is only about one tenth of the reference level cited in the Guidance Manual. The possible reason for the elevated result may be due to the burning of rubber or plastic components of the mattress. For the other testing parameters such as Total Cyanide, Total Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) for the sample (S8), they are all well lower than their respective limits as required by the related reference documents (see table 2).



(2) Water samples



Two water samples (W9 & W10) had been collected from Jockey Club Postgraduate Hall 1. The test results reveal that the dioxins (I-TEQ) levels for both samples (W9 & W10) are from 4.6 to 4.7 pg/L. In accordance with drinking water standards from United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the dioxins levels for these water samples (W9 & W10) are not significant. For the other testing parameters such as Total Cyanide, Total Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), they are all much below their respective limits as required by the related reference documents (see table 3).



In view of the aforementioned interpretation, the health hazards of these contaminants from the soil (#1 - #12 & S8) and water (W9 & W10) samples are negligible.



Other test results will be announced as soon as they are available. Related information may be viewed here.

醫者有社會責任去保障公眾健康，我們認為梁卓偉教授和陳家亮教授作為香港兩所醫學院院長責無旁貸。因此，我們呼籲所有醫護人員參與連署，懇請兩位院長履行社會使命發表聲明保障社會大眾的健康和人身安全。

連署連結: https://forms.gle/teMGNCiZPMYatVbh8
———————————————————————-
《致香港大學李嘉誠醫學院院長、中文大學醫學院院長的公開信》

梁教授、陳教授道鑒：

　　有鑑於在六月十二日、七月二日及二十一日，香港警察濫用武力以控制群眾。如此行徑實對公眾健康遺害無窮，我們一眾醫療人員對此極為關切。作為香港大學李嘉誠醫學院院長、中文大學醫學院院長，吾等懇請兩位院長細察香港警察控制群眾之手段，以保障公眾健康。

　　據多家本地及國際媒體報導，香港警察於六月十二日，發射多輪催淚彈、橡膠子彈及布袋彈，以驅散聚集在金鐘的示威者。報導提及，警方向示威者發射至少一百五十枚催淚彈，二十輪布袋彈以及數枚橡膠子彈，造成至少七十二人受傷。從多家媒體直播可見，橡膠子彈更直射一名教師眼球，創傷嚴重，對其視力之損害非同等閒。另外，警方亦曾以數枚催淚彈包抄示威者，堵塞其退路；而當示威者被逼退守至中信大廈，警方竟朝人群中央投以催淚彈，造成數以百計的市民受傷及呼吸困難，生死攸關，不容小覷。此外，警方向一名手無寸鐵的市民，近距離發射橡膠子彈，以致其下腹嚴重受傷，情況慘不忍睹。

　　據多份醫學期刊綜述──如《刺針》（Lancet）[1] 及英國醫學期刊（BMJ (Open)）[2]，橡膠子彈乃可致命武器。同時，橡膠子彈不易操控，準確性低，有引致重傷，乃至死亡之風險。多份期刊不約而同指出，橡膠子彈不適宜用於密集人群之管制。

　　然而，香港警察漠視上述已知風險，仍於七月二日及七月二十一日繼續使用此類武器。在七月二十一日，警察更於鄰近民居之地，向群眾發射多輪催淚彈及橡膠子彈，當中更殃及記者。此等武器之禍害影響深重，不單有損呼吸系統，更會導致燒傷、嚴重鈍物創傷及爆炸性創傷。據媒體報導，武器造成至少十四人受傷；更有市民懼於警方之搜捕行動，而未敢求醫，致使受傷數字難以估算。

　　人權醫療組織（Physicians for Human Rights）醫生哈爾（Dr Rohini Haar）在接受紐約時報訪問時指出，警方對市民使用不成比例的武力，實有濫用武力之嫌。早在二零一四年，潘冬平教授[3]亦對香港警察使用催淚氣體情況深表關注，擔心催淚氣體損害市民呼吸系統。可見，催淚彈、橡膠子彈及豆袋彈等武器危害不輕，對香港市民公眾健康的損害不容置疑。

　　兩大醫學學院一直致力培育杏林菁英，不遺餘力。一眾醫療人員亦謹承《希波克拉底誓詞》之教誨，不論病患身份職要，一直為全人類之福祉著想，嚴守不懈。學院循循善誘，吾等縷心刻骨。誓詞薪火相傳，代代不息；缺少對生命健康之尊重，醫療人員何以自立？故此，我們一眾醫療人員懇請院長，發表聲明，呼籲香港警察：

一、避免濫用催淚彈及任何類型子彈，以免導致人命傷亡及其他不可見之損傷。
二、在使用武力時，必須顧及市民安全，並保持專業克制。

　　醫療人員一直存仁心，行仁術；保護市民之健康，乃至生命，吾等責無旁貸。院長為學為醫，高風峻節，茍以吾等同心同德，捍衛市民之生命健康，必見杏林春暖。

　　謹祝
道安

一眾醫療人員謹上
———————————————————————


Dear Professor Leung and Professor Chan,

We are a group of healthcare professionals, some of us being also graduates from the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Hong Kong and the Chinese University of Hong Kong. We are writing to express our gravest concerns over the persistent and serious threats to the health of members of the public posed by weapons deployed in crowd control by the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) on 12 June, 2 July and 21 July. We hereby urge the Deans of the sole Faculties of Medicine in Hong Kong to take actions in censuring the HKPF and the Hong Kong Government against the serious health risks in their crowd-control tactics.

On 12 June, as reported by multiple local and international news agencies, the HKPF fired multiple rounds of tear gas, rubber bullets and bean-bag rounds to disperse protesters in Admiralty. Over 150 canisters of tear gas, 20 bean-bag rounds and several rubber bullets have admittedly been directed at protestors which resulted in at least 72 injuries. As evident in the live reports from various media sources, a teacher suffered traumatic ocular injury causing significant vision loss when his eye was hit by a rubber bullet; hundreds of citizens suffered various degrees of injuries and respiratory distress consequential upon the numerous tear gas canisters shot at Citic Tower in Admiralty where protesters were trapped in a life-threatening space filled with tear gas; an unarmed man sustained injury in his lower abdomen when a rubber bullet was directed at him in a short distance.

According to multiple studies and reviews from high impact factor medical journals, in particular the Lancet[1] and BMJ (Open)[2], rubber bullets can be lethal. Their notorious inaccuracy and risk of severe injury and death render them inappropriate and unsafe means of force in crowd control.

However, despite the known risks of these weapons, the HKPF tenaciously deployed them on citizens on 2 July and 21 July. On 21 July, 55 canisters of tear gas, 5 rubber bullet rounds and 24 sponge bullets were admittedly shot, some without immediate warning, at protestors and even at journalists notwithstanding the numerous residential buildings and citizens in the vicinity. The use of these weapons has left members of the public with at the very least, various types of injuries and further, burns, blunt force trauma and explosive injuries. 14 injuries have by far been reported where others did not present themselves to the hospital in fear of the risk of prosecution.

Dr Rohini Haar of Physicians for Human Rights had in a recent interview told the New York Times that the force used by the HKPF was disproportionate and excessive. In Hong Kong, Professor Ronnie Poon had as early as in 2014 expressed openly his earnest concern over both the short term and long term health risks in the use of tear gas in particular to one’s respiratory system when the HKPF first fired tear gas at Hong Kong citizens [3]. It is indisputable that these named weapons put the health of Hong Kong citizens at serious risks.

Doctors have striven to stand by the Hippocratic oath that they remain members of society, the identity of which comes before their profession, with special obligations to all fellow human beings. The two medical schools in Hong Kong have been established accordingly for the nurture of healthcare professionals to serve the public with benevolent hearts and minds. This is the time to honour our oath that human life should deserve the utmost respect and to maintain by all means such noble traditions of the medical profession.

We, as healthcare professionals, therefore implore the Deans of the only Faculties of Medicine in Hong Kong, in the service of humanity with conscience and dignity, to take the lead in safeguarding the public’s health and to issue a statement to urge the Hong Kong Police Force to:

(1) refrain from using tear gas and bullets in any form on protestors to prevent further bloodshed and severe non-reversible injuries; and

(2) exercise due restraint over the use of force when handling protests and at all times, put the safety of Hong Kong citizens at the highest priority.

Regards,
A group of healthcare professionals
———————————————————
Healthcare professionals have a social responsibility to safeguard the health of members of the public. We believe that, as Deans of the faculties of medicine in Hong Kong, Professor Leung and Professor Chan bear a paramount obligation in this regard. We appeal to all healthcare professionals to join us in this petition to urge the deans to issue a statement to honour their obligation to defend the public from health risks.
—————————————————————
Petition Link: https://forms.gle/teMGNCiZPMYatVbh8
——————————
參考資料/References
[1] Mahajna, A., Aboud, N., Harbaji, I., Agbaria, A., Lankovsky, Z., Michaelson, M., . . . Krausz, M. M. (2002). Blunt and penetrating injuries caused by rubber bullets during the Israeli-Arab conflict in October, 2000: A retrospective study. The Lancet, 359(9320), 1795-1800. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)08708-1

[2] Haar, R. J., Iacopino, V., Ranadive, N., Dandu, M., & Weiser, S. D. (2017, December 01). Death, injury and disability from kinetic impact projectiles in crowd-control settings: A systematic review

[3] Professor Ronnie Poon Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/138599119760/posts/10152753050039761?s=1014598371&sfns=mo

—————————————————————