Legislator Tommy Cheung Yu-yan continues to trot out on his website the totally flawed analysis he bought from KPMG which purports to show a loss of billions in business and more than 20,000 jobs. Legislator Howard Young thinks tourism will suffer, despite the fact that even visitors from high-smoking prevalence East-Asian countries say smoke-free dining will not put them off coming to Hong Kong.

James Tien Pei-chun, leader of the Liberal Party, used to make clean-air policies one of his main election platforms, but he and his party voted down the Democratic Party's Andrew Cheng Kar-foo's amendment, specifying the inclusion of restaurants and bars requiring the bill to be introduced in Legco.

Every day of delay in bringing in comprehensive legislation will be measurable in terms of illness, hospital admissions and deaths among workers in the catering industry. We now know who will be responsible if that happens.

Anthony Hedley, Tobacco control research and policy unit, Department of Community Medicine, University of Hong Kong

Reader Jamie McKinnell yesterday wrote about choice and rights. Those who advocate the rights of smokers seem to constantly forget that a major point of the legislation is related to the rights of the people who work in restaurants and bars. Mr McKinnell suggests a licensing system - but most establishments would apply for a smoking licence, because the owners would argue that they could not afford not to, and most employees would still have to work in an atmosphere contaminated by second-hand smoke.

The only people whose rights are really being protected at present, and would be under such a licensing system, are those who smoke.

The only way forward in this supposed world city is to have a total ban in public establishments. Perhaps smokers could be provided with more of those smoking booths that we see at the airport. At least then they might not only confine their smoking habit, but also their littering habit.

Esther Morris, Mid-Levels

Observing people on the street, coughing and turning away from smokers to avoid a whiff of cigarette smoke, but gasping the city air, enriched by the exhaust fumes of diesel engines of buses and trucks and other deadly additives, is at best amusing.

Stepping into a bar or restaurant from the crystal-clear air in the streets of Asia's world city, with the air filled by the smoke of burning, dried plant leafs, must be a health-hazardous experience for some people.

One can only conclude that the anti-smoking campaigners are well out of their league in not even attempting to fight the polluters.

Name and Address Supplied

Q Should the government tighten Hong Kong's air quality objectives?

As a service-economy competing with a couple of other cities in Asia, Hong Kong must provide an environment that allows for a good quality of life. For such a developed city, Hong Kong's air and water pollution levels are disgusting and shameful. Equally disappointing is the administrative negligence at the highest levels to be honest and proactive about a situation that appears to be deteriorating.

I grew up in Mexico City in the 1980s and remember as a primary school student that there were days when our school would not allow us to go out and run. It's now 2004 and Hong Kong appears to be heading in the same direction. I intend to live in a place where my kids can run.

Stefan White, Wan Chai

The air pollution index was more than 100 in Tung Chung yesterday, classified as very high. The main pollutant was ozone. A walk to the bus left my nose itching and my eyes stinging. The recommendation from the Environmental Protection Department is that, aside from sick people, no action is necessary.

This means that when the API is 190 they say that it is quite okay for school children to go on a 30-minute run or play basketball or football outdoors. Their recommendation is that it is not at all harmful to sit in a classroom with the windows open for seven hours and breathe this air. I am a healthy adult and it affected me after about 15 minutes.

I am no doctor or scientist but if I smell the air and it makes me sneeze, I won't do any exercise outdoors. I say to all the officials who say it is safe: come for a run in Tung Chung when the reading is very high. Set an example to the school children.

Name and Address Supplied

On other matters...

Let's hope that when the excruciating Eagles claim that the recent gig they played here was part of a farewell tour, they actually keep their promise and refuse ever to reform again.

While your review of Wednesday's concert by arguably the very worst band in rock history had to strike a balance between reportage and opinion, I do feel it could have given a little more context about the crimes this awful band has foisted upon the music-loving public. There was no mention, for instance, of the utterly hideous Hotel California and the debilitating effects it has had on bar jukeboxes the world over. As soon as it plays, the world winces in pain.

There is one thing we can thank them for: they created such a groundswell of hatred that the only logical response was a music so angry, so vital and so important that it would not only kick Henley, Frey and Co out of the public consciousness, it would also rewrite the rules of popular music - punk.

Name and Address Supplied

I thought Simon Parry's review of the Eagles' show at the Coliseum was pathetic. It sounded like it had been written by a 16-year-old. The audience was 'old' - average age about 35 - the band members were old and were 'lookalike' characters of other people - Tony Soprano, Senator John Kerry.

He was surprised they set the audience alight because they've not created new material for decades and basically just played the stuff we paid to hear.

The concert was never stiff - these guys are veterans and looked cool and relaxed. The ticket price was high but appearances of the Eagles are rare. The house was packed and rocking for the last 30 minutes.

The long ovations spoke for themselves and their renditions of all their classic material was faithfully executed and professional. This was a class act, albeit from the past, and deserved a more adult review.

Deena Campion, Chung Hom Kok

I would like to clarify the breastfeeding figures given in the article 'Watchdog concerned over free baby milk' (October 16).

The latest figures given by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative Hong Kong Association in July 2004 are that 61.1 per cent of new mothers are breastfeeding when they leave hospital. This figure includes mothers who are supplementing with water and/or formula as well as breastfeeding.

Only 36 per cent were exclusively breastfeeding when they left hospital.

Mothers who start supplements so early in the breastfeeding relationship often find that they are unable to establish a full milk supply. This frequently results in early weaning.

One problem the government is trying to address is that often mothers think they have no milk, and therefore supplement with artificial milk, during the first days until the milk has 'come in'.

This couldn't be further from the truth. New mothers have colostrum from before the baby is born until the transitional milk comes (usually around day four or five).

The mature milk comes in at around the two-week mark. Colostrum, also called 'the golden fluid', is highly treasured for its nutritional and protective properties. Its unique texture and small volume is designed to coat the baby's delicate digestive system with antibodies. Therefore, babies require frequent nursing in the first days of life to obtain the much-needed small quantity of colostrum.

Sarah Hung, La Leche League

In your article 'Watchdog concerned over free baby milk', a spokeswoman for the Hospital Authority said free provision of milk formula in public hospitals saved public funds. This is absurd.

The provision of free milk formula has only one purpose: to increase business for the formula milk companies. If mothers choose to give their babies formula milk they can purchase it from a shop - in the same way they would buy other non- essential child-care items.

No public funds would be used for buying formula milk. In fact, money would be saved because breastfed babies get ill less often. They need fewer trips to the doctor and are less likely to need hospital treatment.

If a mother has financial difficulties, all the more reason for medical staff to give correct information, support and encouragement so that she breastfeeds her baby. If she can't afford to buy formula milk while she is in hospital, how will she manage when she leaves?

The presence of these free samples undermines a mother's confidence in her ability to breastfeed her baby. It also makes medical staff lazy - how much easier it is to reach for a bottle of formula than show a mother how to position the baby correctly, improve a baby's latch, increase a mother's milk supply.

The free provision of formula milk in hospitals is a blatant violation of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes drawn up by the World Health Organisation. This code is aimed at protecting a baby's right to be breastfed.

Earlier this year, a US-based study of nearly 9,000 babies showed breastfed babies were nearly 20 per cent less likely to die during the first year of life compared with formula-fed babies. The longer babies were breastfed, the lower the risk of infant death. (Pediatrics, May 2004)

Formula-fed babies also have higher incidences of respiratory infections, gastro-intestinal infections, diabetes, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, allergies, some childhood cancers and urinary tract infections. When these babies grow up, they are more likely to be obese, get breast cancer and osteoporosis.

Why, then, does the Hospital Authority continue to aid and abet the manufacturers of formula milk? Would it allow tobacco companies to hand out cigarettes on the cardiovascular ward?

In August 2001, Hospital Authority senior executive manager for nursing, Susie Lum Shun-shui, told the Post that the authority proposed stopping the distribution of free milk samples in public hospitals.

Could the authority please tell us what has happened to this proposal?

Maggie Holmes, Happy Valley