Should the full smoking ban be delayed? To justify some of the smoking exposure study's findings ('Stick by full smoke ban, urge academics', December 10), the methodology needed to include examination of detailed medical records of all participants from childhood, against a control population. This has not been done, nor has the study accounted for any other significant variables as other possible causes of loss of lung function. To counter stock arguments, there has been significant attrition in pubs, and a demonstrable decline in their revenue in Britain since implementation of its smoking ban. The possibility that their health may not be affected must be a real comfort to the thousands of people who no longer have employment as a result. A Scottish study showed that most pub employees experienced no health improvement one year after the ban. There is no evidence that California's decade-old indoor ban reduced alleged smoking-related health problems, as would have been expected. The anti-smoking lobby also wanted to ban smoking in the home and already has set its sights on obesity. Will the line be drawn at obesity? What is next? I am a smoker, accept that it is not pleasant and have always accepted that diners in restaurants should not have to endure my smoke. There needs to be, however, a balance between competing interests as in any reasonable, civilised society. The anti-smoking lobby appears to have very personal prejudices about smoking, and health concerns are a convenient vehicle for those prejudices, but that does not justify prohibiting balance. There are now thousands of facilities for non-smokers to dine in, drink in and attend (indoors and outdoors), but only very few locales that allow smokers to light up. Non-smokers have massive choice available to them, yet anti-smokers wish to deny any choice to smokers. Anyone involved in risk management knows that one should eliminate the largest problem first, as this will bring the most benefits. In Hong Kong's case, this is clearly ambient air pollution, which needs the most urgent attention in relation to its effect on health, besides which smoking pales into insignificance. Additionally, some risks may be considered to be acceptable by some people provided that they are advised of any possible risks inherent in employment. Lam Kwok-tung, Central What do you think of the MTR's notification system? It is not acceptable for passengers to wait at a platform for an hour during a busy period in the evening without getting any information ('Chaos as electrical fault cripples Kwun Tong line', December 9). These people wasted an hour, failed to get on a train and then left MTR stations and took other forms of public transport. I think the MTR Corporation needs to change its notification system. Three trains came to a halt during the December 8 incident because of damage to a power cable. Why were passengers not notified about what was happening and advised to use the Island Line to reach Tiu Keng Leng, or take buses and taxis instead? Clearly this was due to the MTR Corp's inadequate notification system. The MTR Corp must be more decisive, especially during such busy periods when there are so many passengers. The MTR is one of the most important public transport systems. Passengers use it because it is so reliable. I hope the MTR Corp will rectify the problems. Cheng Cheuk-hei, Tsuen Wan Should domestic-violence laws cover same-sex couples? We are not living in the Middle Ages. We should not dispense rights based on a certain set of moral judgments. Should we expect the 999 operator to ask a person calling for help because of domestic violence whether the incident involves a gay couple? Domestic violence involves not just physical harm but also emotional trauma because the victim has been attacked by someone with whom they have had an intimate relationship. Why should the victims be afforded less protection because they are part of a same-sex couple? Virginia Yue, Tsuen Wan What do you think of the decision on the artificial beach? The plan to build an artificial beach at Lung Mei, which will destroy the habitat of 200 animal, bird and marine species, should be condemned. To turn the site into a centre for education on coastal protection would bring far greater benefits. Also, opposition to a nature zone at Sham Chung in favour of development is beyond belief ('Official opposes nature zone', November 29). Our government officials appear to lack any concept of environmental protection. Thank God we have green groups to fight for the right of natural areas to exist, as otherwise our government officials would wilfully bury them under tonnes of concrete. We have already lost a great deal of Hong Kong's natural beauty to rampant short-sighted development. Places of ecological value should be treasured and protected for future generations to appreciate. Joan Miyaoka, Sha Tin On other matters ... I refer to the report ('Dramatic rockscape tops public's scenic spots', December 8) which quoted Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau Tang-wah as saying the city should 'not only conserve, but also construct'. We would like to clarify that Mr Yau was referring to the rich geological resources in Hong Kong and our plan to develop a geological park under the framework of the Country Parks Ordinance and Marine Parks Ordinance, with a view to turning these special geological features and rock clusters into natural scenic spots for public education, scientific research as well as eco-tourism for our citizens and visitors. It remains our top priority to conserve the geological features of the area, which are important treasures of Hong Kong. This is essentially why we are applying the framework of the Country Parks Ordinance and Marine Parks Ordinance to the protection of the area to be covered by the geological park. Building a geological park does not entail major construction work. We would like to set the record straight. Teresa Chiu, press secretary to secretary for the environment
