Posted by Thomas1776 on June 15, 2008 at 2:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ozone make take a few hours to form ........ BUT the auto and diesel exhaust is instant. It gets terribly heavy during rush hour traffic. If you drive in heavy traffic, it gets inside your auto (windows rolled up or not).

Is DHEC trying to twist all of this out of context?

CARBON MONOXIDE: an odorless, colorless gas that is highly toxic. It is formed by the incomplete combustion of fuels.

HEALTH EFFECTS: Impairment of oxygen transport in the bloodstream. Aggravation of cardiovascular disease. Fatigue, headache, confusion, dizziness. Can be fatal in the case of very high concentrations.

MAJOR SOURCES: Automobile exhaust, combustion of fuels.
___________________________________________________________

OZONE: A highly reactive photochemical pollutant created by the action of sunshine on ozone precursors (primarily reactive hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen.) Often called photochemical smog.

Causes Eye irritation, Respiratory function impairment

The major sources of ozone precursors are combustion sources such as factories and automobiles, and evaporation of solvents and fuels.

Cape Romain is miles away. Why just one monitor? Do we not have more around the area? Maybe we need some on the interstate and on the bridges? *cough**cough*!

*Nitrogen Dioxide

*Sulfur Dioxide

*PM10

We're being slowly killed by the air we breath and our government has not really been protecting us. Instead, they want all of us to pay for a large part of the cost of installing water sprinklers, and to look out for their business buddies who employ less than 100 people and hire illegal mexicans under the table.

Posted by Neponset on June 15, 2008 at 6:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I know little about ozone, except it is a gas at our temperature range. It is 1.5 times more dense than O2. The prevailing winds during the summer are from the SE and I would assume that ozone would form over the more populated areas like Charleston & N. Charleston and would be swept west and north west by the prevailing winds. Maybe Summerville would be a good place for a monitor if you want to know max. levels.

Posted by cinnabar on June 15, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The monitor is for OZONE, not CO or diesel exhaust. Move to Williamsburg county if you don;t like diesel...

PS, Life expectancy avg just rose to 78 or somesuch, how is that happening with all these pollutants?

Posted by The_Mouth_of_the_South on June 15, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The environmentalist wackos seem to be at it again. They are misguided and their supposed "solutions" just make the problems worse. If cars sitting and idling in traffic make the problem worse, how does restricting road building help? I would think that restricting road building would make the problem worse!
These wackos make broad assumptions and they don't have science to back them up. They should be treated like the village idiots they so truly are.
There is no proof that human activity causes temperature changes. There are natural warming and cooling cycles, and we happen to be blessed to be living in a warming cycle. As for these supposed green house gasses, the eruption of a single large volcano in the Phillipines in the 90's put more supposed green house gasses into the atmosphere than ALL human activity since the industrial revolution, and there was only a 1 degree change in world wide tempertures which lasted only a year and a half or so.
This is a bunch of bunk.

Posted by truthseeker on June 15, 2008 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Charleston has only two monitors to measure fine particulate pollution from diesel - the toxic stuff that gives our kids asthma . One of the monitors is up in Summerville and the other is at Joe Riley stadium .

We have no monitoring being done around where all the diesel activity occurs.

The problem is that any port city that has looked for pollution has found real problems.

Let's look at Seattle- With only a few exceptions, the most unhealthful air in the state is found in neighborhoods near ports throughout Western Washington, according to a Seattle Times analysis of an Environmental Protection Agency study of cancer-causing air pollution, released publicly Wednesday." "However, nearly all of the tracts with the worst air are clustered around ports: the Port of Seattle, the Port of Tacoma, the Port of Longview, the Port of Vancouver and the refineries at Anacortes."

And out in Oakland
"Truck diesel pollution is five times higher in West Oakland, near the port,than in other parts of the county, and one in five youngsters has asthma."

So why isn't DHEC and the SPA monitoring the air around our port operations?

I think I know why.

Posted by Horratio on June 15, 2008 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I love the logic. Air pollution doesn't hurt people. Breathing does.

People should just quit breathing so the port can cram more trucks and ships next to our neighborhoods. I bet you eco nuts actually believe cigarrets cause cancer. There is no evidence for that either.

Besides who cares about the quality of the air our kids have to breath as long as we truck more containers than Savannah. No one can beat us because then they could get more stuff than us. We can't woosey out just for someones breathing problem. Those crybabies. I can hear there woosey wheezes now. Man up whimps. Get over breathing. Whats important is to win.

Its not our responcibility to leave the earth a healthier place for future generations. What is important is to consume as much as we can before someone else beats us to it. Winners accumultes more toys and trinkets than anyone else. That after all is the true measure of a human being.

Humans are only important if they think just like me. Why shouldn't people sacrifice a little health if it gets me lots more stuff. Its a worthwhile trade it to me.

I know I'm right no matter what the facts are so don't even bother trying to measure anything.

Posted by truthseeker on June 15, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

According the the California State Environmental Protection Agency, people living close to diesel pollution , within a mile of large port terminals, do indeed have a shortened life expectancy and a higher incidence of cancer.

Thank goodness our state agency is measuring the air quality at Cape Romain where no one lives - we sure do not want the red wolf pups to get asthma or cancer, or have a reduced life expectancy.

Posted by Native_Ink on June 15, 2008 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Horatio- That was brilliant! I wish I could fit all that on a bumper sticker.

Posted by majorjohnson on June 15, 2008 at 5:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you people don't want to live in an urban area with a thriving port creating jobs and wealth, I would suggest you move to a rural area. You want to live in a port city without the things that go with living in a port city. You want jobs, but you don't want the biggest job creator in the area around. You want your home built, but you don't think the guy who owns the next lot over should be allowed to build a home.

Horatio decries those who want their toys and trinkets, but I suspect he's not heating his bath and laundry water and cooking his food over a wood fire, he only leaves the air conditioning between the front door and his car, he drives to work, he has multiple televisions and cell phones. Think he has a clothes line to dry his clothes? Of course, his toys and trinkets are neccessities...yours are toys and trinkets.

Your remind me of the city folk who move next to a cattle ranch for the country air and peace and quiet, then want the government to do something about the smell of the cows and the sound of roosters crowing in the morning.

Posted by RTC on June 15, 2008 at 5:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well said, major. Let's close down those damn polluting ports and see how well the area thrives on tourism.

Posted by truthseeker on June 15, 2008 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I do not see where anyone is asking anyone to close down ports?

The answer is so much simpler.
Here is an idea - instead of us tapped out taxpayers spending 600 million dollars on road projects that are required for the 4th container terminal - why not set aside a hundred million or so of port earnings first to monitor and then clean up the existing port pollution?

West Coast ports seem to think it takes about 40 bucks per container to control the air pollution from their port activities.

That sure seems like the neighborly, reasonable, and healthy environmentally responsible thing to do now in Charleston.

Posted by cinnabar on June 15, 2008 at 6:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That traffic and industrial activity that is being implicated gives parents income that allows the asthamatic kids to be treated. The air in Charleston is relatively clean. The issues with ozone(ie, EPA lowering the ozone limits) are a power grab by EPA to get more areas under their control. If you really believe the air in Chaztown is bad, move to Asheville and complain up there. I do not want to provide any more excuses to raise taxes to start tailpipe testing, auto inspections and other goofy bandaid measures to control emissions. Most of the haze you see in summertime is simply moisture and has been that way for a while.

Posted by truthseeker on June 15, 2008 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cinnabar above writes the following:
"If you really believe the air in Charleston is bad, move to Asheville and complain up there."

If there is a problem in my community, why should I move away? Why not take the responsible route and fix the problem?

If your home is dirty, you do not just pick up and move to a clean house - you take the responsibility for your dirt and grime and clean it up.

And that is what our elected leaders need to be doing with our air quality right now , too

Cinnabar also writes,"The air in Charleston is relatively clean."
According to the Charleston City paper expose on our air quality "We rank first in the state among counties where people are at risk from breathing diesel soot, and 239 among 3,109 counties nationwide."

I must respectfully disagree with Cinnabar that our air is "relatively clean" and think we should be demanding much higher standards.

Posted by RTC on June 15, 2008 at 7:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

truthseeker, no, no one is asking anyone to close down the ports, but The Coastal Conservation League is constantly breathing down the ports' necks when they need to be looking at other sources of pollution just as well.
The SCSPA pays the state 6.5% on every dollar that they earn. They are always looking at ways to reduce water and air pollution in our area. The state should use some of this money to help with the growing pollution problem.
Another thing, if Arthur Ravenel and his bunch had not stopped the Daniel Island terminal, then rail lines would have been utilized a lot more, therefore cutting down on the trucks.
The SPA had already paid for the clover leaf exit off of 526 as it is. No taxpayer's money went into that at all.
People need to remember that a town was built around a port and not the other way around.

Posted by truthseeker on June 15, 2008 at 8:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

RTC- you are factually incorrect that the SPA pays any money to the state each year . This is a figment of your imagination- maybe some port PR person told you this but it isn't correct.

Please provide any proof or evidence of the SPA paying 6.5% of every dollar that they earn each year back to our state - or quit spreading incorrect information around.

Let's stick to the facts.

Posted by RTC on June 15, 2008 at 8:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

truthseeker, if I wasn't sure of this I would say that I just heard this. This is a FACT. The only way I can prove this on a thread is to tell you to contact the SCSPA and ask for this info. It is available under the FOIA.
For your convenience, their website is www.scspa.com.
I absolutely agree that no one should post anything that is not factual, unless they specifically state that it is hearsay.

Posted by checkb4speaking on June 15, 2008 at 9:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, there's two Charleston County Ozone monitors.
Cape Romain is for background.
Bushy Park is the expected max Concentration.

http://www.epa.gov/oar/data/
or
http://www.scdhec.net/environment/baq/sc...

By the way, Charleston has the lowest concentrations of both Ozone and Fine PM of any urban area in the State.
Phew!
THAT took all of 5 minutes to check.....

Posted by truthseeker on June 15, 2008 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

RTC if the SPA was really kicking millions of dollars back into our state treasury each year,as you mistakenly believe, it would be on their website and in every article written about them and in every ad they run.

Here is the SPA's most recent financial statement
http://www.scspa.com/spa/news_statistics...

I suggest you look on page 7 .

By the way, there is no tooth fairy either.

Posted by Horratio on June 15, 2008 at 11:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If "you people", good Major, need to live in an urban area with twice the shipping and twice the smog, I would ,instead, suggest "you people" move to a larger industrial center. That kind of scale certainly doesn't belong in our home town. Never has. Hopefully never will.

And "those people" might have been you if you didn't have ties to the port industry. I understand your defensiveness and I might act like that if I were in the port industry and naive enough to swallow the garbage about expand or die. Your leaders have scared you so you will help them get what they want. I don't blame you for being afraid. But the economy will be what it will be, with or without further port expansion no matter how much you need to think otherwise.

I like our urban area. I'll work hard to make it better. Your analagy is a poor one, Sir. I didn't move to a port town and then start complaing about a port. I have always lived in Charleston, which has always been way more than just a port town. But I have watched the port truck volume double and double and double again. I have watched our traffic do the same.

Its weird how "those people" always claim that Charleston is just a "port town". Since the European settlers arrived, the port's been up, and the ports been down. Mostly the port has had an insignificant role here since the civil war and the fall of the cotton and slave trade. That is until the government poured gobs of money into it after ww2. And it was the right thing to do at the time. Times change. In the last 30 years our thirst for cheap imports catapolted the port to heights never seen. Its time the taxpayors back off and let the port pay for its own infrastrucure. Got 600 million dollars?

But Charleston goes on with or without it. Always has , always will. The port is a reflection of the economy, not an instigator of it.

I am happy we have the port to round things out. It does play an important role after tourism industry,service industry, government industry, health industry, and agriculture. But its not even close to first on the economic list. The problem is "those people" think the port invented the state economy. Some of them even think the port "drives" the economy. What illusions of granduer. The economy drives the port. Not the other way around. The economy is down 20%, so port traffic is down 20%.

No one is suggesting to close the port. Lots of people are suggesting that we have all the port we need, and more port reduces Charleston rather than enhances it. Too much of anything is unhealthy.

Its sad we have reduced the issue to one of "those people".

Lets work together to make the port we already have fiscally strong and environmentally responsible. Lets cooperate with Savannah instead of compete against them to produce a win-win. Lets see what we can do to enhance SC's port industry without further port expansion and traffic here.

Posted by checkb4speaking on June 16, 2008 at 12:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I hate to impeach a primary source like a 'Charleston City paper expose' but had to dig..
"We rank first in the state among counties where people are at risk from breathing diesel soot, and 239 among 3,109 counties nationwide."
Hmmm
Not even.
In the tables for the ALA 'State of the Air (the presumed source), Charleston Co is not the highest in total or percentage of sensitive population OR affected population in SC.
It is odd that the map of worst cities for annual particle pollution that show Charleston SC as #14 - worse than Greenville(#22)- is paired with the data from Charleston WV.
Is that important?
Oops.
At least the Greenville chart appears to be correct.
http://www.stateoftheair.org/2008/most-p...

Posted by majorjohnson on June 16, 2008 at 7:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't work for the port, nor do I work for anyone remotely connected to the port. I moved out of Charleston years ago and work from my home in the country in Colleton county. Horartio, blow your horn somewhere else. It's got a false tune to it. Your assumptions about me show what a blowhard you are...all spit, no music.

Posted by Horratio on June 16, 2008 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

majorjohnson, my music is as true to me as yours is to you.

I'll blow my horn here where I live, and must wonder then why you don't do the same? Guess you just like blowing everyone elses horn for them.

If you'd like to play moniker, yes,I suspect that I am a bit of a hornblower, just as you must be a majorJohnson.

Posted by Horratio on June 16, 2008 at 7:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

majorjohnson, my music is as true to me as yours is to you.

I'll blow my horn here where I live, and must wonder then why you don't do the same? Guess you just like blowing everyone elses horn for them.

If you'd like to play moniker, yes,in regards to public interest of matters in my home town, I suspect that I am a bit of a hornblower; just as you must be a majorJohnson.

Posted by RTC on June 16, 2008 at 7:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Truthseeker, you didn't go to page 8. Besides, they don't put everything on their website. Some things have to be requested. Everything in ( ) is not an exact figure. They don't have to publish anything that they don't want to on their website.
DO NOT TELL ME THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT I AM TALKInG ABOUT!!
You can choose to believe what you want. Most people who have a problem with the port, only because they have been fired from there, couldn't get hired, or are just plain envious of the money that port workers make.
You say I can't prove what I say....well you can't prove what you say either, buster. I have availability to information that you don't.
If you want the facts then ask for them from the SPA.
Frankly, I don't give a hoot what you believe, because I know the truth. Talking to people like you is like talking to a brick wall. How do you know what the port pays and doesn't pay? Prove that! Where do you get your information, huh?

Posted by rollo on June 16, 2008 at 8:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is one of the most idiotic discussions I've ever witnessed!

Did any of you geniuses notice the fact (in the last article Bo Peterson wrote on the subject) that places hundreds of miles away from any seaport have higher ozone levels than Charleston has?????

Ozone may be created by sunlight reacting with carbon particulates, but carbon particulates occur in nature in much higher numbers than man produces. Every time a leaf falls to the ground and begins to moulder, carbon particulates are released into the atmosphere. Ever noticed all the decaying plant matter decaying in the forests and marshes around here?

Ozone is only an irritant to those sensitive to it at levels of 1 part per 10,000. To the less sensitive, exposure can reach 1 part per 100 before symptoms become evident. Now, how can the EPA justify punishing entire states for failing to conform to standards it imposes at less than 1 part per 100,000,000?

Because no one will stand up to them, that's how!!! Instead you all start pointing fingers at one another!

What a bunch of fools.

Posted by cinnabar on June 16, 2008 at 10:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Truthseeker, keep lookin...Seek some data showing asthma emergency room stats or hospital visits directly attributed to diesel emissions...(I doubt there are many asthamatics cruising around the harbour at tugboat or ship exhaust level, but I could be wrong.) I would consider sources other than city paper if you want to stay credible. My take...The air here is clean. There is a good chance pollen and grass and pet dander cause many attacks, why don't you crusade against these environmental CAT-tastrophies......

Posted by Horratio on June 16, 2008 at 10:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In fact those studies are out there. Just google it. There are too many to list.

Ozone is harmful and its good to measure it.

But diesel and fine particulate emissions are worse. These are the smaller than 2.5 micron toxins produced mainly from trucks and ships. They are so tiny they enter the blood stream through the lungs. They are in heaviest concentrations at the source of emissions, but they also are suspended and contribute to ambient air pollution. Even short term exposure, especially near the source, causes acute asthma attacks and heart attacks. Long term exposure also causes cancers much like cigarettes.

Studies from the area around the LA port shows significantly increased cancer and respiratory illness in neighborhoods adjacent to port yards and major highways. This risk decreases proportionately as you move away from the port terminal and major highway. Those within a mile are especially at very high risk. Too bad no one but the CCL league has the fortitude to mention those studies here. The SPA refuses to monitor at Wando Welch even though they agreed to do so when they built in 79. DHEC doesn't do anything they don't have to. There is no money appropriated for it. Unlike all the other sources of emissions which require specific permitted restrictions, Mobile emissions are not recorded or regulated.

As someone mentioned earlier, the average person is at greatest exposure risk when stuck in the daily traffic. Jogging along highways is especially bad. But the people living downwind of the port terminals and along major highways are constantly exposed to this very real and dangerous risk 24 hours a day, seven days a week for the years they live there. So there in lies the biggest concern.

As smokers did for decades, people can pretend the health implications are not true, but just because they don't wont to believe it doesn't change the facts.

Back on topic now. We need site specific monitoring before deciding if its safe for a major port expansion in Charleston.

Unfortunately DHEC has not measured these emissions locally. Site monitoring needs to occur downwind of the port yards as well as I-526 and I-26. Not in the Frances Marion Forest, Summerville, or the pure ocean breeze fanning Joe Riley Stadium.

If Greenville wants their pollution to measure as low as ours, all they need to do is move their monitors to a national forest too.

Posted by Horratio on June 16, 2008 at 10:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

oops--I meant Cape Romain National Refuge, not Francis Marion.

Posted by cinnabar on June 16, 2008 at 11:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Also, Good post Rollo...It's hard to get National Enquirer, The Globe, and City Paper readers educated on issues of science and economics.

FYI...Lots of VOC's that form ozone originate from the pine trees, what could be more natural?

Also, the levels EPA has selected scare the unknowing into industrial witch hunts. The new low levels expand EPA's reach. Local air is cleaner than for many years, but that admission lessens EPA's budget, so you know the rest.....

Posted by Horratio on June 16, 2008 at 11:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well would you believe a little publication called The New England Medical Journal ?

Its one of the most respected medical Journals in the world. Ask your own physician about it. He likely studies it regularly and treats you from what he has learned from it.

Here is a cute little study first published there about a year ago.

http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=1&at...

Here is a quick summary:

“A nine-year analysis of 65,000 initially healthy women found a 76 percent increase in the risk of death from cardiovascular disease for each 10 microgram increase in particulate matter, with test areas ranging from 3.4 to 28.3 mg/m.

For each increase of 10 µg per cubic meter of exposure, there was a 35% increase in the risk of cerebrovascular events and an 83% increase in the risk of death from cerebrovascular causes. Previous evidence in this area included ecologic studies suggesting that the rate of death from stroke may be elevated in areas near main roads or with increased pollution,22,23 and short-term exposure has been linked to stroke, for example.24”

Its concluding sentence:

“Our study confirms previous reports and indicates that the magnitude of health effects may be larger than previously recognized. These results suggest that efforts to limit long-term exposure to fine particulate pollution are warranted.”

Many S.C. counties are currently at levels over 30 mg/m3, including Charleston.

The American lung Association scored Greenville, Columbia, Spartanburg, AND CHARLESTON as a grade F for particulate pollution the last 2 years in a row.

Posted by Horratio on June 16, 2008 at 11:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think the last sentence in this very real study highlighting this very real health risk bears repeating.

"These results suggest that efforts to limit long-term exposure to fine particulate pollution are warranted."

What this means in very real terms, is that the New England Medical Journal, and your own physician if he stays current in the medical literature, recommends that

WE NOT BUILD PORTS NEXT TO NEIGHBORHOODS

Because it causes bad disease AND DEATH

Doesn't get much simpler than that does it ?

Posted by checkb4speaking on June 17, 2008 at 12:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ozone std now .075ppm = 75 parts in 1,000,000,000 or less than 1 part in 10,000,000 NOT < 1 in 100,000,000
Watch those zeros...

Ozone formation happens in the gasseous phase, so VOCs (many of which are biogenic),not particulate, are the precursors. Lots in SC, so the emissions from burning stuff - NOx - drives and limits the Ozone formation.

Hey cinnabar - There's a big difference between 'directly attributed to' and highly correlated. Jumping is easy. Proving is hard.

Direct Carbon emissions make up a VERY small part of the PM2.5
http://www.epa.gov/airexplorer/
Look at the Total Carbon portion measured in Charleston and remember that the large majority of that is NOT the Black or Inorganic carbon associated with diesel trucks and ships..
More obvious if you look at the data, not just the pictures.
And Horratio, - It doesn't look there are pure breezes
fanning anywhere..

Posted by checkb4speaking on June 17, 2008 at 12:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

NO SC counties '...are currently at levels over 30 mg/m3'
ex. Of more than 700 readings in Charleston in 2007, only 7 were greater than the 24 hour standard (35)
and the average was about 10
http://www.scdhec.net/environment/baq/sc...
And I'll bet most, if not all, of those were because of fires and smoke from 100s of miles away.
http://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=airno...
Check out early August
Smoke happens.

Posted by truthseeker on June 17, 2008 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.stateoftheair.org/2008/states...

The American Lung Association link above is helpful to look at to see the number of people affected by our air pollution.

They show Charleston with an F for particulate pollution and show other areas around our state to compare with as well.

DHEC and the American Lung Association have different views of what clean air is .

Who do you trust?

Posted by truthseeker on June 17, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Also checkb4speaking, you should point out the 35 standard
is considered way too high by most medical professionals and numerous very well respected medical associations have asked the EPA to dramatically lower that number. California now has a 2.5 PM standard under 20- that is what they consider clean air.

Posted by Horratio on June 17, 2008 at 8:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hi checkb4speaking, I appreciate your interest and comments.

Can you tell me the pm2.5 levels within a mile downwind of Wando Welch or the intersection of I-526 and I-26 ?

I think thats really what to measure if one wanted to know possible impacts of port related diesel, don't you think ?

How can we know the impact of the proposed expansion if we don't know the impact of the port we have ?

The studies from LA seem to show a dramatic difference between ambient air measurements and those close to the source.

Also wouldn't the deisel carbon content of our pm2.5 depend greatly on where the samples were taken ? It sure seems to in LA.

I would think at least the larger soot would fall out much heavier closer to the source but the pm2.5 likly would too. No ?

Thanks for the links.

How do you know how much of the carbon measured comes from diesel?

If its listed in your link, I will try to find it , thanks.

Posted by checkb4speaking on June 17, 2008 at 8:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yep
The left coast chose to set their standard for the annual average PM2.5 to 12.
Guess what?
Charleston comfortably meets that standard and has since there have been measurements.
CA chose to stick with the Fed 24 hour standard of 35 and guess what?...
See above.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/aqfaq/stdtable...

There is no bright line to the health effects and no uniform response, so pick the risk and you're welcome to discuss it with those who are less (or more) risk adverse.
I'll take a higher standard and cleaner air over an lower standard and MUCH more pollution any time.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/aqfaq/pm25dot....
Everything would be green on a SC map...

Posted by rollo on June 17, 2008 at 8:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

check your calculatorb4speaking.
You have zeros on the wrong side of the decimal.
But zeros weren't the point of my post. The new rules are unnecessary and oppressive. That is the point.

If you agree with gov't making unnecessary and oppressive rules then I'm not surprised that you want to quibble over a decimal and downplay my post.

Posted by Horratio on June 17, 2008 at 8:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well since pm2.5 is apparantly measured near Joe Riley stadium, Charleston Southern University, and or Cape Roman Wildlife Santuary, why would it surprise anyone that our levels measure low?

Why not put the monitors off shore a mile and go for the national record clean air ?

I looked through your links and didn't find any answers to the above questions.

Where does it show what % of the pm2.5 is carbon?

How does our testing distinguish between diesel emitted carbon and other carbon?

I am still missing that too.

Posted by checkb4speaking on June 17, 2008 at 9:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Within a mile of Wando. . There don't appear to be any measurements BUT given the day to day consistency betweem the DHEC samplers - day after day and year after year AND the Cape Romain sampler ( different type but comparable)AND the consistency seen in all of the measurements made across other urban areas I'd put a BIG wager on no more than .5ug/M3 higher on average and within 2 on any given day.
True, likely higher near sources but there doesn't appear to be huge differences. The inorganic carbon (somtimes calles black carbon) is about the only directly made PM2.5 component- comes direct from the source (combustion) and doesn't change. Typically 2.5 and smaller (and not very dense), so doesn't settle out. The falloff in concentration as you move from the source (Fires, interstates...) mostly due to dispersion and some scrubbing by things like trees.
The majority of PM2.5 everywhere is sulfate - (from coal burning, mostly). Look at all the SE sites - ATL to the SC site in in the metropolis of Chesterfield, and they look pretty much the same - a little more carbon in the cities, but not much more of not much.
I need to look at the LA to CHAS Inorg carbon comparison...

Posted by rollo on June 17, 2008 at 9:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, cinnabar,

Pine trees do release a huge amount of VOC that produce ozone so thick it is visible. That is how the "Great Smokey Mountains" and the "Blue Ridge Mountains" got their names.

All of you who will scream "NO" to this, those ranges were named long before the industrial revolution.

Posted by checkb4speaking on June 17, 2008 at 9:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SC probably can't afford the boats..
To get to the % you have to download the data into a spreadsheet and do the math.
Gotta look at the 'Speciation ' data in Air Explorer and tease out the components and compare to the total mass.
Components only measured at the Stadium site. The other sights are mass only.
The Cape Romain sampler is a visibility focus(IMPROVE) but components are most easily looked at here:

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/We...

I noticed it does include the DHEC sites (look under AQS speciation) and you can make really good graphics that show changes in composition.
Ya gotta register, but nothing obnoxious.

Posted by rollo on June 17, 2008 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And meanwhile, Obama brags that he has friends who fly in from all around the country to play basketball with him on the day he has been endorsed by Mr Greenfoot, Algore himself!

When will Bo Petersen calculate the ozone generated by Obamas' 'pick-ups' and report on that???

I'm not holdin' my breath!

Posted by checkb4speaking on June 17, 2008 at 9:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ozone invisible no matter how thick BUT yer kinda right. The VOCs from pines(terpenes) and deciduous trees (compounds MUCH mure active in the ozone production) also contribute to fine particulate formation which provide a place for high humidity to condense- thus the haze.
We've just made more .

Posted by Horratio on June 17, 2008 at 9:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

From the New England Medical Journal article:(not left coast):

"In previous studies of the long-term effect of air pollution on cardiovascular disease, investigators have averaged exposures across a city and then compared health effects between cities.3,4,5,14 However, gradients of exposure to pollutants within cities also affect the risk of death from cardiovascular causes8,15 and may be associated with subclinical atherosclerosis.16 ...

For cardiovascular events, the between-city effect appeared to be smaller than the within-city effect. The risk of cerebrovascular events was also associated with increased levels of PM2.5 "

Now from the same article, read this carefully:

"In 2000, levels of PM2.5 exposure varied from 3.4 to 28.3 µg per cubic meter (mean, 13.5). Each increase of 10 µg per cubic meter was associated with a 24% increase in the risk of a cardiovascular event (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09 to 1.41) and a 76% increase in the risk of death from cardiovascular disease (hazard ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.25 to 2.47)."

I take that to mean, please correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not good with numbers, that someone living in an area with a pm2.5 of 15 has a 76% higher risk of death from heart disease than someone living in an area with a pm2.5 of 5.

I also take the study to mean it really does matter where you live within a city in regards to your exposure to toxins associated with pm2.5. In fact, the city-wide ambient air measurement means much less than site specific measurements within a city.

So basically, we have no adequate monitoring measurements for the people of Charleston. We have not studied various "at risk sites" within the city, so we really don't know what we are measuring other than possibly a vague "ambient air" measurement.

We have some vague idea of ambient air quality, and its not particularly high by the current standards picked without reference to impacts on human health.

Finally, those current standards appear to be way above the levels that we now know cause measurable adverse health impacts.

So we can go on thinking smoking doesn't really hurt people much, and air pollution doesn't really hurt people much. It is kind of hard to believe at first. Its way more fun to believe otherwise.

But now we know better don't we. i don't have a problem with people who want to smoke. But we all have to breath the air. Its not fair when one group thinks its fine to force their toxins on everyone.

Sure there is a happy median somwhere.And there are ways to reduce adverse impacts.
But we won't know what that level is and we won't know how to redusce impacts without better measuring models, will we.

Posted by rollo on June 17, 2008 at 9:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Posted by checkb4speaking on June 17, 2008 at 9:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ozone invisible no matter how thick BUT yer kinda right. The VOCs from pines(terpenes) and deciduous trees (compounds MUCH mure active in the ozone production) also contribute to fine particulate formation which provide a place for high humidity to condense- thus the haze.
We've just made more ."

Sounds like fog to me, OK, it's moisture drawn to heavier, cooler particulates.

End report= More trees means more ozone.

Posted by checkb4speaking on June 17, 2008 at 10:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Other than the problem that no one lives in an area with an average of 5, the increase in RISK of death due to CV has a (95% sure) increase of between 1.25 times and 2.25 times those folks living in the clean bubble. You need to look and see what their risk is.

You also need to look at how they treated confounding factors. The probably accounted for sex/age/smoker but people who live in areas where the sources are, are not only exposed to the particulate but lots of other things not present in areas removed from the sources.
Not discounting need for better info. Info good.
If you're desperate for reading - here's the connection of standards(reference) to health effects. -Readers Digest verson. If you want more look up the 'Criteria document'.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/p...

but I suggest the stuff on

http://epa.gov/pm/actions.html

People are looking and testing and studying.
And some folks are watching and encouraging.

Posted by rollo on June 17, 2008 at 10:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Horratio,
People in Chas SC have a better chance of being run over by a CARTA bus than people in Savannah GA. Does that mean we should remove CARTA from our streets?

Posted by checkb4speaking on June 17, 2008 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ahh, But Mr.rollo - More trees provide more reaction surface to scrub Ozone AND, more importantly, reduce ambient Temp that drives the ozone formation reactions faster. Nothing is a simple equation.
Part of the big one is
Trees in cities = less heat -> less ozone.

Posted by rollo on June 17, 2008 at 10:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Horratio,
People in Chas SC have a better chance of being run over by a CARTA bus than people in Savannah GA. Does that mean we should remove CARTA from our streets?

I read a survey once that said "Mortality Rate 30% Higher Near Metropolitan Centers"

And I thought mortality was universal!!
You learn something new every day!

Posted by rollo on June 17, 2008 at 10:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Posted by checkb4speaking on June 17, 2008 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Ahh, But Mr.rollo - More trees provide more reaction surface to scrub Ozone AND, more importantly, reduce ambient Temp that drives the ozone formation reactions faster. Nothing is a simple equation.
Part of the big one is
Trees in cities = less heat -> less ozone."

I have a water oak in my back yard, It is @ 13' in circumference at 6' above the elevation of the yard. I have a picnic table under the tree, and on an afternoon like today, you can sit at the table and taste the oxygen falling from the leaves. I know what trees can do. If I don't rake up the leaves all winter, they cover my yard 3" deep and fill my rain gutters 6 times!

That's a lot of carbon release! But I'd never cut that tree.

Posted by rollo on June 17, 2008 at 10:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If trees produce particulates that produce ozone, then too many trees could be as bad as not enough! Speaking strictly ozone-wise.

So, you are correct, no one solution is proper for every environment. That's the prob with EPA, they want everybody to conform to one standard.

Posted by checkb4speaking on June 17, 2008 at 11:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Carbon on ground good
Shared respiration and transpiration (trees and people) good.
Ozone City, GA(ATL) knows and is actively planting.

http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/atlanta/

Overall, trees beneficial - They don't produce particulate(but do scrub). The photochemical pathways to ozone and fine particulate are intertwined.
The SE has an abundence of VOCs from vegetation (and to a much lesser extent, people.) The limiting input is Oxides of Nitrogen. Change NOx=Change Ozone. Change our VOC input = insignificant.
(Sort of) End report Plant/preserve trees + stop driving = less Ozone
Plant/preserve trees + stop burning coal = less particulate and ozone(NOx input again)

More practical - Drive less /reduce electricty use (and scrub SO2) / sit under a tree and enjoy a beverage = less stuff in the air

Posted by checkb4speaking on June 18, 2008 at 12:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Horratio
Quick look at Carbon LA vs CHAS

2007
on average
Twice the CHAS Elemental /Inorganic/Black Carbon in LA
1.5 times the CHAS organic in LA
1.5 the CHAS total carbon in LA
(May be a <cough> pattern)
but only a third the Sulfate (ion) we breathe.
Take THAT , lefties.

I didn't do the mass
(Do it yourself. Show your work.)

Best not to trust strangers with stranger names.
I could be a P&C reporter..

Posted by Horratio on June 18, 2008 at 3:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

checkb4speaking, you are very helpful (and funny).

I do appreciate it. And your honest attempts at dialogue too. I'm learning slowly. Thanks.

That article quoted the occasional average level under 5. The overall average I think was around 13 . Maybe they measured inside houses ?

The big news there was the variations within cities.

rollo you are funny too. In fact Carta probably runs over more people than they carry ! (just kidding).

Yeah ozone is a hazy subject (sorry) but I think the real story here is pm2.5 and diesel emissions.

How much of our sulfites/inorganic carbons are vehicle/truck/ship emissions versus coal power plants and paper mills ?

I dont mean state wide. I mean in Charleston.

I am assuming we (someone) knows how much the plants emmit because they are permited.

I don't guess anyone knows about the cars/trucks/ships contribution but they could be estimated pretty easily I would think.

My guess is that trucks and ships operating per hour make up a disproportionate share of emissions even though there are more numbers of cars operating per hour.

That is the info. that is most important to know.

Posted by Horratio on June 18, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OK re reading the article they used the same links you did to find the pm2.5 levels from monitors located closest to the enrollees.

With the stated ranges, I am not sure how far you can extrapolate the risk. But with a mean average of 13, I think its fair to say the study suggests someone in an area of mean average of 23 is at significantly higher risk. Then the community could take steps to reduce the presumed sources or at least let people know so they can move to a safer spot.

Yeah there are always holes in every study design and this one is no exception.

But, I do think it implies the air pollution threat is real as is the need for more site specific monitoring.

Yeah , yeah I know. Pollution doesn't kill, Breathing does.

Posted by checkb4speaking on June 21, 2008 at 10:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thought the comments got wiped - they weren't there when I looked last time..
Thanks , H
For Chas, Particulate likely the most important .
Since Sulfate is the same proportion pretty much everywhere in the SE , very hasd to say what contributes