California grossly miscalculated pollution levels in a scientific analysis used to toughen the state's clean-air standards, and scientists have spent the past several months revising data and planning a significant weakening of the landmark regulation, The Chronicle has found.
The pollution estimate in question was too high - by 340 percent, according to the California Air Resources Board, the state agency charged with researching and adopting air quality standards. The estimate was a key part in the creation of a regulation adopted by the Air Resources Board in 2007, a rule that forces businesses to cut diesel emissions by replacing or making costly upgrades to heavy-duty, diesel-fueled off-road vehicles used in construction and other industries.
Answer by jesse123456 at 3:54 PM on Oct. 8, 2010
First of all according to the article half of the discrepancy can be directly attributed to the lull in construction caused by the recession, secondly the change as noted in above article (same as the OP quoted) tells us that there are 9,200 deaths in California annualy attributable to diesel particulates as opposed to 18,000 in the bad estimate. I don't know about you but I am not comfortable with 9 premature deaths annually linked to deisel particulate, let alone 9 thousand.
Answer by annabellelee at 1:07 PM on Oct. 8, 2010
Answer by gdiamante at 2:09 PM on Oct. 8, 2010
Answer by Anouck at 12:08 PM on Oct. 8, 2010
I did not open the link, but will tell you my perspective based on common sense.
I have lived all over CA- in the north, south, mountains, valleys and coast. When you can see that the air is brown, your lungs burn upon drawing a breath and your eyes water incessantly, you do not need an expert to verify that the air quality is poor or that the day will be deemed, "spare the air" by the officials. I have reactive airway disease with many triggers. As I runner, I need to be aware of when it is not safe for me to be exercising outdoors. It's common sense, no matter the %s reported. When you live it and breathe it, you know-
Answer by Sisteract at 12:14 PM on Oct. 8, 2010
While I support tough environmental standards I do prefer honesty and the truth in all things.
I agree with SisterAct tho, I live N of LA and when I have to drive into the city I start above the smog and drive right into it on my way down. When you can see and feel the smog in many areas it's obviously a serious issue. We'd be worse off here but in the desert we get lots of wind to blow it away.
Answer by Friday at 12:33 PM on Oct. 8, 2010
Despite the insurance trying, you can not put on price tag on your life- If you do not have your health, nothing else matters. So cliche and so true.
Answer by Sisteract at 12:49 PM on Oct. 8, 2010
Answer by lovinangels at 2:00 PM on Oct. 8, 2010
I lived in Hollywood for a few years when I was modeling and hated it. The pollution, traffic, high crime, rude people and overpriced housing was more than enough reason to move away when my husband and I both ended our modeling careers. I don't think fudging about the numbers is right but something does need to be done about the pollution there. I was on allergy medication the entire time I lived there as soon as we moved back to the Midwest it cleared up and I have been allergy free. Would never raise a family there and put my kids health at risk.
Answer by tabekat at 2:27 PM on Oct. 8, 2010
Answer by annabellelee at 10:47 PM on Oct. 8, 2010