The air quality experts from the borough and the State’s Department of Environmental Conservation talked about progress, trends and the next steps to clean up the air in an area of Fairbanks that has been found to be in non-attainment of federal air quality standards.
The event was designed to get the assemblymembers thinking about what local measures — whether it’s controls or expanded voluntary programs — will be needed to meet the 2014 deadline set by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The bad news is the borough is facing a steep uphill battle to clean up its air. Much of that is a result of growing trends of people switching from spendy heating oil to cheaper and polluting forms of heating, said Robert Dulla, a senior partner at air pollution and control firm Sierra Research who is working with the state and the borough.
Additionally, the standards by which the EPA will judge Fairbanks on cleaning up its air will be pretty tough to meet, Dulla said. The EPA looks at a 3-year average, so to meet the 2014 deadline the borough would have to make deep cuts and soon.
“You need to come into attainment below the standard by 2014 and that’s not going to be easy given this trend,” he said. “The only way you’re going to get to this trend is by adopting a lot of controls or making some fundamental changes.”
The largest source of air pollution in the borough is woodsmoke from home heating devices. Any regulation or controls for those have been wildly unpopular with voters, who soundly rejected Proposition 2 in the last election and passed a rule barring bans in 2010.
Any possible regulations, such as limits on selling wet wood or rules forcing commercial firewood harvesters to split wood to ensure better drying would be a tough sell to Fairbanks-area residents.
But the good news out of the meeting is the borough is pursuing a multitude of other measures that chip away at some of the problem. Any progress that can be found in those measures will go a long way to meeting the 2014 deadline.
That includes the borough’s popular wood stove exchange program, new bus lines and the installation of more plugins for vehicles. Longer-term improvements include improved home heater technology and the possibility of bringing in clean-burning natural gas.
But whether those changes will make enough of an impact on the air pollution to make the 2014 deadline and avoid serious penalties still is up in the air, Dulla said. The borough and air quality experts will have a better idea on those developments this spring after more monitoring is done.
“What we see starting in January is to start a dialog about the measure and how they’ll help you get on a downward slope,” he said. “In the end, the mix of what’s acceptable has to be stitched together from state, local and federal controls.”
Contact staff writer Matt Buxton at 459-7544.
"Also, simply smelling wood smoke does mean it is harmful."
Big Drama. Our overall ability to smell involves tiny airborne particulate matter. So every time we smell anything we're suppose to feel as if we are harming ourselves are we?
Levoglucosan from biomass smoke is not considered to be a serious health risk. There are however some common sense rules:
S 02 - Keep out of the reach of children.
S 22 - Do not breath dust.
S 24/25 - Avoid contact with skin and eyes.
Oral Toxicity(LD50) : Not determined
Dermal Toxicity(LD50) : Not determined
Inhalation Toxicity(LC50) : Not determined
It looks like they covered all the variables possible. The experimental subjects were exposed for 3 hours, they engaged in intermittent exercise, they reported runny noses and sore throats and samples of their lung mucus were taken for study and tested for damage.
The study concludes that there was little measurable nor pertinent damage.
The important factor in the 180 min. experiment vs. Fairbanks was the 180 min. of exposure is 18 times a 10 min. exposure by Fairbanksans walking to or from their car. Exposure in FBX is very low because of the cold weather.
Also, simply smelling wood smoke does mean it is harmful.
more science independent from the EPA spin doctors.
Continued ......
Suggested reading Eric Hoffer "The True Believer"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer#Thesis_and_background
An example of true believers are those folks squatting in the public parks and rioting in Portland. They are being played for fools and used his dupes by the communist and the anarchists.
I agree with you about the importance of peer review. But I am curious about why you are predisposed to believe that the listed constituents are not present in wood smoke. ....
--- I have no way to duplicate measurements of air content to the 10^-4 th in order to know if the citation is correct or not or it it applies to Fairbanks at all.
I am very predisposed to not believing phony politically motivated science with an agenda because I believe a sucker is born every minute and I make a diligent effort to avoid falling into that category as often as possible.
From direct personal observation having been on several juries I am well aware of the fact money buys "science" just like money buys toilet paper and booze.
The document you cited listed only 1 person with a PhD and 0 with a medical degree of any kind – not even in podiatry! That's a red flag -flashing light- siren warning hint about its credibility.
The above link to (Health effects of residential wood smoke particles: the importance of combustion conditions and physicochemical particle properties)is well worth a read for an informed opinion, free from that of the EPA.
For the record, the data in the table which I referenced was obtained from studies that are cited in column four of the table. The citations list is only about five or six pages long. By all means, do some homework and look into it further. (That would be a good place to start in your peer search.) But try to remember that a bias is a bias, whether for or against.
Tarbaby reference the following ("Chemical Composition of Woodsmoke, page 4 of the document) to learn about the components of wood smoke):
--
-- So what!?! that's my critical evaluation.
The article was written in 1994 before any - and I do mean any- of the new technology mentioned was in the market.
It is not only stale by 15 years, it's uses estimates. If one chose to do so, it offers a sales pitch for salesman selling indoor air filters.
What do you think the probability of becoming ill from 2.5s versus freezing to death at 40 below 0 when the electricity fails?
I would put the study in the category of 2.5's in downtown Fairbanks, causing me to drink too much water and being up in the middle of the night.
As I mentioned were all going to die of something; but, it sure as hell won't be from inhaling wood stove smoke 2.5s around here in the winter . Remember, we survive readings of over 1000 during the summer forest fire season .
PS I didn't check to see if the study was peer reviewed prior to publication. Using search on the "study" document -- produced 1 PhD citation and 0 MD citation. The PhD citation showed up in the bibliography.
reference the following ("Chemical Composition of Woodsmoke, page 4 of the document) to learn about the components of wood smoke):
http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/CRA/tb/LarsonTimothy V_1994.pdf
The third column of the chart lists the physical state (liquid, vapor, solid) of each component.
"Secondary particles are those formed from a chemical reaction of gaseous emissions" Of course your perfect objective view, you failed to mention wood smoke, which this characterizes perfectly.
When I was in JH 8th grade science the teacher explained the difference between a gas and particles.
2.5s are smoke particles, pieces of soot, which can be filtered with a sheet of toilet paper, bandanna, or a P100 mask over your nose.
To my knowledge, Sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and Ammonia gas can't filtered with ANY of the above.
You and 2cold are trying to con us, Why? Are your jobs at stake?
2cold does not even know what his $320 gizmo's measuring. I suspect, he is measuring it is his own CH4
--------------
The greedy state is making $2.20 a gallon off it's hidden royal oil tax in the wholesale crude price. Home heating oil should be about $1.30 the rest 5 finger discount.
1ahHA - God doesn't have 40-50 times 2.5 in the Tanana Valley - that might exist in other places though in the world - but here - HERE we do NOT need the extra particles. Maybe that is acceptable to you, but not to me and not for my children
----" God doesn't have 40-50 times 2.5 in the Tanana Valley" Which planet do you live on? Do you have forest fires there, also? Suggest reading: http://www.co.fairbanks.ak.us/airquality/Docs/ParticulateLevels.pdf
Use the method to calculate the 2.5s when visibility is 200' or less.
As for your children, I suggest moving to LA - they don't have forest fires down there very often. And, they don't use wood stoves to survive when the temperatures are -40. When you move to LA send them to school with a nice bullet resistant flack jack.
If you actually cared about "air quality" have you considered spaying and neutering your kids? They are the cause of poverty and grow up to pollute the air.
Thank you!
More will understand the graph you posted.
http://www.aklg.org/air-quality-committee/" "Independent" think tanks don't have agendas, as that immediately narrows your views, and the possible "solutions" you can come up with. Which means the best solution could be beyond your reach because of your narrow thinking.
Of course your perfect objective view, you failed to mention wood smoke, which this characterizes perfectly.
If one is in the habit of looking at only $ I guess you could only see the costs of the program. As for me I've spent $320 to get a real time monitor of the air quality, http://www.dylosproducts.com/ (I purchased the $289.99 one, with shipping it's $320), due to direct adverse health impacts of PM 2.5. and I've taken to wearing a face mask unless we get some steady wind which is rare.
If you can read some of these studies and still think we don't have an big air quality problem, well you have no desire to live healthy I guess:
http://northpolecleanair.wordpress.com/
and lots of time and effort was put into this research but no $.
Also: http://cleanairfairbanks.wordpress.com/ for info.
Zinc comes from the burning of waste oil. Waste oil was found to be the #1 source of particulates in South Fairbanks by the independent study contracted out to Sierra Research.
Copied directly from the EPA's guide to PM2.5
"COMPOSITION OF PM-2.5
PM-2.5 is composed of a mixture of particles directed emitted into the air and particles
formed in the air from the chemical transformation of gaseous pollutants (secondary
particles). The principal types of secondary particles are ammonium sulfate and nitrate formed in the air from gaseous emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), reacting with ammonia (NH3). The main sources of SO2 are combustion of fossil fuels in boilers and the main sources of NOx are combustion of fossil fuel in boilers and mobile sources"
The FNSB has not been honest with the public on this issue!