air quality EPA data and comparisions (Portland, Eugene: 2013, organic, live)

[joe_obody999]

so, i found this site, most excellent, to get some objective raw data about air quality in Eugene and to compare it with other cities (e.g. Portland, and also where i live and also LA which perhaps is one of the worst cities in the USA for air quality). Very nice link below where you can choose a city to see data like i added below. Eugene air quality is not as good as where I live (Duluth MN) but going by the EPA data I think I could live with the air quality in Eugene which is somewhat comparable to Minneapolis and I lived there for a number of years so I know what that air quality is like. Anyhow, sharing the data here in case anybody look at Eugene finds it of interest, as I know I did. Not crazy of the "21 days of unhealthy for certain groups" but at least that is only 3 weeks out of the year.
AQI Report | AirData | US EPA

For 2013, EUGENE:
242 days of good air quality, 101 days of moderate air quality, 21 days of 'unhealthy for certain groups' (asthmatics, etc), and 1 unhealthy day.

For 2013, DULUTH:
300 days of good air quality, 65 days of moderate air quality, 0 days of 'unhealthy for certain groups' (asthmatics, etc), and 0 unhealthy day.

For 2013, MINNEAPOLIS:
235 days of good air quality, 127 days of moderate air quality, 3 days of 'unhealthy for certain groups' (asthmatics, etc), and 1 unhealthy day, 0 unhealthy days

For 2013, PORTLAND-BEAVERTON:
232 days of good air quality, 73 days of moderate air quality, 3 days of 'unhealthy for certain groups' (asthmatics, etc), and 1 unhealthy day, 0 unhealthy days

For 2013, LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH-SANTA ANA:
96 days of good air quality, 200 days of moderate air quality, 65 days of 'unhealthy for certain groups' (asthmatics, etc), and 4 unhealthy day, 0 unhealthy days

[soarswitheagles]

Those 21 days of unhealthy for certain groups is probably when the inversions happen. They are awful.

The numbers for Portland-Beaverton don't add up. ~Okay, so I looked up the original and I guess the monitoring was only for 308 days. Odd!

[oakread2]

Well, the air quality is better there than where I currently live.

For 2013, MODESTO:
165 days of good air quality, 135 days of moderate air quality, 36 days of 'unhealthy for certain groups' (asthmatics, etc), and 3 unhealthy day, 0 very unhealthy days

[bler144]

Originally Posted by joe_obody999

Eugene air quality is not as good as where I live (Duluth MN) but going by the EPA data I think I could live with the air quality in Eugene which is somewhat comparable to Minneapolis and I lived there for a number of years so I know what that air quality is like.
AQI Report | AirData | US EPA

That's good survey data, and a fair representation of general air quality. However, it overlooks:

1) there are different particulates in question. Portland looks fairly similar to Sacramento in raw counts, but Portland's air has more metals; whereas Sacramento is particularly bad for ozone and some organics (farming valley and all). So the bad air in Eugene may affect you differently than the bad air in Mpls depending on what you react to/tolerate.

2) representativeness of measuring stations can vary

3) The graphs/tables of underling data are actually much better. I forget the actual particulate cutoffs, but moderate is a range of something like 80-120 ppm. So a city that hovers at 118 for 50 days will look decent, and a city that hovers at 122 for the same span will look horrible.

So if you were actually using this as a significant driver of life choices, I'd probably look at the raw data (particulate types, actual counts, and coverage if you're really dedicated) rather than this summary tabulation.

That said, as a general picture, I'd agree that it 'feels' accurate enough.