Dirtiest Air in America 2012: Bay Area Cities drop off the list (statistics, air quality)

[sav858]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Most normal, unbiased, non-trolls know this and accept it.

I honestly think Doc made those numbers up because they don't measure air quality by city but rather by site and not each city has a site station so I have no idea where those rankings came from. I'm curious to see where this data came from as I did a google search and could not find it by city, just by metro and of course LA/OC was one of the worst as usual.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by sav858

I honestly think Doc made those numbers up because they don't measure air quality by city but rather by site and not each city has a site station so I have no idea where those rankings came from. I'm curious to see where this data came from as I did a google search and could not find it by city, just by metro and of course LA/OC was one of the worst as usual.

Yes its very bizarre when someone flat out makes up stats to satisfy their own ego-driven civic boosterism.

[Mark Fitsburgh]

Originally Posted by sav858

I honestly think Doc made those numbers up because they don't measure air quality by city but rather by site and not each city has a site station so I have no idea where those rankings came from. I'm curious to see where this data came from as I did a google search and could not find it by city, just by metro and of course LA/OC was one of the worst as usual.

Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's made up.

[Kurinji]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

I find L.A's air quality tends to be cleaner or much much worse than the Bay Area depending on where you're at.

For instance Dana Point/Capo Beach is much cleaner than anywhere in the East Bay.

But the San Gabriel Valley seems to be much dirtier than anywhere in the Bay Area, even S.F city center.

I remember days where you couldn't even see the San Gabriel Mtns.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by DSLGal

I remember days where you couldn't even see the San Gabriel Mtns.

SGV is one of the worst places to breath. The East Bay isn't super clean, but when I am in the SGV, I get irritation while breathing.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Mark Fitsburgh

Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's made up.

It's not that I just disagree it's that it doesn't make any sense. Each city doesn't have an air quality monitoring station so how the hell would each city have it's own score? Also the fact that I've asked for the proof as in a link and Doc still hasn't provided it shows me that he is clearly lying and making up stuff. If you have anything to back up these "stats" please provide it. As far as I'm concerned right now his data is completely made up. I find that completely pathetic to make up data to try to prove a point.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by Mark Fitsburgh

Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's made up.

It's authentic data. It's silly to assume that a city of 800,000 doesn't produce more particulates and ozone than a city of 33,000, but I've chosen not to engage people who are overtly rude to try and maintain some form of civility in this forum. Sometimes the truth hurts is one of the truest adages.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

It's authentic data. It's silly to assume that a city of 800,000 doesn't produce more particulates and ozone than a city of 33,000, but I've chosen not to engage people who are overtly rude to try and maintain some form of civility in this forum. Sometimes the truth hurts is one of the truest adages.

Then PROVE IT. Why can't you provide any proof or a link? All I want is a link, that is all.

I'm really curious to see how they do individual city rankings when air quality is measured by site, not city. I've did a search and could not find this data you claim is "authentic" and believe there is clearly a reason you aren't providing proof of it's authenticity.

Please stop making up fake data on this forum and providing false information to users on this site. MOD CUT

[sav858]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

Air Quality Index:

Rank: 661. Index Score: 51.8, Dana Point, CA / 33,351

Rank: 1462. Index Score: 38.5 Oakland, CA / 390,724

Rank: 1539. Index Score: 36.8 San Francisco, CA / 805,235

I can't believe it took me this long to realize this, even IF this data were to be true this actually shows Dana Point having the WORST air quality of these three cities, perhaps that is why you don't want to provide a link.

The higher the AQI (Air Quality Index) the WORSE off the air quality is! Since when is a higher AQI better?

Understanding the AQI: Air Quality Index (AQI) - A Guide to Air Quality and Your Health

So perhaps this data does actually exists except you got it BACKWARDS and that is why you don't want to show the link to where you got this. This is clearly a ranking of Worst to Best and the higher up on the list you are the worse the air is.

Thanks for proving me RIGHT DOC!

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by sav858

I can't believe it took me this long to realize this, even IF this data were to be true this actually shows Dana Point having the WORST air quality of these three cities, perhaps that is why you don't want to provide a link.

The higher the AQI (Air Quality Index) the WORSE off the air quality is! Since when is a higher AQI better?

Understanding the AQI: Air Quality Index (AQI) - A Guide to Air Quality and Your Health

So perhaps this data does actually exists except you got it BACKWARDS and that is why you don't want to show the link to where you got this. This is clearly a ranking of Worst to Best and the higher up on the list you are the worse the air is.

Thanks for proving me RIGHT DOC!

I found this for a ranking of major cities around the world (outdoor air pollution in cities): WHO | Database: outdoor air pollution in cities

But that is by major cities, it looks like smaller cities around the major cities are lumped together.

I also came across these links:
AIRNow - Homepage
http://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=a...tional_summary

The best you can do is search by zip code, and for many of the smaller cities, it'll link you to the nearest focus city. Obviously, not every single suburb has its own monitoring station, so you'll get the nearest city with a monitoring station's rating. The LA and SF Bay Area do seem to have a decent amount of monitoring stations, so chances are you might find a monitoring station pretty close to your town.

For example, I did a search on my San Mateo zip code, and it showed me the current air quality results for Redwood City. Oakland and SF have seperate ratings.

In LA, I didn't see any for Dana Point, but you can punch in its zip code, and it'll show you the results for the nearest monitoring station relative to Dana Point (which happens to be the Capistrano Vly monitoring station).

******
And, just for out of curiosity, I checked today's ratings for all three cities:

Dana Point, CA (92629), Capistrano Vly monitoring station, today's forecast high AQI is 65 (Moderate), current AQI of 26: AIRNow - Capistrano Vly, CA Air Quality

San Francisco, CA, today's forecast high AQI is 52 (Moderate), current AQI of 87: AIRNow - San Francisco, CA Air Quality

Oakland, CA, today's forecast high AQI is 52 (Moderate), current AQI of 90: AIRNow - Oakland, CA Air Quality

I don't fully understand the display of forecast high vs. current conditions, but I'm guessing that they just display the predicted high, and they must not update it if the current conditions exceed the high (my guess).

Either way, this is as good as I've been able to find for specific city AQI ratings. I'm not sure if you'll get much better than this. Also, these are just today's ratings. It doesn't make much sense to take one day of ratings and claim which place has better overall air quality. It'd be like trying to say you went to SF one day and it was raining, and went to Seattle the next day and it was sunny...and then declared that SF gets more rain than Seattle.


******
I don't think anyone should be claiming the entirety of LA has better air quality than the SF Bay Area from daily data points like this, though. Anyone who thinks the LA area on a whole has better air quality than SF is being pretty ridiculous and obtuse. The Bay Area, while surrounded by many hills, doesn't have gigantic mountains surrounding valleys that trap pollution. Also, the fairly reliable winds in the Bay Area generally do a decent job of removing many of the pollutants. As you move from west to east, you can see the AQI go down as more pollution gets pushed inland (and eventually gets trapped in the central valley...).

The best thing I could find for historical comparisons is by county:
Compare My Air | Air Compare | AIRNow | US EPA

Some counties in LA compared to counties in the Bay Area:
number of unhealthy days in 2011.
You can also access other historical information on this site, such as number of unhealthy days in recent years for active outdoors for the same counties.

Here are a couple other good comparison tools, just for CA (you can compare by regions, and then sub-divide comparisons by monitoring stations in the regions; or look at trends in the regions):
http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/select8/sc8start.php
http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/trends/trends1.php
http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html


******
I would be interested to see where Doc got his data. I'm not sure why he's being so secretive about it, since he generally seems to be very adamant about statistics and backing up statements with them. If I were him, and I believed the data proved what I was trying to argue, I'd want to show where I got the data from (if anything, just to end the debate)...but, maybe that's just the scientist in me talking...and, it does appear he misunderstood the meaning of the units of measurement in this case...