Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Isn't there a problem with high level of nitrates in the ground water in some parts of California?
Low levels of nitrates are needed but higher levels are seen in groundwater in parts of the state including the Central Coast, Central Valley, Southern California, etc. The high levels are from many sources ranging from overapplication of fertilizers on lawns to sewer plant/septic tanks output to farm sources/uses.
Removing the excess nitrogen oxide from the air is important and these types of systems provide one method. Perhaps if the amount from these materials is excessive the runoff water would need to be collected in systems like rain barrels and cisterns then monitored and processed.
But I haven't reviewed the technical materials to see what amounts of nitrates are actually in the runoff.
Worse for ozone: #1: Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA #2: Bakersfield-Delano, CA #3: Visalia-Porterville, CA #4: Fresno-Madera, CA #5: Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Yuba City, CA #6: Hanford-Corcoran, CA #7: San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA
#8: Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX #9: Merced, CA
#10: Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, NC-SC #11: San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA
#12: Dallas-Fort Worth, TX #13: El Centro, CA #14: Modesto, CA
#14: Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV
#16: Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington, OH-KY-IN
#17: New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA
#18: Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette, TN
#19: Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ
#20: Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD
#21: Birmingham-Hoover-Cullman, AL #22: Chico, CA
#23: Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL
#24: Pittsburgh-New Castle, PA
#25: Las Vegas-Paradise-Pahrump, NV
Worse for year round particle pollution: #1: Bakersfield-Delano, CA #2: Visalia-Porterville, CA
#2: Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ #2: Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA #5: Hanford-Corcoran, CA #6: Fresno-Madera, CA
#7: Pittsburgh-New Castle, PA
#8: Birmingham-Hoover-Cullman, AL
#9: Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington, OH-KY-IN
#10: Louisville-Jefferson County-Elizabethtown-Scottsburg, KY-IN #10: Modesto, CA
#12: Charleston, WV
#12: Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV
#12: Cleveland-Akron-Elyria, OH
#15: Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH
#15: Indianapolis-Anderson-Columbus, IN
#17: St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL
#17: Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI
#17: Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX
#20: Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV
#21: New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA
#22: Dayton-Springfield-Greenville, OH
#22: Lancaster, PA
#24: Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD
#24: York-Hanover-Gettysburg, PA
#24: Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH
#24: Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette, TN
Worse for short term particles: #1: Bakersfield-Delano, CA #2: Fresno-Madera, CA
#3: Pittsburgh-New Castle, PA #4: Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA
#5: Salt Lake City-Ogden-Clearfield, UT #6: Provo-Orem, UT #7: Visalia-Porterville, CA
#8: Birmingham-Hoover-Cullman, AL
#9: Logan, UT-ID #9: Hanford-Corcoran, CA #9: Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Yuba City, CA #12: Modesto, CA #13: Merced, CA
#14: Eugene-Springfield, OR #15: San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA #16: Stockton, CA
#17: Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI
#18: Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA
#19: Fairbanks, AK
#20: Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD
#21: Macon-Warner Robins-Fort Valley, GA
#22: Louisville-Jefferson County-Elizabethtown-Scottsburg, KY-IN
#23: Green Bay, WI
#24: Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL
#24: Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA #24: San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA
#24: Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ
#24: Wheeling, WV-OH
#24: Madison-Baraboo, WI
Most Republicans don't seem to care about pollution, or refuse to accept that many people won't self-regulate and just chase money.
Anyone who wants to cripple the EPA and AQMD, which will invariably make these cites more polluted, should live with the consequences of their unfettered free market utopia. Yes, Tea Party dregs, I'm talking about you.
I'm well aware that geography and wind patterns have a lot to do with some places being more polluted than others, but the general point is made.
It's pretty ironic that the San Joaquin Valley area still got slapped with a 20 million dollar fine for going exceeding the pollution limit for just several days last summer due the heat.
It is also not surprising to see Bakersfield ranked at the top in almost every category due to its geographical location, oil and agricultural industries. But a lot of the pollutants are also the result of driving habits of people who own gas guzzling SUVs and trucks. The central valley is also home to the Interstate 5 and Highway 99 -- highways that most commuters will utilize to travel between the major destinations in California.
I always like it when some massive SUV has a "Keep Tahoe Blue" sticker on it (like a Chevy Tahoe). Most of those people could easily get by with a 25+ MPG minivan or something even smaller. They need to drop some of their needs and reduce the amount of stuff they feel compelled to haul around.
There should be far more public awareness of the fact that U.S. oil production peaked in 1970 at approx. 9.6 million barrels per day. If people really understood what that meant, they wouldn't fall back on "drill, baby, drill!" as an excuse to believe that oil will become plentiful/cheap again and there's no reason to conserve it. It should be conserved no matter what the price, as it seesaws due to rising and falling demand at peak production limits (max. flow rates). Oil prices trend downward as the economy slows, then back up as growth tries to continue. Clueless people mistake that for a true drop in oil prices but the general trend is upward.
All of that ties into air quality problems. That, plus the endless, unnatural population growth that's taken as a given. I can't imagine what CA will be like if projections of 60 million by 2050 come to pass. Global Peak Oil will hopefully not allow that insane level of growth, since most historic growth has been predicated on cheap fossil energy.
The Central Valley's Air Quality will always be an issue because of our Geographic Location,Climate and Vehicles passing through here from elsewhere....It has improved over the years though.
But how much do these numbers really affect one's health? With much of CA having extreme bad air, (more areas than the rest of the states) you'd think people would be dropping in the streets. It makes sense that it would be harmful and certainly not pleasant to live in, but after all these decades of CA reporting worse national air statistics, I don't remember seeing any articles that CA has a lot more lung cancer. So how much does it really affect your health?
I always like it when some massive SUV has a "Keep Tahoe Blue" sticker on it (like a Chevy Tahoe). Most of those people could easily get by with a 25+ MPG minivan or something even smaller. They need to drop some of their needs and reduce the amount of stuff they feel compelled to haul around.
There should be far more public awareness of the fact that U.S. oil production peaked in 1970 at approx. 9.6 million barrels per day. If people really understood what that meant, they wouldn't fall back on "drill, baby, drill!" as an excuse to believe that oil will become plentiful/cheap again and there's no reason to conserve it. It should be conserved no matter what the price, as it seesaws due to rising and falling demand at peak production limits (max. flow rates). Oil prices trend downward as the economy slows, then back up as growth tries to continue. Clueless people mistake that for a true drop in oil prices but the general trend is upward.
All of that ties into air quality problems. That, plus the endless, unnatural population growth that's taken as a given. I can't imagine what CA will be like if projections of 60 million by 2050 come to pass. Global Peak Oil will hopefully not allow that insane level of growth, since most historic growth has been predicated on cheap fossil energy.
Amen. I have ordered that book written by Richard Heinberg. I look forward to reading it.
But how much do these numbers really affect one's health? With much of CA having extreme bad air, (more areas than the rest of the states) you'd think people would be dropping in the streets. It makes sense that it would be harmful and certainly not pleasant to live in, but after all these decades of CA reporting worse national air statistics, I don't remember seeing any articles that CA has a lot more lung cancer. So how much does it really affect your health?
The answer is pollution affects your health a lot. Studies have shown this and in places like the Inland Empire and the Central Valley you have greater risks of respiratory diseases such as asthma, COPD and lung cancer which can be deadly.
Did you read the article from the original post of this thread regarding the American Lung Association's annual report, State of the Air 2011?
"These people live in areas where chronic levels are regularly a threat to their health. Even when levels are fairly low, exposure to particles over time can increase risk of hospitalization for asthma, damage to the lungs and, significantly, increase the risk of premature death." -- Deadliest Air Pollution In U.S.: 10 Worst Cities
"California has the worst air in the country, and 20 million people living in the dirtiest regions account for billions of dollars a year in economic losses because of premature death, chronic illness, hospitalizations and missed school and workdays, according to a new study." -- San Francisco Chronicle - Bad air costing state's economy billions
"The National Resources Defense Council estimates that air pollution causes 64,000 deaths each year from pulmonary disease and lung cancer. Air pollution can also cause decreased lung capacity in children, reducing lung capacity by up to 20 percent. The National Institutes of Health also reports that children exposed to pollution at a young age are four times more likely to develop asthma by adulthood." -- Long-Term Effects of Air Pollution
Thanks for those reports. It seems odd to me that I have many friends/relatives who have lived their whole lives in Sacramento area and or LA area and they and their kids are thriving with good health. When I visit, coming from a very clean air part of the country, my eyes and throat sting and after a few days I cough up gunk. But they aren't bothered by it at all. They say your body adapts to it, and none of their friends have had serious lung problems either, so I wondered if there were actual statistics that it ruins your health. You'd think you'd be seeing people coughing and wheezing all the time.
Thanks for those reports. It seems odd to me that I have many friends/relatives who have lived their whole lives in Sacramento area and or LA area and they and their kids are thriving with good health. When I visit, coming from a very clean air part of the country, my eyes and throat sting and after a few days I cough up gunk. But they aren't bothered by it at all. They say your body adapts to it, and none of their friends have had serious lung problems either, so I wondered if there were actual statistics that it ruins your health. You'd think you'd be seeing people coughing and wheezing all the time.
Their body may adapt to it... but it doesn't mean their lungs aren't being damaged from particles and pollutants.
As I reside in the central valley, there are ways of taking extra precautions to minimize exposure to the poor air quality. i.e. Staying indoors when pollution level is high during the day, etc.
Did you read the article from the original post of this thread regarding the American Lung Association's annual report, State of the Air 2011?
As we discussed in this same thread a few months ago, there is a part of the problem that does not get enough mention.
Californians living in areas who think they have cleaner air should remind themselves every time they talk about inland air quality that they are also part of both the problems and solutions.
Significant pollutants blow from other areas into the IE and SJV. What is created on the coast goes somewhere, it doesn't magically disappear.
Many solutions are statewide or nationwide such as vehicle emission standards.
That means all regions need to work together. For example, the new vehicle standards announced a few weeks ago will raise new car prices (I've heard $500 to $1000 per car). But it means pollution reductions along with better mileage.
So everytime someone points fingers at some regions, be sure you also ask what you can do yourself to improve air quality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Peak Oil may reduce pollution
