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.
Texyn, you post under quite a few monikers and use various IP addresses, VPN's, TOR, etc...... is this "you" in another remix.....rinse and repeat?
..........or one of your "friends"?....
No, just one of the few posters here who actually did the one thing that you and others have yet to do:
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celiene61
Anyway.......
I actually have no vested interest in Houston...I own a home in Tanglewood, where I actually spend less than 30% of my time ...I spend the majority of my time in Geneva Switzerland, in the current year +1, and I am a Dual Yankee/ Canuck.
As to people and their said "preconceived notions"....Bu2, you would need to read the complete thread, every post, to realize that what you said in this post...right here, right now.....is what a lot of us have said..."different wording" but overall same theme.
But the facts are the facts...the air quality here, overall, is not stellar. Yes, good days( today is not too bad) but other days...not very good. Winter generally is the best time to be here.
And the Ozone is a whole different issue.
BTW, you mentioned not being a Physician, well, I am surrounded on both sides by neighbors who are Physicians...and yes, we do receive "different" information then the general population.
No secret there...Every profession receives specific information related to their job classification.
And don't worry about Houstonians going bat shieettt crazy over the air quality...it is no secret...we are all big boys and girls who live in a large urban area which just happens to be located close to a large industrial petrochemical corridor. It does not make anyone lose sleep over it...
THAT is why the article is just, ah, shall we say this "nicely" not really needed.....
I do know that Los Angeles sits in a basin. The mountains ring it inland and the ocean on the other side. So the sea breezes blow everything inland and it stays. The breezes aren't there to blow it out, back out to sea and clear the skyline. Topography and wind currents. It says a lot.
That's doubtlessly why LA has the highest rating. It's a very population intense area. Tons of cars and traffic.
On the coast, the air quality is fine since everything is blown inland. You also have the fabulous temperatures that California is renowned due to the cool ocean temperatures and the wind blowing over that cold water inland 5 miles.
If you're inland, there is no where for the pollution to go and so it just keeps piling up behind the mountain. When the wind direction reverses during wildfire season, the pollution is blown out to sea but the hot, dry air increases the risk of wildfires.
No, just one of the few posters here who actually did the one thing that you and others have yet to do:
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
READ THE OP.
Spare us the repeat of READ THE OP You are unable to debate the OP, you copy and paste sections from your OP, nothing else. typical low energy shill The funding behind several topics included by the OP are funded by thinly veiled corporate interests,and thru NGO's and othe non- profits. Follow the money, as they say.
So, since this is your preferred methodology, I will also provide you with some of the same..from concerns which discredit your narrowly promoted angle. There is quite a bit of statistical manipulation in your OP as well, Texyn.......and contrary to a post of yours over on the City vs City section of General USA ( You posted a Poll and thread RE: Which city would you consider to have the best air quality?) where you stated that "Statistics are never wrong" ::
Well .....They are actually easy to alter, manipulate, convolute.....what have you. And it is well known and published by Ivy League statistical experts. If you wish for me to post some of those peer reviewed and researched papers...just give me a "shout out" and I can "provide those for you"
NASA article regarding technology used to monitor urban air quality. The University of Houston was also involved in this. Newer technology is available and even more sensitive. This is not a net gain for Houston though...as the newer tech suggests things getting a bit worse, most likely due to the population expansion of the greater Houston metroplex.
Your mention of the prevailing winds, jet stream , and other atmosphèric conditions( El Niño, El Ninas etc.)that relieve Houston of some of its particle pollutants. This is helpful, but it does not correct the underlying pollution problem, it is, in essence, a temporary "band-aid" that is not constant, nor something that can be depended upon to improve the overall air quality for Houston.
The heat, humidity and mold add to the problème, but are considered "Force Majeure" or "acte de Dieu"
, Act of God...not man made and out of our control.
Weather can affect air quality as well, which is another rather deep "Rabbit Hole", Alice....as we all know that there is the ability to manipulate the weather.......the law was actually passed here in Texas under Kay Bailey Hunthinson years ago. There are companies here in Texas that provide cloud seeding, and such.
And there are more causes of naturally occurring pollution, such as large fires, etc. We all get to "enjoy" ( that is tongue in cheek) the Cedar Fever which blows in from the west ( New Mexico and Co.) in the spring. Mother Nature's sense of "humor"
Last edited by Celiene61; 10-30-2017 at 10:19 PM..
It's quite clear from your knee-jerk responses that you never read it (at least not thoroughly). Same goes for many other posters in here. And until you all actually read the OP (and carefully), I will repeat: READ THE OP
Quote:
You are unable to debate the OP, you copy and paste sections from your OP, nothing else. typical low energy shill
That is the source I used for my argument, of course I won't debate it.
Quote:
The funding behind several topics included by the OP are funded by thinly veiled corporate interests,and thru NGO's and othe non- profits. Follow the money, as they say.
Of the three authors of the article, only one had connections to any agencies, and that was simply funding for the research, nothing more.
Quote:
Daniel Cohan has received research funding from NASA, US EPA, and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Beata Czader and Rui Zhang do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
As for the website, the funding sources are all philanthropic, and mostly research-oriented and scientific. So "following the money" simply leads to nothing but good cause. Most affiliates with the website are Universities, which, again, represent a large source for the type academic, peer-reviewed studies you yourself champion. https://theconversation.com/us/partners
Quote:
So, since this is your preferred methodology, I will also provide you with some of the same..from concerns which discredit your narrowly promoted angle. There is quite a bit of statistical manipulation in your OP as well, Texyn.......and contrary to a post of yours over on the City vs City section of General USA ( You posted a Poll and thread RE: Which city would you consider to have the best air quality?) where you stated that "Statistics are never wrong" ::
Well .....They are actually easy to alter, manipulate, convolute.....what have you. And it is well known and published by Ivy League statistical experts. If you wish for me to post some of those peer reviewed and researched papers...just give me a "shout out" and I can "provide those for you"
There always seems to be an awful lot of "could" in the arguments you use in attempt to discredit my sources. That is, you are trying to discredit my sources just because of a chance they could be "manipulated" by some agenda. That's a baseless argument, and will remain so until you can confirm any "hidden agenda" that is present.
NASA article regarding technology used to monitor urban air quality. The University of Houston was also involved in this. Newer technology is available and even more sensitive. This is not a net gain for Houston though...as the newer tech suggests things getting a bit worse, most likely due to the population expansion of the greater Houston metroplex.
Not a single source you've shown is as current as the article I provided. Two of them are off by around a decade, including the NASA source, which makes sure to alert the readers of any problems arising from the time disparity. That "newer, sensitive tech" is old news now, perhaps even obsolete:
Quote:
Disclaimer: This material is being kept online for historical purposes. Though accurate at the time of publication, it is no longer being updated. The page may contain broken links or outdated information, and parts may not function in current web browsers.
And nevertheless, they still don't dispute anything I posted, especially the Mayoral Campaign PDF, which is actually referenced in a study my article linked to (READ THE OP).
Quote:
Your mention of the prevailing winds, jet stream , and other atmosphèric conditions( El Niño, El Ninas etc.)that relieve Houston of some of its particle pollutants. This is helpful, but it does not correct the underlying pollution problem, it is, in essence, a temporary "band-aid" that is not constant, nor something that can be depended upon to improve the overall air quality for Houston.
I never said that was the case. If you'd have READ THE OP, you would have seen that.
Quote:
The heat, humidity and mold add to the problème, but are considered "Force Majeure" or "acte de Dieu"
, Act of God...not man made and out of our control
Weather can affect air quality as well, which is another rather deep "Rabbit Hole", Alice....as we all know that there is the ability to manipulate the weather.......the law was actually passed here in Texas under Kay Bailey Hunthinson years ago. There are companies here in Texas that provide cloud seeding, and such.
And there are more causes of naturally occurring pollution, such as large fires, etc. We all get to "enjoy" ( that is tongue in cheek) the Cedar Fever which blows in from the west ( New Mexico and Co.) in the spring. Mother Nature's sense of "humor
"
Most natural air quality factors have effects that are dependent on an individual's tolerance. Not only that, every place has its own unique quirks regarding the natural factors in play: cedar fever doesn't affect Houston as much as other areas of Texas, but Houston still has allergen sources that many other Texas regions lack (i.e. pines). So there is no universal effect on the human body that can be construed from these sources, which in turn indicates no true "good or bad" as it comes to a nationwide comparison.
Fire is the only natural source that is universally harmful to humans, but Houston's location and prevailing winds often protect the city from non-local fires; most non-local large fires that affect the city's air quality occur in Mexico, which means winds have to have a strong southwesterly component (albeit closer to due west) for that effect to come through.
The particle pollution is addressed by the OP, including in my article. As mentioned before, my article quotes a study that uses one of the sources you provided as reference.
There are several critical points that keep being missed by you, and others, which is preventing understanding of the fact at hand. You will see these points if you read the OP:
First, Houston's pollution issues were never denied; the entire first half of the article talks about the city's pollution problems, explaining how it ranked high on ozone pollution by the peak-based ALA and EPA lists, as well as issues certain neighborhoods had with refinery particle pollutants.
What is being said, however, is that the day-by-day average air quality seen in Houston is cleaner than that in much of the country, even with the aforementioned pollution issues. While the many climate and location factors of the city obviously don't solve man-made pollution, they clearly do alleviate it, to the point that air quality monitors can stay quite clean in the city often. The flat landscape, low- latitude, dominancy of Gulf wind, are just some of many of these helpful factors. What happens to put the city high on ozone/particle pollution ranks is simply the few favorable formation days that levels can spike high with all the big-city traffic and oil industry emissions in the area. In other words, extremes in an otherwise clean average.
So, summarizing the first two points, Houston's pollution issues were acknowledged, and it is shown that the city maintains clean average air quality even with such issues. Therefore, any arguments here that bring up pollution in an effort to refute my fact are null and void.
Lastly, if you want to discredit my source, you will have to prove that the data provided was, in fact, manipulated; that goes way beyond just "saying it can be." You will also have to prove that the three organizations involved in direct funding associated with the article (NASA, EPA, and TCEQ), all of which operate on a state or nation wide level, would benefit from "putting a positive spin." just on the pollution levels of a singular city Until that is done, any arguments against the source credibility are null and void, since they would be nothing but baseless accusation.
It's quite clear from your knee-jerk responses that you never read it (at least not thoroughly). Same goes for many other posters in here. And until you all actually read the OP (and carefully), I will repeat: READ THE OP
That is the source I used for my argument, of course I won't debate it.
Because you have been told not to, no mystery there. Others will therefore not debate their side of the issue, either, with an attitude such as this. So nothing is ever accomplished .
Of the three authors of the article, only one had connections to any agencies, and that was simply funding for the research, nothing more.
And Research can be biased, depending on who is paying for it. And the authors are addressing a certain slant on the subject matter
As for the website, the funding sources are all philanthropic, and mostly research-oriented and scientific. So "following the money" simply leads to nothing but good cause. Most affiliates with the website are Universities, which, again, represent a large source for the type academic, peer-reviewed studies you yourself champion. https://theconversation.com/us/partners
The site has about the same level of "respect" as CNN, or other MSM controlled drones...you can do better, but a truly good OP-ED would address both sides of the issue. Completely, without a slant in favor of one side.
"We" as in you, Texyn, and I ....could write for that site....perhaps it is "you" who wrote the article? Then, of course you will defend your "work"..... most of your postings on City Data are focused on the weather, air quality and the like....your interest?
I actually recognize a few of the " Pseudonyms" , from other articles on that site and know that they are "available for hire", which means they will write an article favoring either side of an agenda per those who lobby/pay for their professional opinion. It's good coin, as they say. Many researchers will also "back into" their research, restating it in another manner, of which you, or others will not understand.
There always seems to be an awful lot of "could" in the arguments you use in attempt to discredit my sources. That is, you are trying to discredit my sources just because of a chance they could be "manipulated" by some agenda. That's a baseless argument, and will remain so until you can confirm any "hidden agenda" that is
"Could "is used as a polite word, Texyn..we are in the south, you know. And it's a rather weak point to make, on your part.
And, a word to the wise regarding research....what is considered new cutting edge research today is tomorrows trash, and what was laughed off today and discredited is tommorows newest discovery. This is true in any academic or political/ intellectual discipline.
Hidden agenda? That would be those financial or political actors who have a vested interest and investment in the outcome of said agenda. They also desire to control the narrative of said subject in the mind of "public opinion "
Not a single source you've shown is as current as the article I provided. Two of them are off by around a decade, including the NASA source, which makes sure to alert the readers of any problems arising from the time disparity. That "newer, sensitive tech" is old news now, perhaps even obsolète
And nevertheless, they still don't dispute anything I posted, especially the Mayoral Campaign PDF, which is actually referenced in a study my article linked to (READ THE OP).
Texyn, if the article is so obsolete, why then, would you even have "mentioned " the study presented here? Why would it have been used in your "OP" if it was yesterday's news? It did mention that there are 14 different particle pollutates that are of issue, and concern in the Houston area. Perhaps because there is an ongoing issue with those particle pollutates.? NASA has upgraded the the technology and equipment mentioned in their article. NASA simply does not have the funding to just toss out working technology, they must reboot, improve, and reuse their knowledge.
I never said that was the case. If you'd have READ THE OP, you would have seen that.
Most natural air quality factors have effects that are dependent on an individual's tolerance. Not only that, every place has its own unique quirks regarding the natural factors in play: cedar fever doesn't affect Houston as much as other areas of Texas, but Houston still has allergen sources that many other Texas regions lack (i.e. pines). So there is no universal effect on the human body that can be construed from these sources, which in turn indicates no true "good or bad" as it comes to a nationwide comparison
These issues are referred to as "talking points" per Houston weather "quirks" as you call them. Once again "Acte de Dieu" or Act of God...not really an issue when addressing man made pollutates.
Fire is the only natural source that is universally harmful to humans, but Houston's location and prevailing winds often protect the city from non-local fires; most non-local large fires that affect the city's air quality occur in Mexico, which means winds have to have a strong southwesterly component (albeit closer to due west) for that effect to come thorough
Actually smoke pollution from large fires are not the only natural universally harmful agent to humans. Volcanic Ash is another, as are some of the toxic gases released during certain Earthquakes. But none of these...so far...have affected Houston
The particle pollution is addressed by the OP, including in my article. As mentioned before, my article quotes a study that uses one of the sources you provided as reference
Oh,so this IS your article, of course then, you will defend your work....but I do not agree with the findings...so you must, like anyone else who writes such works...accept that, allow it, and move Forward. I debated your "article" regarding high density housing in Houston also. You promoted that piece during Hurricane Harvey, suggesting that the effects of said storm, actually proved your point/ theories RE: High Density housing development as Houstons undeniable future.,
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________
There are several critical points that keep being missed by you, and others, which is preventing understanding of the fact at hand. You will see these points if you read the OP:
First, Houston's pollution issues were never denied; the entire first half of the article talks about the city's pollution problems, explaining how it ranked high on ozone pollution by the peak-based ALA and EPA lists, as well as issues certain neighborhoods had with refinery particle pollutants.
What is being said, however, is that the day-by-day average air quality seen in Houston is cleaner than that in much of the country, even with the aforementioned pollution issues. While the many climate and location factors of the city obviously don't solve man-made pollution, they clearly do alleviate it, to the point that air quality monitors can stay quite clean in the city often. The flat landscape, low- latitude, dominancy of Gulf wind, are just some of many of these helpful factors. What happens to put the city high on ozone/particle pollution ranks is simply the few favorable formation days that levels can spike high with all the big-city traffic and oil industry emissions in the area. In other words, extremes in an otherwise clean average.
J
So, summarizing the first two points, Houston's pollution issues were acknowledged, and it is shown that the city maintains clean average air quality even with such issues. Therefore, any arguments here that bring up pollution in an effort to refute my fact are null and void.
Lastly, if you want to discredit my source, you will have to prove that the data provided was, in fact, manipulated; that goes way beyond just "saying it can be." You will also have to prove that the three organizations involved in direct funding associated with the article (NASA, EPA, and TCEQ), all of which operate on a state or nation wide level, would benefit from "putting a positive spin." just on the pollution levels of a singular city Until that is done, any arguments against the source credibility are null and void, since they would be nothing but baseless accusation.
See above replies,for some reason my server is converting into French..more later
Last edited by Celiene61; 10-31-2017 at 08:18 PM..
Because you have been told not to, no mystery there. Others will therefore not debate their side of the issue, either, with an attitude such as this. So nothing is ever accomplished.
Quote:
And Research can be biased, depending on who is paying for it. And the authors are addressing a certain slant on the subject matter
Quote:
"We" as in you, Texyn, and I ....could write for that site....perhaps it is "you" who wrote the article? Then, of course you will defend your "work"..... most of your postings on City Data are focused on the weather, air quality and the like....your interest?
I actually recognize a few of the " Pseudonyms" , from other articles on that site and know that they are "available for hire", which means they will write an article favoring either side of an agenda per those who lobby/pay for their professional opinion. It's good coin, as they say. Many researchers will also "back into" their research, restating it in another manner, of which you, or others will not understand.
Quote:
"Could "is used as a polite word, Texyn..we are in the south, you know. And it's a rather weak point to make, on your part.
And, a word to the wise regarding research....what is considered new cutting edge research today is tomorrows trash, and what was laughed off today and discredited is tommorows newest discovery. This is true in any academic or political/ intellectual discipline.
Hidden agenda? That would be those financial or political actors who have a vested interest and investment in the outcome of said agenda. They also desire to control the narrative of said subject in the mind of "public opinion "
Nothing new from you here, just more baseless accusations and knee jerk defenses. It doesn't matter if manipulations can or could be done, until you prove that it was done for the studies shown in the article, none of what you're saying here matters.
Quote:
The site has about the same level of "respect" as CNN, or other MSM controlled drones...you can do better, but a truly good OP-ED would address both sides of the issue. Completely, without a slant in favor of one side.
It did, hence the statement of Houston being a "duality" as a "smog capital" and "clean-air haven." Learn to read.
Quote:
Texyn, if the article is so obsolete, why then, would you even have "mentioned " the study presented here? Why would it have been used in your "OP" if it was yesterday's news?
Because obviously, when discussing a subject that has been seen with Houston over the years, there's going to be references to any studies/findings from throughout that time span: including "yesterday's news."
Quote:
These issues are referred to as "talking points" per Houston weather "quirks" as you call them. Once again "Acte de Dieu" or Act of God...not really an issue when addressing man made pollutates.
And most of them don't matter when you are doing holistic comparisons of air quality from one city to another. Because effects amongst people vary.
Quote:
Actually smoke pollution from large fires are not the only natural universally harmful agent to humans. Volcanic Ash is another, as are some of the toxic gases released during certain Earthquakes. But none of these...so far...have affected Houston
I meant that smoke was the only universal harmful natural agent in the list that you gave in your previous post.
Quote:
Oh,so this IS your article, of course then, you will defend your work....but I do not agree with the findings...so you must, like anyone else who writes such works...accept that, allow it, and move Forward.
Don't be dense, now: it's obvious that the article is "mine" simply in the sense that I was the one who originally posted it in this thread.
Disagree all you like, but it won't matter unless you present arguments that actually are valid. So far, half your points were rendered moot by the article, and the other half are simply baseless, knee-jerk defenses that remain hypothetical at best.
Houston has no mountains to prevent pollution from dispersing, unlike L.A. Back in 1948, Donora, PA (near Pittsburgh) had a massive inversion which became a fatal smog event. I learned about this from a Weather Channel primetime documentary a few years ago.
Houston has no mountains to prevent pollution from dispersing, unlike L.A. Back in 1948, Donora, PA (near Pittsburgh) had a massive inversion which became a fatal smog event. I learned about this from a Weather Channel primetime documentary a few years ago.
This only discusses Ozone and many of the results on about cities. The "rest of the country" includes small towns with virtually no pollution.
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.
The funding behind several topics included by the OP are funded by thinly veiled corporate interests,and thru NGO's and othe non- profits. Follow the money, as they say.
