As reported on the front page of today's Express-News, Texas will make a decision by May 26th, whether to join other states and industry groups in a lawsuit against the EPA's decision to lower the 8hr ozone threshold from 85 ppb. to 75 ppb..
In a very well done article by Anton Caputo, it looks likely that Texas will join the lawsuit. You can read the Anton's story by going to this link:
No, we're not talking about the Spurs playoff games, we're talking about the new ozone standard from the EPA. As of yesterday, San Antonio's Camp Bullis Monitor and Fair Oaks (population 4837), recorded 8hr. ozone averages of 77 ppb. and 78 ppb.. Three more days like yesterday and we will already be out of attainment for the first year of the reduced threshold. Temperatures in the mid 90's, clear skies, and a dying cool front appeared to be the main factors in the elevated ozone.
A couple of questions for our local and national health groups.
1. Why was there no "Air Quality Health Alert" issued yesterday? I'm guessing that most people in San Antonio and Fair Oaks had no idea the ozone was high yesterday.
2. How many people checked into emergency rooms yesterday, complaining of breathing problems? Was it more that usual?
3. What could the poor people of Fair Oaks have done about this problem? Perhaps they should have walked or ridden their bikes 25 miles into San Antonio to reduce their pollution?
Unless our drought ends soon, San Antonio will most likely be out of attainment for 2008 by mid June under the new ozone standard. It is time for our local and state leaders to pursue a lawsuit against the EPA before hundreds of small, medium and large towns in the eastern half of our country go into non-attainment.
It had to be Houston, Los Angeles, Phoenix or Dallas. With metro populations in the millions and motorists commuting to work on traffic clogged roads in their ozone producing vehicles, the first area to have four days above 75ppb. for an 8 hour ozone average just had to be one of these cities. Instead, it turned out to be barren, sparsely humanly populated, Joshua Tree National Park.
As of yesterday, April 22nd, Joshua Tree National Park recorded its fourth day of over 75 ppb. for an 8 hour ozone average. As recorded on their monitored ozone site, the park exceeded the new standard on April 18th, 20th, 21st and 22nd. Looking at their remote CAM site, you can see how the region looks as though it would be a great training area for NASA astronauts.
According to the park's website, Joshua Tree National Park encompasses almost 800,000 acres of land and is located at the crossroads of two deserts, the Colorado and the Mojave. Named for the Joshua trees that are found in the region, the park was originally named a national monument in 1936 and became a National Park in 1994. Home to thousands of animals and plants, the park is also the home of high ozone during the summer months, due in part, to being located about 150 miles east of Los Angeles, where pollution is often transported into the area.
The following paragraph from their website describes the problem:
"Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has mandated that the skies above our national parks be subject to the most stringent level of protection, Joshua Tree National Park consistently exceeds the 120 ppb. ozone concentration levels set by the EPA for human health at it's monitoring station located in the northwestern part of the park. An additional monitoring station was recently installed at Cottonwood Spring to determine if the southern part of the park is also out of compliance with air-quality standards."
Joshua Tree National Park is a perfect example of why the new EPA ozone standard of 75 ppb. is not only unfair, but borders on the ridiculous. Will the EPA be meeting with park officials to draft an "emissions reduction" program? Will an emissions testing station be built to test the few vehicles owned by the park? Will the park lose federal funds because they can't clean up their air? If our national parks, with very few human footprints can't stay within the new standard, then how do we expect cities throughout our nation, who are trying to reduce their emissions, to stay within the new standard?
Mark Langford
Editor
4-24-08
Rethink the Air Quality Planning Process – And Favor Public Health Over Paperwork
The Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of once again requiring states to develop air quality plans that will fail to achieve the national air quality standards. EPA has released its recommendation to lower the ground-level ozone standard—triggering the development of more State Implementation Plans (SIPs).
SIPs are the air quality blueprints that states are required to develop for any area in “nonattaiment” with the standards.
Trying to achieve the new ozone levels in these areas using the current SIP process will cost businesses and taxpayers many billions of dollars without a corresponding environmental benefit. States will try and fail to meet the standard, expending time and money in a paper chase that most can’t win because they have little control over the majority of the emission sources. Those states that do win will rely largely on federal emission reductions already on the books—making one ask what environmental good comes from requiring states to develop plans that tell the federal government what the federal government is doing.
The biggest chunk of ozone-related pollution now comes from mobile emissions such as cars and from pollution blowing in from other states and countries. Such pollution is generally outside state control. Despite little control, current federal law requires states to be responsible for achieving the air quality standards. Essentially states are being told to build a barn without using a hammer or nails. It is not fair to make states responsible for achieving the air quality standards, tie their hands, and then threaten to remove their transportation funding if they fail.
A recent study found that approximately half of the ozone pollution in the Houston area can be background pollution blowing in from other states and countries. Of the half of the ozone that is formed in the Houston area, over half of this pollution comes from federally regulated sources such as cars and trucks. That leaves less than 25% of the emissions that the state can control. When the federal government is requiring a 55% reduction and the state only controls 25%, you can’t get there from here. The alternative is to ask for more time or require people to stop driving their cars.
While some air quality improvements will undoubtedly continue to be made through the current SIP process, the circuitous process often reinforces the problem, creating the appearance of environmental protection without supplying much substance.
What is needed is a new air quality planning process that aligns responsibility for achieving the air quality standards with the authority to achieve the standards. Aligning responsibility with authority would allow states to spend their time and resources on issues they can more efficiently and properly control rather than on justifying what they cannot effectively do.
Many experts are pointing at impending CO2 legislation as a potential opportunity to make structural improvements to the air quality planning process. Certainly with the challenges of addressing CO2 it will be even more critical to have an air quality planning process that is efficient, results-oriented, aligns authority with responsibility, and is multi-pollutant in scope.
As EPA considers further reducing the ozone standard and setting standards for CO2, developing the proper planning mechanism to efficiently and effectively achieve these various goals is imperative. If the goal is the moon, it could be a long ride and painful ride on a pogo stick.
For more information on this effort to transform the SIP process, please see the following website: www.sipreform.com
Speech to Air Tech Advisory Committee in San Antonio 4-14-08 by Mark Langford
Texas should join lawsuit against EPA
As members of the Air Tech Advisory Committee, I urge you to ask our city leaders to tell Governor Perry that the State of Texas should join South Carolina and six other states, including Georgia and Alabama, in filing suit against the EPA's decision to lower the 8 hr. ozone average to 75 ppb..
If extremist environment groups like Earth Justice can legally force the EPA to lower the 85ppb eight hour ozone standard to 75 ppb., then Cities, States and Corporations should be able to file a suit to change that standard back to 85 ppb.
We all want cleaner air to save the lives of children, elderly and asthmatics (like myself), but this reduction is beyond what we, or most cities that will now fall into non-attainment can control through emissions reductions. It is this very important fact that gives us the basis for a lawsuit. The government is essentially asking cities to control something that is beyond our control, due to "background or transported" pollution. How can the government ask a city or a citizen to do something that can't be accomplishing? It would be like passing a law that would penalize people for having flat tires. You can try your best to keep your tires properly inflated and well maintained, but it is impossible to keep from occasionally driving over an unseen sharp object...especially on the highway.
Here are a few very important points to consider in a lawsuit:
1. As revealed by an internal study by AACOG in 2003, emissions testing will only lower our ozone average by no more than 1/2 of 1 part per billion of ozone. This small amount cannot even be measured by our current monitors. According to the EPA, our current fleet of vehicles is polluting 1/100th of what they were back in the 70s. Placing the blame on vehicles is "Old School" thinking. That's why cities like Houston and Dallas that have tried to correct their ozone problems by going after vehicles, have not been able to solve their ozone situation. The only thing they have accomplished is burdening their taxpayers with additional fees and fines.
2. Since 2000, San Antonio has gone over 74 ppb. for our 4th highest 8 hr. average every year, except 2007, which was our wettest summer ever recorded. As we all know, it takes sunlight to form ozone, and there was very little of that during last years' ozone season.
3. AACOG studies show that on most high ozone days, the four county San Antonio area usually contributes less than 10 ppb. during high ozone events and rarely contributes over 15 ppb.. Since we have had high ozone days with 8 hr. averages above 90 ppb., even if our entire 4 county area were to completely shut down, we would not be able to keep our ozone levels under the new 75 ppb. standard. This is evident in looking at monitors in our rural counties, like Seguin, TX. Under the new standard, Seguin will also go into non-attainment during most years, even though only 25,000 people live there.
4. As far as I know, there have not been any detailed studies on how big of an impact natural ozone sources play in "background" ozone levels. Depending on how wooded cities are, oak trees and other vegetation like kudzu, may be a much higher percentage of biological sources than we realize. A good way to prove this theory is to examine ozone monitors in National Parks. Joshua National Park, in the deserts of California, is a great example of an isolated area having high ozone during the summer.What if even half of the ozone we record is from natural sources? Without studies, we may never know if high ozone levels can even be dropped at all.
5. Cities in the lower latitudes are unfairly penalized with this new standard. Since ozone production is impacted by heat, clear skies and UV, cities that are in the southern half of the country are naturally going to have more days during a typical year that could be high ozone days. Where Houston averages 96 days a year over 90 degrees, Seattle only averages 3 days, yet both are under the same standard. It would be like playing football in an arena versus a normal stadium...which teams are most likely to score more often?
6. The EPA claims that more people are dying and being hospitalized during high ozone events. Where is the evidence in San Antonio? We need to quickly conduct a study and see if their information is true. As an asthmatic, I will take a high ozone any day over a high pollen day.
I hope that you see how unfair this new standard is and that you will carefully consider contacting other mayors and officials from other cities to start a class action lawsuit against the EPA ruling. It is the only we can stop this from negatively impacting our area.
All of the information I have shared is from the pages of my website, www.ozoneinformation.com
Cars are not the "Bad Guys"
Once again, cars are being singled out as the "bad guys", when emissions continue to drop every year. In fact, according to your 2007 EAC Report, NOx emissions from mobile sources will decrease by 1/2 from 1999 to 2012, despite a population increase. Because vehicles continue to contribute less to NOx every year, lowering ozone through expensive mass transit strategies is debatable. As we have seen in the past, high ozone days have occurred on Sundays, when vehicular traffic is reduced by up to 57%. And for those people who favor emissions testing, as AACOG has reported in the past, emissions testing only lowers our ozone by 1/2 of 1 part per billion...a ridiculous reduction.
Using only weekend data, from 1999 through 2007, we had a total of 36 high ozone days of 76 ppb. and over. That averages out to 5 days per year…more than the needed 4 days for going over the fourth highest ozone 8 hr average using the new standard. During this time, there was a Sunday where recorded 8 hr ozone average was 97 ppb.
Why did I use weekend data and Seguin’s ozone reports? Because, according to the Texas Transportation Institute in 2007, typical weekend vehicular traffic reduction ranges from 40-57 % less than weekdays and many factories and businesses that pollute are closed on the weekends.This perfectlyillustrates why the new standard will not work. Even if San Antonio shuts down our polluting businesses and forces even 50% of our population to not drive during high ozone events, we will still go over the new standard.
From 2003-2007, Seguin, with a population of approximately 25,000 people, would have gone over the new standard 3 out of the 5 years. If a city the size of Seguin, which has very little industry can’t stay within the new threshold of 75 ppb. that how does anyone expect a city with 50 times the people to stay within the standard?
Below is a letter I sent out this week to Mayor Hardberger and Judge Nelson Wolff. Suing the EPA is our only choice in dealing with the new 75 ppb. ruling.
To the honorable Judge Nelson Wolff and Mayor Phil Hardberger.
As leaders of San Antonio, I urge you to consider joining other cities, states and industries throughout the United States, to file a class action lawsuit against the EPA's decision to lower the 8 hr. ozone average to 75 ppb..
We all want cleaner air to save the lives of children, elderly and asthmatics (like myself), but this reduction is beyond what we, or most cities that will now fall into non-attainment can control through emissions reductions. It is this very important fact that gives us the basis for a lawsuit. The government is essentially asking cities to control something that is beyond our control, due to "background or transported" pollution. How can the government ask a city or a citizen to do something that can't be accomplishing? It would be like passing a law that would penalize people for having flat tires. You can try your best to keep your tires properly inflated and well maintained, but it is impossible to keep from occasionally driving over an unseen sharp object...especially on the highway.
Here are a few very important points to consider in a lawsuit:
1. As revealed by an internal study by AACOG in 2003, emissions testing will only lower our ozone average by no more than 1/2 of 1 part per billion of ozone. This small amount cannot even be measured by our current monitors. According to the EPA, our current fleet of vehicles is polluting 1/100th of what they were back in the 70s. Placing the blame on vehicles is "Old School" thinking. That's why cities like Houston and Dallas that have tried to correct their ozone problems by going after vehicles, have not been able to solve their ozone situation. The only thing they have accomplished is burdening their taxpayers with additional fees and fines.
2. Since 2000, San Antonio has gone over 74 ppb. for our 4th highest 8 hr. average every year, except 2007, which was our wettest summer ever recorded. As we all know, it takes sunlight to form ozone, and there was very little of that during last years' ozone season.
3. AACOG studies show that on most high ozone days, the four county San Antonio area usually contributes less than 10 ppb. during high ozone events and rarely contributes over 15 ppb.. Since we have had high ozone days with 8 hr. averages above 90 ppb., even if our entire 4 county area were to completely shut down, we would not be able to keep our ozone levels under the new 75 ppb. standard. This is evident in looking at monitors in our rural counties, like Seguin, TX. Under the new standard, Seguin will also go into non-attainment during most years, even though only 25,000 people live there.
4. As far as I know, there have not been any detailed studies on how big of an impact natural ozone sources play in "background" ozone levels. Depending on how wooded cities are, oak trees and other vegetation like kudzu, may be a much higher percentage of biological sources than we realize. A good way to prove this theory is to examine ozone monitors in National Parks. Joshua National Park, in the deserts of California, is a great example of an isolated area having high ozone during the summer. What if even half of the ozone we record is from natural sources? Without studies, we may never know if high ozone levels can even be dropped at all.
5. Cities in the lower latitudes are unfairly penalized with this new standard. Since ozone production is impacted by heat, clear skies and UV, cities that are in the southern half of the country are naturally going to have more days during a typical year that could be high ozone days. Where Houston averages 96 days a year over 90 degrees, Seattle only averages 3 days, yet both are under the same standard. It would be like playing football in an arena versus a normal stadium...which teams are most likely to score more often?
I hope that you see how unfair this new standard is and that you will carefully consider contacting other mayors and officials from other cities to start a class action lawsuit against the EPA ruling. It is the only we can stop this from negatively impacting our area.
The reason you believe this ruling defies both logic and understanding is because you are looking at it from the point of view of science and cost benefit analysis. This is about none of that. The decisions are structured to give the appearance of being based on science but the science does not comport unless carefully spun. This is simply regulation for regulation's sake. The ozone levels were set specifically for the purpose of placing the majority of the country in non attainment status. This status is the fig leaf bureaucrats will use to bring federal control over more of our lives. Today ozone, tomorrow CO2.
You can argue until you are blue in the face but you will never get anywhere because these government regulators have ulterior motives and will never admit to them so that they can be debated. It is these true motives which drive their decisions from on hi, not science. Hence, no argument based on science will ever get anywhere. Science is only useful when it can be manipulated to fit these bureaucrats plans.
One day the government will control every aspect of our lives and we will deserve it.
In an incredible move that defies both logic and understanding of our nation's ozone problem, the EPA announced today that it is reducing the national 8hr ozone average to 75 ppb., effectively adding hundreds of small and large cities to their "non attainment list". Despite costs that could total in the billions of dollars and harm an already stressed manufacturing economy and positive health results that are very difficult to prove, the EPA agreed to lower the 8hr average standard.
Below are questions that should be asked by everyone to the EPA:
1. How are small, rural areas supposed to lower their 8hr average ozone readings when they are not contributing any pollution or only trace amounts? How many hundreds of new cities will now fall into "non attainment"?
2. Why is their no allowance or handicap for urban areas located in the southern parts of our country? A city like Houston, Texas, which averages over 96 days above 90 degrees, is more likely to have more high ozone days than Seattle, Washington which averages only 3 days. Also, southern states have higher UV values. Since UV is part of the formation of ozone, higher levels of UV give southern areas a better chance of having high ozone days.
3. Exactly how many lives will be saved at what price? Can this be proven? Where is the increase in hospitalizations data? In Texas, we have not seen data that supports this claim. TCEQ's chairwoman, Kathleen Hartnett White, also understands the problem with the EPA wanting to lower the standard. In a letter to the EPA, she argues that such a move would prove too costly and unlikely to improve health in Texas. She mentions that studies found "no increase in hospital admissions in elderly patients and health effects in children, respectively, due to ozone."
4. How much of high ozone readings can be attributed to natural causes beyond our control? There is much documented evidence showing that many variety of trees, including oaks, produce isoprenes, which cause ozone. In the southeast, there is an imported plant called the kudzu, which is taking over many areas, and releases high levels of volatile organic compounds, which lead to high ozone.
5. What percentage of our ozone forming pollution comes from industrial plants in China or agricultural burns in Mexico and what exactly does the EPA expect us to do about it? New data suggests that an ever increasing percentage of our ozone readings are being impacted from transported pollution from China.
6. How do larger cities, like San Antonio, that produce very little pollution, lower our average to the new standard, when we generally contribute less than 15% to high ozone days? How do we keep the outside pollution from reaching us?
7. How does the EPA expect the Gulf of Mexico to lower its ozone levels, when those levels are often higher than populated areas inland during the summer. No one has explained how that can be accomplished.
8. How does the EPA expect national parks like Joshua Tree National Park, to lower their levels, when only a handful of people live their?
9. Who will pay for this?
10. Why do none of the health studies (that I have seen), mention pollen counts during the outdoor investigations? The studies do mention that ozone can increase symptoms to allergens, but do not include pollen counts on any of the outdoor studies of asthmatics.
11. How many people actually exercise in hot areas of our country when the ozone levels are high? Your are much more likely to die from heat exhaustion than ozone exposure during the time of day when ozone levels are highest.
12. Where is the link to high ozone and asthma? According to CDC data, there is a higher percentage of asthmatics in Midland, Texas, where there is very low ozone, compared with Houston.
13. Will the EPA reveal that "vehicle emissions testing" only reduces ozone levels by less than .05 ppb. in cities as large as San Antonio, TX, with populations of over a million? Will they continue to force people to pay for these costly annual tests, even though they are essentially non effective, since ozone is not measured in .05 ppb.?
Locally, reducing the standard will throw not only Austin and San Antonio into "non attainment", but Seguin, La Grange, Fair Oaks, Garden Ridge, New Braunfels, Calaveras Lake, Bulverde, Temple, Round Rock, Corpus Christi, Victoria and Hallettsville could also go into "non attainment", depending on whether the EPA accepts their ozone monitoring data.
As reported in the Express-News today by Anton Caputo, San Antonio barely squeaked by this year's ozone season with a three year, fourth highest eight hour average of 82 ppb., just under the Clean Air Act maximum of 84 ppb. or less.
1. A wet and cloudy summer has been attributed to our attainment, but not mentioned in the article was the fact that San Antonio had very few days when our winds blew from the Northeast, the most important factor in keeping us in attainment. Our only high ozone, which occurred in September and early October, was when winds blew from the East and Northeast.
2. Bexar County Engineer, Renee Green gets it right when she says that over 90 percent of the population will be in non-attainment if the EPA lowers the standard to 70 ppb. or less. As noted here on several occasions, even small cities like Seguin will fall into non attainment, even though they have populations less than 30,000 and contribute only microscopic amounts of pollution.
3. Our mayor, Phil Hardberger, believes the more stringent EPA ozone levels will be good, despite the financial cost to low polluting cities like San Antonio. The mayor doesn't seem to realize that if we go to a standard of 70 ppb., even eliminating our entire city from the map will not keep our area from going over 70 ppb. when high ozone events occur. We still don't know how much ozone formation can be blamed on natural sources like certain types of trees, which emit isoprenes (an ozone forming gas) on hot, sunny days. We also can't control the direction our winds blow from. Perhaps the Mayor is thinking about installing large fans on our county borders to drive away imported pollution and cutting down all of our live oak trees, which contribute to ozone formation.
4.TCEQ's chairwoman, Kathleen Hartnett White, also understands the problem with the EPA wanting to lower the standard. As stated in the Express-News article, in a letter to the EPA, she argues that such a move would prove too costly and unlikely to improve health in Texas. She mentions that studies found "no increase in hospital admissions in elderly patients and health effects in children, respectively, due to ozone."
5. San Antonio and other cities should join together and pay for an accurate study of hospital admissions during high ozone events. These studies should also include pollen counts on those days...something the EPA does not include in their data. As a lifelong asthmatic, I know that high pollen is the number one trigger for asthma and that high pollen and high ozone events often occur at the same time.
David Hendricks, business columnist from the Express-News published this great editorial on October 17th, addressing the problems with the EPA wanting to lower the ozone standard even further next year:
All summer long, the same amount of cars, buses and power plants have been emitting their pollution into the San Antonio skies. All summer long, because of more cloudy days than usual and prevailing winds out of the Southeast, our ozone levels have been far below 85 ppb. In fact, most of the summer, even on sunny days, our ozone has struggled to get into the 40 ppb. levels.
All was well until a low pressure system developed in the upper Gulf this week and switched our winds into the East and Northeast. For the first time this year, pollution from the Southeastern and Eastern states (in the form of manmade and natural sources from trees) flowed into our area, elevating ozone for San Antonio and almost every city in the Eastern half of our state...including very small towns.
The only good thing to come from this polluted weather pattern is some valuable data that demonstrates some important "holes" in the current Clean Air Act and the proposed lowering of the ozone daily maximum eight hour reading by the EPA.
1. San Antonio and hundreds of other cities do not produce enough pollution to cause high ozone episodes without transported pollution entering our area. Not one high ozone event has ever occurred in San Antonio without outside influence. When San Antonio has high ozone, so do large and small towns in our area.
2. Telling people to take the bus, walk and bike on high ozone days does little, if any good, when these events occur. With stricter exhaust limits placed on our vehicles, pollution from our tailpipes is 1/100th of what cars were emitting in the 70's. Despite most people not working on weekends and traffic volume estimates of nearly 30-40% less, Saturday ozone levels were almost as high as those on Friday. On Saturday, even coastal monitors, located near Corpus, had higher levels than San Antonio and Austin.
3. New data released by the EPA to demonstrate why the ozone daily maximum should be lowered to 70 ppb. or lower, use emergency room visits and outdoor exercise induced asthma studies to show how higher ozone levels cause asthmatics to suffer more breathing difficulties. What none of these studies show, however, is what the pollen count was on high ozone days. On Friday the 21st, we had high pollen counts in the mold and ragweed categories, according to the daily pollen report issued by Dr. Paul H. Ratner. On that same day we also had high ozone in the afternoon. I know of at least one asthmatic who suffered an attack on Friday. The question is, what caused their attack...high pollen counts or high ozone? Without this valuable data, any scientific conclusion is not valid, because the number one trigger for asthma attacks is allergic reactions, not high ozone.
Even with this high ozone event, our chances look very good for staying within attainment for the past three years. As of September 23rd, our fourth highest eight hour ozone average was 74 ppb. for 2007. When averaged with 2005 and 2006, our three year average is 82 ppb.. This is slightly lower than the current EPA non attainment number of 85 ppb..
8 hour daily maximum ozone averages for various Texas monitors from Friday-Sunday.
As a dirty high pressure moves into our area from the NE, carrying high levels of ozone producing pollutants, I thought it would be a great time to share a couple of ozone stories that have been making the news lately. Hopefully the change in surface winds to the NE will be short lived this week and we will get back to our normal summer flow from the SE. As most of you know by now, our ozone season has been very low this year, due to lots of rain and air flow from the Gulf and Caribbean.
1. The two most polluted cities in the country are in Arvin and Crestline, California according to the EPA. Arvin has a population of approximately 15,000 people and Crestline has a population of 10,000. Pollution from other areas in California blows into their communities and gives them high ozone levels in the summer...hmm, does this story sound familiar to San Antonio and other cities across the country?
Based on the largest multi-city study used in EPA’s analysis of ozone and risk, setting a standard at 0.070 ppm would reduce ozone- related premature deaths by 280 deaths per year in 2020; however using three studies that synthesize data from a large number of individual studies, leads to an estimated reduction in ozone related premature mortality of 1,100 to 1,400 per year. Setting a standard at 0.075 ppm would reduce ozone- related premature deaths by 200 deaths per year in 2020; using the three studies that synthesize data from a large number of individual studies leads to an estimated reduction in ozone related premature mortality of 900 to 1,100 per year.
3. As usual, these studies do not include data on pollen during high ozone events. Stagnant air masses usually contain lots of particulate matter and pollen, along with ozone producing pollution.
Luckily, our ozone readings did not get too high yesterday in San Antonio. So far this year, our fourth highest readings for the area are as follows:
Camp Bullis Monitor in San Antonio: 67 ppb.
Seguin (population 25,000): 67 ppb.
Here is the NAAPS Model for this week, showing the pollution that has moved into our area (look at sulfates):
EPA To Lower Ozone Standard...Most Cities In USA will be in "Non Attainment"
If this new standard of 70 ppb. is adopted, the EPA will have effectively deemed most of the United States as "non attainment" cities, including hundreds of small towns with populations under 50,000. Places like Joshua Tree National Park in California, where only a handful of people live, will also be in "non-attainment". The EPA believes that by reducing the ozone maximum, ozone will magically vanish across the United States, even though eastern coal fire electric plants continue to spew high levels of NOx and developing countries like China export increasing amounts of pollution to our country every year.
Meanwhile, according to the CDC, asthma rates are highest in cities with some of the lowest ozone readings in the country. The number one trigger for asthma is allergies and particulate matter...not infrequent ozone episodes brought on by uncontrollable meteorological patterns.
The CDC Asthma Report is listed below the EPA news release.
Mark Langford-6-22-07
It would be refreshing to hear correct information re: ozone. High ozone levels are the result of increased pollutants in the air. Ozone actually cleans the air of these pollutants. I liken it to white blood cells. A high white blood cell count means that there is infection present; the higher the white blood cell count, the greater the infection. It means the body is using its defense systems to fight infection. The infection is bad; the white blood cells are not. Air pollution is bad; ozone is nature's way of cleaning/oxidizing those pollutants. A high white blood cell count needs to be addressed in the body. Likewise, high ozone needs to be addressed by decreasing the pollutants. Ozone gets the bad wrap when people need to understand that ozone is doing its job. Measuring ozone is the way we note poor air quality. It is the pollutants that need to be emphasized as the bad guys. Let's inform the public properly. What do you think?
I am in the business of 'indoor air purification' and know that OZONE is very misunderstood by the public. It is touted as the bad guy. Too much of anything, including Ozone, is not healthy. However, ozone levels indicate the degree of air pollution and it is the pollution and pollution sources that need to be addressed. We cannot get rid of ozone nor should we. It is natures defense system. I would like persons who are responsible for reporting and those associated with the EPA, etc. to be explaining the problem correctly in an honest, postive effort to educate the public. The public needs to understand Ozone versus being afraid of it.
Linda LaClair
LACLAIR ENTERPRISES, INC.
670 Hartley Avenue
Deltona, FL 32725
386.860.0221 (home/office)
386.860.2073 (FAX)
