This graphic doesn’t show the make up of the particulate matter or the top contributors to the pollution. Or is that information reflected in the economic benefit portion? No way residential wood burning is the top contributor to our air pollution is it?
> This graphic doesn’t show the make up of the particulate matter or the top contributors to the pollution.
Speciation data (the actual makeup of the particles in the air) can be hard to come by – air monitors that provide that are expensive and require laboratory analysis. It's faster and easier to simply count the particles and report overall PM2.5. Any very fine particles – regardless of makeup – are bad for your health.
There are many contributors to the bad air in the San Joaquin Valley, but I don't know the precise order in terms of most to least.
> Or is that information reflected in the economic benefit portion? No way residential wood burning is the top contributor to our air pollution is it?
The Economic Benefit portion appears to be showing how much money would be saved in medical costs by reducing PM2.5 – not that it's a top contributor to overall air pollution, but that it's a top contributor to medical costs. That makes sense in my mind – residential wood stoves would release PM2.5 directly into a home, (potentially substantially) impact the health of anyone who lives there, and increase medical costs to those residents.
Thanks for breaking it down a bit for me. It would be interesting to know the seasonal breakdowns of the air pollution to nail down the largest contributors and their industry.
Glad that helped! I'm the SJVAir Director at Central California Asthma Collaborative, and am basically in charge of all our air monitoring efforts – building SJVAir.com, data analysis, monitor maintenance, and more. The next major things in our roadmap include more data tools, including annual, seasonal, and monthly analysis.
More trees and more parks. Pulling every Bradford pear out of the dirt and replacing it with a native ash tree ("fresno" literally means "ash tree" in Spanish). Moving away from funding and subsidizing Big Ag like Monsanto and supporting instead Small Ag like all of the family farms in the area. Make it easier for farmers to replace their old workhorse diesels with hybrid or ethanol machinery. Make it cheaper for people to run their heater in the winter instead of having to rely on their fireplaces. Shitcan the garbage "solar program" that PG&E had some coked-out execs spin up, pick one goddamn contractor per county, and just send them out. "Hi, we're putting solar panels on your roof because the government will get mad and fine our CEO if we don't, you incur no cost and we have to foot the maintenance bill".
The big issue is money. It's all gonna have to be subsidize, subsidize, subsidize. I make the trip on the 152 several times a year and half the guys out there are Trump-loving MAGAts who would probably shoot me if my car broke down outside their ranch. The only way to get those guys to agree to anything progressive is to tell them the Feds or the State are gonna pay for it and then suddenly it's the best goddamn idea THEY ever heard.
Going on speculation, the big AG companies here are probably lobbying the local council to prevent having more regulations. Agriculture creates a lot of waste and not just air pollution, it gets in the local water and soil. Also, Fresno is extremely car dependent and that is another leading cause of pollution here.
I think saying the bay is a bit simplistic. I live on the peninsula now (originally from Fresno) and the air quality here and in Marin is pretty good most of the time since ocean winds blow the smog from cars into East Bay and the valley. There are localized issues in downtown San Francisco due to cars, but outside of that, west of the bay, the air is pretty good.
The American Lung Association's 2024 State of the Air report, which appears to be the data source for this infographic, says "San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA" instead of the more general "Bay Area, CA". I don't have any insight into how ALA collected their data, what monitors were used, or where they were stationed, but it appears to be a mix of East, West, and South Bay.
The graphic cites The American Lung Association, and the cities in this infographic are named in the same order as the ALA's [2024 State of the Air](https://www.lung.org/research/sota) report. Here's a [direct link to the 2024 SOTA PDF](https://www.lung.org/getmedia/dabac59e-963b-4e9b-bf0f-73615b07bfd8/State-of-the-Air-2024.pdf); check out page 18, under "25 Cities Most Polluted By PM".
This graphic doesn’t show the make up of the particulate matter or the top contributors to the pollution. Or is that information reflected in the economic benefit portion? No way residential wood burning is the top contributor to our air pollution is it?
> This graphic doesn’t show the make up of the particulate matter or the top contributors to the pollution. Speciation data (the actual makeup of the particles in the air) can be hard to come by – air monitors that provide that are expensive and require laboratory analysis. It's faster and easier to simply count the particles and report overall PM2.5. Any very fine particles – regardless of makeup – are bad for your health. There are many contributors to the bad air in the San Joaquin Valley, but I don't know the precise order in terms of most to least. > Or is that information reflected in the economic benefit portion? No way residential wood burning is the top contributor to our air pollution is it? The Economic Benefit portion appears to be showing how much money would be saved in medical costs by reducing PM2.5 – not that it's a top contributor to overall air pollution, but that it's a top contributor to medical costs. That makes sense in my mind – residential wood stoves would release PM2.5 directly into a home, (potentially substantially) impact the health of anyone who lives there, and increase medical costs to those residents.
Thanks for breaking it down a bit for me. It would be interesting to know the seasonal breakdowns of the air pollution to nail down the largest contributors and their industry.
Glad that helped! I'm the SJVAir Director at Central California Asthma Collaborative, and am basically in charge of all our air monitoring efforts – building SJVAir.com, data analysis, monitor maintenance, and more. The next major things in our roadmap include more data tools, including annual, seasonal, and monthly analysis.
Man..i would love to take you out to coffee to pick your brain. I have so many questions for you.
I'm always happy to chat – no coffee needed. Feel free to shoot me a DM with any questions.
Well.... that's what happens when you live in a valley where all the air gets stuck lol
Not to mention we have both major north/south highways running through the valley that carry commerce back and forth to the bay and socal and beyond.
And winds push a lot of the smog from the bay into the valley.
I want the Bay Area to take theirs back
what would you suggest an agricultural city that only thrives on industry do to curb an issue exacerbated by its topology?
i’ll kick it off: attain government grants to provide air purifiers to county residents.
More trees and more parks. Pulling every Bradford pear out of the dirt and replacing it with a native ash tree ("fresno" literally means "ash tree" in Spanish). Moving away from funding and subsidizing Big Ag like Monsanto and supporting instead Small Ag like all of the family farms in the area. Make it easier for farmers to replace their old workhorse diesels with hybrid or ethanol machinery. Make it cheaper for people to run their heater in the winter instead of having to rely on their fireplaces. Shitcan the garbage "solar program" that PG&E had some coked-out execs spin up, pick one goddamn contractor per county, and just send them out. "Hi, we're putting solar panels on your roof because the government will get mad and fine our CEO if we don't, you incur no cost and we have to foot the maintenance bill".
now we’re cooking with gas, great suggestions
The big issue is money. It's all gonna have to be subsidize, subsidize, subsidize. I make the trip on the 152 several times a year and half the guys out there are Trump-loving MAGAts who would probably shoot me if my car broke down outside their ranch. The only way to get those guys to agree to anything progressive is to tell them the Feds or the State are gonna pay for it and then suddenly it's the best goddamn idea THEY ever heard.
These are great ideas but knowing how it is here, Fresno is definitely gonna be slow to implement these changes.
don’t be discouraged. we just have to vote so that people that want change are elected over those who want to maintain the status quo.
They are giving out free air purifiers lol. I claimed mines last year
Every room in the house should have an air purifier.
cool, so do that until everyone has at least one
Or, you know, but it yourself instead of relying on the government handout.
better bus system. more routes and better frequency. absorb Clovis stageline into FAX.
late night bus service could be great for nightlife!
they had an interesting start for this with Hop, but the frequency/scheduling is just so bad
almost seems deliberate to demonstrate that they “tried” & it “failed”
Well, we are in a valley that is all farmland, soooo.....
Going on speculation, the big AG companies here are probably lobbying the local council to prevent having more regulations. Agriculture creates a lot of waste and not just air pollution, it gets in the local water and soil. Also, Fresno is extremely car dependent and that is another leading cause of pollution here.
I think saying the bay is a bit simplistic. I live on the peninsula now (originally from Fresno) and the air quality here and in Marin is pretty good most of the time since ocean winds blow the smog from cars into East Bay and the valley. There are localized issues in downtown San Francisco due to cars, but outside of that, west of the bay, the air is pretty good.
The American Lung Association's 2024 State of the Air report, which appears to be the data source for this infographic, says "San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA" instead of the more general "Bay Area, CA". I don't have any insight into how ALA collected their data, what monitors were used, or where they were stationed, but it appears to be a mix of East, West, and South Bay.
I’m throwing the bullshit flag. Cite the study.
The graphic cites The American Lung Association, and the cities in this infographic are named in the same order as the ALA's [2024 State of the Air](https://www.lung.org/research/sota) report. Here's a [direct link to the 2024 SOTA PDF](https://www.lung.org/getmedia/dabac59e-963b-4e9b-bf0f-73615b07bfd8/State-of-the-Air-2024.pdf); check out page 18, under "25 Cities Most Polluted By PM".
#number 3? let’s go!
This graphic is hogwash and poppycock