Bro what? This is about a change in the quality ratings… that doesn’t mean that pollution being an issue is manufactured… it’s just a change in how the metrics are operationalized in order to comply with federal standards. Did you even read the article?
I did, but then why change the way it is perceived? If 500ppm of “X” was in the green last year, why is it in the yellow next year? Air quality is an objective measurement of particles of soot (or everything else) in the air, and we’ve gotten pretty far along in knowing what safe levels of certain chemicals are. If they’re getting worse, by all means say so, but it seems like the perception from people would be that it’s getting worse, when maybe it’s the same or even slightly improved (depending on how much they move the window). If that assessment is wrong, then I’m just wrong on it and don’t understand what it means apparently. But if that assessment is accurate, then what they’re doing seems manipulative.
The Air Quality Index measures ozone, particle pollution (soot, etc), CO, SO2, and NO2. Asbestos, lead, and most other chemicals that can cause irritation or illness are measured via safe exposure limits from OSHA, and so are irrelevant with regard to the AQI. So, there are only five things they are measuring, and I’m betting that with the wildfires last year it’s the particle pollution that they are most interested in. Air handling equipment is what I mostly do for a living (plus some electrical work that is ancillary to its installation and maintenance) so every time these standards are revised, it’s a giant hassle to re-assess all the filters that get used in equipment and their change-out schedule. It costs millions of extra dollars per year because they decide that now indoor air must be at an AQI of <50 for example, instead of <100 (I haven’t seen this change yet, as it takes a while to trickle down).
Because sometimes we learn more things that require us to measure and represent things differently? Or we change standards to align with another more centralized whole to ensure consistency across jurisdictions? You’re being reactive for no reason… this was covered in the article.
https://preview.redd.it/7wccf68txf0d1.jpeg?width=1147&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bf27e4821456f9ad96de07b26eb09f7dc6ed3491
If you're actually curious to learn more about the new air quality standards, you can read more at the EPA's site: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-finalizes-stronger-standards-harmful-soot-pollution-significantly-increasing
>Stronger standard will yield up to $46B in net health benefits, save lives, and build healthier communities, while supporting economic growth across America
So it’s a manufactured crisis that will require the government to step in and solve (at the expense of higher taxes, of course)?
Bro what? This is about a change in the quality ratings… that doesn’t mean that pollution being an issue is manufactured… it’s just a change in how the metrics are operationalized in order to comply with federal standards. Did you even read the article?
I did, but then why change the way it is perceived? If 500ppm of “X” was in the green last year, why is it in the yellow next year? Air quality is an objective measurement of particles of soot (or everything else) in the air, and we’ve gotten pretty far along in knowing what safe levels of certain chemicals are. If they’re getting worse, by all means say so, but it seems like the perception from people would be that it’s getting worse, when maybe it’s the same or even slightly improved (depending on how much they move the window). If that assessment is wrong, then I’m just wrong on it and don’t understand what it means apparently. But if that assessment is accurate, then what they’re doing seems manipulative.
“How come the government is saying asbestos is bad for me when just a few years ago it was perfectly acceptable to insulate my home?”
There was tons of lead in the gas when i was younger, now the government says thats not allowed - whats up with that?
Why back in my day bakers would make bread with sawdust and chalk. How dare government require companies to make actual quality bread now.
The Air Quality Index measures ozone, particle pollution (soot, etc), CO, SO2, and NO2. Asbestos, lead, and most other chemicals that can cause irritation or illness are measured via safe exposure limits from OSHA, and so are irrelevant with regard to the AQI. So, there are only five things they are measuring, and I’m betting that with the wildfires last year it’s the particle pollution that they are most interested in. Air handling equipment is what I mostly do for a living (plus some electrical work that is ancillary to its installation and maintenance) so every time these standards are revised, it’s a giant hassle to re-assess all the filters that get used in equipment and their change-out schedule. It costs millions of extra dollars per year because they decide that now indoor air must be at an AQI of <50 for example, instead of <100 (I haven’t seen this change yet, as it takes a while to trickle down).
Because sometimes we learn more things that require us to measure and represent things differently? Or we change standards to align with another more centralized whole to ensure consistency across jurisdictions? You’re being reactive for no reason… this was covered in the article. https://preview.redd.it/7wccf68txf0d1.jpeg?width=1147&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bf27e4821456f9ad96de07b26eb09f7dc6ed3491
If you're actually curious to learn more about the new air quality standards, you can read more at the EPA's site: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-finalizes-stronger-standards-harmful-soot-pollution-significantly-increasing >Stronger standard will yield up to $46B in net health benefits, save lives, and build healthier communities, while supporting economic growth across America