Comments on: Air pollution kills more people than car accidents in Southern California, OC researchers say

By: ChrisNOC

ChrisNOC — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:09:02 +0000

There are areas where pollution impacts are greater as in Riverside and San Bernadino and the eastern suburbs of LA. The pollution is not necessarily all created in these areas but due to winds, weather and topography these areas are impacted the most. I can’t validate or invalidate the numbers they present but just because you can’t actually see all the pollution or the health impacts doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Also, moving toward a “green”er industrial base and making sure that we all realize the true cost of our daily activities and lifestyles is the only way we are going to survive in the coming years. Just visit cities in Europe and Japan and look at the way residents and businesses there are so conscious about electricity and fuels usage, most of what they do is not that difficult. If we don’t do something now our costs will be astronomical in the future. Better to invest now and cushion ourselves from the blows due to finite resources that we continue to pillage and squander.

By: Carolangeles

Carolangeles — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:12:14 +0000

Dear Folks,

Instead of running the numbers to see if they are wrong, or sayig “someone should do something” about air pollution, why not try:

Car pooling to work and school

Doing your weekend shopping with a neighbor, using only one car

Buying a low emission vehicle or a hybrid

Moving closer to work for a shorter commute

Cars cause about 60% of air pollution according to the Pasdadena Weekly. Why wait for the government or “someone else” to fix the problem? It’s sitting right in your driveway.

By: Cranston

Cranston — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:12:02 +0000

The most important thing is to get the government to encourage people to leave L.A. The only way we’re going to get relief is if some percentage of people are forced to leave the area. Maybe expunge 30% and then go from there.

By: Cindy

Cindy — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 05:05:11 +0000

Our air quality here is not good and not enough is being done to fix it. My kids all suffer from severe respiratory problems as do many other people here. Most of the time I find that people who don’t believe pollution is a problem are really just afraid of the truth. It is much easier to “laugh off science” and believe everything is ok and go happily about your day than to face the reality that people are getting sick and dying and you could be next. Clean energy, zero emission vehicles, mass transit and stopping over-development of our state is the only way to stop this madness here as far as air pollution goes. Be a part of the solution, support the efforts to clean up our environment–do it for your grandchildren. Anyone here originally from California? If you are then you know how much it has changed (pollution) in the last 40 or 50 years. If it keeps going like this then think of how it will be in another 40 or 50 years. And it just isn’t air pollution that is a problem–our water, the ocean, open space or wilderness areas, preventing global warming, climate change–it is all important to protect both our present and future generations, it all fits together somehow. Please, think. And then write your government reps, sign pro-environmental petitions, join an pro-environment organization and make a difference. Thanks!

By: m

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:45:46 +0000

I agree re: leafblowers. those those are extremely annoying and cause pollution. Grabbing a huge broom really isn’t that difficult…

By: dennis

dennis — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:29:16 +0000

If you want to really make a dent in urban pollution, ban leaf blowers from the gardener’s arsenal of machines. If you look at the sales numbers of leaf blowers over the last decade, and compare that with child asthma increase numbers, we might be missing an important cause/effect. I still think brooms cause less pollution!

By: Living in the OC

Living in the OC — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:57:16 +0000

I was driving on Harbor and this beat up van cramed full of poeple was belching out lots of smoke
It was so bad I had to pull over until the cloud cleared
And to top it off a cop was right behind them and never pulled them over to cite them!

This whole smog scam is such a crock!

By: crzycrzy

crzycrzy — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:43:23 +0000

Something strikes me as wrong with this data. Or at least a little misleading. Let’s start with…
South Coast and San Joaquin combined would save $28 billion; in the two regions, air pollution is believed to contribute to 3,800 premature deaths a year.
Am I to assume that 3,800 premature deaths cost $7,368,421.05 each?
I know we are wealthy here, but I think that might be a little excessive.
Now we get into the hard facts…
“There’s a clear consensus among experts: lives in fact are shortened and people are made sick by pollution,” Hall said Wednesday. “Kids miss school, there are more non-fatal heart attacks, work days lost and so on.”
What a relief. We have a clear consensus. Only thing is I wonder if simply getting proper diet and exercise might also be a factor. In fact, I am willing to bet they play a much greater role in sickness and heart attacks, lost work days, etc…

Next we hear…

For people who live in the South Coast air basin, it boils down to $1,250 per person per year.

I thought this was pretty extreme so I went to…
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06059.html
Here I learned that 3,002,048 people live in the great OC.
So simple math tells me that the roughly $3M multiplied by $1,250 gets me to about $3,752,560,000 or roughly $4Billion.
Trouble here is that there is still $24Billion left on the table.
and there is a second problem. That is that almost half the 3 million people are either under 18, or over 65 and therefore would not necessarily lose any money if they did not go to school or work.
So the 166,136 people would lead to about $207,670,000 which in all actuality puts us at about 27.8 Billion left to go. There seems to be a significant deviation between the facts, and this report.

The report focused on two high priority pollutants, ozone and fine particles. A breakdown for Orange County shows a cost savings of $56 million if the standards for ozone are achieved, and $2.8 billion for attaining fine particle standards.

Bear in mind by the chart alone, Orange County is the least of all air polluting areas monitored in this report.
So why is all this data so misleading? What could be behind such blatant trickery. I mean seriously, $28 Billion dollars is 13.6% of the entirety of monies made in Orange County. Seriously, if our economy lost 13.6% ever we would take some serious note.

Here may be the answer. It boils down to who funded the survey, and what their goals are.
Turns out the Hewlett Foundation (link below) is a major sponsor of environmental activist groups.
http://www.activistcash.com/foundation.cfm?did=34
You will see the list if you follow the link.

So why the erroneous (At best) data?
Because they wanted to buy Professors who would make a claim that we need to reduce emissions. They gave $90K to them in order to get them to say what they wanted. This is the sort of thing that infuriates me. The news is no longer the news but a resonating chamber for socialist, and activist groups. I am getting to the point where I am fed up. Are we all so naive to think that this sort of stuff is actually true? Or is it that they depend on us to be too lazy to actually research the truth for ourselves. Why is it that a news publication reports something like this at all? Gee, hidden agenda?

I think we could do with less pollutants, but frankly trying to con me into it is bull.

By: honky

honky — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:29:15 +0000

mr.steve better yet get the hell out of the usa.

By: OhBoy

OhBoy — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:10:48 +0000

They are paid for this study because the government wants the outcome it got. The more pollution costs, the more they can make new taxes “to combat the crisis”.

I really would like there to be no, or very little, air pollution. I just think the green movement is more about raising costs, taxes, regulations and forcing new industries onto consumers than it is about practical and responsible products and policies that benefit all, most importantly consumers and tax payers.

Clearly there are greedy industrialists that are willing to piss in their neighbors baths if it would make them a buck. Likewise many green activists are willing to take things away from you for their own agenda. Two extremes that, ironically, benefit each other….at our costs.