Talk:Smog/Archive 1

Comments copied from talk page of my sandbox where the article draft was created

Revised lede to incorporate many of the suggestions by Anthony Sebastian.
Anthony, I had already considered using the word "portmanteau" to describe "smog" ( as was done in Wikipedia's smog article ) but decided it was too "fancy". Therefore, I chose to describe it as a "combination" word, which is simple and self-explanatory.

Other than that, I believe I have incorporated your suggestions in my re-write of the lede while still retaining the technical integrity of the wording. For example, it is not the polluted air that produces the precursors ... they are emitted into the air by vehicles and industrial activities. Thanks much, Milton Beychok 04:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

First comments
New York looks rather pretty in that picture. Designer smog?


 * Maybe the photographer used a color filter or maybe that is what it really looked like at that moment in time. Milton Beychok 22:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal taste, but I hate "so-called"; it tends to imply doubt of the term. Certainly, there was a 1952 event in London.


 * Done. Milton Beychok 22:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph of "photochemical smog" doesn't seem to be about photochemical smog. Move it up to the previous section, and observe there's the original kind, but most now is photochemical, as a transition. Consider subheads in this section, perhaps "precursors" and "simplified reactions".


 * I think the first paragraph of "photochemical smog" is okay where it is ...but let me think about it a bit. Milton Beychok 22:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Added the subheads for "precursors" and "simplified reactions", but a bit more wordy. Milton Beychok 22:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Under "areas affected", make the headings consistent at country level. Haven't there been significant British incidents besides London? Birmingham vaguely comes to mind.


 * Country level headings done. There probably have been other significant British incidents. Perhaps others can add them after I upload the article into the article namespace. Milton Beychok 22:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

In the US, while LA is obviously the poster child, my informal impression is that Denver is worth mentioning, along with its particular topography. I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on their banning of wood-burning fireplaces. What about Pittsburgh before the industries cleaned up? Was that smog or some other air pollutant?


 * As for Denver and Pittsburgh, again perhaps others can add them after I upload the article into the article namespace. As for banning wood-burning fireplaces, I have no opinion. Milton Beychok 22:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now added a subsection on Denver. Milton Beychok 02:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as my birthplace of northern New Jersey, I'm not sure we called it smog, or necessarily air...just the burning tires, refinery waste, and Pig Farms of Secaucus, all fermenting over the Jersey Meadows. I remember holding my ground when someone, in a college lab, smashed a 5-pint bottle of butyric acid, and the professor said "you're from New Jersey, aren't you?" (turns out that it cleans up nicely with a slurry of activated charcoal in cupric sulfate solution).

--Howard C. Berkowitz 20:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Continental Europe
The first thing I noticed was that continental Europe is not mentioned. Are the air pollution problems of this region not classified as smog? I think that, at least, 30-t40 years ago there was indeed smog.

Now we have ozone warnings, and "Feinstaub" (fine dust?) warnings. --Peter Schmitt 08:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, not Europe, but certainly important: Beijing. --Peter Schmitt 09:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Peter, the exclusion of Europe (other than London) was not intentional. Just did not run across any references that discussed smog in Europe. I will make an effort to find some. Thanks, Milton Beychok 15:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course, you know that you need not contribute a complete article ...
 * As for Beijing: You may remember that they made special efforts to improve air condition during the 2008 Olympic games. --Peter Schmitt 23:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Peter, I know that I need not write a complete article before uploading it into the article namespace ... but I like to make it as complete as I can, in a reasonable amount of time, before it leaves my sandbox. I have been doing that for over a year now. But thanks anyway. Milton Beychok 03:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Some minor revisions and a suggestion
Hi Milt, I did a few edits directly and like the article as it is. The only thing I find not clear is the selection of the affected areas to be covered in detail &mdash; I think this would benefit from some sort of global ranking in terms of smog indicators. For the US, I found this list, and for the world, there are similar lists. --Daniel Mietchen 21:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Daniel, thanks for your edits. The only one that I changed back to the original form was the TOC location which I feel results in a better overall appearance. Other than that, all of your revisions were fine.


 * As for the selection of the affected areaa, to be candid they were selected because I thought they were good examples of severe smog and also because I could find interesting material about those sections. Admittedly, more researching could disclose more to write about ... but the article struck me as large enough as is and I had already spent a couple of weeks on it, so I stopped researching. Milton Beychok 21:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments after the article was loaded into article namespace

Wikipedia has an article of the same name
This article may contain some very few bits of content from the WP article. Milton Beychok 23:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

About recent edits by Daniel
Daniel,thanks much for your latest edits. I must have read through this article a thousand times ... and I still missed those. Milton Beychok 15:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

A few comments
Very nice so far.

Should it explictly say that smog can only be prevented; there is no way to break up a significant smog concentration once it is in place. Hayford may, however, remember the name of a science fiction story in which Earth prospered as the galactic equivalent of a fine wine district -- apparently, the rest of the galaxy considered bottled smog a wonderful delicacy. It was impossible to export enough. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Policy and Laws generated to combat smog
could like to subpages / articles / sections that discuss

Legal Policy / Laws / gov't action to combat smog.

I just skimmed the article, so maybe this is already in there.

And then a timeline/figure and how we've improved the smog in LA from the 70s and 80s to now. Tom Kelly 18:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Tom, I agree that a section about government actions or laws to mitigate smog would indeed be a good addition to this article. But it would have to be written by an environmental engineer with expertise and experience in dealing with those actions and laws ... in the United States as well as other countries. That would be a very difficult chore and not to be undertaken lightly by someone with no experience in that field. As of this moment, we really don't have any active members that have the needed expertise and experience. Milton Beychok 00:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * respectfully disagree on part. You do not need expertise to write a draft.  That is what the wiki world is all about - anyone can contribute.  If you want to get it approved, you probably need someone to do fact checking, etc.  However, if you make it a subpage, I don't know if the subpage needs to get approved along with the main article.  Or the draft could just be a 2nd article that is linked from this article. Tom Kelly 17:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And I respectfully disagree with you, Tom. As one who spent about 20 years working in the environmental technology field and had to become acquainted with the multitude of environmental regulations in the United States (both national regulations and the various individual state regulations), I know how very difficult it would be to intelligently discuss those regulations ... as well as the regulations in England, France, Germany, Japan, etc., etc.,etc.


 * The idea that expertise is not needed and the wiki process will eventually evolve a good article is exactly what is wrong with Wikipedia. It does not always produce a good article. It does take detailed knowledge and direct experience to even draft an article about any technical subject ... and especially so when dealing with the worldwide aspects of environmental regulations.


 * Tom, you are a medical student. As such, would you trust anyone who has no medical expertise to draft a good article about the details of some intricate brain surgery? Milton Beychok 19:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Another great article idea related to this one
fine particle pollution - often around freeways from car exhaust

University of Southern California epidemiology research shows that children that live with a few hundred yards of freeways / highways have a much higher incidence of asthma.

fine particle pollution is going to be a very interesting topic to follow as smog was (and still is). Tom Kelly 17:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Fine particle pollution is usually referred to as particulate matter pollution (or PM pollution) and the respirable fraction is denoted as PM2.5, which is very small particulate matter having a size of 2.5 μm or less. Particulate matter pollution is discussed to some extent in the existing Acid rain, Air pollution emissions and Air Quality Index  Citizendium articles as well as this Smog article.


 * Yes, an article on the epidemiology of PM pollution would be of interest. But it should be based on more than just one epidemiology research report.


 * Tom, just as trivial aside, it would be better if your post headers and proposed articles started with a capital letter (i.e., Another great article idea ... and Fine particle pollution). The same holds true for starting sentences (i.e., Fine particle pollution is going to be a very interesting ...). Milton Beychok 19:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this would be a fine article idea especially since one of the greatest sources of PM pollution is from the Owens Valley, CA. Long ago I was told by a forest ranger the majority (he gave me a percentage but I can't remember the exact percentage but it was around 90%) of worldwide particulate matter pollution arises from the Owens Valley. Another source says the Owens Valley is the largest contributor for PM 10 see: [ http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/owens/qa.html] The Owens Valley was once a thriving community with steam boats carrying charcoal from the kilns until the water was removed by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power with the assistance of the US federal government. This was done in the early 1900s. Today, when the wind blows particulate matter is scattered across the desert making life miserable for all concerned. And no I am not am not an environmentalist but I am a historian. See: [ http://www.usc.edu/libraries/archives/la/scandals/owens.html] or [ http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/pnca.html] or  Mary Ash 21:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Mary, that EPA source labels the Owens Valley as the "largest single source" of PM10 in the U.S. That does not mean it is the largest part of the total PM10 in the U.S. and your forest ranger was hallucinating if he thought that the Owens Valley contributed 90% of the worldwide PM10.


 * As an analogy, If one says that a particular industrial plant emits more air pollution than any other industrial plant in the U.S., it does not mean that it contributes most of the total air pollution in the U.S. Thus, if a certain geographical area (the Owens Valley) produces more PM10 than any other geographical area in the U.S., it does not mean that it contributes most of the total PM10 in the United States ... or of the total worldwide PM10. Milton Beychok 22:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe she's confused with Buck Owens of Bakersfield, he sure polluted the airways for many years! Hayford Peirce 23:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "9. How bad is the PM-10 problem in the Owens Valley? What are the PM-10 levels in Owens Valley? Owens Lake emits about 300,000 tons of PM-10 per year: 30 tons of this is arsenic and 9 tons is cadmium. Owens Lake is the largest single source of PM-10 pollution in the United States. It has caused on average about 19 violations of the standard every year at Keeler during the 18 years that the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District has been measuring particulate matter. It is not a natural source, and the wind speeds (20 to 40 mph) that cause the dust events are not unusually high." I offered comments made over 20 years ago by the forest ranger and I suspect he knew what he was talking about. I also offered another source from the EPA. And no I am not confused as I've been following this subject since my college days thanks to Dr. Gerald Stanley who opened my eyes with his lecture called the Rape of Owens Valley. Yes, PM 10 matter is a serious subject worth writing about as I was writing about this topic for over two years as a journalist.Mary Ash 23:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

((unindent)) I was not wrong about the forest ranger either as he said it was either 85 to 90 percent. Once again are you implying that I am less than truthful? And why would I lie about something so trivial. The air pollution is not trivial and neither is destroying the environment causing many to suffer.Mary Ash 01:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * For pete's sake, Mary, would you bother to read what people say before you put your typing fingers into motion! No one is implying that you are less than truthful. All Milt said was, and I agree with him, "your forest ranger was hallucinating if etc."  Milt is saying that the RANGER was/is an imbecile, not that you are untruthful.  I am sure that you are quoting him with one hundred per cent accuracy.  But forest rangers aren't scientists; would you believe an usher at Dodger Stadium who told you, "Willie Mays was here back in 1963 for a game in which he hit five home runs, and one them went 700 feet!"  Please read the comments carefully before you let your indignation rise.... Hayford Peirce 01:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I am feeling a bit touchy but my experiences with Citizendium have truly hurt. Almost everything I have contributed has been discounted and disparaged. Perhaps I am a bit jumpy but then again I often wondered how Margaret Mead felt after finding out her Samoan research was probably wrong as the Samoans told her what she wanted to hear. And I have a pretty good idea how Mead felt after my experiences here. BTW my source is my former Samoan sister-in-law who is also a Samoan princess.Mary Ash 02:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Mary, as I said before you came on board here, an article on the epidemiology or the health effects of PM pollution would be of interest. What I commented upon was your belief in the ridiculous statement, attributed by you to a forest ranger, that the Owens Valley of California produces "around 90%" of the worldwide PM pollution. I made a cursory search and found two sources that estimated the annual worldwide emissions of Particulate Matter to be about 3 billion tonnes per year which is about 10,000 times as much as your 300,000 tons per year from the Owens Valley ... 10,000 times as much!!! The two sources I found are:


 * David Kemp (1994), Global Environmental Issues: A Climatological Approach, Routledge Publishers, ISBN 0-415-10309-6 (go to page 100)
 * Particulate Matter Cooperative Institute for Environmental Research, University of Colorado. (scroll down to page 102)


 * Does that make it clear to you that your forest ranger's statement was simply ridiculous? This is my last response to your comments here, Mary. I have better things to do with my time than worry about you and your Samoan sister-in-law who is a Samoan princess. Milton Beychok 04:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Milt please read what I wrote. I wrote former sister-in-law and it was mentioned as I could understand how Margaret Mead felt about having her work disparaged. I also stand corrected. Hubby who just came home from work says the 7% of all PM 10s originate from the Owens Valley area more than any other single site in the world and the Aral Sea is the runner up as it's in second place. He also says approximately 90% of the US PM 10 air pollutions comes from Owens Valley. We both attended the same lecture but he has a better memory. And to refresh your memory my husband is a mechanical engineer with 30 plus years experience in the field.  The following information explains how the removal of water from the Owens Valley has impacted the environment:


 * EPA Region 9 Owens Valley
 * The Lake Project
 * The Federal Register
 * ABC Australia
 * Where vehicles are not the primary cause of PM10 pollution
 * A picture from the area
 * And when last seen Buck Owens had absolutely nothing to do with this information as written previously by Hayford. Mary Ash 06:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, Mary, I know your husband is a mechanical engineer ... you have told us that over a dozen times before. Please understand that the vast majority of us remember something the first time we are told ... we don't need tiresome repetition. You could list another dozen links such as above to try and impress us ... but the fact remains that the worldwide emissions of Particulate Matter are about 3,000,000,000 tonnes a year which is about 10,000 times more than 300,000 tons a year. Perhaps you and your husband are completely unaware of the very large amount of non-anthropological emissions (i.e., such as volcanoes, evaporated sea salt, forest fires, wind-blown dust, etc.) ... or your lecturer, Dr. Stanley, was also unaware of that fact. By the way, most journalists would never dream of sourcing a fact by referring to a remark made to them by an unnamed someone 20 years ago.


 * Goodbye to this discussion, and this time I really mean it. Milton Beychok 06:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Milt I presume you do not have facts to dispute the 7% or 90% figures listed. The facts I clearly stated concerning Owens Valley did not address volcanoes, forest fires or sea salt. What it did address was the environmental destruction which left the Owens Valley without water causing a 7% PM 10 emissions or 90% emissions rate depending on the locality under discussion. You attempted to obfuscate (or perhaps toss in a Red Herring) with naturally occurring events. What I was addressing was the man made destruction of an area that has significant worldwide impact. As to the unnamed source you are referencing to I haven't a clue what you mean by that except if you mean the forest ranger well those facts which I mis-stated still stand. Little change has occurred in the Owens Valley and it is still not in compliance with the EPA. The PM 10s continue to be emitted as the lake is still relatively dry. The only solution is to return the water to Owens Lake which has not been done as the desert residents living in Los Angeles still need their water. Finally, I did offer relatively current information from the US Federal government addressing these issues which hopefully you read before making your comments. Mary Ash 07:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * " ... facts which I mis-stated still stand."  Sigh! Its just plain hopeless. The Owens Valley where you reside does indeed have a human-made problem but it is not a dry lake. Milton Beychok 08:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. If you read the EPA information I posted, you would have read the main cause of the PM 10 situation is caused by lack of water in Owens Lake. It is not caused by man made activities as there is little there after Los Angeles, through the efforts of the federal government (did you know this area was once a national forest?) have ruined what little local economy that was present. Also, you are wrong about where I reside. Don't assume facts that are not in evidence. I did "cover" this article as a regional reporter, and thanks to the many kind professionals including engineers, air pollution specialists and regional water authorities, I learned a lot about PM 10 and its effects. And no I am not an environmentalist, nor do I support the other side, what I do support and would encourage is writing about PM 10s and their effect on the environment. Also, I sold many a newspaper writing about this most arcane but important subject.Mary Ash 15:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We have a number of statements here:
 * Mary: "the majority (he gave me a percentage but I can't remember the exact percentage but it was around 90%) of worldwide particulate matter pollution arises from the Owens Valley." - this figure seems extraordinarily implausible by any means and certainly requires better sourcing than "Long ago I was told by a forest ranger" or (further down the trail), "a Samoan princess".
 * Mary: "Owens Valley is the largest contributor for PM 10 see: [ http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/owens/qa.html]" - that source (yes, that is one of the kind we are looking for when referencing facts) actually states "Owens Lake is the largest single source of PM-10 pollution in the United States", as later clarified by Mary. In any case, this statement does not support the statement above.
 * Milt: "If one says that a particular industrial plant emits more air pollution than any other industrial plant in the U.S., it does not mean that it contributes most of the total air pollution in the U.S. Thus, if a certain geographical area (the Owens Valley) produces more PM10 than any other geographical area in the U.S., it does not mean that it contributes most of the total PM10 in the United States ... or of the total worldwide PM10." In other words, being "the largest single source" in an environment with multiple sources does not imply anything about the percentage with respect to the total being "around 90" or even "most of " (i.e. above 50). For an illustration, consider "Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the United States were the three largest producers of petroleum in 2006. Together, they produced 33.3 percent of the world's petroleum.".
 * Mary: "I was not wrong about the forest ranger either as he said it was either 85 to 90 percent." - we certainly cannot judge whether he said that (as Hayford pointed out), but if he said anything like "85 to 90 percent of worldwide particulate matter pollution arises from the Owens Valley", then he was very certainly mistaken.
 * Milt: "I made a cursory search and found two sources that estimated the annual worldwide emissions of Particulate Matter to be about 3 billion tonnes per year which is about 10,000 times as much as your 300,000 tons per year from the Owens Valley ... 10,000 times as much!!!" - both sources are reliable, and although the numbers do not solely refer to PM10, the approximate ratio of global emissions to those from Owens Valley is on the order of 10,000.
 * Mary: "Hubby ... says th[at] 7% of all [i.e. global?] PM 10s originate from the Owens Valley area[, that is] more than [from] any other single site in the world and the Aral Sea is the runner up as it's in second place. He also says approximately 90% of the US PM 10 air pollutions comes from Owens Valley." - Leaving aside that Hubby is not a reliable source for our purposes, these are actually three statements. 7% of the global PM10 originating from the Owens Valley still appears to be a high number but it may actually be the right order of magnitude. However, we would need a more reliable source than Hubby to actually base such a statement on. As to the relationship to the Aral sea, a brief search revealed "the Owens Valley is rated as “the single largest source of fugitive dust in the United States,” and the second worst in the world to the Aral Sea" - not really a reliable source either, but since it basically agrees that the two play in the same league, I will leave that aside for the moment (noting that this link may be of interest later). The last statement, that "90% of the US PM 10 air pollutions comes from Owens Valley", is certainly closer to the real situation than the initial claim about "90% of worldwide particulate matter pollution" but probably still wrong by a factor of about ten, given that the total annual PM10 emissions in the U.S. are around 3 million tons (cf. final figure here), so about a factor 1,000 less than the figures Milt found for the global emissions (given that PM10 is dominated by natural sources, this large ratio between U.S. and global numbers seems plausible).
 * Mary: "facts which I mis-stated still stand" - this would require them to be stated correctly, i.e. in proper context and with appropriate sourcing.
 * Milt: "The Owens Valley where you reside does indeed have a human-made problem but it is not a dry lake." - this is (a) non-constructive and (b) wrong: "The dry lake bed was caused by the complete diversion of water from the Owens River, the source of the lake. As a result, the particulate matter emissions on the dry lake bed are considered man-made" (Q12).


 * To sum up, Mary has joined the discussion here with statements that are both incorrect and unsourced, and reacted by taking constructive criticism personal. This is not the way collaboration is supposed to work here at Citizendium, even if some sourced and probably correct statements have been interspersed. Milt, an Editor ruling on the validity of the claims under discussion is a better way to handle such cases than turning constructive criticism into non-constructive remarks. --Daniel Mietchen 02:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) First I did offer sources see: * EPA Region 9 Owens Valley * The Lake Project * The Federal Register * ABC Australia * Where vehicles are not the primary cause of PM10 pollution * A picture from the area They all clearly state the importance of PM 10 air pollution and the man made causes thereof. The only part I was incorrect about was the percentages given by a forest ranger many years ago. As this is an informal discussion, and not sourcing an article, the inclusion of personal information as part of an informal discussion is professional and warranted. Also, I contacted a seasoned CZ contributor about this talk page discussion and was assured that my comments were professional on my part. I do believe lively discourse and intelligent discussion, even if the viewpoints differ, does much for collaboration. In fact, I was strongly supporting the writing of PM 10 by professionals far better informed than I am as I do believe this is an important issue that needs to be written about. I was sincerely trying to encourage and compliment those who could do the task. As to my professional credentials when writing about PM 10, I could give a brief non-technical overview as I was educated by the air pollution control board engineers, water board personnel and other environmental personnel during my two years of providing professional coverage of PM 10 and other air pollution matters during my years as an environmental journalist. I am well versed in air pollution and its effects thanks to the many professionals who kindly shared their expertise and time so I could write about these topics.Mary Ash 03:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Constable Comment
This page could certainly contain some material that may lead to heated discussion. Please do keep it professional. Discussion about content and style should follow our guidelines for allowing expert editor oversight and subsequent rulings. In cases of dispute, use the workgroups, ME, and Ombudsman to help guide the content of this page. D. Matt Innis 14:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)