Please compare the air quality (ozone and PM 2.5) for Bloomington, IN,
Columbus, OH, and Toronto, ON. I would like historical data that
summarizes what one is generally exposed to, as well as number of days
exceeding standards. Note: there are no air monitors in Monroe County,
which includes Bloomington. Thus, you may have to extrapolate and
justify this. Information about just one year is not sufficient, since
this varies quite a bit yearly. I already know about the information
available at www.scorecard.org and daily maps at epa.gov; neither of
these is sufficient. |
Request for Question Clarification by
pafalafa-ga
on
17 Jun 2005 03:27 PDT
maybemover-ga,
Interesting question!
There is pretty good historical data for a lot of cities in the US.
For instance, the air quality records for the past ten years for
Columbus, Ohio are summarized here:
http://oaspub.epa.gov/pls/airsdata/ADAQS.aqi?geotype=ms&geocode=1840&geoinfo=%3Fms%7E1840%7EColumbus%2C+OH%2C+MSA&pol=&year=2004+2003+2002+2001+2000+1999+1998+1997+1996+1995+1994&sumtype=ms&fld=gname&fld=gcode&fld=stabbr&fld=regn&rpp=500&page=1&sort=d16&fmt=
It's a bit cumbersome interpreting this table, but I'd be glad to walk
you through the results, if you think it would be useful. You can see
that Columbus only has very few days labelled as "Unhealthy". On the
other hand, the number of days labelled as "Good" has dropped quite a
bit in recent years.
You can also click on the "See Chart" link for each year (on the left
hand side) to see a graph with even more detailed information for each
year.
A similar table is available for Terre Haute, IN, which is near to
Bloomington, and similar in size.
Since this is US data, there is no similar table for any cities in
Canada. However, there IS data for Niagara Falls, NY, which would be
a good proxy for Toronto.
Would these tables and charts (along with a summary explanation that I
could provide) meet our needs as an answer to your question?
If not, please let me know what sort of additional information you're after.
Thanks.
pafalafa-ga
|
Clarification of Question by
maybemover-ga
on
17 Jun 2005 10:31 PDT
Dear pafalafa,
Thanks for your suggestions. These might work. However, here are the issues I see:
1. Can you justify comparing Terre Haute to Bloomington by more than
size and promixity? It's an interesting idea.
2. Toronto does have a lot of info available through Canadian
websites. It would be better to use that, rather than Niagara Falls.
Otherwise, please justify using N.F. as a proxy.
3. The link to the charts you sent for Columbus is very nice. However,
it is clear from looking at it that standards changed between 1998 and
1999. This may explain the trend you commented on.
Thanks!
|
Request for Question Clarification by
pafalafa-ga
on
17 Jun 2005 14:18 PDT
maybemover-ga,
Thanks for your feedback. From your comments, it appears that you're
quite well-informed about air quality measurements and some of the
issues that surround them.
Let me address your comments one by one:
1. Can you justify comparing Terre Haute to Bloomington by more than
size and promixity? It's an interesting idea.
As you already know, there are no monitoring sites in Bloomington
itself. The only reasonable option I can think of is to use nearby
site information as a proxy.
Possibly, looking at another nearby site (in addition to Terre Haute)
would provide additional perspective on how representative a given
data set might be for Bloomington. That is, if both nearby sites have
similar numbers -- and exceedances at similar times -- then it
suggests that a regional pattern is at work that would encompass
Bloomington as well.
Beyond that, the only option is to construct a physico-chemical model
of the pollution dynamics of the local atmosphere, a task which I
MIGHT actually be capable of, but not anytime this year!
If you have any additional suggestions on this point, I'd like to hear them.
2. Toronto does have a lot of info available through Canadian
websites. It would be better to use that, rather than Niagara Falls.
Otherwise, please justify using N.F. as a proxy.
Good point. Data for downtown Toronto is available going back several
years. For instance, here are the 2003 AQI charts:
http://www.airqualityontario.com/reports/aqisearch.cfm?stationid=31103&startmonth=all&this_date=2003-12-31
These have a very similar orientation as compared to the US charts, so
there is a certain comfort level in using them for comparative
purposes. Other areas in Toronto are also monitored and charts are
available for these sites as well.
3. The link to the charts you sent for Columbus is very nice. However,
it is clear from looking at it that standards changed between 1998 and
1999. This may explain the trend you commented on.
I'd be glad to look into this in more detail, and I certainly will if
I go ahead and answer your question. But before doing so, I think it
best we come to a mutual understanding of what sort of information
would best meet your needs. Please let me know your thoughts on all
this.
Looking forward to hearing back from you....
paf
|
Clarification of Question by
maybemover-ga
on
17 Jun 2005 15:33 PDT
Dear pafalafa,
Here are my responses.
As you already know, there are no monitoring sites in Bloomington
itself. The only reasonable option I can think of is to use nearby
site information as a proxy.
I thought of using an existing model, such as used by catf for diesel (see
http://www.catf.us/projects/diesel/dieselhealth/faq.php?site=0#calculated ).
I don't know if that is feasible or not.
Possibly, looking at another nearby site (in addition to Terre Haute)
would provide additional perspective on how representative a given
data set might be for Bloomington. That is, if both nearby sites have
similar numbers -- and exceedances at similar times -- then it
suggests that a regional pattern is at work that would encompass
Bloomington as well.
That's an excellent idea! If it can be accomplished, I would be happy
as far as using it for Bloomington.
Using Toronto data would be good; it just has to be compiled (or found) in the
same way so as to facilitate comparison. Conversions might be necessary, too.
3. The link to the charts you sent for Columbus is very nice. However,
it is clear from looking at it that standards changed between 1998 and
1999. This may explain the trend you commented on.
I'd be glad to look into this in more detail, and I certainly will if
I don't think it is necessary simply to understand Columbus better, but may be
needed in order to compare the different areas. Without knowing what turns up
in the other areas, I can't say for sure.
Please let me know if there is any other way I can clarify.
Thanks,
maybemover
|
Request for Question Clarification by
pafalafa-ga
on
27 Jun 2005 08:53 PDT
maybemover-ga,
I just wanted to get back to you on the status of your question.
I've given it all a good deal of thought, and it strikes me as simply
too complex a task to really undertake it within the context of a
typical Google Answers question.
It would require weeks of work to really understand the various data
sources available, their similarities and differences across
jurisdictions, and then to make the sorts of comparisons and
extrapolations that you've asked for.
So...I'll have to pass on this one. But perhaps another researcher
will step forward with an approach that I hadn't thought of.
All the best,
paf
|
Clarification of Question by
maybemover-ga
on
28 Jun 2005 11:39 PDT
Dear paf,
Thanks very much for trying! I'm very sorry to hear you won't be able to do it,
but I understand. I'll see if I can get the data I need from some
government agencies; maybe they have it, but simply not easily
accessible on their websites.
Best,
maybemover
|
Request for Question Clarification by
pafalafa-ga
on
28 Jun 2005 11:44 PDT
Getting the data isn't the problem...I've already pointed to most of
the sources of available data.
The problem is: (1) finding a meaningful way to compare US and
Canadian data, when the monitoring systems and data reports are
significantly different, and (2) finding a way to meaningfully
extrapolate data from existing sites, in order to provide the detail
for Bloomington, where no monitoring takes place.
Again, finding the available data isn't the issue here, it's working
the data the way asked that is problematic.
Best of luck in wokring all this out. If you find a solution, I'd
love to know what it is.
Cheers,
paf
|
