The downtown is as close to the industrial area on River Road and Pulmill Road as it is to the Millar Subdivision and other residential areas adjacent close to the Plaza. Yet the instruments are not picking up the residential sources?

On what basis is this statement being made?

It took this long to get accruate information for locomotives? CN was not very helpful? Why would we trust CN? Why was an on-site survey not conducted similar to traffic studies? Garbage in, garbage out.

If the % from locomotives goes down, what goes up?

Each goes up in proportion to total 100%. Thus industrial will go up most with commercial going up one third of what industrial goes up.

One comment on the election.

There should be the same rules for all elections regarding candidates signs next to voting stations. When signs were posted in the area around the Blackburn polling station in the federal election, they were removed.

I believe there is a sign boundry of 100 meters? of a polling station?
No signs are to be posted within that free zone.
Some places enforce it and others do not...but they should!

"He adds that Prince George's air problems aren't the result of increased emissions, rather, by atmospheric conditions which trap the air in the region. Inversions are like putting a lid on the bowl, trapping the air"

One of the most misleading and overused statements in the history of the PG air quality debate. The simple fact of the matter is that the inversions only trap what is PRODUCED. If there was no crap spewing from the industrial stacks, the inversions would be irrelevant 100% of the time. The prevailing factor that allows the weather patterns to even be an issue is the ultimate cause of the problem and those are the emissions that the doc seems to suggest aren't an issue. The logic around his position is completely warped and while it may not be an intentional slip, it does result in an extremely misleading statement.

I have an idea, among others. How about a bylaw that says that heavy industrial emitters need to curtail their operations by "X percent" during periods of inversion and/or air quality advisory?

If you curtail operations,it will just drive the price up for products they produce.Then if your one of the lucky ones you can sit at home because of the layoffs that come with curtailments!!

It is not about jobs, it is about health. The solutions are simple, but they do take time or money.

As plants burn, get old, are found in flood prone areas, and so on, they eventually die a natural death having nothing to do with air emissions. If and when those plants get replaced, put them into locations where they are not subject to inversions. How much simpler can one make it? Are people that stupid in this town?

NMG, you are quite right of course. The good Doctor (so called) keeps on making that argument. One of those who seems to have few if any street smarts.

For him, a ship would not have sunk because there was too much payload on board for the size of the ship, but because the weather caused waves that were so large that the ship capsized. He forgets the human element. Put less payload on board or do not navigate such a vessel into a storm.

There is nothing that can be done about the storm at sea. There is nothing that can be done about the topography and the weather in PG. However, there is something that can be done about how much plants put into the air and where they put it into the air.

Is it possible that those who pay for the study have something to do with how the outcome of the study is presented?

"Is it possible that those who pay for the study have something to do with how the outcome of the study is presented"

One has to wonder.

atvs22, the point is that if industry is not willing to reduce their emissions to an acceptable level on their own, then someone has to step in with a regulatory capacity and ensure that those emissions at not at a level where they are harming the general public. Like gus said, it isn't about jobs at this point in time, it's about people getting sick. I'm pretty sure that a life trumps a paycheque.

Right now, industry has no incentive to change (other than doing it for goodwill) because there are NO consequences in place for continuing to act like they always have. There needs to be incentives of some sort. Whether they are punitive (fines, forced curtailments, etc.) or proactive (tax cuts, grants, etc.) there are ways to get it done. But make no mistake, it HAS to be done if we want PG to prosper in the long-term. Continuing to ignore it will ensure that we fall 20-30 years behind every other community that is trying to grow and attract investment along with people. That would be a blow of more significance than losing a mill or two.

If you have no paycheque how do you live?Off other people or welfare?Your life is short lived without your paycheque!If Prince George wasn't built in a valley maybe the air would be better!Particles sink to the low lying areas do they not?

After having worked across the river in the stink zone for quite a few years,I am pretty sure where the bad air is coming from!
When I drive down Peden Hill in the winter or up the Hart,it smells just like I was back there.
My paycheque used to smell the same way!
But that's just a guess of course......

"If you have no paycheque how do you live"

Well first you are making an assumption that industry would shut down if they were forced to reduce their harmful emissions. We don't know if this is the case and like gus noted, there are other options to deal with the problem (many of which have never even been explored). If there were no shut downs, then there would be no loss of jobs so it's a moot point. If they did choose to shut down, then of course SOME people would be out of a job but it's a classic case of short-term pain for long-term gain. I know it sucks, but so does:

1) getting sick or dying because of the issues that our air causes
2) having a city that chokes it's own future to death by staying firmly planted in the past

"If Prince George wasn't built in a valley maybe the air would be better!Particles sink to the low lying areas do they not"

Many cities are built in a valley, yet they don't have terrible air. The bottomline is that it's the pollution that is the problem, not the location. Maybe you are related to the doc :)

"...Well first you are making an assumption that industry would shut down if they were forced to reduce their harmful emissions. We don't know if this is the case and like gus noted, there are other options to deal with the problem (many of which have never even been explored)..."

Hmmm.. so you are saying that the plywood plant would be rebuilt if it was forced to shut down and upgrade?

Now that we got rid of the plywood plant, and it was a major contributor of smog, the obvious solution is burn the pulp mills and see if they are rebuilt too? Seems like a heck of a gamble, but you have lots of supporters at this time.

I don't think burning down the loco's is going to work however. They just replaced the one they burnt. So how are we going to get rid of those jobs, I don't know?

Next is all those diesel trucks. After all it is not about jobs and investment and growth, it's about health.

If you get rid of the mills and trains, the trucks won't be around much anymore anyway, so start with the mills I guess. They seem to be the most vulnerable.

Prince George is hardly the only place in BC or North America or the world that is built in a valley. This is a hilly and mountainous province. It is also a province with a central plateau that has rivers cut deep into that plateau with low lying areas such as we are in.

This was known when the pulp mills were built. I understand that at the time there was some controversy about the location. Pollution was understood in those days based on text that were written for planners of such industries. It was simply poor judgement.

When the steel mill was proposed 10 years later, the planners had smartened up to some extent and proposed it to the north of the City in the Salmon Valley area.

The approach is simple. Set a goal with say a 10 year horizon. After that all existing plants will have extremely low and acceptable emissions through technical change or they will be moved, or even shut down if they cannot produce to an environmentally sound (by today's standards, not yesterday's) standard.

No new plants will be allowed to locate in the bowl from day one.

Money? As NMG said, a combination of incentives an meaningful fines.

Do we allow doctors to operate to 1965 standards? No! Do we allow buildings to be built to 1965 standards? No! How about cars? They have to be manufactured to today's standards.

We have substandard forestry roads that kill workers. We have substandard industrial plants that kill the general population.

The world is changing and we need leaders that can see that rather than having an attitude that if it was okay for their grandparents it can be okay for the children of the future.

Growth today is more about quality than quantity. Where are the leaders who understand that?

The US and other countries are gearing up to spend federal $ to improve infrastructure for the "economy of the future". It is called investing. The time to invest in the future is now.

gus makes some very wise comments

Yama. Move on and think how to solve the problem rather than knocking everything down.

We need builders of the economy, not people who hang onto corner grocery stores until there are no longer any customers because they have moved to buying at grocery chains. Open your eyes and make the changes required to stay in business in a changing world.

If the world stopped changing, we would have nothing to spend money on - no TVs, no Coloured TVs, no cablevision, no HDTV, no panel monitors. What do you think is the driver of the economy. Certainly not sugar beets. Change! It was the word that got someone elected to the south of us. It is what everyone wants at City Hall.

"Hmmm.. so you are saying that the plywood plant would be rebuilt if it was forced to shut down and upgrade"

Hmmm . . . if the mills and other industry is in such a precarious situation, why the heck are we still pandering to them like they will continue to be the backbone of this City for the next 5, 10, 15 or 20 years? Wouldn't we be better off moving away from relying on them and actively looking for ways to ensure that the city is still viable in the long-term (one of which would be ensuring that we clean up the air in the short-term)?

On the flip side, if they are sustainable in the long-term, then surely they can find it somewhere in their high priced corporate body of knowledge to improve their operations to the point where they are no longer such a significant impact on the health of people and future development in this city.

Make the expectations for reduced emissions clear, look into all viable options, give them reasonable time to change and force it upon them if they don't. The city can also lead by ensuring that any new development of this type does not occur within the areas that are compromised.

Have to say that gus is bang on!

I am not sure our city can do much about air pollution. Look at the local pellet plant. Their emissions are not even close to the old level A of 230 mg/dscm. The excuse used was, "but we are much better than than we used to be". For years they exceeded their old permit level.

The MOE could not or would not enforce the emission standards in effect today. If our own government agencies will not enforce the pollution control standards how as citizens can we accomplish anything.

Have a look around at the industry in the city and see how many industrial plants have only a cyclone or multi-cyclone as their primary pollution control device. Most of these devices do not even have the means od being tested.

Instead of worrying about residential wood burning devices resouces should be spent on decreasing road dust (have a look at the build up of material along Penn rd) and having industry comply with the existing regulations.

The City has the power to zone. The City has the power to change zoning so that the existing operations become non-conforming uses. The Plywood plant would be an example of that.

But more importantly, our City has the ability and duty to ask the province to change their approach to doing business in this region with respect to heavy industrial plants. No one at City Hall has taken that initiative. Come to think of it, Initiative PG has not taken that initiative.

The City is not doing its job to protect the citizens and to protect the economic well being of this community.

Hmm, some very interesting and valid arguments. Let's look at some other variants. The so called study is from 200-2004, that's a very long study. Regardless since 2004, how many more person diesel spewing trucks have made it into PG's populus? I would believe there is also a significant increase in locomotive activity. Several mill closures and/or curtailed periods of production. The odour you smell isn't necessarily and indication of particulate matter, more the end result of a chemical reaction. Not any healthier nonetheless. Now a more informative study and perhaps that data is available, would indicate what the particulate matter consists of, not its size. Then you could really target the violators.

For any industrial polluter, there are strict guidelines set in place by the MOE. These parameters, albeit perhaps they may not be as low as one would like, are followed by the mills, must be met and violations must be disclosed. The mills are fined for non-compliance and MUST shut down if compliance cannot be maintained. It is a very serious operational guideline and the mills and operators are very diligent about it. And yes, production is curtailed to meet these requirements. Testing is also performed by an outside contactor, whose reports go guess where. Cyclones can be tested.

Now that inversion trapped result can also strew your study data as the same sample goes round and round so to speak. Living in a bowl or valley indeed is a problem, go visit the Fraser Valley and enjoy the trapped smog there. Poor planning at some point has a undesirable cause and effect, yet that can't be blamed on the so called polluter.

Now media awareness has encited more light on this matter. Is it worse because of industry that has been there for 30 years or so? Nobody was complaining then were they.

Let's be cooperative to receive the best economic and healthy result. Start by shutting down the polluting mills or enforcing unmeetable critera immediately to completely annihilate the ever faltering Forestry sector. Very sensible. Alternative, re-zone them to force same. Even better, moving an industrial plant can be accomplished in a few years time. Abolish the diesel 4X4's, you have 2 years to comply. Not my problem your $60K is now worthless. Tax everyone even more, as the majority taxpayers have shut down or relocated. What's left, minimum wage workers trying to subside in a deflated real estate market hoping that people can afford to visit the University or the Hospital.

Sure easy solutions are there. Are they ecomically viable.? Sure if time is allowed for transition.

FYI, the reason I target the diesel is that it is the most noticeable polluter that has an immediate effect to my health. I am employed in a pulp mill and have no reactions or issues while in the vicinity or inside of the mill. Yet if i get one whiff of the diesel plumes, my nose and lungs become irritated immediately.