Baseline Formaldehyde Test Results In

Tuesday, June 15, 2010 03:10 PM

Prince George, B.C. The results are in on the May 26^th baseline testing for formaldehyde in the air in Prince George. The tests were conducted at Fort George Park.

Although Opinion 250 is being told the Ministry of the Environment is still compiling the information, a news release has been issued from the MoE saying “the baseline air quality testing in the Millar Addition area of Prince George show formaldehyde levels were ‘below detectable limits”.

The air testing was done on a day when there was no air quality advisory in effect in order to form baseline data. Further testing will be done over the coming weeks, including on days when there is poor air quality.

The air samples were collected by Ministry of Environment staff and analyzed for a number of air contaminants, including formaldehyde. The initial release from the Ministry says “All results were below detectable limits.”

The Ministry of the Environment says all test results will be shared with PG Air who will in turn pass along the information to stakeholders and media.

Only problem is, PG Air hadn’t received the numbers before a news release was issued today saying the test results were in. In fact, PG Air was caught so off guard, Opinion 250 had to forward the news release to them because it hadn’t even received a copy of the news release. While PG Air says there seems to be a “disconnect here” ( about the sharing of information) it is still waiting for the MoE to give it the final numbers of this baseline testing.

A communication breakdown has been blamed for previous test results not being made available as soon as possible. In that case, tests had been done in the late summer of 2008, the results (which showed elevated levels of formaldehyde in the air) were not interpreted until the spring of 2009, the results delivered to the public later in the spring.

Opinion 250 is waiting for the Ministry to return calls to explain the difference between “no formaldehyde” in the air, and “below detectable levels.”

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 03:10 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Andyfreeze on June 15 2010 3:39 PM

These tests may very well have been done to establish a baseline,but they are also completely predictable!

Posted by: PrinceGeorge on June 15 2010 6:19 PM

From the next Opinion250 article:

"For comparison purposes, monitoring results obtained by the Millar Addition Citizen�s Coalition (MACC) along with the People�s Action Committee for Healthy Air (PACHA) during the same period using a different type of sampler are also included. All sample results (including duplicate field tests and blanks) were below the method detection limits."

So, I fail to see where the conspiracy theory kicks in.

Posted by: Dearth on June 15 2010 6:41 PM

Pacha fully believes in fear mongering and people will buy it wholesale

Posted by: gus on June 15 2010 8:48 PM

A number of things to note, PACHA or no PACHA. MoE or no MoE. Keep the politics out of it and be aware of a few things.

1. the testing equipment used in 2008 had a detection limit of 0.1μg/m3

2. the testing equipment used in 2010 by the MoE had a detection limit of 2.3μg/m3

3. the detection limit for the PACHA testing equipment is 12.3μg/m3

4. the highest result in 2008 was 1021 μg/m3

5. the lowest of 4 detectable results in 2008 was just over 60μg/m3 which means that it was at the action level and the others were far above the action levels.

6. The 2010 sampling was done on a non-episode day.

7. the 2008 sampling was done on two separate odour episode days.

8. the next testing for 2010, I understand, will be done on one or more odour episode days

9. the testing equipment in 2008 was 23 times more sensitive than the 2010 equipment.

10. we do not know whether there was, for instance, 2.0μg/m3 of formaldehyde in the air because the equipment was not sensitive enough, although the equipment in 2008 was sensitive enough to detect that level.

11. It would take only 30 times as much formaldehyde to be present on an odour episode day as could have been present on the baseline day in 2010 for the formaldehyde to reach the level of 60.0μg/m3, the BC action level for 1 hour average.

So, in my opinion, this is too early to say anything. So far we finally have a baseline test which we did not get in 2008. And we still have a 2008 odour episode day. We do not have that for 2010 yet. The story is not yet complete.

If anyone wants to talk about a conspiracy, one might want to ask the MoE why they tested first on an obvious low pollution level day rather than an obvious high pollution level day. Then we might want to ask them why they released the information without clarifying to the lay public what is happening.

Posted by: boomer on June 15 2010 9:59 PM

With most sampling you need a baseline to compare to. They have one now.

Posted by: gus on June 16 2010 12:03 AM

Yes, you need a baseline.

All baselines are relative.

Here is SOME example information that is required to define a baseline and the variables that can affect the baseline.

1. wind direction
2. wind speed
3. temperature
4. humidity
5. day of the week
6. month of the year
7. industries operating
8. level of industries operating
9. traffic volume
10. traffic type
11. location
12. instrumentation
13. natural events such as distant forest fire
14. elevation of monitor above ground level
15. precipitation

What were the baseline conditions?

How do we know that the conditions chosen are representative of an acceptable baseline? What is the acceptable baseline? The lowest possbile reading? the highest possible reading? A predicted median reading?

What would happen if we were to say the readings in 2008 were the original readings and they thus become the baseline against which all others will be compared? After all, that is what a baseline is. It is the basis for comparison.

So, taking the 2008 high reading as the baseline, if we know most of the key determinants about it, then the current measurements can be compared to it.

Posted by: gus on June 16 2010 12:11 AM

So, we could now look at the new measurement in a "positive" light:

No detectable formaldehyde under the conditions of:

1. no odour?
2. no inversion?
3. low humidity
4. cool temperature
5. 50% of industries within 3km radius shut down
6. between morning and noon "rush hours"
7. and so on ......

I would love to see the full report to see what other conditions they actually recorded to give the test a usable environmental setting.

Posted by: gus on June 16 2010 12:16 AM

The conditions during the test which showed a high reading from 2008 might read something like this:

1. odour reported by 3 separate people to the call in line
2. odour detected by testing technicians
3. inversion in place for the third day
4. temperature between 26 and 27C during test
5. humidity 93%
6. 90% of industry within 3km operating at full capacity
7. testing between 8 and 9am during morning rush hour

Posted by: gus on June 16 2010 12:38 AM

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/teaching-the-humanities-vital-to-society/article1601322

An interesting article about critical thinking. Something that the author thinks we have lost over the last few decades. I totally agree.

Apply it to the HST argument, the seeking out of air quality reduction causes, the dying of downtown, the reduction of fire and police protection costs while keeping protection services the same or improving them, and many other situations that we cannot seem to control to our liking.

A short part of the article:
-------------------
NASA, the space administration, is a good example of that. My colleague and I teach about NASA's experience in a course called Decision-making – how a culture of yes-people produced the disaster of the space shuttle Challenger:

You could see in the data that the O-rings were dangerous at a certain temperature, but no one was willing to point that out, and they packaged data the way they thought the leaders would want to hear it.

Now, NASA has reformed its culture and is much more encouraging of dissent.

People are saying BP and all the other oil companies should take a page out of NASA's book and reform their internal culture.
-----------------------

Want to solve the air quality situation in PG? Think about whether we have a bunch of "yes" people here and we do not have the political guts to speak out.

The same for urban sprawl. For downtown depopulation. For street people. For regional economic development. And for more simpler things such as finding out why formaldehyde readings were far too high on four separate reading in 2008. TWO years ago folks!!! TWO years ago!!!

Posted by: boomer on June 16 2010 9:36 AM

maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't read any where that further testing would not be done.