"Councilor Don Zurowski says he wonders what is being accomplished when there is so much attention being placed on air quality when there is no new information to suggest the air quality is getting worse."

Air quality is the measure of the actual condition of the air. Air emissions is what is put into the air. The two are quite different. The good Councillor appears to be undable to understand that simple notion.

The new information is that there were more days which did not meet the provincially set standards. Whether emissions were reduced or not does not enter into that equation.

Any engineer knows that one designs for the worst case scenario - the 200 year flood, the 100 year snow load, the bridge loaded with logging trucks, the library floor with 1,000kg/square meter floor loading, the window glass for 120 km/hr wind gusts, the building for a 7.0 earthquake load, etc. etc.

If we were to design the rest of our systems in the same fashion as we design for the conditions we allow for air quality in this community, we would have a a perpetual disaster with people being killed and the built environment being demolished.

Perhaps to put it into another context which puts it closer to health, it is similar to the government accepting a new medication which causes life threatening side effects in about 5% of the population.

We had great weather conditions for several years after 1995 which coincided with the reduction of emissions in the valley. In the last few years, weather conditions have shown us that the emissions are still not reduced enough to provide us with acceptable air quality.

So, one can blame it on the weather if one wishes, but it is only those who really do not understand acceptable margins of safety and what the standards for that are in this province who will do that.

"They are also calling for increased air quality monitoring, especially when it comes to Pm2.5"

It is being monitored and has been for some 10 years at plaza 400. It is not reported to the citizens. We are not unique. If you want the figures, the MoE will provide them to anyone who is interested.

This should be done provincially. Why there is no funding for this is beyond me. All I can say is that the province really does not want to spend the pittance of money it takes to put the figures into their existing reporting system.

Let's see how effective the efforts with respect to emissions and air quality surrounding asphalt plants will be this year. If the City unilaterally sets some emission standards, it could set precedence.

Do I think that will be accomplished? I very much doubt it.

I was watching the council meeting last evening and I am in agreement with the Mayor and Councillor Zurowski. I have lived here for over 30 years and the air in my opinion is a lot better than it was back then. I can't believe we have the worst air in B.C. I have stayed numerous times at the Fairmont at the airport in Vancouver and if you look to the north, you can't even see the mountains for the smog. They would be maybe 8 - 10 kms. at the most from the airport. Vancouver didn't even make the list these people had on their charts last night. Everyone can spew propoganda whenever they want and get various reports to back them up. You just have to know where to look.

Owl, you seem to be good at retrieving websites. Perhaps you can find one that shows Vancouver's air quality.

If these PACHA people get their way, all industry in P.G. would be shut down. Maybe these people are all retired and don't have to make a living like the rest of us. If new business were required to locate out of the "sensitive airshed" it would cost a tremendous amount to put in services such as water, sewer, hydro, roads,etc. and they would just go elsewhere to set up shop.

Duffer

Air quality is not the easiest thing in the world to understand.

1. You can base quality on visual quality, as they are doing in many wilderness tourist areas in the USA. That is something we have not even gotten to in Canada. So, your fog in Vancouver would result in Vancouver having some very poor air quality. However, that is not even in indicator of how good or bad it is from the health point of view.

2. You can base quality on smell. In PG and other pulp towns that would be Hydrogen Sulphide. We can smell it way before it reaches the level which begins to be of health concern. You can smell it at concentrations of 7µg/m3 as a rotten egg smell. People flock to sulphur springs all over the world to swim in spring fed pools. It takes a concentration of about 15,000 µg/m3 before eyes are irritated. So, H2S is a nuisance gas at the levels it is present. However, it can also be an indicator gas. We can actually smell where the flow of air is coming from and when we have an inversion. If H2S is trapped, so are most of the other chemicals.

3. Finally, you can base air quality on health. That is where we have problems in PG and many other places. In PG we do not even know the extent of it since not all the key pollutants, from my perspective of things, are being measured and reported out.

There are four key or criteria pollutants which are now measured across Canada – PM2.5; SO2; NO2; O3. Notice that H2S is not even included. Each community is unique. However, I think it is fair to say that one can divide the problem areas into two key types – larger cities and small cities & towns. The main problem in large cities is not industry based, but traffic based. Ozone (O3) and Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) play a major part in that. In small communities it is typically particulate based – PM10 and PM2.5 Thus, the main problem in the GVRD is Ozone as well as a mix of PM10/2.5 as you move up the valley to Hope.

Vancouver is the least polluted since the prevailing winds are from the ocean and everything up valley is downstream. In addition, the agricultural belt ads dust from the farming activities. Thus, Chilliwack gets a dose of ozone drifting in addition to high local particulates giving it what is probably the lowest air quality in the GVRD. In fact, I have been told that the government looks at PG and Chilliwack as being the major problem areas in BC at the moment.

So, here are the sites from the GVRD (puts ours to shame and show where the money is spent on trying to solve the problem):
http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/air/quality.htm
http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/air/pdfs/AmbientAirQualityReport2005.pdf

Be careful in reading the tables for PM. 2005 was the year of the burns bog fire so the numbers are far higher than in a normal year. Go to http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/air/pdfs/AmbientAirQualityReport2004.pdf to see what the norm looks like.

In a nutshell, when looking at PM10 only, the highest value in 2004 was 40µg/m3 for a 24 hour average which is below the upper limit of 50. In PG, each one of the 20 days which were advisory days were above 50 with figures reaching as high as 100 at the BCR. In addition, those were advisory days. There were additional days when readings got over 50 when advisories were not called since the period when the number was over 50 was not expected to last long due to weather predictions.

So, it is the silent, odourless killer. It is, however, visible and often distinguishable from fog in that with the PM10/2.5 in this area a high proportion of it is industry based and bluish in colour. Ozone, on the other hand, is yellowish in colour when you see it as smog.

One more caution. What you see is not necessarily what you get. That smoke billowing from the pulp mills is mostly steam condensing in the cooler air. Watch out for the many small stacks.

Most of the blue stuff that you see when looking to the coast mountains is "haze" caused probably by the humidity. Abbotsford is another poor air quality area. The stuff blows in from Vancouver and hangs up on Sumas mountain. Those people in the big apple are so nice they like to share their polution

There is no doubt that the pulpmills have at least cleaned up the smell but thats just a cosmetic solution.

There is no fiction in what owl has outlined for us. Read it and weep.

Cheers

Humidity is certainly part of it. Humidity in combination with other natural off-gasing from trees makes it even worse.

If one were to use the amount of haze, or the distance one can see clearly as an indicator of the amount of pollutans in the air, one would likely be more accurate than relying on their nose. Then again, I am not that sensitive. Those who have repiratory problems can tell with their eyes and noses closed, just be breathing in.

When I drive down University hill, overlooking the city, I have a reasonably good sense of what the pollution level is from looking at the visibility, as long as it is not a foggy day. As of yet, my lungs do not tell me that and hopefully they never will.

http://www.epa.gov/air/visibility/pdfs/haze_brochure_20060426.pdf