The most air pollution is in what US city?

[GitRDun]

The World Health Organization’s 2014 list of most polluted cities provides some unexpected results as to pollution in US cities. While India leads the list with 13 cities in the top 20, the most polluted US city ranks 161st in the world, but is not a town I would have expected. In fact, its pollution level of 45 2.5 mg particulate matter per metric ton average is more than double the next US city.

http://www.who.int/phe/health_topics/outdoorair/databases/cities/en/

California’s Central Valley seems to be the most polluted area of the US, with Fresno, Madera, Modesto, Visalia-Portervile, and Bakersfield making up 5 of the top 25.

Its eight counties grow about half of the nation’s fruits and vegetables. This fact is largely due to its geography – a wide valley that’s also the unfortunate cause underlying much of its persistent problems with air pollution.

Surrounded on three sides by mountain ranges, the Central Valley acts as a pool for pollutants produced by the region’s roughly 3.5 million residents, its industry and its large agricultural community. These emissions get trapped in the valley by an inversion layer of warm air, explains Dimitry Stanich of the California Air Resources Board.

http://www.citylab.com/weather/2011/09/behind-pollution-californias-central-valley/207/

Here is the top 25 along with comments / research on the ones that interested me:

1). Fresno, CA (161st in the world) 45 pm2.5

Pollution has long plagued the Central Valley, where agriculture, topography and poverty have thwarted efforts to clean the air and water. The maps released this week by the California Environmental Protection Agency show that eight of the state's 10 census tracts most heavily burdened by pollution are in Fresno.

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-fresno-pollution-20140424-story.html

2). Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA (586th in the world) 21 pm 2.5
3). Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA (605th in the world) 20 pm 2.5
4). Fairbanks, Alaska (657th in the world) 19 pm 2.5 They burn a lot of wood.

http://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/air-quality-fairbanks-alaska-worse-beijing.html

5). Hanford-Corcoran, CA 777th in the world) 17 pm 2.5
6). Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD (778th in the world) 17 pm 2.5
7). Hilo, HI (794th in the world) 16 pm 2.5 (from volcanoes)
8). Madera, CA (797th in the world) 16 pm 2.5
9). Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ (828th in the world) 16 pm 2.5 (big city in a valley)
10). Shreveport-Bossier City, LA (840th in the world) 16 pm 2.5
11). Las Cruces, NM (852nd in the world) 15 pm 2.5

The frequent southern New Mexico spring wind storms and the dirt they carry are the biggest contributor to the poor air-quality ranking, said New Mexico state climatologist David DuBois.

http://www.lcsun-news.com/ci_20488852/las-cruces-among-worst-cities-short-term-air?source=most_viewed

12). Indianapolis-Carmel, IN (864th in the world) 15 pm 2.5
13). Pittsburgh, PA (865th in the world) 15 pm 2.5
14). Modesto, CA (870th in the world) 15 pm 2.5
15). Visalia-Porterville, CA (871st in the world) 15 pm 2.5
16). Bakersfield, CA (877th in the world) 15 pm 2.5
17). Kansas City, MO-KS (878th in the world) 15 pm 2.5
18). Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH (882nd in the world) 15 pm 2.5
19). El Centro, CA (890th in the world) 14 pm 2.5
20). Lebanon, PA (895th in the world) 14 pm 2.5
21). San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA (900th in the world) 14 pm 2.5
22). Lafayette, IN (907th in the world) 14 pm 2.5
23). Fort Wayne, IN (915th in the world) 14 pm 2.5
24). Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA (916th in the world) 14 pm 2.5
25). Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN (918th in the world) 14 pm 2.5

Other US cities at 14 pm 2.5 are New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA (919th), Napa, CA (934th), and Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA (936th).

Major population centers the WHO judges even cleaner are Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI (963rd, 13 pm 2.5), St. Louis, MO-IL (971st, 13 pm 2.5), New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA (975th, 13 pm 2.5), Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX (988th, 13 pm 2.5), Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI (1007th , 12 pm 2.5), Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX (1,033rd, 12 pm 2.5), Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI (1,128th, 10 pm 2.5), Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA (1,189th, 10 pm 2.5), and San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA (1,212th, 10 pm 2.5).

It is good news that the US is a pretty clean place to live from an air quality standpoint. On the other hand, it’s somewhat disturbing that the place where we grow half of our fruits and vegetables is so polluted. Hope you enjoyed the read. Wanted to teach myself something today.

[merrily]

1. The above explains why California has long been in the forefront

on auto emissions, as compared with the rest of the country, anyway. The rest of us can thank California for that.

It's an eye opener (for me) to learn that, despite all that smog, LA places relatively low on pollution as compared to the world as a whole.

[yeoman6987]

2. Still sad that the majority of places are in blue areas in blue states

Although good from a World view, democratic states must do better. It is really weird to see blue areas because I always thought Democratic populations cared about the environment more then red areas.

[surrealAmerican]

3. It's population density driving both.

Higher population leads to both more pollution and more liberalism.

We do care more, because we have to. We can still do better.

[Calista241]

32. I don't think it's population density.

The second highest American city is pretty low on the world wide list. Fresno is probably affected by some unique environmental conditions since i doubt human behavior in Fresno is drastically different than any other American city on the list. And we definitely have the most cars and most miles driven per person.

I mean, the US only has 1 city in the top 500 polluted cities worldwide. Fairly impressive given the Repub intransigence on environmental legislation.

[reddread]

35. you're right

one of the subjects addressed and dispelled in my UC days was environmental density concerns.
you need only compare any part of the US with European countries and cities to
realize, that is NOT the problem.
you are also correct about the environmental conditions that Fresno faces being centrally located
in a bowl formed by the Sierras and the coastal range, collecting pollution from SF and all points west,
ie China.
this is not a local problem, it is an international issue, made worse by MFN/Walmart activities that overlook
the most egregious civil rights violations overseas.
because money rules and citizens deserve no scraps.

[Cali_Democrat]

10. LA doesn't nearly have the same amount of smog as it used to.

Thanks to regulations.

They actually work!

[Adsos Letter]

31. Agreed...

Riverside, on the other hand...

I've seen days down there when you couldn't see the San Bernardino mountains from 5 miles away.

[merrily]

33. Yep. And they sure don't hurt, either.

Still, it is scary to think hundreds of cities in the world are more polluted.

[Galileo126]

4. I must admit, since 1987

when I moved to the LA basin, it's 1000x better than what it used to be. There were days you couldn't see downtown LA from 5 miles away. Now I can see it 30 miles away - quite clearly. Riverside-SBDO was unbreathable, and used to get sent home from work.

Kudos to the South Coast Air Quality Management and the CA State legislature!

[Brother Buzz]

11. It may be hard to comprehend, but LA basin in the sixties was worse - a LOT worse!

[mnhtnbb]

34. Yes, it was. I lived in L.A. from 1969-88 and air quality improved dramatically in that time.

[shanti]

55. sure was

i lived in OC from the 60's thru the 80's and can remember a time where your lungs would ache from the smog when taking a deep breath. it's nowhere near that now. yay!

[herding cats]

16. It really has improved.

I know people won't understand what it was like visually compared to what it's like today after reading that it's still considered a hotspot for pollution. I'd be interested in seeing areas of improvement and escalation of air pollution across the US over the past 30 years or so.

[Eleanors38]

45. Auto electronic ignition, catalytic converters, unleaded, and EFI.

So many problems were cleared up by these devices. Before, ignitions needed regular adjustment and replacement, and emission devices were a patchwork of faulty gadgets integrated to the century-old carburetor. Unleaded gas not only removed a harmful pollutant, but allowed use of catalytic converters which lead ruins. IMO, we are near the end of the auto ICE (internal combustion engine) Age.

[upaloopa]

54. I moved to Los Angeles in June of 1982. I use to drive home toward the

San Gabriel mountains. I didn't know they were there until a clear day in September!
I said to myself wow mountains in front of me and hidden by smog for 3 months,

[reddread]

5. whose emissions?

http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/09/20/4136058_chinas-polluted-air-may-have-affected.html?rh=1

thank god none of that Fukushima stuff could cross over and visit (ask any shill).
in reality though, thats apparently more the northwests problem.
(although, somehow, Fresno scores some really high background rad numbers...)
the solution?
shut down monitoring and shut mouths.

[GitRDun]

6. Interesting

The parts per billion range is too wide to come to any conclusions, but long term I think you are correct, global pollution will travel if left unchecked.

[NuclearDem]

7. Nice strawman.

[reddread]

8. lol

wtf ever

[Xithras]

19. The background rad numbers in the Central Valley are thanks to the Sierra's.

The Sierra granitics all have above normal-radiation levels, and Sierra Nevada granites have about five times more uranium content than average (yes folks, Half Dome may be pretty, but it is also very slightly radioactive). The soils of the Central Valley are primarily comprised of soil that has eroded off that granitic foundation over the past 10 million years.

While China and Japan may be contributing a few extra rads a year to us, Mother Nature has provided most of it herself.

[Throd]

22. As a bonus, we have high levels of asbestos here in western El Dorado County.

[reddread]

26. Coalinga and Kettleman Hills.

lets not forget Valley Fever.
its Paradise.

[reddread]

23. very interesting, thanks!

I could not believe the high numbers compared to anywhere else I checked,
we have all sorts of environmental hazards springing up in our air we do not understand.
despite all the sort of unpleasant bits of Fresno the worst of it is the jerkoff politicians who
sell out the area for carpetbaggers and developers. With NO water to be seen.

[snooper2]

42. The door to conspiracy theory land is 46 feet down to the left, the far left LOL

[amandabeech]

9. Our heavy industry has been decimated.

It's moved to places with less stringent environmental laws and cheap labor.

If we produced much of what we buy, we would undoubtedly have more pollution even with our current environmental standards because we would have more polluting sources.

[reddread]

12. not really

those maquiladoras are on the border. so when those regulations are sidestepped, it is by just so many feet.

[amandabeech]

15. Yes, some has moved to Mexico, but not all of it is on the border.

The auto manufacturing is in Monterrey.

But much has gone to China and the Asian Tigers.

After all, Mexico complained when we gave MFN status to China because many maquiladoras closed and moved operations to China.

[reddread]

21. and we get their pollution

so the distance means nothing to us

who is "we" there?
you do mean Bush AND Clinton right?
after the Chinese putdown of democracy protests?
anyone who votes for those unAmerican names deserves to be outsourced.
simple as that.

[Xithras]

13. We're number 1!!

Do we get a prize?

[Throd]

14. I drove from LA to Sacramento last week. The air along the 5 in Kern County was horrible.

I know a lot of it is dust, but still, I don't recall it ever being that bad.

[reddread]

20. i have never ever seen anything like the dawn sky over Bakersfield one morning

purple and weird unnatural stuff. unreal.

[Capt.Rocky300]

28. Like the L.A. Basin............

the Central Valley is plagued with temperature inversions which hold the polluted and dusty air down and the mountains prevent the wind from breaking it up or blowing it away. Many times I have departed an airport reporting 1 mile visibility in haze and by 2000 feet I was in crystal clear air with blue skies above and a brown layer of air below.

[Le Taz Hot]

17. A good portion of that pollution

is caused by the traffic, particularly truck traffic, on the Hwy. 99 and I5 corridor. There's no place for the pollution to go until the wind blows. Most of the towns mentioned are, literally, in the middle of the Valley.

[kwassa]

18. half of the top 20 worst cities for air pollution are in India

with #1 being Delhi.

Surprisingly, no Chinese cities place in the top 20, though the pollution there seems horrible. My wife went there twice on business trips, her photos show visibility of about half a block in Beijing.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/08/world/asia/india-pollution-who/

[reddread]

24. another article on immediate predicaments

http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/09/27/4147542/another-drought-casualty-no-chance.html?sp=/99/217/&ihp=1

[former9thward]

25. Some of the numbers don't mean much.

In many of these cities the numbers would be exactly the same if not a single human was on earth. For example in Phoenix most of our particulate pollution comes from dust in the desert which is blown into the valley.

[Thinkingabout]

27. I was having lunch with some RWs the other day and one spoke up and said we need to stop with

Regulations, I reminded them of the pollution regulations, how we saw oil smoke coming out of cars when we were young but seldom anymore. I also told them we could be another China by i guess I need to change this to India. Proof is in the pudding.

[tularetom]

29. I live at 1800 feet and on a clear night I can see several of the valley cities

But clear nights don't occur often anymore. Most of the time (particularly in the winter when the temperature inversions trap the dirty air in the valley) I might as well be looking out over a foggy ocean.

[LiberalLoner]

30. Missoula, Montana has that air inversion problem too...when the pulp mills were allowed

To pollute lots, pre-EPA, it had one of the worst air pollution problems in the US in spite of not being a big city.

[Romulox]

36. The list is bullshit; we have *exported* our pollution to China, Mexico, elsewhere.

No jobs = no pollution

[GitRDun]

37. We may have exported a portion of our pollution to China, Mexico

but that does not make the list "bullshit" or inaccurate.

Were some or even all of these jobs to come back (which is not going to happen), I would venture to say this country would not instantly turn into China or India from an environmental standpoint. Lack of environmental law enforcement in places like China and Mexico is one of the reasons the jobs left in the first place.

The US is still very high in terms of manufacturing capabilities. We just use less people to do it. Your comment implies we have little manufacturing here, which is categorically untrue.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/25/us-usa-manufacturers-costs-idUSBREA3O0AW20140425

Simplistic, un-nuanced thinking adds nothing to the dialogue.

[Romulox]

38. What point are you trying to argue? You segued from pollution to neoliberal clap-trap.

[reddread]

40. "no jobs, no pollution"?

you might make a case for US corps moving overseas to avoid EPA regs and thus shifting the origin point of THEIR pollution,
but you really cant make the case that jobs = pollution.
thats just asinine.

[Romulox]

57. Outsourcing our industry has greater GREATER pollution, by exporting jobs to low regulation

states.

That was my point. The person I was arguing with doesn't disagree with that point. He wants to argue an entirely different point (i.e. that we manufacture as much as ever, just with less workers.)

If you want to argue that US consumption doesn't drive overseas pollution--which is GREATER due to the laxity of regulation in places like China than it would be if the same products that were consumed by Americans were made in high regulations states like the US or the EU, that would be asinine.

So I know that's not the point you want to make. So what is it that you are arguing?

[GitRDun]

49. I am saying your point is wrong

We do have a globally competitive manufacturing base in this country, even though there are not as many manufacturing jobs in the US as we'd like.

Just because some jobs have moved overseas does not mean we don't have a lot of manufacturing here.

That being the case, it is fair to compare our pollution to the rest of the world.

The clap-trap is YOURS.

[Romulox]

56. OUR consumption drives overseas pollution, which is GREATER than it would be if we

hadn't outsourced the vast majority of our manufacturing base.

The rest of your comment isn't responsive to any "point" I've made.

[GitRDun]

58. OUR consumption drives overseas pollution?

That is a feckless and stupid argument.

How a supplier chooses to meet demand is his choice. Suppliers choose location AND MEANS of supply. Suppliers choose to pollute and go overseas because it saves money! Our demand drives how much is wanted, NOT HOW IT IS PRODUCED!

You also offer no support to your second comment that keeping the supply here would have reduced demand in a material way. That's a bunch of bull too. We'll never know the answer to that because suppliers took the easy way out, chasing cheap labor. Had they invested in efficiency here, who knows how costs would have been impacted.

Maybe the reason you don't see any responsiveness is because you fail to make a point in the first place.

Try making a coherent statement and I'll see what I can do.

[Romulox]

59. Spare me your Galtian garbage. You're a waste of time. nt

[GitRDun]

60. Welcome to the ignore list

[Romulox]

61. Sorry, but your ridiculous Right Wing nonsense isn't convincing. Your username surely doesn't help.

[badtoworse]

39. I would not consider pm 2.5 to be a good indicator of pollution levels

pm 2.5 is particulate matter that is 2.5 microns in size or smaller. Particulates can be greatly impacted by natural phenomena - a dust storm in the desert is a good example. I would expect the Central Valley is subject to this type of skewing of the data.

A better indicator would be the levels of sulfur oxides (SOx), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and volatile organics (VOC's). These criteria pollutants are not naturally produced - they come from car exhausts, power generation and other industrial activity. If you have any data that addresses these, it would make an interesting comparison.

[reddread]

41. the skew is the screws put by local politicians

who would not consider, for a second, regulation of USELESS pollution enhancing practices such as dust blowers, which continually blend microparticulates into the local environment, one which has quite the record for asthma and air quality.
how hard is it for people to find the real fault with our system, one that has taken a cliff dive from a more enlightened era dominated
by Richard Nixon.


think about that.

[badtoworse]

44. You're missing the point

Levels of pm 2.5 can be impacted by natural effects, so you could have two cities with identical air pollution regulations and identical enforcement that have very different levels of measured pm 2.5. Portland, OR and Phoenix, AZ can't be fairly compared because Portland is a rainy city with winds blowing off the Pacific and Phoenix is in the middle of a desert. Even with no man made contribution, Phoenix is going to have higher levels of pm 2.5. That doesn't mean you shouldn't control the man made contribution, it just means that pm 2.5 isn't a good criterion to use as a measure of who has the most polluted air.

[reddread]

50. its the smaller stuff that gets ya, so we best pay attention

regardless of the source, you dont continue doing harmful, stupid things out of stubborn stupidity.
oh, wait....

[reddread]

53. the real problem

watchdog agencies are not watching.

[GitRDun]

43. I'll look around for that.

Did not see anything on WHO. I agree with you on the naturally occurring particulates. There were a couple cities in there that would be out except for dust storms.

[greatlaurel]

46. I disagree with your assertion that pm 2.5 is not a good measure of air quality.

While natural phenomenas can have an impact on a single monitoring date, this is easily checked on. Additionally, the size and duration of dust storms are impacted by human behaviors such as agricultural and construction practices.

There are natural sources of all the other criteria pollutants you mention.

Here is the link to USEPA's FAQ about pm 2.5

http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/faq.htm#1

This answer to this question from their FAQ explains why a one time event like a dust storm will have little impact on the long term measured levels of particulate matter.


"What information does EPA use to determine whether an area should be a "nonattainment area?"

The Clean Air Act defines a nonattainment area as the area that is violating the national ambient air quality standard OR a nearby area that is contributing to a violation of the PM2.5 standards. The PM2.5 standards are based on averaging air quality measurements both annually and on a 24 hour basis. The annual standard for PM2.5 is met whenever the 3 year average of the annual mean PM2.5 concentrations for designated monitoring sites in an area is less than or equal to 15.0 µg/m3. The 24 hour standard for PM2.5 is met whenever the 3 year average of the annual 98th percentile of values at designated monitoring sites in an area is less than or equal to 35 µg/m3.

In addition to air quality data, EPA guidance on the PM2.5 designations process also discusses other important factors, including emissions of pollutants that lead to PM2.5 formation, population, commuting patterns, and expected growth, that states should evaluate in order to determine whether a county is a likely contributor to the area’s air quality problem."

[GitRDun]

47. I found a ranking list you were interested in

www.stateoftheair.org covers the exact topic you suggested. They have a ranking list called ozone, which is described / defined as follows:

The essential raw ingredients for ozone come from nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons, also called volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and carbon monoxide (CO). They are produced primarily when fossil fuels like gasoline, oil or coal are burned or when some chemicals, like solvents, evaporate. NOx is emitted from power plants, motor vehicles and other sources of high-heat combustion. VOCs are emitted from motor vehicles, chemical plants, refineries, factories, gas stations, paint and other sources. CO is also primarily emitted from motor vehicles.1

If the ingredients are present under the right conditions, they react to form ozone. And because the reaction takes place in the atmosphere, the ozone often shows up downwind of the sources of the original gases. In addition, winds can carry ozone far from where it began.

Here is the ranking:

By Ozone
#1: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA
#2: Visalia-Porterville-Hanford, CA
#3: Bakersfield, CA
#4: Fresno-Madera, CA
#5: Sacramento-Roseville, CA
#6: Houston-The Woodlands, TX
#7: Modesto-Merced, CA
#8: Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA
#8: Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK
#10: Las Vegas-Henderson, NV-AZ
#11: Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ
#12: New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA
#13: St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL
#14: Tulsa-Muskogee-Bartlesville, OK
#15: Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, OH-KY-IN
#16: Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD
#17: El Centro, CA
#18: Louisville-Jefferson County-Madison, KY-IN
#19: Oklahoma City-Shawnee, OK
#20: Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI
#21: Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OH-WV
#22: Fort Collins, CO
#23: Birmingham-Hoover-Talladega, AL
#24: Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH
#24: Sheboygan, WI

You see the big cities popping up in this one for obvious reasons. Interestingly enough, California's Central Valley remains very prominent as a contributor to ozone pollution. Thanks for the input.

[greatlaurel]

48. Pollution regulation in the US was not a major cause of job moving overseas.

This lie has been used to scare people to vote against the health of their families for decades. It is a great illustration of Mark Twain's great quote “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

Because it takes a lot of research and a certain expertise in environmental regulations and industrial engineering, the media finds it just so easy to just take at face value the lie that environmental regulations cost jobs. While it is complicated, environmental regulations add jobs overall. The reason jobs were moved overseas was to take advantage of the drastically lower wages and benefits paid to workers in the third world. There also vast tax and other financial incentives to close industries in the US and move manufacturing overseas.

The amount of money spent on compliance with environmental regulations looks like a lot of money when published by itself, but when compared with all the actual expenses of running a manufacturing facility environmental regulations are actually pretty far down the list for most industries.

One little fact of which few people are aware, is that air pollution control equipment have extensive tax exemptions.

[GitRDun]

51. I said "is one of the reasons the jobs left" not a major reason.

That was not a lie.

Just one source:

Many U.S. firms used the new investor protections to relocate production to Mexico to take advantage of its low wages and weak environmental standards and to attack NAFTA countries’ environmental and health laws in foreign tribunals.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTAs-Broken-Promises.pdf

I do, however agree with you that employee costs are the number one factor.

[reddread]

52. you should tell that to Fender

materials that those woodworkers used became so difficult to use in the US they opened up a Mexican factory across the border
so they can paint and finish their guitars without obeying US regs.
call it anecdotal, I call it bullshit.
I sincerely doubt they were only in it for lower wages.
it was a two-fer.

[Romulox]

62. We import most of what we use each day. US consumers cause pollution in China, by buying

the crap that is made in the filthy factories.

So these lists are nonsensical.