moderated Re: Tuesday Hills B Pace - cancelled for 11/20


Steve Snyder
 

Oh, please don't take this off-line!!!!!

--Steve

On Nov 19, 2018, at 9:57 PM, Nick Laszlo <laszlonick@...> wrote:

Hi Michael,

I think that we should take this conversation offline, as we are getting to a level of complexity that may not interest everyone else in the club, but the professor’s point is that the AQI instrumentation itself is not as accurate, nor as specific, as the instrumentation that he uses in the lab, e.g. mass spectrometry.

You can email me offline at “laszlonick@...” if you’d like to discuss this further.

Nick 🤓

On Nov 19, 2018, at 9:04 PM, Michael Graff <michael.graff@...> wrote:

Thanks for the link. So it looks like the AQI is based on whichever component is worst:

"The pollutant that reports the highest index determines the AQI (or AQHI, PSI, API, etcetera). For instance, if measurements for Beijing air quality show that PM2.5 has an AQI of 150 and all other pollutants report lesser than 150, then the AQI will be based on the PM2.5 levels."

So is PM 2.5 the index to focus on? Right now, that seems to be where the problem is.



On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 8:33 PM Nick Laszlo <laszlonick@...> wrote:
Hi Michael, here’s a link that breaks it all down:  


The professor said that if you’re a cyclist, how much automobile traffic there is on the roads that we frequent on our bikes, with cars only a few feet away from us, spewing out their exhaust in our faces, is much more of a consideration, hence we should all focus on riding on roads with less vehicular traffic, instead of worrying about the visible but far less harmful smoke that we can see outside this past week or so.

Nick


On Nov 19, 2018, at 8:22 PM, Michael Graff <michael.graff@...> wrote:

If the AQI is the wrong number, which number(s) should we pay attention to?

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 8:01 PM Nick Laszlo <laszlonick@...> wrote:
He said it’s irrelevant and the least scientific method of extrapolating the most meaningful particulates.  He considers AQI an entertaining number at best.  The instruments he uses in lab conditions are far better.

On Nov 19, 2018, at 7:35 PM, Michael Graff <michael.graff@...> wrote:

What does the professor think of the air quality index?


On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 7:10 PM Nick Laszlo <laszlonick@...> wrote:
According to the professor of environmental science from Stanford that I just spoke with at my job, the exhaust fumes from cars is far more concerning for our health than the smoke-related particulates that have temporarily contaminated our atmospheric conditions.  He said that if what cars spew out were as visible as the smoke that we’ve been dealing with, then people would wear masks all the time.  I shall therefore be riding tomorrow.  Anyone care to join me?

By the way, I miss you guys!

Nick 🚴‍♂️

On Nov 19, 2018, at 4:05 PM, Vanessa McDonnell <vanessa@...> wrote:

Due to the continuing poor air quality tomorrow’s Tuesday Hills ride is cancelled. Per club rules the ride is now a show and go.

We have a lot to be thankful for but unfortunately our list doesn’t include air quality. 

V.
-----------------------------------------
       __0
      \_<,~      
    (*)/  (*




Join info@ffbc.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.