Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

The air quality in Big Bear suddenly reached hazardous levels this week. What happened?

News Feed
Saturday, September 14, 2024

Plumes of smoke from Southern California’s fires blew across Big Bear on Sept. 11, causing local air quality meters to return off-the-chart readings for particulate pollution.Officials report air quality on a color-coded scale, in which green indicates “good” and maroon denotes “hazardous” conditions. An air quality index above 150 is considered unhealthy for everyone. Above 300 is considered hazardous.On Wednesday, Big Bear’s AQI for fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, reached a breathtaking daily average of 593.The reading was the third-highest AQI measured in Southern California since at least 1999, according to data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.The first- and second-worst air quality days were recorded in Ventura County during the 2017 Thomas fire, the state’s largest wildfire on record. On Dec. 6 and 8, the Ojai monitoring station recorded daily average AQIs of 961 and 906, respectively.Weeks of sweltering heat primed Southern California’s hills and mountains to burn.Between Sept. 5 and 9, three wildfires erupted: The Line fire in San Bernardino County, the Bridge fires in San Bernardino and Los Angeles counties and the Airport fire in Orange County.The Line fire began on Sept. 5 in Highland and soon spread through the mountains toward Big Bear. A 34-year-old Norco man has been arrested on suspicion of igniting the blaze.As of Friday, more than 38,000 acres of the San Bernardino Mountains had been consumed by the flames. While the fire hasn’t reached the resort areas, the ash particles and haze enveloped the skies of the mountain communities.High winds carried plumes of smoke throughout Big Bear Valley, closing ski resorts and most local businesses. Much of the area is still under an evacuation warning, with parts of the town ordered to leave.“I think every agency is doing everything in their power to control this fire so many communities don’t get destroyed,” said Big Bear Lake City Manager Erik Sund. Particulate pollution, including from wildfire smoke, is dangerous to almost everyone: pregnant women, young children, older people and adults with underlying conditions. Fine particulate matter can be the more damaging to people’s health than other pollutants, such as ozone. The tiny particles, roughly one-thirtieth the width of a human hair, can easily penetrate the lining of the lungs and infiltrate the blood stream. A 2023 study linked long-term PM2.5 exposure to an increased risk of dementia.“I worry about the differential impact of wildfire smoke. Even if the affluent get exposed to the same smoke as low-income communities, the low-income communities have less ability to protect themselves,” said Dr. John Balmes, a professor of medicine at UC San Francisco and a member of the California Air Resources Board. “Where the plume of smoke is going is where the biggest effect will be.”In August, Balmes and Jason G. Su, an environmental health sciences researcher at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health, published a paper that found communities of color are exposed to higher levels of air pollution than other communities.During wildfire season, experts recommend Californians keep tabs on local air quality monitoring reports, available from the U.S. EPA’s AirNow.gov or services such as PurpleAir.“If the least you can do is stay inside and close all your windows and doors, that will substantially reduce your exposure,” said Suzanne Paulson, a professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences at UCLA. “If you’re trying to exercise, try to get out of that dark orange, red and that sort of horrifying dark purple-brown color that’s used for the really high AQIs.”

Smoke from the Line fire catapulted the air quality index in the California mountain town to several times the maximum healthy level.

Plumes of smoke from Southern California’s fires blew across Big Bear on Sept. 11, causing local air quality meters to return off-the-chart readings for particulate pollution.

Officials report air quality on a color-coded scale, in which green indicates “good” and maroon denotes “hazardous” conditions. An air quality index above 150 is considered unhealthy for everyone. Above 300 is considered hazardous.

On Wednesday, Big Bear’s AQI for fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, reached a breathtaking daily average of 593.

The reading was the third-highest AQI measured in Southern California since at least 1999, according to data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The first- and second-worst air quality days were recorded in Ventura County during the 2017 Thomas fire, the state’s largest wildfire on record. On Dec. 6 and 8, the Ojai monitoring station recorded daily average AQIs of 961 and 906, respectively.

Weeks of sweltering heat primed Southern California’s hills and mountains to burn.

Between Sept. 5 and 9, three wildfires erupted: The Line fire in San Bernardino County, the Bridge fires in San Bernardino and Los Angeles counties and the Airport fire in Orange County.

The Line fire began on Sept. 5 in Highland and soon spread through the mountains toward Big Bear. A 34-year-old Norco man has been arrested on suspicion of igniting the blaze.

As of Friday, more than 38,000 acres of the San Bernardino Mountains had been consumed by the flames. While the fire hasn’t reached the resort areas, the ash particles and haze enveloped the skies of the mountain communities.

High winds carried plumes of smoke throughout Big Bear Valley, closing ski resorts and most local businesses. Much of the area is still under an evacuation warning, with parts of the town ordered to leave.

“I think every agency is doing everything in their power to control this fire so many communities don’t get destroyed,” said Big Bear Lake City Manager Erik Sund.

Particulate pollution, including from wildfire smoke, is dangerous to almost everyone: pregnant women, young children, older people and adults with underlying conditions.

Fine particulate matter can be the more damaging to people’s health than other pollutants, such as ozone. The tiny particles, roughly one-thirtieth the width of a human hair, can easily penetrate the lining of the lungs and infiltrate the blood stream. A 2023 study linked long-term PM2.5 exposure to an increased risk of dementia.

“I worry about the differential impact of wildfire smoke. Even if the affluent get exposed to the same smoke as low-income communities, the low-income communities have less ability to protect themselves,” said Dr. John Balmes, a professor of medicine at UC San Francisco and a member of the California Air Resources Board. “Where the plume of smoke is going is where the biggest effect will be.”

In August, Balmes and Jason G. Su, an environmental health sciences researcher at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health, published a paper that found communities of color are exposed to higher levels of air pollution than other communities.

During wildfire season, experts recommend Californians keep tabs on local air quality monitoring reports, available from the U.S. EPA’s AirNow.gov or services such as PurpleAir.

“If the least you can do is stay inside and close all your windows and doors, that will substantially reduce your exposure,” said Suzanne Paulson, a professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences at UCLA. “If you’re trying to exercise, try to get out of that dark orange, red and that sort of horrifying dark purple-brown color that’s used for the really high AQIs.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

E.P.A. Proposes Limits on Nitrogen Oxides

Nitrogen oxides, a group of gases from the burning of fossil fuels, is linked to a range of health effects.

A rule proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday could better protect communities against pollution from natural gas plants.For the first time in almost two decades, the rule would update emission limits of nitrogen oxides, a group of gases that are harmful air pollutants produced from burning fossil fuels. The emissions can contribute to asthma and respiratory infections, especially in children, older people and those who are immunocompromised.“These stronger standards are necessary to better protect nearby communities’ health, and the power sector has already shown that the additional pollution controls can affordably and reliably do the job,” said Joseph Goffman, the E.P.A.’s assistant administrator for air and radiation, in a statement.The proposal was created to limit nitrogen oxide emissions from all new turbines built at power plants and industrial facilities, along with any existing turbines that are modified or reconstructed after the proposal takes effect.The stricter standards could also lead to reductions in other types of pollution, like particulate matter and ozone, by lowering the amount available to react with other volatile organic compounds.“Ultimately, the healthiest option for families across the nation is for power plants to stop burning fossil fuels altogether and for utilities to invest in clean and reliable renewable energy,” said Holly Bender, the Sierra Club’s chief energy officer, in a statement.Despite advancements in pollution control technology and an increased understanding of how nitrogen oxide harms human health, limits on the amount of nitrogen oxide that can be released have not been updated since 2006.While the Clean Air Act requires the E.P.A. to review protections against air pollution from power plants every eight years, the nitrogen oxide limits lagged for 18 years. The new standard is the result of a 2022 lawsuit brought by the Environmental Defense Fund and the Sierra Club that requires the E.P.A. to take a final action on new limits by November 2025, following a public comment period.The fate of the proposed standard is uncertain after January, when the Trump administration takes over.“It should not go without noting that the incoming Trump administration has repeatedly vowed to slash rules and regulations issued by agencies across the government,” said Julie McNamara, deputy policy director for the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a statement.The E.P.A. estimates the proposed standard would reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by more than 2,600 tons by 2032, producing roughly $45 million in public health benefits each year.

Eating less sugar would be great for the planet as well as our health

"Globally, sugar intake has quadrupled over the last 60 years . . ."

Sugar addiction is on the rise. Globally, sugar intake has quadrupled over the last 60 years, and it now makes up around 8% of all our calories. This sounds like sugar's keeping us fed, but added sugars are actually empty calories – they are bereft of any nutrients like vitamins or fibers. The result is massive health costs, with sugars linked to obesity around the world. Some estimates suggest that half the global population could be obese by 2035. A limited 20% reduction in sugar is estimated to save US$10.3 billion (£8.1 billion) of health costs in the US alone. Yet, sugar's impacts go far beyond just health and money. There are also many environmental problems from growing the sugar, like habitat and biodiversity loss and water pollution from fertilizers and mills. But overall, sugar hasn't received a lot of attention from the scientific community despite being the largest cultivated crop by mass on the planet. In a recent article, we evaluated sugar's environmental impacts and explored avenues for reducing sugar in the diet to recommended levels either through reducing production or using the saved sugar in environmentally beneficial ways. By phasing out sugar, we could spare land that could be rewilded and stock up on carbon. This is especially important in biodiverse tropical regions where sugar production is concentrated such as Brazil and India. But a different, more politically palatable option might be redirecting sugar away from diets to other environmentally-beneficial uses such as bioplastics or biofuels. Our study shows that the biggest opportunity is using sugar to feed microbes that make protein. Using saved sugar for this microbial protein could produce enough plant-based, protein-rich food products to regularly feed 521 million people. And if this replaced animal protein it could also have huge emission and water benefits. We estimate that if this protein replaced chicken, it could reduce emissions by almost 250 million tons, and we'd see even bigger savings for replacing beef (for reference, the UK's national fossil fuel emissions are around 300 million tons). Given sugar has a far lower climate impact than meat, this makes a lot of sense. Another alternative is to use the redirected sugar to produce bioplastics, which would replace around 20% of the total market for polyethelyne, one of the most common forms of plastic and used to produce anything from packaging to pipes. Or to produce biofuels, producing around 198 million barrels of ethanol for transportation. Brazil already produces around 85% of the world's ethanol and they produce it from sugar, but instead of having to grow more sugar for ethanol we could redirect the sugar from diets instead. This estimation is based on a world where we reduce dietary sugar to the maximum in dietary recommendations (5% of daily calories). The benefits would be even larger if we reduced sugar consumption even further. Supply chain challenges This sounds like a big win-win: cut sugar to reduce obesity and help the environment. But these changes present a huge challenge in a sugar supply chain spanning more than 100 countries and the millions of people that depend on sugar's income. National policies like sugar taxes are vital, but having international coordination is also important in such a sprawling supply chain. Sustainable agriculture is being discussed at the UN's climate summit, Cop29, in Azerbaijan this week. Sustainable sugar production should factor into these global talks given the many environmental problems and opportunities from changing the way we grow and consume sugar. We also suggest that groups of countries could come together in sugar transition partnerships between producers and consumers that encourage a diversion of sugar away from peoples' diets to more beneficial uses. This could be coordinated by the World Health Organization which has called for a reduction in sugar consumption. Some of the money to fund these efforts could even come from part of the health savings in national budgets. We can't hope to transition the way we produce and eat sugar overnight. But by exploring other uses of sugar, we can highlight what environmental benefits we are missing out on and help policymakers map a resource-efficient path forward to the industry while improving public health.   Don't have time to read about climate change as much as you'd like? Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation's environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who've subscribed so far. Paul Behrens, British Academy Global Professor, Future of Food, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford and Alon Shepon, Principal Investigator, Department of Environmental Studies, Tel Aviv University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

CDC warns cruise passengers of hot tub disease outbreak

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has alerted cruise-goers of the dangers of hot tub usage on ships. The post CDC warns cruise passengers of hot tub disease outbreak appeared first on SA People.

CDC issues warning of hot tub-caused Legionnaires’ Disease The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently released a health warning following an outbreak of Legionnaires’ Disease among passengers who had been on cruises.  As reported by Travel News, the CDC found that a number of cases of Legionnaires’ Disease were connected by an unnamed cruise ship, between November 2022 and April 2024 of this year. Private outdoor hot tubs on the balconies of two cruise ships were pinpointed as the source of the bacteria for multiple infections between the period, as stated in a report last month from the CDC. “Epidemiologic, environmental and laboratory evidence suggests that private balcony hot tubs were the likely source of exposure in two outbreaks of Legionnaires’ disease among cruise ship passengers,” the CDC said in the report.   “These devices are subject to less stringent operating requirements than public hot tubs, and operating protocols were insufficient to prevent Legionella growth.” they added. What is Legionnaires’ Disease? According to Cleveland Clinic: “Legionnaires’ disease is a serious type of pneumonia you get when Legionella bacteria infect your lungs. Symptoms include high fever, cough, diarrhea and confusion. You can get Legionnaires’ disease from water or cooling systems in large buildings, like hospitals or hotels.” Legionella is found naturally in lakes, streams and soil, but it can also contaminate drinking water and air systems, especially in large buildings. You can breathe small droplets of water directly into your lungs, or water in your mouth can get into your lungs accidentally You also have an increased risk of getting Legionnaires’ disease if you: Are older than 50. Smoke or used to smoke cigarettes. Have a weakened immune system. Certain medical conditions (like HIV, diabetes, cancer and kidney or liver disease) and medications can compromise your immune system. Have a long-term respiratory illness, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or emphysema. Live in a long-term care facility. Have stayed in a hospital recently. Have had surgery requiring anesthesia recently. Have received an organ transplant recently. The post CDC warns cruise passengers of hot tub disease outbreak appeared first on SA People.

TCEQ to hold public permit renewal meeting for Houston concrete plant with past compliance issues

The Torres Brothers Ready Mix plant has “a history of violations,” according to the Harris County Attorney’s Office. Air Alliance Houston is urging community members to attend the Monday night meeting.

Katie Watkins/Houston Public MediaMany concrete batch plant facilities have permits to operate 24 hours a day. Residents will often complain of the bright lights and noise at night.The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality will hear public comments on the permit renewal of a concrete plant with a history of water and air pollution issues. "They have a history of noncompliance," said Crystal Ngo, environmental justice outreach coordinator with Air Alliance Houston. Over the course of three visits from 2021 through 2024, Harris County Pollution Control Services documented "significant violations" of the state's clean air and water laws at the Torres Brothers Ready Mix plant in South Houston. The Harris County Attorney's Office argued the plant is "unable to comply" with the conditions of its permit and state laws. The county is involved in ongoing litigation with the company and seeks more than $1 million in relief. Torres Brothers did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The plant is one of five in the area. TCEQ doesn't consider the cumulative impact of separate facilities in its permitting process. Instead, it examines the compliance of individual sites. Ngo pointed to public health concerns related to air, water, noise and particulate matter pollution, as well as noise and light nuisances. "With so many concrete batch planets within environmental justice communities, predominantly communities of color, this higher exposure is just disproportionate to more affluent neighborhoods in Houston," Ngo said. The meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m. Monday, Nov. 18, at the Hiram Clarke Multi-Service Center.

Standing Desks Are Better for Your Health—but Still Not Enough

Two recent studies offer some of the most nuanced evidence yet about the potential benefits and risks of working on your feet.

Without question, inactivity is bad for us. Prolonged sitting is consistently linked to higher risks of cardiovascular disease and death. The obvious response to this frightful fate is to not sit—move. Even a few moments of exercise can have benefits, studies suggest. But in our modern times, sitting is hard to avoid, especially at the office. This has led to a range of strategies to get ourselves up, including the rise of standing desks. If you have to be tethered to a desk, at least you can do it while on your feet, the thinking goes.However, studies on whether standing desks are beneficial have been sparse and sometimes inconclusive. Furthermore, prolonged standing can have its own risks, and data on work-related sitting has also been mixed. While the final verdict on standing desks is still unclear, two studies out this year offer some of the most nuanced evidence yet about the potential benefits and risks of working on your feet.Take a SeatScience NewsletterYour weekly roundup of the best stories on health care, the climate crisis, new scientific discoveries, and more. Delivered on Wednesdays.For years, studies have pointed to standing desks improving markers for cardiovascular and metabolic health, such as lipid levels, insulin resistance, and arterial flow-mediated dilation (the ability of arteries to widen in response to increased blood flow). But it's unclear how significant those improvements are to averting bad health outcomes, such as heart attacks. One 2018 analysis suggested the benefits might be minor.And there are fair reasons to be skeptical about standing desks. For one, standing—like sitting—is not moving. If a lack of movement and exercise is the root problem, standing still wouldn't be a solution.Yet, while sitting and standing can arguably be combined into the single category of “stationary,” some researchers have argued that not all sitting is the same. In a 2018 position paper published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, two health experts argued that the link between poor health and sitting could come down to the specific populations being examined and “the special contribution” of “sitting time at home, for example, the ‘couch potato effect.’”The two researchers—emeritus professors David Rempel, formerly at the University of California, San Francisco, and Niklas Krause, formerly of UCLA—pointed to several studies looking specifically at occupational sitting time and poor health outcomes, which have arrived at mixed results. For instance, a 2013 analysis did not find a link between sitting at work and cardiovascular disease. Though the study did suggest a link to mortality, the link was only among women. There was also a 2015 study on about 36,500 workers in Japan who were followed for an average of 10 years. That study found that there was no link between mortality and sitting time among salaried workers, professionals, and people who worked at home businesses. However, there was a link between mortality and sitting among people who worked in farming, forestry, and fishing industries.Still, despite some murkiness in the specifics, more recent studies continue to turn up a link between total prolonged sitting—wherever that sitting occurs—and poor health outcomes, particularly cardiovascular disease. This has kept up interest in standing desks in offices, where people don't always have the luxury of frequent movement breaks. And this, in turn, has kept researchers on their toes to try to answer whether there is any benefit to standing desks.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.