Wildfire Smoke maybe worse than we thought!

girlfisher

Active Member

As the last bits of snow are fainting from our nearby hills I can only think of another smoke filled summer. This particular paragraph stuck out for me from the following article:​

She explained that since wildfires engulf homes and businesses, they emit fumes that contain metals, plastic and cleaning supplies. Large fires also suck smoke high into the atmosphere, where it lasts longer and combines with oxygen to become more dangerous.

Wildfire Smoke Is More Toxic Than Other Forms of Air Pollution, Study Finds​

Olivia Rosane
Mar. 08, 2021 12:25PM ESTHEALTH + WELLNESS
Wildfire Smoke Is More Toxic Than Other Forms of Air Pollution, Study Finds

A woman walks along The Embarcadero under an orange smoke-filled sky in San Francisco, California on September 9, 2020. Brittany Hosea-Small / AFP / Getty Images

Smoke from wildfires may be more harmful to public health than other sources of particulate matter air pollution, according to a new study.

The research, published in Nature Communications on Friday, found that wildfire smoke could be up to 10 times more harmful than other sources of air pollution, such as from vehicles or industry.
"We know wildfires are going to become more extreme, due to climate change," Rosana Aguilera, study co-author and postdoctoral scholar at the University of California, San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography, told The Guardian. "And it's important that we start to reckon with the health effects of that."
The researchers examined hospital admission records in California between 1999 and 2012. They found that admissions for respiratory problems increased from around 1.3 percent to 10 percent following an uptick in wildfire-specific air pollution. The same amount of air pollution from other sources led to a smaller admissions increase, topping out around 1.3 percent.
This isn't the first study to suggest that wildfire smoke might be more harmful than other forms of air pollution, the authors noted. Animal studies have suggested the same thing.
Mary Prunicki, a Stanford air pollution researcher who was not part of the study, told The Guardian that evidence also suggested that wildfire smoke could exacerbate heart conditions and respiratory ailments.

Report Advertisement
She explained that since wildfires engulf homes and businesses, they emit fumes that contain metals, plastic and cleaning supplies. Large fires also suck smoke high into the atmosphere, where it lasts longer and combines with oxygen to become more dangerous.
"We're pretty aware of the physical costs of wildfire, in terms of firefighting costs and damage to property," Tom Corringham, a study co-author also at Scripps, told NPR. "But there's been a lot of work that has shown that the health impacts due to wildfire smoke are on the same order of magnitude, or possibly even greater, than the direct physical cost."
The study comes as this problem is only getting worse. While particulate matter air pollution has been decreasing across most of the U.S. thanks to stricter environmental regulations, that has not been the case in wildfire-prone areas, the study found. Wildfires will likely increase as long as the climate crisis persists. In 2020, California experienced six of its largest fires on record, the Los Angeles Times reported. Those fires choked the Western U.S. with smoke, in some places for weeks. An NPR analysis found that one in seven West Coast residents experienced at least one day of unhealthy air quality last year.
Unfortunately, wildfire smoke is not as easy to regulate as tailpipe or power-plant emissions. Corringham called for providing low-income households with money for air purifiers. But he also suggested a longer-term solution.
"Anything we can do today to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and stabilize the global climate system will have significant benefits," he told NPR.
 

Chris Scoones

WFF Admin
WFF Supporter
Written by an EcoWatch creative writer from London, versus a local reporter, it's no suprise that it reads more like a personal feelings bit regarding climate change, attempting to connect dots between it and Cali's shitty fire season. Not one mention of forest or development practices? And the 1999-2012 admissions uptick for respiratory problems they mentioned, being between 1.3% and 10%... Cali pop raised 14.5% during the same timeline so really the admissions have lowered on average.

This is a decent example of something to filter vs forwarding.
 
Last edited:

girlfisher

Active Member
Written by an EcoWatch creative writer from London, versus a local reporter, it's no suprise that it reads more like a personal feelings bit regarding climate change, attempting to connect dots between it and Cali's shitty fire season. Not one mention of forest or development practices? And the 1999-2012 admissions uptick for respiratory problems they mentioned, being between 1.3% and 10%... Cali pop raised 14.5% during the same timeline so really the admissions have lowered on average.

This is a decent example of something to filter vs forwarding
Sounds like you are trying to separate Climate Change and its cause-effect with Wildfires. That would be a separate debate that has been launched on more than one occasion on this forum.

My intent was to bring the harmful effects of Wildfire smoke to the forefront. If you doubt the credibility of the author and EcoWatch, I can understand those apprehensions.

A simple google will bring up the harmful effects of wild fire smoke like the following done more locally:
 

girlfisher

Active Member
Yeah but, if you limit the data from the 60's on you can then title the graphic "Wildfires Burning More Area Each Year".
Not sure if your making an implication here or not. The Graph was taken, as is, from US News which is a fairly conservative outlet.
Yes it did, and with the aggressive suppression came in massive increase in fuel loads. Which is why, in part, we are in the situation we are in now.
Also, with the South Canyon and 30-Mile tragedies, the initial attack policies have changed.
My point is that suppression efforts could very well have been the reason for the downward trend in you graph.
 

Steelhead ©

BECU Member
WFF Supporter
I heard forest fire smoke doesn’t respect the northern border. Most of that smoke was coming from Canada fires so your US graphs arent exactly telling the whole story.

I’ve been a WA resident for 30 years and have always remembered smokey august days in eastern Washington I’m not sure if climate change is a factor or not and I’m not a scientist but dark smokey days in western Washington seem to be a newer trend.

DD992347-883E-40B6-A2C7-4812C8824652.jpeg
 

O' Clarkii Stomias

Active Member
Not sure if your making an implication here or not. The Graph was taken, as is, from US News which is a fairly conservative outlet.

My point is that suppression efforts could very well have been the reason for the downward trend in you graph.
If you look at the source of both of the graphs it is the National Interagency Fire Center.
 

dustinchromers

Active Member
Not sure if your making an implication here or not. The Graph was taken, as is, from US News which is a fairly conservative outlet.

My point is that suppression efforts could very well have been the reason for the downward trend in you graph.

One of my college professors who was generally hard left thinking hated that publication. He called it US News and World Distort.

I'm not commenting on the validity of the data or making any jabs ect. It just reminded me of him. We saw the world differently sometimes, the same sometimes, and bantered back and forth in and out of class. I liked him and I think he liked me. We both had immense respect for one another and enjoyed the exchange.
 

longputt

Active Member
Yeah but, if you limit the data from the 60's on you can then title the graphic "Wildfires Burning More Area Each Year".
It's a shame that this is done constantly because we cannot reach a common goal. NOAA and NASA neglected the highest temperatures recorded in the US, from the 1930s, in the database that is used to support global warming. If these data are left in the regression we are actually cooling.

When this was exposed the new buzzword became "climate change" instead of global warming.

However, pragmatic people like Cliff Mass point out that the uncertainty is too high to make accurate predictions...this is why Florida is not underwater, as predicted.

There is no doubt we can do better with our climate but "cherry picking" ruins all credibility and hope for real measurable change.
 

girlfisher

Active Member
It's a shame that this is done constantly because we cannot reach a common goal. NOAA and NASA neglected the highest temperatures recorded in the US, from the 1930s, in the database that is used to support global warming. If these data are left in the regression we are actually cooling.

When this was exposed the new buzzword became "climate change" instead of global warming.

However, pragmatic people like Cliff Mass point out that the uncertainty is too high to make accurate predictions...this is why Florida is not underwater, as predicted.

There is no doubt we can do better with our climate but "cherry picking" ruins all credibility and hope for real measurable change.
A little clarification on Climate Change becoming a buzz word. Climate Change was the term used by President Bush 2's lawyers when they heavily redacted NASA Scientist, James Hansen's diligent work.

Cliff Mass preaches weather and not climate. No cherry-picking, as you put it, is necessary to understand the difference between weather and climate.
 

O' Clarkii Stomias

Active Member
Cliff Mass preaches weather and not climate. No cherry-picking, as you put it, is necessary to understand the difference between weather and climate.
Funny, I here this same phrasing used to discredit meteorologist who question the climate change narrative that uses a weather event to validate climate change. Global warming - climate change, now weather weirding. Adjusting the description to fit the weather, but remember there is a difference between weather and climate change.
We are forecasted to get 3 feet of snow here on the front range of Colorado this weekend, and can guarantee that some will attribute it to climate change. Same thing happened in Colorado in March of 1984, and it was the best powder day this kid ever had. That's coming from a guy that grew up skiing on the wasatch front of Utah.
Snorkel Up my friends!
 

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info

Latest posts

Top