Sign in to follow this  
mikewof

A quick Pollution poll for Mike

Opinion poll on pollution  

82 members have voted

  1. 1. Is air quality in USA / Canada better or worse than 50 years ago?

    • Better
      57
    • Worse
      11
    • No opinion / No guess
      14
  2. 4. Is air quality in Europe better or worse than 50 years ago?

    • Better
      33
    • Worse
      17
    • No opinion / No guess
      32
  3. 5. Is air quality in Asia better or worse than 50 years ago?

    • Better
      5
    • Worse
      65
    • No opinion / No guess
      12
  4. 6. Is WATER quality generally better or worse than 50 years ago?

    • Better
      49
    • Worse
      22
    • No opinion / No guess
      11
  5. 7. My region ...

    • USA / Canada
      61
    • Europe
      5
    • Asia
      4
    • Somewhere else
      12


Recommended Posts

Please vote, apologies for the PITA. It really will help me though. Thanks for your feedback, I have wanted to do this for a while, but kept putting it off. A PA thread reminded me.

This has nothing to do with politics, or global warming, or anything confrontational. I just hope to gauge perceptions on pollution for a research paper.

I'm mostly interested in your perceptions on these questions, so please answer with your gut instinct.

Apologies on the screwed up numbering, that was automatic, I deleted some questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far nobody?

Y'know how they put $1 bill into your survey envelope, to make it worth your time? I'm going to do that because I really do need your help with this. I'm not doing sociology research, I'm doing a paper on measurable air pollution vs. perception of air pollution including how it actually changes the color of the sky a little bit.

Why Sailing Anarchy, because it's apparently a very high probability that you are more likely to look at the sky in your daily activities than anyone else other than maybe airplane pilots and climatologists.

So please ... pretty please with sugar on top, please submit to my survey. And here's my incentive ...

If we can get this 20 submissions, I will promise not to post or reply to anything in GA, PA or SA for a weeks. I will restrict 100% of my postings to Kiteboarding Anarchy for one week. Imagine that! A one week vacation from my annoying self! Seven luxurious days of not having to give a rat's ass about my bullshit views on the world.

And if we can get 40 submissions, I will increase that two weeks of Mike-Free Anarchy.

And if we can get 60 submissions, I will do a full month of Mike-Free Anarchy.

So please, do an old pal a solid, huh? I really do need this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there was no option for Australia, I answered all the questions the same - no guess.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Tunnel Rat said:

What exactly do you mean by water quality - tap water? River water? Sea water?

Good catch ... thank you. It should be untreated water overall, including freshwater and saltwater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Since there was no option for Australia, I answered all the questions the same - no guess.

FKT

Apologies, I don't have the brain-power for the Southern Hemisphere, it means flipping my dataset by 6 months since your Autumn Equinox is reversed from our's. I'm happy to supply you with the data when it's ready, if you don't mind doing the conversion for the other half of the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UmMMmmmmMM

You can't get the numbering correct or responsible questions for a "research" question? 

pass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please define water quality as also indicated above by TR.  You will find this to be quite variable depending on location and season.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ned said:

Please define water quality as also indicated above by TR.  You will find this to be quite variable depending on location and season.  

Water is tougher than air of course, we can get a pretty accurate guess of how dirty the air looks, it's often hard to do that with untreated water. Sometimes muddy water is "cleanear" than crystal clear mine runoff that is heavy with dissolved arsenic or lead. I used to swim in visibly clean Hudson River water that were contaminated by fecal coliform from live-aboards at the Chelsea Piers. That stuff gave me infections that led to iridescent green loogies.

That question is mostly in there for control. I don't do work on water pollution, I'm an air guy. So it's just a question of overall perception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 years ago we had just ended Steam locomotives in the UK (3rd August 1968) many more houses and factories still used coal. Car and lorry emmissions were unregulated cars were pouring lead into the atmosphere, so the air quality is now vastly better.

50 years ago sewerage was still getting either directly dumped into rivers and sea or only after light treatment, getting dumped, we now have the problem the water is so clean the water weed growth is snagging keels and  rudders everywhere..

 50 years ago my house still depended on a well 30 ft from the cess pit, today we have mains water..

Asia has had the economic growth but not the enviromental controls..

As for USA water ... ask the city of Flint...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Q said:

 

As for USA water ... ask the city of Flint...

 

What would the answer be about Flints tap water today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a sciency guy, or a statistician, but what kind of a sample is 20 to 60 replies from a relatively similar user group?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in the Los Angeles region...  Even though it is noted that the water and air are better, it is still the worse in the country...  next to Bakersfield..

So, where is all the money we pay in carbon tax, CARB fees, etc... to improve this etc going? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I answered all of the questions because in the last 30 years I have lived in the US, Asia and Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, bmiller said:

I'm not a sciency guy, or a statistician, but what kind of a sample is 20 to 60 replies from a relatively similar user group?

It would be useless for sociology or statistics, but if it reinforces visual Lidar measurements of particulates, it's perfect. 

Shit, it's already at 33, I'm going to have to miss my NHL picks on my week off. Shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mikewof said:

So far nobody?

Y'know how they put $1 bill into your survey envelope, to make it worth your time? I'm going to do that because I really do need your help with this. I'm not doing sociology research, I'm doing a paper on measurable air pollution vs. perception of air pollution including how it actually changes the color of the sky a little bit.

Why Sailing Anarchy, because it's apparently a very high probability that you are more likely to look at the sky in your daily activities than anyone else other than maybe airplane pilots and climatologists.

So please ... pretty please with sugar on top, please submit to my survey. And here's my incentive ...

If we can get this 20 submissions, I will promise not to post or reply to anything in GA, PA or SA for a weeks. I will restrict 100% of my postings to Kiteboarding Anarchy for one week. Imagine that! A one week vacation from my annoying self! Seven luxurious days of not having to give a rat's ass about my bullshit views on the world.

And if we can get 40 submissions, I will increase that two weeks of Mike-Free Anarchy.

And if we can get 60 submissions, I will do a full month of Mike-Free Anarchy.

So please, do an old pal a solid, huh? I really do need this.

 

How the hell can peoples opinions be reliable data????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

I answered all of the questions because in the last 30 years I have lived in the US, Asia and Europe.

I can't parse your reply out of all of them. Any major differences between Asia, Europe and North America?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, billy backstay said:

 

How the hell can peoples opinions be reliable data????

The data is from Lidar and impaction screens. If the opinions support or disagree with the Lidar/impaction data, then it helps. I'll explain it before I take my week or two off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mikewof said:

I can't parse your reply out of all of them. Any major differences between Asia, Europe and North America?

I would rate them from bad to good, Asia, US, Europe.

When I grew up on Lake Erie in the '60s between a large GE factory and a large paper mill, the lake water was so foul that we would sometimes get blotches of oil on our bodies after swimming.  Massive fish kills were common.  This was when the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, OH caught fire.  I always have said if I get some rare cancer it will be from Lake Erie back in the day. Then years later the Zebra mussels arrived and the last few years when I have gone home to visit, Lake Erie water looks like the Caribbean.

Erie.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 years ago is a long time. I was 10. I remember seeing pictures of LA back then and I think it's no worse now, maybe better. But on a continental basis, I have no idea and wonder why opinion would even matter. In South Texas things seem mostly the same. I hear China is an ecological train wreck, but no first hand knowledge of that either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bmiller said:

I'm not a sciency guy, or a statistician, but what kind of a sample is 20 to 60 replies from a relatively similar user group?

small so different stats techniques...compromised! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Done, but one of the answers/choices should've been "Same/no change" giving us 4 choices.

"Same/no change" is not the same as No opinion/no guess...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Done. Perceptions only. live in USA, travel in Europe quite a bit. Never been to Asia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cripes. It's up past 40 votes. I need to shut this poll down. I can't risk it getting any higher and then I would have to spend three weeks away. Two weeks is going to be hard enough, I'm addicted to this site.

But a deal is a deal, and this many responses from a group composed mostly of sailors is a functional poll. So thank you and enjoy your Mike-Free Anarchy starting in about an hour up until May 13.

 

Here's the background of the poll ... the responses here reasonably represent actual measurements that we've taken over the last 50 years. According to the measurements, Air quality over North America and Europe has generally improved in most areas of criteria pollutants like particulate matter, CO, Pb, VOCs, SOx, and often, but not always for O3 and NOx. And yes too, the measurements indicate that air pollution over lots of areas in Asia, often with NOx and particulates.

I'm going to link to this poll in my paper (it's just for a little industry newsletter thing, no big deal).

When we actually wonder if air quality is better or worse, it seems to be better. I remember Denver's infamous Brown Cloud of airborne ozone and soot, it was so thick that I couldn't see the mountains. My dad actually implored me to keep my mouth closed and breath through my nose to filter the air a little better. A little older than 50 years, but the smog in Donora, PA was once so bad that it killed 20 people. The air was bad in the old days. It seems better to me now, at least visibly cleaner. The results of this poll support that, the poll agrees with the official literature on the subject ... North American and European air has grown cleaner and better. The control question about the water is where it's supposed to be, we have measurements of freshwater quality that show it has improved and measurements of ocean water that shows increased pollutant loads. So our perceptions about air seem to be well supported.

But if the air is cleaner in North America and Europe, why are instances of lung disease and cardiovascular disease due to inhaled contaminants, increasing? Why are more people getting sick from cleaner air? How can one set of measurements suggest that the air is cleaner and the other suggest that the air is dirtier?

The poll says one thing, that we agree that the air LOOKS cleaner. It undoubtedly looks cleaner. So a bunch of Sailing Anarchist have a pretty decent ability to use their vision to determine air quality to the limit of our eyeballs. But dirty air can look clean, so surely scientists use a better method to obtain air quality measurements for particulates, right? It blew my mind when I found out, but no, not really. The ways we tend to most commonly measure the quality of the air with regard to particulates, is about the same way we measure it with our Sailing Anarchist eyeballs. Down to about a few micrometers or so, these visual techniques work very well ... we can measure haze, light obstruction, we can use impaction screens to measure particles down to about a micron or so. And  we have really terrific microscopes that can measure and image down to the molecular level. But we tend not to use those for air pollution, we use those for making computers and advanced materials. It's not easy to measure particulates that are near the wavelength of light in thousands of cubic feet of air rushing by, or in a chunk of sky.

I did this little article for a trade publication, because for the last 50-some years, the people in my industry have been cleaning air streams with methods that remove those large particles that make people cough and wheeze. We use cyclonic processors to remove the large particles that make the air look yucky. We use baghouses and electrostatic precipitators to remove the large particles that would otherwise impinge air quality. But what about the small particles? We don't really have an affordable way to remove those. So we tend to leave them in the pollutant streams. I just did a little kinematic analysis for the air pollutant streams that are mostly small particles (i.e. the visibly clear air), versus the ones that have a mix of small and large particles (i.e. the visibly dirty air).

So thank you everyone. I have no idea how I'm going to get through this two weeks, but it was worth it to get that data. Please don't talk about my mamma when I'm gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

I would rate them from bad to good, Asia, US, Europe.

When I grew up on Lake Erie in the '60s between a large GE factory and a large paper mill, the lake water was so foul that we would sometimes get blotches of oil on our bodies after swimming.  Massive fish kills were common.  This was when the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, OH caught fire.  I always have said if I get some rare cancer it will be from Lake Erie back in the day. Then years later the Zebra mussels arrived and the last few years when I have gone home to visit, Lake Erie water looks like the Caribbean.

Erie.jpg

Go the zebra muscle... ;)  Lake Michigan in my case.  Those bastards caused a ton more $$ damage than it may have been worth.  I haven't been back on the H20 out there in ages.  I know they douched the lake, but was the environmental and monetary cost worth it??  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, 2 weeks to go through 7 5 questions from 40 people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2019 at 10:16 AM, mikewof said:

SNIP

And if we can get 40 submissions, I will increase that two weeks of Mike-Free Anarchy.

And if we can get 60 submissions, I will do a full month of Mike-Free Anarchy.

So please, do an old pal a solid, huh? I really do need this.

Come on guys, we are at 57 now.  Can't someone dust off some sock puppets and get this over 60..... imagine the peace and tranquility.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tunnel Rat said:

Come on guys, we are at 57 now.  Can't someone dust off some sock puppets and get this over 60..... imagine the peace and tranquility.

well its hit 60, lets see if its quiet for a month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@mikewof

Mike  - with respect to your water question, it wasn't clear what you were asking - Sea water generally, Drinking water supply or River water? All of which can be highly variable.

If you meant Drinking water - then generally an improvement - otherwise generally plastic and chemical pollution is up in most water courses. Couple of exceptions - but they would be the exception rather than the rule.

Good Luck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Boink said:

@mikewof

Mike  - with respect to your water question, it wasn't clear what you were asking - Sea water generally, Drinking water supply or River water? All of which can be highly variable.

If you meant Drinking water - then generally an improvement - otherwise generally plastic and chemical pollution is up in most water courses. Couple of exceptions - but they would be the exception rather than the rule.

Good Luck

See reply No 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again everyone, I actually did include a reference to this poll in my paper. Sixty people carries some actual statistical weight when they're people who tend to spend a lot of time looking at the sky, as sailors, meteorologists and poor bare knuckle boxers tend to do.

I had to spend about a month finally finishing my research in this and I submitted it for review today. I would like to celebrate, but I passed that point of the night where the tequila finds its way out of my head before my alarm-clock rings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we may need to do a group intervention into poor Mikes alcohol consumption.  We may have passed the point of Cliff Claven's (of Cheers) brain cells and buffalo analogy, and now hurting some of the good ones.

Next challenge is 1 month sober.  We can do another poll rating the quality, enthusiasm, exuberance and factual accuracy of Wof's postings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Windward said:

I think we may need to do a group intervention into poor Mikes alcohol consumption.  We may have passed the point of Cliff Claven's (of Cheers) brain cells and buffalo analogy, and now hurting some of the good ones.

Next challenge is 1 month sober.  We can do another poll rating the quality, enthusiasm, exuberance and factual accuracy of Wof's postings?

 

Hand-to-heart Windward, all this work I've been under, I've been too busy to drink much. It seems that truly competent alcoholism is best left to professionals who can properly devote the time and effort to do it correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mikewof said:

Thanks again everyone, I actually did include a reference to this poll in my paper. Sixty people carries some actual statistical weight when they're people who tend to spend a lot of time looking at the sky, as sailors, meteorologists and poor bare knuckle boxers tend to do.

I had to spend about a month finally finishing my research in this and I submitted it for review today. I would like to celebrate, but I passed that point of the night where the tequila finds its way out of my head before my alarm-clock rings.

Post it when appropriate. I would like to read it. Seriously, not baiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this