They certainly do need all the help they can get, but have made tremendous strides since the 1960's. I was 7 years old the first time I visited LA and remember my eyes burning. My eyes don't burn and I can see the mountains when I visit LA now.Oilpan4 wrote:I have been to LA multiple times between 2004 and 2006. They need all the clean air help they can get.
5 y.o. my first time (Disneyland and Marineworld). Despite it being before the Clean Air Act had passed and any pollution measures had been implemented I don't remember noticing problems with air quality even though it was summer, probably because I was distracted. I mainly remember how bad the water was compared to where I lived in the East Bay Area - lots of minerals. My dad and I drank soft drinks the whole time we were there, which was fine by me! A couple more visits to Disneyland in the sixties, then not again until '90, and even though the air was a lot better by then I noticed the pollution more. At least by then you could see the hills most of the time.GerryAZ wrote:They certainly do need all the help they can get, but have made tremendous strides since the 1960's. I was 7 years old the first time I visited LA and remember my eyes burning. My eyes don't burn and I can see the mountains when I visit LA now.Oilpan4 wrote:I have been to LA multiple times between 2004 and 2006. They need all the clean air help they can get.
Industrial pollution long predates LA's primarily car-induced 'photochemical' smog, as does the word 'smog' itself, usually claimed to have been invented in 1905 (possibly in 1893 or earlier) as a contraction for (coal) smoke + fog. As far as U.S. toxic smog incidents, this one may be the worst for acute effects not caused by an accident:LeftieBiker wrote:I grew up (and still live) across the Hudson River from an old paper mill town. One square mile, and something like three paper mills. I'd walk over the bridge after school, and the river would be filled with floating globs of yellow foam, while the air smelled of rotten eggs. I've never been to LA, but I can imagine it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Donora_smog1948 Donora smog
As for the most acutely toxic coal smog event, that would probably be this from 1952:The 1948 Donora smog was a historic air inversion that resulted in a wall of smog that killed 20 people and caused respiratory problems for 6,000 people of the 14,000 population of Donora, Pennsylvania, a mill town on the Monongahela River 24 miles (39 km) southeast of Pittsburgh. The event is commemorated by the Donora Smog Museum.
Sixty years later, the incident was described by The New York Times as "one of the worst air pollution disasters in the nation's history". Even 10 years after the incident, mortality rates in Donora were significantly higher than those in other communities nearby. . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_LondonGreat Smog of London
China's endemic smog is a factor in shortening the lives of far more people on an annual basis, and possibly they may have had more acute deaths in some events than the above, but they weren't reported.The Great Smog of London, or Great Smog of 1952, was a severe air-pollution event that affected the British capital of London in early December 1952. A period of cold weather, combined with an anticyclone and windless conditions, collected airborne pollutants—mostly arising from the use of coal—to form a thick layer of smog over the city. It lasted from Friday, 5 December, to Tuesday, 9 December 1952, and then dispersed quickly when the weather changed.
It caused major disruption by reducing visibility and even penetrating indoor areas, far more severe than previous smog events experienced in the past, called "pea-soupers". Government medical reports in the following weeks, however, estimated that up until 8 December, 4,000 people had died as a direct result of the smog and 100,000 more were made ill by the smog's effects on the human respiratory tract. More recent research suggests that the total number of fatalities may have been considerably greater, one paper suggested about 6,000 more died in the following months as a result of the event.
London had suffered since the 13th century from poor air quality, which worsened in the 1600s, but the Great Smog is known to be the worst air-pollution event in the history of the United Kingdom, and the most significant in terms of its effect on environmental research, government regulation, and public awareness of the relationship between air quality and health. It led to several changes in practices and regulations, including the Clean Air Act 1956. . . .
https://www.autoblog.com/2019/06/26/cal ... standards/California, Canada sidestep Trump administration, strike a deal on emissions
Feds increasingly becoming odd man out on fuel economy
. . . Few details were offered under the deal announced Wednesday, but it's clear that Canada would be amenable to stricter regulations that now match those in California and 13 other states, setting up a conflict with the Trump administration's plans to relax the standards. Canada is in the midst of reviewing its requirements.
Two agencies in the Trump administration are reviewing Obama-era standards and have proposed freezing fuel economy and emissions requirements at 2021 levels. California and the other states likely would reject such a move and go with stronger standards. The administration has threatened to challenge California's legal right to set its own requirements, granted in 1970 as a way to combat oppressive smog.
Although members of both parties in Congress and the auto industry have urged negotiations to get one requirement nationwide, no talks are scheduled.
"It's not looking very good at the moment," Mary Nichols, chairwoman of California's Air Resources Board, said on a conference call Wednesday.
Two Trump administration agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, seem to have rejected the idea of negotiating, Nichols said. "We remain hopeful as long as there's any opportunity to avert what will otherwise be years of litigation and some degree of confusion," Nichols said. . . .
Canadian Environment Minister Catherine McKenna stopped short of saying the country would join California with stricter standards, but said the country is "very interested in options that deliver cleaner cars by making cuts to carbon pollution." Fuel economy and pollution standards often vary between countries, but the U.S. and Canada have matched in recent years. . . .
Under the deal between California and Canada, the governments will work together on regulations to cut greenhouse gas emissions from light-duty vehicles and to accelerate use of zero-emission vehicles such as electric cars. They'll also share information on low-carbon fuel requirements, which Canada is developing.
Other states may sign on to California's stricter standards, Gov. Gavin Newsom said without giving details. . . .