"Sequoia National Park: Worst air pollution"
Author - Associated Press
The San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/28/MNC61OOM6M.DTL
Picture: This is the view from the top of the national park. As seen, the smog in the background blocks much of what is visible on a clear day, and is comparable to smog levels in cities such as Los Angeles.
Opinion: This article really surprised me. How smog in a national park can be similar to that of a large city blew my mind. It was extremely similar to what we were talking about in class about the Donora smog incident in 1948, the pressure system trapping the pollutants. While reading the article, I was wondering whether or not the national park can end up in the same situation. If I were a prospective park ranger, I would not work at this national park because the smog levels are extremely high and unsafe, and I could possibly have respiratory or other health problems. Putting the highway in the San Joaquin Valley was not the smartest idea, and if I were planning the highway I would of built it around the valley. With all the pollution from cars becoming trapped in the valley, acid rain and other air problems could happen in the valley area. However, I also realize that the farming in the area is a great source of income and jobs, and that without the farms people would become jobless. The people in charge of the area have a tough decision, as they either face a dying national park or jobless people. If I were in charge of the situation, I would try and decrease pollution from the farms, and try to divert the traffic some other route where the exhaust is not trapped. Mass transportation such as trains would be a good solution as the workers can still go the farms and not as much exhaust is released.
Questions:
1) If you were in charge of the situation, would you save the park or the economy? Why? Consider the pros and cons of each decision.
2) Do you think that this situation is similar to that of the Donora incident we learned about in class? Will it have a similar outcome?
3) If you were a prospective park ranger, would taking the job as a ranger in the Sequoia National Park be worth the health problems? Why?
Opinion:
ReplyDeleteOut air pollution is having a great effect to the Sequoia Nation Park. It surprised me that “the park violated the National Ambient Air Quality at least 87 times.” It is causing troubles to the Sequoia Redwoods, peoples’ health, Jeffrey and Ponderosa pines, and more. This is all coming from the San Joaquin Valley. It is sending air pollution into the air and causing harmful smog. It is a shame that our national parks are also being damaged by pollution. I am sure Teddy Roosevelt is turning in his grave from this. I have visited several national parks, but they all seemed clean and pure. If at all possible, it would be nice to limit our pollution to save both people and the organisms living in the park. It is difficult to stop using fossil fuels, but one day we will be forced to do so. Wether it is from out amount of pollution or the fact that we have run out is still unknown.
Questions:
If you were in charge of the situation, would you save the park or the economy? Why? Consider the pros and cons of each decision.
I would save the economy because without a good economy, we would not even be able to sustain the Nation Park. Also, the economy going down would effect a lot more lives then the park going down. I know the if the park would become too polluted a lot of organisms would become extinct and therefore cause major effects to the ecosystem, but we have to put humans first. If at all possible, it would be nice to save the park and the economy, but, to me, when the pros and cons are weighed the economy wins out.
Opinion/Reflection:
ReplyDeleteThis article surprised me a lot. I mean national parks are supposed to be some of the cleanest on earth. I have been to a couple national parks such as Yellowstone, Yosemite and Rocky Mountain. All of them were clean and fine and didn’t have any pollution really. All the opposite of the sequoia National Park which, it says in the article, broke the national Ambient Air quality 87 times. Which is alarming is that this smog is harmful to many people and rangers, not just the trees, which are being hurt the worst. Event though there is already enough pollution people still aren’t trying to really do anything about as far as I know.
Answer to question 2.
I think that this situation is similar to the Donora incident in many ways. For example the farms in San Joaquin valley and the car exhaust are giving off lots of pollution and increasing ozone levels. In Donora they had zinc factories, which melted zinc and gave off lots of pollution to. I think that eventually the park could be covered in smog like Donora and people; animals and rangers could die like they did in Donora. People have to stop polluting if they don’t want things like that to happen.
Opinion/Reflection:
ReplyDeleteAir pollution now a day’s seems to be more and more controversial especially with global warming in mind. In class we learned about air quality and ozone’s relation with it and found that wind speed and temperature affect the quality of air. Even so we also know that human actions are greatly affecting the air quality to be bad. For air quality levels to break over the limit 87 times is a surprise to find that we the people use a lot of fossil fuel usages (cars, industry, etc.) What overwhelms me more is to hear about ozone levels being bad enough to receive lung diseases from simply breathing in the ozone air. To find out trees like the Sequoia are dying or being harmed by human activities makes me mad. It just does not seem right that a national park which is to preserve organisms is actually having organisms like these trees die. We need to stop using so much fossil fuel and think about our environment more because it is important to how we live. We get a lot of materials from our environments so we should appreciate nature more and save it.
Question 3:
Taking the job as the ranger in the National Park does not seem to be worth the health risks. Even if I am not going to be directly helping out with the park I could come up with feedback and data on what to do about the ozone. There are plenty of other ways to be productive and essential to the problem it’s just a matter of what point of view I take on the situation. I think even just being a scientist could be a big help to the ozone problem because then they can state out statistics which people would take in as important because it comes from a “scientist.” I believe even being just who I am right now I can help out with the ozone problem by conserving and using less fossil fuels.