BeggarEd said:

---

where do you find thay data? on the BAAQM site O can only find Aquatic Park and East/West Oakland stations...

But they all show readings as of 5pm between 75 and 125 which seems positive.

---

https://airnow.gov

But the 123 reading makes sense and is within the range between Aquatic Park and East Oakland.

Cal89 said:

---

I imagine "this", like the weather, lightning for example, could be a game time decision...

---

Actually, it's even worse than a 'game time decision.' According to the ESPN reporter on campus, Cal officials plan to treat the AQI issues like a lightning delay, and clear the field of play when conditions worsen, then continue when conditions are safer. So they don't care at all about the fans in the stands, but they'll temporarily clear the field of play if the wind blows too much smoke over the stadium. And as the report said, with a 7:30 pm start, fans could be in for a very late night. Nice way to treat the fans. I'm staying home, and I'll raise a stink demanding a refund.

http://www.espn.com/core/video/iframe?id=21004627

glutton said:

---

BeggarEd said:

---

AQI reading at aquatic park in Berkeley down to 81 (i.e. "moderate") as of 4pm reading.

Assuming same pattern occurs tomorrow, evening kickoff should be fine.

However carry on with hysteria by all means...

---

Well that would be fine if the stadium was at Aquatic Park, but it's not.

---

okay. try east or west oakland then... tell me whats the best to look at in your opinion. All looks pretty good as of hour 18 (6-7pm) though: http://50.57.200.217/about-air-quality/current-air-quality/air-monitoring-data?DataViewFormat=daily&DataView=aqi&StartDate=10/12/2017&ParameterId=316

golden sloth said:

---

Golden One said:

---

JadenceBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

YamhillBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

One thing I will add is that AQI is just a contrived number made up of a few somewhat arbitrarily weighted components. Who really knows whether smoke (through PM25) should be weighted as it is versus ozone. AQI is typically used for urban emissions like car emissions or factory emissions... I don't know how one can really say X amount of PM2.5 equivalent of Y amount of ozone, but that is essentially what AQI is doing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_quality_index

---

The truth is that almost everything the BAAQMD does is arbitrary and contrived. Very few of their regulations, guidelines, and mandates are based on actual scientific knowledge.

---

I don't think that Colorado Bear's assertion (first quote above) is correct. According to the EPA website, a separate AQI is calculated for each of four pollutant categories (ground level ozone, particulates, CO, and Sulfur Dioxide) and then whichever one is worst is the reported AQI. It is not an arbitrary combination of the four. In fact, I would argue that the reported AQI could actually be underrepresenting risk.

Completely disagree with Golden One's comments (second quote above).

Ref:
https://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=aqi_brochure.index

---

You''re welcome to disagree with me. Unfortunately, what I say is true. Anyone who has followed the Air District over the years knows that. Much of their work is based on modeling which has little or no basis in science. Also, in recent years their agenda has basically been set by the environmental activists/extremists and anti-capitalists whose sole objective is to shutdown industry and destroy businesses in the Bay Area.

---

Golden One - I'd be interested in learning more. I've dealt w/ the BAAQMD before and I'm not particularly impressed though I wouldn't go as far as your statements. Can you expand on your statements or provide links w/ further details? Thanks!

---

Let me just say that I've been following the Air District Board for many years and have attended scores of their meetings. The Board is populated by city and county politicians, and given that we're talking about the Bay Area, that means very liberal politicians (think San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Richmond, etc.). These folks tend to be very pro-government and pro regulation and extremely anti-industry and business. Their allegiances are with organized labor and especially environmental activists (Communities for a Better Environment, Sunflower Alliance, Richmond Progressive Alliance, etc.). As I said earlier, these groups basically set the agenda for the Board and its staff. If you want more information, talk to any business that has had to deal with the Air Board or its regulations. Also, I'd urge you to communicate with any of the Board members and see how little they really understand about the regulations they promulgate or the science (or lack thereof) behind those regulations. It's really pretty disgusting.

---

I welcome these liberal environmental activists imposing strong air quality regulations. I deserve and have a right to breath clean air and drink clean water. If that right makes it difficult for a few businesses, so be it.

---

Yeah, right. Never mind if their regulations are based on sound science or merely emotion and political rhetoric. All regulations are good. I understand your viewpoint, I just strongly disagree with it. To each his own, I guess.

glutton said:

---

Cal89 said:

---

I imagine "this", like the weather, lightning for example, could be a game time decision...

---

Actually, it's even worse than a 'game time decision.' According to the ESPN reporter on campus, Cal officials plan to treat the AQI issues like a lightning delay, and clear the field of play when conditions worsen, then continue when conditions are safer. So they don't care at all about the fans in the stands, but they'll temporarily clear the field of play if the wind blows too much smoke over the stadium. And as the report said, with a 7:30 pm start, fans could be in for a very late night. Nice way to treat the fans. I'm staying home, and I'll raise a stink demanding a refund.

http://www.espn.com/core/video/iframe?id=21004627

---

Stupid, just completely stupid.

FiatLux, doesn't it sadden you, for one reason or another, that you don't have confidence in "the powers that be" to make the right decision about whether or not to play this game as scheduled?

Either they are incompetent, or they have ulterior motives, or they just aren't as wise as you are, to where you feel you have to help them make the correct decision?

It saddens and disappoints me, that's for sure... for one reason or another.

BeggarEd said:

---

glutton said:

---

BeggarEd said:

---

AQI reading at aquatic park in Berkeley down to 81 (i.e. "moderate") as of 4pm reading.

Assuming same pattern occurs tomorrow, evening kickoff should be fine.

However carry on with hysteria by all means...

---

Well that would be fine if the stadium was at Aquatic Park, but it's not.

---

okay. try east or west oakland then... tell me whats the best to look at in your opinion. All looks pretty good as of hour 18 (6-7pm) though: http://50.57.200.217/about-air-quality/current-air-quality/air-monitoring-data?DataViewFormat=daily&DataView=aqi&StartDate=10/12/2017&ParameterId=316

---

I agree with you that the game should not be cancelled as of now. I think the point you are missing though is that it won't be cancelled unless it hits 200 and that is not appropriate

Big C said:

---

FiatLux, doesn't it sadden you, for one reason or another, that you don't have confidence in "the powers that be" to make the right decision about whether or not to play this game as scheduled?

Either they are incompetent, or they have ulterior motives, or they just aren't as wise as you are, to where you feel you have to help them make the correct decision?

It saddens and disappoints me, that's for sure... for one reason or another.

---

It's two things. It's the actual game. And then it's what's required leading up to the game. When I have classmates who say how hard it was to breathe during practice, yes, it does sadden me. More than that, it angers me. And I'm a pretty happy, go bears kind of guy.

Golden One said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

One thing I will add is that AQI is just a contrived number made up of a few somewhat arbitrarily weighted components. Who really knows whether smoke (through PM25) should be weighted as it is versus ozone. AQI is typically used for urban emissions like car emissions or factory emissions... I don't know how one can really say X amount of PM2.5 equivalent of Y amount of ozone, but that is essentially what AQI is doing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_quality_index

---

The truth is that almost everything the BAAQMD does is arbitrary and contrived. Very few of their regulations, guidelines, and mandates are based on actual scientific knowledge.

---

you guys realize it is the CARB (not local districts like the BAAQMD) that sets the limits and guidelines, right? Local districts just do the enforcement. Indeed, the enforcement can be quire arbitrary (in fairness, the BAAQMD is a non-attainment district), and vary from District to District.

Golden One said:

---

Yeah, right. Never mind if their regulations are based on sound science or merely emotion and political rhetoric. All regulations are good. I understand your viewpoint, I just strongly disagree with it. To each his own, I guess.

---

You have yet to provide even one example of BAAQMD imposing overly onerous regulations, in spite of scientific evidence. I guess we're just supposed to take your word for it?

sycasey said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Yeah, right. Never mind if their regulations are based on sound science or merely emotion and political rhetoric. All regulations are good. I understand your viewpoint, I just strongly disagree with it. To each his own, I guess.

---

You have yet to provide even one example of BAAQMD imposing overly onerous regulations, in spite of scientific evidence. I guess we're just supposed to take your word for it?

---

Never mind if his opinions are based on sound science or merely emotion and political rhetoric. All regulations are bad.

With all the high schools canceling their games it looks really bad for us to be playing ours-like they care more about the money than the health of players and fans. The air in Fremont isn't anything I would run or swim in I'll tell you that. If health is the main concern here, playing defys common sense. Seems like an easy call to me.

pappysghost said:

---

With all the high schools canceling their games it looks really bad for us to be playing ours-like they care more about the money than the health of players and fans. The air in Fremont isn't anything I would run or swim in I'll tell you that. If health is the main concern here, playing defys common sense. Seems like an easy call to me.

---

I agree. If I hear Larry Scott or someone in Cal Admin say again that first and foremost is "the welfare of the student athlete" I'm going to puke. I like someone's idea of making Larry Scott and Chancellor Crist run 10 miles, then we can see how they feel afterwards in deciding whether to play.

I wonder what the AQI was in 1991 in Pasadena when Cal played UCLA. I was in the stands that day and I remember a haze of smog made the opposite side of the stadium hard to see. Plus it was damn hot IIRC. Russell White took IV fluids at halftime.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Golden One said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

One thing I will add is that AQI is just a contrived number made up of a few somewhat arbitrarily weighted components. Who really knows whether smoke (through PM25) should be weighted as it is versus ozone. AQI is typically used for urban emissions like car emissions or factory emissions... I don't know how one can really say X amount of PM2.5 equivalent of Y amount of ozone, but that is essentially what AQI is doing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_quality_index

---

The truth is that almost everything the BAAQMD does is arbitrary and contrived. Very few of their regulations, guidelines, and mandates are based on actual scientific knowledge.

---

you guys realize it is the CARB (not local districts like the BAAQMD) that sets the limits and guidelines, right? Local districts just do the enforcement. Indeed, the enforcement can be quire arbitrary (in fairness, the BAAQMD is a non-attainment district), and vary from District to District.

---

Absolutely untrue! The BAAQMD has gone well beyond the requirements sent by CARB, which is why there is discussion in Sacramento of trying to "reign in" the local Air District. For example look at their proposed Rule 11-18 on toxic air contaminants, currently under consideration. Also, the state overruled the BAAQMD in their attempt to establish an overall emissions cap on businesses via their proposed Role 12-16. The local Air District is out of control.

sycasey said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Yeah, right. Never mind if their regulations are based on sound science or merely emotion and political rhetoric. All regulations are good. I understand your viewpoint, I just strongly disagree with it. To each his own, I guess.

---

You have yet to provide even one example of BAAQMD imposing overly onerous regulations, in spite of scientific evidence. I guess we're just supposed to take your word for it?

---

If you would follow the work of the BAAQMD more closely you could see many such examples yourself. Why should I or others do your homework for you? But I'll help you just a little bit. Check out the Air District's proposed Rule 11-18, and you'll see just the latest example.

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Yeah, right. Never mind if their regulations are based on sound science or merely emotion and political rhetoric. All regulations are good. I understand your viewpoint, I just strongly disagree with it. To each his own, I guess.

---

You have yet to provide even one example of BAAQMD imposing overly onerous regulations, in spite of scientific evidence. I guess we're just supposed to take your word for it?

---

Never mind if his opinions are based on sound science or merely emotion and political rhetoric. All regulations are bad.

---

To make matters worse, it is CARB that comes up with the regs, BAAQMD only does enforcement so there are no bad regulations from BAAQMD. Pesky facts. The readings on campus have been under 80 at 7:30 every night so far. The Chancellor is trying to get a mobile reader at the stadium for precision, but the predictions for tonight at game time are well below 100. In any event, since this is growls, whatever decision is made is wrong and Cal's fault, and all regulators are tools. Let the hysteria continue.

Edit: You guys do appreciate that UCLA plays night games in September in Pasadena, where the air during the day exceeds standards regularly, but by night time is just fine. And no one gets hysterical.

If you want to find emotional and easily triggered humans, don't bother going to campus. No need.

Golden One said:

---

If you would follow the work of the BAAQMD more closely you could see many such examples yourself. Why should I or others do your homework for you?

---

Because you're the one making the claim.

This isn't me doing the homework for you, this is more like you giving a vague answer on a test and the teacher asking you to show your work.

Golden One said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Golden One said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

One thing I will add is that AQI is just a contrived number made up of a few somewhat arbitrarily weighted components. Who really knows whether smoke (through PM25) should be weighted as it is versus ozone. AQI is typically used for urban emissions like car emissions or factory emissions... I don't know how one can really say X amount of PM2.5 equivalent of Y amount of ozone, but that is essentially what AQI is doing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_quality_index

---

The truth is that almost everything the BAAQMD does is arbitrary and contrived. Very few of their regulations, guidelines, and mandates are based on actual scientific knowledge.

---

you guys realize it is the CARB (not local districts like the BAAQMD) that sets the limits and guidelines, right? Local districts just do the enforcement. Indeed, the enforcement can be quire arbitrary (in fairness, the BAAQMD is a non-attainment district), and vary from District to District.

---

Absolutely untrue! The BAAQMD has gone well beyond the requirements sent by CARB, which is why there is discussion in Sacramento of trying to "reign in" the local Air District. For example look at their proposed Rule 11-18 on toxic air contaminants, currently under consideration. Also, the state overruled the BAAQMD in their attempt to establish an overall emissions cap on businesses via their proposed Role 12-16. The local Air District is out of control.

---

Okay, what if I admit they have overzealous enforcement? What does have to do with standards set by CARB that are being used in this case?

pappysghost said:

---

With all the high schools canceling their games it looks really bad for us to be playing ours-like they care more about the money than the health of players and fans. The air in Fremont isn't anything I would run or swim in I'll tell you that. If health is the main concern here, playing defys common sense. Seems like an easy call to me.

---

I don't know what the right decision is here, but I can tell you that the main goal of high school administrators (at all levels) is to avoid lawsuits and bad publicity.

Cancelling high school games is a no-brainer: "Our number one concern is student safety." Again, this may also be the correct decision, I don't know. I went running in Oakland yesterday morning and I feel fine. If I don't see smoke in the air (except on the horizon) and I can barely smell it, I'm thinking it's okay. That's using common sense over some air quality number that may or may not be significant.

bear945 said:

---

I wonder what the AQI was in 1991 in Pasadena when Cal played UCLA. I was in the stands that day and I remember a haze of smog made the opposite side of the stadium hard to see. Plus it was damn hot IIRC. Russell White took IV fluids at halftime.

---

That is the worst i ever remember it being.

Here is a photo from that day:

TheFiatLux said:

---

bear945 said:

---

I wonder what the AQI was in 1991 in Pasadena when Cal played UCLA. I was in the stands that day and I remember a haze of smog made the opposite side of the stadium hard to see. Plus it was damn hot IIRC. Russell White took IV fluids at halftime.

---

That is the worst i ever remember it being.

Here is a photo from that day:

---

Was Doug Brien's game ending field goal really good? From the north end zone, it was hard to tell through the smog.

2009 wasn't a picnic, but it was probably better than 1991.

wifeisafurd said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Yeah, right. Never mind if their regulations are based on sound science or merely emotion and political rhetoric. All regulations are good. I understand your viewpoint, I just strongly disagree with it. To each his own, I guess.

---

You have yet to provide even one example of BAAQMD imposing overly onerous regulations, in spite of scientific evidence. I guess we're just supposed to take your word for it?

---

Never mind if his opinions are based on sound science or merely emotion and political rhetoric. All regulations are bad.

---

To make matters worse, it is CARB that comes up with the regs, BAAQMD only does enforcement so there are no bad regulations from BAAQMD. Pesky facts. The readings on campus have been under 80 at 7:30 every night so far. The Chancellor is trying to get a mobile reader at the stadium for precision, but the predictions for tonight at game time are well below 100. In any event, since this is growls, whatever decision is made is wrong and Cal's fault, and all regulators are tools. Let the hysteria continue.

Edit: You guys do appreciate that UCLA plays night games in September in Pasadena, where the air during the day exceeds standards regularly, but by night time is just fine. And no one gets hysterical.

---

1. If the readings are 80 we should play. My issue is with the statement that we would play if it didn't reach 200

2. You are talking about two different readings. Smog is an entirely different measure than particulate matter. You are focused on a number. I guarantee you the normal air in Pasadena is not like it was earlier in the week. Calling people hysterical based on a number on a different measure is pretty insensitive. The air board literally called people to warn them

Cal8285 said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

bear945 said:

---

I wonder what the AQI was in 1991 in Pasadena when Cal played UCLA. I was in the stands that day and I remember a haze of smog made the opposite side of the stadium hard to see. Plus it was damn hot IIRC. Russell White took IV fluids at halftime.

---

That is the worst i ever remember it being.

Here is a photo from that day:

---

Was Doug Brien's game ending field goal really good? From the north end zone, it was hard to tell through the smog.

2009 wasn't a picnic, but it was probably better than 1991.

---

LOL It was good. you can see it here! (GAWD I LOVE THE INTERNET!!!!) go to 3:31. Also listen to the roar... man we had a HUGE contingent there that day

TheFiatLux said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

bear945 said:

---

I wonder what the AQI was in 1991 in Pasadena when Cal played UCLA. I was in the stands that day and I remember a haze of smog made the opposite side of the stadium hard to see. Plus it was damn hot IIRC. Russell White took IV fluids at halftime.

---

That is the worst i ever remember it being.

Here is a photo from that day:

---

Was Doug Brien's game ending field goal really good? From the north end zone, it was hard to tell through the smog.

2009 wasn't a picnic, but it was probably better than 1991.

---

LOL It was good. you can see it here! (GAWD I LOVE THE INTERNET!!!!) go to 3:31. Also listen to the roar... man we had a HUGE contingent there that day

---

Yes we did, and loud. Even the guy next to us who thought it was funny to yell "apple!" whenever BearPipes screamed for a turnover.

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Yeah, right. Never mind if their regulations are based on sound science or merely emotion and political rhetoric. All regulations are good. I understand your viewpoint, I just strongly disagree with it. To each his own, I guess.

---

You have yet to provide even one example of BAAQMD imposing overly onerous regulations, in spite of scientific evidence. I guess we're just supposed to take your word for it?

---

Never mind if his opinions are based on sound science or merely emotion and political rhetoric. All regulations are bad.

---

To make matters worse, it is CARB that comes up with the regs, BAAQMD only does enforcement so there are no bad regulations from BAAQMD. Pesky facts. The readings on campus have been under 80 at 7:30 every night so far. The Chancellor is trying to get a mobile reader at the stadium for precision, but the predictions for tonight at game time are well below 100. In any event, since this is growls, whatever decision is made is wrong and Cal's fault, and all regulators are tools. Let the hysteria continue.

Edit: You guys do appreciate that UCLA plays night games in September in Pasadena, where the air during the day exceeds standards regularly, but by night time is just fine. And no one gets hysterical.

---

1. If the readings are 80 we should play. My issue is with the statement that we would play if it didn't reach 200

2. You are talking about two different readings. Smog is an entirely different measure than particulate matter. You are focused on a number. I guarantee you the normal air in Pasadena is not like it was earlier in the week. Calling people hysterical based on a number on a different measure is pretty insensitive. The air board literally called people to warn them

---

Agree 100% with this. Smoke is different from typical Urban air pollution, where PM comes from factories and diesel emissions.

There have been numerous fires in Colorado (and actually outside of CO that have transported smoke into the front range to the point that one can't see the mountains from a few miles away) in the past decade. It's not something one wants to exercise in. I'm now curious to go back to see what the AQI was to get a feeling of what that was like vs a day with high ozone (something Denver has had issues with in the past). My feeling is smoke has a worse physical effect at the same nominal AQI, but obviously can't prove that right now. Smoke contains a lot of chemicals not quantified by PM or other basic AQ measurements used by the EPA.


All that said, if AQI is under 100, they aren't stopping the game. Of it were between 150-200, that would be when there would be serious scrutiny.

they're talking about it on LA sports talk right now because of the Raiders Chargers game this weekend. apparently in Oakland, the AQI is at 172 right now and getting worse.

I just got back to SF last night from Baja and LA... air quality was best in Baja! Lots of smoke in LA too.... drove right by the Canyon fire on my way back from Mex.

I wouldn't want to be outside exercising right now. It was bad enough driving to Costco. All the card/receipt checkers are wearing masks.

I'd like to see them move/postpone the game.

Guys, guys, apparently you are just the vocal minority. Toughen up your thinking! /sarcasm

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Yeah, right. Never mind if their regulations are based on sound science or merely emotion and political rhetoric. All regulations are good. I understand your viewpoint, I just strongly disagree with it. To each his own, I guess.

---

You have yet to provide even one example of BAAQMD imposing overly onerous regulations, in spite of scientific evidence. I guess we're just supposed to take your word for it?

---

Never mind if his opinions are based on sound science or merely emotion and political rhetoric. All regulations are bad.

---

To make matters worse, it is CARB that comes up with the regs, BAAQMD only does enforcement so there are no bad regulations from BAAQMD. Pesky facts. The readings on campus have been under 80 at 7:30 every night so far. The Chancellor is trying to get a mobile reader at the stadium for precision, but the predictions for tonight at game time are well below 100. In any event, since this is growls, whatever decision is made is wrong and Cal's fault, and all regulators are tools. Let the hysteria continue.

Edit: You guys do appreciate that UCLA plays night games in September in Pasadena, where the air during the day exceeds standards regularly, but by night time is just fine. And no one gets hysterical.

---

1. If the readings are 80 we should play. My issue is with the statement that we would play if it didn't reach 200

2. You are talking about two different readings. Smog is an entirely different measure than particulate matter. You are focused on a number. I guarantee you the normal air in Pasadena is not like it was earlier in the week. Calling people hysterical based on a number on a different measure is pretty insensitive. The air board literally called people to warn them

---

Where did the comment about smog come from. Especially as it pertains to the La Tuna fire. Pasadena has "smog" but the SCAQMD measures what is in the air, including particulate levels, and Pasadena is regularly an non-attainment zone during the day in September for particulates. I can guaranty you in September the air is as bad with respect to specific chemical levels and was worse than Berkley during the La Tuan fire, which was within one mile of the Rose Bowl. Making crap up seems insensitive.

Can we request anyone not currently in the East Bay to refrain from an opinion about this?

We're literally dying over here.

I just came back from Pinole. In the few minutes it was taking me to get my mother in and out of my car, my throat started burning, eyes watering. Very Brown Sky. Cant imagine being in this for more than a few minutes.

Very clear in San Bruno. No smoke smell as there was yesterday. My mom says today was the worst day of the week in Pinole.