Talk:Owens Lake

Arithmetic errors

Mary, there is something wrong with your numbers in the "Air pollution" section where you wrote:

• The lake also emits an estimated 7,200 tons per day PM 10 (particulate matter 10 microns or less) or an estimated 79,2000 tons annually, according to a United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study done between July 2000 through June 2001.

(1) 79,2000 tons annually has an extra zero. According to page 22 of your reference 7, the correct number reported is 79,200 tons annually.

(2) Dividing the 79, 200 tons annually by 365 days in a year means that the average daily PM was 217 tons per day.

(3) Again, according to page 22 of your reference, the peak daily PM was 7,200 tons daily tons .... meaning that was the worst daily amount encountered during the 1-year test period. It was not the average daily amount.

You should revise your above sentence to read:

• The lake also emits an estimated daily average of 217 tons per day PM 10 (particulate matter 10 microns or less) or an estimated 79, 200 (particulate matter annually, according to a United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study done between July 2000 through June 2001. The peak daily amount of PM 10 emission encountered during the test period was 7,200 tons.

As an aside, the 79,200 tons annually is very much less than the 330,000 tons annually that you reported on the talk page of Smog. Milton Beychok 17:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Milt the corrected sentence now states: The lake also emits an estimated 7,200 tons per day PM 10 (particulate matter 10 microns or less) [6]or an estimated 79,200 tons annually, according to a United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study done between July 2000 through June 2001.[7] “Owens Lake is the largest single source of PM-10 in the United States,

I stand by what the source states which is: "Peak Daily PM-10 = 7,200 tons Annual PM-10 = 79,200 tons

Dust ID Period: July 2000 - June 2001." p. 22 Quantifying Particulate Matter Emissions from Wind Blown Dust Using Real Time Sand Flux Measurements, Duane Ono and Scott Weaver, Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District,April 2003, US EPA Emission Inventory Conference,San Diego, California

I made no comments on the talk page about the tonnage of PM 10 or any other air pollution statistics either. The statistics given are from the reports listed as sources in the article. I also provided numerous links that anyone could use to expand the article.

As always I approached the article as if I interviewed experts in the field. As Citizendium is not a paying writing gig, I can not call and interview the people cited in this article. Suffice it to say the article is referenced with recognized authorities.

As this is a wiki, anyone can edit and improve the article I started. I've provided numerous links for anyone to research and write from.

I have inserted the word peak in front of 7,200.

Mary Ash 18:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Mary, you again and again argue that, "as this is a wiki", others can improve the article. Indeed, they can. But why do you assume that others have nothing else to do? However, when you create an article on a topic that interests you, you have a certain responsibility for it, and we may expect that you show some persistence, and stay with that article until it is in good enough shape to be left alone. --Peter Schmitt 20:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Peter thanks for your comments. I may not have a "real" job to do any more as I am retired, but I do have other commitments too. There is always more to add, as this is a wiki and articles will change, but for now I'm busy cooking, cleaning and gardening. I'm getting ready to plant sugar snap peas, lettuce and some other cool weather crops. I'll add more when I get time but anyone else can add to it too. BTW the article is fairly complete but I am sure more could always be added. :-) Mary Ash 20:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Mary, thank you for revising that sentence. I will modify it somewhat to make it clearer that the annual PM 10 of 79,200 tones, when divided by 365 days per year, is equivalent to a daily average of 217 tons per day .... and that the 720 tons per day was a peak value that occurred during the 1-year test period. That is the meaning of "peak value". It may or may not ever occur again in any other testing period. My modification will not remove any numbers, it will simply clarify them for readers.

One other point, now that lake bed has been re-watered to some extent since 2006 (as currently stated in the article), have any new testing studies been made by the EPA or anyone else to determine how much that has decreased the annual emissions?

As I said just above, the 300,000 tons annually that you reported on the talk page of Smog was made by you on 23:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC) as per the history of the Smog talk page in which you explicitly quoted that number. Milton Beychok 20:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Milt thank you for your wonderful edits. The page looks so much better! Yes, the math is correct, I did a quick check on the calculator and YOUR math is spot on. Of course I do not have the professional expertise you have, so I would much rather have you make the math changes, and you did. As I wrote earlier, I depend on my sources to provide information and I let the sources "do the talking." I did this as a reporter, and I do it now, but I am glad you helped out. You asked about further tests, I do know that as of 2008 the area was still out of compliance and I am sure more testing is being done. I'll do some more searching at the EPA unless you have some other good ideas. Of course if I had my press card I'd just give those guys a call. Mary Ash 23:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be very helpful if you asked the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District about any later testing. They would be more likely to know than would the EPA ... and, besides, it is easier to contact them than to contact the EPA. Milton Beychok 00:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Without a press card or badge I probably can not call them. I have done some research and I can not find any updates except what was included in this article. Also, I love the newly formatted references. Excellent editing and thank you!Mary Ash 18:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Updated info

Added updated info found in The Rainshadow document. Mary Ash 19:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

An interesting item about the emissions from Owens Lake

Yesterday (February 2, 2011) I sent an email to Mr. Larry Biland of the EPA's Region 9 office in California. I asked him to explain why the EPA's online website page http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/owens/qa.html stated the PM₁₀ emissions from the Owens Lake area to be 300,000 tons per year whereas a conference paper published by the EPA at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ei12/fugdust/present/ono.pdf stated the PM₁₀ emissions from the Owens Lake area to be only 79,200 tons per year based on a one-year long testing program from July 2000 to June 2001.

Mr. Biland forwarded my email to Mr. Ted Schade at the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (the California APCD for the Owens Lake area) and asked him to respond to my email.

Today, I received an email from Mr. Schade which included this statement: "However, we believe there were never 300,000 tons emitted annually from the lake bed. This was a very early (~1986), somewhat unscientific estimate developed by the China Lake Naval Weapons Station."

Mr. Schade's email response also stated: "LADWP (Los Angeles Department of Water and Power) began implementing dust controls in 2000. There are now almost 40 square miles of controls on the lake bed. We estimate emissions have been reduced between 80 and 90 percent from that maximum number.</font.>"

Mr. Schade also stated that the 300,000 tons of emissions in the EPA website page at http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/owens/qa.html is incorrect and misleading.

Matt Innis, I have sent Mary Ash a copy of the complete chain of emails referred to above. I will also send you the same chain of emails. Based on the fact that Mr. Schade now states the there never was 300,000 tons of emissions, I ask you to please undo all of the last additions that Mary made to this article at 11:04 this morning. All you have to do is click on the undo link. Alternatively, please let me undo Mary's latest additions. I am not an editor in the workgroups listed for this article, so I cannot make an editorial ruling to remove that incorrect and misleading information.

This is a good example of how to check online data that appears to be questionable. One email to the EPA resulted in disclosing that the information added by Mary this morning is incorrect ... as admitted by Mr. Ted Schade, the same man she quotes in her additions of this morning. Milton Beychok 20:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like it's time to remove that information which was valid at the time. I do believe the EPA would be considered a "valid" source but if there is newer information then go for it! In fact, I will remove the information myself. As to contacting the EPA or anyone else, I did not feel it was appropriate to do so as I explained earlier I do not have a press card nor badge anymore. Citizendium is not a paid gig, nor is it a newspaper, and I did not want to bother someone who may or may not have time to help an itty bitty wiki.Mary Ash 20:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed the information from Schade's report to the California Resource Board (another established air pollution agency at the state level). BTW China Lake is one of the largest and best United States Navy labs. I have personally interviewed their environmental personnel and they are a top-notch crew. China Lake does have a vested interest in air quality as it poor air quality could affect testing. Finally, a good article offers a variety of sources and information or facts. As I prefaced the article: "Other sources state...." and then went onto provide the information from the local ACPO which is another trusted source. I used appropriate research methods and stated the information fairly based on the limited resources available to me. If I were a working reporter, with a press card, you bet I would have called someone. Mary Ash 20:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Mary, for the world of me, I do not understand why one needs a press card or a badge or a paid gig to question someone in the EPA. I don't have a press card or a badge or a paid gig, and I questioned them in an email ... and got a prompt reply. By the way, you did not remove all of your last additions. You failed to delete that lengthy section you also added this morning entitled EPA Questions and Answers which is a word-for-word exact copy of the EPA website page that Ted Shade has now admitted is incorrect and misleading as you can see in his email (of which you now have a copy). Please remove that entire section as it still contains the incorrect 300,000 tons in item 9 and the rest of the Q & A is just as outdated as is item 9. Milton Beychok 21:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Workgroups are a blunt instrument, as the EC is discussing. I haven't been involved in this discussion previously, but I do question if History, Geography and Biology are appropriate if the focus is on pollution -- at the very least, the Environmental Engineering Subgroup would seem relevant. There are quite a few Engineering aspects to this discussion, but, as a History Editor, marginal pure history.

Also, having held press credentials but also having dealt extensively with government agencies, the press card issue is nonsense. A responsible researcher asks the question, when necessary, of the appropriate source, who may decline to answer. If there is a declination from a U.S. government agency, it can be a trivial matter to file a Freedom of Information Act request. Mary, you continue to assume that the rules of your journalism experience are applicable here. They are not.

It's amusing to me that I recently found my EPA building pass, from many years ago. There was much more hair. "Itty-bitty wiki" is rather insulting, when compared with some tiny local newspapers that make no attempt to cover things in a scholarly or advanced manner. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not a matter of journalism it's a matter of comfort level for me. I do not feel comfortable contacting the EPA and taking up their valuable time for an article at Citizendium, especially since I found local, state and federal sources all stating the same information. If I were reporting, now that's a different story. I was paid to do this and I had a level of credibility and need to know. As a volunteer at a wiki I am not required to do something I do not feel comfortable in doing. I am glad Milt felt comfortable contacting the EPA and getting this information so we could update the article. It would have been nice to know that he planned on doing this, but as a volunteer he didn't have to notify me of that fact either. He is a volunteer just like me at Citizendium. Finally, the information I presented was prefaced with other sources and is part of the history of the Owens Lake air pollution issue. In that sense it does belong but I defer to the editors here as they are editors for a reason.Mary Ash 23:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Mary, why are you so convoluted when you deny something? If it was a matter of comfort level, then why did you write (just above): If I were a working reporter, with a press card, you bet I would have called someone. Mary Ash 20:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC) ? Why do you insist on wasting your time, my time and the time of others on denials? When will you learn to just admit a mistake and move on?

Of course, writing the additions you made at 11:04 PST toady is completely excusable ... because you did not have definitive proof that the data were incorrect and misleading until the author of data, Ted Schade, the very man you quoted as your source, sent me an email this morning and admitted the data was incorrect and misleading. But it is inexcusable that you keep denying the facts now that you do have proof.

As for informing you, first of all there is no mandate for me or anyone else to notify anybody when they are researching and checking on data. In this case, I did not think of emailing the EPA contact until about 8:00 PM last night (see the time on my email to Larry Biland of the EPA) and I received the responses from Ted Schade this morning. Shortly thereafter I sent you copies of the emails. All of this is clearly documented on the emails I sent you. Don't you realize that? Why bring this up as part of your convoluted denials? Do you think that if you keep bringing up different ways of explaining your denials, someone will finally believe them? Or are you really somehow psychologically incapable of understanding that you made a mistake? Milton Beychok 00:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)