Quote:
Posted by rjchief | 11/04/09 10:27 AM EST
Your use of the TRI in this study is misguided, at best. TRI measures waste produced by facilities. It doesn't measure the handling of that waste, or if it is disposed of in the area. Thus, millions of tons of waste you are claiming to be "released" into the air, water, or earth of these metro areas aren't even there -- they're in a hazwaste or other landfill hundreds of miles away. How does that information give residents [[or prospective residents) any meaningful understanding of the "waste" in their area? It doesn't. Instead, it's a measure of the amount of industrial activity in an area - read: jobs - all of which could be managed in a sustainable and lawful manner. In fact, your article suggests that someone could dispose of a TRI-classifiable material by merely "releasing" it to local land. Of course, this is incredibly illegal.
Not only that, but the TRI only picks up high-volume releases of toxic chemicals. An area could have thousands of sources of low-volume releases that would never get picked up, but they would still be regulated under air and water permits if they were discharging to those media. I understand that a review of permit discharge records is astoundingly onerous, but it's the only real way to properly measure impacts on the local environment.
The Air Quality Index also measures particulate matter, but it does not take into account the source of those particulates. In some cities, fine particulates can include pollens and other naturally-occurring materials. Thus, your article, which suggests that the cities with high air pollution are somehow rogue unregulated metropolises, fails to capture the potential causes of air quality problems using this method.
I understand that environmental data is complex, but if a respected business magazine like Forbes is going to undertake this kind of project, it has a responsibility to avoid misuse of data and a more comprehensive look at the causes and effects of the data it chooses.
