OT: Should i be taking the wildfire smoke AQI warning seriously?

[Duffman100]

I'm aware. Is the wildfire increase proportional to increased population? Does that change the fact that the air quality is improving from when we were kids?

I definitely experienced more wildfire smoke in the Van/Vic region 10 - 15 years ago. How does my city dependent experience have anything to do wildfires at large? Sorry, I'm just confused why you are using a location dependent wildfire experience and sarcastically saying "things are fine"?

These samples are small, you don't know if this is fine or not. I could say Vic and Van are getting better based on multiple summer smoke outs from over a decade ago.

Ranger One is asking if things are fine. You are on here here implying they are not.

I think he should consult a physician and not listen to you, me, or the news

Because things aren't fine. As a whole based on multiple studies. I can source them and share, but I'm assuming you'll just dismiss them as 'liberal bias / funded'.

He doesn't have to consult a physician, that's the entire point of having official air quality reports.

Sure.

Let's trust the internet moderator on interpreting data.

He says things aren't fine, he's the authority on the matter. There is no need to seek a personalized risk assessment from a doctor. Stay inside. Hide from the wildfire particulates. You will obviously have life altering effects from this. Avoid campfires as well. Those are guaranteed death.

lol that liberal bias from many sources sure is triggering you.

[billy_hoyle]

Because things aren't fine. As a whole based on multiple studies. I can source them and share, but I'm assuming you'll just dismiss them as 'liberal bias / funded'.

He doesn't have to consult a physician, that's the entire point of having official air quality reports.

Sure.

Let's trust the internet moderator on interpreting data.

He says things aren't fine, he's the authority on the matter. There is no need to seek a personalized risk assessment from a doctor. Stay inside. Hide from the wildfire particulates. You will obviously have life altering effects from this. Avoid campfires as well. Those are guaranteed death.

lol that liberal bias from many sources sure is triggering you.

How is this triggering?

I'm merely pointing out the fear mongering that you are doing. It's purely my opinion.

I don't think you are any kind of authority on the matter. Just trying to provide Ranger One with a counter to your chicken little proclamations.

You have provided zero sources. Can you provide a source that says he should stay inside, and that his health is at risk if he doesn't?

That's the crux of his question right? The practical threat of this exposure. What quantifiable risk is he facing, and what are the consequences of his exposure vs his mitigation.

[Randle McMurphy]

I watched Final Destination Bloodlines last night. The old woman was able to avoid Death by staying inside for 20 years. Unfortunately the moment she took a risk and stepped outside, Death got her.

That really does say it all.

[Duffman100]

Sure.

Let's trust the internet moderator on interpreting data.

He says things aren't fine, he's the authority on the matter. There is no need to seek a personalized risk assessment from a doctor. Stay inside. Hide from the wildfire particulates. You will obviously have life altering effects from this. Avoid campfires as well. Those are guaranteed death.

lol that liberal bias from many sources sure is triggering you.

How is this triggering?

I'm merely pointing out the fear mongering that you are doing. It's purely my opinion.

I don't think you are any kind of authority on the matter. Just trying to provide Ranger One with a counter to your chicken little proclamations.

You have provided zero sources. Can you provide a source that says he should stay inside, and that his health is at risk if he doesn't?

That's the crux of his question right? The practical threat of this exposure. What quantifiable risk is he facing, and what are the consequences of his exposure vs his mitigation.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/healthy-living/human-health-effects-wildfire-smoke.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32302851/
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/healthy-living/human-health-effects-wildfire-smoke.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Yes impacts are higher amongst people in vulnerable portions of society, but wildfire smoke and decreased air quality as a result is a health risk for all people.

A population-based cohort study (StatCan / Lancet Planetary Health, May 2022) found that living within 50 km of wildfire exposure over the preceding 10 years was associated with a 4.9% higher lung cancer incidence and 10% higher brain tumour incidence compared to populations farther away

In terms of Wildfires getting worse.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/06/12/canada-record-wildfire-season-statistics//?utm_source=chatgpt.com

“In the province of British Columbia,… four of the most severe wildfire seasons of the last century occurred in the past 7 years: 2017, 2018, 2021, and 2023.”

https://www.wired.com/story/canada-wildfires-future/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://apnews.com/article/canada-wildfires-smoke-us-europe-pollution-df3f46365f58a31447497f837d66f066


Obviously there is a balance between never going outside, being overly afraid of the air quality and sacrificing other aspects of your life. But in terms of the overarching question of "should I be concerned"?

Yes you should be concerned about wildfire smoke both as it relates to your health and the current and degrading state of our planet.

[SharoneWright]

I live in Saskatchewan now. It's part of life here.

[billy_hoyle]

lol that liberal bias from many sources sure is triggering you.

How is this triggering?

I'm merely pointing out the fear mongering that you are doing. It's purely my opinion.

I don't think you are any kind of authority on the matter. Just trying to provide Ranger One with a counter to your chicken little proclamations.

You have provided zero sources. Can you provide a source that says he should stay inside, and that his health is at risk if he doesn't?

That's the crux of his question right? The practical threat of this exposure. What quantifiable risk is he facing, and what are the consequences of his exposure vs his mitigation.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/healthy-living/human-health-effects-wildfire-smoke.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32302851/
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/healthy-living/human-health-effects-wildfire-smoke.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Yes impacts are higher amongst people in vulnerable portions of society, but wildfire smoke and decreased air quality as a result is a health risk for all people.

A population-based cohort study (StatCan / Lancet Planetary Health, May 2022) found that living within 50 km of wildfire exposure over the preceding 10 years was associated with a 4.9% higher lung cancer incidence and 10% higher brain tumour incidence compared to populations farther away

In terms of Wildfires getting worse.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/06/12/canada-record-wildfire-season-statistics//?utm_source=chatgpt.com

“In the province of British Columbia,… four of the most severe wildfire seasons of the last century occurred in the past 7 years: 2017, 2018, 2021, and 2023.”

https://www.wired.com/story/canada-wildfires-future/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://apnews.com/article/canada-wildfires-smoke-us-europe-pollution-df3f46365f58a31447497f837d66f066


Obviously there is a balance between never going outside, being overly afraid of the air quality and sacrificing other aspects of your life. But in terms of the overarching question of "should I be concerned"?

Yes you should be concerned about wildfire smoke both as it relates to your health and the current and degrading state of our planet.

The quote of a 5 - 10% increase recorded in those studies is relative to people that get those cancers right?

Per ChatGPT:

Lung cancer at large is 1/15 in US/Canada for men

Median age of lung Cancer diagnosis is 70.
~2% of cases apply to those people younger than 45.

So, 1/15 lifetime risk (~6.6% chance), x 2% chance based on under 45 = 0.13%.

Now a 5% increase is = 0.14%.

You are talking about a change of 0.01%.
Do you stay in your house because of this?

[Duffman100]

How is this triggering?

I'm merely pointing out the fear mongering that you are doing. It's purely my opinion.

I don't think you are any kind of authority on the matter. Just trying to provide Ranger One with a counter to your chicken little proclamations.

You have provided zero sources. Can you provide a source that says he should stay inside, and that his health is at risk if he doesn't?

That's the crux of his question right? The practical threat of this exposure. What quantifiable risk is he facing, and what are the consequences of his exposure vs his mitigation.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/healthy-living/human-health-effects-wildfire-smoke.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32302851/
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/healthy-living/human-health-effects-wildfire-smoke.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Yes impacts are higher amongst people in vulnerable portions of society, but wildfire smoke and decreased air quality as a result is a health risk for all people.

A population-based cohort study (StatCan / Lancet Planetary Health, May 2022) found that living within 50 km of wildfire exposure over the preceding 10 years was associated with a 4.9% higher lung cancer incidence and 10% higher brain tumour incidence compared to populations farther away

In terms of Wildfires getting worse.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/06/12/canada-record-wildfire-season-statistics//?utm_source=chatgpt.com

“In the province of British Columbia,… four of the most severe wildfire seasons of the last century occurred in the past 7 years: 2017, 2018, 2021, and 2023.”

https://www.wired.com/story/canada-wildfires-future/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://apnews.com/article/canada-wildfires-smoke-us-europe-pollution-df3f46365f58a31447497f837d66f066


Obviously there is a balance between never going outside, being overly afraid of the air quality and sacrificing other aspects of your life. But in terms of the overarching question of "should I be concerned"?

Yes you should be concerned about wildfire smoke both as it relates to your health and the current and degrading state of our planet.

The quote of a 5 - 10% increase recorded in those studies is relative to people that get those cancers right?

Per ChatGPT:

Lung cancer at large is 1/15 in US/Canada for men

Median age of lung Cancer diagnosis is 70.
~2% of cases apply to those people younger than 45.

So, 1/15 lifetime risk (~6.6% chance), x 2% chance based on under 45 = 0.13%.

Now a 5% increase is = 0.14%.

You are talking about a change of 0.01%.
Do you stay in your house because of this?

lol exactly the response I expected.

[billy_hoyle]

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/healthy-living/human-health-effects-wildfire-smoke.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32302851/
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/healthy-living/human-health-effects-wildfire-smoke.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Yes impacts are higher amongst people in vulnerable portions of society, but wildfire smoke and decreased air quality as a result is a health risk for all people.



In terms of Wildfires getting worse.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/06/12/canada-record-wildfire-season-statistics//?utm_source=chatgpt.com


https://www.wired.com/story/canada-wildfires-future/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://apnews.com/article/canada-wildfires-smoke-us-europe-pollution-df3f46365f58a31447497f837d66f066


Obviously there is a balance between never going outside, being overly afraid of the air quality and sacrificing other aspects of your life. But in terms of the overarching question of "should I be concerned"?

Yes you should be concerned about wildfire smoke both as it relates to your health and the current and degrading state of our planet.

The quote of a 5 - 10% increase recorded in those studies is relative to people that get those cancers right?

Per ChatGPT:

Lung cancer at large is 1/15 in US/Canada for men

Median age of lung Cancer diagnosis is 70.
~2% of cases apply to those people younger than 45.

So, 1/15 lifetime risk (~6.6% chance), x 2% chance based on under 45 = 0.13%.

Now a 5% increase is = 0.14%.

You are talking about a change of 0.01%.
Do you stay in your house because of this?

lol exactly the response I expected.

I asked for quantitative data. You provided relativistic data. I attempted to translate into something practical.

You laugh.

I think you are fear mongering at levels like a 0.01% increase.

You can think that's substantial and warrants staying inside. You haven't provided data that I believe warrants that sort response.

We have different risk tolerances.

Why the laugh?

I actually don't mean to be disrespectful.
I do mean to be classically argumentative.

I'm just being critical of the way people express the risk. When you offer up a 5% increase in lung cancer...well that sounds scary to me. I'm just trying to point out that by saying it a 5% increase is IMO misleading when talking about should he go outside (because it's based a comparison to a low frequency event, which is likely even more infrequent for his specific age range).

Personally, I think people should talk to their physicians on something like this. I can absolutely see scenarios where you might want to install HEPA filters and stay inside when this occurs, I just think it's likely to be based on existing or heridatary medical conditions.

[YogurtProducer]

I live in Saskatchewan now. It's part of life here.

Yep - cancelled a trip up to Candle Lake this weekend as I don't want to take the little one into a potentially severe smoke situation.


Also - LOL at anyone in this thread who is trying to somehow downplay inhaling smoke? Jesus man, I thought there were some things in life that were clearly stupid and didn't need a "source".

But moving onto the original post...

I know a lot of people here live in Toronto or the GTA and was wondering how you are all dealing with the constant wildfire smoke alerts this summer. For the past 2 days its been in the red in my area (Oshawa), which means an AQI over 150, yet i still see a ton of people with young children and elderly people out and about, while im in my house cowering in my room like its nuclear fallout out there lol. Am i the crazy one here or are all those parents with young children and really old people just irresponsible? I should also mention that i have really bad anxiety and already have the constant need to take deep breaths as a result of it. So i dont know if that would make it worse for me or not going outside.

150 is not "nuclear fallout" bad. https://www.airnow.gov/aqi/aqi-basics/

If you are otherwise healthy, and are not actively trying to run a marathon in it, you can go outside and do normal things. I still golf in 150 AQI, but I definitely would think twice before doing it in 200, and anything higher than that is just an absolute no go.

I have a feeling a lot of people in this thread are from Ontario, and have not actually experienced true smoke though.

[YogurtProducer]

You have provided zero sources. Can you provide a source that says he should stay inside, and that his health is at risk if he doesn't?

https://www.airnow.gov/aqi/aqi-basics/
https://weather.gc.ca/airquality/pages/index_e.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/air-quality-health-index/about.html

150 which OP is asking on is in between:

"unhealthy for sensitive groups" which says that Members of sensitive groups may experience health effects. The general public is less likely to be affected

and

"unhealthy" which states that some members of the general public may experience health effects; members of sensitive groups may experience more serious health effects.

Here are some guides on what to do outdoors based on the levels: https://www.airnow.gov/publications/activity-guides/air-quality-activity-guide-for-particle-pollution/

151 AQI is the level where "everyone" is affected by the air quality and everyone is recommended to reduce outdoor activity, take more breaks, etc.

[billy_hoyle]

You have provided zero sources. Can you provide a source that says he should stay inside, and that his health is at risk if he doesn't?

https://www.airnow.gov/aqi/aqi-basics/
https://weather.gc.ca/airquality/pages/index_e.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/air-quality-health-index/about.html

150 which OP is asking on is in between:

"unhealthy for sensitive groups" which says that Members of sensitive groups may experience health effects. The general public is less likely to be affected

and

"unhealthy" which states that some members of the general public may experience health effects; members of sensitive groups may experience more serious health effects.

Here are some guides on what to do outdoors based on the levels: https://www.airnow.gov/publications/activity-guides/air-quality-activity-guide-for-particle-pollution/

151 AQI is the level where "everyone" is affected by the air quality and everyone is recommended to reduce outdoor activity, take more breaks, etc.

These seems like reasonable guidelines to me.

Recommended 'reduced activities'.

That makes sense. No marathons, no intense outdoor activity. Take more breaks when gardening etc...

Not hide in your basement at 150 AQI

[bluerap23]

Yeah - you know that burning plastic smell - that is totally safe to inhale.

[Duffman100]

You have provided zero sources. Can you provide a source that says he should stay inside, and that his health is at risk if he doesn't?

https://www.airnow.gov/aqi/aqi-basics/
https://weather.gc.ca/airquality/pages/index_e.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/air-quality-health-index/about.html

150 which OP is asking on is in between:

"unhealthy for sensitive groups" which says that Members of sensitive groups may experience health effects. The general public is less likely to be affected

and

"unhealthy" which states that some members of the general public may experience health effects; members of sensitive groups may experience more serious health effects.

Here are some guides on what to do outdoors based on the levels: https://www.airnow.gov/publications/activity-guides/air-quality-activity-guide-for-particle-pollution/

151 AQI is the level where "everyone" is affected by the air quality and everyone is recommended to reduce outdoor activity, take more breaks, etc.

These seems like reasonable guidelines to me.

Recommended 'reduced activities'.

That makes sense. No marathons, no intense outdoor activity. Take more breaks when gardening etc...

Not hide in your basement at 150 AQI

It's a bit bizarre you inferred 'hide in your basement' when nobody said that.

[ItsDanger]

Pay attention to it if you have pulmonary issues of any kind. Otherwise, it's just a smoky, hazy day outside.

[Eating a Book]

I live in Saskatchewan now. It's part of life here.

Yep - cancelled a trip up to Candle Lake this weekend as I don't want to take the little one into a potentially severe smoke situation.


Also - LOL at anyone in this thread who is trying to somehow downplay inhaling smoke? Jesus man, I thought there were some things in life that were clearly stupid and didn't need a "source".

But moving onto the original post...

I know a lot of people here live in Toronto or the GTA and was wondering how you are all dealing with the constant wildfire smoke alerts this summer. For the past 2 days its been in the red in my area (Oshawa), which means an AQI over 150, yet i still see a ton of people with young children and elderly people out and about, while im in my house cowering in my room like its nuclear fallout out there lol. Am i the crazy one here or are all those parents with young children and really old people just irresponsible? I should also mention that i have really bad anxiety and already have the constant need to take deep breaths as a result of it. So i dont know if that would make it worse for me or not going outside.

150 is not "nuclear fallout" bad. https://www.airnow.gov/aqi/aqi-basics/

If you are otherwise healthy, and are not actively trying to run a marathon in it, you can go outside and do normal things. I still golf in 150 AQI, but I definitely would think twice before doing it in 200, and anything higher than that is just an absolute no go.

I have a feeling a lot of people in this thread are from Ontario, and have not actually experienced true smoke though.

I was up at Christopher Lake with my family when the Buhl fire was just getting going, but we had no idea about it. It was a bit hazy at Christopher one morning and we decided to go up to Waskesiu for the day and you couldn't even see halfway across the lake. Absolute ghost town there, too.

But yeah, same boat here. I'll golf on a 150 AQI day but the soccer league I play in cancels games when it's above 150, I believe, since it's a more intense cardio activity. Seems reasonable enough to me.

[canz55]

Unless the air is black, you should be outside every day all the time. Vitamin D and red light is crucial for cell growth and overall body function, especially in children.

People with compromised vascular health actually get gains from being outside with modest exposure (there are limits obviously).

[Harry Palmer]

Sure.

Let's trust the internet moderator on interpreting data.

He says things aren't fine, he's the authority on the matter. There is no need to seek a personalized risk assessment from a doctor. Stay inside. Hide from the wildfire particulates. You will obviously have life altering effects from this. Avoid campfires as well. Those are guaranteed death.

lol that liberal bias from many sources sure is triggering you.

How is this triggering?

I'm merely pointing out the fear mongering that you are doing. It's purely my opinion.

I don't think you are any kind of authority on the matter. Just trying to provide Ranger One with a counter to your chicken little proclamations.

You have provided zero sources. Can you provide a source that says he should stay inside, and that his health is at risk if he doesn't?

That's the crux of his question right? The practical threat of this exposure. What quantifiable risk is he facing, and what are the consequences of his exposure vs his mitigation.

The AQ measurement scale is literally broken down by risk level. In the last 24 hours in my region it peaked at 4 (lowest of moderate risk) between 3 PM and about 4-5 AM. It is currently at 2, low risk.

[bballsparkin]

You can tell when the air is bad outside. There were a couple days in July when it was so bad it was hard to walk. The heat didn't help. It's not exactly great being indoors either unless you have fresh air, sunlight, and air purifiers. Especially if you live in a building. If you're really that afraid you probably shouldn't live in Toronto. It's like smoking 7 cigarettes a day just living here.

[WaltFrazier]

I'm in Barrie area. Cycled all through July and August. A few days did seem hazy. The heat waves were far worse. A couple of summers ago I thought the smoke from northern Ontario fires was more noticeable than this summer, you could really smell it and feel it in the eyes.

I imagine Toronto is worse