Tim Ruff, the project manager and one of the owners at Nishi, believes that the development team has done as much as they can to address community concerns about things like traffic impacts, affordable housing and air quality.
Toward the latter issue, he told the Vanguard this week, “We paid Cahill’s group thousands of dollars to take measurements prior to the EIR and it’s cited on page 4-3-31 of the EIR (Barnes 2015). Cahill’s recommended mitigations are included in the EIR and his studies show the effectiveness of these measures.
“We have now removed the For Sale housing as suggested by Cahill. We are targeting students who are driving. Getting cars off the roads improves conditions for everybody and is part of the solution.”
But that is not enough for Dr. Cahill.
In a letter he shared with the Vanguard, he indicated, “I don’t believe that the ‘powers that be’ in Davis have taken the right message from the Nishi defeat. The ‘razor thin’ victory was achieved
despite the opponents being outspent 30 to 1 by the developers, and opposed by almost the entire body politic of Davis.”
On the air quality issue, he maintains, “The problem is the site itself, with air quality proven toxic by the city’s own Environmental Impact Report. This is especially true for students with their more sensitive lungs.”
He said, “I supported the city in the New Harmony development that was even closer to I-80 than parts of Nishi because I had both models and prior data to support the development.”
He added, “I still support Nishi as a great place for the UC Davis World Food Center and a research center, perhaps with UC Davis access.”
There is, as we have noted previously, detailed analysis of the air quality issues contained on page 4-3-30 of the Draft EIR. It notes that “the concentration of diesel PM on the Nishi site approximately 300 feet from the edge of I-80 was estimated to be approximately 0.57 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). This estimate is based on the particulate measurements conducted near the Nishi site in February 2015.”
The EIR notes, “Long-term exposure to this concentration of diesel PM corresponds to an incremental cancer risk level of 235 in one million above the background level of cancer risk from TACs in the region for residential receptors.”
The EIR continues, “It’s important to note that the data collected during the measurement period are not necessarily representative of annual average pollutant concentration levels or the levels of long-term, multi-year exposure that would be experienced by residents on the project site but are considered to represent higher concentration levels that may be experienced during a year.”
Instead, they believe the baseline increased cancer risk is “approximately 197 in one million.” And explain, “Differences in these two estimates may be because of a number of factors including the meteorology that existed during the 10-day measurement, the potential for ‘linear enhancement’ because the wind direction is often aligned with the orientation of this segment of I-80, the fact that a nearby portion of I-80 is elevated which can result in the highest diesel PM concentrations being further from the freeway than for at-grade segments, and that vehicles often experience congestion along this segment of I-80 thereby generating more emissions than free-flowing traffic.”
In any case, while the YSAQMD (Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District) does not specify a cancer risk threshold for sensitive receptors, and in the absence of a locally adopted threshold, “BAAQMD [Bay Area Air Quality Management District] specifies a cumulative threshold of an excess cancer risk of 100 in a million for new sensitive receptors that would be sited in proximity to multiple TAC [toxic air contaminant] sources (BAAQMD 2010:2-5). Thus, both estimates of the incremental increase in cancer risk for residential receptors located on the project site are considered to be substantial.”
But again, we have several caveats here.
First, whether it is 235 per million or 197 per million, we are talking about an exceedingly low incrementally increased cancer risk.
Second, it is not clear over what length of time this would be, but the report notes: “long-term, multi-year exposure.”
By moving away from for-sale units, the project moves away from people who would gain that exposure on a long-term, multi-year basis.
Critics of the Nishi project have called on the city or developers to study the site long term, rather than a 10-day period. I am not clear what would be gained by that. First of all, the 10-day period already represents a higher than expected yield. That sample finds an incremental cancer risk level at 235 per million, while they expect to find about a 197 per million level. It is unclear what would be gained by doing more study at this point, other than as an attempt to delay the project going to the voters.
It is worth noting that, in his latest communication, Dr. Cahill did not call for more study. Instead, he simply declared that he preferred the site to be used for research uses.
But there is a huge logical leap here being undertaken by Professor Cahill. If he would really prefer that the site have research purposes and house the World Food Center, as he claims – let us explore what that would mean.
First, it would mean there would be people working on the site for 10 years, 20 years, perhaps more.
Second, the World Food Center would likely have outdoor agricultural components which would expose students, faculty, staff, and others to unfiltrated air.
If the concern is air quality and exposure, a student who resides at Nishi who lives there one to three years is going to be exposed to far less than an employee who works on the site for 10 or 20 years.
There is a logical leap here that just doesn’t make any sense. But at the end of the day, it seems likely that the reason that Dr. Cahill opposes student housing here has less to do with the risk to air pollution and more to do with his personal preference that the site be utilized for research purposes.
While that is certainly his right as a citizen and a voter, that is not an air quality concern.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“I don’t believe that the ‘powers that be’ in Davis have taken the right message from the Nishi defeat”
Did you ask directly what the “right message” is?
No because it is clear from the next sentence: “The ‘razor thin’ victory was achieved despite the opponents being out spent 30 to 1…”
Basically he’s arguing that the margin wasn’t that thin, it was articially suppressed by the resource difference.
Here I have problems as well:
1. Project proponents always vastly outspend the opposition
2. Previous projects have had similar discrepencies and yet overwhelming defeats
3. It’s not like the next iteration will see that ap close
David, that is confusing. The message, and the ability to deliver the message are two different things.
A “razor thin victory” is a telling statement… the “NO” vote ‘won’ by a razor thin ‘victory’… so, it is logical to say that Cahill opposed the proposal, and sees its defeat as a ‘victory’. For whatever reason, but he seems bent on the World Food Center or other such thing. So much for detached analysis, scientific opinion. Am now questioning his motivations, but not his creds.
Then, as the land is in the County, not the City, he should damn well be pushing UCD to acquire the property from the owners. No access to W Olive… I’m cool with that.
What I would NOT be cool with is the idea that the City should annex, have the site owned or leased by UC, have access to W Olive for motor vehicles, where the City has the burdens, but zero on-going revenues…
Was thinking the same thing, myself. Much better than a farther-removed site. No reason that access needs to be provided via Olive Drive.
We’ve only got once chance to get this right.
For those hoping to put something like this at MRIC (instead of at Nishi), you might be disappointed.
Which is fine but it discounts his air quality point – which is the point of my column today
David: If you want to argue with Dr. Cahill’s conclusion that the site is simply NOT suitable for housing, feel free to do so.
Alternatively, you could call for more studies, in the hopes of proving him wrong.
(Or, perhaps you could challenge him to a debate?) 🙂
Alternatively I can look at the analysis from the studies they did do in February 2015 and question what more studies would gain us that we don’t have already. The analysis shows that the readings there were higher than average due to weather patterns and wind flow during those ten days. If that’s the case, then calling for more studies is just a delay tactic that will not yield beneficial results.
Second and more importantly, I argue here that Dr. Cahill is actually contradicting himself. If he believes that air quality is the issue, then allowing people to work at the World Food Center exposes them to more over a longer period of time then would be the case for student renters. That leads me to question his driver here.
David: Seems like those are questions (and your questioning of his “motives”) are something to address with Dr. Cahill.
One thing that I’ve previously pointed out is that living there exposes one to toxins in a shorter period of time, compared to working there. (Perhaps more similar to “binge drinking”, compared to a glass one wine with dinner.)
Also not sure of the extent of the original study (e.g., if it actually included on-site samples).
But again, I pretty much try to avoid arguing with experts (or at least arriving at my own personal “conclusions”), regarding highly technical matters. Doing so can result in appearing foolish, or at least outright biased.
Boy, that was a tongue-in-cheek post if I ever saw one.
Ron, you do a great passive aggressive.
Experts still have to have sound reasoning for their conclusions and in this case, there is a glaring contradiction as I have pointed out and Ron, you have not attempted to reconcile other than fallaciously appealing to authority.
By the way, have you shared the entirety (in your article above) regarding Dr. Cahill’s latest letter?
(I like how you start out your article by citing defensive comments from the developer, and then stating that this isn’t “good enough” for Dr. Cahill.)
A truly amusing and desperate style of reporting.
More concerning is your unsubstantiated personal attack, regarding Dr. Cahill’s motives (e.g., his “personal preference that the site be used for research purposes”).
In other words, it seems that you’re suggesting that Dr. Cahill is putting forth his professional conclusion, to support his personal wishes. (Wouldn’t that be unethical? Is that what you’re suggesting?)
I like how you don’t address any substantive points in your comments.
David: I’ve casually addressed a couple of your points, but again – I’m not really that engaged or knowledgeable, regarding this issue. (Unlike you, I guess.) 🙂
Of course you are engaged, you’ve comment at least 100 times on this topic in the last week. Please be honest. You are knowledgeable, all you have to do is look at the numbers I post and use logic to see that Dr. Cahill’s logic here falls short.
David:
The more you argue regarding air quality, the deeper the hole you dig.
Again, for those advocating for including housing, I’m surprised that you’re not calling for more study, at least to “disprove” Dr. Cahill’s conclusion.
And, if Dr. Cahill’s analysis is subsequently disproven, perhaps a proposal will arise that’s closer to your preference for a “USC Village” type of development. (With no access to Olive.) Perhaps including the World Food Center, as well.
Again, there’s only one chance to do this right. This is a very unique and challenging site, but perhaps one with greater potential than what we’ve seen so far. (And, unlike MRIC, it’s adjacent to UCD, with all of the benefits that this entails.)
And of course, if subsequent studies somehow “prove” that it’s o.k. to include housing on the site, perhaps other sites in the city don’t need to be sacrificed for student-only housing.
Or, perhaps UCD will end up with the site, providing greater flexibility regarding its use. (However, I recall that Eileen mentioned that UCD officials stated that they didn’t want the site, at least partly due to the air quality concerns.)
(By the way, I sincerely doubt that I, or any other commenter made “100 comments” on this topic within the last week.) This kind of statement further undermines your own arguments (especially when you venture into more technical subjects).
Ron:
I think have a basic sense for the air quality issues as well as the risk factors along I-80 and I don’t think additional data i going to change anything either in terms of what I’m arguing, what you are arguing or what Cahill is arguing. The weird thing is that you seem to deal with the data by ignoring it completely and argue for more studying without discussing what we have. I see this as a delay tactic. I see Cahill as opposing housing largely for reasons that have nothing to do with risk.
“Basic sense” being the key word, here. (But, you’re right – I’m pretty sure it won’t change what you’re arguing, unless the conclusions support your preference.)
We’ve been discussing it. (Others, more than me.)
It’s strange that you see this as a “delay tactic”, unless you think that subsequent analysis would confirm Dr. Cahill’s conclusion. It’s even more strange that you can’t envision the potential (greater) use of the site, if the subsequent analysis supports your preferences.
As Roberta noted, air quality measurements apparently weren’t even collected directly on the site. Might that be an appropriate, first step?
Per your citation of Dr. Cahill’s letter:
“In other words, it seems that you’re suggesting that Dr. Cahill is putting forth a professional opinion, to support his personal wishes. (Wouldn’t that be unethical? Is that what you’re suggesting?)”
Oh, I’m not suggesting it. Let me know when you can reconcile his view on rental housing explorer with employee exposure at the World Food Center.
Already did, casually (above). “Binge drinking”, vs. “a glass of wine with dinner”?
Also, difference in activities on the site (and building designs), regarding commercial vs. residential development?
Just puttin’ it out there. Not pretending that I have the skills to fully engage on highly technical matters.
This isn’t technical. They post the risk factors, they post how they derived them. All you have to do is understand that someone who rents a room at Nishi is only going to live on the site for a short period time whereas someone who works at Nishi is going to be working at least 8 hours a day for perhaps 10 to 20 if not more years. Simple math dictates that that means that they get exposure to more of the particulate matter than the short-term renter. You don’t have to know anything more to make that determination. His logic doesn’t hold here.
That’s what I was wondering too. Living somewhere 24/7 is quite different from just working there 8 hrs a day. Also the buildings could have a state of the art filtration system with workers spending most of their time indoors.
You don’t live in an apartment 24/7, first of all. Second, if you look at the time exposure even if you did live there 24/7 for three years, you would have less exposure in time than you would working 8 hours a day on the site for 10 years.
Yes but when you live somewhere you might also exercise there, walk your dog there, sit out on the patio there, etc.
Working there for 8 hours in a filtrated building I would say would hardly expose the workers to much pollution at all.
Uhm, yeah – it is.
No, it doesn’t. Activities and exposure levels can differ, depending upon use of the site, building design, etc. (Even if it were true, it’s not within the same intense timeframe.) Probably other factors as well, that I’m not even thinking of.
Again, if you’d prefer to see housing included on the site, perhaps it’s you that should be calling for more study. (Or, at least directing your challenges to someone with more knowledge.)
I’m guessing that at this point, you’re pretty sorry that you asked Dr. Cahill for more input.
Keith and Ron: You guys are really talking about marginal differences in exposure. If you read the analysis I pulled from the EIR, you will see the key words: “long term exposure” and “over a period of years” – you’re just not going to have that in a student rental housing complex. This isn’t that complicated a subject.
Yes but are workers in a filtration controlled building being exposed? They’re going to be indoors for the most part while someone living there will be spending much more time outside being exposed. This is all based on any research development buildings being well filtrated.
The same air filtration system that would be in the apartments. And the WFC will have outdoor farming as well.
If your assumptions are correct (e.g., on the site, itself), this seems like another question for Dr. Cahill. (At least, to address in a more thorough manner than what can be accomplished informally, via comments from the peanut gallery on the Vanguard.)
It might be a question I ask someone, but probably not Cahill.
Can’t say I blame you. Suggest that you “shop around”, until you find someone with at least some credentials who’s willing to informally spout off an opinion which supports your preference. 🙂
(The smiley face is intended to soften the comment, not antagonize you.)
The measurements that were taken were not taken at Nishi; they were taken near Nishi. The call for additional measurements is to see what it is actually like at Nishi.
How do you figure that people would be on the job for 10-20 years? I think that’s highly unusual these days. Today’s worker changes jobs pretty often. And yet, you assume that students won’t live there long (and that it would only be students). I find these assumptions “convenient.”
You’ve also failed to address the window issue; most workplaces don’t have windows that open anyway, but most residences do. Is the proposal to have windows that do not open in the residences? Are residents supposed to keep their windows closed, even at night, even when the temperature is comfortable outside?
The point is that someone can be on the job for decades. It’s not that unusual. They’ll be on the job a lot longer than someone is going to live as a student at the rental housing.
You mention windows – the health concerns that they highlight in the EIR they talk in terms of “long-term exposure” and “over a period of years” people are just not going to live there over a period of years.
“The measurements that were taken were not taken at Nishi; they were taken near Nishi. The call for additional measurements is to see what it is actually like at Nishi”
I’m seeing this push for more measurement as a delay tactic. Dr. Cahill didn’t say we need more study when he wrote his letter, he simply said, we should use Nishi for other purposes.
“Can be,” yes. “Is like to be,” no. It is extremely rare for anyone to have the same job for decades anymore. And yet, you are convinced that residents will only be there for a short time. I again say that your assumptions — and they are just assumptions — are very “convenient,” i.e., chosen to make your point.
You’re changing the subject. You asked “what’s the difference between an employee and a resident,” and I answered: the windows. Talking about the number of years doesn’t address my point. And again, your assumptions about the # of years are highly questionable.
On the contrary — it’s asking for data. Let’s use the science. Let’s take an informed approach. There have been ample opportunities since the last vote to do the measurements. What are proponents afraid of? Let’s see what we find and make an informed decision.
As for Dr. Cahill’s letter, I don’t know anything about the context of it so I can’t speak to it. If I wanted to know if he still thought we needed measurements, I would ask him that directly instead of making inferences from a letter.
David: Could you share the entirety, of Dr. Cahill’s letter? Thanks.
I posted the entirety of it.
David Greenwald wrote:
So, back in March, when new studies came out showing higher risk of living near freeways than had been thought previously, and you yourself called for more measurements at Nishi, were you delaying then? And why have your “tactics” changed now?
Back in March, I didn’t know that the next proposal would have no for sale housing.
I find it fascinating that you think you can 1) determine how long residents will be living at the location and 2) draw conclusions about toxicity based on them. I really fail to see how you can conclude that the lack of for sale housing makes a relevant difference.
I’d be curious to see his citations for this comment. I find nothing about young adults being especially sensitive to any forms of air pollution. Children, the elderly, asthmatics, even diabetics are listed for vulnerability or increased susceptibility. But nothing about young adults 18 – 25 being ‘more sensitive’. Perhaps someone with medical training can comment about that.
If the air is too toxic to live there with extensive mitigation, then it’s too toxic to work there. Toxicity is a function of dosage over time. If your day breaks down into home 2/3, work 1/3 of the time, then this is simple math. Median job tenure in the United States was 4.2 years in 2016, according to the BLS. So that’s ok, but 3 – 5 years living there is not? Seems like a pretty narrow statistical reed to hang your opposition on.
This is a false statement, already discussed. (If you don’t believe that, try drinking ALL of the alcoholic beverages you’ve had during your lifetime, in one night.) (Assuming that you drink, occasionally.)
If you’re discussing cumulative toxicity which builds up in a body over time, then I think your statement MIGHT have more validity. (But again, I’d defer to experts regarding that.)
In the meantime, this is yet another (repetitive) argument built on a “foundation of sand”.
Ron: Actually you’re incorrect. In this case, if you read the literature and analysis, you see that it is in fact over time and from prolonged exposure over a period of years.
Don” Actual studies should define the underlying assumptions, which would likely be more complete than anything you and David are tossing out.
David: Don made a general comment, which may or may not apply, here. I had also noted the possibility that toxins can build up, over time (in addition to more immediate impacts for sensitive groups, for example).
If you have some “literature and analysis” that you think is applicable, feel free to post it. (Of course, it still might require some expertise to determine if it’s applicable to the Nishi site.)
Seems like both of you are determined to engage in arguments (with no one being qualified to do so).
And, without actual measurements from the site itself.
I’m hoping to be done with this nonsense, for now.
Your comment makes me wonder if you actually read this article.
My statement is accurate, but if you prefer more nuance from my actual training on this topic: the dose makes the poison. Chronic effects are a function of dosage over time.
The example you give of alcohol is acute toxicity. We are talking here about chronic toxicity.
I was a licensed pest control applicator for many years and had ongoing certification with required continuing education during that period. That involved understanding of basic principles of toxicology.
Ron… THINK! You wrote,
Do you not see, that you refuted (brazenly) your own argument? Binge drinking has a very short period of time, and big dosage. Results can be catastrophic…
Howard: Not sure how I refuted my “own argument”, since you’re quoting Don. In any case, perhaps it is not the best example. (One of the things that occurs, when unknowledgeable people engage in arguments regarding technical concerns. David and Don repeatedly wanted to engage, especially before I pointed out Dr. Cahill’s letter in the Enterprise. Probably would have been better to (continue to) refer such questions to someone with expertise, instead. Still, have to wonder if binge drinking also causes more long-term damage, though. (Compared to lower-dose but more frequent drinking.) That’s the point I was trying to make.
The “bigger deal” here is Dr. Cahill’s letter to the Enterprise. (Not the one shared on the Vanguard.)
http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/opinion-columns/we-need-updated-science-on-nishi-air-quality/
Let’s see how the unabashed proponents argue with that.
Let me make it simple, Ron… you took Don’s “Toxicity is a function of dosage over time.”,
then YOU said, “This is a false statement, already discussed. (If you don’t believe that, try drinking ALL of the alcoholic beverages you’ve had during your lifetime, in one night.)”
THEN I said (regarding your statement), “Do you not see, that you refuted (brazenly) your own argument? Binge drinking has a very short period of time, and big dosage. Results can be catastrophic…”
think toxicity = dosage/time… high dose over short time is high toxicity….
What do you not understand? Numerators and denominators?
Howard:
Seems like you don’t want to let this go, even though I already explained the possible similarity in concept to you. Here’s a quote from a study referenced in an article, to explain it further:
https://www.menshealth.com/health/regular-drinking-vs-binge-drinking
I do not know if this is a good analogy regarding toxicity in air, in general. Just was presenting it as a layman argument. Perhaps it also depends upon the particular toxic substance that’s being referred to, and how the body reacts to it (including whether or not the body can expel and recover from it), over time.
Whatever we discuss pales in comparison to Dr. Cahill’s analysis and conclusion. Again, I’d refer you to the Enterprise article:
http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/opinion-columns/we-need-updated-science-on-nishi-air-quality/
Ron, you seem to read “toxicity is a function of dosage over time” as meaning that it takes time for something to become toxic. But could also be read more abstractly and neutrally, as saying something like: there are two components to toxicity, dosage and time. In which case, what you said is consistent with this phrase — that for alcohol, a high dosage in a short amount of time is highly toxic.
Don
“I’d be curious to see his citations for this comment. I find nothing about young adults being especially sensitive to any forms of air pollution. Children, the elderly, asthmatics, even diabetics are listed for vulnerability or increased susceptibility. But nothing about young adults 18 – 25 being ‘more sensitive’. Perhaps someone with medical training can comment about that.”
I also picked up on that. While pulmonology is certainly not my specialty, I am unaware of any physiologic attribute that would make people in the 18-25 age group especially susceptible to air pollution. To the best of my knowledge of physiology, adolescents and young adults would probably be two groups whose bronchiolar and alveolar defense and repair mechanisms would be at their most robust. I was quite surprised to read this as Dr. Cahill seems to have been quite factual in his presentations to date apart from his, in my opinion, over reliance on the “precautionary principle”. This assertion would seem to me to be both incorrect and potentially a reflection of bias. I will stand corrected if anyone can provide studies suggesting that this is a particularly vulnerable time period.
Cahill is primarily a physicist, not a physician… maybe the last two letters confuse some…
David and Don: There’s nothing “wrong” with the questions you ask. But, I’m not actively seeking to answer them, in order to “prove” something, one way or another. (That’s where you seem to differ from me, regarding this issue.)
It really would be useful if you could ask those questions from someone with expertise.
In any case, I wouldn’t arrive at a “conclusion”, based upon an informal discussion from those without expertise on the Vanguard. (That’s another area where you seem to differ, from me.)
Even more so, since measurements apparently weren’t taken at the site.
David: It appears that your citations in your article above do not include the full text of Dr. Cahill’s letter to the Enterprise. (Note that he even includes contact information for himself, if one is interested in supporting documentation.)
http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/opinion-columns/we-need-updated-science-on-nishi-air-quality/
Actually, the letter that Dr. Cahill sent to the Enterprise appears to be an entirely different letter than the one that he shared with the Vanguard. (I wonder why he didn’t share this with the Vanguard, directly?)
In the letter to the Enterprise, he notes the following (regarding the Nishi draft EIR):
http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/opinion-columns/we-need-updated-science-on-nishi-air-quality/
David, perhaps now you can see why it is highly irresponsible of you to conclude that Dr. Cahill is not calling for additional testing at Nishi, simply because it wasn’t mentioned in the letter that he shared with you.
College students do not reside at their apartment 24/7, or even 8/7 for that matter. Students (1) spend much of their day on campus or at outside activities away from their abode and (2) they are gone for at least 3 months during the summer (and another month in other vacation periods). So it’s more like 7/4.66… And they are there for only 3 years.
As for employees at the site, they will be there 8/5 for up to 30 years. There’s a lot of sloppy reasoning about exposure going on here, including by Dr. Cahill. It’s pretty clear that he’s let his personal biases overrun his professional judgement.
Richard, you are making a lot of assumptions here. Many students do stay for the summer quarter. And there is nothing to limit residency to students. This may be an attractive location for other young adults as well, or anyone who chooses to live there, for as long as they want to live there. (With windows open?)
And, as I said in my response to David, there is no way that 30 years (or even the 10 or 20 years that David cites) is typical for employment these days. Don Shor states, “Median job tenure in the United States was 4.2 years in 2016, according to the BLS” and that sounds similar to what I have heard reported.
I don’t think you can draw the conclusion that you did about his “personal biases.”
One drink per day is considered moderate drinking per government guidelines, and is considered either healthy or non-harmful (depending on which studies you prefer to look at). Binge drinking is acute toxicity. The issue at hand with Nishi and, say, living near the freeway, or living in Bakersfield (yep) is chronic toxicity of exposure over a long period of time. It’s more like drinking 2 or more drinks per day over several years, which is known to be harmful to your body and is strongly correlated with any number of ailments. We rely on government health experts and research scientists to assess the impact of alcohol on us when consumed in different doses.
So alcohol is a toxin. It is a known human carcinogen. But it doesn’t increase your risk of cancer at low doses, and isn’t acutely toxic or chronically toxic at low doses. Binge drinking can kill you. The dosage is well known and can be calculated from your body weight. That is acute toxicity. Long-term heavy drinking can kill you. The dosage is not as well determined, but the possible outcomes are: cirrhosis, heart disease, various cancers.
We have similar comparisons with pesticides, both conventional and organic. They’re tested and regulated for their direct acute toxicity, effects on reproduction (damage to reproductive organs), mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, and teratogenicity (birth defects). Specific studies are done for registration, and researchers often do further work on well-known pesticides. Regulators look at the weight of the evidence resulting from those studies and set guidelines for dosages and cumulative exposure (look up ‘risk cup’ if you’re interested).
It is the published work of those researchers, taken together, that gives us the regulations and tolerances that are set for substances. No single research group’s results are going to be determinative. With pesticides the regulatory scientists set standards for the most vulnerable segments of the population, then multiply that by a substantial margin (100x, if I recall) to make the exposure limits.
You can see that there are some checks and balances in this process. In effect, what I see here is one well-known researcher saying (paraphrasing, obviously): “Whoa, we need to set new standards entirely for this type of pollutant. My research shows it is very dangerous.” I expect that regulatory scientists at the EPA (if there are any left) and at Cal-EPA and the other state agencies would look at that broader data, as well as exposure situations in other communities and situations, and decide whether to establish different regulations: more mitigation, greater distances, etc.
I have suggested previously that I believe that is how Dr. Cahill should address his concerns, not by acting to block a specific development proposal in one particular community. Go look at the air readings in Bakersfield or Stockton, or the South Coast region of Southern California. You will see high readings on various of the particulates in question, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they average much higher in the San Joaquin Valley overall than what you’d get at Nishi under most prevailing wind conditions.
That’s the context in which I view his comments. And unfortunately, since he took a partisan position in the last election and has stated pretty clearly how he views this project, I think it is very unlikely that the developers would be willing to pay him or his team any further consulting fees to pursue his testing proposals. They would be paying someone who is likely to oppose their project and whose opposition is likely to figure heavily in the campaign against their project.
Don:
Rather than paraphrase and misinterpret what Dr. Cahill states in his letter to the Enterprise, why not just refer to the entire thing?
— Tom Cahill, a resident of Davis since 1967, is a UC Davis professor emeritus of physics and atmospheric sciences and head of the DELTA Group. His first work on Sacramento Valley air pollution was in 1973 and continues to the present.
http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/opinion-columns/we-need-updated-science-on-nishi-air-quality/
I didn’t. I read the letter. You didn’t need to post it here, and likely violate copyright issues by doing so.
In your response, you literally stated that you were “paraphrasing, obviously”. Your own statement shows that you are lying.
If the Vanguard believes that copying and referencing the letter violates copyright issues, then the Vanguard is likely liable for allowing it to remain. You’ll have to make that decision.
Regardless, I view your response as a form of online bullying, and this is not the first time that you’ve threatened me in such a manner. (The previous time was for a different issue.) It’s unfortunate that a publication which supposedly encourages free and open speech resorts to such a tactic.
Ron:
Bolded for emphasis. Don’t call me a liar.
Review the fair use rule. Next time excerpt and discuss, rather than copying the entire text verbatim. That’s what David does.
Ron… seriously suggest you avoid the phrase,
on so many levels…
Oh, please. The Vanguard is always quoting things in their entirety. Now you’re complaining about it?
Thanks, Roberta.
I also found it suspicious that Don would point this out regarding a letter that he obviously disagrees with. But, I also have no objections if he removes it based upon his statement. (I suspect that Don knows that this type of threat bothers me, based on a somewhat similar experience on the Vanguard, in the past.) In any case, I would expect (and hope) that the Vanguard has more knowledge than me regarding this (not to mention liability), and take whatever action it deems necessary.
Oh – just saw Don’s post, in which he advises me to “excerpt and discuss” next time. I will take that advice.
Have a good evening.
Don, what I hear you saying is that if a scientist thinks that a particular type of project would be harmful to human health, they should take that up with regulatory agencies rather than weigh in on specific projects of that type. But that would be highly irresponsible. Regulatory agencies often move very slowly. Meanwhile, a dangerous project might get built. If scientists won’t speak up when they think something is dangerous, who will? I applaud Dr. Cahill for sticking his neck out, because it certainly hasn’t been easy — he’s been attacked here on the Vanguard and elsewhere for doing so.
If he believes it is that dangerous, then he should seek an immediate moratorium on any development within a certain distance of highways or railroad tracks anywhere. But if he thinks it is that dangerous, it makes no sense to allow that you would be ok with business or university research development on the site.
Maybe so. But that doesn’t make it wrong for him to object to housing on the site.
Don,
I find it hard to believe you use the term “partisan” regarding Dr. Cahill’s scientific and professional concerns about the health, welfare, and safety issues at Nishi regarding the air quality issues. I find it even more disappointing that you try to marginalize Dr. Cahill, a world famous scientist who has dedicated his entire life to collecting and analyzing data on the subject of air pollution impacts on health.
However, even in the Nishi EIR, the preliminary data on the air quality was determined to be a “significant impact”. And now there is even more new scientific data clarifying the severity of health impacts of even lower levels of ultrafine particulate matter from railroad diesel. Dr. Cahill, is a UCD emeritus faculty member and a world renowned expert on the subject of air pollution including ultrafine particulate matter on health.
Dr. Cahill has made clear for at least several years now, that Nishi is not a good location for residential due to the health impacts from the air pollution from I-80 and the railroad tracks, and has urge the Nishi developers to do the needed air quality studies. So, if the air quality is not a problem Don, why don’t the Nishi developers just do the needed air quality studies? What are the Nishi developers afraid of finding out?
Perhaps both UCD and Davis should jointly fund those studies, at taxpayers’, students’ expense (UCD doesn’t like to fund things they can’t pass on, like parking, or anything that is not part of their ‘core mission’) [ask any UCD staff/professors], and consider de-annexing the property to Solano Co, from whence it came in the 90’s. But first, try to find a way to ban all farming from it, lest the horrible toxins enter the food chain…
In the meantime, we should find other places for the homeless to live (many live on the property, and the least we can do is spare them from an additional danger), and stop all weed abatement on the site, as it has been shown that vegetation reduces the pollution.
You make good points, and we should do what we can to follow up… even though the property is in Yolo County, not the City… and we should notify EPA that the property is, or might become, a Superfund Site.
Thank you for your vigilance on this!
Next time I suggest you address the points I made instead of just repeating your appeals to authority. Nobody here denies Dr. Cahill’s expertise.
I urge you to reread Dr. Cahill’s 2016 letter to the editor if you don’t believe he took a partisan position.
Roberta
I would have agreed with your assessment of Dr. Cahill’s approach and concerns right up until this most recent communique in which he states that young adults in this age group are more vulnerable to toxins than other populations. Given that the physiologic defense mechanisms and reparative functions of adolescents and young adults are at their peak, not their weakest I must conclude that in this regard, Dr. Cahill seems to have overstepped the boundaries of his expertise. Whether he did this carelessly or because of bias is open to speculation, but in either case, this limited claim is physiologically incorrect.
Tia, are you responding to me or to Eileen?
Don,
So, this is where we simply need to agree to disagree. Dr. Cahill’s expertise is scientifically based and is for the benefit of protecting the health, welfare and safety of the public. So I suggest you refer to Dr. Cahill’s new Op-ed in the Enterprise (on-line now and in hard copy this coming Sunday Oct. 29th) shedding even more light on the many problems of considering residential at Nishi:
http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/opinion-columns/we-need-updated-science-on-nishi-air-quality/
This well written article by Dr. Cahill explains even more reasons for concern of any consideration of having residential at the Nishi site. I have heard no logical reason why the air quality studies have not been done yet by the developers. These studies need to be done first before considering any residential use at Nishi for the health, welfare, and safety of the public (primarily the UCD students). It seems apparent that the developers have no care or concern regarding the critical issue of air pollution, particularly ultrafine particulate matter impacts on their health.
The only thing that disgusts me more than small-minded people who make scientific arguments that embarassingly highlight their complete inability to comprehend their own inability to understand scientific method, are so-called experts who misuse their titles as scientific ‘experts’ to espouse their biased political opinions and take advantage of flocks of naive sheep that cannot or will not admit the knowledge limits of the experts they site nor consider the opinions of other experts who believe otherwise.
And the only thing that disgusts me more than that are people who write overlong sentences that take up an entire paragraph.
Alan: How do you feel about people who misuse the word “site”? 🙂
Actually, I took “site” as a clever pun… there is at least one vocal critic of the studies to date, ‘cited’ as saying earlier measurements were taken from a questionable ‘site’, and therefore not valid/representative…. a matter of in-‘sight’?