4 ms·

we're agreeing on a lot of the substance (it's a problem that should be addressed right away, along with other super-emitters), but the title is absolutely clic

we're agreeing on a lot of the substance (it's a problem that should be addressed right away, along with other super-emitters), but the title is absolutely clickbait. i did skim the latimes article (and as an LA resident, it's of particular interest)--not even one attempt at grounding the actual risks, but absolutely filled with emotional language. without a sense of the collective risk involved, it's certainly meant to automatically push the alarm buttons of the less well-informed. methane, oh my god, what's next, cancer?! it's the same tried-and-true sensationalist tactic of making the issue de jure outsized relative to the danger. it's worked with aids, 9/11, covid, etc. fear sells. again, 8% reduction at the limit is nothing to sneeze at, but it's not by itself going to change our lives materially (except for those nearby, reason enough to adjure action). that's why the sensationalism was added, to make the story seem more relevant than it is. but we as citizens should not, and do not, need that kind of manipulation to do the right thing. it's cynical and infantalizing.

mturmon 6y ago
Oh, I didn't like the LAT formulation either. I thought you were referring mostly to the JPL press release. (The JPL work was really about CH4's contribution to greenhouse warming, not at all to personal health -- I'm very familiar with that work.) The LAT didn't say anything about whether the emission levels they suggest (~100 kg/hour = ~200 m^3/hour) are large from a health perspective, and they didn't say anything about the actual risk from CH4. A BOE calculation shows that if the wind is 5km/hour, and the CH4 disperses over a cross-section 100m x 20m (very tight), then the steady-state concentration in the plume would be about 20ppm, which is a bit over the overall atmosphere (~2ppm). The NIOSH maximum safe concentration, however, is 1000ppm. This makes me guess that the leak isn't very consequential from a health POV. It would be nice to have the LAT ask someone who knows more!
- clairity 6y ago
  yes, sorry, i jumped back and forth in my responses, but that's exactly the kind of grounding every article needs.

mturmon 6y ago

Oh, I didn't like the LAT formulation either. I thought you were referring mostly to the JPL press release. (The JPL work was really about CH4's contribution to greenhouse warming, not at all to personal health -- I'm very familiar with that work.) The LAT didn't say anything about whether the emission levels they suggest (~100 kg/hour = ~200 m^3/hour) are large from a health perspective, and they didn't say anything about the actual risk from CH4. A BOE calculation shows that if the wind is 5km/hour, and the CH4 disperses over a cross-section 100m x 20m (very tight), then the steady-state concentration in the plume would be about 20ppm, which is a bit over the overall atmosphere (~2ppm). The NIOSH maximum safe concentration, however, is 1000ppm. This makes me guess that the leak isn't very consequential from a health POV. It would be nice to have the LAT ask someone who knows more!

clairity 6y ago
yes, sorry, i jumped back and forth in my responses, but that's exactly the kind of grounding every article needs.