3 ms·
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
by 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 agoyes, sorry, i jumped back and forth in my responses, but that's exactly the kind of grounding every article needs.