The PSI Disconnect - NEA Vs Aqicn.org Reading
You look out of your window and see the thick haze covering the sun. Instinctively, your brain and heart tell you the PSI level should be very high.
You switched on the television and the free-to-air screen indicates the 24 hours level PSI level is at 60, at the moderate range. The source being Singapore National Environment Agency (NEA) 24 hours PSI reading.
"This can't be right!" you feel as you see the haze reducing your visibility and the burnt smell starts to be fill your nose.
You google "air quality singapore and the first link you see is the link to aqicn.org and you click on it.
The "air quality" at the website shows the air quality in your area to be entering the Unhealthy range of 109.
"NEA's 60 vs Aqicn's 109 - which is real?" your minds questions the authenticity of both readings. You take another look at the thicker haze. Your perception becomes your reality, which leads you to conclude with Aqicn's readings and dismiss NEA's reading.
NEA tries to clear the air, pun intended, about the readings and offers one of their senior scientific officer to the media to clarify the differences between the two readings.
In the interview, the scientific offered cold hard facts to prove the accuracy of NEA's readings.
"She explained that using the 1-hour PM2.5 readings may not be meaningful because “scientific findings (on the effects of particulate matter on a person’s health) are based on 24-hour exposure to PM2.5”.
“There are very limited findings on one-hour exposure to PM2.5,” she added.
Source: https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/nea-addresses-questions-over-veracity-psi-alternative-air-quality-readings-pop-online
You mind starts to wonder, "So NEA is telling me that if I stand outdoors and breath in the hazed air at 109 for one hour, there is no effect on my body because there are limited findings on one-hour exposure to PM2.5?"
As you read the article, another confusing statements comes to play.
“The Air Quality Index (AQI) by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advises that you’re supposed to use the average 24-hour PM2.5 readings (to measure air quality). But (aqicn.org) is using NEA’s 1-hour PM2.5 (to measure air quality), which is not accurate.”
Source: https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/nea-addresses-questions-over-veracity-psi-alternative-air-quality-readings-pop-online
Aqicn.org is sourcing its data from NEA's 1-hour reading and you say the data from NEA is not accurate?
In trying to prove that there is no wrong in NEA's readings, the human touch to the article was just like the facts, hard and cold.
Not once in the interview did the interviewee took any opportunity to highlight what precautions readers can take to prevent or reduce breathing complexities during this period of haze. The scientific officer should have just added a statement like "Please wear a N95 mask to reduce breathing in particles for individuals with breathing difficulties," or "Reduce outdoor activities during this period".
Or the interviewee should have replied with "We are continuing our research on one-hour exposure to PM2.5 articles to improve the accuracy of both one-hour and 24-hours readings.
Facts are facts, but they are hard and cold. Insisting you are right, with facts, just alienates the audience you are trying to convince.
You switched on the television and the free-to-air screen indicates the 24 hours level PSI level is at 60, at the moderate range. The source being Singapore National Environment Agency (NEA) 24 hours PSI reading.
"This can't be right!" you feel as you see the haze reducing your visibility and the burnt smell starts to be fill your nose.
You google "air quality singapore and the first link you see is the link to aqicn.org and you click on it.
| aqicn.org comes up first in Google search |
The "air quality" at the website shows the air quality in your area to be entering the Unhealthy range of 109.
"NEA's 60 vs Aqicn's 109 - which is real?" your minds questions the authenticity of both readings. You take another look at the thicker haze. Your perception becomes your reality, which leads you to conclude with Aqicn's readings and dismiss NEA's reading.
NEA tries to clear the air, pun intended, about the readings and offers one of their senior scientific officer to the media to clarify the differences between the two readings.
In the interview, the scientific offered cold hard facts to prove the accuracy of NEA's readings.
"She explained that using the 1-hour PM2.5 readings may not be meaningful because “scientific findings (on the effects of particulate matter on a person’s health) are based on 24-hour exposure to PM2.5”.
“There are very limited findings on one-hour exposure to PM2.5,” she added.
Source: https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/nea-addresses-questions-over-veracity-psi-alternative-air-quality-readings-pop-online
You mind starts to wonder, "So NEA is telling me that if I stand outdoors and breath in the hazed air at 109 for one hour, there is no effect on my body because there are limited findings on one-hour exposure to PM2.5?"
As you read the article, another confusing statements comes to play.
“The Air Quality Index (AQI) by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advises that you’re supposed to use the average 24-hour PM2.5 readings (to measure air quality). But (aqicn.org) is using NEA’s 1-hour PM2.5 (to measure air quality), which is not accurate.”
Source: https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/nea-addresses-questions-over-veracity-psi-alternative-air-quality-readings-pop-online
Aqicn.org is sourcing its data from NEA's 1-hour reading and you say the data from NEA is not accurate?
In trying to prove that there is no wrong in NEA's readings, the human touch to the article was just like the facts, hard and cold.
Not once in the interview did the interviewee took any opportunity to highlight what precautions readers can take to prevent or reduce breathing complexities during this period of haze. The scientific officer should have just added a statement like "Please wear a N95 mask to reduce breathing in particles for individuals with breathing difficulties," or "Reduce outdoor activities during this period".
Or the interviewee should have replied with "We are continuing our research on one-hour exposure to PM2.5 articles to improve the accuracy of both one-hour and 24-hours readings.
Facts are facts, but they are hard and cold. Insisting you are right, with facts, just alienates the audience you are trying to convince.
The PSI Disconnect - NEA Vs Aqicn.org Reading
Reviewed by Aaron Koh
on
September 20, 2019
Rating: 5


