Regarding your 9/21 story entitled “Youth soccer field air tests shows cause for concern,” your story left out a couple of things. While I am heartened that it showed concern for the welfare of a soccer playing child who spends probably two hours a week at the site (at most six), what about the homeless people who live at the site seven days a week? The story didn't even have a word for them.
I also think it would be a nice touch if the reporter would do a little research to help inform rather than inflame readers. For example, it is mentioned that on one day (Sept. 8), the PM10 was three times the state's 24-hour standard. What does this mean for a child who spends two hours (out of 24) on the field? Do they have an exposure that is 75 percent below the state’s standard? Also, the story neglected to tell readers that the readings referred to are only for a two-hour period, not the entire day. Are we entering the world of irresponsible journalism here?
Doesn’t the Planet have the resources to put out well researched, well thought out think pieces on the issue of air quality rather than these shallow sound bites? There are lots of good questions that need to be answered. For example, what is the relationship between the state’s 24-hour standard and a person who is exercising for two hours in this environment? Are there health issues at the homeless shelter that might be related to air quality? If the transfer station is a source of air pollution is there anything that could be done to reduce its emissions? There are lots of really good and interesting stories here — give us these.
Chairperson, Association of Sports Field User