WRONG ADVICE FOR CANADIANS…according to the scientists.
ALBERTA - 31 May 2019
“Air quality conditions in Calgary and other parts of southern Alberta were much worse on Friday. Calgary’s AQHI level was a 10+ on Friday morning. That risk was forecast to remain very high into Friday night.”
“The Calgary Board of Education said principals make decisions based on local conditions, but the board’s guidelines are to consider indoor recess and lunch for students when the AQHI reaches 10+.When it comes to other outdoor activities, Calgary Minor Soccer advises games and practices should be delayed or rescheduled if the AQHI reaches 7 or higher.”
https://globalnews.ca/news/5339226/alberta-air-quality-forecast-may-31/
Look at the Index numbers below. So authorities wait for the index to get to the higher end before they protect their children from the toxic particulates. Authorities are failing in their duty of care if we read the World Health Organisation’s Group 1 carcinogenic substances list, ie Particulate Matter.



ALBERTA WILDFIRE ON RADIO 770CHQR
Listen to Dr. Ted Jablonski -
https://omny.fm/shows/the-morning-news-with-gord-gillies/do-masks-work-for-smoke/embed

No, smoke is primarily made up of fine particulates (PM2.5s). It does not only cause irritation and inflammation it is toxic and can also cross over into the blood stream and cause cancer in other organs.
The AQHI was at 10 and I could not believe Dr Jablonski said healthy kids could go outside in the smoke, after he had said that level equated to smoking a packet of cigarettes.
But then that doesn’t surprise me when he said he goes against all the scientific health advice and goes running in Class 1 carcinogen conditions!
Canadian Air Quality Health Index is wrong and doctors should not be saying it is ok for kids with healthy lungs to be going outside in 10+  smoke in Alberta.
From this:
17/11/2008: On the new website there is not even an air quality program.

To this:
19/7/2009 UPDATE:  - Environmental smoke does not get a mention any longer.

And to this:
23/2/2012: A new DHHS-PEH website is launched called 'Wood smoke, air quality, your health.'
Public and Environmental Health believe (like Forestry) that if they advise people on the internet then they have met their responsibilities.
No they have not. They cannot make the general population responsible for something like toxic air that is harmful and out of the public's control.
DHHS is responsible for our environmental health. They cannot just palm this off onto the population by saying when your home is letting in smoky air from the outside, take a break by going to a friend’s place, the local library, shopping centre, or sports centre!

In the past air pollution was considered an outdoor problem.

Our P&HS fails to recognise the following:
"Potentially, indoor air pollutants can greatly exceed outdoor levels. It is important that people with asthma consider this when they seek to use their homes or other buildings as refuges from the effects of outdoor pollution." http://www.nationalasthma.org.au/health-professionals/information-papers/asthma-air-pollution-asthma-series-paper-4-/indoor-air-pollutants


Forestry comes before Health in Tasmania!
"Surely no child should have to breathe air that could kill them".
This is what the updated version said following discussions with PEHS in July 2008.
"Action should be taken by others where possible to minimise exposure of the public to smoke. "
According to the World Health Organisation (WHO) “there is no safe level of fine particle pollution.”
If your doctor asks you, "have you ever smoked?", answer "yes".
You have smoked forestry smoke.
Cigarettes smoke is burning vegetation. Forestry smoke is burning  vegetation
Read what the Health Department (DHHS) has to say.
22.4.2010 - Dr Roscoe Taylor, Tasmanian Director of Public Health issues smoke warning.


Governments Role in Protecting Health and Safety - and again; the New England Journal of Medicine
Back to top
"Our role is to monitor the health of the Tasmanian population, and put in place programs to protect or promote health."
"We do not have any regulatory role in relation to environmental smoke."

Public and Environmental Health is another agency that does not have any regulatory control over environmental smoke from planned burns.



Government's Role in Protecting Health and Safety
"Government has a responsibility to implement effective public health measures that increase the information available to the public and decision makers, protect people from harm, promote health, and create environments that support healthy behaviors. The health, financial, and productivity gains from public health actions benefit individuals and society as a whole." - Dr. Frieden, Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta.  New England Journal of Medicine
DHHS - Organisational chart - July 2012; see where PEH fits in.
In 2008 this was the Tasmania Health Department's Answer to our deliberate forestry smoke problem.
No wonder the following document was never headed or signed.
What P&EH don't tell you is, that unless the building is fitted with ABSOLUTE FILTERS (SUPER HEPA FILTERS) you are breathing the same smoky air as outside, and possibly 3-5 times worse anyway. Buildings are rarely fitted with absolutes, and they are almost never fitted to homes.

“I remember being inside at Belconnen Westfield to try and get a bit of a reprieve from the air,” she says. “And the smoke alarm started going off [inside this] massive shopping centre.”
“I came home to see the same thing, smoke alarms just going off and people had to come outside and stand in the smoke where they were coughing 10 times worse.”

First published at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2020/feb/20/the-toxic-air-we-breathe-the-health-crisis-from-australias-bushfires
Burning is an option, breathing is not.
Public and Environmental Health Service
Dept. of Health & Human Services (DHHS)
13.2.2014 - Right to Information Decision:
Go here to find the number of air pollution, and particulate matter, susceptible people in Tasmania.
Also, being told to remain indoors only gives short-time protection from smoke. Maybe not even that depending on the building construction.



More than 3,000 Australians die every year from air-pollution-related illness; nearly twice the national road toll. - 10.Nov.2014 report by Places You Love alliance.


The US EPA has calculated that the ratio of healthcare cost savings to the costs of compliance with the Clean Air Act was 25:1 in 2010. This means that for every dollar spent complying with the Clean Air Act, twenty-five dollars were saved in healthcare costs due to lower disease burden, including a reduction in premature deaths, and reduction is cases of bronchitis, asthma, and myocardial infarction. - US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act: 1990-2020. Washington DC: EPA, 2010
Now known as DHHS Public Health Services
Changed from Public and Environmental Health
Health and sense-t
Click on the above picture to read  about research happening in Tasmania.
Cleanairtas feels any research must firstly aim to reduce deliberate air pollution at the source.
Research must not be used to have susceptible groups locked away, put into masks, or put on more medication whilst harmful emissions continue.
Cleanairtas maintains it is not up to the population to have to dodge or suffer pernicious pollution caused by others, as has been suggested on this Health page and by Asthma Foundation Tasmania

When it comes to deliberate wood smoke we need to target the pollution, not try to devise individual/personal health plans and put people on medicines.....so the pollution can continue.
I hope this is where we are headed?
Asthma sufferers to get air alert - smartphone app launched October 28, 2015
Clean air: the health and economic arguments
Asthma costs Australia almost $28b every year - 24/11/2015
Fire, smoke, climate change. Listen  to Dr Fay Johnston on ABC Radio National - 6/2/2016
Most jurisdictions throughout  Australia  have approved  (in legislation/regulation) prescribed burning however they have  failed to consider /ignored the serious health effects that these fires  have on local communities
Pollution contributing to thousands of lung cancer deaths in non-smokers
Pioneering Personalised Allergy Medicine:
Climate change is having a significant impact on the health of people susceptible to pollen allergies. Higher air temperatures and rising carbon dioxide levels are stimulating plant growth, increasing the production of airborne allergens and extending the seasons during which symptoms are most common. However, maintaining a personalised record of pollen sensitivity is an effective method of limiting exposure to the triggers and treating the debilitating
effects, particularly in children.
Interesting health research is being conducted in Tasmania.
It is highly recommended to watch Prof. Graeme Zosky's seminar "Air pollution and health: How particulate matter leads to illness", and
Dr Fay Johnson's seminar "The AirRater App: How citizen science can reduce health impacts from atmospheric hazards"
These and other Centre for Air pollution, energy and health research (CAR) seminars can be found HERE
Wildland fire smoke research to study impact on children's immune system
Dr. Prunicki and her team at the Stanford School of Medicine believe wildland fire smoke is more toxic than smoke from forest fires because of the plastics and metal burned during a major conflagration.
Air pollution linked to thickness of arteries
Researchers studied the impact of particulate matter -such as that found in smoke and haze and having a diameter of less than 2.5 microns - on the health of individuals. They specifically looked at the carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) or the thickness of key arteries, a marker of cardiovascular risk.
With California’s wildfire season bringing yearly evacuations, damage to communities and lasting health effects, Stanford faculty have been exploring ways of preventing fires and managing health risks.
A mother's exposure to particulate air pollution during pregnancy is associated with reduced cardiac response to stress in six-month-old infants.
This study is the first to find that particulate air pollution exposure in utero can affect heart rate variability, which is a known risk factor for health issues
Air pollution tied to hospitalizations for a wide range of illnesses
Short-term exposure to fine particulate matter was associated with an increased risk of several common causes of hospital admissions including sepsis or septicemia, a life-threatening reaction to a bacterial infection in the bloodstream; fluid and electrolyte disorders; kidney failure; and intestinal obstructions. These diseases have rarely been studied in the context of PM 2.5 and hospitalizations, the study team writes
Leaders ignore NSW 5 fires and smoke at the cost of worsening mental health
"Clearly we do not have a national consensus. What we have is division, we have arguments and we have screaming matches (in Parliament). The place is burning down. If we are not discussing it today, if not, when?" -  Prof. Ian Hickie
Dirty Air and the Human Brain: Does Pollution Poison the Mind?
In recent years, new areas of study have opened up into how air pollution might affect our minds and the way we think and feel. Epidemiologists and neuroscientists have found evidence linking long-term exposure to air pollution with increased incidence of dementia, Alzheimer’s Disease and other brain maladies. At the same time, behavioral and labor economists have published a series of papers about the effects of air pollution on cognitive performance.
According to Brazil’s INPE (National Institute for Space Research), the country faced a recorded 72,843 fire outbreaks from Jan 1 to Aug 19, 2019.
The number was 83% higher than during the same period last year, when 39, 759 fire outbreaks were
recorded.
Eco-anxiety - what it is and how to manage it.
According to a 2018 national survey almost 70% of people in the United States are worried about climate change, and around 51% feel "helpless."
Air pollution  Vs  number of cigarettes smoked.
Here is the rule of thumb: one cigarette per day is the rough equivalent of a PM2.5 level of 22 µg/m3. Double that level, and it is equivalent to 2 cigarettes per day. Of course, unlike cigarette smoking, the pollution reaches every age group.
Potential health effects from exposure to particulate matter:
Short-term and long-term exposure is thought to have different mechanisms of effect. Short-term exposure appears to exacerbate pre-existing diseases while long-term exposure most likely causes disease and increases the rate of progression.
Short-term exposure (hours to days) can lead to:
Irritated eyes, nose and throat
Worsening asthma and lung diseases such as chronic bronchitis (also called chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or COPD)
Heart attacks and arrhythmias (irregular heart beat) in people with heart disease
Increases in hospital admissions and premature death due to diseases of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems
Long-term exposure (many years) can lead to:
Reduced lung function
Development of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases
Increased rate of disease progression
Reduction in life expectancy
"With denser smoke haze and longer periods that people endure smoke inhalation, there is a much higher risk that previously healthy people will face developing serious illness," Dr Bartone said.
What we do know suggests its possible bushfire smoke could be causing subtle damage to the eyes, even in people without any symptoms.
Study lead author Kazuaki Negishi, from the University of Sydney School of Medicine, said despite recent concerns about rising PM2.5 levels, residents are "blindly" assuming air quality is safe at levels below 25 µg/m3, when there is really "no safe level" of PM2.5 pollution. Professor Negishi said the DPIE index indicating air quality may be "fair", "good" or "very good" at thresholds above zero and below 25 µg/m3 "might give us false reassurance" - and let polluters off the hook.
Originally sighted as:" Short-term exposure to ambient fine particulate matter and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a nationwide case-crossover study in Japan
Hundreds turn up to hospitals, walk-in centres during peak of smoke haze
Pollution levels peaked on New Year's Day when some parts of Canberra recorded daily average PM2.5-particle levels of almost 5000.
Anything above 200 is considered hazardous
Bushfire royal commission hears that Black Summer smoke killed nearly 450 people.
Associate Professor Fay Johnston, from the Menzies Institute for Medical Research at the University of Tasmania, said her team estimated around 445 people died as a result of the smoke, over 3,000 people were admitted to hospital for respiratory problems and 1,700 people presented for asthma.