To the editor: As a Venice resident and air air pollution researcher, I commend the L.A. Occasions for stepping in the place FEMA fell quick (“The L.A. wildfires left lead and other toxic material in the soil of burn zones. Here are their health risks,” Could 4). That mentioned, the outcomes ought to be interpreted with warning. As famous in your personal reporting, the sampling methodology wouldn’t meet the requirements required for peer-reviewed analysis.
We’d like greater than remoted testing. Air, soil and water should all be assessed, significantly in communities close to burn zones. Throughout my doctoral work, I got here to deeply recognize the facility of citizen science and the transformative potential of community-led environmental monitoring, particularly when supported by philanthropic grants, metropolis establishments and calibrated low-cost sensors. These tasks not solely fill information gaps however can foster more healthy behaviors via public engagement.
In a time of shrinking state budgets and absent federal management, citizen science (anchored by researchers, knowledgeable methodology and public transparency) provides a compelling path ahead. However like all science, it have to be performed fastidiously. I don’t low cost the Occasions’ findings, however they need to be taken with due skepticism — not as definitive public well being conclusions, however as a name to motion.
Jalal Awan, Venice
