To the editor: As a Venice resident and air air pollution researcher, I commend the L.A. Instances for stepping in the place FEMA fell quick (“The L.A. wildfires left lead and different poisonous materials within the soil of burn zones. Listed here are their well being dangers,” Might 4). That stated, 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 want greater than remoted testing. Air, soil and water should all be assessed, notably 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 knowledge 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) gives a compelling path ahead. However like all science, it should be completed fastidiously. I don’t low cost the Instances’ 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
