PM Media Messages

#1 Should we talk about air quality, or PM and ozone? Use “air quality” rather than specific pollutants as much as possible Public understands ozone, if we talk about air quality without explaining particles, will we confuse them? When both the ozone and particle standards are exceeded, health messages are issued for each pollutant Health professionals should review all media messages Keep it simple – meteorologists don’t have much “on air” time

#2 What should we call PM? Particles in the air, particulate matter? Don’t differentiate between coarse and fine particles, other than by source Health messages are the same for both coarse and fine particles Be consistent with ALA

#3 Is a “KISS” approach sufficient and appropriate for PM 2.5 given our limited understanding? If so, then what is the “simple” message? Both health and media messages need to be very similar Messages will be consistent but not identical Media messages should include whom the “sensitive populations” are

#4 What is the message on days with high ozone and PM? This process should help us identify what the messages should be Bad air days are newsworthy (at red or higher) and will get more air time Develop still-frame images for use by TV stations Don’t forget the print media – boilerplate press releases, health pieces Seattle’s “First Alert” segments

#5 How do we deal with temporal differences in high PM (e.g. morning) vs. high ozone (e.g. afternoon)? Diurnal graphics depicting the temporal differences between high PM and ozone are available Work directly with meteorologists to educate them about the differences Provide technical discussion of weather patterns and their effect on air quality When both are present it’s newsworthy; agencies can provide “on air expertise”

#6 How do we avoid “crying wolf,” given that moderate forecasts may be issued for lots and lots of days? Some people are “unusually sensitive” to particles – provide information about symptoms Should we send people to their doctors? Moderate is the “compromise” between the 24-hour and annual standards An area with lots and lots of moderate days may violate the annual standard Could be an effective tool to support additional regulatory action

#7 Should we focus PM messages to the media only on the “unhealthy for sensitive groups” days? Messages must be complete and accurate and describe whom the sensitive populations are By definition, the year-round AQI is “more protective” than what we’ve been doing

#8 Should we continue to use colors? No conflict between using colors to describe air quality and the color- coded DHS warming system Getting away from the term “alert,” using “approaching orange (red)”instead

#9 How should existing ozone outreach programs be modified to include PM 2.5 and still maintain their effectiveness? Ozone Action Days, etc.? Initially, the purpose of the year-round AQI is to introduce the public to particles Why haven’t we warned the general public about particles before now? Mortality should be dealt with in background and in-depth materials, not top level messages

#10 In addition to a health message, is there a suggested response or action that we want people to consider? Ways to reduce exposure? Ways to reduce pollution? Ozone and particles come are caused by many of the same sources and require similar actions to reduce pollution Some nonattainment areas may want or need to take early action to reduce pollution levels

#11 How should we explain short- term vs. long-term standards? The AQI was set at 100 as a compromise between the two standards Short-term advisories – acute symptoms Long-term information – chronic exposure, issues of mortality The standards were set to protect public health over a three year period of time; the AQI is a tool for making individual decisions on a daily basis

#12 What should we say/do if the daily AQI for our area is usually good/moderate, but we’re in nonattainment for the PM 2.5 standards? The cut-point between good and moderate on the 24-hour standard is where the annual standard is set Some “unusually sensitive” people will be effected by any exposure Areas where the 24-hour standard is good or moderate on most days are still at risk of violating the annual standard We could say…“we’ve had over X number of days of moderate air quality and if we continue this way we are at risk of violating the annual standard”

#13 How timely are the maps and forecasts (i.e., are we advertising poor air quality after the fact)? The AQI is, in effect, an historical representation of the air people have already breathed State and local agencies are currently reporting real time data to AIRNow every hour Maps generated for the WSPs reflect data gathered just over one hour earlier We should encourage meteorologists to compare forecasts with the real time data and encourage the general public to do the same

General issues Health professionals should review all media messages Messages about children – are we talking about all children or children with asthma; at what level do we tell them to stay inside Is indoor air any better than outdoor air – should we be sending them inside where cigarette smoke, pets, and other indoor air pollutants may be more prevalent?

General issues, continued Concern about graphically depicting diurnal patterns of ozone and particles – one size does not fit all Concern over neighborhood- level vs. regional-level monitoring, does it skew the data?