2002-07-01 Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY stagnant mixed-pollution episode
July 1, 2002
Daily PM2.5 peaked at 50.4 µg/m³ near Buffalo across
1 covered metro home to 1.2 million people.
1 metro placed a top-ten day in their record.
Counting the extra PM2.5 above each metro's typical day, this event handed the
average affected resident ≈ 1.9 cigarettes.
Across everyone living in the affected metros, that is the collective equivalent of
≈ 2.2 million cigarettes.
An awareness illustration of outdoor exposure at 22 µg/m³
per cigarette (Berkeley Earth), counting only the event's ranked days; not a
medical dose.
Why we think this happened
The basis for “Stagnant pollution mixture”
The same-day NWS discussion says the upper-air ridge had produced hot, stagnant weather over the Buffalo forecast area. The date, place, and stated limitations support possible confidence only.
PossibleThis is a transparent hypothesis supported by limited evidence or an explicit inference, not a definitive attribution.
National Weather Service Buffalo via Iowa Environmental Mesonet · Jul 1, 2002hypothesis
A cause is more convincing when the record connects three things: something happened,
the air mass moved toward the region, and local instruments responded. Here is how much
of that chain is documented for this event.
The catalog has a grouping hypothesis, but no retained source directly establishes the proposed cause.
Open question
2
Air-mass movement
The transport path has not been reconstructed
The retained record does not yet show how air traveled from the proposed source to
these metros. A trajectory replay or dated plume analysis belongs here.
Research gap
3
Local response
50.4 µg/m³ near Buffalo
EPA monitors recorded the event across 1 metro.
The peak daily concentration is roughly 2.3 cigarette-equivalents at the outdoor daily rate.
Before, during, and after the episode: nearby pollutant monitors and surface-weather
stations show what changed. This context tests the “Stagnant pollution mixture” explanation; it does
not assign the cause by itself.
Observed context · not attribution
Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY
Monitor comparison window 2002-06-28 to 2002-07-04 · PM2.5 target: BUFFALO
6 pollutant signals
Fine-particle pulse48 µg/m³
155% above nearby days
Air movement5.20 kt
About the same as surrounding days
PM1054 µg/m³
No adjacent-day comparison
Pollution fingerprint
Metro-wide median of reporting monitors
PM2.548 µg/m³
155% higher than surrounding days
Before11.8 µg/m³ Event48 µg/m³ After18.8 µg/m³
PM1054 µg/m³
No adjacent-day comparison
Before— Event54 µg/m³ After—
Carbon monoxide0.508 ppm
11% higher than surrounding days
Before0.419 ppm Event0.508 ppm After0.465 ppm
Nitrogen dioxide25.6 ppb
60% higher than surrounding days
Before15.5 ppb Event25.6 ppb After16 ppb
Sulfur dioxide12.3 ppb
44% higher than surrounding days
Before8.96 ppb Event12.3 ppb After6.71 ppb
Ozone0.077 ppm
23% higher than surrounding days
Before0.046 ppm Event0.077 ppm After0.063 ppm
Atmospheric conditions
Nearby EPA weather observations
Humidity68.6 %
About the same as surrounding days
Pressure996 Millibars
About the same as surrounding days
Temperature81.2 °F
About the same as surrounding days
Wind5.20 kt
About the same as surrounding days
Source: U.S. EPA AirData daily observations and, where available, nearby ASOS/AWOS
surface observations. Values are descriptive medians over the retained monitor set;
missing measurements remain missing. Transport and source evidence remain separate
layers because this instrument pattern does not assign a cause by itself.
Measured daily PM2.5 at EPA monitors, as cigarette-equivalents
EPA monitors sit in metro areas, so the colour clusters there. Land between and beyond
them is unmeasured, not clean: this map shows where IAQng has readings, not the extent
of the smoke.
—
Episode peak
--cigarettes
The smoke map's scale, replayed over this event: the surface interpolates between
covered metros' daily records, framed to the affected region. Hover for a reading,
click a metro to pin it to the card. Days a monitor did not report draw nothing.
Select a metro on the map to see nearby cameras. Where an operator archive reaches
the event, drag the divider to compare two moments, adjust either date and time, or
play the available event-day frames. Camera imagery is visual context, not an
air-quality measurement or proof of smoke.
No useful public camera views are currently available within 80 km of this metro.
"Cigarettes, whole event" totals a metro's ranked event days at 22 µg/m³ per
cigarette: what a person outdoors there breathed across the event, as the
illustration. "All-time standing" is where this episode's days sit in each metro's
ranked record (worst-area measure, since 1999). Full local context is on each
metro's Air Records page.
Public evidence library
What supports this account
Each card states what a source supports—and what it does not. Official records, research, reporting, community observations, and transparent inferences remain visibly different kinds of evidence.
1 retained source
Official record
Area Forecast Discussion: hot stagnant weather
National Weather Service Buffalo via Iowa Environmental Mesonet
The same-day NWS discussion says the upper-air ridge had produced hot, stagnant weather over the Buffalo forecast area.
What it supports
This source supports a possible mechanism or occurrence; it does not establish the cause by itself.
Limit
The discussion supports an accumulation mechanism but does not identify the contributing emissions mix.
What remains uncertain
The discussion supports an accumulation mechanism but does not identify the contributing emissions mix.
Status and provenance
PossibleThis is a transparent hypothesis supported by limited evidence or an explicit inference, not a definitive attribution.
This episode was grouped from the monitor record by the catalog pipeline and given
its cause from the evidence listed above. It has not been individually reviewed and
signed off, so its boundaries, cause, and name may change as evidence accumulates.
Grouping policy common_sense_root_cause_grouping.v2. The cause label reflects the
assembled evidence above, not an IAQng detection formula. If it is wrong,
tell us.