[BostonCard]

So the Purple Air data is based on their own web-connected home instruments (you can buy one for yourself for a few hundred dollars).  They have both indoor and outdoor instruments, and it should be noted that the measurements can be affected by local conditions (for example, traffic from a nearby road) and may or may not be calibrated. I wouldn't fixate on the specific purpleair measurements, but the system is good to get a gestalt of how things are looking and gives a wider range of measurements than the EPA (also, the EPA site has been swallowed in traffic of late).

I don't understand the obsession with an AQI of 200.  It's not like someone breathing air at an AQI of 199 is safe, versus breathing air at an AQI of 201 is unsafe.  The truth is the air is already considered unhealthy, and athletes' minute ventilation (the amount of air they are breathing in a given unit of time) is many-fold (10 to 20-fold) higher than what someone is breathing at rest.  Moreover, for vulnerable people (young, old, patients with cardiovascular or respiratory disease) exposure to several hours of air like this is not healthy.

Yeah, having a sporting event in an environment with an AQI above 200 should be absolutely contraindicated, but due consideration should be given to postponing events at lower pollution levels.  In this case, as many people have mentioned, there is not much downside to postponing the event by two weeks, so why not?   

BC

[BostonCard]

So the Purple Air data is based on their own web-connected home instruments (you can buy one for yourself for a few hundred dollars).  They have both indoor and outdoor instruments, and it should be noted that the measurements can be affected by local conditions (for example, traffic from a nearby road) and may or may not be calibrated. I wouldn't fixate on the specific purpleair measurements, but the system is good to get a gestalt of how things are looking and gives a wider range of measurements than the EPA (also, the EPA site has been swallowed in traffic of late).

I don't understand the obsession with an AQI of 200.  It's not like someone breathing air at an AQI of 199 is safe, versus breathing air at an AQI of 201 is unsafe.  The truth is the air is already considered unhealthy, and athletes' minute ventilation (the amount of air they are breathing in a given unit of time) is many-fold (10 to 20-fold) higher than what someone is breathing at rest.  Moreover, for vulnerable people (young, old, patients with cardiovascular or respiratory disease) exposure to several hours of air like this is not healthy.

Yeah, having a sporting event in an environment with an AQI above 200 should be absolutely contraindicated, but due consideration should be given to postponing events at lower pollution levels.  In this case, as many people have mentioned, there is not much downside to postponing the event by two weeks, so why not?   

BC