To the publisher: As a resident of Venice and atmospheric pollution researcher, I congratulate the Times for intervening where the fema failed (“Forest fires have left lead and other toxic materials in the soil of burning areas. Here are their health risks “,” May 4). That said, the results must be interpreted with caution. As indicated in your own reports, the sampling methodology would not meet the standards required for research evaluated by peers.
We need more than isolated tests. Air, soil and water must all be assessed, especially in communities close to burning areas. During my doctoral work, I deeply learned the power of citizens' science and the transformative potential of community surveillance, especially when supported by philanthropic subsidies, municipal institutions and low -cost sensors. These projects will not only fill data gaps, but can promote healthier behavior thanks to public commitment.
At a time of narrowing of states' budgets and the absence of federal leadership, citizen science (anchored by researchers, enlightened methodology and transparency of the public) offers a convincing path. But like any science, it must be done with care. I do not reduce the conclusions of the Times, but they should be taken with skepticism – not as definitive public health conclusions, but as an appeal to action.
Jalal Awan, Venice
