[HN Gopher] Visualizing Toxic Air
___________________________________________________________________
Visualizing Toxic Air
Author : danso
Score : 154 points
Date : 2022-08-22 10:43 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.propublica.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.propublica.org)
| hcurtiss wrote:
| There are varying degrees of "toxic." Red blobs painted on a map
| may or may not be relevant to your health. Toxicity is an arena
| rife with controversy and dispute. That they (EPA IRIS, ATSDR, or
| the like) take a "Lowest Observed Effects Level" and then
| straight line it back to zero, and then apply myriad "uncertainty
| factors" to derive an "X in a million" chance of getting cancer
| -- in many ways, it's all make believe. Many toxics have non-
| linear toxicity thresholds (like table salt or tylenol), and
| there's plenty of reason to believe humans may be more resilient
| to toxic exposures than animal surrogates, and not less. These
| Pro Public efforts, or those by the Environmental Working Group,
| use data produced by public agencies to paint a picture of hazard
| out of context, and they can sometimes lead to very expensive
| policy prescriptions with very low return on investment in terms
| of human health.
| kixiQu wrote:
| Yeah, I dunno. I'm sure that's what people were saying about
| the [Monroe school PCBs] behind the scenes - return on
| investment! It's too expensive! - but we shouldn't be
| comfortable with those factors being weighed in the dark with
| so little public accountability. If you want to tell me that
| the EWG has a chemical wrong, I'd buy that, but it should be
| the job of the people who want to make money off that chemical
| to persuade the public that it's fine - not to argue the public
| should go back to unawareness.
|
| [monroe school pcbs]:
| https://www.propublica.org/article/school-district-where-tox...
| eterps wrote:
| > Making data public isn't enough when it's incomprehensible to
| the people it affects. ProPublica set out to decode a complex EPA
| data set to expose hot spots of industrial air pollution across
| the U.S.
|
| If at some point AR becomes commonplace I expect visualizing the
| hotspots directly would cause outrage.
|
| Not sure how best to visualize it in AR though.
| weberer wrote:
| What is AR?
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| Augmented reality.
|
| Like Google Glasses, just significantly more advanced
| basically.
| eterps wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmented_reality
| alexvoda wrote:
| How about a Geiger counter style interface.
| eterps wrote:
| Yeah, or applying a red filter in really problematic areas
| would be terrifying IMO:
|
| https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0647/0254/6158/files/TPB_B.
| ..
| londons_explore wrote:
| It's time we moved towards a world of "you may not vent anything
| to the atmosphere".
|
| Ie. nothing may have a chimney, exhaust pipe, pressure release
| valve, or anything similar.
|
| All gases must be stored in a tank and reprocessed at gas
| recycling facilities, which can separate out and sell the gases.
|
| Even in your house, when you 'ventilate' the house, you are
| taking the stinky stuffy polluted indoor air and putting it into
| the environment. The volatile organics, farts, Nox from your
| cooker, CO2 from breath, and cooking smells aren't 'natural'.
| Instead, your house should purify its own gases with filters.
|
| Will it be expensive? Yes. But looking after the environment is
| expensive. But it's worth it.
| easytiger wrote:
| That people live in such a fantasy land is concerning when
| energy production regulation is about to plunge the western
| world into full managed decline.
| sirmike_ wrote:
| Absolutely not. Ridiculous regulations would beg to be ignored
| and summarily ludicrous by common folks. The climate is what it
| is. But its hardly to the level that your actions call for. No.
| Just no.
| cassianoleal wrote:
| You seem to be suggesting that our homes become airtight
| enclosures with filtered exhausts. Perhaps even an airlock to
| get in and out of the house.
|
| No outdoor barbecues, no campfires. What's next? No farting in
| the park?
|
| No thanks.
|
| I'm all for regulating industries, automobiles, etc. and to
| some extent what kinds of chemicals and materials can be used
| in the home but don't come telling me that I can't open a
| window to ventilate my house.
| feet wrote:
| Cow farts are already a huge producer of atmospheric methane,
| a greenhouse gas
| cassianoleal wrote:
| There is at least some controversy around the actual impact
| of cow's methane in global warming [0] [1].
|
| I was mostly talking about humans farting in the park
| though. In any case, I guess the solution is to install
| catalytic converter in all human and animal exhausts, like
| we do for cars, I guess. Right? :D
|
| [0] https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/biogenic-carbon-
| cycle-a... [1] https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/why-
| methane-cattle-warm...
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Most of the stuff we pollute our inside air with is toxic for
| us. So we could get an easy win by stopping doing that.
|
| Filtered ventilation and heat recovery and good insulation are
| a powerful combination though.
| tambourine_man wrote:
| I keep thinking of a "you wouldn't piss in the pool" analogy
| for a marketing campaign.
| methyl wrote:
| A lot of people piss in the pool, unfortunately.
| tambourine_man wrote:
| But won't admit it :)
| durnygbur wrote:
| > when you 'ventilate' the house, you are taking the stinky
| stuffy polluted indoor air and putting it into the environment
|
| This is some different level of ecological concern. People over
| here straight out burn furniture, rubber, and plastic in their
| heating units, burn outdoors their green garden waste during
| autumn, remove faulty catalytic converters and adblue-bulshit
| from their cars. With adblue removed one can literally smell
| the brilliance of German automotive engineering. If we're into
| tightening the regulations, we should start with controlling
| the home heating units and measuring car exhaust gasses.
| mihaic wrote:
| This is the sort of extremist attitude that alienates the
| general population from _all_ environmental measures.
|
| Like banning plastic straws while the cups are still plastic,
| it enrages even many with a moderate amount of goodwill.
|
| I agree we need to treat this seriously and invest a lot of
| time and effort, but if we don't address first the biggest
| issues (factories, automobiles), why force me to recycle the
| exhaust from my cigarette lighter?
| feet wrote:
| >Like banning plastic straws while the cups are still
| plastic, it enrages even many with a moderate amount of
| goodwill.
|
| This is a false equivalency when compared with the top
| comment. The equivalent statement would be "only car exhausts
| must be captured but we don't care about the rest of the
| gasses."
|
| The commenter said _all_ gasses and exhausts must be
| contained, and I tend to agree that this is a good goal to
| move towards.
|
| Most of the population, quite frankly, is wrong about a lot
| of things like this. We see that from the hate for regulation
| partially driven by propaganda from businesses.
|
| As a side note, cigarette smoke is also considered exhausting
| waste to the atmosphere.
| sirmike_ wrote:
| > The commenter said all gasses and exhausts must be
| contained, and I tend to agree that this is a good goal to
| move towards.
|
| > Most of the population, quite frankly, is wrong about a
| lot of things like this. We see that from the hate for
| regulation partially driven by propaganda from businesses.
|
| Yet we do not live in that world and it is in fact not a
| goal to achieve. It's over the top and nonsensical. Like
| the commentor stated above you its extremist views like
| this one which will make the common folks squash any
| movement towards "green new deals." Just watch what happens
| when the climate nuts like Extinction Rebellion try to
| interfere in the normal people's day.
|
| They ER types get crushed because real people do not have
| time or money for horseshit.
|
| Climate change will merely be adapted too. But not in the
| expensive fart counting way some in this thread suggest.
|
| Humanity will continue to expand and use technology to
| solve our biggest problems.
|
| The world is in fact not ending. It is changing just as it
| always has. Humanity will do the same.
| feet wrote:
| What sort of temperatures do you think humans can survive
| in? We are living organisms after all
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| > Like banning plastic straws while the cups are still
| plastic.
|
| I don't think there is a single person upset at the plastic
| straw ban because they didn't ban even more single use
| plastic.
|
| I'm not even sure that's logically possible, because that's
| not being upset at the straws being banned, it's being upset
| at the other things not being banned.
| mihaic wrote:
| I am one of those people. I'm more willing to accept a more
| stringent requirement if I also perceive it as fair and can
| see an actual improvement in something.
|
| A restriction is fair for instance if it draws a
| cost/benefit line, and just bans all things on the wrong
| side of that line. Even if I don't agree, the conversation
| is at least around where to draw the line, and not on
| absurdities.
|
| Banning plastic straws without banning plastic cups is
| mostly useless and inconvenient.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| But it wouldn't be inconvenient if they banned more
| stuff?
|
| Talk me through your thinking here, because it's not
| obvious to me and seems like a very poor post-hoc
| rationalization.
| mihaic wrote:
| It would be more inconvenient, but at the same time it
| would feel more self-consistent.
|
| It you'd want to limit alcohol consumption (just an
| example), you don't want to ban tequila but allow gin for
| instance. You can say ban anything with more than 15%
| alcohol by volume -- that would feel harsh but more fair.
|
| I'm really not rationalizing, for me and some others
| there needs to be a perceived fairness in the
| restrictions.
| jefftk wrote:
| The map: https://projects.propublica.org/toxmap/
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| Thank you! I was beginning to question my reading comprehension
| when I couldn't find a link anywhere in the article.
| seltzered_ wrote:
| One of the interesting things I wish they mapped are where some
| of the corporate offices / residences are - Based on personal
| anecdote (could be wrong) for Houston I'd speculate much of it is
| further west in the residential areas of Katy, Sugarland, and The
| Woodlands, and downtown (westheimer/loop)
| danso wrote:
| > _There are around 29 million 810-by-810 meter grid cells
| nationwide and more than 1.4 billion rows of data for a single
| year. Even using the largest database instance available on
| Amazon Web Services, it took up to a week to run queries on the
| data. Often, our queries took days simply to fail. It was a long,
| demotivating slog._
|
| > _That's when some colleagues told us about Google BigQuery,
| which is a Google Cloud services product that allows you to do
| SQL-style queries on very large data sets. Using BigQuery, code
| that once took a week to run finished in minutes._
|
| I use BigQuery at work for all my SQL processing, but I'm usually
| working with data in the 100K to 1M range that take 1 to 10
| seconds to process and don't have to think of costs. Does anyone
| have an idea of what minutes-long queries involving billions of
| rows would typically cost?
| twoodfin wrote:
| Why BigQuery for such small data sets?
| danso wrote:
| b/c BigQuery is our general data warehouse. We have some big
| datasets but also a lot of small ones that need to be joined
| and analyzed together.
| nerdponx wrote:
| For anyone wondering what value governments provide, it's this.
| Yes, ProPublica is the one who did the analysis and data viz, but
| the federal government used some of our income taxes to collect
| this dataset. This is a clear case of the value that governments
| can provide with your tax money, and something that almost
| certainly would not be provided (free of charge!) by the free
| market.
| lettergram wrote:
| > This is a clear case of the value that governments can
| provide with your tax money, and something that almost
| certainly would not be provided (free of charge!) by the free
| market.
|
| Pretty sure an HOA could fairly easily collect this data (I
| have a setup for various chemicals in my back yard). I have
| shared said data with my HOA to change the treatment plan for
| common areas. If an HOA did that they can sue a plant for any
| issues and alter emissions.
|
| Government (big g) is nothing but an organized group of
| citizens agreeing to certain rules. There's no reason any
| random organization can't gather information, sue, etc. exactly
| the same as government.
|
| We're raised to think government is necessary, but I'm apart of
| many organizations that effectively function as self-governance
| and collective bargaining. At the same time they don't need
| forced taxes paying for bombs in other countries either...
|
| All it takes is a minor amount of organization. A great example
| of this is the HAM radio community, farming co-ops, churches,
| etc.
| throwthroyaboat wrote:
| > Pretty sure an HOA could fairly easily collect this data
|
| I agree, but on a large scale this would mean that every HOA
| needs to have access to someone who can/is willing to do
| this. If you expand this to other environmental factors (e.g.
| noise pollution, waterway health, etc) I could see that
| becoming a large burden on the few people in each community
| that care enough to collect environmental data. Seems more
| efficient to pay someone to do it full-time for a larger
| group.
| lettergram wrote:
| Sure an HOA can easily hire someone, a building manager can
| and often does buy a service to monitor building detectors.
| That's kind of my point, we already have these scenarios
| where people not government solve problems.
|
| > I could see that becoming a large burden on the few
| people in each community that care enough to collect
| environmental data.
|
| What you're saying is not enough people care. So the people
| that do care are taking money from people who don't care to
| get what they want. That's called stealing when the
| government isn't doing it...
|
| That's my point from above, we're taught to need
| government. We don't. Never did.
| uoaei wrote:
| > we're taught to need government
|
| That's an uncharitable way to cast GP's comment, and not
| really true. We do understand by now that the state is
| just a better solution than private entities relying on
| "market forces" for certain desired outcomes.
|
| Back to the original point: the problem is scalability.
| If everyone goes through the same process, running into
| the same roadblocks and suffering the same pitfalls,
| independently and disconnectedly, that is by definition
| wasted effort, ie, unproductive for the economy. If we
| want such things to succeed, ie, _be productive and
| contribute to the commonwealth_ , we need to share
| knowledge, which requires some level of centralization at
| this time (decentralized knowledge management techniques
| are still in their infancy and IMO require architectural
| changes in our telecommunications infrastructure to
| properly support).
| lettergram wrote:
| > We do understand by now that the state is just a better
| solution than private entities relying on "market forces"
| for certain desired outcomes.
|
| I'd say the opposite is true actually. I don't understand
| how any mandated entity is better. I've formed plenty of
| organizations, governments aren't necessary. It's
| supposed to help mediate force. Instead people use the
| governments monopoly on force to get what they want.
|
| In terms of scale, we have planned parenthood, Churches,
| habitat for humanity, and so many others that work at
| scale. If pollution was an issue as described people
| would care. HOAs would hire organizations to monitor
| pollution and then HOAs would sue for damages. Almost
| exactly what the EPA does btw. Except the government gets
| the money and people in the country fund pollution
| research like this.
| tnorthcutt wrote:
| > I have a setup for various chemicals in my back yard
|
| Could you share any more information about this?
| Zamicol wrote:
| As a counterpoint, in my hometown there's a grassroots effort
| to collect and monitor the air quality because no one,
| including the feds, will. The data can be appreciated without
| dogmatism.
|
| My personal bias here would be to say, "lowering the cost of
| technology, civic organization (whatever form that might take),
| empowering the individual, and removing barriers to entry wins
| again."
| peyton wrote:
| Doesn't the article state that lots of data the government
| collected was just incorrect in obvious ways? 29% of facilities
| ProPublica contacted said the EPA's data on them was wrong.
|
| And why didn't the government pay for an interface and analysis
| that the public could easily use?
|
| I think people believe their tax money could be spent more
| wisely and competently.
| beowulfey wrote:
| The companies submitted bad data, and it was not until
| ProPublica visualized what the data were saying that it
| became obvious.
|
| If anything it shows the government is not providing enough
| oversight on the data provided.
| runnerup wrote:
| I live in the western hemisphere's largest integrated
| industrial complex (Freeport, TX integrated with the eastern
| edge of Houston as well). Note that Freeport, TX has ZERO
| state or federal EPA VOC analyzers which can actually detect
| which chemical is leaking. They can only detect "this amount
| of something with either sulfur or N-O bonds -- no clue what
| though!". Completely fucking useless for an area which
| manufactures something like 15-20% of all USA domestic
| chemicals.
|
| The entire east side of Houston metropolitan area has only 3
| air quality monitors which test for these kinds of chemicals.
| During huge major events like the ITC fire, they often show
| no increased pollution at all. I lived next to leaks every
| day and because I worked in the plants I knew the smells -
| one day acrylates, next day thiols, next day hydrocarbons,
| etc. But the 3 monitoring sites over 10 miles from me showed
| nothing at all.
|
| Here is the one "correct" monitoring station near the
| chemical plants of Houston: https://tceq.maps.arcgis.com/apps
| /webappviewer/index.html?id... but several of its analyzers
| are often offline/broken/pending maintenance. Here's a map of
| all the other ones: https://tceq.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappv
| iewer/index.html?id... Generally single/dual color dots mark
| "not-useful" monitoring sites which might measure only PM2.5
| or Ozone, for example. The 4+ color dots are generally
| useful.
|
| The data used by ProPublica is far worse than the data here
| -- because what ProPublica used was "self-reported" data from
| the chemical plants. But living next to them and working in
| them, I know that many leaks are never reported and many
| leaks are never even known internally! Our government's data
| collection is a travesty. ProPublica couldn't use the real
| air quality measurements because having 2-3 points across
| 1000 mi^2 is completely useless for the wind models they
| wanted to apply to the problem.
|
| We don't actually have any data. The government is failing
| us. They need to spend about $1 million per air monitoring
| station and build them along the perimeters of each plant so
| that leaks can be assigned to the offending companies, and
| they need to be built near housing so that we know how
| families are being affected.
|
| ITC fire which blanketed houston's sky in smoke:
| https://abc13.com/deer-park-fire-2019-itc-houston-air-
| qualit...
| nojito wrote:
| Conversely 70% of the data is good and valuable.
| aporetics wrote:
| As I read it, the data about emissions specifically is self-
| reported by facilities:
|
| > We reached out to each of the top 200 facilities (ranked by
| the level of nearby cancer risk) to ask them if their
| emissions reporting was accurate -- and if not, whether they
| would resubmit 2014-18 data to the EPA. Of the 109 companies
| that responded to us, 71% confirmed that their reported
| emissions were correct, and 29% noted errors, which we asked
| them to correct.
| hwillis wrote:
| > 29% of facilities ProPublica contacted said the EPA's data
| on them was wrong.
|
| I don't think it's necessary to point out why this is not
| very convincing
|
| > And why didn't the government pay for an interface and
| analysis that the public could easily use?
|
| Because "the government" -specifically, the executive branch-
| has its upper leadership torn out and replaced with a
| completely new bunch of people with hugely different ideology
| if not an explicit political interest in dismantling the work
| of their forebears every 4 or 8 years. This is most obvious
| with the recent Trump admin, but applies in degree to every
| single administration.
|
| There used to be an internal, cross-disciplinary office that
| did API and visualization work for accountability reasons
| (unfortunately I forget the name). They did great work. It
| was dismantled and 90% of it was not replaced. The 10% that
| _was_ replaced consists of (1) internal work (EIA being a
| good example, DOT being a bad one) that is driven _entirely_
| by the good will of employees who are fighting tooth and nail
| for any amount of budget to expose _any_ amount of the work
| they do. And (2) external work by any number of massively
| wasteful contracting programs, like SBIR, where I used to
| work.
|
| Reagan's SBIR program mandates a certain amount of money to
| be spent on tiny (100k-1m) contracts which are either useless
| or unused, because there's no way to actually convert
| anything to a long-term status. Most of that money goes to
| defense, but make no mistake that the work there is also
| completely useless. The whole program should be lit on fire.
|
| > I think people believe their tax money could be spent more
| wisely and competently.
|
| It can, if people stop voting for republicans who
| intentionally destroy the only functional programs and then
| divert the money to completely worthless contractors in the
| name of "free markets".
| photochemsyn wrote:
| It's hardly _only_ the republicans blowing government funds
| on useless programs, Obama 's team did the same with bogus
| 'clean coal' funding funnelled into public-private
| partnerships with coal outfits (to the tune of ~$8 billion
| via the DOE), gave loans to the renewable energy companies
| with the worst products on the market via insider
| connections (Solyndra), etc. It's an across-the-board
| problem.
|
| If we really wanted to do large-scale infrastructure
| projects that were successful, like nationwide high-speed-
| rail, maybe we should study how China does it.
| nerdponx wrote:
| > Because "the government" -specifically, the executive
| branch- has its upper leadership torn out and replaced with
| a completely new bunch of people with hugely different
| ideology if not an explicit political interest in
| dismantling the work of their forebears every 4 or 8 years.
|
| And what's worse is that one political party has been
| running a decades-long campaign to literally _make
| government worse_ in order to get people on board with
| dismantling big sections of it. It 's not even a conspiracy
| theory, it's an actual part of their public campaign
| platforms that people deliberately vote for.
| Xeoncross wrote:
| Totally, our $30,000,000,000,000 in government debt got us some
| measurement data that is barely a passing grade (~1/3 incorrect
| data). They kind of dropped the ball after that but a private
| company was able to clean the data and make it neat
| visualization that got up votes on HN.
|
| My faith in the government is restored.
| lkbm wrote:
| I agree. Private enterprise has built some incredible data set.
| Google Street View is an incredible public good, and who knows
| what would be built on top of it if it truly were public,
| rather than owned by Google.
|
| But some things _can 't_ really be built by private enterprise.
| The government can compel data reporting. You can pay credit
| card companies to sell you their data, but only the government
| should have the power tell every employer "you _must_ tell us
| the names and salaries of all your employees ". (Credit
| agencies essentially do this too, but that means they're big
| enough to require government regulation.)
|
| It can be onerous, though, and sometimes unnecessarily so. When
| I was at a charter school, every here I had to compile a data
| set on the demographics of our students to ensure we weren't
| mistreating people based on race or something. It's a very
| important thing for the government to be checking on, but given
| that we already had to send all our student's demographics,
| attendance, and discipline accounts to the state government, it
| felt redundant.
|
| I feel like the government has been moderately good at making
| these data sets more accessible, I'd love to see more resources
| put into that, as well as making their collection smoother.
| Building effective, efficient systems is incredibly difficult,
| and requires constant investment to respond to changes.
|
| I harp on "infrastructure" a lot, and I'm coming to realize
| that what I mean is less "roads, bridges, and trains" and more
| "efficient, effective systems of all types".
| nerdponx wrote:
| Don't forget that private companies like Google very often
| create value not by _collecting_ data as such, but by
| crawling through 50 different US state datasets and untold
| thousands of county /town datasets to figure out property
| lines, ZIP code maps, address numbers, etc. There's a
| symbiotic relationship here, much like research in the
| natural sciences: basic research and basic data collection is
| a public good, but there's plenty of value to be added by
| private industry. It's a win-win _as long as_ the people at
| large are able to recapture some of the value created by
| private industry (rather than it being concentrated in the
| hands of a few stakeholders).
| weberer wrote:
| >RSEI uses emissions estimates industrial companies submit to the
| agency each year along with weather data and facility-specific
| information to estimate concentrations of cancer-causing
| chemicals in half-mile-wide squares of land across the country.
|
| It sounds like the results are really dependent on whether or not
| these companies are lying. I would prefer to see them based on
| diagnosed cancer rates, but that data set probably doesn't exist.
| hwillis wrote:
| > I would prefer to see them based on diagnosed cancer rates,
| but that data set probably doesn't exist.
|
| Definitely not, especially in the US. Cancer is very highly
| correlated with age and body weight. Maine has one of the
| highest rates of cancer in the US, because the population
| average is the oldest in the US. Texas, despite a huge amount
| of air pollution, has relatively low rates of cancer because
| it's the second-youngest by average population age.
|
| Map of cancer rates per state:
| https://gis.cdc.gov/Cancer/USCS/#/AtAGlance/
| nerdponx wrote:
| Ideally you'd be able to look at baseline age and body weight
| data in a broader area, and then compare areas with
| comparable average ages & body weights that do and don't have
| high-carcinogen-emitting facilities nearby. You could even
| look specifically for _less-emitting_ industrial areas as a
| control for lifestyle, access to medical care, and other
| forms of industrial pollution.
| Enginerrrd wrote:
| Yeah and it'd be noisy due to any regional differences in
| culture and behaviors. You'll see higher cancer rates in the
| South, with their love of sweet tea and fried fish, than you
| would in say, Colorado where there is more of a culture of
| fitness and health.
| ilrwbwrkhv wrote:
| Popup immediately on page load. Clicked back instantly.
| [deleted]
| singularity2001 wrote:
| The best Visualizing of Toxic Air I have seen so far was an
| electron microscope image of pollen covered in all kinds of
| plastic particles and immeasurable toxic chemicals. Whenever I
| hear the words allergic hey-fever to describe our bodies panic
| reaction to these "hyper reactive ninja stars" I am disgusted.
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| I'd love to see that. A casual Google didn't get me anything
| that looked like what you're describing. Do you remember in
| what context you saw this?
| mandmandam wrote:
| Not quite what you're looking for, but evidence of the
| general idea -
| https://theecologist.org/2009/jun/19/pollution-may-affect-
| po...
|
| Would like to see these pictures myself though, hope OP can
| find them.
| hwillis wrote:
| https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Scanning-electron-
| microg...
|
| "electron microscope pollen pollution" showed a few similar
| papers. I did not read them, and microplastics seems a
| little... unexpected, but the general idea seems to be
| accurate. Kind of crazy.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-22 23:01 UTC)