Smog: Education Over Alarmism. How to Interpret Air Quality Data Without Panic

During the heating season, social media feeds are often flooded with alarmist headlines. “Your city is more polluted than Beijing!” or “We are breathing the worst air in the world!” Maps from low-cost sensors glowing deep red or purple often accompany these posts. Is there reason to be afraid? Yes, smog is a real problem. Is there reason to panic? No, because fear is a poor advisor, and sensationalism often kills substantive discussion.

Recently, many voices, including experts in ESG and sustainable development, have pointed out that the way smog data is presented often borders on manipulation. As leaders in air quality monitoring, we want to contribute to this discussion. We agree: the problem of smog exists, but scaring people with clickbait maps does more harm than good. It is time to talk honestly about air quality, based on data, not emotions.

Key Points:

• A single spike doesn’t define the whole day. Real-time sensor peaks show local, short-term events, while health standards are based on 24-hour or long-term exposure.
• Map colors depend on the reference standard. The same measurement can look moderate under EU law and severe under WHO health guidelines.
• Weather can change everything within hours. Wind, pressure systems and inversions often determine pollution levels more than daily human activity.
• Long-term trends matter more than headlines. Only multi-year data shows whether air quality policies actually work.

The Trap of “The Moment” vs. Daily Averages

One of the most common errors in interpreting smog data is confusing instantaneous readings with daily averages.

Many apps show particulate matter concentrations “here and now.” If a neighbor lights a poor-quality coal fire on a windless day, the sensor outside your window might show extreme values. Does this mean the air in the entire city is toxic for 24 hours? No. It means that a pollution “peak” occurred at that specific moment and location.

Legal standards (e.g., for PM10) generally refer to daily or annual averages. Why? Scientists and epidemiologists assess the harm of smog based on exposure over time. Above-average concentrations recorded at 8:00 AM do not provide a complete picture for the whole day. We only know the full picture after averaging the results over 24 hours. Comparing a momentary “peak” to a daily limit is a methodological error that misleads the public.

Read more: Learn more about CAQI and AQI indices

Why Are the Maps Red? WHO vs. EU Standards

Another accusation often raised in discussions concerns reference points. Why do Airly maps sometimes show exceedances of 400% or 800%, while official government stations show lower values?

This is a matter of choosing the standard:

1. EU Norms (Legal): These are the legal limits that countries must meet. They are often a compromise between what is healthy and what is economically achievable.
2. WHO Guidelines (Health): These are recommendations from the World Health Organization, based solely on the impact of pollution on the human body. They are significantly stricter than EU law.

Many monitoring systems (including Airly) reference the new WHO guidelines, because our priority is health, not just “compliance with regulations.” That is why a map might be “red” even if it is “yellow” according to EU law. This is not manipulation; it is a conscious choice to adopt a health-first perspective. However, it is worth noting this when looking at percentage charts.

The Weather Deals the Cards

We often forget a key player in the fight against smog: meteorology. We can replace boilers and promote public transport, but we cannot cheat physics.

A recent example from Warsaw illustrates this perfectly. In January, on the 6th and 7th, the air quality was terrible. A day later, on January 8th, the air was clean. Did cars suddenly disappear, and did people stop heating their homes? No. The weather changed. High pressure, calm winds, and temperature inversions can “trap” pollutants near the ground. When the wind arrives, the problem visually disappears, even if emission sources remain.

Therefore, when analyzing progress in fighting smog, one cannot look at single episodes. Long-term data trends are the only accurate measure of urban policy effectiveness. While the weather can temporarily disrupt these trends, the trajectory in many European cities is positive.

Conclusion: Smart Monitoring, Not Alarmism

The flood of posts about “ecological disasters” has one advantage: we are talking about smog again. However, as a society, we must mature into smarter data analysis.

1. Don’t panic at a “peak”: Treat an instantaneous reading as a tip (e.g., “I won’t go for a run right now”), not a verdict for the whole city.
2. Check the context: Does the map refer to EU or WHO standards?
3. Appreciate trends: Look at annual and multi-year data.

Technology and dense sensor networks exist to help us make decisions, not to scare us. Let’s educate ourselves and demand changes from local governments, but let’s not get drawn into a spiral of clickbait. Explore our educational articles to learn more.