You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Here’s how to think about air quality and safety.

The smoke that blanketed the East Coast this week is beginning to clear, and you may be wondering if it’s safe to go outside without a mask or whether you should crack a window to air things out.
The answer is likely yes, it's safe to go outside — with a few caveats. But you might want to wait before opening your windows.
The good news is, the Air Quality Index across much of the Northeast is now registering at under 100, putting most places in the “good,” or “moderate” category. But to make smart decisions about your health, it’s helpful to understand what those AQI numbers actually mean.
The categories are pegged to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which are set by the Environmental Protection Agency and cover various major pollutants. The Clean Air Act requires that these standards protect public health with an "adequate margin of safety.”
When you check the AQI on the EPA’s website or your weather app, what you’re seeing is a measure of five pollutants: particulate matter, ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. When the AQI is below 100, that means none one of those pollutants are present at a concentration above the levels deemed protective by the EPA. But when any of the pollutants ticks above those levels, the AQI will change to “unhealthy for sensitive groups,” (orange), “unhealthy” (red), “very unhealthy” (purple), or “hazardous,” (maroon) depending on how bad it is.
For example, the standard for PM2.5, the primary health hazard in wildfire smoke, is a 24-hour average of 35 micrograms per cubic meter. When the AQI is below 100, that means PM2.5 levels are below that concentration. At the height of the smoke crisis on Wednesday, average PM2.5 levels in New York City were at 326 micrograms per cubic meter. That brought the AQI into the “hazardous” range, under which the EPA advises:
Everyone should avoid all physical activity outdoors; people with heart or lung disease, older adults, children, and people of lower socioeconomic status should remain indoors and keep activity levels low.
By contrast, at this moment my AQI in Brooklyn is registering at 54, or “moderate.”
At that level, EPA advises: “Unusually sensitive people should consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion.”
If you look at the average AQI for the month of June in the New York City metropolitan area over the last decade, it has always hovered around 70. By that measure, today is looking pretty good.
I spoke to Jon Samet, a pulmonologist and epidemiologist and the dean of the Colorado School of Public Health, about how to make sense of these numbers. He said that to some extent, it’s up to the individual to use their best judgment.
“If you go below 100, the world may not be risk free, but it's in a range where the risks have been found to be acceptable,” he told me. “The caveat I would offer is that for those people who have heart and lung disease, or any other condition that makes them potentially susceptible, then they should think carefully.” The same goes for children with asthma, who may be particularly susceptible to air pollution.
The bad news is that it’s basically impossible to make statements like, “when the AQI goes below X number, it’s safe to take your asthmatic kid to the playground,” because it’s an imperfect measurement.
“Part of the challenge right now is that epidemiological studies show that even when you make your way below the standard, there's still evidence of adverse effects,” said Samet. “So far, we haven't found risk-free levels of air pollution.”
The best advice he could offer is that if the AQI is below 100, but you go outside and the visibility is poor, or you start coughing, or your eyes burn, that’s a signal to go back inside or pull out your N95 mask. “Pay attention to your own response,” he said.
Personally, looking at the historical averages in New York City makes me feel comfortable going outside without a mask.
As for opening windows to air out any smoke particles that made it inside, John Volckens, an air quality expert and professor of mechanical engineering at Colorado State University, told me it was a good idea to wait until we’re back in the “Good” zone. “While ‘moderate’ isn’t going to be harmful over the short-term for healthy individuals (i.e., those without respiratory or cardiovascular disease), most of the PM contributing to the moderate level will still be from wildfires, so you won’t really be ‘airing out’ your apartment at that point,” he said.
Guess I’ll have to wait a little bit longer to flush out my apartment — but in the meantime, I’m going for a walk.
Editor's Note: This article was updated to include new comments from John Volckens.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The spinoff of Lawrence Livermore National Lab has a new 10-point plan to get onto the grid by the 2030s.
One of fusion energy’s newest startups, Inertia Enterprises, is betting that the fastest route to commercial fusion runs through one of the field’s oldest ideas. The company, which raised a $450 million Series A earlier this year, plans to build a power plant based on the laser-driven fusion system pioneered at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s — the only tech yet to have produced more energy from a fusion reaction than it took to initiate it. Now, Inertia has shared its commercialization roadmap exclusively with Heatmap, detailing the 10 near-term capabilities it must demonstrate before this landmark experiment can become a grid-scale power plant by the mid-2030s.
The roadmap offers a route from the national lab’s impressive but commercially impractical fusion demonstrations to an economical power plant capable of producing electricity for the grid. At its core are a set of milestones — mostly aimed at developing cheap, mass-manufacturable components — that Inertia says it must clear before those individual systems can be integrated into a working plant. This road is not necessarily linear, however, as various teams will likely be working on many of these goals simultaneously.
At least the physics of Inertia’s approach are already proven, the startup’s CEO Jeff Lawson told me, pointing to the fusion experiments at Lawrence Livermore’s National Ignition Facility as a proof-of-concept. The lab’s demonstration of net energy gain caps more than six decades and $30 billion (in 2026 dollars) of U.S. fusion research. The remaining challenges, he argued, are all engineering-related, requiring “elbow grease, hard work, and smart people” rather than breakthroughs in fusion science.
"It seems to us like a startup or a commercial company of any variety should be focused on commercializing a proven scientific result, as opposed to actually trying to demonstrate the basic science to begin with," Lawson told me. Basic science, he argues, is better left to national labs and universities, where researchers can pursue "unbounded problems" that don’t align with the expectations and timelines of venture-backed startups.
Indeed, no fusion startup has yet achieved scientific breakeven, the milestone Lawrence Livermore first hit in 2022, and has since repeated numerous times. But leading players such as Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Helion Energy maintain that it’s only a matter of time before they validate the physics behind their own reactor designs, which they claim will be highly cost-competitive.
Lawson, on the other hand, readily acknowledged that Lawrence Livermore’s tech is uneconomical in its current form. His bet is simply that the more predictable path to a commercial reactor is to drive down the cost of the lab’s validated fusion approach, known as inertial confinement. This system relies on high-powered lasers firing at a millimeter-scale pellet of fusion fuel, compressing it to extreme temperatures and pressures until the atoms fuse. Today, the National Ignition Facility makes each individual fusion target by hand, a workable solution given that it only uses about a dozen per year.
That production model, however, isn’t remotely plausible for a grid-scale power plant. Because each fusion reaction lasts just a fraction of a billionth of a second, a commercial facility must fire its lasers at a fresh target about 10 times per second to generate continuous electricity — requiring the production of hundreds of millions of targets each year.
Scaling production to roughly a million pellets per day and making them inexpensive enough for commercial operation without compromising the strength or precision required for fusion ignition is central to Inertia’s roadmap. That includes goals five, seven, eight and nine — industrializing the manufacturing of the carbon shells that hold the fusion fuel, making the thin films that hold those carbon shells both durable and cheap, scaling up and automating fusion target assembly, and speeding up how fast targets are filled with the requisite deuterium-tritium fuel.
The other central focus of the roadmap is the laser system, which will ultimately consist of 1,000 individual units operating in concert to compress and heat the fusion fuel. Key priorities include reducing the system’s cost (goal two), dramatically increasing its firing cadence (goal three), and bolstering its durability to withstand high-intensity operations (goal four). Goal six also complements these efforts, calling for the development of a control system capable of tracking moving fusion targets to precisely align each laser shot.
Goals one and 10 bookend the journey with some broader milestones. The first focuses on increasing the fusion target’s energy gain — the ratio of fusion energy produced to laser energy delivered — to more than 25 times ignition. Today, the National Ignition Facility’s best-performing laser shot has yielded a gain of just over four times what it took to start the reaction. Goal 10 then zooms out to the ultimate objective: integrating all these technologies into a commercially viable power plant that can deliver either electricity or industrial heat to end customers.
To reach that point, Inertia has embarked on an industrial engineering hiring spree, recruiting folks with experience taking complex hardware systems from prototype to mass production, “not unlike the processes that are used in the semiconductor or consumer electronics world,” Lawson explained. The company has been making progress on its component development goals since the beginning of the year, he told me, and expects to announce the successful demonstration of a few of these milestones in the coming months. Lawson ultimately expects Inertia to complete the core components of its laser and target manufacturing systems by the middle of next year.
The team will spend the next two to three years integrating these individual pieces into two fully operational subsystems, a prototype laser system and a target manufacturing line. Around 2030, the company will begin combining those subsystems into a first-of-a-kind fusion power plant, which will also serve as the proving ground for the target chamber, tritium fuel breeding system, and power conversion system that turns fusion heat into electricity. By the middle of the next decade, Inertia aims to be generating power from this first plant, setting the stage for the company to build and connect additional grid-scale commercial power plants.
There are plenty of engineering trade-offs that the company will have to solve for. Take the decision around how to size the target chamber, for example. “If you make it bigger, your walls have an easier time and survive longer, but it’s more expensive. If you make it smaller, your walls have a tougher time because they’re closer to all the heat and energy that the fusion reaction is creating, but now your power plant costs less to build.”
But to Lawson, this represents exactly the type of problem Inertia was built to solve: complex engineering issues that come to the fore once scientists have demonstrated the fundamental physics are sound. He thinks other fusion companies may someday reach this stage, as well — though he’s unwilling to hazard a guess on exactly what approach or startup is best positioned to do so.
“There have been generations of scientists who’ve made their predictions about fusion energy and gotten it wrong,” he told me. “I’m not going to pretend to be smarter than them. All I’m here to say is, just knowing that one did work, we can commercialize it.”