Los Angeles Times
OPINION-Letter to the Editor
June 5, 2007
I wholeheartedly agree with doing away with wood-burning fireplaces. On my lunch hour last week, I strolled to the Ralph's grocery store across the street and there, at the front door, was a colossal stack of firewood (next to a pyramid of charcoal briquettes) to be purchased for burning. With L.A. assuming its place, once again, as the American city with the worst air quality, banning wood-burning and charcoal-burning grills and fireplaces is appropriate. They are dirty and sooty and nothing more than habit or what we have become accustomed to. In all honesty, who needs them?
ELLEN HAGEMAN
Los Angeles
CITIES OFFER CASH TO GO GREEN!
Cities offer green to go green
Efforts to save energy, environment mean homeowners walk away with cash
December 28, 2007
BY BRIAN SKOLOFF
PARKLAND, Fla. -- Free hybrid-car parking. Cash rebates for installing solar panels. Money to tear up desert lawns and replace them with drought-resistant landscaping.
Frustrated by what they see as insufficient action by state and federal government, municipalities around the country are offering financial incentives to get people to go green.
"A lot of localities recognize they're going to get a lot more done using carrots and incentives rather than regulatory means," said Jason Hartke of the U.S. Green Building Council.
In Parkland, where the motto is ''Environmentally Proud,'' the city plans next year to begin dispensing cash rebates to its 25,000 residents for being more environmentally friendly. "We will literally issue them a check,'' said Vice Mayor Jared Moskowitz. ''We're sick of waiting for the federal government to do something, so we've got to do what we can.''
Residents who install low-flow toilets or shower heads will get $150. Replacing an old air conditioner with a more energy-efficient one brings $100. Buying a hybrid car? An additional $200 cash back. And the list goes on.
Based on an estimate of 1,000 residents participating in the rebate program during the first year, the city predicts it will cost up to $100,000. "Could this bankrupt the city if the program grows by leaps and bounds?'' Moskowitz asked. ''I can only wish that so many residents want to go green that that becomes an issue.''
Many states already offer similar rebates and incentives through tax breaks, loans and perks such as allowing hybrid-car drivers to use car pool lanes. Utilities have long provided incentives to buy energy-efficient appliances. The federal government, too, offers tax incentives for energy-saving products.
But cities like these are taking it to the next level:
• • San Francisco will offer homeowners rebates of up to $5,000 for installing solar panels if they use a local contractor. The city will also pay residents $150 to replace old appliances.
• • Baltimore offers at least $2,000 toward closing costs for people who buy new homes close to where they work. ''Just living near your job and taking transit or walking to meet your daily needs provides basically the same environmental benefit as buying a hybrid car,'' said Amanda Eaken of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
• • Residents of Albuquerque, N.M., get fast-track building permits if they agree to make their homes more energy-efficient.
• • In Arizona, many cities pay residents to replace grass with artificial turf or plants that use less water. Scottsdale, outside Phoenix, will pay up to $1,500.
AP
Editor's note....
My Suggestion To Reduce Wood Smoke Emissions---
Local towns and state governments should adopt a cash grant program for those who voluntarily covert their inside wood-burning fireplace to gas or electric.
Efforts to save energy, environment mean homeowners walk away with cash
December 28, 2007
BY BRIAN SKOLOFF
PARKLAND, Fla. -- Free hybrid-car parking. Cash rebates for installing solar panels. Money to tear up desert lawns and replace them with drought-resistant landscaping.
Frustrated by what they see as insufficient action by state and federal government, municipalities around the country are offering financial incentives to get people to go green.
"A lot of localities recognize they're going to get a lot more done using carrots and incentives rather than regulatory means," said Jason Hartke of the U.S. Green Building Council.
In Parkland, where the motto is ''Environmentally Proud,'' the city plans next year to begin dispensing cash rebates to its 25,000 residents for being more environmentally friendly. "We will literally issue them a check,'' said Vice Mayor Jared Moskowitz. ''We're sick of waiting for the federal government to do something, so we've got to do what we can.''
Residents who install low-flow toilets or shower heads will get $150. Replacing an old air conditioner with a more energy-efficient one brings $100. Buying a hybrid car? An additional $200 cash back. And the list goes on.
Based on an estimate of 1,000 residents participating in the rebate program during the first year, the city predicts it will cost up to $100,000. "Could this bankrupt the city if the program grows by leaps and bounds?'' Moskowitz asked. ''I can only wish that so many residents want to go green that that becomes an issue.''
Many states already offer similar rebates and incentives through tax breaks, loans and perks such as allowing hybrid-car drivers to use car pool lanes. Utilities have long provided incentives to buy energy-efficient appliances. The federal government, too, offers tax incentives for energy-saving products.
But cities like these are taking it to the next level:
• • San Francisco will offer homeowners rebates of up to $5,000 for installing solar panels if they use a local contractor. The city will also pay residents $150 to replace old appliances.
• • Baltimore offers at least $2,000 toward closing costs for people who buy new homes close to where they work. ''Just living near your job and taking transit or walking to meet your daily needs provides basically the same environmental benefit as buying a hybrid car,'' said Amanda Eaken of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
• • Residents of Albuquerque, N.M., get fast-track building permits if they agree to make their homes more energy-efficient.
• • In Arizona, many cities pay residents to replace grass with artificial turf or plants that use less water. Scottsdale, outside Phoenix, will pay up to $1,500.
AP
Editor's note....
My Suggestion To Reduce Wood Smoke Emissions---
Local towns and state governments should adopt a cash grant program for those who voluntarily covert their inside wood-burning fireplace to gas or electric.
Fighting for Our Clean Air Rights against Outdoor Wood Boilers in Illinois
Thursday, December 20, 2007
"Fighting for Our Clean Air Rights against Outdoor Wood Boilers in Illinois "
http://www.myspace.com/freedomofair
Note...The above personal myspace web page site is created by a Supporter of Breathe Healthy Air.
Our Mission:
"My wife and I developed this page to show the horror of how lives can change because of the selfish action of a neighbor. Having clean air to breathe is a fundamental common law right. We have been forced to live with and breathe smoke on a continual basis because of an Outdoor Wood Boiler located directly across from our house. We are not just fighting for our own rights, but the rights of everyone else who wishes to breathe clean air. We hope the information on this page will benefit anyone who has a similar situation, and will find our experiences resourceful in the continuing battle for clean air."
Who I'd like to meet:
"We want to meet anyone who wants to constructively contribute to our mission of getting back what was once free, clean air. We have already invested thousands of dollars in this fight, thousands of dollars we probably will never see again. If we can successfully maintain our ground and fight for what is right, not only will we personally benefit, but people in the community and with similar situations will benefit as well."
Editor's note----Read about the horrors of wood smoke emission and actually see wood smoke emission videos on this web site.... http://www.myspace.com/freedomofair
http://www.myspace.com/freedomofair
Note...The above personal myspace web page site is created by a Supporter of Breathe Healthy Air.
Our Mission:
"My wife and I developed this page to show the horror of how lives can change because of the selfish action of a neighbor. Having clean air to breathe is a fundamental common law right. We have been forced to live with and breathe smoke on a continual basis because of an Outdoor Wood Boiler located directly across from our house. We are not just fighting for our own rights, but the rights of everyone else who wishes to breathe clean air. We hope the information on this page will benefit anyone who has a similar situation, and will find our experiences resourceful in the continuing battle for clean air."
Who I'd like to meet:
"We want to meet anyone who wants to constructively contribute to our mission of getting back what was once free, clean air. We have already invested thousands of dollars in this fight, thousands of dollars we probably will never see again. If we can successfully maintain our ground and fight for what is right, not only will we personally benefit, but people in the community and with similar situations will benefit as well."
Editor's note----Read about the horrors of wood smoke emission and actually see wood smoke emission videos on this web site.... http://www.myspace.com/freedomofair
SEEKING HELP FROM WOOD SMOKE EMISSIONS
Monday, December 17, 2007
This is a copy of e-mail that was sent to Mary seeking help--
Mary J. Rozenberg
President
Clean Air Revival, Inc.
PO Box 1045
Point Arena, CA 95468
Mary.Rozenberg@gmail.com
website: http://burningissues.org
(707) 882-3601
Fax (707) 882-3602
December 4, 2007
Hi, Mary. We are in the Cincinnati Ohio area. Loveland,Ohio is our mailing address. We are at XXXXXXX in Loveland Ohio. 45140. This is actually Symmes Township right at the corner of Hamilton, Warren and Claremont Counties.
Our problems persist. So far, no one is willing to help us at the local or state level. We are now trying to get a building inspection on the house next door which continues to pour chimney smoke over us. The fire department did stop the neighbor's outside burning. But as I said, their chimney 15 feet from us and above us produces smoke that gets in at ever opening of our house. All windows. Even the bathroom vents. We have taped up everything, but that only helps some. And I continue to have rashes and my wife continues to have tail bone pain.
Thanks,
J-K
Ø Our house and our immediate neighbors’ house set among houses that produce a lot of wood smoke. As a result, J our immediate neighbor had to be on steroids all summer long. (One neighbor has since stopped burning, and we are deeply grateful).
Ø In J's case, we know it’s the wood smoke, because when there’s no smoke, the problems (itchy rashes) begin healing, and the moment smoke reappears, the problems come back.
Ø Before we realized what was causing the horrible rashes all over J's body, (resulting in two trips to urgent care and one to the emergency room), we tried everything: pulling out the flowers we had planted, pulling out any poison ivy we could find, changing laundry detergents, completely washing down the inside of our house, etc. Only when we pinpointed the cause, did we start finding occasional relief.
Ø K’s reaction to the wood smoke is an aggravation of her auto-immune condition, resulting in spinal arthritis. Now, instead of making at least two trips “around the block” every day, she has to do extensive exercises just to be able to walk. Again, no smoke, problem goes away; smoke, problem comes back.
Ø When the new development at the end of XXXX Drive was just getting started, a massive pile—the size of a large house—of wood chips was left for about a year. The pile smoldered during that time as it was degrading into mulch. During that time, a father in his 40’s—living within 100 feet of that pile—suddenly came down with cancer and was dead within 6 weeks.
Ø Down the street from that family, awhile later, a baby died of SIDS. The baby was at a day care center. The baby’s home is right behind us and therefore right in the path of smoke for the two house causing us problems.
Ø Another neighbor near the compost pile was taken to the hospital by ambulance on several occasions from flare-ups of Chron’s Disease. A hundred yards in another direct from the smoldering wood pile a man had quadruple bypass heart surgery (a long-time) smoker.
Ø Around the same time, two other baby boys in nearby households were born prematurely and with low birth weight. Both of them have acute multiple allergies.
Ø One of the two families producing wood smoke on both sides of us has a father in his early forties who suffered kidney failure recently and has heart trouble. His wife, also in her late thirties or early forties, has severe arthritis. A man two houses up from us and on the other side of one of the two families regularly producing wood smoke has such extreme allergies that he never opens his windows.
Ø A friend of ours two hundred yards north of us in the woods where wood smoke is continually being produced almost died after getting a flu shot and now has lupus and skin rashes. Her teenage son is Autistic.
We hope you can do something to help us.
Thanks
J&K
Loveland, Ohio
Mary J. Rozenberg
President
Clean Air Revival, Inc.
PO Box 1045
Point Arena, CA 95468
Mary.Rozenberg@gmail.com
website: http://burningissues.org
(707) 882-3601
Fax (707) 882-3602
December 4, 2007
Hi, Mary. We are in the Cincinnati Ohio area. Loveland,Ohio is our mailing address. We are at XXXXXXX in Loveland Ohio. 45140. This is actually Symmes Township right at the corner of Hamilton, Warren and Claremont Counties.
Our problems persist. So far, no one is willing to help us at the local or state level. We are now trying to get a building inspection on the house next door which continues to pour chimney smoke over us. The fire department did stop the neighbor's outside burning. But as I said, their chimney 15 feet from us and above us produces smoke that gets in at ever opening of our house. All windows. Even the bathroom vents. We have taped up everything, but that only helps some. And I continue to have rashes and my wife continues to have tail bone pain.
Thanks,
J-K
Ø Our house and our immediate neighbors’ house set among houses that produce a lot of wood smoke. As a result, J our immediate neighbor had to be on steroids all summer long. (One neighbor has since stopped burning, and we are deeply grateful).
Ø In J's case, we know it’s the wood smoke, because when there’s no smoke, the problems (itchy rashes) begin healing, and the moment smoke reappears, the problems come back.
Ø Before we realized what was causing the horrible rashes all over J's body, (resulting in two trips to urgent care and one to the emergency room), we tried everything: pulling out the flowers we had planted, pulling out any poison ivy we could find, changing laundry detergents, completely washing down the inside of our house, etc. Only when we pinpointed the cause, did we start finding occasional relief.
Ø K’s reaction to the wood smoke is an aggravation of her auto-immune condition, resulting in spinal arthritis. Now, instead of making at least two trips “around the block” every day, she has to do extensive exercises just to be able to walk. Again, no smoke, problem goes away; smoke, problem comes back.
Ø When the new development at the end of XXXX Drive was just getting started, a massive pile—the size of a large house—of wood chips was left for about a year. The pile smoldered during that time as it was degrading into mulch. During that time, a father in his 40’s—living within 100 feet of that pile—suddenly came down with cancer and was dead within 6 weeks.
Ø Down the street from that family, awhile later, a baby died of SIDS. The baby was at a day care center. The baby’s home is right behind us and therefore right in the path of smoke for the two house causing us problems.
Ø Another neighbor near the compost pile was taken to the hospital by ambulance on several occasions from flare-ups of Chron’s Disease. A hundred yards in another direct from the smoldering wood pile a man had quadruple bypass heart surgery (a long-time) smoker.
Ø Around the same time, two other baby boys in nearby households were born prematurely and with low birth weight. Both of them have acute multiple allergies.
Ø One of the two families producing wood smoke on both sides of us has a father in his early forties who suffered kidney failure recently and has heart trouble. His wife, also in her late thirties or early forties, has severe arthritis. A man two houses up from us and on the other side of one of the two families regularly producing wood smoke has such extreme allergies that he never opens his windows.
Ø A friend of ours two hundred yards north of us in the woods where wood smoke is continually being produced almost died after getting a flu shot and now has lupus and skin rashes. Her teenage son is Autistic.
We hope you can do something to help us.
Thanks
J&K
Loveland, Ohio
ALL AFFECTED BY WOOD SMOKE
I read with interest the recent letters page devoted to the topic of fires in fireplaces. Most surprising to me was the notion by some that regulating such a thing somehow usurps their right to do what they want in the privacy of their own home.
Since when is it acceptable to threaten the health of others just because the offending act takes place in the comfort and privacy of one's own home?
Sure, hearth fires are nice. But so is being able to breathe clean air.
Sure, burning hundreds of pounds of wood each winter can lower one's heating bill. But why should the rest of society have to breathe filthy, stinky, cancer-causing air so one household can lower its bill?
Just like noise from obnoxious, barking dogs, very loud music at 3 a.m., or a bullet from a firearm discharged randomly into the sky, toxic soot becomes society's business the instant it leaves the privacy of someone's property and enters the privacy of someone else's property.
I treasure my rights and privileges as an American, but I also understand that I should not gratuitously endanger others for the sake of my own pleasure or economic benefit.
Anyone who closes the flue, seals off the chimney, closes their doors and windows, shuts off all vent fans, and still chooses to have a fire should have the right to do so.
Because only then is the cozy hearth fire's smoke restricted to the privacy and enjoyment of the home, where it belongs.
Since when is it acceptable to threaten the health of others just because the offending act takes place in the comfort and privacy of one's own home?
Sure, hearth fires are nice. But so is being able to breathe clean air.
Sure, burning hundreds of pounds of wood each winter can lower one's heating bill. But why should the rest of society have to breathe filthy, stinky, cancer-causing air so one household can lower its bill?
Just like noise from obnoxious, barking dogs, very loud music at 3 a.m., or a bullet from a firearm discharged randomly into the sky, toxic soot becomes society's business the instant it leaves the privacy of someone's property and enters the privacy of someone else's property.
I treasure my rights and privileges as an American, but I also understand that I should not gratuitously endanger others for the sake of my own pleasure or economic benefit.
Anyone who closes the flue, seals off the chimney, closes their doors and windows, shuts off all vent fans, and still chooses to have a fire should have the right to do so.
Because only then is the cozy hearth fire's smoke restricted to the privacy and enjoyment of the home, where it belongs.
But The Fire Is Not Delightful-Letter to the Editor
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Opinion--Article
StarTribune Newspaper
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Published December 5, 2007
Julie Mellum: But the fire is not delightful
We're snuffing secondhand tobacco smoke, but we continue to romanticize recreational wood burning -- a hazard all its own.
One big source of air pollution -- as deadly as vehicle exhaust, and with many of the same toxicants as cigarette smoke -- is wood smoke.
The Star Tribune's recent feature on the joys of back-yard wood burning ("All fired up," Oct. 24) was so well-written and enticing that it no doubt caused sales of wood-burning equipment to skyrocket. Yet it did not address the perils of wood smoke. Wood smoke is more than a nuisance -- it is a health hazard.
Minnesota's antismoking ordinance allows people to go to bars and restaurants and avoid smoke, because tobacco smoke is a proven killer. Yet because we still allow recreational wood burning in the city, where homes are close together on small lots, it has become a serious livability problem. All citizens are forced to breathe outdoor air that smells of smoke in many neighborhoods, night and day, in all seasons.
There is so much smoke, either faint or heavy, that many hardly notice it anymore. But wood smoke is there, heavy in most neighborhoods at night or around our many wood-fired restaurants, if you stop to notice.
How did this happen in a city such as Minneapolis, which has long been focused on improving air quality for the health of its citizens?
Wood smoke comprises fine particulates, many of which are carcinogenic, such as benzene, toluene, formaldehyde and polyaromatic hydrocarbons. It is far more concentrated than cigarette smoke and travels much farther, spreading soot and fine particulates directly into our air and our lungs. It also invades our water and food supply with persistent organic compounds that do not break down but remain for years, causing a host of health problems in frogs, bluegills and mammals -- including humans.
Everyone is at risk from wood-smoke exposure. But children of all ages, the elderly, and anyone with asthma, allergies, or heart disease are in the highest-risk categories.
The American Lung Association states that a majority of asthmatics cite smoke of all kinds as a trigger for asthma attacks. Asthma is epidemic in children, and it is life-threatening. Wood smoke is even implicated in sudden infant death syndrome. Are we OK with this? Aren't these facts reason enough to stop recreational wood burning?
Why, then, do people continue to burn? First, because they don't know how harmful it is. Second, because it is strongly promoted by the hearth and home industry. And third, because burning wood is an addiction.
I cannot be outside at all when wood smoke is in the air, because I have a "reactive airways" condition affected by it. I ache for clean air outdoors in a world where nature often is our only respite. Bad air is forcing many others I know inside when, as city taxpayers, we have a right to be outside breathing clean air.
We must urge our City Council members to ban recreational wood burning -- especially at a time when cities are looking for ways to reduce pollution to save lives and receive federal funding by being in compliance with air-quality standards. Many feel that our air-quality standards are not high enough. If air quality were measured near where people actually breathe it, when neighbors are burning, the results would be off the charts.
I look to the Star Tribune and to all citizens to start building public awareness of the hazards of wood smoke.
Julie Mellum is a Realtor and president of Take Back the Air, a Minneapolis group that works to address pollution at the neighborhood level.
StarTribune Newspaper
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Published December 5, 2007
Julie Mellum: But the fire is not delightful
We're snuffing secondhand tobacco smoke, but we continue to romanticize recreational wood burning -- a hazard all its own.
One big source of air pollution -- as deadly as vehicle exhaust, and with many of the same toxicants as cigarette smoke -- is wood smoke.
The Star Tribune's recent feature on the joys of back-yard wood burning ("All fired up," Oct. 24) was so well-written and enticing that it no doubt caused sales of wood-burning equipment to skyrocket. Yet it did not address the perils of wood smoke. Wood smoke is more than a nuisance -- it is a health hazard.
Minnesota's antismoking ordinance allows people to go to bars and restaurants and avoid smoke, because tobacco smoke is a proven killer. Yet because we still allow recreational wood burning in the city, where homes are close together on small lots, it has become a serious livability problem. All citizens are forced to breathe outdoor air that smells of smoke in many neighborhoods, night and day, in all seasons.
There is so much smoke, either faint or heavy, that many hardly notice it anymore. But wood smoke is there, heavy in most neighborhoods at night or around our many wood-fired restaurants, if you stop to notice.
How did this happen in a city such as Minneapolis, which has long been focused on improving air quality for the health of its citizens?
Wood smoke comprises fine particulates, many of which are carcinogenic, such as benzene, toluene, formaldehyde and polyaromatic hydrocarbons. It is far more concentrated than cigarette smoke and travels much farther, spreading soot and fine particulates directly into our air and our lungs. It also invades our water and food supply with persistent organic compounds that do not break down but remain for years, causing a host of health problems in frogs, bluegills and mammals -- including humans.
Everyone is at risk from wood-smoke exposure. But children of all ages, the elderly, and anyone with asthma, allergies, or heart disease are in the highest-risk categories.
The American Lung Association states that a majority of asthmatics cite smoke of all kinds as a trigger for asthma attacks. Asthma is epidemic in children, and it is life-threatening. Wood smoke is even implicated in sudden infant death syndrome. Are we OK with this? Aren't these facts reason enough to stop recreational wood burning?
Why, then, do people continue to burn? First, because they don't know how harmful it is. Second, because it is strongly promoted by the hearth and home industry. And third, because burning wood is an addiction.
I cannot be outside at all when wood smoke is in the air, because I have a "reactive airways" condition affected by it. I ache for clean air outdoors in a world where nature often is our only respite. Bad air is forcing many others I know inside when, as city taxpayers, we have a right to be outside breathing clean air.
We must urge our City Council members to ban recreational wood burning -- especially at a time when cities are looking for ways to reduce pollution to save lives and receive federal funding by being in compliance with air-quality standards. Many feel that our air-quality standards are not high enough. If air quality were measured near where people actually breathe it, when neighbors are burning, the results would be off the charts.
I look to the Star Tribune and to all citizens to start building public awareness of the hazards of wood smoke.
Julie Mellum is a Realtor and president of Take Back the Air, a Minneapolis group that works to address pollution at the neighborhood level.
Elk Grove Village, Illinois, Must Ban Wood Smoke
Letter to the Editor
Daily Herald Newspaper
Paddock Publications
Published December 5, 2007
Elk Grove Village Must Ban Wood Smoke
Soaring asthma and autism rates in our cities correspond with skyrocketing fine particulate pollution, caused mostly by vehicle exhaust and wood smoke.
When fine particulate pollution goes up, people die-from asthma attacks, heart attacks and even sudden infant death syndrome.
Burning for fun is wreaking havoc and infiltrating our lungs, air, water and crops with deadly pollutants that harm both man and the planet. Are we OK with this?
As the Midwestern director for Clean Air Revival, an international organization dedicated to providing scientific information on the hazards of wood smoke, I have been involved with the Elk Grove Village community in fighting wood smoke. I spoke in favor of reinstating the one-time progressive ban on outdoor recreational burning at its town hall meeting in October.
While Mayor Craig Johnson is concerned with stopping smoking by educational means, equally needed is a major educational campaign on the harms of wood smoke!
Just as the Illinois Smoking Ban will help people quit smoking and protect others from secondhand smoke, so would a wood-burning ban help people stop polluting for fun, and protect others from the fine particulate fallout.
We must ban wood burning now.
Julie Mellum
Midwestern Director
Clean Air Revival
Minneapolis
Note…Elk Grove Village, Illinois, is on the western border of O’Hare Airport, and is a northwest suburb of Chicago.
Comment...All of us need to continually write letters to the newspapers and our elected officials to ban wood burning.
Daily Herald Newspaper
Paddock Publications
Published December 5, 2007
Elk Grove Village Must Ban Wood Smoke
Soaring asthma and autism rates in our cities correspond with skyrocketing fine particulate pollution, caused mostly by vehicle exhaust and wood smoke.
When fine particulate pollution goes up, people die-from asthma attacks, heart attacks and even sudden infant death syndrome.
Burning for fun is wreaking havoc and infiltrating our lungs, air, water and crops with deadly pollutants that harm both man and the planet. Are we OK with this?
As the Midwestern director for Clean Air Revival, an international organization dedicated to providing scientific information on the hazards of wood smoke, I have been involved with the Elk Grove Village community in fighting wood smoke. I spoke in favor of reinstating the one-time progressive ban on outdoor recreational burning at its town hall meeting in October.
While Mayor Craig Johnson is concerned with stopping smoking by educational means, equally needed is a major educational campaign on the harms of wood smoke!
Just as the Illinois Smoking Ban will help people quit smoking and protect others from secondhand smoke, so would a wood-burning ban help people stop polluting for fun, and protect others from the fine particulate fallout.
We must ban wood burning now.
Julie Mellum
Midwestern Director
Clean Air Revival
Minneapolis
Note…Elk Grove Village, Illinois, is on the western border of O’Hare Airport, and is a northwest suburb of Chicago.
Comment...All of us need to continually write letters to the newspapers and our elected officials to ban wood burning.
Ban all outdoor burning-Crain's Chicago Business
Monday, December 3, 2007
December 3, 2007-Published
Letters to the Editor
Crain’s Chicago Business
letters@chicagobusiness.com
Note...Let's hope that all communities (and the state of Illinois) seriously consider passing a law to ban all outdoor burning-the sooner the better.
Let your elected officials know we want a ban!
It is a matter of your family's breath, health, and life!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ban all outdoor burning!
Regarding “Barrington, other suburbs oppose railroad’s plan” (ChicagoBusiness.com, Nov 12), these towns are concerned about more traffic congestion, noise, declining property values, and environmental issues. But these towns already condone an activity that affects two of these issues dramatically, and also negatively affects the health of all people living in the area.
A ban on all outdoor burning is what these concerned suburbs need to adopt if they want to show they care about their residents' health. All of us must take action to protect the air we breathe and the health of our children and those with respiratory illnesses. Even we healthy people need fresh, clean air, not air saturated and polluted with noxious, and poisonous smoky emissions.
These suburbs may not be able to stop the trains, but they can easily adopt a ban on burning leaves and outdoor wood-burning fire places and fire pits if preserving the air, the environment, property values and their residents' health are really important
Elk Grove Village, Illinois
P.S. Barrington is a northwest suburb of Chicago, Illinois.
Letters to the Editor
Crain’s Chicago Business
letters@chicagobusiness.com
Note...Let's hope that all communities (and the state of Illinois) seriously consider passing a law to ban all outdoor burning-the sooner the better.
Let your elected officials know we want a ban!
It is a matter of your family's breath, health, and life!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ban all outdoor burning!
Regarding “Barrington, other suburbs oppose railroad’s plan” (ChicagoBusiness.com, Nov 12), these towns are concerned about more traffic congestion, noise, declining property values, and environmental issues. But these towns already condone an activity that affects two of these issues dramatically, and also negatively affects the health of all people living in the area.
A ban on all outdoor burning is what these concerned suburbs need to adopt if they want to show they care about their residents' health. All of us must take action to protect the air we breathe and the health of our children and those with respiratory illnesses. Even we healthy people need fresh, clean air, not air saturated and polluted with noxious, and poisonous smoky emissions.
These suburbs may not be able to stop the trains, but they can easily adopt a ban on burning leaves and outdoor wood-burning fire places and fire pits if preserving the air, the environment, property values and their residents' health are really important
Elk Grove Village, Illinois
P.S. Barrington is a northwest suburb of Chicago, Illinois.
Economics: Burning Solid Fuels is False Economy
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Economics: Burning Solid Fuels is False Economy
From----THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF QUANTIFIABLE OZONE AND PM10 RELATED HEALTH EFFECTS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
From....."http://burningissues.org/car-www/science/
abstracts/econstdy.htm"
Jane Hall, Kleinman, Fairley, Brajer, The Institute for Economic and Environmental Studies, California State University, Fullerton, CA 92634, October 1994; To order call ,BAAQMD (415) 771-6000: San Francisco, CA USA. p. 80 pages. This entry is the executive summary from the Final Report to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) of the extensive costs associated with fine particulate pollution and by implication - wood smoke.) The report estimates the cost of PM10 pollution in the Bay Area to be $2 billion. Order the entire paper from the BAAQMD.
Annual cost of not reducing PM10 (Particulate matter smaller than 10 microns)in the San Francisco Bay Area: $2.1 Billion and 1,098 deaths.Health cost of wood burning alone is $1.1 Billion. Cost of 1 fire to society: $40. (20 pounds wood)
Reducing Ozone is expensive, reducing fine particulate by stopping wood fires in all their forms would be almost free. (Cost to reduce ozone in the San Francisco Bay Area: $1 billion with health savings of $5.3 million.) "Simply banning or limiting wood fires could potentially save many lives at little or no cost" (Fairley, 1994).
Are we as a nation pursuing a false economy regardless of the price? We have spent billions cleaning up autos and factories while the most polluting of available home energy sources, wood combustion has remained untouched. Trees are a sacred cash cow. We all love to gaze into a fire 'and loose ourselves' but at what cost?
We take forest fires seriously. We don't like homes or people being incinerated. Yet the press never mentions the severe health effects of breathing the smoky air that blankets a fire in action. (President Clinton authorized $2.9 billion up from $1.8 billion in 2000 to fight US forest fires summer 2001. President Bush in August, 2001 committed billions to a ten year plan to prevent forest fires.) Yet as a country the US has not chosen to encourage clean air for its citizens.
For our study area of San Francisco $1 billion is spent each year on regulations to reduce ozone which is worst in the summer. The 1994 Fullerton San Francisco Bay Area Economic Report (Hall, 1995) estimates that $5.3 million in health benefits will result from these smog-reducing controls. The value of successful cleanup of car pollution for this area is attributed with yearly health savings of $604 million.
It estimates that the yearly loss to the Bay Area from PM2.5 pollution is $2.1 billion. The cost of wood burning was $1.1 billion per year. Fewer than 15% of the population burning wood for home heating and ambiance, costs six million people both in health, well being and quality of life but also in real dollars. Each pound of wood burned costs the entire community $2 in increased medical costs and lost work days. That is equivalent to $40 for an average fire burning 20 pounds of wood. "Simply banning or limiting wood fires could potentially save many lives at little or no cost" (Fairley, 1994).
The question that we must face is why the government and our "Air Quality Districts" and Environmental Agencies refuse to clear our air with the most cost effective decisions. Medical costs continue to increase. Why not decrease pollution to promote better health as the Fullerton study recommends? It is cheaper to be well.
What is our habit of solid fuel combustion costing us? Who is footing the bill? Some hidden costs of wood heat are increased neighborhood pollution levels resulting in suburban corridors of illness, lost wages, lost school time and sudden death. Let's look at the human and dollar cost and the value of raw wood in several ways.
The Added Value of Manufacturing Wood Products
Wood burning is big business but it could be argued that wood is too valuable to burn. In North Carolina, 4th largest wood producer in the US, manufacturing wood products provides 145,000 people jobs with an annual payroll of $3.5 billion. Similar figures were not available on the web for the politically embattled California Timber Industry, which is the largest state wood producer.North Carolina lists for us what we could do with a cord of wood.
By manufacturing wood products we increase jobs and add value to our natural resources. We increase our productivity as a nation. Wood builds houses, fences, salad bowls, furniture, kitchen cabinets, musical instruments and much more. Value is added to the raw wood. A cord of wood may be just the cost of labor, gasoline, chain saw supplies and hauling (called free wood in the US) or as much as $400. Burn it up and it is gone. It turns into a small amount of heat and a large amount of air pollution that will set up a value lost equation.
1 cord of wood is 8 feet by 4 feet by 4 feet
Value in what it can produce:
30 Boston rockers (chairs) or
12 dining room tables that each seat eight people or
1,200 copies of National Geographic magazine or
61,370 No. 10 envelopes or
460,000 personal checks or
1,000 to 2,000 pounds of paper (depending on the process used) or
89,870 sheets of letterhead bond paper or
942 one-pound books or
4,384,000 commemorative-size postage stamps or
7,500,000 toothpicks
What is Solid Fuel Combustion Costing Us?
"The alleged popularity and benefit of heating with wood or other solid fuels is simply not justified by the expense, detrimental health impacts of "second hand" wood smoke, fire hazards, and poor heating performance of wood stoves. Newspapers & magazines as well as movies & television that promote the use of wood stoves and fireplaces as being romantic and natural do not responsibly present the detrimental health and safety ramifications of heating with solid fuels nor do they discuss more cost-effective alternatives that would promote improved energy conservation, health and safety. (Freedman, 2001)."In most areas of California you will pay more to heat with wood than to heat with gas. CA ARB, 2001"
For our study area of San Francisco $1 billion is spent each year on regulations to reduce ozone which is worst in the summer. The 1994 Fullerton San Francisco Bay Area Economic Report (Hall, 1995) estimates that $5.3 million in health benefits will result from these smog-reducing controls. The value of successful cleanup of car pollution for this area is attributed with yearly health savings of $604 million.
It estimates that the yearly loss to the Bay Area from PM2.5 pollution is $2.1 billion. The cost of wood burning was $1.1 billion per year. 15% of the population burning wood for home heating and ambiance, costs six million people both in health, well being and quality of life but also in real dollars. Each pound of wood burned costs the entire community $2 in increased medical costs and lost work days. That is equivalent to $40 for an average fire burning 20 pounds of wood. "Simply banning or limiting wood fires could potentially save many lives at little or no cost" (Fairley, 1994).
The question that we must face is why the government and our "Air Quality Districts" and Environmental Agencies refuse to clear our air with the most cost effective decisions.
Medical costs continue to increase. Why not decrease pollution to promote better health as the Fullerton study recommends? It is cheaper to be well.
Perception is Everything
A rhapsody on wax logs: "They could see the white suburbs with their twinkling lights and swimming pools, the sprawling black townships, covered by a murky coating of smoke from a multitude of paraffin and wood fires, the long, flat roads radiation out to all corners and the bleak dirt mounds, the discarded debris of the race for South Africa's gold." (EVERY SECRET THING , My Family, My Country Gillian Slovo Little, Brown, and CO. PP 282,.P.133)
Timber companies are selling wood for burning and sawdust and paper garbage as wax sawdust logs and compressed pellets. The sawdust logs and pellets are sold as less polluting. They are actually expensive and polluting. The quote from G. Slovo, above, shows a different attitude in other parts of the world.
Below is a quote from New York State - it is talking about the stench of pig farms but it could be translated to Napa county, California with it's cows and it's choking wood smoke. In fact methane, ammonia and wood smoke are a quality of life issue all around the country.
"You like to think of a wine region as something that's a little bit more upscale, and it's kind of hard to be upscale if the air doesn't smell too good." -ANNE PARKER, a tourism official in New York's Finger Lakes region, on the area's growing hog industry. (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/12/nyregion/12PIGS.html?todaysheadlines)
At last an Iowa Senator proposed a tax credit for collecting and using agricultural methane as a fuel this year. (Chinese farmers collect and use methane fuel.) Conserving energy is saving money and saving the environment. Methane burns much cleaner than wood.
Consumer Reports, February 2002 (updated costs: see Engineer 2007)
Up in smoke
How economical is heating with wood? Split wood sells for roughly $150 a cord (delivered). If it's a true cord--a stack 8 feet long, 4 feet deep, and 4 feet high--the price is 40 percent cheaper than natural gas or fuel oil for equivalent energy, national average prices suggest. A "cord run," however, is a single stack of 16-inch logs that is one-third the volume of a true cord. A $150 cord run is 75 percent pricier than other heating fuels, assuming the stack of hardwood is 70 percent solid, contains 12 percent moisture, and provides 7,700 Btu/lb.
Burning wood can be inefficient. At best, 25 to 30 percent of the heat energy from a wood-burning fireplace goes toward warming the room. The rest is lost up the chimney. A fireplace insert or a wood stove might reach 70 percent efficiency, but you lose the coziness of the fire. By contrast, a new gas or oil boiler or a furnace is 80 percent efficient or more. Bottom line: A central heating system is typically the cheapest way to heat.
From....."http://burningissues.org/car-www/science/
abstracts/econstdy.htm"
From----THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF QUANTIFIABLE OZONE AND PM10 RELATED HEALTH EFFECTS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
From....."http://burningissues.org/car-www/science/
abstracts/econstdy.htm"
Jane Hall, Kleinman, Fairley, Brajer, The Institute for Economic and Environmental Studies, California State University, Fullerton, CA 92634, October 1994; To order call ,BAAQMD (415) 771-6000: San Francisco, CA USA. p. 80 pages. This entry is the executive summary from the Final Report to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) of the extensive costs associated with fine particulate pollution and by implication - wood smoke.) The report estimates the cost of PM10 pollution in the Bay Area to be $2 billion. Order the entire paper from the BAAQMD.
Annual cost of not reducing PM10 (Particulate matter smaller than 10 microns)in the San Francisco Bay Area: $2.1 Billion and 1,098 deaths.Health cost of wood burning alone is $1.1 Billion. Cost of 1 fire to society: $40. (20 pounds wood)
Reducing Ozone is expensive, reducing fine particulate by stopping wood fires in all their forms would be almost free. (Cost to reduce ozone in the San Francisco Bay Area: $1 billion with health savings of $5.3 million.) "Simply banning or limiting wood fires could potentially save many lives at little or no cost" (Fairley, 1994).
Are we as a nation pursuing a false economy regardless of the price? We have spent billions cleaning up autos and factories while the most polluting of available home energy sources, wood combustion has remained untouched. Trees are a sacred cash cow. We all love to gaze into a fire 'and loose ourselves' but at what cost?
We take forest fires seriously. We don't like homes or people being incinerated. Yet the press never mentions the severe health effects of breathing the smoky air that blankets a fire in action. (President Clinton authorized $2.9 billion up from $1.8 billion in 2000 to fight US forest fires summer 2001. President Bush in August, 2001 committed billions to a ten year plan to prevent forest fires.) Yet as a country the US has not chosen to encourage clean air for its citizens.
For our study area of San Francisco $1 billion is spent each year on regulations to reduce ozone which is worst in the summer. The 1994 Fullerton San Francisco Bay Area Economic Report (Hall, 1995) estimates that $5.3 million in health benefits will result from these smog-reducing controls. The value of successful cleanup of car pollution for this area is attributed with yearly health savings of $604 million.
It estimates that the yearly loss to the Bay Area from PM2.5 pollution is $2.1 billion. The cost of wood burning was $1.1 billion per year. Fewer than 15% of the population burning wood for home heating and ambiance, costs six million people both in health, well being and quality of life but also in real dollars. Each pound of wood burned costs the entire community $2 in increased medical costs and lost work days. That is equivalent to $40 for an average fire burning 20 pounds of wood. "Simply banning or limiting wood fires could potentially save many lives at little or no cost" (Fairley, 1994).
The question that we must face is why the government and our "Air Quality Districts" and Environmental Agencies refuse to clear our air with the most cost effective decisions. Medical costs continue to increase. Why not decrease pollution to promote better health as the Fullerton study recommends? It is cheaper to be well.
What is our habit of solid fuel combustion costing us? Who is footing the bill? Some hidden costs of wood heat are increased neighborhood pollution levels resulting in suburban corridors of illness, lost wages, lost school time and sudden death. Let's look at the human and dollar cost and the value of raw wood in several ways.
The Added Value of Manufacturing Wood Products
Wood burning is big business but it could be argued that wood is too valuable to burn. In North Carolina, 4th largest wood producer in the US, manufacturing wood products provides 145,000 people jobs with an annual payroll of $3.5 billion. Similar figures were not available on the web for the politically embattled California Timber Industry, which is the largest state wood producer.North Carolina lists for us what we could do with a cord of wood.
By manufacturing wood products we increase jobs and add value to our natural resources. We increase our productivity as a nation. Wood builds houses, fences, salad bowls, furniture, kitchen cabinets, musical instruments and much more. Value is added to the raw wood. A cord of wood may be just the cost of labor, gasoline, chain saw supplies and hauling (called free wood in the US) or as much as $400. Burn it up and it is gone. It turns into a small amount of heat and a large amount of air pollution that will set up a value lost equation.
1 cord of wood is 8 feet by 4 feet by 4 feet
Value in what it can produce:
30 Boston rockers (chairs) or
12 dining room tables that each seat eight people or
1,200 copies of National Geographic magazine or
61,370 No. 10 envelopes or
460,000 personal checks or
1,000 to 2,000 pounds of paper (depending on the process used) or
89,870 sheets of letterhead bond paper or
942 one-pound books or
4,384,000 commemorative-size postage stamps or
7,500,000 toothpicks
What is Solid Fuel Combustion Costing Us?
"The alleged popularity and benefit of heating with wood or other solid fuels is simply not justified by the expense, detrimental health impacts of "second hand" wood smoke, fire hazards, and poor heating performance of wood stoves. Newspapers & magazines as well as movies & television that promote the use of wood stoves and fireplaces as being romantic and natural do not responsibly present the detrimental health and safety ramifications of heating with solid fuels nor do they discuss more cost-effective alternatives that would promote improved energy conservation, health and safety. (Freedman, 2001)."In most areas of California you will pay more to heat with wood than to heat with gas. CA ARB, 2001"
For our study area of San Francisco $1 billion is spent each year on regulations to reduce ozone which is worst in the summer. The 1994 Fullerton San Francisco Bay Area Economic Report (Hall, 1995) estimates that $5.3 million in health benefits will result from these smog-reducing controls. The value of successful cleanup of car pollution for this area is attributed with yearly health savings of $604 million.
It estimates that the yearly loss to the Bay Area from PM2.5 pollution is $2.1 billion. The cost of wood burning was $1.1 billion per year. 15% of the population burning wood for home heating and ambiance, costs six million people both in health, well being and quality of life but also in real dollars. Each pound of wood burned costs the entire community $2 in increased medical costs and lost work days. That is equivalent to $40 for an average fire burning 20 pounds of wood. "Simply banning or limiting wood fires could potentially save many lives at little or no cost" (Fairley, 1994).
The question that we must face is why the government and our "Air Quality Districts" and Environmental Agencies refuse to clear our air with the most cost effective decisions.
Medical costs continue to increase. Why not decrease pollution to promote better health as the Fullerton study recommends? It is cheaper to be well.
Perception is Everything
A rhapsody on wax logs: "They could see the white suburbs with their twinkling lights and swimming pools, the sprawling black townships, covered by a murky coating of smoke from a multitude of paraffin and wood fires, the long, flat roads radiation out to all corners and the bleak dirt mounds, the discarded debris of the race for South Africa's gold." (EVERY SECRET THING , My Family, My Country Gillian Slovo Little, Brown, and CO. PP 282,.P.133)
Timber companies are selling wood for burning and sawdust and paper garbage as wax sawdust logs and compressed pellets. The sawdust logs and pellets are sold as less polluting. They are actually expensive and polluting. The quote from G. Slovo, above, shows a different attitude in other parts of the world.
Below is a quote from New York State - it is talking about the stench of pig farms but it could be translated to Napa county, California with it's cows and it's choking wood smoke. In fact methane, ammonia and wood smoke are a quality of life issue all around the country.
"You like to think of a wine region as something that's a little bit more upscale, and it's kind of hard to be upscale if the air doesn't smell too good." -ANNE PARKER, a tourism official in New York's Finger Lakes region, on the area's growing hog industry. (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/12/nyregion/12PIGS.html?todaysheadlines)
At last an Iowa Senator proposed a tax credit for collecting and using agricultural methane as a fuel this year. (Chinese farmers collect and use methane fuel.) Conserving energy is saving money and saving the environment. Methane burns much cleaner than wood.
Consumer Reports, February 2002 (updated costs: see Engineer 2007)
Up in smoke
How economical is heating with wood? Split wood sells for roughly $150 a cord (delivered). If it's a true cord--a stack 8 feet long, 4 feet deep, and 4 feet high--the price is 40 percent cheaper than natural gas or fuel oil for equivalent energy, national average prices suggest. A "cord run," however, is a single stack of 16-inch logs that is one-third the volume of a true cord. A $150 cord run is 75 percent pricier than other heating fuels, assuming the stack of hardwood is 70 percent solid, contains 12 percent moisture, and provides 7,700 Btu/lb.
Burning wood can be inefficient. At best, 25 to 30 percent of the heat energy from a wood-burning fireplace goes toward warming the room. The rest is lost up the chimney. A fireplace insert or a wood stove might reach 70 percent efficiency, but you lose the coziness of the fire. By contrast, a new gas or oil boiler or a furnace is 80 percent efficient or more. Bottom line: A central heating system is typically the cheapest way to heat.
From....."http://burningissues.org/car-www/science/
abstracts/econstdy.htm"
WOOD SMOKE POLLUTION IS A NEIGHBORHOOD AIR QUALITY PROBLEM
Yolo Clean Air
2736 Brentwood Place, Davis, CA 95616
Phone & Fax: 530-758-5173
www.yolocleanair.org
About Yolo Clean Air
Yolo Clean Air is a California non-profit organization located in Davis, California. Our Mission is solely focused on improving air quality for the benefit of environmentally sensitive and susceptible individuals suffering from respiratory health problems - particularly children and seniors. We seek to identify and then provide the most practical, attainable, minimally-disruptive, and cost-effective solutions for the most pressing air quality problems. By merging consumer education and/or public behavioral changes with innovative, science-based, technology we seek to create near-term, sustainable environment changes that benefit the community.
WOOD SMOKE POLLUTION IS A NEIGHBORHOOD AIR QUALITY PROBLEM
Why Should You be Worried about Wood Smoke in Your Neighborhood?
“Residential wood combustion creates soot or carbon formed by incomplete combustion which is lifted into the air. These particles are sometimes 2.5 to 10 micrometers in size (PM10) but are more often less than 2.5 micrometers in size (PM2.5)” (Quote from Reference 1).
“Both PM10 and PM2.5 create health problems related to their ability to penetrate deep into our respiratory system. A number of health studies have established a direct correlation between elevated particulate levels and increased mortality” (Quote from Reference 1).
“Children, the elderly, pregnant women and people with respiratory ailments are especially susceptible. Among the health impacts are premature death; respiratory-related hospital admissions; aggravated asthma; acute respiratory symptoms, including aggravated coughing and difficult breathing; chronic bronchitis; and decreased lung function that can be experienced as shortness of breath” (Quote from Reference 1).
“Even if you don’t burn wood, studies have shown that wood smoke from neighbors’ fires can enter your home. Smoke particles are so small they can seep into a home with closed windows and doors. The pollution levels inside a closed home can be up to 70 percent of the levels outdoors” (Quote from Reference 1).
“Almost half of our particulate matter pollution comes from wood burning fireplaces. For folks with asthma, this can be life-threatening” (Quote from Reference 2).
"This (wood smoke) is basically the worst pollution in terms of its health impacts. It has been linked to more than 5,000 premature deaths per year in Southern California” (Quote from Reference 3). Extrapolated from a Southern California population of 20,000,000, this predicts that wood smoke pollution will cause between 12-13 additional premature deaths each year in a city with a population of 50,000. (Please go to their web site to read the rest of the article)
NOTE----The above is only the first part of this great article. Please go to their web site…www.yolocleanair.org to read the complete article
2736 Brentwood Place, Davis, CA 95616
Phone & Fax: 530-758-5173
www.yolocleanair.org
About Yolo Clean Air
Yolo Clean Air is a California non-profit organization located in Davis, California. Our Mission is solely focused on improving air quality for the benefit of environmentally sensitive and susceptible individuals suffering from respiratory health problems - particularly children and seniors. We seek to identify and then provide the most practical, attainable, minimally-disruptive, and cost-effective solutions for the most pressing air quality problems. By merging consumer education and/or public behavioral changes with innovative, science-based, technology we seek to create near-term, sustainable environment changes that benefit the community.
WOOD SMOKE POLLUTION IS A NEIGHBORHOOD AIR QUALITY PROBLEM
Why Should You be Worried about Wood Smoke in Your Neighborhood?
“Residential wood combustion creates soot or carbon formed by incomplete combustion which is lifted into the air. These particles are sometimes 2.5 to 10 micrometers in size (PM10) but are more often less than 2.5 micrometers in size (PM2.5)” (Quote from Reference 1).
“Both PM10 and PM2.5 create health problems related to their ability to penetrate deep into our respiratory system. A number of health studies have established a direct correlation between elevated particulate levels and increased mortality” (Quote from Reference 1).
“Children, the elderly, pregnant women and people with respiratory ailments are especially susceptible. Among the health impacts are premature death; respiratory-related hospital admissions; aggravated asthma; acute respiratory symptoms, including aggravated coughing and difficult breathing; chronic bronchitis; and decreased lung function that can be experienced as shortness of breath” (Quote from Reference 1).
“Even if you don’t burn wood, studies have shown that wood smoke from neighbors’ fires can enter your home. Smoke particles are so small they can seep into a home with closed windows and doors. The pollution levels inside a closed home can be up to 70 percent of the levels outdoors” (Quote from Reference 1).
“Almost half of our particulate matter pollution comes from wood burning fireplaces. For folks with asthma, this can be life-threatening” (Quote from Reference 2).
"This (wood smoke) is basically the worst pollution in terms of its health impacts. It has been linked to more than 5,000 premature deaths per year in Southern California” (Quote from Reference 3). Extrapolated from a Southern California population of 20,000,000, this predicts that wood smoke pollution will cause between 12-13 additional premature deaths each year in a city with a population of 50,000. (Please go to their web site to read the rest of the article)
NOTE----The above is only the first part of this great article. Please go to their web site…www.yolocleanair.org to read the complete article
Ban Outdoor Wood-Burning Fireplaces and Fire Pits=Letter to Editor
Monday, November 5, 2007
November 5, 2007
Neighborhood Fencepost
Letter to the Editor
Daily Herald
Paddock Publications
Arlington Heights, IL.
Elk Grove Should Ban Outdoor Pits
Because we are supporters of the Breathe Healthy Air Coalition, my wife and I attended the Elk Grove Village Board meeting on October 9. Three passionate, informative testimonies were given to respectfully ask the board of trustees to seriously consider reinstating the ban on outdoor fireplaces and fire pits.
Wood smoke emissions are harmful to the air we all need to breathe and even more harmful to our health and quality of life. No one should have to leave their back yard and close the windows in their home (which does not help!) to try to avoid the wood smoke emissions drifting through the neighborhood and involuntarily into our lungs.
All towns-including Arlington Heights-should ban all outdoor fire places and fire pits.
Arlington Hts, Illinois
Neighborhood Fencepost
Letter to the Editor
Daily Herald
Paddock Publications
Arlington Heights, IL.
Elk Grove Should Ban Outdoor Pits
Because we are supporters of the Breathe Healthy Air Coalition, my wife and I attended the Elk Grove Village Board meeting on October 9. Three passionate, informative testimonies were given to respectfully ask the board of trustees to seriously consider reinstating the ban on outdoor fireplaces and fire pits.
Wood smoke emissions are harmful to the air we all need to breathe and even more harmful to our health and quality of life. No one should have to leave their back yard and close the windows in their home (which does not help!) to try to avoid the wood smoke emissions drifting through the neighborhood and involuntarily into our lungs.
All towns-including Arlington Heights-should ban all outdoor fire places and fire pits.
Arlington Hts, Illinois
Blog Writer---Questions for Wood Burners!
Friday, October 26, 2007
FORUM…BURNINGISSUES.ORG
Bodhi
Joined: 15 Oct 2006
Posts: 218
Location: Orlando, Florida
http://burningissues.org/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7
I am writing concerning a problem that seems to be getting worse each year. The problem is air pollution. I am speaking of the type of pollution that comes from the new inexpensive status toy. The backyard fire pit. Now even in the summer months, it is almost impossible to open the windows. No matter which way the wind blows, someone is burning their recreational fire. I have come to believe that the only recreational value in this device is for the one burning the wood. Everyone else suffers and gags... so much for consideration of the neighbors. What’s that I hear? "…but its legal." I have a right to burn this wood in my back yard." Maybe so, but driving a car is legal too, do you have the right to drive over people with your car? I find it stunning that so many adults act so childish and inconsiderate.
I challenge the wood burners to answer these questions:
1) when your fire pit is burning, do you leave the windows of your home open?
2) when there is a wind, which side of the pit do you sit on?
Now, I could be wrong but my guess is that you do not leave the windows of YOUR home open as your pit is smoking and burning. I would also bet that you sit in a position where you are not in the direct path of the smoke/fumes and other byproducts of YOUR fire.
Herein lies the problem... try to follow this logic:
your neighbor, who is getting smoked out by YOUR recreational fire cannot move his house out of the path of YOUR smoke. You on the other hand can just get up and move your chair away from the smoke and stink.
I challenge you wood burners to sit in the smoke and stink of YOUR fire instead of moving your chair to the fresh air side. I also challenge you to leave your home windows open while you burn your pit. In the long run, you will drive down the value of your own neighborhood. Try to sell your house then. Who wants to live in a suburb of adult children that smells like a war zone?
~Bodhi
http://burningissues.org/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7
Bodhi
Joined: 15 Oct 2006
Posts: 218
Location: Orlando, Florida
http://burningissues.org/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7
I am writing concerning a problem that seems to be getting worse each year. The problem is air pollution. I am speaking of the type of pollution that comes from the new inexpensive status toy. The backyard fire pit. Now even in the summer months, it is almost impossible to open the windows. No matter which way the wind blows, someone is burning their recreational fire. I have come to believe that the only recreational value in this device is for the one burning the wood. Everyone else suffers and gags... so much for consideration of the neighbors. What’s that I hear? "…but its legal." I have a right to burn this wood in my back yard." Maybe so, but driving a car is legal too, do you have the right to drive over people with your car? I find it stunning that so many adults act so childish and inconsiderate.
I challenge the wood burners to answer these questions:
1) when your fire pit is burning, do you leave the windows of your home open?
2) when there is a wind, which side of the pit do you sit on?
Now, I could be wrong but my guess is that you do not leave the windows of YOUR home open as your pit is smoking and burning. I would also bet that you sit in a position where you are not in the direct path of the smoke/fumes and other byproducts of YOUR fire.
Herein lies the problem... try to follow this logic:
your neighbor, who is getting smoked out by YOUR recreational fire cannot move his house out of the path of YOUR smoke. You on the other hand can just get up and move your chair away from the smoke and stink.
I challenge you wood burners to sit in the smoke and stink of YOUR fire instead of moving your chair to the fresh air side. I also challenge you to leave your home windows open while you burn your pit. In the long run, you will drive down the value of your own neighborhood. Try to sell your house then. Who wants to live in a suburb of adult children that smells like a war zone?
~Bodhi
http://burningissues.org/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7
Global Warming-Guest Essay
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Elk Grove Times---Pioneer Press Publications
Arlington Heights, Illinois
Guest Essay: Timely symposium starts today
(http://www.pioneerlocal.com/evanston/news/forum/607867,pp-climateessay-101807-s1.article)
October 18, 2007
By ELIZABETH BANKOFF
It is time. It is time to tackle the increasingly urgent problem of global warming. This problem poses an extremely serious threat to the environment, health and economy of our nation and world. The most recent scientific studies show that global warming is a reality and is already causing environmental changes that will have a variety of significant impacts on our lives.
The issue of global warming or climate change has been gaining attention for a good while. Media coverage in the past year has resulted in a dramatic increase in public awareness. As with many 'hot' topics, while there is a growing interest in this critical problem among the citizenry, uncertainty and confusion remain. What is it? How serious of a problem is it? How is it being addressed at the different levels of government? What are the consequences of a wait-and-see approach? Can we combat global warming without serious consequences to our economy? What can concerned citizens do in their own neighborhoods and homes?
In the summer of 2006, the Wilmette League of Women Voters made a commitment to help inform citizens about global warming.
Our Climate Matters, a four-day symposium on global warming, is the culmination of that commitment. Sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Wilmette, with the Glenview Park District and the leagues of Winnetka, Northfield, Kenilworth, Glencoe, Highland Park, Lake Forest, Lake Bluff, Glenview, Arlington Heights, Mount Prospect, Palatine, Rolling Meadows, Schaumburg, Park Ridge and Deerfield, Our Climate Matters commences today and runs through Sunday evening at the new Glenview Park District facilities in The Glen.
What began as an idea has evolved into a wide array of programs -- each focusing on a different aspect of this complex problem. Offerings include prominent speakers, as well as panels, forums and workshops in which scientists, business people, economists, legislators and other policy makers, architects, and citizens will discuss and share information and consider possible solutions.
A "Green" film festival, a presentation of the Chicago Cool Globes exhibit as well as an evening of "Cool Jazz" add a change of pace.
For a complete program schedule, visit the Web site, www.OurClimateMatters.org. All programs are free and open to the public.
James Madison once declared, "A people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives".
Our hope is that Our Climate Matters will stimulate, educate and foster serious discussion on this critical issue. Ultimately, in our wonderful democracy, it is the will of the people that affects change.
Let the serious conversation begin!
Elizabeth Bankoff, a member of the League of Women Voters of Wilmette, is coordinator of Our Climate Matters.
Note---This article was posted because Wood Smoke affects global warming. For additional information see....
http://burningissues.org/car-www/science/Climate/index.html
Arlington Heights, Illinois
Guest Essay: Timely symposium starts today
(http://www.pioneerlocal.com/evanston/news/forum/607867,pp-climateessay-101807-s1.article)
October 18, 2007
By ELIZABETH BANKOFF
It is time. It is time to tackle the increasingly urgent problem of global warming. This problem poses an extremely serious threat to the environment, health and economy of our nation and world. The most recent scientific studies show that global warming is a reality and is already causing environmental changes that will have a variety of significant impacts on our lives.
The issue of global warming or climate change has been gaining attention for a good while. Media coverage in the past year has resulted in a dramatic increase in public awareness. As with many 'hot' topics, while there is a growing interest in this critical problem among the citizenry, uncertainty and confusion remain. What is it? How serious of a problem is it? How is it being addressed at the different levels of government? What are the consequences of a wait-and-see approach? Can we combat global warming without serious consequences to our economy? What can concerned citizens do in their own neighborhoods and homes?
In the summer of 2006, the Wilmette League of Women Voters made a commitment to help inform citizens about global warming.
Our Climate Matters, a four-day symposium on global warming, is the culmination of that commitment. Sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Wilmette, with the Glenview Park District and the leagues of Winnetka, Northfield, Kenilworth, Glencoe, Highland Park, Lake Forest, Lake Bluff, Glenview, Arlington Heights, Mount Prospect, Palatine, Rolling Meadows, Schaumburg, Park Ridge and Deerfield, Our Climate Matters commences today and runs through Sunday evening at the new Glenview Park District facilities in The Glen.
What began as an idea has evolved into a wide array of programs -- each focusing on a different aspect of this complex problem. Offerings include prominent speakers, as well as panels, forums and workshops in which scientists, business people, economists, legislators and other policy makers, architects, and citizens will discuss and share information and consider possible solutions.
A "Green" film festival, a presentation of the Chicago Cool Globes exhibit as well as an evening of "Cool Jazz" add a change of pace.
For a complete program schedule, visit the Web site, www.OurClimateMatters.org. All programs are free and open to the public.
James Madison once declared, "A people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives".
Our hope is that Our Climate Matters will stimulate, educate and foster serious discussion on this critical issue. Ultimately, in our wonderful democracy, it is the will of the people that affects change.
Let the serious conversation begin!
Elizabeth Bankoff, a member of the League of Women Voters of Wilmette, is coordinator of Our Climate Matters.
Note---This article was posted because Wood Smoke affects global warming. For additional information see....
http://burningissues.org/car-www/science/Climate/index.html
Outdoor Fire Pits and Fireplaces: More Second-Hand Smoke
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Science - Outdoor Fire pits and Fireplaces
Special Report: Outdoor Fire Pits and Fireplaces: More Second-Hand Smoke
"http://burningissues.org"
Outdoor fire pits and fireplaces are a growing pollution source all over the United States. They are popular and inexpensive items at many retail stores. What is not inexpensive is the cost of wood smoke pollution: every pound of wood burned costs society $2.00 in health expense (Hall-Fairley). We are receiving more and more reports from victims all over the country and even in such an unexpected places as Key West, Florida.
There is no safe place or time of year that vulnerable people can avoid this deadly pollution. These open fire pits expose the owners and their guests to even more pollution than a fireplace or tobacco smoke. (Each fire will emit close to one pound of smoke pollution, with 90% being in the deadly smaller than one micron range.)
There have been all kinds of excuses made to justify wood heat that have obscured the facts that as many as 30,000 Americans could prematurely die each year from wood smoke inhalation and that "wood smoke could produce similar effects on p53, phospho-p53, and MDM2 protein expression in the human genes as tobacco. It is important to consider wood smoke exposure as a possible risk factor for the development of lung cancer in nonsmoker subjects (Barclay-Delgado)."
What we know about the dangers of tobacco smoke well applies to wood smoke. Wood smoke is chemically active in the body 40 times longer than tobacco smoke (Pryor). It is 12 times more carcinogenic than tobacco smoke (Lewtas) and lowers the body's defense mechanisms for fighting off infections. Just one hour of exposure can lower immune defense 25 to 40 percent (Zelikoff). (See burningissues.org for Fact Sheets, Wood Smoke/Tobacco Comparison charts and other backup material.)
In underdeveloped countries it is recognized that outdoor fires significantly shorten the average human life span. It seems foolish to consider wood fires as a lifestyle enhancement. Users of these devices are making an unfortunate health choice for the whole community. The perception is that these are perfectly legal and desirable lifestyle-enhancing devices.
There have been pure air rights, laws and edicts on the law books since very early times that protect people from smoke, vapors, odors and gases. Where is our common sense to step forward and educate the public about the dangers of wood smoke and ban gratuitous polluting devices?
The time to act is now. Educate your town council, your air district, your neighbors. Use the 35 megabytes of scientific information on our site for free by giving out the web site: "http://burningissues.org"
Special Report: Outdoor Fire Pits and Fireplaces: More Second-Hand Smoke
"http://burningissues.org"
Outdoor fire pits and fireplaces are a growing pollution source all over the United States. They are popular and inexpensive items at many retail stores. What is not inexpensive is the cost of wood smoke pollution: every pound of wood burned costs society $2.00 in health expense (Hall-Fairley). We are receiving more and more reports from victims all over the country and even in such an unexpected places as Key West, Florida.
There is no safe place or time of year that vulnerable people can avoid this deadly pollution. These open fire pits expose the owners and their guests to even more pollution than a fireplace or tobacco smoke. (Each fire will emit close to one pound of smoke pollution, with 90% being in the deadly smaller than one micron range.)
There have been all kinds of excuses made to justify wood heat that have obscured the facts that as many as 30,000 Americans could prematurely die each year from wood smoke inhalation and that "wood smoke could produce similar effects on p53, phospho-p53, and MDM2 protein expression in the human genes as tobacco. It is important to consider wood smoke exposure as a possible risk factor for the development of lung cancer in nonsmoker subjects (Barclay-Delgado)."
What we know about the dangers of tobacco smoke well applies to wood smoke. Wood smoke is chemically active in the body 40 times longer than tobacco smoke (Pryor). It is 12 times more carcinogenic than tobacco smoke (Lewtas) and lowers the body's defense mechanisms for fighting off infections. Just one hour of exposure can lower immune defense 25 to 40 percent (Zelikoff). (See burningissues.org for Fact Sheets, Wood Smoke/Tobacco Comparison charts and other backup material.)
In underdeveloped countries it is recognized that outdoor fires significantly shorten the average human life span. It seems foolish to consider wood fires as a lifestyle enhancement. Users of these devices are making an unfortunate health choice for the whole community. The perception is that these are perfectly legal and desirable lifestyle-enhancing devices.
There have been pure air rights, laws and edicts on the law books since very early times that protect people from smoke, vapors, odors and gases. Where is our common sense to step forward and educate the public about the dangers of wood smoke and ban gratuitous polluting devices?
The time to act is now. Educate your town council, your air district, your neighbors. Use the 35 megabytes of scientific information on our site for free by giving out the web site: "http://burningissues.org"
Chemicals in Wood Smoke Emissions-Letter
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Daily Herald
Paddock Publications
Arlington Heights, Illinois
Take a look at what we're breathing
Published: 10/13/2007 11:56 PM
Now, when taking a breath of air, suburban community residents have the following enter their (and their family's) lungs involuntarily due to emissions from wood-burning outside and inside fireplaces: benzene, normal alkanes, triterpenoids, dehydroabietic acid, isopimaric acid, lupenone, friedelin chlorinated dioxins, carbon monoxide, methane, aldehydes, formaldehyde, acrolein, propionaldehyde, butryaldehyde, acetaldehyde, furfural, substituted furans, benzene, alkyl benzenes, toluene, acetic acid, formic acid, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, methyl chloride, naphthalene, substituted napthalenes, oxygenated monoaromatics, guaiacol and derivatives, phenol and derivatives, syringol and derivatives, catechol and derivatives, particulate organic carbon, oxygenated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), fluorene, phenamhrene, anthracene, methylanthracenes, fluoranthene , pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, benzofluoranthenes, benzo(e)pyrene, benzo(a)pyrene, perylene, ideno (1,2,3cd)pyrene, benz(ghi)perylene coronene, dibenzo(a,h)pyrene, retene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene , and trace elements: including sodium, magnesium, aluminum, silicon. If you want to breathe healthy air instead, let your elected officials know.
Join others that also want to save our air and our health at www.breathehealthyair.blogspot.com/. Don't be assaulted by unneeded and unnecessary wood-burning emissions!
Elk Grove Village, Illinois
E-mail address---breathe.healthy.air@gmail.com
Paddock Publications
Arlington Heights, Illinois
Take a look at what we're breathing
Published: 10/13/2007 11:56 PM
Now, when taking a breath of air, suburban community residents have the following enter their (and their family's) lungs involuntarily due to emissions from wood-burning outside and inside fireplaces: benzene, normal alkanes, triterpenoids, dehydroabietic acid, isopimaric acid, lupenone, friedelin chlorinated dioxins, carbon monoxide, methane, aldehydes, formaldehyde, acrolein, propionaldehyde, butryaldehyde, acetaldehyde, furfural, substituted furans, benzene, alkyl benzenes, toluene, acetic acid, formic acid, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, methyl chloride, naphthalene, substituted napthalenes, oxygenated monoaromatics, guaiacol and derivatives, phenol and derivatives, syringol and derivatives, catechol and derivatives, particulate organic carbon, oxygenated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), fluorene, phenamhrene, anthracene, methylanthracenes, fluoranthene , pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, benzofluoranthenes, benzo(e)pyrene, benzo(a)pyrene, perylene, ideno (1,2,3cd)pyrene, benz(ghi)perylene coronene, dibenzo(a,h)pyrene, retene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene , and trace elements: including sodium, magnesium, aluminum, silicon. If you want to breathe healthy air instead, let your elected officials know.
Join others that also want to save our air and our health at www.breathehealthyair.blogspot.com/. Don't be assaulted by unneeded and unnecessary wood-burning emissions!
Elk Grove Village, Illinois
E-mail address---breathe.healthy.air@gmail.com
Forum Comment----Smoke lawsuit-Illinois
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Forum----www. burningissues.org
Joel
BurningIssues.org Forum Index -> Smoke Stories
I am a resident of Illinois, and to the masses here whether they are pro/con OWBs I am in current litigation with my neighbor and his OWB. Anyone who wishes to correspond with me feel free to send me a pm. My story is listed below:
To start I will give my background. I am an MPA, which for some if you don't know what that is, means that I received my education with a Masters Degree in Public Administration and policy analysis. I have worked with a U.S. Congressmen, and currently work with a city government. And before you all say "Oh you're one of them" I assure you I am not a typical bureaucrat. I do not live in the city I work in, but instead live in a rural community of about 900 in Southern Illinois.
Last October after my wife and I moved in our first home for some peaceful 8 months my neighbor decided to place a OWB (in which he installed) about 30-40 feet from my property and about 40-60 feet from my house itself. The OWB has become a horror to us penetrating our home with smoke on a daily basis. It has created smoke soot discoloration of my home, damaging the siding and my front door, it has killed some of the plant life on my property, and has made us have bouts with nausea on many occasions.
As a normal calm individual my wife and I approached our neighbor about our concerns. He refused to appropriately solve our problems (raising the stack above the roof, burning dry seasoned wood) and basically told us to go to hell. I in turn began my own investigation on this individual and dually contacted every person possible who would listen to me at the federal/state/county/local levels of government. The reason I began this investigation was that prior to returning to college and finishing my education I was a private investigator.
My investigation found that not only does he burn wood, but just so happens to work for a pallet business his father owns. Well you can only guess what he was burning in his OWB then.... I in turn recorded at least 30 mins of video of this OWB crossing property lines and took some 200 pictures of my home, his OWB, and showed the gradual damage being done to my residence.
The long treacherous journey of contacting all of these government entities led them to all advising me to get my own attorney. My neighbor of course has strong ties to our community being a firefighter and Jaycee, so "he is such a great individual." So you can almost guess the approach that my local government took on handling this issue. In other words being I have only lived in this community for a year or so, my rights really don't exist in their eyes.
This led me to hire what is probably one of the best Environmental Lawyers in Southern Illinois. After 8 months of asking my government leaders for support I have given up faith in the federalism and bureaucracy that is taking place. Everyone locally takes the NIMBY "Not in my Backyard" approach to my problem. My attorney is filing three counts based on nuisance protected under my state constitutional laws and tort laws. We are basically fighting for our "entitlement to quiet enjoyment" which I guarantee that all of you who have a similar problem as mine will have these case laws or state laws in your respective areas. It might take a little work on your end to find these laws, as I as an MPA have the experience to look for this type of law, or hire an environmental lawyer to do it for you.
In closing after seeing some comments about some people talking about others throughout the country who are taking legal action I am one. And I will be happy to share the results of what is going with my case. This is a current situation and I will not stop fighting this until the day comes that his OWB is out of the ground. Also I want it to be clear I do not have a problem with people refining OWBs and making them positive useful alternatives to heating their homes, but I do have a problem with individuals encroaching on others rights. I am an advocate for freedom of choice, if you want to choose to use an OWB, all power to you, but I do not agree with individualistic rights that take away the rights of others. If you have the rural setting and the means of nobody who minds around you who cares, I don't, it is your choice to expose yourself to the effects of OWBs. Just like if you want to drink, use drugs, smoke it is your body not mine.
And the quote you ask from my neighbor's OWB manufacturer? "It is recommended you do not place any of our products within your neighbor if it is less than 100 feet from the property line"
Joel
Check this out at---BurningIssues.org Forum Index -> Smoke Stories
Joel
BurningIssues.org Forum Index -> Smoke Stories
I am a resident of Illinois, and to the masses here whether they are pro/con OWBs I am in current litigation with my neighbor and his OWB. Anyone who wishes to correspond with me feel free to send me a pm. My story is listed below:
To start I will give my background. I am an MPA, which for some if you don't know what that is, means that I received my education with a Masters Degree in Public Administration and policy analysis. I have worked with a U.S. Congressmen, and currently work with a city government. And before you all say "Oh you're one of them" I assure you I am not a typical bureaucrat. I do not live in the city I work in, but instead live in a rural community of about 900 in Southern Illinois.
Last October after my wife and I moved in our first home for some peaceful 8 months my neighbor decided to place a OWB (in which he installed) about 30-40 feet from my property and about 40-60 feet from my house itself. The OWB has become a horror to us penetrating our home with smoke on a daily basis. It has created smoke soot discoloration of my home, damaging the siding and my front door, it has killed some of the plant life on my property, and has made us have bouts with nausea on many occasions.
As a normal calm individual my wife and I approached our neighbor about our concerns. He refused to appropriately solve our problems (raising the stack above the roof, burning dry seasoned wood) and basically told us to go to hell. I in turn began my own investigation on this individual and dually contacted every person possible who would listen to me at the federal/state/county/local levels of government. The reason I began this investigation was that prior to returning to college and finishing my education I was a private investigator.
My investigation found that not only does he burn wood, but just so happens to work for a pallet business his father owns. Well you can only guess what he was burning in his OWB then.... I in turn recorded at least 30 mins of video of this OWB crossing property lines and took some 200 pictures of my home, his OWB, and showed the gradual damage being done to my residence.
The long treacherous journey of contacting all of these government entities led them to all advising me to get my own attorney. My neighbor of course has strong ties to our community being a firefighter and Jaycee, so "he is such a great individual." So you can almost guess the approach that my local government took on handling this issue. In other words being I have only lived in this community for a year or so, my rights really don't exist in their eyes.
This led me to hire what is probably one of the best Environmental Lawyers in Southern Illinois. After 8 months of asking my government leaders for support I have given up faith in the federalism and bureaucracy that is taking place. Everyone locally takes the NIMBY "Not in my Backyard" approach to my problem. My attorney is filing three counts based on nuisance protected under my state constitutional laws and tort laws. We are basically fighting for our "entitlement to quiet enjoyment" which I guarantee that all of you who have a similar problem as mine will have these case laws or state laws in your respective areas. It might take a little work on your end to find these laws, as I as an MPA have the experience to look for this type of law, or hire an environmental lawyer to do it for you.
In closing after seeing some comments about some people talking about others throughout the country who are taking legal action I am one. And I will be happy to share the results of what is going with my case. This is a current situation and I will not stop fighting this until the day comes that his OWB is out of the ground. Also I want it to be clear I do not have a problem with people refining OWBs and making them positive useful alternatives to heating their homes, but I do have a problem with individuals encroaching on others rights. I am an advocate for freedom of choice, if you want to choose to use an OWB, all power to you, but I do not agree with individualistic rights that take away the rights of others. If you have the rural setting and the means of nobody who minds around you who cares, I don't, it is your choice to expose yourself to the effects of OWBs. Just like if you want to drink, use drugs, smoke it is your body not mine.
And the quote you ask from my neighbor's OWB manufacturer? "It is recommended you do not place any of our products within your neighbor if it is less than 100 feet from the property line"
Joel
Check this out at---BurningIssues.org Forum Index -> Smoke Stories
Wood-Ash-The Unregulated Radwaste!
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Burning Issues: A project of Clean Air Revival, Inc.
http://burningissues.org
RADWASTE-Farber-1991
From: Science News: The Weekly Newsmagazine
A Science Service Publication
Volume 140, No.6, August 10. 1991
Wood Ash: The unregulated radwaste
"While cleaning ashes from his fireplace two years ago, Stewart A. Farber mused that if trees filter and store airborne pollutants, they might also harbor fallout from the nuclear weapons tests of the 1950s and 1960s. On a whim, he brought some of his fireplace ash to Yankee Atomic Electric Companies' environmental lab in Boston, Mass., where he manages environmental monitoring. Farber says he was amazed to discover that his sample showed the distinctive cesium and strontium 'signatures' of nuclear fallout-and that the concentration of radioactivity "was easily 100 times greater than anything (our Lab) had ever seen in an environmental sample."
Since then, he has obtained wood-ash radioactivity assays from 16 other scientists across the nation. These 47 data sets, representing trees in 14 states, suggest that fallout in wood ash "is a major source of radioactivity released into the environment," Farber says. With the exception of some very low California readings, all measurements of ash with fallout-cesium exceeded - some by 100 times or more - the levels of radioactive cesium that may be released from nuclear plants (about 100 picocuries per kilogram of sludge). Ash-cesium levels were especially high in the Northeast - probably because naturally high levels of nonradioactive cesium in the soil discourage trees from releasing fallout-derived cesium through their roots, he says.
Industrial wood burning in the United States generates and estimated 900,000 tons of ash each year: residential and utility wood burning generates another 543,000 tons. Already, many companies are recycling this unregulated ash in fertilizers. The irony, Farber says, is that federal regulations require releases from nuclear plants to be disposed of as radioactive waste if they contain even 1 percent of the cesium and strontium levels detected in the ash samples from New England. If ash were subject to the same regulations, he says, its disposal would cost U.S.A. wood burners more than $30 billion annually."
http://burningissues.org
RADWASTE-Farber-1991
From: Science News: The Weekly Newsmagazine
A Science Service Publication
Volume 140, No.6, August 10. 1991
Wood Ash: The unregulated radwaste
"While cleaning ashes from his fireplace two years ago, Stewart A. Farber mused that if trees filter and store airborne pollutants, they might also harbor fallout from the nuclear weapons tests of the 1950s and 1960s. On a whim, he brought some of his fireplace ash to Yankee Atomic Electric Companies' environmental lab in Boston, Mass., where he manages environmental monitoring. Farber says he was amazed to discover that his sample showed the distinctive cesium and strontium 'signatures' of nuclear fallout-and that the concentration of radioactivity "was easily 100 times greater than anything (our Lab) had ever seen in an environmental sample."
Since then, he has obtained wood-ash radioactivity assays from 16 other scientists across the nation. These 47 data sets, representing trees in 14 states, suggest that fallout in wood ash "is a major source of radioactivity released into the environment," Farber says. With the exception of some very low California readings, all measurements of ash with fallout-cesium exceeded - some by 100 times or more - the levels of radioactive cesium that may be released from nuclear plants (about 100 picocuries per kilogram of sludge). Ash-cesium levels were especially high in the Northeast - probably because naturally high levels of nonradioactive cesium in the soil discourage trees from releasing fallout-derived cesium through their roots, he says.
Industrial wood burning in the United States generates and estimated 900,000 tons of ash each year: residential and utility wood burning generates another 543,000 tons. Already, many companies are recycling this unregulated ash in fertilizers. The irony, Farber says, is that federal regulations require releases from nuclear plants to be disposed of as radioactive waste if they contain even 1 percent of the cesium and strontium levels detected in the ash samples from New England. If ash were subject to the same regulations, he says, its disposal would cost U.S.A. wood burners more than $30 billion annually."
Massachusetts Laws-Boards of Health
Legal Information
Go to-----http://masscleanair.org/mainlinks/legal.htm
Massachusetts Laws:
Boards of Health in Massachusetts are given the authority to regulate air pollution on a local level, as well as the responsibility protect the public health. The following are laws that govern Boards of Health.
o M.G.L - Chapter 111, Section 31
o M.G.L - Chapter 111, Section 31C
o M.G.L - Chapter 111, Section 122
o M.G.L - Chapter 111, Section 143
o M.G.L - Chapter 111, Section 144
3.10 CMR 7.07 - Open Burning Law
Local Regulations in Massachusetts
Northampton Regulations
Amherst Regulations
Wood Burning
Operators
Wood Burning Operator's Exam
Practices
Legal Cases in Other States
Wood Smoke and the Americans With Disabilities Act -- Iowa Court Case
Nebraska Court Case
Pennsylvania Court Case
Go to-----http://masscleanair.org/mainlinks/legal.htm
Go to-----http://masscleanair.org/mainlinks/legal.htm
Massachusetts Laws:
Boards of Health in Massachusetts are given the authority to regulate air pollution on a local level, as well as the responsibility protect the public health. The following are laws that govern Boards of Health.
o M.G.L - Chapter 111, Section 31
o M.G.L - Chapter 111, Section 31C
o M.G.L - Chapter 111, Section 122
o M.G.L - Chapter 111, Section 143
o M.G.L - Chapter 111, Section 144
3.10 CMR 7.07 - Open Burning Law
Local Regulations in Massachusetts
Northampton Regulations
Amherst Regulations
Wood Burning
Operators
Wood Burning Operator's Exam
Practices
Legal Cases in Other States
Wood Smoke and the Americans With Disabilities Act -- Iowa Court Case
Nebraska Court Case
Pennsylvania Court Case
Go to-----http://masscleanair.org/mainlinks/legal.htm
Ban on fireplace use-Bono-New York
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Divine CA
Canada's Online
Women's Magazine
Bono's smoking victory
Aug 28, 2007
(BANG) -Bono's neighbours have been banned from using their fireplaces after he complained about smoke in the building.
The U2 singer, who owns The San Remo penthouse on New York's highly desirable Central Park West Street, was unhappy with the smoke coming from his neighbours' apartments and formally requested all open fires be stopped.
A source told the New York Post newspaper: "Bono recently complained of smoke from neighbouring apartments and now there has been in a ban on fireplace use in the whole building."
But the 'With or Without You' singer is rumoured to be moving downtown. Bono and bandmate The Edge were recently spotted in the hot-pink Julian Schnabel tower at 360 West 11th Street with clipboards and brokers and sources say Bono is planning to buy the top two floors there.
The 47-year-old singer lives in Killiney, southern Ireland, with his wife Alison and their four children.
He and The Edge also share a villa in Èze, southern France.
(C) BANG Media International
Canada's Online
Women's Magazine
Bono's smoking victory
Aug 28, 2007
(BANG) -Bono's neighbours have been banned from using their fireplaces after he complained about smoke in the building.
The U2 singer, who owns The San Remo penthouse on New York's highly desirable Central Park West Street, was unhappy with the smoke coming from his neighbours' apartments and formally requested all open fires be stopped.
A source told the New York Post newspaper: "Bono recently complained of smoke from neighbouring apartments and now there has been in a ban on fireplace use in the whole building."
But the 'With or Without You' singer is rumoured to be moving downtown. Bono and bandmate The Edge were recently spotted in the hot-pink Julian Schnabel tower at 360 West 11th Street with clipboards and brokers and sources say Bono is planning to buy the top two floors there.
The 47-year-old singer lives in Killiney, southern Ireland, with his wife Alison and their four children.
He and The Edge also share a villa in Èze, southern France.
(C) BANG Media International
Ban wood-burning fireplaces--and get a fume-free night's rest, too
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Ban wood-burning fireplaces?
J.D. Mullane…jmullane@phillyburbs.com
www.phillyburbs.com
September 4, 2007
Every so often, readers will call to pitch an idea for a cause they believe I will champion.
Such is the case with a caller who left this message: “I was wondering if you would consider writing a column on fireplace burning, especially on nights when the weatherman says it's cool enough and you can leave your windows open. You know, "great sleeping weather.' Inevitably, certain people will use the cool night weather as an excuse to light a fire and snuggle next to a fireplace.
“The fumes fill the neighborhood and your bedroom and you can't leave your windows open. Maybe we need a ban on fireplace burning. I live in Levittown. It's getting really bad around here. But I was wondering if you would consider writing about this.”
Fireplaces cause “fumes” and give people an excuse to “snuggle”? Outrageous!
You are onto something, caller. Wood-burning fireplaces should be banned. Let me make the case, beginning with the “fumes” issue first.
Who can stand the smell of wood smoke wafting through the neighborhood, especially on a crisp autumn day?
Why, the next thing you know, a person might find himself digging through the garage for the football, calling his kids outside, tossing the football, having fun, and this inevitably puts him in a good mood.
But he should not be in a good mood! This is because he and his children are inhaling noxious fireplace fumes, which are loaded with grimy “particulates” that cause cancer, asthma and sleepless nights for grumpy neighbors. Why, I wouldn't be surprised if wood-burning fireplaces also cause global warming, cancer clusters, men who wear flip-flops while shopping, and other planetary plagues.
Now for the “snuggling” issue.
Lighting a fire naturally leads to this. In some cases, people are tempted to open a bottle of wine, recline in front of the crackling flames, and drink the wine.
This leads to something even worse than snuggling — drunken snuggling! And, dear caller, I think we know what kind of hanky-panky that leads to.
We need to lead Bucks County in the movement to ban wood-burning, planet-killing, snuggle-inducing fireplaces.
I suggest you and I form an environmental awareness group. We can call it “Fireplaces Are Really Terrible” and put the acronym on bumper stickers.
Maybe we could enlist the help of the New Hope Borough Council. New Hope has banned smoking in bars and wants to ban Dunkin' Donuts. New Hope seems to like banning stuff. Why not wood-burning fireplaces, too?
We could get annoying Irish rock star Bono to come and speak for the cause. He's with us on this. Last week, according a newspaper, he requested his neighbors in New York's Central Park West neighborhood stop using their fireplaces. He, too, is bothered by stink and fumes. Yay, Bono.
Naturally, people who like wood smoke, snuggling and hanky-panky will strongly object. We may have to compromise and permit propane fireplaces. Many of the new ones are operated by remote control, so we'll easily have the couch potato population on our side.
If people miss the sound of real wood crackling, we can have them download fireplace sound effects from our Web site. With digital quality sound, is there really a difference?
Sure, when Christmas comes, people may have to sing “Chestnuts Roasting on a Phony Fire.”
But we'll tell them to get over it. We're trying to save the planet, and get a fume-free night's rest, too.
Mullane's column appears Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday.---www.phillyburbs.com
J.D. Mullane…jmullane@phillyburbs.com
www.phillyburbs.com
September 4, 2007
Every so often, readers will call to pitch an idea for a cause they believe I will champion.
Such is the case with a caller who left this message: “I was wondering if you would consider writing a column on fireplace burning, especially on nights when the weatherman says it's cool enough and you can leave your windows open. You know, "great sleeping weather.' Inevitably, certain people will use the cool night weather as an excuse to light a fire and snuggle next to a fireplace.
“The fumes fill the neighborhood and your bedroom and you can't leave your windows open. Maybe we need a ban on fireplace burning. I live in Levittown. It's getting really bad around here. But I was wondering if you would consider writing about this.”
Fireplaces cause “fumes” and give people an excuse to “snuggle”? Outrageous!
You are onto something, caller. Wood-burning fireplaces should be banned. Let me make the case, beginning with the “fumes” issue first.
Who can stand the smell of wood smoke wafting through the neighborhood, especially on a crisp autumn day?
Why, the next thing you know, a person might find himself digging through the garage for the football, calling his kids outside, tossing the football, having fun, and this inevitably puts him in a good mood.
But he should not be in a good mood! This is because he and his children are inhaling noxious fireplace fumes, which are loaded with grimy “particulates” that cause cancer, asthma and sleepless nights for grumpy neighbors. Why, I wouldn't be surprised if wood-burning fireplaces also cause global warming, cancer clusters, men who wear flip-flops while shopping, and other planetary plagues.
Now for the “snuggling” issue.
Lighting a fire naturally leads to this. In some cases, people are tempted to open a bottle of wine, recline in front of the crackling flames, and drink the wine.
This leads to something even worse than snuggling — drunken snuggling! And, dear caller, I think we know what kind of hanky-panky that leads to.
We need to lead Bucks County in the movement to ban wood-burning, planet-killing, snuggle-inducing fireplaces.
I suggest you and I form an environmental awareness group. We can call it “Fireplaces Are Really Terrible” and put the acronym on bumper stickers.
Maybe we could enlist the help of the New Hope Borough Council. New Hope has banned smoking in bars and wants to ban Dunkin' Donuts. New Hope seems to like banning stuff. Why not wood-burning fireplaces, too?
We could get annoying Irish rock star Bono to come and speak for the cause. He's with us on this. Last week, according a newspaper, he requested his neighbors in New York's Central Park West neighborhood stop using their fireplaces. He, too, is bothered by stink and fumes. Yay, Bono.
Naturally, people who like wood smoke, snuggling and hanky-panky will strongly object. We may have to compromise and permit propane fireplaces. Many of the new ones are operated by remote control, so we'll easily have the couch potato population on our side.
If people miss the sound of real wood crackling, we can have them download fireplace sound effects from our Web site. With digital quality sound, is there really a difference?
Sure, when Christmas comes, people may have to sing “Chestnuts Roasting on a Phony Fire.”
But we'll tell them to get over it. We're trying to save the planet, and get a fume-free night's rest, too.
Mullane's column appears Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday.---www.phillyburbs.com
Canadians Suffer--Just Like Americans
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Smoke emissions are harmful to all-no matter where you live!
YORKREGION.COM…is a community website serving residents and businesses of York Region. Ontario, Canada
What Do You Think
Jul 23, 2007 03:33 PM
Readers debate fire ban
What do you think about banning recreational and open air fires in built-up areas where lot sizes are smaller?
(Excerpts from some of the pro-ban replies)
You responded:
We have called the fire chief numerous times about smoke from fires on weekends. They also burn garbage and foam. It’s so bad, we have to go out for the day. We can’t breathe. It’s funny no one can smoke, but we have to put up with this. Why is that?
GORDON EDGECOMB
Georgina
II think that this is a great idea. I have a young baby that has potential for asthma and allergies. Many times just trying to play in our back yard we have been smoked out by neighbours constantly burning. If they were just burning yard waste, would they need to burn almost everyday? Not to mention there is a lot of yard waste that people shouldn’t burn and probably aren’t even aware of these dangers. I definitely agree that it is time to make some changes.
BONNIE LEITCH
Georgina
I have asthma and every weekend night we have to close up all of our windows and run the air conditioner due to the many backyard fires in our subdivision. Otherwise I have a lot of trouble breathing. The fires, many close to fences and trees, may set them on fire furthering harming nature. I have also observed burning of garbage during the week and, when mowing the lawn (with my rechargeable battery operated mower) I had to stop as the fumes were so bad. During that fire, I also got ashes on my arm blown over from his fire and bits of his credit card statements half burnt blew at me. Disgusting. We have garbage pickup and recycling in this town. I would welcome restrictions on fires in built up areas.
DEEANN GONSALVES
Georgina
I think all fires within town limits should be banned as it affects the air quality and those who are sensitive to it.
CORINNA EU
Georgina
We live on Hollywood Drive. I have asthma and have been forced to call the fire department twice. The second time, our neighbour let the fire smolder all night. No fine was issued and the fire pit it 10 to 15 feet from my house. We have a bylaw officer who manages to ticket everybody in town if they’re parked in the wrong space, so why can’t this person ticket someone burning without a permit. These inconsiderate people make it hard on people who just want a small fire late in the evening. This guy burns during the day. Who do I call now since the fire department has not stopped the problem?
CATHY WEILER
Georgina
Many times we are forced to close our windows during the cooler evenings and use the air conditioning as the smell from the fires permeates our home. It gets right into one’s clothing. I would like to see recreational and open-air fires in built-up areas banned.
ALBERT HOBDEN
Georgina
Most definitely ban all fires. Give out permits for special nights people want a bonfire. I pay my taxes and should not have to hide out in my home because of asthma and one ignorant neighbour who, by the way, was asked politely to put out his fire on numerous occasions. One wrecks it for all.
CATHY CLUGSTON
Georgina
I think there should definitely be restrictions, not just for subdivisions but for general residential streets also. It is very frustrating when you have to bring in your laundry to rewash it or not allow your kids to go outside to play because one of your neighbours is burning and the smoke is so thick. It’s about just having plain respect for your neighbours, which unfortunately alot of people don’t these days. The town does need to change the bylaws.
WENDY CULLINGHAM
Georgina
Great idea, long overdue. Let’s air our laundry, rather than having to launder our air.
DEB WILSON
Richmond Hill
I believe there should be a complete ban on recreational and open-air fires in all areas. There is absolutely no reason to burn. Most people who burning are burning their garbage. Open-air burning causes an excessive number of fire runs that are not required. Burning complaints are a waste of valuable resources.
JACK SEXTON
Georgina
I do not appreciate open air fires (or even anyone using wood in their in-home fireplaces) as I suffer from asthma. When my neighbour lights up his chiminea, I cannot leave my windows open on a cool night as the smoke chokes me up. Another neighbour uses a wood-burning fireplace and when I’m shoveling snow in the winter, it chokes me up as well. Many don’t realize the effects of burning wood.
RITA ZUCCARO
Vaughan
Note...Web site---yorkregion.com
YORKREGION.COM…is a community website serving residents and businesses of York Region. Ontario, Canada
What Do You Think
Jul 23, 2007 03:33 PM
Readers debate fire ban
What do you think about banning recreational and open air fires in built-up areas where lot sizes are smaller?
(Excerpts from some of the pro-ban replies)
You responded:
We have called the fire chief numerous times about smoke from fires on weekends. They also burn garbage and foam. It’s so bad, we have to go out for the day. We can’t breathe. It’s funny no one can smoke, but we have to put up with this. Why is that?
GORDON EDGECOMB
Georgina
II think that this is a great idea. I have a young baby that has potential for asthma and allergies. Many times just trying to play in our back yard we have been smoked out by neighbours constantly burning. If they were just burning yard waste, would they need to burn almost everyday? Not to mention there is a lot of yard waste that people shouldn’t burn and probably aren’t even aware of these dangers. I definitely agree that it is time to make some changes.
BONNIE LEITCH
Georgina
I have asthma and every weekend night we have to close up all of our windows and run the air conditioner due to the many backyard fires in our subdivision. Otherwise I have a lot of trouble breathing. The fires, many close to fences and trees, may set them on fire furthering harming nature. I have also observed burning of garbage during the week and, when mowing the lawn (with my rechargeable battery operated mower) I had to stop as the fumes were so bad. During that fire, I also got ashes on my arm blown over from his fire and bits of his credit card statements half burnt blew at me. Disgusting. We have garbage pickup and recycling in this town. I would welcome restrictions on fires in built up areas.
DEEANN GONSALVES
Georgina
I think all fires within town limits should be banned as it affects the air quality and those who are sensitive to it.
CORINNA EU
Georgina
We live on Hollywood Drive. I have asthma and have been forced to call the fire department twice. The second time, our neighbour let the fire smolder all night. No fine was issued and the fire pit it 10 to 15 feet from my house. We have a bylaw officer who manages to ticket everybody in town if they’re parked in the wrong space, so why can’t this person ticket someone burning without a permit. These inconsiderate people make it hard on people who just want a small fire late in the evening. This guy burns during the day. Who do I call now since the fire department has not stopped the problem?
CATHY WEILER
Georgina
Many times we are forced to close our windows during the cooler evenings and use the air conditioning as the smell from the fires permeates our home. It gets right into one’s clothing. I would like to see recreational and open-air fires in built-up areas banned.
ALBERT HOBDEN
Georgina
Most definitely ban all fires. Give out permits for special nights people want a bonfire. I pay my taxes and should not have to hide out in my home because of asthma and one ignorant neighbour who, by the way, was asked politely to put out his fire on numerous occasions. One wrecks it for all.
CATHY CLUGSTON
Georgina
I think there should definitely be restrictions, not just for subdivisions but for general residential streets also. It is very frustrating when you have to bring in your laundry to rewash it or not allow your kids to go outside to play because one of your neighbours is burning and the smoke is so thick. It’s about just having plain respect for your neighbours, which unfortunately alot of people don’t these days. The town does need to change the bylaws.
WENDY CULLINGHAM
Georgina
Great idea, long overdue. Let’s air our laundry, rather than having to launder our air.
DEB WILSON
Richmond Hill
I believe there should be a complete ban on recreational and open-air fires in all areas. There is absolutely no reason to burn. Most people who burning are burning their garbage. Open-air burning causes an excessive number of fire runs that are not required. Burning complaints are a waste of valuable resources.
JACK SEXTON
Georgina
I do not appreciate open air fires (or even anyone using wood in their in-home fireplaces) as I suffer from asthma. When my neighbour lights up his chiminea, I cannot leave my windows open on a cool night as the smoke chokes me up. Another neighbour uses a wood-burning fireplace and when I’m shoveling snow in the winter, it chokes me up as well. Many don’t realize the effects of burning wood.
RITA ZUCCARO
Vaughan
Note...Web site---yorkregion.com
Benefits of A Permanent Burn Ban
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
---"Benefits of A Permanent Burn Ban"—
A burn ban could assure that when smoke is noticed, it gets quick attention and is stopped, not regulated. When burn bans are in place firemen admit the response time is quicker, saving lives and property. A fireman in Macon, Ga. suffered an accidental death while responding to a neighborhood trash burn that got out of hand.
Regulations have not worked to clear the air. They have allowed a smoke screen for polluters to quickly burn the evidence of toxic materials right under our noses.
I believe most everyone will support an alternative to burning trash in our neighborhoods. The benefits are obvious: greater health, longer life, and more mulch for our gardens.
There is so much pollution from so many sources the least we should expect from our leaders is a permanent burn ban to protect our homes from toxic smoke invasion
Louis Lowery
Certified Master Gardener
http://gardenersview.com/
A burn ban could assure that when smoke is noticed, it gets quick attention and is stopped, not regulated. When burn bans are in place firemen admit the response time is quicker, saving lives and property. A fireman in Macon, Ga. suffered an accidental death while responding to a neighborhood trash burn that got out of hand.
Regulations have not worked to clear the air. They have allowed a smoke screen for polluters to quickly burn the evidence of toxic materials right under our noses.
I believe most everyone will support an alternative to burning trash in our neighborhoods. The benefits are obvious: greater health, longer life, and more mulch for our gardens.
There is so much pollution from so many sources the least we should expect from our leaders is a permanent burn ban to protect our homes from toxic smoke invasion
Louis Lowery
Certified Master Gardener
http://gardenersview.com/
To Board of Health Members in Massachusetts
The air we all have to breathe is being destroyed due to wood smoke emissions and our health suffers…….(http://masscleanair.org/documents/letter.htm)
February 2004
To Board of Health Members in Massachusetts,
I first began complaining to health officials about wood smoke from residential wood burning in January 1999 when my neighbors who burn wood were unwilling to respond to my concerns about the wood smoke that I was being exposed to. Smoke was coming into my home, onto my property and into the air in my neighborhood, often forcing me back into my house because the wall of smoke was so thick. One neighbor told me I should move; another put out a no trespassing order on me; the third agreed to only burn wood, not trash, in his stove. All three of these neighbors are within 150 feet of my house and I am downwind of all of them. All were confident that they were perfectly within their rights and acted as though there was nothing I could do about the fact that their wood burning was disturbing me.
I called the Department of Environmental Protection, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Public Health. I also spoke with people at the BOH in Northampton, where there are wood smoke regulations, and read extensively about the laws governing Boards of Health in Massachusetts. Various people at DEP were quite sympathetic, and agreed with me that wood smoke is air pollution. But those I talked with have stated that there is no intention at this time for DEP to regulate wood burning, even though it is regulated in other states and municipalities. I concluded that the only help for someone in my situation was through the BOH, which has statutory authority to abate nuisances and regulate matters affecting public health including air pollution.
When I looked into the health effects of wood smoke I was surprised at the volume of information that was available. I learned that an average wood stove produces 500 times as much particulate air pollution as a well-tuned oil burner per hour, and 1000 times more than a gas burner. Wood smoke contains dioxin, a well known carcinogen. Wood ash from wood stoves in New England is often radioactive because above-ground nuclear testing that took place 50 years ago deposited radiation in this part of the country. The EPA estimates that at similar exposures, wood smoke is about 12 times as carcinogenic as secondhand tobacco smoke, and that the free radicals from cigarette smoke remain in a person's system for 30 seconds, while those from wood smoke act for 20 minutes. Toxicology and epidemiological studies overwhelmingly conclude that wood smoke is harmful to people's health, especially in sensitive populations such as infants, children, the elderly, and those with existing heart or lung problems.
In the presence of wood smoke, I have experienced chest pain and tightness, chronic sinus infections and other symptoms. These are average, predictable responses as reported in the literature. When I am not being exposed to wood smoke, I don't have these health problems. However, when I reported my concerns to the Buckland BOH, it refused to take any action to help me. My understanding of the BOH's reasoning in refusing to address this problem is that, first of all, wood smoke does not harm anyone's health except for mine. They believe that asking people to curtail their wood burning is unfair, even outrageous, because wood burning is a necessity and a way of life. They are afraid that challenging the practice of residential wood burning would interfere with people's privacy rights. Some people, the BOH believes, have no choice but to harvest wood from their property to heat their homes. It would be unfair to ask people in one neighborhood, such as a densely populated area, to curtail burning, while allowing others to continue to burn. The BOH's arguments focus on the supposed environmental, political and financial advantages to heating with wood. But when a Board of Health does not recognize wood smoke as a health hazard, it cannot fulfill its function of protecting the public's health.
I cannot remember anyone burning wood in the town of Greenfield where I lived for the first 19 years of my life. Maybe wood burning is a "way of life," but ways of life come and go; air pollution is air pollution regardless of its source. I have not found anything to suggest that wood smoke is exempted from the nuisance law. It is my understanding that the open burning law is also predicated on the idea that wood smoke is a health hazard. When my BOH refuses to consider wood smoke a nuisance and/or a health hazard, instead choosing to protect my neighbor's "right" to burn, the BOH fails to consider the impact that these activities have on the rights of others.
The practical outcome for me of the BOH's refusal to tackle the wood smoke problem has included the necessity of leaving my house completely for two winters because the smoke inside my house was so severe that I feared for my health and safety. Now I spend hundreds of dollars a year on air filters in an attempt to reduce my exposure inside my home, leave my home and stay elsewhere whenever I can, and avoid walking in my neighborhood in the evening because the smoke is often very thick. During the colder months, while people heat with wood, I have had to keep my windows closed to keep smoke from coming into my house, creating a situation where "fresh air" in my home is not a possibility. I may be forced to sell my home and move, and I know that there are others across the State in similar or worse situations.
The reasons that many people give for heating their homes with wood instead of with a cleaner fuel are typically that wood is a renewable resource; it is a more environmentally sound method of supplying energy than the production of fuel oil or natural gas; and it will help Americans be less dependent on foreign oil. After spending the last six years suffering the effects of wood smoke air pollution for eight months a year, I have to seriously question whether wood burning is a acceptable way of achieving these goals, especially in densely populated areas. There are other strategies we can use to reduce negative impacts associated with our energy use.
The cost of heating with wood is comparable to heating with oil, and in past years has been even more expensive. I am confident that lower income residents can be given access to cleaner fuels instead of being allowed or encouraged to pollute their own air and their neighbors' air. Wood burning contributes to poor air quality inside the homes in which it is occurring.
The BOH in Buckland has agreed to engage in education on this issue. This is a worthwhile and important thing that the Board can do. But the majority of this Board has said that there will be no consequences for those who continue to burn, even if complaints are lodged against them. I am concerned that, as long as this type of air pollution remains legally acceptable, it will continue to exist and the public health will remain unprotected.
I have personally spoken with others in Massachusetts with similar complaints. Amherst and Northampton have opacity regulations for wood stoves. I know that some Boards deal with this issue on a case by case basis and have been able to convince the wood burner to stop burning. I also know of a number of people who complained to their Boards and have gotten similar responses to those I have described here. We are left with difficult choices when our Boards choose not to help us. We can move, and run the risk that we will be faced with the same problem in our next home. We can stay and continue to try to influence our neighbors, our Boards and other lawmakers, or go to court with expensive private nuisance complaints. Or we can suffer in silence. Unfortunately, this last option is the most common response. I know of a number of people in Franklin County who are adversely affected by inhaling wood smoke but who are unwilling to complain about it for a number of reasons. One of these reasons is that they believe there is nothing that can be done.
Where I live, there are at least twenty homes that burn wood on a regular basis within 2000 feet of my house, and I am downwind of most of them. About half of them moved into their homes and started burning wood since the time I first complained. The wood smoke problem is not getting better in Buckland. Wanting clean air to breathe is not a lifestyle choice, an aesthetic preference, a financial consideration or the special desire of very sensitive individuals. It is a necessity for health and well-being. Wood smoke is not a fact of life. It is the result of choosing to burn wood.
I am hoping that as BOH members, reading this letter will encourage you to look carefully at the research that has been done on particulate air pollution exposure and the legal authority that you are entrusted with, and take seriously the wood smoke complaints that come before you. As far as I have been able to ascertain, Boards of Health are our only protection (other than expensive, time-consuming private lawsuits) from this type of air pollution in Massachusetts.
Sincerely,
Janet Sinclair, Buckland Board of Health
http://masscleanair.org/documents/letter.htm
February 2004
To Board of Health Members in Massachusetts,
I first began complaining to health officials about wood smoke from residential wood burning in January 1999 when my neighbors who burn wood were unwilling to respond to my concerns about the wood smoke that I was being exposed to. Smoke was coming into my home, onto my property and into the air in my neighborhood, often forcing me back into my house because the wall of smoke was so thick. One neighbor told me I should move; another put out a no trespassing order on me; the third agreed to only burn wood, not trash, in his stove. All three of these neighbors are within 150 feet of my house and I am downwind of all of them. All were confident that they were perfectly within their rights and acted as though there was nothing I could do about the fact that their wood burning was disturbing me.
I called the Department of Environmental Protection, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Public Health. I also spoke with people at the BOH in Northampton, where there are wood smoke regulations, and read extensively about the laws governing Boards of Health in Massachusetts. Various people at DEP were quite sympathetic, and agreed with me that wood smoke is air pollution. But those I talked with have stated that there is no intention at this time for DEP to regulate wood burning, even though it is regulated in other states and municipalities. I concluded that the only help for someone in my situation was through the BOH, which has statutory authority to abate nuisances and regulate matters affecting public health including air pollution.
When I looked into the health effects of wood smoke I was surprised at the volume of information that was available. I learned that an average wood stove produces 500 times as much particulate air pollution as a well-tuned oil burner per hour, and 1000 times more than a gas burner. Wood smoke contains dioxin, a well known carcinogen. Wood ash from wood stoves in New England is often radioactive because above-ground nuclear testing that took place 50 years ago deposited radiation in this part of the country. The EPA estimates that at similar exposures, wood smoke is about 12 times as carcinogenic as secondhand tobacco smoke, and that the free radicals from cigarette smoke remain in a person's system for 30 seconds, while those from wood smoke act for 20 minutes. Toxicology and epidemiological studies overwhelmingly conclude that wood smoke is harmful to people's health, especially in sensitive populations such as infants, children, the elderly, and those with existing heart or lung problems.
In the presence of wood smoke, I have experienced chest pain and tightness, chronic sinus infections and other symptoms. These are average, predictable responses as reported in the literature. When I am not being exposed to wood smoke, I don't have these health problems. However, when I reported my concerns to the Buckland BOH, it refused to take any action to help me. My understanding of the BOH's reasoning in refusing to address this problem is that, first of all, wood smoke does not harm anyone's health except for mine. They believe that asking people to curtail their wood burning is unfair, even outrageous, because wood burning is a necessity and a way of life. They are afraid that challenging the practice of residential wood burning would interfere with people's privacy rights. Some people, the BOH believes, have no choice but to harvest wood from their property to heat their homes. It would be unfair to ask people in one neighborhood, such as a densely populated area, to curtail burning, while allowing others to continue to burn. The BOH's arguments focus on the supposed environmental, political and financial advantages to heating with wood. But when a Board of Health does not recognize wood smoke as a health hazard, it cannot fulfill its function of protecting the public's health.
I cannot remember anyone burning wood in the town of Greenfield where I lived for the first 19 years of my life. Maybe wood burning is a "way of life," but ways of life come and go; air pollution is air pollution regardless of its source. I have not found anything to suggest that wood smoke is exempted from the nuisance law. It is my understanding that the open burning law is also predicated on the idea that wood smoke is a health hazard. When my BOH refuses to consider wood smoke a nuisance and/or a health hazard, instead choosing to protect my neighbor's "right" to burn, the BOH fails to consider the impact that these activities have on the rights of others.
The practical outcome for me of the BOH's refusal to tackle the wood smoke problem has included the necessity of leaving my house completely for two winters because the smoke inside my house was so severe that I feared for my health and safety. Now I spend hundreds of dollars a year on air filters in an attempt to reduce my exposure inside my home, leave my home and stay elsewhere whenever I can, and avoid walking in my neighborhood in the evening because the smoke is often very thick. During the colder months, while people heat with wood, I have had to keep my windows closed to keep smoke from coming into my house, creating a situation where "fresh air" in my home is not a possibility. I may be forced to sell my home and move, and I know that there are others across the State in similar or worse situations.
The reasons that many people give for heating their homes with wood instead of with a cleaner fuel are typically that wood is a renewable resource; it is a more environmentally sound method of supplying energy than the production of fuel oil or natural gas; and it will help Americans be less dependent on foreign oil. After spending the last six years suffering the effects of wood smoke air pollution for eight months a year, I have to seriously question whether wood burning is a acceptable way of achieving these goals, especially in densely populated areas. There are other strategies we can use to reduce negative impacts associated with our energy use.
The cost of heating with wood is comparable to heating with oil, and in past years has been even more expensive. I am confident that lower income residents can be given access to cleaner fuels instead of being allowed or encouraged to pollute their own air and their neighbors' air. Wood burning contributes to poor air quality inside the homes in which it is occurring.
The BOH in Buckland has agreed to engage in education on this issue. This is a worthwhile and important thing that the Board can do. But the majority of this Board has said that there will be no consequences for those who continue to burn, even if complaints are lodged against them. I am concerned that, as long as this type of air pollution remains legally acceptable, it will continue to exist and the public health will remain unprotected.
I have personally spoken with others in Massachusetts with similar complaints. Amherst and Northampton have opacity regulations for wood stoves. I know that some Boards deal with this issue on a case by case basis and have been able to convince the wood burner to stop burning. I also know of a number of people who complained to their Boards and have gotten similar responses to those I have described here. We are left with difficult choices when our Boards choose not to help us. We can move, and run the risk that we will be faced with the same problem in our next home. We can stay and continue to try to influence our neighbors, our Boards and other lawmakers, or go to court with expensive private nuisance complaints. Or we can suffer in silence. Unfortunately, this last option is the most common response. I know of a number of people in Franklin County who are adversely affected by inhaling wood smoke but who are unwilling to complain about it for a number of reasons. One of these reasons is that they believe there is nothing that can be done.
Where I live, there are at least twenty homes that burn wood on a regular basis within 2000 feet of my house, and I am downwind of most of them. About half of them moved into their homes and started burning wood since the time I first complained. The wood smoke problem is not getting better in Buckland. Wanting clean air to breathe is not a lifestyle choice, an aesthetic preference, a financial consideration or the special desire of very sensitive individuals. It is a necessity for health and well-being. Wood smoke is not a fact of life. It is the result of choosing to burn wood.
I am hoping that as BOH members, reading this letter will encourage you to look carefully at the research that has been done on particulate air pollution exposure and the legal authority that you are entrusted with, and take seriously the wood smoke complaints that come before you. As far as I have been able to ascertain, Boards of Health are our only protection (other than expensive, time-consuming private lawsuits) from this type of air pollution in Massachusetts.
Sincerely,
Janet Sinclair, Buckland Board of Health
http://masscleanair.org/documents/letter.htm
Ah, lovely wood smoke. Wheeze, gasp-article
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
The Globe and Mail Canada's national newspaper: published 2/10/96
Ah, lovely wood smoke. Wheeze, gasp
The warmth of a blazing fire holds a special appeal for romantics, outdoor enthusiasts and golden retrievers, but research shows that its smoke poses serious health risks BY ROBERT MATAS
Environment Reporter
Vancouver
OVER the Christmas holidays, the sleepy Okanagan Valley town of Valley town was covered with a layer of sparkling white snow Above it, hanging invisibly in the stagnant air, was a second layer of nasty pollutants.
During this period, smoke from wood stoves and fireplaces laced the air with contaminants, some so small they could pass directly into lungs The weather was "a classical episode" of pollution from residential woodburning, says Peter Reid, a regional airquality meteorologist with the B. C. government.
The warmth of a blazing fire holds a special appeal for romantics, outdoor enthusiasts and golden retrievers, but recent research shows that its smoke poses serious health risks "It's not an insignificant problem especially for those with respiratory difficulties, says Scott McDonald, executive director of the B.C Lung Association.
Clean air activists have been saying exactly that for the past 15 years. A study published in 1980 by John A. Cooper, titled Environmental Impact of Residential Wood Combustion Emissions and Its Implications, described more than 100 chemicals associated with wood smoke, including carbon monoxide, formaldehyde gas, nitrogen oxide, tiny particulate matter and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
Many of the pollutants are similar to those produced by burning tobacco, and some U.S researchers say breathing in wood smoke is comparable to inhaling secondhand cigarette smoke.
The threat to human health comes from the fine particulate matter tiny particles 200 times smaller than raindrops Several epidemiological studies have concluded that inhaling wood smoke particulate matter increases the incidence, duration and severity of respiratory disease, striking hardest at children, the elderly and those with lung or heart disorders.
Concerns over wood smoke in the mid eighties put a damper on residential wood burning in some areas. In the Colorado ski town of Telluride, for example, several air-quality-conscious homeowners went so far as to put legal restrictions on their property deeds that would require their heirs never to allow "solid fuelburning devices. on the property But most of North America was cold to the idea of putting controls on wood burning smoke. The Seattle region created smoke police to hand out tickets to polluters However, a recommendation from Vancouver's medical health officer to impose a ban on all woodburning fireplaces and stoves in new residential construction was dismissed by a local alderman as "imbecilic" and rejected by city council.
John Blatherwick, Vancouver's medical health officer, proposed the failed ban on fireplaces and stoves in 1991. But despite ridicule by city aldermen, Dr. Blatherwick still holds the same views, and feels vindicated by a report on the health effects of wood smoke that was completed two years later for B. C.'s health officer.
The report, by Sverre Vedal an associate professor with the University of British Columbia's lungdiseases research unit, said studies show that children living in = affected by wood smoke have lower levels of lung function during and following the wood burning season. It also said children have lower lung function the day after exposure to high concentrations of wood smoke.
Researchers have found that fine particulate matter lodges in and alters lung tissue, increasing the incidents of respiratory illness, cardiovascular stress and aggravating asthma, particularly for children. Only particles smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter can be inhaled into the lung without being intercepted by the nose or pharynx and only these smaller particles pose a threat to the respiratory system.
Dr. Vedal says that almost all particles generated by wood combustion are smaller than 10 micrometers. Information on physician visits "strongly suggests" that woodsmoke exposure can increase the risk of respiratory illness.
He also reported some good news: There is little evidence that exposure to wood smoke at North American concentrations can be linked to an increased risk of cancer in a healthy person. [ See rebuttal to this point by Mary J. Rozenberg]
He cautioned that any attempt to estimate the health effects of wood smoke involves many assumptions. Generally speaking, he said, air has fewer than 50 micrograms of tiny particulate matter per cubic metre. With this benchmark Dr. Vedal decided to calculate the impact of a 50 micrograms-percubicmetre increase in tiny particulate matter due to wood smoke. The results showed that 25 per cent of children in the exposed population experienced a slight decrease in lung function; twice as many children experienced lower respiratory symptoms; four times as many were absent from school; and emergency visits for asthma increased by 20 percent.
About 400,000 Canadian homes use wood as the primary heating fuel, and many more use fireplaces and wood stoves as supplementary sources of heat or because they enjoy the aesthetics of wood burning.
Environment Canada meteorologist Fred Conway says pollution from residential woodburning is not high on the agenda in Ontario. Wood is not used widely as a fuel in the large urban areas, he says, and the smoke disperses quickly in rural regions.
The Atlantic provinces are more dependent on wood for home heating than else where, but it is in British Columbia that smoke from residential woodburning poses the greatest threat to health. Here, inversions in weather patterns frequently warm the air on mountainsides, trapping cooler air and smoke at ground level in valleys and allowing the concentration of pollutants to build up.
B. C. Hydro has estimated that about 100,000 homes in B. C. use wood as the primary fuel; an additional 200,000 use fireplaces and woodburning stoves occasionally, Several valley communities have air quality problems on cold, clear nights.
Vernon, a city of 31,000 located at the confluence of two valleys has among the highest concentration of fine particulate matter in the province, especially during the cold months, but scientists are still searching for a conclusive link to a source. Analysis of air quality samples from 1992 to 1994. though, found that the air quality is poor for at least 61 days a year.
Mr. Reid and other researchers say more work on air monitoring is necessary before conclusions can be drawn about Vernon. Meanwhile, in other woodburning areas, the impact of wood smoke may be mitigated by new wood stoves and fireplaces that ensure more complete combustion, which prevents unburnt gases from going up the chimney. More people are also using dried wood, which creates fewer pollutants.
Cleanair activists, however, say the research results are enough to allow regulatory agencies to set policies dealing with chronic exposure to wood smoke. The smoke may not be the largest source of pollutants in the atmosphere, activists say, but wintertime woodburning produces them right under people's noses.
Mary J. Rozenberg, a former New York cellist whose health is affected by wood smoke, lives in Point Arena, Calif., and is using the Internet to mobilize U.S. public opinion to push for a ban on woodburning in fireplaces and stoves. Her homepage, Burning Issues, carries references to articles and technical papers, including one of her own on inhalation toxicology.
Her paper presented the results of a study of airborne particulates smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter, which were measured in a residential neighborhood in the San Francisco Bay area. The study showed that particulate concentrations increased most rapidly in the early evening, with the highest concentrations occurring after 11 p.m.
Ms. Rozenberg concluded that the particulates were generated by nonindustrial, nonautomotive sources, and the most likely source was residential woodburning.
She says that when she started her research in 1991, everyone said there was no problem and I was nuts. But when they saw the charts, they were shocked how big wood pollution is"
WOODSMOKE EMISSIONS
* Indicates a chemical also found in cigarette smoke
Normal alkanes
Cyclic di and triterpenoids:
dehydroabietic acid, isopimaric acid, lupenone, friedelin
Chlorinated dioxins
*Carbon monoxide
Methane
*Aldehydes: formaldehyde, *acrolein, propionaldehyde, butryaldehyde, acetaldehyde, furfural
Substituted furans
Benzene
Alkyl benzenes: toluene
Acetic acid, Formic acid
*Nitrogen oxides
*Sulphur dioxide,
Methyl chloride
Napthalene
Substituted napthalenes
Oxygenated monoaromatics: guaiacol and derivatives *phenol and derivatives, syringol and derivatives, catechol and derivatives
*Particulate organic carbon
Oxygenated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs):
fluorene, phenamhrene, anthracene, methylanthracenes, fluoranthene ,
*pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, benzofluoranthenes, *benzo(e)pyrene, *benzo(a)pyrene, *perylene, ideno (1,2,3cd)pyrene, *benz(ghi)perylene *coronene, dibenzo(a,h)pyrene, retene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Trace elements: including sodium, magnesium, aluminum, silicon
Source: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Above table published with article
Rebuttal to claim that there is no link between wood smoke and cancer.
The Globe declined to publish this rebuttal.
The Globe and Mail Canada's national newspaper
"Ah, Lovely wood smoke Wheeze, gasp" 2/10/96 by Robert Matas, Environmental
Writer, Vancouver
Letter to the Editor:
This letter was written by Mary Rozenberg to the Globe in an attempt to correct a glaring error made by Dr. Sverre Vedal. Unfortunately, the letter was never published by the paper.
Thank you for the excellent article by Robert Matas "Ah, lovely wood smoke. Wheeze, Gasp" on Feb. 10,1996.The article quotes Dr. Sverre Vedal where he incorrectly states that "there is little evidence that exposure to woodsmoke at North American concentrations can be linked to an increased risk of cancer in a healthy person." We now have more than 30 references linking wood smoke to increased cancer risk.Due to similar publication times these were most likely not available to Dr. Vedal at the time of his report.
One of the papers stating that woodsmoke causes cancer at North American concentrations is Mutagenicity, Tumorigenicity and Estimation of Cancer Risk from Ambient Aerosol and Source Emissions from Woodsmoke and Motor Vehicles #91131.6 , 1991, by Dr.Joellen Lewtas of the US EPA. Dr. Lewtas states "These figures indicate that the worst contribution that an individual is likely to make to the mutagenicity of the air is using a woodstove for heating, followed by driving a diesel car." She lists 14 papers on the subject in her bibliography.
In a study, Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension and Cor Pulmonale Associated with Chronic Domestic Woodsmoke Inhalation, Chest 1993 researchers indicated that "findings raise the possibility of a cause-andeffect relationship between longterm woodsmoke inhalation and lung cancer. Given the mutagenic and airway irritant effects described for wood smoke (4 references given) we believe that this possible deleterious relationship needs to be addressed in future studies regarding risk factors for lung cancer in nonsmokers."
I have measured polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) for several weeks. PAH are know cancer causing agents The exposure to PAH from woodburning was longer in duration than that from traffic and on many days it was also higher in the amount of the concentration. My study was published in Inhalation Toxicology is being followed by a current study by Dr. Wayne Ott of the US EPA that includes 15 minute averages by 2 PAH machines (one Indoors one Outdoors) for a full year of data. Already the data reveal that neighborhood exposures produce a huge mountain of PAH pollution in the evening in the burning months and that when there is no burning in the late spring there is almost no detectable neighborhood exposure to PAH.
Further analysis of woodstove incinerators reveals that because of the way wood is burned in them they produce more carcinogens. With an oxygen starved fire, they produce more PAH emissions than from a fireplace.. So the irony is that while the wood is burned more efficiently to create more heat the byproducts are far more carcinogenic. The fact is that wood is an inefficient and dirty fuel. On the energy ladder wood is one step above dung. Dr. Judith T. Zelikoff published research in 1994 showing that just one hour of exposure to woodsmoke altered immune defense mechanisms. Dr. Wm Pryor showed that the cancer causing free radicals from woodsmoke are chemically active in the body 40 times longer than tobacco smoke. Even if there were not over 100 toxic chemicals including dioxin, in the smoke, there is evidence linking ingestion of asbestos sized particles such as those from woodsmoke with cancer.
We do not recommend new woodstoves as the solution to a dirty fuel. To learn more please visit our Internet home page at "http://BurningIssues.org".
Sincerely, Mary J. Rozenberg, President Burning Issues/Clean Air Revival
http://burningissues.org
Postscript
In Chemical Deception Sierra Books, 1991, Dr. Marc Lappe writing about Nasopharyngeal Cancer states that in addition to diet, virus, and genetic make up, there is a fourth factor in cancer risk for this disease.In his words "the inhalation of certain chemicals found in the environment, particularly in woodsmoke"..."What is clear is that synthetic substances generated either through food preparation or wood burning contribute far more to this tumor than does any unadulterated "natural" substance."
NOTE....Wood-smoke emissions are deadly!
Ah, lovely wood smoke. Wheeze, gasp
The warmth of a blazing fire holds a special appeal for romantics, outdoor enthusiasts and golden retrievers, but research shows that its smoke poses serious health risks BY ROBERT MATAS
Environment Reporter
Vancouver
OVER the Christmas holidays, the sleepy Okanagan Valley town of Valley town was covered with a layer of sparkling white snow Above it, hanging invisibly in the stagnant air, was a second layer of nasty pollutants.
During this period, smoke from wood stoves and fireplaces laced the air with contaminants, some so small they could pass directly into lungs The weather was "a classical episode" of pollution from residential woodburning, says Peter Reid, a regional airquality meteorologist with the B. C. government.
The warmth of a blazing fire holds a special appeal for romantics, outdoor enthusiasts and golden retrievers, but recent research shows that its smoke poses serious health risks "It's not an insignificant problem especially for those with respiratory difficulties, says Scott McDonald, executive director of the B.C Lung Association.
Clean air activists have been saying exactly that for the past 15 years. A study published in 1980 by John A. Cooper, titled Environmental Impact of Residential Wood Combustion Emissions and Its Implications, described more than 100 chemicals associated with wood smoke, including carbon monoxide, formaldehyde gas, nitrogen oxide, tiny particulate matter and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
Many of the pollutants are similar to those produced by burning tobacco, and some U.S researchers say breathing in wood smoke is comparable to inhaling secondhand cigarette smoke.
The threat to human health comes from the fine particulate matter tiny particles 200 times smaller than raindrops Several epidemiological studies have concluded that inhaling wood smoke particulate matter increases the incidence, duration and severity of respiratory disease, striking hardest at children, the elderly and those with lung or heart disorders.
Concerns over wood smoke in the mid eighties put a damper on residential wood burning in some areas. In the Colorado ski town of Telluride, for example, several air-quality-conscious homeowners went so far as to put legal restrictions on their property deeds that would require their heirs never to allow "solid fuelburning devices. on the property But most of North America was cold to the idea of putting controls on wood burning smoke. The Seattle region created smoke police to hand out tickets to polluters However, a recommendation from Vancouver's medical health officer to impose a ban on all woodburning fireplaces and stoves in new residential construction was dismissed by a local alderman as "imbecilic" and rejected by city council.
John Blatherwick, Vancouver's medical health officer, proposed the failed ban on fireplaces and stoves in 1991. But despite ridicule by city aldermen, Dr. Blatherwick still holds the same views, and feels vindicated by a report on the health effects of wood smoke that was completed two years later for B. C.'s health officer.
The report, by Sverre Vedal an associate professor with the University of British Columbia's lungdiseases research unit, said studies show that children living in = affected by wood smoke have lower levels of lung function during and following the wood burning season. It also said children have lower lung function the day after exposure to high concentrations of wood smoke.
Researchers have found that fine particulate matter lodges in and alters lung tissue, increasing the incidents of respiratory illness, cardiovascular stress and aggravating asthma, particularly for children. Only particles smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter can be inhaled into the lung without being intercepted by the nose or pharynx and only these smaller particles pose a threat to the respiratory system.
Dr. Vedal says that almost all particles generated by wood combustion are smaller than 10 micrometers. Information on physician visits "strongly suggests" that woodsmoke exposure can increase the risk of respiratory illness.
He also reported some good news: There is little evidence that exposure to wood smoke at North American concentrations can be linked to an increased risk of cancer in a healthy person. [ See rebuttal to this point by Mary J. Rozenberg]
He cautioned that any attempt to estimate the health effects of wood smoke involves many assumptions. Generally speaking, he said, air has fewer than 50 micrograms of tiny particulate matter per cubic metre. With this benchmark Dr. Vedal decided to calculate the impact of a 50 micrograms-percubicmetre increase in tiny particulate matter due to wood smoke. The results showed that 25 per cent of children in the exposed population experienced a slight decrease in lung function; twice as many children experienced lower respiratory symptoms; four times as many were absent from school; and emergency visits for asthma increased by 20 percent.
About 400,000 Canadian homes use wood as the primary heating fuel, and many more use fireplaces and wood stoves as supplementary sources of heat or because they enjoy the aesthetics of wood burning.
Environment Canada meteorologist Fred Conway says pollution from residential woodburning is not high on the agenda in Ontario. Wood is not used widely as a fuel in the large urban areas, he says, and the smoke disperses quickly in rural regions.
The Atlantic provinces are more dependent on wood for home heating than else where, but it is in British Columbia that smoke from residential woodburning poses the greatest threat to health. Here, inversions in weather patterns frequently warm the air on mountainsides, trapping cooler air and smoke at ground level in valleys and allowing the concentration of pollutants to build up.
B. C. Hydro has estimated that about 100,000 homes in B. C. use wood as the primary fuel; an additional 200,000 use fireplaces and woodburning stoves occasionally, Several valley communities have air quality problems on cold, clear nights.
Vernon, a city of 31,000 located at the confluence of two valleys has among the highest concentration of fine particulate matter in the province, especially during the cold months, but scientists are still searching for a conclusive link to a source. Analysis of air quality samples from 1992 to 1994. though, found that the air quality is poor for at least 61 days a year.
Mr. Reid and other researchers say more work on air monitoring is necessary before conclusions can be drawn about Vernon. Meanwhile, in other woodburning areas, the impact of wood smoke may be mitigated by new wood stoves and fireplaces that ensure more complete combustion, which prevents unburnt gases from going up the chimney. More people are also using dried wood, which creates fewer pollutants.
Cleanair activists, however, say the research results are enough to allow regulatory agencies to set policies dealing with chronic exposure to wood smoke. The smoke may not be the largest source of pollutants in the atmosphere, activists say, but wintertime woodburning produces them right under people's noses.
Mary J. Rozenberg, a former New York cellist whose health is affected by wood smoke, lives in Point Arena, Calif., and is using the Internet to mobilize U.S. public opinion to push for a ban on woodburning in fireplaces and stoves. Her homepage, Burning Issues, carries references to articles and technical papers, including one of her own on inhalation toxicology.
Her paper presented the results of a study of airborne particulates smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter, which were measured in a residential neighborhood in the San Francisco Bay area. The study showed that particulate concentrations increased most rapidly in the early evening, with the highest concentrations occurring after 11 p.m.
Ms. Rozenberg concluded that the particulates were generated by nonindustrial, nonautomotive sources, and the most likely source was residential woodburning.
She says that when she started her research in 1991, everyone said there was no problem and I was nuts. But when they saw the charts, they were shocked how big wood pollution is"
WOODSMOKE EMISSIONS
* Indicates a chemical also found in cigarette smoke
Normal alkanes
Cyclic di and triterpenoids:
dehydroabietic acid, isopimaric acid, lupenone, friedelin
Chlorinated dioxins
*Carbon monoxide
Methane
*Aldehydes: formaldehyde, *acrolein, propionaldehyde, butryaldehyde, acetaldehyde, furfural
Substituted furans
Benzene
Alkyl benzenes: toluene
Acetic acid, Formic acid
*Nitrogen oxides
*Sulphur dioxide,
Methyl chloride
Napthalene
Substituted napthalenes
Oxygenated monoaromatics: guaiacol and derivatives *phenol and derivatives, syringol and derivatives, catechol and derivatives
*Particulate organic carbon
Oxygenated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs):
fluorene, phenamhrene, anthracene, methylanthracenes, fluoranthene ,
*pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, benzofluoranthenes, *benzo(e)pyrene, *benzo(a)pyrene, *perylene, ideno (1,2,3cd)pyrene, *benz(ghi)perylene *coronene, dibenzo(a,h)pyrene, retene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Trace elements: including sodium, magnesium, aluminum, silicon
Source: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Above table published with article
Rebuttal to claim that there is no link between wood smoke and cancer.
The Globe declined to publish this rebuttal.
The Globe and Mail Canada's national newspaper
"Ah, Lovely wood smoke Wheeze, gasp" 2/10/96 by Robert Matas, Environmental
Writer, Vancouver
Letter to the Editor:
This letter was written by Mary Rozenberg to the Globe in an attempt to correct a glaring error made by Dr. Sverre Vedal. Unfortunately, the letter was never published by the paper.
Thank you for the excellent article by Robert Matas "Ah, lovely wood smoke. Wheeze, Gasp" on Feb. 10,1996.The article quotes Dr. Sverre Vedal where he incorrectly states that "there is little evidence that exposure to woodsmoke at North American concentrations can be linked to an increased risk of cancer in a healthy person." We now have more than 30 references linking wood smoke to increased cancer risk.Due to similar publication times these were most likely not available to Dr. Vedal at the time of his report.
One of the papers stating that woodsmoke causes cancer at North American concentrations is Mutagenicity, Tumorigenicity and Estimation of Cancer Risk from Ambient Aerosol and Source Emissions from Woodsmoke and Motor Vehicles #91131.6 , 1991, by Dr.Joellen Lewtas of the US EPA. Dr. Lewtas states "These figures indicate that the worst contribution that an individual is likely to make to the mutagenicity of the air is using a woodstove for heating, followed by driving a diesel car." She lists 14 papers on the subject in her bibliography.
In a study, Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension and Cor Pulmonale Associated with Chronic Domestic Woodsmoke Inhalation, Chest 1993 researchers indicated that "findings raise the possibility of a cause-andeffect relationship between longterm woodsmoke inhalation and lung cancer. Given the mutagenic and airway irritant effects described for wood smoke (4 references given) we believe that this possible deleterious relationship needs to be addressed in future studies regarding risk factors for lung cancer in nonsmokers."
I have measured polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) for several weeks. PAH are know cancer causing agents The exposure to PAH from woodburning was longer in duration than that from traffic and on many days it was also higher in the amount of the concentration. My study was published in Inhalation Toxicology is being followed by a current study by Dr. Wayne Ott of the US EPA that includes 15 minute averages by 2 PAH machines (one Indoors one Outdoors) for a full year of data. Already the data reveal that neighborhood exposures produce a huge mountain of PAH pollution in the evening in the burning months and that when there is no burning in the late spring there is almost no detectable neighborhood exposure to PAH.
Further analysis of woodstove incinerators reveals that because of the way wood is burned in them they produce more carcinogens. With an oxygen starved fire, they produce more PAH emissions than from a fireplace.. So the irony is that while the wood is burned more efficiently to create more heat the byproducts are far more carcinogenic. The fact is that wood is an inefficient and dirty fuel. On the energy ladder wood is one step above dung. Dr. Judith T. Zelikoff published research in 1994 showing that just one hour of exposure to woodsmoke altered immune defense mechanisms. Dr. Wm Pryor showed that the cancer causing free radicals from woodsmoke are chemically active in the body 40 times longer than tobacco smoke. Even if there were not over 100 toxic chemicals including dioxin, in the smoke, there is evidence linking ingestion of asbestos sized particles such as those from woodsmoke with cancer.
We do not recommend new woodstoves as the solution to a dirty fuel. To learn more please visit our Internet home page at "http://BurningIssues.org".
Sincerely, Mary J. Rozenberg, President Burning Issues/Clean Air Revival
http://burningissues.org
Postscript
In Chemical Deception Sierra Books, 1991, Dr. Marc Lappe writing about Nasopharyngeal Cancer states that in addition to diet, virus, and genetic make up, there is a fourth factor in cancer risk for this disease.In his words "the inhalation of certain chemicals found in the environment, particularly in woodsmoke"..."What is clear is that synthetic substances generated either through food preparation or wood burning contribute far more to this tumor than does any unadulterated "natural" substance."
NOTE....Wood-smoke emissions are deadly!
Proposal would ban new wood-burning fireplaces-Southern California
San Jose Mercury News
Proposal to clean SoCal air would ban new wood-burning fireplaces
The Associated Press
Article Launched: 06/01/2007 05:36:22 AM PDT
LOS ANGELES- Wood-burning fireplaces would be banned in all new homes in much of Southern California under an anti-smog plan given initial approval by regional air quality regulators Friday.
The plan to help reduce harmful pollution and meet federal emissions standards also would bar wood-fueled blazes in all fireplaces on especially smoggy days.
The board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, meeting in Diamond Bar, approved a 2007 update of its regional anti-smog plan. In addition to regulating fireplaces, the wide-ranging plan seeks to reduce soot from diesel engines and to curb ozone smog levels in order to meet federal Clean Air Act standards by 2024.
Its measures involve commercial and residential developments, industrial facilities and such common equipment as restaurant charbroilers. The AQMD said the plan is expected to cost $2.3 billion annually, but benefits, mainly from reduced health effects, will amount to $14.6 billion annually.
The California Air Resources Board will consider the overall plan later this month. If it is approved it must then go to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for approval. Another AQMD vote is scheduled for September to finalize the fireplace regulations.
There are an estimated 1.9 million homes with fireplaces in Southern California out of about 5 million total housing units, regulators said. Air district staffers say a daily reduction of 192 tons of nitrogen oxides, an ingredient in harmful particulate pollution, is needed across the region to meet the federal requirements, and that 7 tons of that could come from restrictions on fireplaces.
The fireplace ban for new homes would cover Los Angeles, Orange and portions of Riverside and San Bernardino counties. There also could be about 20 days a year when the smog is so thick and the air so unhealthy that burning wood in all fireplaces would be prohibited, the AQMD estimated.
Regulators say unsafe levels of fine particulate pollution are responsible for 5,400 premature deaths and 2,400 hospitalizations a year in Southern California—leaving no target, including fireplaces, too small.
"Everyone must do their fair share to clean the air, from the largest business to the individual consumer," said Barry Wallerstein, the AQMD's executive officer. "Wallerstein said.
Proposal to clean SoCal air would ban new wood-burning fireplaces
The Associated Press
Article Launched: 06/01/2007 05:36:22 AM PDT
LOS ANGELES- Wood-burning fireplaces would be banned in all new homes in much of Southern California under an anti-smog plan given initial approval by regional air quality regulators Friday.
The plan to help reduce harmful pollution and meet federal emissions standards also would bar wood-fueled blazes in all fireplaces on especially smoggy days.
The board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, meeting in Diamond Bar, approved a 2007 update of its regional anti-smog plan. In addition to regulating fireplaces, the wide-ranging plan seeks to reduce soot from diesel engines and to curb ozone smog levels in order to meet federal Clean Air Act standards by 2024.
Its measures involve commercial and residential developments, industrial facilities and such common equipment as restaurant charbroilers. The AQMD said the plan is expected to cost $2.3 billion annually, but benefits, mainly from reduced health effects, will amount to $14.6 billion annually.
The California Air Resources Board will consider the overall plan later this month. If it is approved it must then go to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for approval. Another AQMD vote is scheduled for September to finalize the fireplace regulations.
There are an estimated 1.9 million homes with fireplaces in Southern California out of about 5 million total housing units, regulators said. Air district staffers say a daily reduction of 192 tons of nitrogen oxides, an ingredient in harmful particulate pollution, is needed across the region to meet the federal requirements, and that 7 tons of that could come from restrictions on fireplaces.
The fireplace ban for new homes would cover Los Angeles, Orange and portions of Riverside and San Bernardino counties. There also could be about 20 days a year when the smog is so thick and the air so unhealthy that burning wood in all fireplaces would be prohibited, the AQMD estimated.
Regulators say unsafe levels of fine particulate pollution are responsible for 5,400 premature deaths and 2,400 hospitalizations a year in Southern California—leaving no target, including fireplaces, too small.
"Everyone must do their fair share to clean the air, from the largest business to the individual consumer," said Barry Wallerstein, the AQMD's executive officer. "Wallerstein said.
Los Altos (CA) --No new wood burning fireplaces law
Published on December 24, 2003
Los Altos (CA) Town Crier
Tougher pollution laws may squelch holiday fireplace traditions
By Linda Taaffe / Town Crier Staff Writer
Tougher federal pollution standards could mean the end of one Christmas Day holiday tradition for some Santa Clara County residents - air district officials are urging residents to refrain from gathering around the glow of a cozy, crackling fire this season in order to keep air pollution at an acceptable level.
Officials said they anticipate issuing between seven to 10 "Spare the Air Tonight" advisories asking the public to voluntarily refrain from burning wood and driving between now and the end of January to meet the new air quality requirements.
This season's frequent rain has helped flush the atmosphere of pollutants. The air district has not had to issue advisories yet, a spokeswoman said Friday.
Wood burning and driving are the two major causes of air pollution in the winter time, especially during the holidays when people tend to gather and light a fire, a spokeswoman said.
A district report says burning wood causes up to 50 percent of the air pollution in Santa Clara County on some days. Every 1,000 woodburning fireplaces produces about 5 tons of pollution during the winter, she said. There are about 17,000 wood-burning fireplaces in the county.
Experts compared wood smoke to tobacco smoke. Wood smoke is toxic and especially dangerous for children and those with respiratory problems, said Jack Broadbent, air district CEO. "The worst kind of air pollution is created by burning wood. There is abundant health and scientific data on the dangers of exposure to the tiny particulates in wood smoke."
In Los Altos, the city introduced a wood-burning fireplace ban in 2001 after a resident allergic to wood smoke complained about the quality of air in her neighborhood.
As a result, no new wood-burning fireplaces may be built in Los Altos. The law is intended to reduce the toxic air pollutants.
http://www.latc.com/2003/12/24/news/news04.html
Los Altos (CA) Town Crier
Tougher pollution laws may squelch holiday fireplace traditions
By Linda Taaffe / Town Crier Staff Writer
Tougher federal pollution standards could mean the end of one Christmas Day holiday tradition for some Santa Clara County residents - air district officials are urging residents to refrain from gathering around the glow of a cozy, crackling fire this season in order to keep air pollution at an acceptable level.
Officials said they anticipate issuing between seven to 10 "Spare the Air Tonight" advisories asking the public to voluntarily refrain from burning wood and driving between now and the end of January to meet the new air quality requirements.
This season's frequent rain has helped flush the atmosphere of pollutants. The air district has not had to issue advisories yet, a spokeswoman said Friday.
Wood burning and driving are the two major causes of air pollution in the winter time, especially during the holidays when people tend to gather and light a fire, a spokeswoman said.
A district report says burning wood causes up to 50 percent of the air pollution in Santa Clara County on some days. Every 1,000 woodburning fireplaces produces about 5 tons of pollution during the winter, she said. There are about 17,000 wood-burning fireplaces in the county.
Experts compared wood smoke to tobacco smoke. Wood smoke is toxic and especially dangerous for children and those with respiratory problems, said Jack Broadbent, air district CEO. "The worst kind of air pollution is created by burning wood. There is abundant health and scientific data on the dangers of exposure to the tiny particulates in wood smoke."
In Los Altos, the city introduced a wood-burning fireplace ban in 2001 after a resident allergic to wood smoke complained about the quality of air in her neighborhood.
As a result, no new wood-burning fireplaces may be built in Los Altos. The law is intended to reduce the toxic air pollutants.
http://www.latc.com/2003/12/24/news/news04.html
24 year old ban on outside fire pits/bonfires
Monday, August 20, 2007
August 16, 2007
From: Polk County, Iowa
Jeremy Becker
Air Quality Engineer
Public Works Department
Air Quality Division
Polk County, Iowa
The fire pits/bonfires are prohibited under our open burning regulations, Chapter V - Air Pollution, Article III, Section 5-7.
ARTICLE III. INCINERATION AND OPEN BURNING
It shall be unlawful for any person to open burn or to permit open burning of any refuse, rubbish, garbage, landscape waste or other combustible material within the cities of Des Moines, West Des Moines, Clive, Windsor Heights, Urbandale, and Pleasant Hill from any source from and after September 21, 1983.
From: Polk County, Iowa
Jeremy Becker
Air Quality Engineer
Public Works Department
Air Quality Division
Polk County, Iowa
The fire pits/bonfires are prohibited under our open burning regulations, Chapter V - Air Pollution, Article III, Section 5-7.
ARTICLE III. INCINERATION AND OPEN BURNING
It shall be unlawful for any person to open burn or to permit open burning of any refuse, rubbish, garbage, landscape waste or other combustible material within the cities of Des Moines, West Des Moines, Clive, Windsor Heights, Urbandale, and Pleasant Hill from any source from and after September 21, 1983.
Wood Smoke Dissipates Rapidly----A Fallacy!
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Here's a great article posted on Clean Air Revival:
Posted: January 15th, 2007- http://burningissues.org/blog/
Wood Smoke Dissipates Rapidly
It is often stated and thought that wood smoke pollution drops off rapidly with distance from the source. Proponents of wood burning will often say that if you are a few hundred feet away from a fire there is no problem. It is as though they think that wood smoke dispersion follows some kind of a square law like electric fields; double the distance and the effect is reduced by a factor of four. Other people reason that smoke is hot and hot air rises so smoke will just float up and away.
Unfortunately, smoke does not behave that way. The reasons being that smoke is that smoke is airborne and heavier than air. The dispersion of wood smoke is at the mercy of air conditions. The important factors include wind direction, inversion layers, and temperature.
Lets look at a few examples. Smoke doesn’t just rise and disappear. The temperature of the smoke particles cool and then they are no longer buoyed upward and so they drift downward. In fact, the particles can puddle in low valleys. There is a study in the State of Washington that showed that children living in valleys enjoyed less lung function than children living on mountain ridges. Moral of the story: you don’t want to live below a wood burner.
Temperature inversions which often occur on clear, cold, calm nights can trap airborne pollutants relatively close to the ground. Inversion layers are a real problem in the San Francisco Bay area because inversion layers are frequent and often below eighty feet and can trap most pollutants between the mountains and the Bay.
Wind is the big culprit. If you are up wind from a burner, you have no problem. If you are downwind, you will obviously get all his smoke. If there is no wind, the smoke will puddle in his imediate neighborhood. We have all seen that the case where smoke will lazily emerge from a chimney, drift horizontally a short distance, and settle obnoxiously in a neighbors yard.
A few days ago, when traveling through the Sea Ranch along the Sonoma coast in California, we passed a burning trash pile. The smoke was a visible haze at road level for at least two miles thanks to a light North wind. Once, I flew over forest file in Arizona and one could clearly see a narrow plum of smoke that extended a hundred miles or more. Studies have shown that fine particulates can stay airborne for three weeks and cover 700 miles unless washed out by rain. So anyone who says that just being a few hundred feet from a neighbor solves the problem is just blowing smoke.
Posted: January 15th, 2007- http://burningissues.org/blog/
Wood Smoke Dissipates Rapidly
It is often stated and thought that wood smoke pollution drops off rapidly with distance from the source. Proponents of wood burning will often say that if you are a few hundred feet away from a fire there is no problem. It is as though they think that wood smoke dispersion follows some kind of a square law like electric fields; double the distance and the effect is reduced by a factor of four. Other people reason that smoke is hot and hot air rises so smoke will just float up and away.
Unfortunately, smoke does not behave that way. The reasons being that smoke is that smoke is airborne and heavier than air. The dispersion of wood smoke is at the mercy of air conditions. The important factors include wind direction, inversion layers, and temperature.
Lets look at a few examples. Smoke doesn’t just rise and disappear. The temperature of the smoke particles cool and then they are no longer buoyed upward and so they drift downward. In fact, the particles can puddle in low valleys. There is a study in the State of Washington that showed that children living in valleys enjoyed less lung function than children living on mountain ridges. Moral of the story: you don’t want to live below a wood burner.
Temperature inversions which often occur on clear, cold, calm nights can trap airborne pollutants relatively close to the ground. Inversion layers are a real problem in the San Francisco Bay area because inversion layers are frequent and often below eighty feet and can trap most pollutants between the mountains and the Bay.
Wind is the big culprit. If you are up wind from a burner, you have no problem. If you are downwind, you will obviously get all his smoke. If there is no wind, the smoke will puddle in his imediate neighborhood. We have all seen that the case where smoke will lazily emerge from a chimney, drift horizontally a short distance, and settle obnoxiously in a neighbors yard.
A few days ago, when traveling through the Sea Ranch along the Sonoma coast in California, we passed a burning trash pile. The smoke was a visible haze at road level for at least two miles thanks to a light North wind. Once, I flew over forest file in Arizona and one could clearly see a narrow plum of smoke that extended a hundred miles or more. Studies have shown that fine particulates can stay airborne for three weeks and cover 700 miles unless washed out by rain. So anyone who says that just being a few hundred feet from a neighbor solves the problem is just blowing smoke.
Clean Air Revival---Burning Issues--web site
Great web site for information......
http://burningissues.org/car-www/index.html
The Importance of Clean Air
Clean Air Revival provides public education about the medical hazards of exposure to wood smoke and other fine particulate pollution. Smoke from residential burning of wood and coal, wood burning restaurants and outdoor burning of wood, leaves, crops, tires and debris is permeating our neighborhoods, resulting in high ground level concentrations of toxic air pollution.
Statement of Objectives: Clean Air Revival, Inc.
Burning Issues is a project of Clean Air Revival, Inc., a 501C-3 non profit educational organization. Clean Air Revival, Inc. is registered with the Registry of Charitable Trusts in the State of California. Our organization number is #1686895.
Burning Issues depends on your donations and grants. 100% of funds further research, office operating expense and education. All labor and our building are donated. There are no paid employees. Please consider donating generously. Your donation helps spread life saving science. Our award winning website: http://burningissues.org is visited by 1,800 people daily from all over the world.
Burning Issues has an international membership and was founded by Mary J. Rozenberg, at the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club Clean Air Committee in 1987. It is devoted to the improvement of ambient air quality through the reduction of Particulate Pollution, i. e., solid particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter.
The most common sources of Particulate Pollution are residential wood burning (RWB) and coal burning, forest and agriculture burning, and diesel and auto exhaust. The extent of the severity of the fine particulate problem can be grasped in the estimate that 60,000 people die annually in the United States from the effects of these particles. Once emitted they are impossible to clean up. More than half of the fine particulate is caused by fewer than 10% of the population using the dirtiest fuels for recreation and heating.
The principal activity of Burning Issues is the collection and dissemination of the latest science information regarding health effects, economic impacts, and individual actions to reduce and stop solid fuel combustion. Burning Issues also actively does particulate monitoring and has published the results.
Mary Rozenberg, President, PO Box 1045, Point Arena, CA 95468, (707)882-3601, e-mail = Mary.Rozenberg@gmail.com
http://burningissues.org
http://burningissues.org/car-www/index.html
The Importance of Clean Air
Clean Air Revival provides public education about the medical hazards of exposure to wood smoke and other fine particulate pollution. Smoke from residential burning of wood and coal, wood burning restaurants and outdoor burning of wood, leaves, crops, tires and debris is permeating our neighborhoods, resulting in high ground level concentrations of toxic air pollution.
Statement of Objectives: Clean Air Revival, Inc.
Burning Issues is a project of Clean Air Revival, Inc., a 501C-3 non profit educational organization. Clean Air Revival, Inc. is registered with the Registry of Charitable Trusts in the State of California. Our organization number is #1686895.
Burning Issues depends on your donations and grants. 100% of funds further research, office operating expense and education. All labor and our building are donated. There are no paid employees. Please consider donating generously. Your donation helps spread life saving science. Our award winning website: http://burningissues.org is visited by 1,800 people daily from all over the world.
Burning Issues has an international membership and was founded by Mary J. Rozenberg, at the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club Clean Air Committee in 1987. It is devoted to the improvement of ambient air quality through the reduction of Particulate Pollution, i. e., solid particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter.
The most common sources of Particulate Pollution are residential wood burning (RWB) and coal burning, forest and agriculture burning, and diesel and auto exhaust. The extent of the severity of the fine particulate problem can be grasped in the estimate that 60,000 people die annually in the United States from the effects of these particles. Once emitted they are impossible to clean up. More than half of the fine particulate is caused by fewer than 10% of the population using the dirtiest fuels for recreation and heating.
The principal activity of Burning Issues is the collection and dissemination of the latest science information regarding health effects, economic impacts, and individual actions to reduce and stop solid fuel combustion. Burning Issues also actively does particulate monitoring and has published the results.
Mary Rozenberg, President, PO Box 1045, Point Arena, CA 95468, (707)882-3601, e-mail = Mary.Rozenberg@gmail.com
http://burningissues.org
Wood Smoke Has Got To Go!---letter to editor
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Letter to the Editor
By Leonard F. Bradley
Parksville
© Copyright 2007 Parksville Qualicum News
Feb 27 2007
Most of us have heard the slogan: Think globally — Act locally.
I would like to commend the Mayor and Council of Parksville for their progressive action in moving to eliminate burning in our city. Such action is important globally and locally.
Globally thinking British Columbians are buying smaller cars, reducing air travel, replacing light bulbs and doing many other things to reduce their emissions.
Yet, others will burn anything indiscriminately even though in Parksville, the city will, without charge, pick up and chip many of the items they are burning.
Locally, we must all become more aware that breathing in smoke of any sort is dangerous to health. Many studies have demonstrated that wood smoke, for example, contains up to a hundred carcinogenic substances. That is why many jurisdictions have banned burning.
Breathing in wood smoke harms our lungs. Moreover, small particles pass through lungs into the blood and heart. Why do we allow this to be done?
It is time to end to the frontier mentality of “anything goes.” Let’s clean up our air for the sake of Parksville and the planet.
By Leonard F. Bradley
Parksville
© Copyright 2007 Parksville Qualicum News
Feb 27 2007
Most of us have heard the slogan: Think globally — Act locally.
I would like to commend the Mayor and Council of Parksville for their progressive action in moving to eliminate burning in our city. Such action is important globally and locally.
Globally thinking British Columbians are buying smaller cars, reducing air travel, replacing light bulbs and doing many other things to reduce their emissions.
Yet, others will burn anything indiscriminately even though in Parksville, the city will, without charge, pick up and chip many of the items they are burning.
Locally, we must all become more aware that breathing in smoke of any sort is dangerous to health. Many studies have demonstrated that wood smoke, for example, contains up to a hundred carcinogenic substances. That is why many jurisdictions have banned burning.
Breathing in wood smoke harms our lungs. Moreover, small particles pass through lungs into the blood and heart. Why do we allow this to be done?
It is time to end to the frontier mentality of “anything goes.” Let’s clean up our air for the sake of Parksville and the planet.
Bono---"Smoked Out" too!
Note...even multi-million homes can be "smoked out" by wood emissions!
Latest News: Bono, the lead singer of U2 is smoked out!
Among the Rich, a New Dispute Over Air Rights - New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/nyregion/16bono.html?th&emc=th
Among the Rich, a New Dispute Over Air Rights
By ALLEN SALKIN
Published: May 16, 2007
It’s not the war against third world debt, but still.
Skip to next paragraph
Evan Agostini/Getty Images
Bono, the lead singer of U2, the pop music group, lives in a penthouse at the San Remo.
The New York Times
Bono, the lead singer of U2 and a globetrotting activist for social causes, has become involved in a battle that may be as intractable as loan burdens in the developing world — a Manhattan co-op dispute.
One of his adversaries is a fellow rocker, Billy Squier, best known for 1980s songs like “The Stroke.” The two live in the San Remo, a storied building with twin towers that loom over Central Park West. (It is the same building that rejected Madonna in 1985 when she sought to buy an apartment.)
The dispute is over whether hazardous smoke from fireplaces, including Mr. Squier’s, is drifting from chimneys into the penthouse duplex where Bono lives with his wife and four children. About a year ago the co-op board banned the use of fireplaces throughout the building, angering fireplace owners, who love a pine-scented blaze in the city as well as their enhanced property values.
As with other co-op disputes, exact details are hard to pin down because these buildings are essentially private clubs run by a board of elected tenants, and anyone who airs grievances in public risks being ostracized in his own hallway, sometimes for generations. The San Remo, at West 74th Street, is home to many prominent New Yorkers, including Steve Martin, Steven Spielberg, the producers Scott Rudin and James L. Nederlander, and the writers Andrew Tobias and Marshall Brickman.
Interviews with more than a dozen residents and with associates of Bono and Mr. Squier present a consistent picture of events in a place where even the most privileged property owners cannot escape the concerns of neighbors.
The dispute started, residents say, when Bono bought his penthouse in the building’s north tower in April 2003 from Steve Jobs, a founder of Apple Computer, for around the $14.5 million asking price. Mr. Jobs had spent millions on renovations, including adding a residential floor, said the listing broker, Roger Erickson, now a senior managing director at Sotheby’s International Realty. Mr. Jobs never spent a night in the apartment, Mr. Erickson said.
At some point after moving in, Bono (who was born Paul Hewson) and his wife, Ali Hewson, who also own homes in Dublin and the south of France, noticed smoke drifting toward their apartment from chimneys in the roof, according to residents in the building familiar with the situation.
The Hewsons approached the co-op board about the smoke and related chimney problems. “Bono was so nice,” said Leni May, whose husband, Peter May, is a member of the board. “He said, ‘Listen, whatever I can do to get these things working, but it’s emptying into my apartment and I can’t have smoke like that.’ ” One of the Hewsons’ children has asthma, he told the board, Ms. May said. The couple have two daughters, 18 and 15, and two sons, 7 and 5.
Other residents had complained about smoke entering their apartments through faulty flues in the 1930 building. The board banned the use of fireplaces while the problems were studied.
Soon, hackles went up, notably those of Mr. Squier, whose apartment on the third floor includes a fireplace, and Mark Gordon, another resident with a fireplace.
Only about 40 of the building’s roughly 135 apartments have fireplaces, said Phyliss Koch, a real estate broker who has lived in the San Remo for 29 years and has been the listing agent in many sales there. Renovations over the years may have caused chimney ventilation problems, she added. Mr. Gordon sent at least one flier through the building seeking to raise awareness about the fireplace issue, residents said.
The fireplace owners’ position was that the Hewsons had complained when they saw the smoke coming toward their penthouse, not because they had evidence that harmful pollution was entering their living quarters, said a longtime friend and tour manager of Mr. Squier’s.
“It was just assumed that because they could see the exhaust, that would present a problem to their children,” the tour manager said, adding that Mr. Squier, whose last hit was “Rock Me Tonight” in 1984, had discussed the issue in detail with him. (Mr. Squier did not respond to messages left with an assistant seeking comment.)
Mr. Gordon declined to comment, beyond saying: “I don’t want to see this in the press in any way whatsoever. It could only be more damaging to the situation. The situation is a delicate and private one.”
The fireplace complaint is not a case of a prima donna pop star making unreasonable demands, said a representative from Principle Management, the company that manages Bono’s band, U2.
“This is not a Bono issue,” the representative said. “It’s a building issue. It’s about health and safety regulations.” Neither Bono, who was in Germany this week to press the Group of 8 nations for more African aid, nor his wife would comment, the representative said.
Meanwhile, the news from experts brought in by the San Remo to examine the fireplaces has not been good. “Apparently, the mistakes were made before any of us moved into the San Remo,” said Ms. May, who is chairwoman of the Jewish Museum in Manhattan. “It’s to the point where we’re not to code and we can’t fix it. It’s not fixable.”
Other residents said the problem is that the building chimneys end at a height that is hazardously close to the Hewsons’ tower duplex, and that emissions tests have confirmed unsafe levels of smoke. Making the chimneys taller would be expensive and present an eyesore that might run afoul of the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission, the residents said.
One resident, Mitch Miller, the host of the 1960s television program “Sing Along with Mitch,” had little sympathy for the log-lighting set. “If people want fireplaces, let them go live in the country,” said Mr. Miller, who is 95.
Many residents appear to be choosing to let the most passionate ones fight this battle, and saving their energy for other struggles. Mr. Brickman, a co-writer of the movie “Annie Hall” and of the Broadway hit “Jersey Boys,” worked the dispute for comedy. After trying out a few fireplace jokes during a telephone interview, the longtime San Remo resident tinkered with his material and called back. “People who continue to roast meat in their fireplaces,” he said, “should be required to move to the East Side,” adding, “Other than that I have no position.”
The San Remo had its annual shareholders meeting May 8. The fireplace issue was raised, but no resolutions were passed, said building residents who attended.
“People were fighting about other things — pets, this and that,” one longtime resident said.
With the fireplace season over, the dispute seems to have quieted, at least until next winter.
“I’m putting all my effort into trying to make sure the Democrats widen our lead in the Congress and win back the White House,” said Andrew Tobias, a financial writer and San Remo resident who is also treasurer of the Democratic National Committee. “So the fireplace controversy is not high on my list.” He paused. “But if I had a fireplace, it would be high on my list.”
Latest News: Bono, the lead singer of U2 is smoked out!
Among the Rich, a New Dispute Over Air Rights - New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/nyregion/16bono.html?th&emc=th
Among the Rich, a New Dispute Over Air Rights
By ALLEN SALKIN
Published: May 16, 2007
It’s not the war against third world debt, but still.
Skip to next paragraph
Evan Agostini/Getty Images
Bono, the lead singer of U2, the pop music group, lives in a penthouse at the San Remo.
The New York Times
Bono, the lead singer of U2 and a globetrotting activist for social causes, has become involved in a battle that may be as intractable as loan burdens in the developing world — a Manhattan co-op dispute.
One of his adversaries is a fellow rocker, Billy Squier, best known for 1980s songs like “The Stroke.” The two live in the San Remo, a storied building with twin towers that loom over Central Park West. (It is the same building that rejected Madonna in 1985 when she sought to buy an apartment.)
The dispute is over whether hazardous smoke from fireplaces, including Mr. Squier’s, is drifting from chimneys into the penthouse duplex where Bono lives with his wife and four children. About a year ago the co-op board banned the use of fireplaces throughout the building, angering fireplace owners, who love a pine-scented blaze in the city as well as their enhanced property values.
As with other co-op disputes, exact details are hard to pin down because these buildings are essentially private clubs run by a board of elected tenants, and anyone who airs grievances in public risks being ostracized in his own hallway, sometimes for generations. The San Remo, at West 74th Street, is home to many prominent New Yorkers, including Steve Martin, Steven Spielberg, the producers Scott Rudin and James L. Nederlander, and the writers Andrew Tobias and Marshall Brickman.
Interviews with more than a dozen residents and with associates of Bono and Mr. Squier present a consistent picture of events in a place where even the most privileged property owners cannot escape the concerns of neighbors.
The dispute started, residents say, when Bono bought his penthouse in the building’s north tower in April 2003 from Steve Jobs, a founder of Apple Computer, for around the $14.5 million asking price. Mr. Jobs had spent millions on renovations, including adding a residential floor, said the listing broker, Roger Erickson, now a senior managing director at Sotheby’s International Realty. Mr. Jobs never spent a night in the apartment, Mr. Erickson said.
At some point after moving in, Bono (who was born Paul Hewson) and his wife, Ali Hewson, who also own homes in Dublin and the south of France, noticed smoke drifting toward their apartment from chimneys in the roof, according to residents in the building familiar with the situation.
The Hewsons approached the co-op board about the smoke and related chimney problems. “Bono was so nice,” said Leni May, whose husband, Peter May, is a member of the board. “He said, ‘Listen, whatever I can do to get these things working, but it’s emptying into my apartment and I can’t have smoke like that.’ ” One of the Hewsons’ children has asthma, he told the board, Ms. May said. The couple have two daughters, 18 and 15, and two sons, 7 and 5.
Other residents had complained about smoke entering their apartments through faulty flues in the 1930 building. The board banned the use of fireplaces while the problems were studied.
Soon, hackles went up, notably those of Mr. Squier, whose apartment on the third floor includes a fireplace, and Mark Gordon, another resident with a fireplace.
Only about 40 of the building’s roughly 135 apartments have fireplaces, said Phyliss Koch, a real estate broker who has lived in the San Remo for 29 years and has been the listing agent in many sales there. Renovations over the years may have caused chimney ventilation problems, she added. Mr. Gordon sent at least one flier through the building seeking to raise awareness about the fireplace issue, residents said.
The fireplace owners’ position was that the Hewsons had complained when they saw the smoke coming toward their penthouse, not because they had evidence that harmful pollution was entering their living quarters, said a longtime friend and tour manager of Mr. Squier’s.
“It was just assumed that because they could see the exhaust, that would present a problem to their children,” the tour manager said, adding that Mr. Squier, whose last hit was “Rock Me Tonight” in 1984, had discussed the issue in detail with him. (Mr. Squier did not respond to messages left with an assistant seeking comment.)
Mr. Gordon declined to comment, beyond saying: “I don’t want to see this in the press in any way whatsoever. It could only be more damaging to the situation. The situation is a delicate and private one.”
The fireplace complaint is not a case of a prima donna pop star making unreasonable demands, said a representative from Principle Management, the company that manages Bono’s band, U2.
“This is not a Bono issue,” the representative said. “It’s a building issue. It’s about health and safety regulations.” Neither Bono, who was in Germany this week to press the Group of 8 nations for more African aid, nor his wife would comment, the representative said.
Meanwhile, the news from experts brought in by the San Remo to examine the fireplaces has not been good. “Apparently, the mistakes were made before any of us moved into the San Remo,” said Ms. May, who is chairwoman of the Jewish Museum in Manhattan. “It’s to the point where we’re not to code and we can’t fix it. It’s not fixable.”
Other residents said the problem is that the building chimneys end at a height that is hazardously close to the Hewsons’ tower duplex, and that emissions tests have confirmed unsafe levels of smoke. Making the chimneys taller would be expensive and present an eyesore that might run afoul of the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission, the residents said.
One resident, Mitch Miller, the host of the 1960s television program “Sing Along with Mitch,” had little sympathy for the log-lighting set. “If people want fireplaces, let them go live in the country,” said Mr. Miller, who is 95.
Many residents appear to be choosing to let the most passionate ones fight this battle, and saving their energy for other struggles. Mr. Brickman, a co-writer of the movie “Annie Hall” and of the Broadway hit “Jersey Boys,” worked the dispute for comedy. After trying out a few fireplace jokes during a telephone interview, the longtime San Remo resident tinkered with his material and called back. “People who continue to roast meat in their fireplaces,” he said, “should be required to move to the East Side,” adding, “Other than that I have no position.”
The San Remo had its annual shareholders meeting May 8. The fireplace issue was raised, but no resolutions were passed, said building residents who attended.
“People were fighting about other things — pets, this and that,” one longtime resident said.
With the fireplace season over, the dispute seems to have quieted, at least until next winter.
“I’m putting all my effort into trying to make sure the Democrats widen our lead in the Congress and win back the White House,” said Andrew Tobias, a financial writer and San Remo resident who is also treasurer of the Democratic National Committee. “So the fireplace controversy is not high on my list.” He paused. “But if I had a fireplace, it would be high on my list.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)