Posted on the Daily Herald newspaper (Arlington Hts, Illinois) blog site.
A MUST READ FOR EVERYONE!!!!!
These comments (14) were posted on the Daily Herald newspaper blog site in response to a story recently published regarding the negative and deadly effects of involuntarily breathing wood smoke, the efforts by the Breathe Healthy Air Coalition to help those affected, seeking support for relief from wood smoke from elected officials and governmental agencies, and to let the people in the community know that someone does care about their health and quality of life.
We sincerely thank you for your comments.
#1---Please do not ever become discouraged in your work by the comments of people who lack education on the harmful effects of wood burning smoke. My father (John Engelhardt) made it his life long mission to educate people on the harmful effects of wood-burning smoke. He left behind six children with spouses and sixteen grandchildren, who now have their own spouses, and their own children and are all going out into the world and carrying on the education of the harmful effects of wood burning smoke. DO PEOPLE NOT WONDER WHY SO MANY OF OUR CHILDREN ARE CARRYING INHALERS TO BREATHE? IS THERE NOT SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE? THANK YOU FOR THE WORK YOU ARE DOING!!!!!!! Posted by Laurie Schaefer on Sun Feb 24, 2008
#2---I have found the comments posted most interesting. My father, as I posted earlier, was a "stop second hand smoke" crusader for much of his life. It started with his neighbor burning "treated" lumber continuously in their fireplace. If you survive the wintertime fireplace burn, now there is even all the outdoor fire pits. People burning in their outdoor fire pits has gotten out of hand. If I have my windows open on a nice evening, it forces me to close up the windows and turn on the air conditioning as people who have stuffed their "fire pits" with their yard waste have started up their fires even though outdoor burning has been outlawed in our county. I walked down the street one evening to see what one foul, foul odor was and found a man burning a wet rug from his basement. Mind you, I do live in "civilization" where homes are close to each other. Posted by Laurie Schaefer on Wed Feb 27, 2008
#3---I live in North Riverside, and I've been getting the headaches too, as have others in my family. The pollution here is already bad, but the moment that my neighbor a few houses down starts up his hickory smoke-spewing fireplace, I get a headache that can be likened to a migraine. My throat begins to burn and my eyes become red and sore. This is not allergies - of that I am certain! There is a direct correlation between the chimney smoke being emitted and the sudden, severe onset of these symptoms.
I've often wondered how anyone could be so selfish and uncaring about the well-being of others as to place their entertainment through sitting and staring at a fire, or the few cents saved on heat above the health and safety of their entire neighborhood.
With regard to the comment about having things that I'd like banned as well, there is really very little that I would not sacrifice to have this stopped. No one who has experienced this would disagree with the movement to have this destructive, dangerous practice reduced. Posted by NR Resident on Sun Feb 24, 2008
#4---JIMB, I think before you speak you may want to do some research. I am not against fireplaces in the home. I wouldn't have one because they cause your home to stink and nothing but a waste of space and alot of work in my opinion to take care of.
The guy in the article does have a point. They are a health risk, a fire hazard, so what can be done to remedy the situation.
Maybe it would be best to have a residential homes and condo's have gas. Restaurants use wood only if needed, like the Pizza oven guy. What is wrong with that? Posted by callp on Sun Feb 24, 2008
#5---You are all grasping at straws to make personal attacks instead of focusing on the issue. If any of you have PhDs from Harvard or Stanford, you may comment on the science. If you don't, perhaps you are just reacting emotionally and don't know any other way to respond other than to threaten or whine. (Have you ever considered how ironic it is when you whine about the messenger instead of the issue?)
Researcher Dr. Wayne Ott, Stanford University, after 15 years of monitoring neighborhood air sums up wood smoke pollution this way:
"... this is the one source of air pollution that produces fine particles and gases containing a multitude of toxic substances and carcinogens, and fine particles are associated with morbidity and mortality in urban areas. For those on the receiving end of a neighbor's fireplace or wood stove, it is often similar to living with a chain smoker. The pollutant exposure is involuntary, repetitive, caused by a tiny minority of burners, and composed of a great array of toxic chemicals and cancer-causing compounds.." (Wayne Ott, Ph.D. Stanford University, Civil Engineering and Statistics, 2008)
http://burningissues.org/car-www/science/Ott-12-year-study.html. Posted by ThinkFirst on Mon Feb 25, 2008
#6---For the rest of you attacking the messenger, if a Staford PhD wasn't credible enough to speak on behalf of the science, consider a Harvard PhD...
"Particulate pollution is the most important contaminant in our air. ...we know that when particle levels go up, people die. " (Joel Schwartz, Ph.D., Harvard School of Public Health, E Magazine, Sept./Oct. 2002)
Have you ever considered that educated and well read activists like this are the ones saving you and your children from your own ignorance? Smoking in public places was banned to protect the health and liberties of those around you. Do you smoke around your children? How about in a closed car? No, we know it kills!
Should you not want to protect your own health, I guess that's your own liberty. I suspect that that's not what is trying to be controlled, so do as you will in the privacy of your own home. At issue, is that your outdoor wood boilers and fire pits are the ones that dump the toxins on the neighborhood! If you keep it within your own property, then I'm sure that this wouldn't be an issue any longer. Can't do that though, can you?
Please, Think First. Blog Second. Posted by ThinkFirst on Mon Feb 25, 2008
#7---Many suggest that the EPA should be involved and that good neighbors should respect one another. I could not agree more. I have seen and experienced first hand the agony experienced by individuals and similarly the complete unwillingness of wood burners to work towards a solution.
This is not about one man's headache. This is not about a wood fired pizza. It's significantly more serious involving Outdoor Wood Boilers, Wood Stoves, Firepits, fireplaces in DENSELY populated areas. There are countless horror stories throughout the country where entire families are forced to move because of concrete and negative impacts on their health and THEIR RIGHT to health.
During research, I found a fantastic website that not only details the problem, but also has the statistics that scientifically prove the danger. Check out this site...if you have questions, call the founder Mary J. Rozenberg and she'll back up the PhDs "opinions" with data.
http://burningissues.org
BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, if you REALLY want to understand this issue, read the forum:
http://burningissues.org/forum/phpBB2/index.php
Families throughout the country suffer the negative effects , read their stories. Posted by ThinkFirst on Mon Feb 25, 2008
#8---Again, you give us an AVERAGE. It doesn't take a scientist to ascertain that when I am located 100 feet downwind of an obvious air pollution source (I can SEE the smoke coming at me) the effluent plume arriving at my property-line is about
99% from that source. I said 80% in order to be conservative, but since you see fit to criticize that figure, I'm going to estimate what it really might be; yes that is a guess, but I think not too far from the actual transient value of localized
concentration of airborne particles. State-wide (or otherwise area-wide) averaging doesn't amount to a hill of beans to the victimized homeowner recipient of obnoxious-smelling, and health-degrading wood smoke, blatantly arriving from a discernibly substantiated (seeing is believing) origin.
Since you are so fond of attempting to take apart my statements by using these useless averages, why don't I call you: "Mr. Average Guy."
Here is food for thought. Consider this observation:
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" - Benjamin Disraeli. Posted by Who Owns The Air on Mon Feb 25, 2008
#9---Clap, clap, clap.??? Thank you for making this some sort of game show for entertainment. It's not...This is a serious health issue which is caused by people against their neighbors and families WITHOUT their permission. If you want to eat fatty foods all day and skip exercise, that will have a serious health implications -- but you know...it's your life, go ahead and create YOUR OWN health issues! (Just, please don't make us pay for your health insurance!)
This is different. This is a community health problem caused by the "romantic" fallacy that crackling logs (and ejecting the poisons out of the chimney and away from your house) is a God given right. Tell me what God in any religion says that you should harm your neighbors because you like the smell of combustion? I agree this is "PERSONAL RIGHTS" and "LIBERTY" issue -- it's the rights of the victim, in this case, the neighborhood. The RIGHTS and HEALTH of those outside the home of the burning wood are the ones that are being grossly violated.
Above, it was suggested that this is about neighbors getting along. I ask you, if your neighbor said that it aggravates their child's asthma, would you stop burning wood for them? Posted by ThinkFirst on Mon Feb 25, 2008
#10---At this point, I recommend that we move this to a long term discussion forum that's ideal for a debate. It will also open up the audience well beyond the few people that are reading the comments on a story that is no longer on the front page. In this forum, you can learn that unregulated wood burning IS actually worse than the EPA regulated factories which undergo monitoring and controlled production along with scrubbers that significantly minimize their pollution, whereas a residential chimney 20 feet away just spews out all pollutants with zero monitoring and regulation by the EPA (for now).
I encourage more information like Trzupek posted, especially where we can discuss all the science and health implications, beyond just the simulated toxins. It's an interesting simulation deserves analysis and consideration of all factors that contribute to the impacts on others.
I thank those that put thought into their comments (instead of bashing an individual) and look forward to continued discussion at:
http://burningissues.org
Think First. Blog second. Posted by ThinkFirst on Mon Feb 25, 2008
#11---I disagree about fireplace smoke "rising." This only happens for a brief period, then the effluent sinks to the ground level, especially in very low ambient temperatures. The particles simply do not possess sufficient kinetic energy to remain buoyant. They do not rise into the stratosphere.
Random (Brownian) motion and high KE is necessary to maintain buoyancy of a colloidal heavier-than-air smoke particle. The colder the air molecules, the less the air-induced buoyancy. The tiniest airborne particles exhibit elastic and momentum-conserving collisions with energetic gas molecules, therefore can remain in the air stream. But they gradually lose this KE, and due to their mass, simply sink lower, to ground-level.
They can then collide with, therefore deposit, on to an available low-temperature, energy-absorbing solid/liquid surface. On a microscopic scale, the airborne particles collide with a cold solid/liquid surface, and thus rapidly lose their kinetic energy. Thus smoke effluent will thus condense (actually desublimate) on to cold surfaces. CONTINUED...posted by Who Owns The Air on Tue Feb 26, 2008
On a macroscopic scale, this is similar to a bouncing rubber ball. The ball will eventually come to rest on a surface, stripped of all of its kinetic energy. It thusly 'deposits' itself on the floor.
Your assertion that wood smoke effluent "rises" in a continual process, is simply false. Yes, high winds may carry the effluent over a distance. But they do sink.
And a close proximity to a smoke plume is not "harmless," as is your dubious claim. I suggest that you commence to research this pertinent subject carefully.
Moderator: sorry for exceeding the 1200-character limit. Posted by Who Owns The Air on Tue Feb 26, 2008
#12---"You don't have the 'right' to tell me what I can and cannot do--that IS in the Constitution."
I beg to differ on this comment also, have you not heard of our statuary law? Show me your direct quote in the Constitution that says this? Ever heard of mala in se and mala in prohibita?
As for the EPA not helping let me rephrase, The U.S. EPA IS DOING something about this issue, as I posted in their fact sheet above. I am referring to the Illinois EPA whom won't do anything about this is issue.
Ohio is currently in the process of setting a standard in this very subject, other states have already set the standard. (See the list on my page). So what I am saying is Illinois needs to catch up to the curve that other states already have enacted.
So once again do you know what the person from the ILEPA was asked on the stand at my hearing?
"What is air pollution?"
Her answer after a long pause: "I don't know"
Mind you this is someone who supposedly has worked for ILEPA in the air division for like 12-15 years. So that is a reflection of our state agency, read the law section on my page maybe you'll learn something. Posted by Freedom of Air on Wed Feb 27, 2008
#13---And I quote...
"No person shall.......be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
5th Amendment U.S. Constitution
Illinois Law:
2) (415 ILCS 5/) Environmental Protection Act.
TITLE I: GENERAL PROVISIONS
(415 ILCS 5/1) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 1001)
(415 ILCS 5/3.115) (was 415 ILCS 5/3.02)
Sec. 3.115. Air pollution. "Air pollution" is the presence in the atmosphere of one or more contaminants in sufficient quantities and of such characteristics and duration as to be injurious to human, plant, or animal life, to health, or to property, or to unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property.
(Source: P.A. 92‑574, eff. 6‑26‑02.)
Let me guess because it doesn't say wood smoke that doesn't count right? Posted by Freedom of Air on Wed Feb 27, 2008
#14---A woodburners' contention seems to be: (I've heard this idea ad-nauseam) "The smoke smells nice - how could something which smells nice possibly be harmful"" Let me enlighten all of you to a pertinent fact: Hydrogen cyanide (the gas used by the Nazis) has the not-unpleasant scent of roasted almonds. Yet this gas is deadly. So much for nice smell equals harmless! There is a well-known scientific principle known as "Haber's Rule." This rule states that "High Concentration/Short Exposure Time,
equals Low Concentration/Long Exposure Time" of poisonous gases. This principle has already been applied to airborne particle matter. That is, a person exposed to chronic long-term second-hand smoke pollution, inhales the same overall amount of particles as a firefighter entering a burning wood structure does, but over a
longer time interval. Thus the effects are cumulative and are still detrimental to health.
My credentials - I am a chemist, teach chemistry and physics at the college level, and have been researching particle matter pollution for several years. Posted by Who Owns The Air on Wed Feb 27, 2008
Web Master Note---thank you for your sincere, personal, and informative comments.
Ban Wood Smoke-San Jose, Ca.--Letter to Editor
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Ban wood smoke from San Jose
From the readers of the Mercury News
Article Launched: 01/03/2008 01:46:46 AM PST
Ban wood smoke
from San Jose
Outside with the dogs for their nightly constitution, I take a moment to stare into the sky and contemplate the stars, breathe in deep, anticipating icy crisp air to brighten my lungs - only to be choked by noxious wood-burned air. We begin 2008, a society rich in technology and increasingly "green" focused, and yet I am breathing air that no purported civilized society should be inflicted with. Wood-burning fireplaces cannot continue to spew smoke in a city the size of San Jose. Immediate action needs to be taken, following precedents set by other large cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco. Our lungs depend on it.
Courtney Harrison
San Jose
From the readers of the Mercury News
Article Launched: 01/03/2008 01:46:46 AM PST
Ban wood smoke
from San Jose
Outside with the dogs for their nightly constitution, I take a moment to stare into the sky and contemplate the stars, breathe in deep, anticipating icy crisp air to brighten my lungs - only to be choked by noxious wood-burned air. We begin 2008, a society rich in technology and increasingly "green" focused, and yet I am breathing air that no purported civilized society should be inflicted with. Wood-burning fireplaces cannot continue to spew smoke in a city the size of San Jose. Immediate action needs to be taken, following precedents set by other large cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco. Our lungs depend on it.
Courtney Harrison
San Jose
Smoke Gets in Your Lungs:Outdoor Wood Boilers in New York State
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Smoke Gets in Your Lungs:
Outdoor Wood Boilers in New York State
October 2005
Eliot Spitzer
Attorney General of New York State
Environmental Protection Bureau
October 2005
Excerpts from Report
Full report..
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2005/aug/August%202005.pdf
Executive Summary
Homeowners, especially in rural communities, are increasingly turning to wood burning units installed outside the home, known as outdoor wood boilers (OWBs), to heat their homes. OWB sales have tripled in New York since 1999, with over 7,000 OWBs sold from 1999 to 2004.
The New York State Office of the Attorney General (OAG) Environmental Protection Bureau reviewed information on OWBs and analyzed the manufacture, distribution, testing, and sales of OWBs in New York State. We found that while OWBs are advertised as a clean and economical way to heat one’s house and water, OWBs may be among the dirtiest and least economical modes of heating, especially when improperly used. Even when used properly, OWBs emit, on an average per hour basis, about four times as much fine particulate matter pollution as conventional wood stoves, about 12 times as much fine particle pollution as EPA-certified wood stoves, 1000 times more than oil furnaces, and 1800 times more than gas furnaces. Such emissions are significant because fine particulate matter pollution has both short-term and long-term health effects.
II. OWB Pollution
State health and environmental agencies have received a growing number of complaints from owners and neighbors that OWBs produce thick, acrid, foul smoke that permeates buildings and homes, causing not only a nuisance, but also environmental degradation and health problems. Even when operated using clean seasoned wood, OWBs can emit significant pollution because the basic design of the OWB causes fuel to burn incompletely, or smolder, resulting in thick smoke and high particulate emissions. The problem is aggravated when other materials, such as wet wood, processed wood, and garbage are burned. The short OWB chimney and reduced draft often fail to disperse the smoke, resulting in more concentrated pollution at lower heights reaching residents and neighbors. Exposure to this smoke, like other pollutants, can cause or contribute to short-term health harms such as eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, coughing and shortness of breath, and may exacerbate asthma or trigger asthma attacks. Chronic exposure to smoke can cause long-term effects such as asthma, heart and lung disease, and cancer.
A. OWB Operation and Smoke
Wood smoke is one of the primary contributors to certain types of air pollution in the United States,5 especially in rural areas. Even though wood combustion accounts for only about nine percent of the nation’s home heating needs, it accounts for an estimated forty-five percent of the total fine particulate matter directly released by all fuel combustion used for residential heating.6
B. Human Health Impacts of OWB Smoke
Exposure to various components of wood smoke and the contaminants found in wood smoke has been associated with adverse human health impacts, as discussed below. The likelihood of health effects depends on many factors, such as the amount of smoke to which one is exposed, the frequency and duration of exposure, and the sensitivity of the individual exposed.
Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5)
Exposure to PM 2.5 can cause short-term health effects such as eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, coughing, sneezing, runny nose, and shortness of breath and can also affect lung function and worsen medical conditions such as asthma and heart disease. While the upper respiratory system will filter out particles larger than ten millionths of a meter (or microns), PM 2.5 can bypass the body’s natural filtering mechanisms to lodge deep in the lungs.16 Scientific studies have linked increases in daily PM 2.5 exposure with increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospital admissions, emergency department visits and deaths. Recent studies suggest that long-term exposure to PM 2.5 may be associated with increased rates of bronchitis and reduced lung function, and increased cancer risk. People with breathing problems (such as asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, or pneumonia) and/or heart problems, and certain members of
the general population (such as children and the elderly) may be particularly sensitive to PM 2.5.17 More than 60,000 deaths each year in the United States can be attributed to exposure to air polluted with PM 2.5.18 Respiratory and cardiovascular diseases have been associated directly with wood smoke emissions.19
For example, a Seattle area study noted increases in asthma and other respiratory disease and declines in lung function among children exposed to wood smoke.20 Long term exposure to wood smoke, like other emissions containing PM 2.5, can lead to chronic bronchitis, obstructive lung disease, and an increased risk of cancer.21
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
PAHs are a group of chemicals that are formed during the incomplete combustion of coal, oil, gas, wood, garbage, and other organic substances such as tobacco. PAHs generally occur as complex mixtures often containing hundreds of different PAHs. Tests on mice show that exposure to PAHs during pregnancy results in higher rates of birth defects, lower birth weights, and difficulty reproducing. Animal studies have also shown that both short-term and long-term exposure to PAHs can inhibit the body’s ability to fight disease. Some PAHs have been categorized as probable human carcinogens (cancer causing chemicals) by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.22
Editor’s personal note----The above are only excerpts from this report. Please go to the web site listed above for the complete report. Wood smoke kills!!!! No doubt about it!
Outdoor Wood Boilers in New York State
October 2005
Eliot Spitzer
Attorney General of New York State
Environmental Protection Bureau
October 2005
Excerpts from Report
Full report..
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2005/aug/August%202005.pdf
Executive Summary
Homeowners, especially in rural communities, are increasingly turning to wood burning units installed outside the home, known as outdoor wood boilers (OWBs), to heat their homes. OWB sales have tripled in New York since 1999, with over 7,000 OWBs sold from 1999 to 2004.
The New York State Office of the Attorney General (OAG) Environmental Protection Bureau reviewed information on OWBs and analyzed the manufacture, distribution, testing, and sales of OWBs in New York State. We found that while OWBs are advertised as a clean and economical way to heat one’s house and water, OWBs may be among the dirtiest and least economical modes of heating, especially when improperly used. Even when used properly, OWBs emit, on an average per hour basis, about four times as much fine particulate matter pollution as conventional wood stoves, about 12 times as much fine particle pollution as EPA-certified wood stoves, 1000 times more than oil furnaces, and 1800 times more than gas furnaces. Such emissions are significant because fine particulate matter pollution has both short-term and long-term health effects.
II. OWB Pollution
State health and environmental agencies have received a growing number of complaints from owners and neighbors that OWBs produce thick, acrid, foul smoke that permeates buildings and homes, causing not only a nuisance, but also environmental degradation and health problems. Even when operated using clean seasoned wood, OWBs can emit significant pollution because the basic design of the OWB causes fuel to burn incompletely, or smolder, resulting in thick smoke and high particulate emissions. The problem is aggravated when other materials, such as wet wood, processed wood, and garbage are burned. The short OWB chimney and reduced draft often fail to disperse the smoke, resulting in more concentrated pollution at lower heights reaching residents and neighbors. Exposure to this smoke, like other pollutants, can cause or contribute to short-term health harms such as eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, coughing and shortness of breath, and may exacerbate asthma or trigger asthma attacks. Chronic exposure to smoke can cause long-term effects such as asthma, heart and lung disease, and cancer.
A. OWB Operation and Smoke
Wood smoke is one of the primary contributors to certain types of air pollution in the United States,5 especially in rural areas. Even though wood combustion accounts for only about nine percent of the nation’s home heating needs, it accounts for an estimated forty-five percent of the total fine particulate matter directly released by all fuel combustion used for residential heating.6
B. Human Health Impacts of OWB Smoke
Exposure to various components of wood smoke and the contaminants found in wood smoke has been associated with adverse human health impacts, as discussed below. The likelihood of health effects depends on many factors, such as the amount of smoke to which one is exposed, the frequency and duration of exposure, and the sensitivity of the individual exposed.
Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5)
Exposure to PM 2.5 can cause short-term health effects such as eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, coughing, sneezing, runny nose, and shortness of breath and can also affect lung function and worsen medical conditions such as asthma and heart disease. While the upper respiratory system will filter out particles larger than ten millionths of a meter (or microns), PM 2.5 can bypass the body’s natural filtering mechanisms to lodge deep in the lungs.16 Scientific studies have linked increases in daily PM 2.5 exposure with increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospital admissions, emergency department visits and deaths. Recent studies suggest that long-term exposure to PM 2.5 may be associated with increased rates of bronchitis and reduced lung function, and increased cancer risk. People with breathing problems (such as asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, or pneumonia) and/or heart problems, and certain members of
the general population (such as children and the elderly) may be particularly sensitive to PM 2.5.17 More than 60,000 deaths each year in the United States can be attributed to exposure to air polluted with PM 2.5.18 Respiratory and cardiovascular diseases have been associated directly with wood smoke emissions.19
For example, a Seattle area study noted increases in asthma and other respiratory disease and declines in lung function among children exposed to wood smoke.20 Long term exposure to wood smoke, like other emissions containing PM 2.5, can lead to chronic bronchitis, obstructive lung disease, and an increased risk of cancer.21
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
PAHs are a group of chemicals that are formed during the incomplete combustion of coal, oil, gas, wood, garbage, and other organic substances such as tobacco. PAHs generally occur as complex mixtures often containing hundreds of different PAHs. Tests on mice show that exposure to PAHs during pregnancy results in higher rates of birth defects, lower birth weights, and difficulty reproducing. Animal studies have also shown that both short-term and long-term exposure to PAHs can inhibit the body’s ability to fight disease. Some PAHs have been categorized as probable human carcinogens (cancer causing chemicals) by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.22
Editor’s personal note----The above are only excerpts from this report. Please go to the web site listed above for the complete report. Wood smoke kills!!!! No doubt about it!
Change in fire ordinance will open door to pollution, smell
Monday, February 4, 2008
TheTimesHerald.com
Letter to the Editor
January 30, 2008
Change in fire ordinance will open door to pollution, smell
I was distressed to read the Port Huron City Council found it advisable to approve changes in city ordinances - ones that banned "recreational" fires in residential neighborhoods. I can best explain my objections by relating my personal experiences with the sort of recreational fires the council approved.
Last summer, some of my neighbors started using one of those clay-pot fire pits. In the hottest weeks of the summer, these people burned wood and laid down an insufferable blanket of wood smoke. The surrounding neighbors (who did not have central air conditioning) were forced to endure the late-night blanket of ground-hugging smoke (no chimney required!).
The lady living next to me, (the immediate neighbor of the party people) had young children prone to a common respiratory problem, asthma. I am a recovering heart-attack victim.
Eventually, the party people discovered it was convenient to use the dying embers of the recreational fire to consume paper plates, plastic drinking cups, and eating utensils left over from the late-night drinking and eating binge. My home smelled like a trash incinerator.
Why, after all the efforts to stop smoking in public places and restaurants, would the council find it in anyone's best interest to approve what will become a troublesome, unregulated source of recreational pollution? What were council members thinking?
A plague on all their houses.
JAMES MEYER
Port Huron, Jan. 30
http://www.thetimesherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080204/OPINION03/802040315/1014/OPINION
Editor's note—--Yes...I agree...”A plague on all their houses.”
This is what Elk Grove Village, Illinois did (lifted a ban) in 2004, and even with receiving overwhelming information on the deadly effects of wood smoke, and pleas and personal testimony from people, EGV will NOT reinstate the ban on outdoor wood burning fireplaces and fire pits as of today, February 2, 2008. Amazing, isn't it!!!!
Let's also remember that Lake/Cook/DuPage/McHenry counties and our elected Illinois state senators and representatives have totally ignored this deadly air pollution and anti-health crisis-wood smoke-which involuntarily enters our homes and lungs. Their inaction to not help the millions of people in Illinois being affected by wood smoke emissions is very, very sad.
Letter to the Editor
January 30, 2008
Change in fire ordinance will open door to pollution, smell
I was distressed to read the Port Huron City Council found it advisable to approve changes in city ordinances - ones that banned "recreational" fires in residential neighborhoods. I can best explain my objections by relating my personal experiences with the sort of recreational fires the council approved.
Last summer, some of my neighbors started using one of those clay-pot fire pits. In the hottest weeks of the summer, these people burned wood and laid down an insufferable blanket of wood smoke. The surrounding neighbors (who did not have central air conditioning) were forced to endure the late-night blanket of ground-hugging smoke (no chimney required!).
The lady living next to me, (the immediate neighbor of the party people) had young children prone to a common respiratory problem, asthma. I am a recovering heart-attack victim.
Eventually, the party people discovered it was convenient to use the dying embers of the recreational fire to consume paper plates, plastic drinking cups, and eating utensils left over from the late-night drinking and eating binge. My home smelled like a trash incinerator.
Why, after all the efforts to stop smoking in public places and restaurants, would the council find it in anyone's best interest to approve what will become a troublesome, unregulated source of recreational pollution? What were council members thinking?
A plague on all their houses.
JAMES MEYER
Port Huron, Jan. 30
http://www.thetimesherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080204/OPINION03/802040315/1014/OPINION
Editor's note—--Yes...I agree...”A plague on all their houses.”
This is what Elk Grove Village, Illinois did (lifted a ban) in 2004, and even with receiving overwhelming information on the deadly effects of wood smoke, and pleas and personal testimony from people, EGV will NOT reinstate the ban on outdoor wood burning fireplaces and fire pits as of today, February 2, 2008. Amazing, isn't it!!!!
Let's also remember that Lake/Cook/DuPage/McHenry counties and our elected Illinois state senators and representatives have totally ignored this deadly air pollution and anti-health crisis-wood smoke-which involuntarily enters our homes and lungs. Their inaction to not help the millions of people in Illinois being affected by wood smoke emissions is very, very sad.
Wood smoke, other pollutants inflame delicate lungs
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Wood smoke, other pollutants inflame delicate lungs
The Napa Valley Register newspaper---California
By NATALIE HOFFMAN
Register Staff Writer
Saturday, February 02, 2008
If you enjoy unwinding in front of a crackling fire, you may be disappointed to learn that the ritual produces a menacing outdoor air pollutant — fine particulate matter. Karen Schkolnick of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District said smoke from older wood burning stoves and fireplaces generate the lion’s share of the pollutant during winter months.
Dr. Karen Smith, public health officer for Napa County, said anyone with heart or lung conditions should avoid the outdoors when wood smoke is prevalent — especially on still evenings. “If you can smell it, this means that there is a substantial concentration of particles in the air,” she said.
Once inhaled, the substance — known to exacerbate lung and heart conditions — is absorbed into the bloodstream and can deposit itself inside plaque in blood vessels, said Dr. Larry Posner, a Napa pulmonologist.
As it turns out, Napa County residents may be inhaling more than their share — in 2007, air measurement stations in Napa and Berkeley showed higher average levels of fine particulate matter than stations in Benicia, San Francisco, Livermore, San Jose, Vallejo and Redwood City, according to data from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
This is particularly troubling news for locals who have been diagnosed with asthma, emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other lung diseases. According to the Napa County Community Health Needs Assessment, released in November 2007, Napa County residents are more likely to have asthma than other Californians. Local asthmatics also seem to suffer more attacks. Almost 46 percent of Napa County’s asthmatic children and teens reported having an asthma attack in 2003 — the most recent year for which data was available — while the state average was about 36 percent, the assessment stated.
Posner said in addition to lung diseases sufferers, children, seniors and those with chronic heart disease are seeing the most negative health effects. Napa County residents who suffer from heart and lung disease should keep an eye on local levels of fine particulate matter before venturing outdoors, he said.
For real-time fine particulate matter measurements taken at Napa’s Jefferson Street station, visit the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Web site at www.baaqmd.gov.
Exposure to fine particulate matter like that in wood smoke can cause a throng of negative health effects, according to Jenny Bard, assistant director of communications and advocacy for the American Lung Association of California. “Research has linked particle pollution to respiratory disease, heart attacks, asthma attacks and strokes as well as increased admissions to the hospital for respiratory and heart conditions,” she stated in a press release. “Scientific evidence linking particle pollution to adverse health effects is so overwhelming that last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cut by half the allowable levels in the air.”
Previously set at 65 micrograms per cubic meter of air over a 24-hour period, acceptable levels of fine particulate matter were slashed to 35 micrograms in 2006, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Editor's note....Wood smoke levels are not acceptable at any level.
The Napa Valley Register newspaper---California
By NATALIE HOFFMAN
Register Staff Writer
Saturday, February 02, 2008
If you enjoy unwinding in front of a crackling fire, you may be disappointed to learn that the ritual produces a menacing outdoor air pollutant — fine particulate matter. Karen Schkolnick of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District said smoke from older wood burning stoves and fireplaces generate the lion’s share of the pollutant during winter months.
Dr. Karen Smith, public health officer for Napa County, said anyone with heart or lung conditions should avoid the outdoors when wood smoke is prevalent — especially on still evenings. “If you can smell it, this means that there is a substantial concentration of particles in the air,” she said.
Once inhaled, the substance — known to exacerbate lung and heart conditions — is absorbed into the bloodstream and can deposit itself inside plaque in blood vessels, said Dr. Larry Posner, a Napa pulmonologist.
As it turns out, Napa County residents may be inhaling more than their share — in 2007, air measurement stations in Napa and Berkeley showed higher average levels of fine particulate matter than stations in Benicia, San Francisco, Livermore, San Jose, Vallejo and Redwood City, according to data from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
This is particularly troubling news for locals who have been diagnosed with asthma, emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other lung diseases. According to the Napa County Community Health Needs Assessment, released in November 2007, Napa County residents are more likely to have asthma than other Californians. Local asthmatics also seem to suffer more attacks. Almost 46 percent of Napa County’s asthmatic children and teens reported having an asthma attack in 2003 — the most recent year for which data was available — while the state average was about 36 percent, the assessment stated.
Posner said in addition to lung diseases sufferers, children, seniors and those with chronic heart disease are seeing the most negative health effects. Napa County residents who suffer from heart and lung disease should keep an eye on local levels of fine particulate matter before venturing outdoors, he said.
For real-time fine particulate matter measurements taken at Napa’s Jefferson Street station, visit the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Web site at www.baaqmd.gov.
Exposure to fine particulate matter like that in wood smoke can cause a throng of negative health effects, according to Jenny Bard, assistant director of communications and advocacy for the American Lung Association of California. “Research has linked particle pollution to respiratory disease, heart attacks, asthma attacks and strokes as well as increased admissions to the hospital for respiratory and heart conditions,” she stated in a press release. “Scientific evidence linking particle pollution to adverse health effects is so overwhelming that last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cut by half the allowable levels in the air.”
Previously set at 65 micrograms per cubic meter of air over a 24-hour period, acceptable levels of fine particulate matter were slashed to 35 micrograms in 2006, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Editor's note....Wood smoke levels are not acceptable at any level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)