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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment