Citizens for Environmental Health
About Us.....
Our Commitment---
We will support citizens with current information about health related environmental issues, and through our united efforts, will promote vitality, health, harmony and sustainability. Together, we reach forward with informed vision and fortitude. Citizens for environmental health act in the pursuit of one positive intention, to do whatever it takes to safeguard all life.
We are committed to all aspects of prevention. Our focus is on the air we breathe; on the grass we walk and play on, as well as how we use household energy, transportation, and the safety of consumer products. We realize the importance of being able to trust that the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink. The policies we endorse serve to ensure maximum health in healthy environments. We realize the need to rethink several beliefs--and time is of essence. We are committed to exploring behaviors, which have become habits. We see the need to evaluate our present actions, as these are the underlying cause of the many challenges that we face in these times of climate crisis.
We are dedicated to safeguarding all life. We are committed to helping citizens learn current and respected information so that together we discover a better, happier, joyful, and safer way to live. We are deeply committed to protecting the health of all citizens, especially the children. We embrace ways of strengthening communication about what we think we know, how we think and what we believe we know, so that we act with cautious stewardship to ensure clean, safe tobacco- and chimney-smoke free air.
We Believe---
We believe that we have borrowed the earth and the air from our children and we must give it back clean and inviting and as safe as possible. We believe that we must do whatever it takes to ensure smoke free air, since air is essential to life.
We believe strongly in the importance of protecting the environment and citizens’ health. We are especially committed to the importance of the right to breathe smoke free air. We believe that living in safe communities is our vital right. In the interest of social justice, being free to breathe clean chimney-smoke-free air is a given right and that this right is not to be compromised. We believe that clean air is essential to life and to healthy neighborhoods. We recognize that it is our duty and responsibility as custodians, to protect children from all dangers. We acknowledge that chimney smoke is a carcinogen, a grave and unnecessary danger to children. We believe that all smoke including EPA smoke is a critical health risk and this unnecessary pollution must be stopped. The present is our gift to future generations; therefore it is our duty to embrace the safest and highest environmental standards possible. We encourage all organizations, regardless of faith, or geographical borders, to perpetuate positive actions. We invoke linear togetherness that encourages shared vision, mutual arm in arm support, and activities, that unite and guide us as we courageously face challenges of global warming. We acknowledge the challenge of changing old ways behaviors and recognize that sacrifices must be made to adjust to climate change new realities. We strongly promote The Precautionary Principle in practice and policy, therefore we expect and oblige our elected officials to act to ensure sustainability, and to do all in their power to the health of all citizens. We expect policy that reduces risks and ensures safe sustainable environments. One can truly make a difference through informed forward thinking, political will, transparency, responsibility and, of course, doing what is right. Our motto: Together for Better. We invite you to join as we believe we must act with urgency today, to do what is must be done, “For the sake of the kids”, for now and forever.
Who we are----
We are a preventive action-oriented environmental association, dedicated to ensuring the maximum protection of all citizens, all life, in the healthiest and safest environment possible.
Our Motto----
“Together for Better!” THEME 1- Clean air is essential to life
Our Mission----
WHAT WE DO NOW
As a global citizens' group, we, Citizensforenvironmentalhealth.com, commit to being forerunners of change. With respect for the earth, and all life, we are spirited and above all determined to make a difference. We are enthusiastically dedicated to sharing current information on prevention, on how to act, so as to safeguard air quality. We are determined to expand public knowledge about all issues of prevention.
Currently, our focus is wood smoke. We provide our guests and members with vital information on this subject. We ensure that this information is accurate and that the source is highly respected. We access reference material from the most qualified institutions and ensure that it is informative, factual and current. We assist in the expansion of awareness by providing material that is non-biased, from a reliable source, and that it furthers the Community Right to Know. We provide information that has been documented over the last two decades. We provide documented reference material from thousands of studies on health risks and wood smoke pollution. We demonstrate in these documents the critical health risks facing citizens who are placed in harm’s way from breathing neighbourhood chimney smoke. We recognize citizens have been denied this knowledge and believe it is crucial to provide this information to all citizens. We clearly oppose all wood burning and stress the concern for the dangers of misguided false information about EPA Stove Smoke. We are determined to reveal the truths about total carcinogenic emissions in EPA and all neighbourhood smoke. We realize that we, as responsible citizens, and as an informed society, must stop the dissemination of false information. We discourage and demand a stop to this fatal habit.
We expose issues of non-disclosure, EPA conflict of interest and government inaction with regard to smoke emissions. We maintain and uphold citizens’ right to truth and transparency. We are committed to expanding information and suggest that, by denying Community Right to Know, as well as ignoring the Precautionary Principle, by limiting access to information, ignoring vital facts and providing information that is biased, the government is exposing innocent citizens, especially children, to ambient air which threatens their very lives.
Our mission is to ensure that publications and promotional material from industry and government institutions address the truths about emissions, are transparent and provide clear testimony about the false claims of up to 9O% of emissions that in reality are less than one percent, these fraudulent designed statements pose critical risk, can cause mortal harm .
We wish to alert the public about the suggestive false claims about smoke from Certified EPA Stoves. We will ensure that this vital information is no longer hidden, but, on the contrary, becomes common knowledge.
We oppose all wood burning; acknowledge the risk and danger to life that that results from smoke pollution. We are strongly opposed to the burning of wood as a secondary or primary heating source, and work towards ensuring public rightful access to smoke free air. We maintain that the practice of burning wood must be curtailed, as it constitutes a grave and unnecessary danger to society. We oppose all wood burning, except in emergency situations.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Welcome to all citizens from all corners of the world.
Here, at Citizens for Environmental Health, we invite you to take hands and with widespread energy and through groundbreaking intention, we will awaken to a new positive and purposeful direction.
Welcome to where a new thought form will be recognized and, from where, instead of failure, we will discover, manifest, and create change. We acknowledge that the hardest problem to fix is the one we do not know exists.
We know that air is essential to all life. However most people know very little about the air that we breathe in wood smoke neighbourhoods Unfortunately, people have not been told much about this smoke polluted air. So, with this site, we will do what we must do to give ourselves the best chance to live cancer risk free and replenish our neighbourhoods with safe smoke free air. Welcome to where we will replenish the air.
Smoke is the antithesis of air. Smoke, wood burning, we have romanticized and somehow taken for granted, as harmless. Far from harmless, harmful smoke, produced from burning tree parts in 2008, is the world’s third highest source of pollution and this smoke is a real threat to our health and all life on the planet. This burning smoke emits billions of tons of emissions, carcinogenic chemicals, carbon, benzene, fumes, dioxin and hexacholorbenzene into the air that we breathe each day.
Little is known about this second hand neighbourhood smoke. Yet, thousands of studies conclude that residential smoke is a major cause of all illness, heart disease, stroke, asthma, diabetes, all cancers, including breast cancer and even death. Smoke produced from residential wood burning costs 24% of the total green house gases in Canada each year. In Quebec , where emissions have grown 20% in the last five years, this smoke causes 55% of particulate matter, a deadly molecular soot pollution that enters deep into the lungs. And, all that smoke, people know very little about. People deserve and have the right to know. We think differently, we act more responsibly, when we know the facts.
Residential Wood Burning Smoke Pollution has become a primary cause of carbon emissions, benzene and dioxin, and is among the worse and the highest contributor of pollution in the world. Wood burning deforestation is not the way of the new earth that we see. We can change.
Welcome to where we learn about how we can change the thoughts that have not been our servant but our ignorant master. Wood burning is the cause of over, 90% of winter pollution, however, this pollution in Canada , is caused by only 4% of people. Most people however, are not even aware that this smoke is a serious health threat. Issues about smoke been silenced for years, so, most do not know that the smoke from their chimney causes suffering to their neighbours, triggers asthma, heart attacks, and stroke and claims thousands of innocent lives in Canada alone, each year. Unknown to many, as Devra Davies stated in her celebrated book, Cutting Through the Smoke, “ Pollution never shows up on death certificates.” According to Health Canada , thousands of Canadians die each year from smoke carcinogenic exposure. Neighbourhood smoke is the silent killer that we know little about. Why have we been, for so long, kept in the dark about this smoke?
The devastation caused by the toxins in smoke is causing environmental havoc and destruction to all living things. We must change. It is time we clear the air.
Welcome to where we take responsibility for the safety of our children. Asthma is the highest cause of death in children. Let us act to make sure the kids breathe air that is not a toxic mixture of smoke. Children are at the highest risk. Can we allow smoke, fumes and chemicals to be constantly emitted into their growing bodies? Smoke is scarring their lungs and accumulating in blood cells of our children. With this true coming together for better, we make certain that the children are all able to live more safely, free from all cigarette and wood burning smoke. We owe it to our kids! We will act.
As a mother of a son who has seen the face of cancer first hand, I ask you to join us in this movement where we believe that the best treatment is prevention. Whether for cancer, lung disease, asthma, stroke and heart disease and Breast Cancer prevention from avoidable risks is crucial. We invite you help us voice the need and to fight for change so that citizens, parents, and children will not be made to suffer environmental cancer. Here is where asthma, coughs and lung infections, caused from breathing smoke will not get a place to start. We can prevent all the environmental cancer and diseases caused from breathing smoke-toxic neighbourhood dirty air. Is burning wood worth the cost? We Adopt Prevention as the Best Cure!
We together can and must reduce risks and prevent exposure to all smoke. Reducing risks is breathing smoke free.
We invite you to become informed about an unknown subject, this silent killer that is causing illness, great distress and suffering and especially endangering our children. Smoke is placing kids at very heightened risk. Smoke from chimneys is causing irreversible environmental damage and placing our health and the health of the unborn at heightened risk.
Vital to changing is the urgent need to address is the lack of science and lack of integrity in EPA Certified Stoves. Unless we awaken to the facts, as is stated in the critical review of EPA Integrity, May 22, 2008 in which, Senate House Leader, Waxman states that EPA decisions “are not based on Science nor regulations, but are adopted by the White House for political reasons” we will not see real change. We need to dissect the myth of this power industry and see that the truths about EPA Certified stoves. Independent tests (INTERTEC) conclude stove emissions show an increase of 400% dioxin in EPA chimney smoke. As with all emissions, studies conclude none, no emissions are reduced in home use of stoves. Emissions are reduced in lab testing only. The industry owns the labs! The industry certifies itself! People need to know the studies and reviews prove that testing is not based on scientific facts.
There is no reduction in concentration but what is to be made caution is the fact that Dioxin in smoke exposure is placing women at risk to develop Breast Cancer. Walking in smoke is like smoking 16 cigarettes in one half hour!
We must stop this smoke that is placing women at risk. Studies prove carcinogens from breathing this smoke accumulate in the blood cells and fatty tissue, causing changes, directly impacting and increasing risks for women to develop Breast Cancer. It is urgent. We must act.
Together we can and must reduce these avoidable risks and prevent exposure to all carcinogenic smoke. Reducing risks is breathing smoke free.
We acknowledge the respected government and institutional research that proves that wood smoke is more toxic than cigarette smoke. We extend a welcome to our institutions and government agencies. We expect and oblige our elected policy makers to adopt policy that is, the best and the safest policy, that is informed, and that is clearly the most forward thinking, sustainable health based, environmental policy.
Nothing less is acceptable. PREVENTION is the BEST CURE.
Health must be number one in policy.
We realize that, unfortunately, people have been kept in the dark about neighbourhood smoke.
Seeing that people are victims of not knowing much about this second hand smoke, we want to make a difference in getting the information out there. We welcome citizens, policy makers and the media to a place where people are respectively given access to the facts, where they can make informed decisions, become healthier citizens, live and breathe in health and enjoy the best quality of life. We ensure that life is given the best chance, so that people can live happier, longer and better, breather clean and safe air in their homes and neighbourhoods. People must not be forced to breathe neighbours’ toxic smoke in their own homes. People have the right to live smoke free. No one should be able to take your breath away.
We believe and do our best and will continue to see that the information is made easily available, so good willed citizens can act responsibly, stop polluting with smoke, and do what is right for our environment and our families. We must protect the air for future generations.
We invite all citizens from worldwide communities to learn, share in the dialogue, chat with each other, support, and participate, so that we informed and determined to change. We must take a new direction.
We know it is time for change and we believe that through willpower and awareness, citizens in communities will engage in change, and will help each other live more safely, in smoke free neighbourhoods. Climate change is upon us. We may not have a second chance.
Wood burning smoke is threat to our well-being and future generations. Witnessing the raging earth now struggling to combat climate change, the world food shortage, the hungry desolate people displaced, those before our eyes, who, by the millions, are falling victims to the ravishes of climate change, we too, may soon become one of them. We humans are the fragile. We are the meek and the humble. We must change. We ask each other to think about today and tomorrow’s children. They need us. What are we leaving for our grandchildren who shall inherit the air and the earth? We had a beautiful world handed to us what can we do to now give our children the same beautiful earth? Certainly dirty smoky air is not what our children should be handed, nor expect from us.
We need to act towards change and courageously create a better, cleaner and safer world. It is time for change. We have no choice. Please join together, with Citizens for Environmental Health, join a world where we work towards a wide awakened conscious. Becoming a member, if you wish to donate, we appreciate your help. In joining, you will receive our newsletter, and we will unite our voice. We can see that this is so important. We have never needed each other more than we do today. Time is of essence. Welcome! Become a member. It’s free. The best things in life are free. Our health is our most precious resource. Our earth, our air, what we need to enjoy life. We recognize that is we may stand to lose.. Now is the best time we have. Let’s get to work, create hope and make this a cleaner world. Let’s make successful change happen. We can and we will make a new, safer, smoke free world, a reality. Let’s do it for the kids!
Welcome! Let’s do it! We can and we will.
http://www.citizensforenvironmentalhealth.com/homepage.html
Webmaster comment---We welcome and applaud your efforts!
Why wood burning is not carbon neutral
Why wood burning is not carbon neutral
Credit to....Posted on May 16, 2008 by robertkyriakides-web blog site
When politicians and advertisers and propagandists want to do something to persuade us that a policy or product or idea is something new, because the old policy, product or idea has failed, they re-invent vocabulary and assign new meanings to words in the hope of fooling us into thinking that the policies, products and ideas are new, whereas it is only the words that are new or used in a different context.
So instead of a settlement negotiation we have a “road map”. A “problem” becomes “an issue”. It has always been thus: Voltaire pointed out that the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.
In environmental matters words are abused as much as energy is, to hide their real meanings and persuade us that there are easy options. We have “zero carbon homes” which produce carbon, and “a low carbon building programme” which is neither low carbon, nor is it a building programme and we have carbon offsetting, which does not offset carbon, merely slings a few ounces in one side of the balance when there are pounds in the other side. Worse of all, we have the concept of “carbon neutral”.
A forum at the Burning Issue website points out that “carbon neutral” cannot apply to any carbon based fuel. It can only apply to energy sources that do not in their fuel, create carbon – such as solar, nuclear and wind energy. You can read more about this at http://burningissues.org/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=668 and I recommend that you do.
The burning issues website is concerned with air pollution caused by burning. My concern with this subject (and an article I wrote about this) led a UK trade association to write to me to ask me to stop criticising other renewable technologies.
I cannot do that. I cannot subscribe to the concept that all renewable technologies are equal. Some are better than others. Some are better in some locations than others. You would not put solar panels on a house that is in the middle of a shady forest and you shouldn’t put wood burning furnaces in apartment buildings in the middle of London (although the latter has happened, believe it or not!).
The good people at the Burning Issues website have calculated that to offset the carbon produced by a very small home fuelled by wood burning needs around 63 acres of land to plant trees on, cutting down two acres each year for fuel and replanting as they go. After 30 years the process restarts.
I have not tested their calculations but it is clear to me that to offset the carbon emitted by wood burning needs far more tree planting than we are doing as a planet. It may be in some communities in places where the population is small and the woodland extensive this may happen, but it does not count for much if we burn more wood than we grow each year.
Although we are not planting as many trees as we have to plant (and somehow I doubt if we ever will) out in Australia farmers are looking to store or sequestrate carbon in the soil.
Ever since Australia was colonised at the expense of its aboriginal people, the colonists have farmed sheep. They were encouraged to clear the land of trees – they would cut down a tree to make room for a sheep. Intensive grazing by sheep led to soil degradation and when the soil was degraded sufficiently the farmers move on to new land and started the process again there.
That process meant that the land was leached of its stored carbon. Currently Australian soils store little carbon but a new movement there is leading to carbon gradually being replaced in soils by farmers who farm in ways that enable the soil to hold as much carbon as possible and retain it.
In essence they want to ensure that the carbon in decomposing matter that once lived is pushed into the soil by roots of foliage and held there as humus. Depending on what you grow, the soil can either release carbon or store it and the Australian soil carbon farmers seek to retain as much carbon in the soil as possible.
Now this is real carbon sequestration; the soils of the planet already hold more carbon than the atmosphere and vegetation combined, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.
There is plenty of land to store carbon; the Australian colonial farmers were not exceptional – mostly farming has released carbon from the soil. When a forest is cleared in, say, Ecuador, for farming the clearing of the wood and its burning releases carbon and then when the soil is tilled and ploughed and worked more and more carbon is also released.
It seems fairly obvious that we should not burn wood, except perhaps waste wood from households that we cannot recycle, and that we should leave the forests undisturbed so that they can sequester carbon by allowing the vegetation to rot into peat. We should study the methods of the Australian soil carbon farmers and implement their ideas into farms everywhere.
It also seems obvious that the techniques of political or commercial persuasion by renaming things ultimately never work, because people realise eventually that the thing is still the “same old, same old” thing. They will realise it when they cough their way through wood smoke as the intensity of particulates and the measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase and with it changing the climate, despite all the so called carbon neutrality.
Note...Credit to--Posted on May 16, 2008 by robertkyriakides-web blog site
Credit to....Posted on May 16, 2008 by robertkyriakides-web blog site
When politicians and advertisers and propagandists want to do something to persuade us that a policy or product or idea is something new, because the old policy, product or idea has failed, they re-invent vocabulary and assign new meanings to words in the hope of fooling us into thinking that the policies, products and ideas are new, whereas it is only the words that are new or used in a different context.
So instead of a settlement negotiation we have a “road map”. A “problem” becomes “an issue”. It has always been thus: Voltaire pointed out that the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.
In environmental matters words are abused as much as energy is, to hide their real meanings and persuade us that there are easy options. We have “zero carbon homes” which produce carbon, and “a low carbon building programme” which is neither low carbon, nor is it a building programme and we have carbon offsetting, which does not offset carbon, merely slings a few ounces in one side of the balance when there are pounds in the other side. Worse of all, we have the concept of “carbon neutral”.
A forum at the Burning Issue website points out that “carbon neutral” cannot apply to any carbon based fuel. It can only apply to energy sources that do not in their fuel, create carbon – such as solar, nuclear and wind energy. You can read more about this at http://burningissues.org/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=668 and I recommend that you do.
The burning issues website is concerned with air pollution caused by burning. My concern with this subject (and an article I wrote about this) led a UK trade association to write to me to ask me to stop criticising other renewable technologies.
I cannot do that. I cannot subscribe to the concept that all renewable technologies are equal. Some are better than others. Some are better in some locations than others. You would not put solar panels on a house that is in the middle of a shady forest and you shouldn’t put wood burning furnaces in apartment buildings in the middle of London (although the latter has happened, believe it or not!).
The good people at the Burning Issues website have calculated that to offset the carbon produced by a very small home fuelled by wood burning needs around 63 acres of land to plant trees on, cutting down two acres each year for fuel and replanting as they go. After 30 years the process restarts.
I have not tested their calculations but it is clear to me that to offset the carbon emitted by wood burning needs far more tree planting than we are doing as a planet. It may be in some communities in places where the population is small and the woodland extensive this may happen, but it does not count for much if we burn more wood than we grow each year.
Although we are not planting as many trees as we have to plant (and somehow I doubt if we ever will) out in Australia farmers are looking to store or sequestrate carbon in the soil.
Ever since Australia was colonised at the expense of its aboriginal people, the colonists have farmed sheep. They were encouraged to clear the land of trees – they would cut down a tree to make room for a sheep. Intensive grazing by sheep led to soil degradation and when the soil was degraded sufficiently the farmers move on to new land and started the process again there.
That process meant that the land was leached of its stored carbon. Currently Australian soils store little carbon but a new movement there is leading to carbon gradually being replaced in soils by farmers who farm in ways that enable the soil to hold as much carbon as possible and retain it.
In essence they want to ensure that the carbon in decomposing matter that once lived is pushed into the soil by roots of foliage and held there as humus. Depending on what you grow, the soil can either release carbon or store it and the Australian soil carbon farmers seek to retain as much carbon in the soil as possible.
Now this is real carbon sequestration; the soils of the planet already hold more carbon than the atmosphere and vegetation combined, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.
There is plenty of land to store carbon; the Australian colonial farmers were not exceptional – mostly farming has released carbon from the soil. When a forest is cleared in, say, Ecuador, for farming the clearing of the wood and its burning releases carbon and then when the soil is tilled and ploughed and worked more and more carbon is also released.
It seems fairly obvious that we should not burn wood, except perhaps waste wood from households that we cannot recycle, and that we should leave the forests undisturbed so that they can sequester carbon by allowing the vegetation to rot into peat. We should study the methods of the Australian soil carbon farmers and implement their ideas into farms everywhere.
It also seems obvious that the techniques of political or commercial persuasion by renaming things ultimately never work, because people realise eventually that the thing is still the “same old, same old” thing. They will realise it when they cough their way through wood smoke as the intensity of particulates and the measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase and with it changing the climate, despite all the so called carbon neutrality.
Note...Credit to--Posted on May 16, 2008 by robertkyriakides-web blog site
Biomass, wood smoke, particulates and cancers
Biomass, wood smoke, particulates and cancers
From---Posted on March 17, 2008 by robertkyriakides-web blog site
When we breathe in we inhale not only air but dust, and very small particles of stuff that we humans have put in the atmosphere. We know that these can be harmful – coal dust and asbestos dust spring immediately to mind.
Because we are putting relatively speaking so much into the atmosphere scientists are trying to understand the effect of these particles on human health.There is therefore a great deal of study and experimentation involving the toxicology of particles and fibres.
Much of this is reported in Particle and Fibre Toxicology, which you can access at http://www.particleandfibretoxicology.com/ . The journal is peer reviewed and attracts papers from scientists of many different disciplines, in order to encourage the inter-disciplinary approach that is necessary in this field, and indeed in most fields of human study.
Climate change scientists examine global phenomena using physics, chemistry, geology climatology, meteorology, and many other disciplines. Particle toxicologists examine the reactions of tiny substances in small quantities on animals using physics, chemistry, physiology, biology. Sometimes you ignore the small things at your peril.
Climate change is a big thing, unable to be verified by experimentation and subject to much discussion and many alternate theories even though a scientific consensus has been reached which would be dangerous to ignore.Particle toxicology involves tiny substances, which you also ignore at your peril.I have written from time to time about biomass – wood burning to generate energy – either heat energy for homes or in the case of the propose Port Talbot Power Plant electrical energy.
Biomass is promoted as a carbon free or low carbon way to generate energy, because the plant material is replaced and the carbon emitted is reabsorbed. I have expressed my doubts about this being wholly true.There are health issues with burning biomass, and as a society we seem to be a little blind to them.
We woke up to health issues with coal mining and asbestos rather late in the day and I would hope we can avoid this happening with biomass.
Some studies were carried out in Norway where the main air pollutants are caused by vehicles and wood burning which together are responsible for 65% of Norway’s total emissions. The scientists wanted to try to understand how the content of particles, their size and characteristics affect human health and find physical or chemical properties of these particles.
Now particles from asbestos, cigarette smoke and similar matters have been associated with health problems – particularly cancers and heart disease, although the precise way in which they cause these problems is not fully understood.The scientists tested a traditional wood burning stove by burning wood in it at high temperature and collecting and analysing the smoke and also by collecting exhaust fumes.
These studies have been reported in the Particle and Fibre Toxicology Journal. The scientists found that the exhaust particles were smaller than the wood particles but that the wood smoke particles had a higher polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (“PAH”) content.
Some studies link particles with a high PAH content to these health problems and that there is a strong relationship between organic particles (such as cigarette and wood smoke) to lung cancer. One particular type of PAH has been identified by the US Environmental Protection Agency as a cause for concern – PAH 16 which is thought to be carcinogenic.
Because they found that the PAH content was much higher in wood smoke than in vehicle exhaust, they concluded that it was important to understand more about how the body responds to higher PAH content in particulates, rather than compare wood smoke and traffic fumes.
There are still many questions that need further research – what is the precise role of inhaled PAHs on human health? Does using different wood sources affect the PAH content? Does using reclaimed, painted or varnished wood provide a higher or lower PAH content when burnt?
The message here is not that wood stoves give you cancer or that biomass boilers will harm people. The message is that there must be a question mark against them and that we must move carefully with research based information before we embark on a biomass boiler programme because air quality is important and that we worsen air quality at our peril.
The European Commission thinks that air pollution reduces life expectancy on average by none months, and poor air quality in the UK is thought to cause 32,000 premature deaths each year. We traditionally blame vehicle particulates for this.
In the 1950s the Government introduced clean air legislation and “Smokeless Zones” which have had a profoundly beneficial effect on our health.In the UK there is no doubt that the Department of the Environment has been doing good work in improving air quality. My concern is that with an increased take up of biomass for energy this good work will be undone and that in twenty years from now we shall be facing similar public health problems that were caused by coal burning in the 1950s and 1960s.
Those in favour of biomass will point to improved filtering operations. I hope that they are right about the efficacy of the filters from biomass boilers. Even if they are right I think that we still have to factor in human behaviour. Boilers of all kinds need regular servicing and biomass boilers will not only need normal servicing but the filtration system will need to be regularly checked and renewed.
A biomass boiler will still work without proper servicing but will work in a very polluting way. Inertia is an important factor in human behaviour. How many people have their gas boilers serviced properly each year? How many condensing boilers no longer condense due to incorrect set up or lack of servicing? My fear is that inertia will lead to biomass boilers creating the very harm that we employ them to prevent.
Credit to...Posted on March 17, 2008 by robertkyriakides-web blog site
From---Posted on March 17, 2008 by robertkyriakides-web blog site
When we breathe in we inhale not only air but dust, and very small particles of stuff that we humans have put in the atmosphere. We know that these can be harmful – coal dust and asbestos dust spring immediately to mind.
Because we are putting relatively speaking so much into the atmosphere scientists are trying to understand the effect of these particles on human health.There is therefore a great deal of study and experimentation involving the toxicology of particles and fibres.
Much of this is reported in Particle and Fibre Toxicology, which you can access at http://www.particleandfibretoxicology.com/ . The journal is peer reviewed and attracts papers from scientists of many different disciplines, in order to encourage the inter-disciplinary approach that is necessary in this field, and indeed in most fields of human study.
Climate change scientists examine global phenomena using physics, chemistry, geology climatology, meteorology, and many other disciplines. Particle toxicologists examine the reactions of tiny substances in small quantities on animals using physics, chemistry, physiology, biology. Sometimes you ignore the small things at your peril.
Climate change is a big thing, unable to be verified by experimentation and subject to much discussion and many alternate theories even though a scientific consensus has been reached which would be dangerous to ignore.Particle toxicology involves tiny substances, which you also ignore at your peril.I have written from time to time about biomass – wood burning to generate energy – either heat energy for homes or in the case of the propose Port Talbot Power Plant electrical energy.
Biomass is promoted as a carbon free or low carbon way to generate energy, because the plant material is replaced and the carbon emitted is reabsorbed. I have expressed my doubts about this being wholly true.There are health issues with burning biomass, and as a society we seem to be a little blind to them.
We woke up to health issues with coal mining and asbestos rather late in the day and I would hope we can avoid this happening with biomass.
Some studies were carried out in Norway where the main air pollutants are caused by vehicles and wood burning which together are responsible for 65% of Norway’s total emissions. The scientists wanted to try to understand how the content of particles, their size and characteristics affect human health and find physical or chemical properties of these particles.
Now particles from asbestos, cigarette smoke and similar matters have been associated with health problems – particularly cancers and heart disease, although the precise way in which they cause these problems is not fully understood.The scientists tested a traditional wood burning stove by burning wood in it at high temperature and collecting and analysing the smoke and also by collecting exhaust fumes.
These studies have been reported in the Particle and Fibre Toxicology Journal. The scientists found that the exhaust particles were smaller than the wood particles but that the wood smoke particles had a higher polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (“PAH”) content.
Some studies link particles with a high PAH content to these health problems and that there is a strong relationship between organic particles (such as cigarette and wood smoke) to lung cancer. One particular type of PAH has been identified by the US Environmental Protection Agency as a cause for concern – PAH 16 which is thought to be carcinogenic.
Because they found that the PAH content was much higher in wood smoke than in vehicle exhaust, they concluded that it was important to understand more about how the body responds to higher PAH content in particulates, rather than compare wood smoke and traffic fumes.
There are still many questions that need further research – what is the precise role of inhaled PAHs on human health? Does using different wood sources affect the PAH content? Does using reclaimed, painted or varnished wood provide a higher or lower PAH content when burnt?
The message here is not that wood stoves give you cancer or that biomass boilers will harm people. The message is that there must be a question mark against them and that we must move carefully with research based information before we embark on a biomass boiler programme because air quality is important and that we worsen air quality at our peril.
The European Commission thinks that air pollution reduces life expectancy on average by none months, and poor air quality in the UK is thought to cause 32,000 premature deaths each year. We traditionally blame vehicle particulates for this.
In the 1950s the Government introduced clean air legislation and “Smokeless Zones” which have had a profoundly beneficial effect on our health.In the UK there is no doubt that the Department of the Environment has been doing good work in improving air quality. My concern is that with an increased take up of biomass for energy this good work will be undone and that in twenty years from now we shall be facing similar public health problems that were caused by coal burning in the 1950s and 1960s.
Those in favour of biomass will point to improved filtering operations. I hope that they are right about the efficacy of the filters from biomass boilers. Even if they are right I think that we still have to factor in human behaviour. Boilers of all kinds need regular servicing and biomass boilers will not only need normal servicing but the filtration system will need to be regularly checked and renewed.
A biomass boiler will still work without proper servicing but will work in a very polluting way. Inertia is an important factor in human behaviour. How many people have their gas boilers serviced properly each year? How many condensing boilers no longer condense due to incorrect set up or lack of servicing? My fear is that inertia will lead to biomass boilers creating the very harm that we employ them to prevent.
Credit to...Posted on March 17, 2008 by robertkyriakides-web blog site
Wood Smoke May Be Worse than Originally Thought
The Solar Cooking Archive
A high-efficiency woodstove my actually create more greenhouse gasses than a traditional fire At the World Conference on Solar Cooking in 1992, Dr. Daniel M. Kammen, of the Department of Physics at Harvard University, gave a presentation on the emissions from traditional cooking fires and the effects they may have on the atmosphere and global warming. We spoke with Dr. Kammen at the conference.
SBJ: Dr. Kammen, what is it that you have discovered about the smoke from traditional cooking fires?
Daniel Kammen: While everyone knows that carbon dioxide produced from burning wood contributes to the greenhouse effect. What we discovered was that other gasses--carbon monoxide, methane, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, etc.--are produced in much greater quantities than previously thought.
SBJ: What does this mean?
DK: When you calculate the contribution that these gasses make to global warming, they rival or exceed the greenhouse effect produced by carbon dioxide alone.
The typical kilogram of wood is roughly 50% carbon. When it is burned under ideal conditions, the smoke consists mostly of water and carbon dioxide. But in traditional cooking practices, where there is not enough oxygen, those 500 grams of carbon produce 50 to 60 grams of carbon monoxide, 20 to 30 grams of methane, and 30 to 40 grams of other nasty stuff. Each of these non-CO2 products of combustion have a larger greenhouse effect, molecule per molecule, than carbon dioxide. Carbon monoxide's effect is five times greater, methane is 23 times greater, and nitrogen dioxide is 280 times more serious as a greenhouse gas.
When you multiply the amount of emissions by the global warming potential for each gas, and add it up, you find that the non-C02 gasses produce a C02 equivalent of 460 grams. The amount of C02 directly released by burning one kilogram of wood is about 440 grams, since oxygen from the air is added.
SBJ: So in essence we have twice the greenhouse effect?
DK: That's right. Now the key item is, how long do these gasses stay in the atmosphere? The half-life of each gas is not known precisely, but half the C02 released today will still be in the atmosphere 150 to 200 years from now. In another 150 to 200 years after that, only a quarter of it will still be up there. Methane has a half life of about 7 years.
SBJ: It seems fortunate that the more powerful greenhouse gasses have shorter half lives.
DK: Yes, but remember, these gasses don't suddenly vanish. When a molecule of methane stops being methane, it becomes C02. It is still a bad thing. Now, if you multiply how much of each gas is in the atmosphere by how reactive it is, then subtract what is decaying due to its half life, you find that over the first 20 years the non-C02 gasses have had the biggest effect.
SBJ: And this is not generally known?
DK: The atmospheric chemistry has been known for quite a while. The big surprise is that small-scale burning produces more non-C02 gasses than originally thought. Scientists just had not looked that closely at inefficient, smoldering cookfires.
SBJ: And you have actually measured the production of these gasses?
DK: That's right. And something I hope to look at more closely at this summer, while in Kenya, is the effect oxygen availability has on non-CO2 gas production. This could be significant. The high efficiency ceramic stoves currently being disseminated, reduce wood consumption by reducing oxygen supply. We might be producing just as much or more of greenhouse gasses with less wood. We will also be looking at baking bricks in a large solar box, eliminating another smoldering burn that produces lots on non-CO2 gasses.
SBJ: So, could you sum up the ramifications of all this for solar cooking?
DK: The contribution cooking fires make to the global "greenhouse budget" has been underestimated. The potential contribution solar cooking can make is bigger than we'd thought. The scary thing is this: even if by the year 2000 we wise up and do all the right things, we still have a long time to live with what we have done already. That is why it is so important that we get moving right away!
This document is published on The Solar Cooking Archive at http://solarcooking.org/ghouse.htm. For questions or comments, contact webmaster@solarcooking.org
RE: http://solarcooking.org/ghouse.htm
A high-efficiency woodstove my actually create more greenhouse gasses than a traditional fire At the World Conference on Solar Cooking in 1992, Dr. Daniel M. Kammen, of the Department of Physics at Harvard University, gave a presentation on the emissions from traditional cooking fires and the effects they may have on the atmosphere and global warming. We spoke with Dr. Kammen at the conference.
SBJ: Dr. Kammen, what is it that you have discovered about the smoke from traditional cooking fires?
Daniel Kammen: While everyone knows that carbon dioxide produced from burning wood contributes to the greenhouse effect. What we discovered was that other gasses--carbon monoxide, methane, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, etc.--are produced in much greater quantities than previously thought.
SBJ: What does this mean?
DK: When you calculate the contribution that these gasses make to global warming, they rival or exceed the greenhouse effect produced by carbon dioxide alone.
The typical kilogram of wood is roughly 50% carbon. When it is burned under ideal conditions, the smoke consists mostly of water and carbon dioxide. But in traditional cooking practices, where there is not enough oxygen, those 500 grams of carbon produce 50 to 60 grams of carbon monoxide, 20 to 30 grams of methane, and 30 to 40 grams of other nasty stuff. Each of these non-CO2 products of combustion have a larger greenhouse effect, molecule per molecule, than carbon dioxide. Carbon monoxide's effect is five times greater, methane is 23 times greater, and nitrogen dioxide is 280 times more serious as a greenhouse gas.
When you multiply the amount of emissions by the global warming potential for each gas, and add it up, you find that the non-C02 gasses produce a C02 equivalent of 460 grams. The amount of C02 directly released by burning one kilogram of wood is about 440 grams, since oxygen from the air is added.
SBJ: So in essence we have twice the greenhouse effect?
DK: That's right. Now the key item is, how long do these gasses stay in the atmosphere? The half-life of each gas is not known precisely, but half the C02 released today will still be in the atmosphere 150 to 200 years from now. In another 150 to 200 years after that, only a quarter of it will still be up there. Methane has a half life of about 7 years.
SBJ: It seems fortunate that the more powerful greenhouse gasses have shorter half lives.
DK: Yes, but remember, these gasses don't suddenly vanish. When a molecule of methane stops being methane, it becomes C02. It is still a bad thing. Now, if you multiply how much of each gas is in the atmosphere by how reactive it is, then subtract what is decaying due to its half life, you find that over the first 20 years the non-C02 gasses have had the biggest effect.
SBJ: And this is not generally known?
DK: The atmospheric chemistry has been known for quite a while. The big surprise is that small-scale burning produces more non-C02 gasses than originally thought. Scientists just had not looked that closely at inefficient, smoldering cookfires.
SBJ: And you have actually measured the production of these gasses?
DK: That's right. And something I hope to look at more closely at this summer, while in Kenya, is the effect oxygen availability has on non-CO2 gas production. This could be significant. The high efficiency ceramic stoves currently being disseminated, reduce wood consumption by reducing oxygen supply. We might be producing just as much or more of greenhouse gasses with less wood. We will also be looking at baking bricks in a large solar box, eliminating another smoldering burn that produces lots on non-CO2 gasses.
SBJ: So, could you sum up the ramifications of all this for solar cooking?
DK: The contribution cooking fires make to the global "greenhouse budget" has been underestimated. The potential contribution solar cooking can make is bigger than we'd thought. The scary thing is this: even if by the year 2000 we wise up and do all the right things, we still have a long time to live with what we have done already. That is why it is so important that we get moving right away!
This document is published on The Solar Cooking Archive at http://solarcooking.org/ghouse.htm. For questions or comments, contact webmaster@solarcooking.org
RE: http://solarcooking.org/ghouse.htm
What's In That Wood Smoke?
Air Resources
What's In That Smoke?
Excerpt from New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services web site
For many the smell of wood smoke from a fireplace elicits fond memories of hearth and home. There is a lack of awareness, however, that wood smoke has become a major source of air pollution in the United States. Combustion of organic matter such as wood and yard debris releases a variety of harmful substances, including particulates, carcinogens, carbon monoxide, respiratory irritants and toxins. Many people--infants and children, pregnant women, senior citizens, and those suffering from allergies, asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, pneumonia, or other heart or lung diseases--are at risk from the pollution released by wood smoke.
Compounds released during the combustion process interfere with normal lung development and function. Indoor and outdoor air quality can be degraded significantly by the use of poorly designed, non-certified wood stoves. Poor burning processes, lack of maintenance, improper stove installation, and burning wet wood create excessive amounts of pollution. Fires left smoldering to keep a house warm during the night can also be particularly harmful. Smoldering wood burns slower and incompletely, thereby releasing more smoke and gas into the air.
Wood smoke contains tiny particles of creosote, soot, and ash that can remain airborne for up to three weeks. Small particles of solid and liquid matter suspended in the air are called particulate matter, or "PM." PM10 are those particles 10 microns or less in diameter. (In comparison, a human hair is approximately 70 microns in diameter.) PM2.5, or "fine" particulate matter, are those particles 2.5 microns or less in diameter. Inhaling fine PM causes coughing, irritation, and permanent scaring of the lungs. This type of damage decreases lung function, increases the potential for respiratory illness, and may contribute to cancer, heart disease, and changes in DNA, leading to auto-immune diseases. Because of the health threats associated with particulate air pollution, the federal government regulates all particulate matter as one of the six major air pollutants.
Particulate pollution from wood stoves is primarily produced in the winter when stagnant air and temperature inversions limit air movement. At this time smoke is unable to rise and disperse, and this pollution becomes trapped close to the ground in our breathing space. Areas with valleys and poor air circulation can be strongly affected. The small size of these particles allows them to seep into houses through closed doors and windows.
Many of the small particles from wood smoke are too small to be filtered by the nose or upper respiratory system. Therefore, they are able to penetrate deep within the lungs, and they collect in the most remote portions of the lungs called the alveoli, which are tiny air sacs where oxygen enters the blood stream. Due to their ability to evade the defenses of the body, these particles are efficient vehicles for transporting toxic gases, bacteria, and viruses into the lungs, and ultimately the blood stream. Some toxic compounds are cancer-causing and can attach to the smallest smoke particles and enter the lungs at the same time. Particulate matter can clump together, blocking tiny veins as well as invoking harmful structural and chemical changes in the lungs.
A report released by the Washington State Department of Ecology based on research conducted by the University of Washington in Seattle and the EPA in Boise, Idaho, found that indoor PM10 levels from wood smoke in homes without woodstoves can reach 50-70 percent of the outdoor PM levels. The PM released from wood heating can also cause biological mutations (chromosome defects and genetic damage) in cells of the lungs. Mutagens and carcinogens are not exactly the same and not all mutagenic substances cause cancer. Mutations brought about by wood smoke, however, potentially lead to cancer formation. In 1988 an EPA study found that biological mutations in bacteria exposed to winter air samples increased with higher concentrations of fine particulate matter and were most numerous at the times of coldest temperatures, weekends, and holidays when wood stoves were used the most.
The cancer threat from air pollution is another serious public heath concern. In 1985 the EPA started a research program to clarify the sources of air pollution and to estimate their future cancer risk (Washington State Department of Ecology 1997). Their research determined that motor vehicles and wood stoves were the major sources of particulate air pollution and associated cancer risk in the urban airsheds studied. According to the EPA, many of the substances identified in wood smoke are suspected human carcinogens or co-carcinogens. These compounds include many polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), such as benzo(a)pyrene, and various aldehydes, alkenes, and semi-volatile organic compounds.
[For information about the health risks from exposure to air toxics. See EPA's Health Risk Assessment brochure
(see http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/3_90_022.html)]
Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas that is also produced when wood is burned. Once in the blood stream, it reduces the ability of blood to carry oxygen to body tissues. Respiratory toxins and irritants, including nitrogen dioxide, are also released during wood combustion. These compounds impair the respiratory system and reduce its ability to fight infection.
Wood Smoke vs. Cigarette Smoke
Although many people associate tobacco smoke with certain health risks, research indicates that second hand wood smoke has potentially even greater ability to damage health. A comparison between tobacco smoke and wood smoke using electron spin resonance revealed quite startling results (Rozenberg 2001, Wood Smoke is More Damaging than Tobacco Smoke). Tobacco smoke causes damage in the body for approximately 30 seconds after it is inhaled. Wood smoke, however, continues to be chemically active and cause damage to cells in the body for up to 20 minutes, or 40 times longer.
Some of the components in wood smoke are free radicals, which steal electrons from the body, leaving cells unstable or injured. Some of these cells may die, while others may be altered and take on different functions. These changes lead to inflammation, which causes stress on the body. EPA researchers suggest that the lifetime cancer risk from wood stove emissions may be 12 times greater than the lifetime cancer risk from exposure to an equal amount of cigarette smoke. (Rozenberg 2001, What's in Wood Smoke and Other Emissions).
Excerpt from New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services web site
http://www.des.state.nh.us/ard/smoke.htm
What's In That Smoke?
Excerpt from New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services web site
For many the smell of wood smoke from a fireplace elicits fond memories of hearth and home. There is a lack of awareness, however, that wood smoke has become a major source of air pollution in the United States. Combustion of organic matter such as wood and yard debris releases a variety of harmful substances, including particulates, carcinogens, carbon monoxide, respiratory irritants and toxins. Many people--infants and children, pregnant women, senior citizens, and those suffering from allergies, asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, pneumonia, or other heart or lung diseases--are at risk from the pollution released by wood smoke.
Compounds released during the combustion process interfere with normal lung development and function. Indoor and outdoor air quality can be degraded significantly by the use of poorly designed, non-certified wood stoves. Poor burning processes, lack of maintenance, improper stove installation, and burning wet wood create excessive amounts of pollution. Fires left smoldering to keep a house warm during the night can also be particularly harmful. Smoldering wood burns slower and incompletely, thereby releasing more smoke and gas into the air.
Wood smoke contains tiny particles of creosote, soot, and ash that can remain airborne for up to three weeks. Small particles of solid and liquid matter suspended in the air are called particulate matter, or "PM." PM10 are those particles 10 microns or less in diameter. (In comparison, a human hair is approximately 70 microns in diameter.) PM2.5, or "fine" particulate matter, are those particles 2.5 microns or less in diameter. Inhaling fine PM causes coughing, irritation, and permanent scaring of the lungs. This type of damage decreases lung function, increases the potential for respiratory illness, and may contribute to cancer, heart disease, and changes in DNA, leading to auto-immune diseases. Because of the health threats associated with particulate air pollution, the federal government regulates all particulate matter as one of the six major air pollutants.
Particulate pollution from wood stoves is primarily produced in the winter when stagnant air and temperature inversions limit air movement. At this time smoke is unable to rise and disperse, and this pollution becomes trapped close to the ground in our breathing space. Areas with valleys and poor air circulation can be strongly affected. The small size of these particles allows them to seep into houses through closed doors and windows.
Many of the small particles from wood smoke are too small to be filtered by the nose or upper respiratory system. Therefore, they are able to penetrate deep within the lungs, and they collect in the most remote portions of the lungs called the alveoli, which are tiny air sacs where oxygen enters the blood stream. Due to their ability to evade the defenses of the body, these particles are efficient vehicles for transporting toxic gases, bacteria, and viruses into the lungs, and ultimately the blood stream. Some toxic compounds are cancer-causing and can attach to the smallest smoke particles and enter the lungs at the same time. Particulate matter can clump together, blocking tiny veins as well as invoking harmful structural and chemical changes in the lungs.
A report released by the Washington State Department of Ecology based on research conducted by the University of Washington in Seattle and the EPA in Boise, Idaho, found that indoor PM10 levels from wood smoke in homes without woodstoves can reach 50-70 percent of the outdoor PM levels. The PM released from wood heating can also cause biological mutations (chromosome defects and genetic damage) in cells of the lungs. Mutagens and carcinogens are not exactly the same and not all mutagenic substances cause cancer. Mutations brought about by wood smoke, however, potentially lead to cancer formation. In 1988 an EPA study found that biological mutations in bacteria exposed to winter air samples increased with higher concentrations of fine particulate matter and were most numerous at the times of coldest temperatures, weekends, and holidays when wood stoves were used the most.
The cancer threat from air pollution is another serious public heath concern. In 1985 the EPA started a research program to clarify the sources of air pollution and to estimate their future cancer risk (Washington State Department of Ecology 1997). Their research determined that motor vehicles and wood stoves were the major sources of particulate air pollution and associated cancer risk in the urban airsheds studied. According to the EPA, many of the substances identified in wood smoke are suspected human carcinogens or co-carcinogens. These compounds include many polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), such as benzo(a)pyrene, and various aldehydes, alkenes, and semi-volatile organic compounds.
[For information about the health risks from exposure to air toxics. See EPA's Health Risk Assessment brochure
(see http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/3_90_022.html)]
Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas that is also produced when wood is burned. Once in the blood stream, it reduces the ability of blood to carry oxygen to body tissues. Respiratory toxins and irritants, including nitrogen dioxide, are also released during wood combustion. These compounds impair the respiratory system and reduce its ability to fight infection.
Wood Smoke vs. Cigarette Smoke
Although many people associate tobacco smoke with certain health risks, research indicates that second hand wood smoke has potentially even greater ability to damage health. A comparison between tobacco smoke and wood smoke using electron spin resonance revealed quite startling results (Rozenberg 2001, Wood Smoke is More Damaging than Tobacco Smoke). Tobacco smoke causes damage in the body for approximately 30 seconds after it is inhaled. Wood smoke, however, continues to be chemically active and cause damage to cells in the body for up to 20 minutes, or 40 times longer.
Some of the components in wood smoke are free radicals, which steal electrons from the body, leaving cells unstable or injured. Some of these cells may die, while others may be altered and take on different functions. These changes lead to inflammation, which causes stress on the body. EPA researchers suggest that the lifetime cancer risk from wood stove emissions may be 12 times greater than the lifetime cancer risk from exposure to an equal amount of cigarette smoke. (Rozenberg 2001, What's in Wood Smoke and Other Emissions).
Excerpt from New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services web site
http://www.des.state.nh.us/ard/smoke.htm
Outdoor wood-burning furnaces create problems in Texas Township
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Outdoor wood-burning furnaces create problems in Texas Township
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Kalamazoo Gazette
BY WAYNE CAVANAUGH
Increased energy costs have driven many to look for alternative energy sources. There are many proven options from energy audits and insulation, to solar and geothermal. There is, however, one approach that is causing a surge of citizen complaints and lawsuits in every cold-weather state in the country. It is a currently unregulated device called an outdoor wood boiler or outdoor wood-burning furnace.
OWBs resemble a tool shed or outhouse with a short chimney pipe and are fueled by anything from firewood to trash. They heat water that is fed back through an underground pipe into existing home mechanical systems. OWBs are sold in vacant parking lots and roadside stands to users who connect them to their existing indoor systems without inspection or permits. Living next to one means a 24-hour-a-day sentence of not being able open your windows or spend time outdoors because of the constant smoke. There are also issues of health and lowered property values.
Advertisement
Unfortunately, some people in Texas Township rigged up their OWBs and let them burn. With home sales hovering at all time lows, Realtors report a neighbor's OWB is a real deal killer. So far, with more than a year's worth of complaints and meetings, the Texas Township Board has failed to pass an ordinance to stop them.
State and federal government research links the fine particles in OWB smoke to asthma, reduced lung function, chronic bronchitis, irregular heartbeat, cancer and premature death in people with heart and lung disease.
The Environmental Protection Agency and state departments of health and air quality from Washington, Oregon, Vermont, Wisconsin, Indiana, New York and Michigan all agree on the science and the serious health risks caused by OWBs. Because the human body cannot process the OWB fine particulate, it lodges permanently in lung tissue. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the International Agency for Research on Cancer have categorized OWB emissions as a human carcinogen.
Currently, OWBs are unregulated by the EPA because technically they are not inside the home. Public outcry, however, caused the cold-weather states, including Michigan, to petition the EPA to close the loophole and intervene. The EPA recently announced new voluntary manufacturing standards and a model ordinance for local governments to use while federal legislation is created. According to the EPA, these model laws can be implemented faster than federal legislation. Thousands of local governments took immediate action. Washington passed a total statewide ban. Local governments across America have followed suit by adopting local bans or by enforcing setback distances, smoke stack heights, and seasonal burn limitations. The citizens of Texas Township are still waiting.
Texas Township is a grand example of the political issues of OWB use. The township board was presented with numerous complaints and science well over a year ago. Board presentations and public comments ensued. The board presented several versions of several draft ordinances over a period of seven months, unanimously endorsed publishing one ordinance, limited public comments on another to one minute, then failed to vote any into law.
The latest proposed ordinance is clearly aligned to protect the OWB users with little regard for their neighbors, the local environment or the quality of life in Texas Township. It grandfathers current OWBs to burn 24 hours a day, 300 feet outside anyone's bedroom window. More amazing, it allows an unbridled number of new OWBs to be erected on three-acre lots. While the EPA model ordinance recommends that an OWB be set back 500 feet from the user's property line, Texas Township has decided that 50 feet will do. While the EPA and Michigan models recommend smokestack heights higher than the peak of any domicile within 500 feet, the Texas Township ordinance calls for a 300-foot setback with a smoke stack just 20 feet above the grade plane.
The only possible explanation is that the board is trying to appease the nine users because they sympathize with those who paid upwards of $8,000 for these unregulated devices. The meeting's public comments often echo ``buyer beware'' as even a quick search will lead the buyer to state reports and an attorney general report that refer to OWBs as the least efficient and dirtiest of all heat sources.
Public officials are not elected to tend to the needs and wants of a small special interest group who chose to smoke out their neighbors under the guise of saving money on energy bills. They are elected to make difficult but important decisions regarding the entire township's health and quality of life. There are far better energy options that preserve the country culture of the area without creating a public nuisance and lowered property values.
It's time for Texas Township and all of Michigan's local governments to step up and do the right thing. It's time to ban the burners.
Wayne Cavanaugh is a commentator for the BBC, London; host and former executive producer for Animal Planet and Discovery Television, and a resident of Texas Township.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Kalamazoo Gazette
BY WAYNE CAVANAUGH
Increased energy costs have driven many to look for alternative energy sources. There are many proven options from energy audits and insulation, to solar and geothermal. There is, however, one approach that is causing a surge of citizen complaints and lawsuits in every cold-weather state in the country. It is a currently unregulated device called an outdoor wood boiler or outdoor wood-burning furnace.
OWBs resemble a tool shed or outhouse with a short chimney pipe and are fueled by anything from firewood to trash. They heat water that is fed back through an underground pipe into existing home mechanical systems. OWBs are sold in vacant parking lots and roadside stands to users who connect them to their existing indoor systems without inspection or permits. Living next to one means a 24-hour-a-day sentence of not being able open your windows or spend time outdoors because of the constant smoke. There are also issues of health and lowered property values.
Advertisement
Unfortunately, some people in Texas Township rigged up their OWBs and let them burn. With home sales hovering at all time lows, Realtors report a neighbor's OWB is a real deal killer. So far, with more than a year's worth of complaints and meetings, the Texas Township Board has failed to pass an ordinance to stop them.
State and federal government research links the fine particles in OWB smoke to asthma, reduced lung function, chronic bronchitis, irregular heartbeat, cancer and premature death in people with heart and lung disease.
The Environmental Protection Agency and state departments of health and air quality from Washington, Oregon, Vermont, Wisconsin, Indiana, New York and Michigan all agree on the science and the serious health risks caused by OWBs. Because the human body cannot process the OWB fine particulate, it lodges permanently in lung tissue. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the International Agency for Research on Cancer have categorized OWB emissions as a human carcinogen.
Currently, OWBs are unregulated by the EPA because technically they are not inside the home. Public outcry, however, caused the cold-weather states, including Michigan, to petition the EPA to close the loophole and intervene. The EPA recently announced new voluntary manufacturing standards and a model ordinance for local governments to use while federal legislation is created. According to the EPA, these model laws can be implemented faster than federal legislation. Thousands of local governments took immediate action. Washington passed a total statewide ban. Local governments across America have followed suit by adopting local bans or by enforcing setback distances, smoke stack heights, and seasonal burn limitations. The citizens of Texas Township are still waiting.
Texas Township is a grand example of the political issues of OWB use. The township board was presented with numerous complaints and science well over a year ago. Board presentations and public comments ensued. The board presented several versions of several draft ordinances over a period of seven months, unanimously endorsed publishing one ordinance, limited public comments on another to one minute, then failed to vote any into law.
The latest proposed ordinance is clearly aligned to protect the OWB users with little regard for their neighbors, the local environment or the quality of life in Texas Township. It grandfathers current OWBs to burn 24 hours a day, 300 feet outside anyone's bedroom window. More amazing, it allows an unbridled number of new OWBs to be erected on three-acre lots. While the EPA model ordinance recommends that an OWB be set back 500 feet from the user's property line, Texas Township has decided that 50 feet will do. While the EPA and Michigan models recommend smokestack heights higher than the peak of any domicile within 500 feet, the Texas Township ordinance calls for a 300-foot setback with a smoke stack just 20 feet above the grade plane.
The only possible explanation is that the board is trying to appease the nine users because they sympathize with those who paid upwards of $8,000 for these unregulated devices. The meeting's public comments often echo ``buyer beware'' as even a quick search will lead the buyer to state reports and an attorney general report that refer to OWBs as the least efficient and dirtiest of all heat sources.
Public officials are not elected to tend to the needs and wants of a small special interest group who chose to smoke out their neighbors under the guise of saving money on energy bills. They are elected to make difficult but important decisions regarding the entire township's health and quality of life. There are far better energy options that preserve the country culture of the area without creating a public nuisance and lowered property values.
It's time for Texas Township and all of Michigan's local governments to step up and do the right thing. It's time to ban the burners.
Wayne Cavanaugh is a commentator for the BBC, London; host and former executive producer for Animal Planet and Discovery Television, and a resident of Texas Township.
Wood smoke robs you of your home
Letter to the Editor-Fence Post
Daily Herald Newspaper
Paddock Publications
Arlington Hts, Illinois
Published May 22, 2008
Wood smoke robs you of your home
Like many people, I grew up enjoying campfires, not thinking about smoke.
That changed Jan. 2, 2006, when our neighbor in Newaygo, Michigan, installed an outdoor wood boiler downhill and 90 feet from our house.
We didn't know what the unit was, but the first day of operation, we experienced sore throats and headaches from smoke that drifted constantly, often in sheets, across our yard.
We could smell it in our house and couldn't get away from it. Being outside for minutes resulted in a smoke smell in our hair and on our clothes.
Research showed us the negative health impact we experienced from smoke is well documented and dangerous.
Our neighbor raised his stack, but he refused to talk when we showed smoke still going down into our yard.
For a year, we worked with the city government, attended meetings, educated, received neighborhood support to ban these units.
Now an ordinance protects people from OWB's. Our healthy air will be back! We thought.
City officials assured us the ordinance applied to all, but in September, they said our neighbor's unit was "grandfathered." No rules for him.
We offered to pay our neighbor's heat bill, buy a different furnace. Anything to enjoy our yard again, not to feel sick while home.
No reply.
Our four little Michigan grandchildren can't visit us there October-April. The smokestack is 14 feet from where we used to sled in the backyard.
Can't rake leaves, can't shovel snow. In smoke, your heart pounds too hard. You feel dizzy. No one seems to care.
We're selling this future retirement house to avoid smoke.
Now we live in Illinois and visit Michigan in the summer.
People need to understand the harm of what breathing wood smoke does to them, to children and to neighbors.
Jeanne Leaver
Lynn Center, Ill.
Daily Herald Newspaper
Paddock Publications
Arlington Hts, Illinois
Published May 22, 2008
Wood smoke robs you of your home
Like many people, I grew up enjoying campfires, not thinking about smoke.
That changed Jan. 2, 2006, when our neighbor in Newaygo, Michigan, installed an outdoor wood boiler downhill and 90 feet from our house.
We didn't know what the unit was, but the first day of operation, we experienced sore throats and headaches from smoke that drifted constantly, often in sheets, across our yard.
We could smell it in our house and couldn't get away from it. Being outside for minutes resulted in a smoke smell in our hair and on our clothes.
Research showed us the negative health impact we experienced from smoke is well documented and dangerous.
Our neighbor raised his stack, but he refused to talk when we showed smoke still going down into our yard.
For a year, we worked with the city government, attended meetings, educated, received neighborhood support to ban these units.
Now an ordinance protects people from OWB's. Our healthy air will be back! We thought.
City officials assured us the ordinance applied to all, but in September, they said our neighbor's unit was "grandfathered." No rules for him.
We offered to pay our neighbor's heat bill, buy a different furnace. Anything to enjoy our yard again, not to feel sick while home.
No reply.
Our four little Michigan grandchildren can't visit us there October-April. The smokestack is 14 feet from where we used to sled in the backyard.
Can't rake leaves, can't shovel snow. In smoke, your heart pounds too hard. You feel dizzy. No one seems to care.
We're selling this future retirement house to avoid smoke.
Now we live in Illinois and visit Michigan in the summer.
People need to understand the harm of what breathing wood smoke does to them, to children and to neighbors.
Jeanne Leaver
Lynn Center, Ill.
Saranac Lake board adopts six-month outdoor wood boiler moratorium
Friday, May 16, 2008
Saranac Lake board adopts six-month outdoor wood boiler moratorium
By EMILY HUNKLER, Enterprise Staff Writer
POSTED: May 13, 2008
SARANAC LAKE — The village board adopted a six-month moratorium on outdoor wood boilers on Monday night.
“Perhaps we should take the less restrictive avenue and see what has been done out there in terms of regulation,” Mayor Thomas Michael said regarding whether it was in the agenda to ban or regulate the boilers.
The moratorium puts a stop on granting any future permit for an outdoor wood boiler starting Monday evening and lasting 180 days, during which time the board will discuss plans to regulate or ban the use of them.
Trustee John McEneany was concerned with making sure the language of any future law or regulation is precise and does not leave room for misinterpretation.
“I don’t want to get into, ‘His smoke is different from my smoke because his smoke is outside and my smoke is inside’,” McEneany said.
The board assured him any future laws would be directed specifically towards the use of outdoor wood boilers.
Outdoor wood boilers came under fire recently when a Saranac Lake resident petitioned the board to do something to regulate their use for the health and safety of neighbors living nearby.
According to studies done by the New York Attorney General’s Office, outdoor wood boiler smoke contains fine particulate matter which, for those exposed to it on a regular basis, can lead to chronic lung and respiratory conditions.
“We need to be sure that, as a board, we are going in the right direction of regulating instead of banning,” Trustee Jeff Branch said.
Some have turned to outdoor wood boilers as a method of heating their homes due to the rising costs of oil. Outdoor wood boilers are fueled by wood, which for some homeowners is an appealing source of energy as it is less expensive than oil and renewable.
The board members said they hope to be diligent in deciding what action to take and hope to be finished well before the six-month moratorium is expired.
The Adirondack Daily Enterprise
54 Broadway
PO Box 318
Saranac Lake, NY 12983
Web master comment....Yes, please BAN all outdoor wood boilers.
By EMILY HUNKLER, Enterprise Staff Writer
POSTED: May 13, 2008
SARANAC LAKE — The village board adopted a six-month moratorium on outdoor wood boilers on Monday night.
“Perhaps we should take the less restrictive avenue and see what has been done out there in terms of regulation,” Mayor Thomas Michael said regarding whether it was in the agenda to ban or regulate the boilers.
The moratorium puts a stop on granting any future permit for an outdoor wood boiler starting Monday evening and lasting 180 days, during which time the board will discuss plans to regulate or ban the use of them.
Trustee John McEneany was concerned with making sure the language of any future law or regulation is precise and does not leave room for misinterpretation.
“I don’t want to get into, ‘His smoke is different from my smoke because his smoke is outside and my smoke is inside’,” McEneany said.
The board assured him any future laws would be directed specifically towards the use of outdoor wood boilers.
Outdoor wood boilers came under fire recently when a Saranac Lake resident petitioned the board to do something to regulate their use for the health and safety of neighbors living nearby.
According to studies done by the New York Attorney General’s Office, outdoor wood boiler smoke contains fine particulate matter which, for those exposed to it on a regular basis, can lead to chronic lung and respiratory conditions.
“We need to be sure that, as a board, we are going in the right direction of regulating instead of banning,” Trustee Jeff Branch said.
Some have turned to outdoor wood boilers as a method of heating their homes due to the rising costs of oil. Outdoor wood boilers are fueled by wood, which for some homeowners is an appealing source of energy as it is less expensive than oil and renewable.
The board members said they hope to be diligent in deciding what action to take and hope to be finished well before the six-month moratorium is expired.
The Adirondack Daily Enterprise
54 Broadway
PO Box 318
Saranac Lake, NY 12983
Web master comment....Yes, please BAN all outdoor wood boilers.
Chemist: wood smoke is 'really nasty'
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Chemist: wood smoke is 'really nasty'
Special to the Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/366455
May 09, 2008
The Hamilton Spectator
(May 9, 2008)
McMaster University chemist Brian McCarry says the toxic content of smoke from fireplaces and old-fashioned wood stoves is similar to that of diesel exhaust and tobacco smoke.
"The chemical composition of wood smoke, especially from low-temperature fires, is really nasty," said McCarry, who is chair of Clean Air Hamilton. "It's no different from cigarette smoke in particle size, and the loading of methylated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) is about the same.
"There's no question it has a health impact," he said, commenting on a recent court ruling that held a Niagara couple responsible for $270,000 in damages and legal costs for blanketing their neighbours' yard with smoke from a wood-burning stove in their garage.
"The message from Clean Air Hamilton is that wood smoke is as big a danger as any other combustion source. Because it is considered natural, it is considered benign, but it's really a very dirty energy source."
A Health Canada fact sheet says wood smoke "contains a number of pollutants that can be harmful to your health," including cancer-causing dioxins.
"Exposure to the pollutants in wood smoke can cause eye, nose and throat irritation, headaches, nausea and dizziness. Wood smoke can also make asthma worse, and has been associated with an increase in respiratory problems. In addition, studies of laboratory animals suggest that prolonged exposure to wood smoke may weaken the immune system."
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says breathing wood smoke is not healthy for anyone, but:
* "If you have heart or lung disease, such as congestive heart failure, angina, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema or asthma, you may experience health effects earlier and at lower smoke levels than healthy people.
* "Older adults are more likely to be affected by smoke, possibly because they are more likely to have chronic heart or lung diseases than younger people.
* "Children also are more susceptible to smoke for several reasons; their respiratory systems are still developing; they breathe more air (and air pollution) per pound of body weight than adults, and they're more likely to be active outdoors."
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/366455
Special to the Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/366455
May 09, 2008
The Hamilton Spectator
(May 9, 2008)
McMaster University chemist Brian McCarry says the toxic content of smoke from fireplaces and old-fashioned wood stoves is similar to that of diesel exhaust and tobacco smoke.
"The chemical composition of wood smoke, especially from low-temperature fires, is really nasty," said McCarry, who is chair of Clean Air Hamilton. "It's no different from cigarette smoke in particle size, and the loading of methylated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) is about the same.
"There's no question it has a health impact," he said, commenting on a recent court ruling that held a Niagara couple responsible for $270,000 in damages and legal costs for blanketing their neighbours' yard with smoke from a wood-burning stove in their garage.
"The message from Clean Air Hamilton is that wood smoke is as big a danger as any other combustion source. Because it is considered natural, it is considered benign, but it's really a very dirty energy source."
A Health Canada fact sheet says wood smoke "contains a number of pollutants that can be harmful to your health," including cancer-causing dioxins.
"Exposure to the pollutants in wood smoke can cause eye, nose and throat irritation, headaches, nausea and dizziness. Wood smoke can also make asthma worse, and has been associated with an increase in respiratory problems. In addition, studies of laboratory animals suggest that prolonged exposure to wood smoke may weaken the immune system."
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says breathing wood smoke is not healthy for anyone, but:
* "If you have heart or lung disease, such as congestive heart failure, angina, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema or asthma, you may experience health effects earlier and at lower smoke levels than healthy people.
* "Older adults are more likely to be affected by smoke, possibly because they are more likely to have chronic heart or lung diseases than younger people.
* "Children also are more susceptible to smoke for several reasons; their respiratory systems are still developing; they breathe more air (and air pollution) per pound of body weight than adults, and they're more likely to be active outdoors."
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/366455
Burning issue costs neighbour $270,000
Friday, May 9, 2008
Burning issue costs neighbour $270,000 TheSpec.com - Local
Eric McGuinness
The Hamilton Spectator
(May 9, 2008)
A Hamilton judge has ordered a Niagara couple to pay their next-door neighbours $270,000 in damages and legal costs for the nuisance caused by smoke from a wood stove in their garage.
It's believed to be the first Canadian court ruling involving health effects of wood smoke, which some experts say is as dangerous as tobacco smoke. Ontario Superior Justice James Ramsay blamed Travers Fitzpatrick of Fonthill -- who was Welland city manager when the suit was filed in 2002 -- for acts he called "reckless, destructive, persistent and heedless of their neighbours' physical integrity and property rights;" and blamed his wife, Valerie, for allowing them to happen.
In his judgment Feb. 28, Ramsay held them jointly responsible for paying David and Brenda Deumos general damages of $80,000, punitive damages of $20,000 and legal costs of $170,000.
Hamilton lawyer Lou Frapporti, who represented the Deumos, said he had "literally begged" the Fitzpatricks to settle for $5,000 to avoid a trial.
Eric McGuinness
The Hamilton Spectator
(May 9, 2008)
A Hamilton judge has ordered a Niagara couple to pay their next-door neighbours $270,000 in damages and legal costs for the nuisance caused by smoke from a wood stove in their garage.
It's believed to be the first Canadian court ruling involving health effects of wood smoke, which some experts say is as dangerous as tobacco smoke. Ontario Superior Justice James Ramsay blamed Travers Fitzpatrick of Fonthill -- who was Welland city manager when the suit was filed in 2002 -- for acts he called "reckless, destructive, persistent and heedless of their neighbours' physical integrity and property rights;" and blamed his wife, Valerie, for allowing them to happen.
In his judgment Feb. 28, Ramsay held them jointly responsible for paying David and Brenda Deumos general damages of $80,000, punitive damages of $20,000 and legal costs of $170,000.
Hamilton lawyer Lou Frapporti, who represented the Deumos, said he had "literally begged" the Fitzpatricks to settle for $5,000 to avoid a trial.
DEC Proposes Rule Change To Eliminate Open Burning
Thursday, May 8, 2008
DEC Proposes Rule Change To Eliminate Open Burning
http://www.wbng.com/news/local/18733909.html
By WBNG News
Story Created: May 7, 2008 at 2:30 PM EDT
Story Updated: May 7, 2008 at 3:34 PM EDT
In an effort to reduce the impacts of pollutants such as dioxins, particulate matter and carbon monoxide and to limit the risks of wildfires, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is proposing to extend the ban on open burning statewide.
Open burning of residential wastes in any city or village, or in any town with a population of 20,000 or more has been prohibited since 1972.
Once considered harmless, open burning has been found to release more dangerous chemicals into the air than thought generations ago. A recent study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in conjunction with DEC and the State Department of Health, found that emissions of dioxins and furans from backyard burning alone were greater than all other sources combined for the years 2002-04. The study also found that burning trash emits arsenic, carbon monoxide, benzene, styrene, formaldehyde, lead, hydrogen cyanide and other harmful chemicals. Trash containing plastics, polystyrene, pressure-treated and painted wood and bleached or colored papers can produce harmful chemicals when burned.
In addition to releasing pollutants, open burning is the largest single cause of wildfires in New York State. Data from DEC’s Forest Protection Division show that debris burning accounted for about 40 percent of wildfires between 1986 and 2006 – more than twice the next most-cited source. In 2006 alone, debris burning triggered 98 wildfires in the state.
“This is a public health and safety issue,” said DEC Commissioner Pete Grannis. “The trash we are burning has become more complicated and damaging to air quality over the decades. From dioxins to furans to arsenic, numerous toxic chemicals can be released by open burning – worries we didn’t have several decades ago. Moreover, wildfires occur regularly from badly tended open fires. This proposal will reduce the chances of that happening.”
The proposed rule does allow for a number of exceptions, including camp fires, prescribed burns, celebratory bonfires (where allowed), fire training exercises, specialized burning to protect crops from frostbite and burning of agricultural wastes (though not agricultural plastics). The state will conduct a series of public hearings on the proposal (schedule below).
Prior to releasing the proposal, DEC held meetings and received input from stakeholders and state agencies.
The proposal has won backing from environmental and health groups and the Firemen’s Association of New York State (FASNY).
“Limiting the amount of open burning is a win for the lungs of New Yorkers,” said Michael Seilback, Senior Director of Public Policy & Advocacy for the American Lung Association of New York State. “According to the 2008 American Lung Association State of the Air report, residents of all regions of the state are breathing air with dangerously high levels of both particulate matter and ozone, and reducing the amount of open burning will have a positive impact for those suffering from asthma and lung diseases.”
“Our main concern is the safety aspect of the open burn process,” said Michael Wutz, FASNY president. “But there are other concerns too. Burn barrels can cause smoke, and that triggers fire responders, which can overtax personnel. Also, open burning of household solid waste has been proven to also generate toxic pollution that undeniably contributes to public health risks.”
Public Hearings on the proposed rule change will be held as follows:
Monday, June 23, 2008, 5-8 p.m. Cortlandville Fire Department, 999 Route 13, Cortland, NY 13045
Tuesday, June 24, 2008, 5-8 p.m. Norrie Point Environmental Center, Margaret Lewis Norrie State Park, 256 Norrie Point Way, Staatsburg, NY 12580
Wednesday, June 25, 2008, 9:30 a.m. - Noon. DEC Central Office, 625 Broadway, Public Assembly Room 129, Albany, NY 12233
Wednesday, June 25, 2008, 5-8 p.m. DEC Central Office, 625 Broadway, Public Assembly Room 129, Albany, NY 12233
Thursday, June 26, 2008, 5-8 p.m. Harrietstown Town Hall, Main Street and Lake Flower Avenue, Saranac Lake, NY 12983
Monday, June 30, 2008, 5-8 p.m. Dulles State Office Building, 1st Floor Auditorium, 317 Washington Street, Watertown, NY 13601
Wednesday, July 2, 2008, 5-8 p.m. Genesee Community College, College Drive, Conable Technology Building, Room T102, Batavia, NY 14020
The proposed regulations are published in today's issue of the State Register and the public may provide comments during the formal 45-day comment period that begins with publication in the Register.
To read the proposal, go to www.dec.ny.gov and select “Proposed Regulations” from the left column and find the proposal on open burning. This will provide links to send written e-mail comments. Or, comments can be mailed to: NYSDEC, Division of Air Resources, Attention: Robert Stanton, 625 Broadway, Albany NY 12233-3254.
For more information on the dangers associated with open burning, visit the DEC website at http://www.dec.ny.gov/public/32064.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Special P.S. from Julie Mellum.....
The world is waking up to the hazards of wood smoke. Of special note is that formaldehyde, arsenic, lead and mercury, and also dioxins and furans are present in “clean” wood combustion to begin with. Burning trash only adds to the already-toxic mix. We need a Rule like this on all wood combustion for recreational purposes. We need limits and better containment on industrial burning and restaurant wood grills. Breaking news that wood smoke contributes to global warming is an added reason for immediate attention to wood burning issues.
Julie Mellum
Midwest Director, Clean Air Revival, www.burningissues.org
President, Take Back the Air
http://www.wbng.com/news/local/18733909.html
By WBNG News
Story Created: May 7, 2008 at 2:30 PM EDT
Story Updated: May 7, 2008 at 3:34 PM EDT
In an effort to reduce the impacts of pollutants such as dioxins, particulate matter and carbon monoxide and to limit the risks of wildfires, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is proposing to extend the ban on open burning statewide.
Open burning of residential wastes in any city or village, or in any town with a population of 20,000 or more has been prohibited since 1972.
Once considered harmless, open burning has been found to release more dangerous chemicals into the air than thought generations ago. A recent study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in conjunction with DEC and the State Department of Health, found that emissions of dioxins and furans from backyard burning alone were greater than all other sources combined for the years 2002-04. The study also found that burning trash emits arsenic, carbon monoxide, benzene, styrene, formaldehyde, lead, hydrogen cyanide and other harmful chemicals. Trash containing plastics, polystyrene, pressure-treated and painted wood and bleached or colored papers can produce harmful chemicals when burned.
In addition to releasing pollutants, open burning is the largest single cause of wildfires in New York State. Data from DEC’s Forest Protection Division show that debris burning accounted for about 40 percent of wildfires between 1986 and 2006 – more than twice the next most-cited source. In 2006 alone, debris burning triggered 98 wildfires in the state.
“This is a public health and safety issue,” said DEC Commissioner Pete Grannis. “The trash we are burning has become more complicated and damaging to air quality over the decades. From dioxins to furans to arsenic, numerous toxic chemicals can be released by open burning – worries we didn’t have several decades ago. Moreover, wildfires occur regularly from badly tended open fires. This proposal will reduce the chances of that happening.”
The proposed rule does allow for a number of exceptions, including camp fires, prescribed burns, celebratory bonfires (where allowed), fire training exercises, specialized burning to protect crops from frostbite and burning of agricultural wastes (though not agricultural plastics). The state will conduct a series of public hearings on the proposal (schedule below).
Prior to releasing the proposal, DEC held meetings and received input from stakeholders and state agencies.
The proposal has won backing from environmental and health groups and the Firemen’s Association of New York State (FASNY).
“Limiting the amount of open burning is a win for the lungs of New Yorkers,” said Michael Seilback, Senior Director of Public Policy & Advocacy for the American Lung Association of New York State. “According to the 2008 American Lung Association State of the Air report, residents of all regions of the state are breathing air with dangerously high levels of both particulate matter and ozone, and reducing the amount of open burning will have a positive impact for those suffering from asthma and lung diseases.”
“Our main concern is the safety aspect of the open burn process,” said Michael Wutz, FASNY president. “But there are other concerns too. Burn barrels can cause smoke, and that triggers fire responders, which can overtax personnel. Also, open burning of household solid waste has been proven to also generate toxic pollution that undeniably contributes to public health risks.”
Public Hearings on the proposed rule change will be held as follows:
Monday, June 23, 2008, 5-8 p.m. Cortlandville Fire Department, 999 Route 13, Cortland, NY 13045
Tuesday, June 24, 2008, 5-8 p.m. Norrie Point Environmental Center, Margaret Lewis Norrie State Park, 256 Norrie Point Way, Staatsburg, NY 12580
Wednesday, June 25, 2008, 9:30 a.m. - Noon. DEC Central Office, 625 Broadway, Public Assembly Room 129, Albany, NY 12233
Wednesday, June 25, 2008, 5-8 p.m. DEC Central Office, 625 Broadway, Public Assembly Room 129, Albany, NY 12233
Thursday, June 26, 2008, 5-8 p.m. Harrietstown Town Hall, Main Street and Lake Flower Avenue, Saranac Lake, NY 12983
Monday, June 30, 2008, 5-8 p.m. Dulles State Office Building, 1st Floor Auditorium, 317 Washington Street, Watertown, NY 13601
Wednesday, July 2, 2008, 5-8 p.m. Genesee Community College, College Drive, Conable Technology Building, Room T102, Batavia, NY 14020
The proposed regulations are published in today's issue of the State Register and the public may provide comments during the formal 45-day comment period that begins with publication in the Register.
To read the proposal, go to www.dec.ny.gov and select “Proposed Regulations” from the left column and find the proposal on open burning. This will provide links to send written e-mail comments. Or, comments can be mailed to: NYSDEC, Division of Air Resources, Attention: Robert Stanton, 625 Broadway, Albany NY 12233-3254.
For more information on the dangers associated with open burning, visit the DEC website at http://www.dec.ny.gov/public/32064.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Special P.S. from Julie Mellum.....
The world is waking up to the hazards of wood smoke. Of special note is that formaldehyde, arsenic, lead and mercury, and also dioxins and furans are present in “clean” wood combustion to begin with. Burning trash only adds to the already-toxic mix. We need a Rule like this on all wood combustion for recreational purposes. We need limits and better containment on industrial burning and restaurant wood grills. Breaking news that wood smoke contributes to global warming is an added reason for immediate attention to wood burning issues.
Julie Mellum
Midwest Director, Clean Air Revival, www.burningissues.org
President, Take Back the Air
Shaken faith in environmental protection-Daily Herald Editorial
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Daily Herald Newspaper Editorial
Arlington Heights, Illinois
Published May 4, 2008
Shaken faith in environmental protection
It is a terrifying moment when people find out their homes or nearby land may be contaminated.
And it is at these times they turn to government for support and counsel. They put their faith that those hired to protect the environment and the public will put forth their best efforts to keep them from harm, or assure them there is no risk to their health.
If that faith has been shaken in DuPage County, it's understandable.
A few years back, many people in unincorporated areas near Lisle and Downers Grove were caught by surprise when they found out their well water had become contaminated by a potentially toxic chemical. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency didn't immediately notify residents of this. People shouldn't have had to be drinking bad water for years before finding out there was something in it that could harm them. Indeed, this led to the adoption of a new state law aimed at ensuring that people who live next to a contaminated site are effectively and promptly notified of such.
Now the IEPA is under fire again. This time, the criticism centers around its handling of methane gas leaks from the Mallard Lake landfill near Hanover Park.
Last week the IEPA issued a violation notice to BFI Waste Systems, which runs the landfill, noting the company failed to report problems including high methane levels, though officials say no homes or residents are at risk. The agency has asked BFI to submit a plan outlining how it will solve these problems. BFI said it is working with the state.
But an attorney representing residents who live by Mallard Lake said such action should have been taken long ago.
"The enduring disappointment is how nonexistent the government's response has been," Naperville attorney Shawn Collins said.
The IEPA was aware of methane leaks above safe levels around Mallard Lake in 1994 and 2000. That's why residents -- who are suing both BFI and the DuPage County Forest Preserve District, which owns the landfill -- are so angry.
It is also interesting to note that in both the instance of the contaminated wells, and now the landfill, the IEPA maintained that it did not get full notification from companies when looking into complaints of alleged pollution. If that is indeed true, then the logical follow-up would determine if there needs to be any changes in laws or regulations to assure prompt and complete notification from companies.
The IEPA also stated it has taken enforcement actions against the landfill operators in the past. Then why hasn't that worked to resolve problems in the present?
We know the IEPA has to juggle many things in acting on complaints. It can't be alarmist and must expect full cooperation from a company while at the same time not unduly putting that company's reputation at risk.
But nor can it come off as a bureaucracy not living up to its primary mission -- protecting the public and being a watchdog over the environment.
Note..Congratulations to the Daily Herald on their dynamic editorial.
One more note.....How about the Illinois EPA addressing a noxious, harmful, toxic, and deadly airborne emission that is harmful to the environment and killing people....wood smoke!!!!!!
Arlington Heights, Illinois
Published May 4, 2008
Shaken faith in environmental protection
It is a terrifying moment when people find out their homes or nearby land may be contaminated.
And it is at these times they turn to government for support and counsel. They put their faith that those hired to protect the environment and the public will put forth their best efforts to keep them from harm, or assure them there is no risk to their health.
If that faith has been shaken in DuPage County, it's understandable.
A few years back, many people in unincorporated areas near Lisle and Downers Grove were caught by surprise when they found out their well water had become contaminated by a potentially toxic chemical. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency didn't immediately notify residents of this. People shouldn't have had to be drinking bad water for years before finding out there was something in it that could harm them. Indeed, this led to the adoption of a new state law aimed at ensuring that people who live next to a contaminated site are effectively and promptly notified of such.
Now the IEPA is under fire again. This time, the criticism centers around its handling of methane gas leaks from the Mallard Lake landfill near Hanover Park.
Last week the IEPA issued a violation notice to BFI Waste Systems, which runs the landfill, noting the company failed to report problems including high methane levels, though officials say no homes or residents are at risk. The agency has asked BFI to submit a plan outlining how it will solve these problems. BFI said it is working with the state.
But an attorney representing residents who live by Mallard Lake said such action should have been taken long ago.
"The enduring disappointment is how nonexistent the government's response has been," Naperville attorney Shawn Collins said.
The IEPA was aware of methane leaks above safe levels around Mallard Lake in 1994 and 2000. That's why residents -- who are suing both BFI and the DuPage County Forest Preserve District, which owns the landfill -- are so angry.
It is also interesting to note that in both the instance of the contaminated wells, and now the landfill, the IEPA maintained that it did not get full notification from companies when looking into complaints of alleged pollution. If that is indeed true, then the logical follow-up would determine if there needs to be any changes in laws or regulations to assure prompt and complete notification from companies.
The IEPA also stated it has taken enforcement actions against the landfill operators in the past. Then why hasn't that worked to resolve problems in the present?
We know the IEPA has to juggle many things in acting on complaints. It can't be alarmist and must expect full cooperation from a company while at the same time not unduly putting that company's reputation at risk.
But nor can it come off as a bureaucracy not living up to its primary mission -- protecting the public and being a watchdog over the environment.
Note..Congratulations to the Daily Herald on their dynamic editorial.
One more note.....How about the Illinois EPA addressing a noxious, harmful, toxic, and deadly airborne emission that is harmful to the environment and killing people....wood smoke!!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)