Center for Biological Diversity Website
Dear Christopher,
One of the biggest new threats to forests in the United States is a modern take on a very old idea: burning wood for energy. Dozens of large, dirty, wood-burning electricity facilities -- staggeringly inefficient -- are now being planned across the country. A single such facility would require increased logging on tens of thousands of acres of forest each year.
Based on the flawed premise that any burning of wood is carbon neutral, electricity generated by burning trees and wood wastes -- referred to as "biomass" -- is counted as renewable energy by numerous state and federal programs intended to shift our reliance away from fossil fuels. Unfortunately, biomass burning is far from carbon neutral.
Carbon dioxide released from the smokestack of a biomass facility warms the planet just like CO2 from a coal plant. And while an area logged to fuel a biomass facility may ultimately grow back, it takes decades or even centuries for a forest to recapture as much carbon as is lost when it's logged. We don't have decades to waste if we are to reduce our emissions fast enough to save the polar bear, coral reefs, and much of the world's biodiversity from global warming.
Take action today and protect our forests. The Department of Agriculture has proposed regulations that would expand a massive, misguided subsidy program that encourages the harvest and burning of trees for energy. Please act now to let federal officials know that tax dollars should not go to the timber industry and power companies to subsidize actions that pollute the air, undermine climate solutions, and contribute to deforestation.
Go to http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2167/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=2298.
Up in Smoke---(The Truth About Biomass)
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Up in Smoke
Credit to---http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/up-in-smoke/
Why Biomass Wood Energy is Not the Answer
By George Wuerthner | January 12, 2010
After the Smurfit-Stone Container Corp.’s linerboard plant in Missoula Montana announced that it was closing permanently, there have been many people including Montana Governor Switzer, Missoula mayor and Senator Jon Tester, among others who advocate turning the mill into a biomass energy plant. Northwestern Energy, a company which has expressed interest in using the plant for energy production has already indicated that it would expect more wood from national forests to make the plant economically viable.
The Smurfit Stone conversion to biomass is not alone. There have been a spate of new proposals for new wood burning biomass energy plants sprouting across the country like mushrooms after a rain. Currently there are plans and/or proposals for new biomass power plants in Maine, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Florida, California, Idaho, Oregon and elsewhere. In every instance, these plants are being promoted as “green” technology.
Part of the reason for this “boom” is that taxpayers are providing substantial financial incentives, including tax breaks, government grants, and loan guarantees. The rationale for these taxpayer subsidies is the presumption that biomass is “green” energy. But like other “quick fixes” there has been very little serious scrutiny of real costs and environmental impacts of biomass. Whether commercial biomass is a viable alternative to traditional fossil fuels can be questioned.
Before I get into this discussion, I want to state right up front, that coal and other fossil fuels that now provide much of our electrical energy need to be reduced and effectively replaced. But biomass energy is not the way to accomplish this end goal.
BIOMASS BURNING IS POLLUTION
First and foremost, biomass burning isn’t green. Burning wood produces huge amounts of pollution. Especially in valleys like Missoula where temperature inversions are common, pollution from a biomass burner will be the source of numerous health ailments. Because of the air pollution and human health concerns, the Oregon Chapter of the American Lung Association, the Massachusetts Medical Society and the Florida Medical Association, have all established policies opposing large-scale biomass plants.
The reason for this medical concern is that even with the best pollution control devises, biomass energy is extremely dirty. For instance, one of the biggest biomass burners now in operation, the McNeil biomass plant in Burlington, Vermont is the number one pollution source in the state, emitting 79 classified pollutants. Biomass releases dioxins, and as much particulates as coal burning, plus carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and contributes to ozone formation. [...]
BIOMASS ENERGY IS INEFFICIENT
Wood is not nearly as concentrated a heat source as coal, gas, oil, or any other fossil fuel. Most biomass energy operations are only able to capture 20-25% of the latent energy by burning wood. That means one needs to gather and burn more wood to get the same energy value as a more concentrated fuel like coal. That is not to suggest that coal is a good alternative, rather wood is a worse alternative. Especially when you consider the energy used to gather the rather dispersed source of wood and the energy costs of trucking it to a central energy plant. If the entire carbon footprint of wood is considered, biomass creates far more CO2 with far less energy output than other energy sources.
The McNeil Biomass Plant in Burlington Vermont seldom runs full time because wood, even with all the subsidies (and Vermonters made huge and repeated subsidies to the plant—not counting the “hidden subsidies” like air pollution) wood energy can’t compete with other energy sources, even in the Northeast where energy costs are among the highest in the nation. Even though the plant was also retrofitted so it could burn natural gas to increase its competitiveness with other energy sources, the plant still does not operate competitively. It generally is only used to off- set peak energy loads.
One could argue, of course, that other energy sources like coal are greatly subsidized as well, especially if all environmental costs were considered. But at the very least, all energy sources must be “standardized” so that consumers can make informed decisions about energy—and biomass energy appears to be no more green than other energy sources.
BIOMASS SANITIZES AND MINES OUR FORESTS
The dispersed nature of wood as a fuel source combined with its low energy value means any sizable energy plant must burn a lot of wood. For instance, the McNeil 50 megawatt biomass plant in Burlington, Vermont would require roughly 32,500 acres of forest each year if running at near full capacity and entirely on wood. Wood for the McNeil Plant is trucked and even shipped on trains from as far away as Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Quebec and Maine.
Biomass proponents often suggest that wood [which can be gathered] as a consequence of forest thinning to improve “forest health” (logging a forest to improve health of a forest ecosystem is an oxymoron.) will provide the fuel for plant operations. For instance, one of the assumptions of Senator Tester’s Montana Forest Jobs bill is that thinned forests will provide a ready source of biomass for energy production. But in many cases, there are limits on the economic viability of trucking wood any distance to a central energy plant. Again without huge subsidies, this simply does not make economic sense. Biomass forest harvesting is even worse for forest ecosystems than clearcutting. Biomass energy tends to utilize the entire tree, including the bole, crown, and branches. This robs a forest of nutrients, and disrupts energy cycles.
Worse yet, such biomass removal ignores the important role of dead trees to sustain the forest ecosystems. Dead trees are not a “wasted” resource. They provide home and food for thousands of species, including 45% of all bird species in the Nation. Dead trees that fall to the ground are used by insects, small mammals, amphibians and reptiles for shelter and even potentially food. Dead trees that fall into streams are important physical components of aquatic ecosystems and provide critical habitat for many fish and other aquatic species. Removal of dead wood is mining the forest. Keep in mind that logging activities are not benign. Logging typically requires some kind of access, often roads which are a major source of sedimentation in streams, and disrupt natural subsurface water flow. Logging can disturb sensitive wildlife like grizzly bear and even elk are known to abandon locations with active logging. Logging can spread weeds. And finally since large amounts of forest carbon are actually tied up in the soils, soil disturbance from logging is especially damaging, often releasing substantial additional amounts of carbon over and above what is released up a smoke stack.
BIOMASS ENERGY USES LARGE AMOUNTS OF WATER
A large-scale biomass plant (50 MW) uses close to a million gallons of water a day for cooling. Most of that water is lost from the watershed since approximately 85% is lost as steam. Water channeled back into a river or stream typically has a pollution cost as well, including higher water temperatures that negatively impact fisheries, especially trout. Since cooling need is greatest in warm weather, removal of water from rivers occurs just when flows are lowest, and fish are most susceptible to temperature stress.
BIOMASS ENERGY SAPS FUNDS FROM OTHER TRULY GREEN ENERGY SOURCES LIKE SOLAR
Since biomass energy is eligible for state renewable portfolio standards (RPS), it has captured the bulk of funding intended to move the country away from fossil fuels. For example, in Vermont, 90% of the RPS is from “smokestack” sources—mostly biomass incineration. This pattern holds throughout many other parts of the country. Biomass energy is thus burning up funds that could and should be going into other energy programs like energy conservation, solar and insulation of buildings.
PUBLIC FORESTS WILL BE LOGGED FOR BIOMASS ENERGY
Many of the climate bills now circulating in Congress, as well as Montana Senator Jon Tester’s Montana Jobs and Wilderness bill target public forests. Some of these proposals even include roadless lands and proposed wilderness as a source for wood biomass. One federal study suggests that 368 million tons of wood could be removed from our national forests every year—of course this study did not include the ecological costs that physical removal of this much would have on forest ecosystems.
The Biomass Crop Assistance Program, or BCAP, which was quietly put into the 2008 farm bill has so far given away more than a half billion dollars in a matching payment program for businesses that cut and collect biomass from national forests and Bureau of Land Management lands. And according to a recent Washington Post story, the Obama administration has already sent $23 million to biomass energy companies, and is poised to send another half billion.
And it is not only federal forests that are in jeopardy. Many states are eying their own state forests for biomass energy. For instance, Maine recently unveiled a new plan known as the Great Maine Forest Initiative which will pay timber companies to grow trees for biomass energy.
JOB LOSSES
Ironically one of the main justifications for biomass energy is the creation of jobs, yet the wood biomass rush is having unintended consequences for other forest products industries. Companies that rely upon surplus wood chips to produce fiberboard, cabinet makers, and furniture are scrambling to find wood fiber for their products. Considering that these industries are secondary producers of products, the biomass rush could threaten more jobs than it may create.
BOTTOM LINE
Large scale wood biomass energy is neither green, nor truly economical. It is also not ecologically sustainable and jeopardizes our forest ecosystems. It is a distraction that funnels funds and attention away from other more truly worthwhile energy options, in particular, the need for a massive energy conservation program, and changes in our lifestyles that will in the end provide truly green alternatives to coal and other fossil fuels.
George Wuerthner is a wildlife biologist and a former Montana hunting guide. His latest book is Plundering Appalachia.
Credit to---http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/up-in-smoke/
Credit to---http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/up-in-smoke/
Why Biomass Wood Energy is Not the Answer
By George Wuerthner | January 12, 2010
After the Smurfit-Stone Container Corp.’s linerboard plant in Missoula Montana announced that it was closing permanently, there have been many people including Montana Governor Switzer, Missoula mayor and Senator Jon Tester, among others who advocate turning the mill into a biomass energy plant. Northwestern Energy, a company which has expressed interest in using the plant for energy production has already indicated that it would expect more wood from national forests to make the plant economically viable.
The Smurfit Stone conversion to biomass is not alone. There have been a spate of new proposals for new wood burning biomass energy plants sprouting across the country like mushrooms after a rain. Currently there are plans and/or proposals for new biomass power plants in Maine, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Florida, California, Idaho, Oregon and elsewhere. In every instance, these plants are being promoted as “green” technology.
Part of the reason for this “boom” is that taxpayers are providing substantial financial incentives, including tax breaks, government grants, and loan guarantees. The rationale for these taxpayer subsidies is the presumption that biomass is “green” energy. But like other “quick fixes” there has been very little serious scrutiny of real costs and environmental impacts of biomass. Whether commercial biomass is a viable alternative to traditional fossil fuels can be questioned.
Before I get into this discussion, I want to state right up front, that coal and other fossil fuels that now provide much of our electrical energy need to be reduced and effectively replaced. But biomass energy is not the way to accomplish this end goal.
BIOMASS BURNING IS POLLUTION
First and foremost, biomass burning isn’t green. Burning wood produces huge amounts of pollution. Especially in valleys like Missoula where temperature inversions are common, pollution from a biomass burner will be the source of numerous health ailments. Because of the air pollution and human health concerns, the Oregon Chapter of the American Lung Association, the Massachusetts Medical Society and the Florida Medical Association, have all established policies opposing large-scale biomass plants.
The reason for this medical concern is that even with the best pollution control devises, biomass energy is extremely dirty. For instance, one of the biggest biomass burners now in operation, the McNeil biomass plant in Burlington, Vermont is the number one pollution source in the state, emitting 79 classified pollutants. Biomass releases dioxins, and as much particulates as coal burning, plus carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and contributes to ozone formation. [...]
BIOMASS ENERGY IS INEFFICIENT
Wood is not nearly as concentrated a heat source as coal, gas, oil, or any other fossil fuel. Most biomass energy operations are only able to capture 20-25% of the latent energy by burning wood. That means one needs to gather and burn more wood to get the same energy value as a more concentrated fuel like coal. That is not to suggest that coal is a good alternative, rather wood is a worse alternative. Especially when you consider the energy used to gather the rather dispersed source of wood and the energy costs of trucking it to a central energy plant. If the entire carbon footprint of wood is considered, biomass creates far more CO2 with far less energy output than other energy sources.
The McNeil Biomass Plant in Burlington Vermont seldom runs full time because wood, even with all the subsidies (and Vermonters made huge and repeated subsidies to the plant—not counting the “hidden subsidies” like air pollution) wood energy can’t compete with other energy sources, even in the Northeast where energy costs are among the highest in the nation. Even though the plant was also retrofitted so it could burn natural gas to increase its competitiveness with other energy sources, the plant still does not operate competitively. It generally is only used to off- set peak energy loads.
One could argue, of course, that other energy sources like coal are greatly subsidized as well, especially if all environmental costs were considered. But at the very least, all energy sources must be “standardized” so that consumers can make informed decisions about energy—and biomass energy appears to be no more green than other energy sources.
BIOMASS SANITIZES AND MINES OUR FORESTS
The dispersed nature of wood as a fuel source combined with its low energy value means any sizable energy plant must burn a lot of wood. For instance, the McNeil 50 megawatt biomass plant in Burlington, Vermont would require roughly 32,500 acres of forest each year if running at near full capacity and entirely on wood. Wood for the McNeil Plant is trucked and even shipped on trains from as far away as Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Quebec and Maine.
Biomass proponents often suggest that wood [which can be gathered] as a consequence of forest thinning to improve “forest health” (logging a forest to improve health of a forest ecosystem is an oxymoron.) will provide the fuel for plant operations. For instance, one of the assumptions of Senator Tester’s Montana Forest Jobs bill is that thinned forests will provide a ready source of biomass for energy production. But in many cases, there are limits on the economic viability of trucking wood any distance to a central energy plant. Again without huge subsidies, this simply does not make economic sense. Biomass forest harvesting is even worse for forest ecosystems than clearcutting. Biomass energy tends to utilize the entire tree, including the bole, crown, and branches. This robs a forest of nutrients, and disrupts energy cycles.
Worse yet, such biomass removal ignores the important role of dead trees to sustain the forest ecosystems. Dead trees are not a “wasted” resource. They provide home and food for thousands of species, including 45% of all bird species in the Nation. Dead trees that fall to the ground are used by insects, small mammals, amphibians and reptiles for shelter and even potentially food. Dead trees that fall into streams are important physical components of aquatic ecosystems and provide critical habitat for many fish and other aquatic species. Removal of dead wood is mining the forest. Keep in mind that logging activities are not benign. Logging typically requires some kind of access, often roads which are a major source of sedimentation in streams, and disrupt natural subsurface water flow. Logging can disturb sensitive wildlife like grizzly bear and even elk are known to abandon locations with active logging. Logging can spread weeds. And finally since large amounts of forest carbon are actually tied up in the soils, soil disturbance from logging is especially damaging, often releasing substantial additional amounts of carbon over and above what is released up a smoke stack.
BIOMASS ENERGY USES LARGE AMOUNTS OF WATER
A large-scale biomass plant (50 MW) uses close to a million gallons of water a day for cooling. Most of that water is lost from the watershed since approximately 85% is lost as steam. Water channeled back into a river or stream typically has a pollution cost as well, including higher water temperatures that negatively impact fisheries, especially trout. Since cooling need is greatest in warm weather, removal of water from rivers occurs just when flows are lowest, and fish are most susceptible to temperature stress.
BIOMASS ENERGY SAPS FUNDS FROM OTHER TRULY GREEN ENERGY SOURCES LIKE SOLAR
Since biomass energy is eligible for state renewable portfolio standards (RPS), it has captured the bulk of funding intended to move the country away from fossil fuels. For example, in Vermont, 90% of the RPS is from “smokestack” sources—mostly biomass incineration. This pattern holds throughout many other parts of the country. Biomass energy is thus burning up funds that could and should be going into other energy programs like energy conservation, solar and insulation of buildings.
PUBLIC FORESTS WILL BE LOGGED FOR BIOMASS ENERGY
Many of the climate bills now circulating in Congress, as well as Montana Senator Jon Tester’s Montana Jobs and Wilderness bill target public forests. Some of these proposals even include roadless lands and proposed wilderness as a source for wood biomass. One federal study suggests that 368 million tons of wood could be removed from our national forests every year—of course this study did not include the ecological costs that physical removal of this much would have on forest ecosystems.
The Biomass Crop Assistance Program, or BCAP, which was quietly put into the 2008 farm bill has so far given away more than a half billion dollars in a matching payment program for businesses that cut and collect biomass from national forests and Bureau of Land Management lands. And according to a recent Washington Post story, the Obama administration has already sent $23 million to biomass energy companies, and is poised to send another half billion.
And it is not only federal forests that are in jeopardy. Many states are eying their own state forests for biomass energy. For instance, Maine recently unveiled a new plan known as the Great Maine Forest Initiative which will pay timber companies to grow trees for biomass energy.
JOB LOSSES
Ironically one of the main justifications for biomass energy is the creation of jobs, yet the wood biomass rush is having unintended consequences for other forest products industries. Companies that rely upon surplus wood chips to produce fiberboard, cabinet makers, and furniture are scrambling to find wood fiber for their products. Considering that these industries are secondary producers of products, the biomass rush could threaten more jobs than it may create.
BOTTOM LINE
Large scale wood biomass energy is neither green, nor truly economical. It is also not ecologically sustainable and jeopardizes our forest ecosystems. It is a distraction that funnels funds and attention away from other more truly worthwhile energy options, in particular, the need for a massive energy conservation program, and changes in our lifestyles that will in the end provide truly green alternatives to coal and other fossil fuels.
George Wuerthner is a wildlife biologist and a former Montana hunting guide. His latest book is Plundering Appalachia.
Credit to---http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/up-in-smoke/
Responsible Burning?
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
From----The Wood Smoke Activist
February 2010 Newsletter
Educating the world about the health and climate impacts of wood smoke and combustion aerosols.
Editor: Shirley Brandie
1/2/2010
Responsible Burning?
Some wood burners claim that they burn responsibly. They have been told that there is efficient burning with modern high heat units. Maybe they have a pellet stove which is supposed to be cleaner. But there are start-up problems like in any industrial process and home units are rarely monitored consistently. In my opinion we have been misled with the positives of burning and the negatives have been largely ignored.
Of course words depend on their definitions. Two common definitions of the word responsible are “answerable to somebody” or “being to blame for something”. Wood burners make smoke and should be “answerable to somebody” for the health consequences. Wood burners can also be “blamed for smoke”. We are told that fine particulate has no safe level and health depends on the level of exposure. Responsible people who live near others should not burn wood. There are wiser and cheaper methods of keeping warm.
In my opinion all burning below the level of natural gas could be considered irresponsible. If there is no safe level of PM2.5 and if one can smell smoke, then burning should stop. Knowledge of health effects on others should be enough for a responsible citizen to stop burning.
Vic Steblin vsteblin@sd57.bc.ca
BSc Honours Math, MA Math Education from UBC
Currently teaching math in a secondary school in Prince George,
From----The Wood Smoke Activist
February 2010 Newsletter
Educating the world about the health and climate impacts of wood smoke and combustion aerosols.
Editor: Shirley Brandie
1/2/2010
February 2010 Newsletter
Educating the world about the health and climate impacts of wood smoke and combustion aerosols.
Editor: Shirley Brandie
1/2/2010
Responsible Burning?
Some wood burners claim that they burn responsibly. They have been told that there is efficient burning with modern high heat units. Maybe they have a pellet stove which is supposed to be cleaner. But there are start-up problems like in any industrial process and home units are rarely monitored consistently. In my opinion we have been misled with the positives of burning and the negatives have been largely ignored.
Of course words depend on their definitions. Two common definitions of the word responsible are “answerable to somebody” or “being to blame for something”. Wood burners make smoke and should be “answerable to somebody” for the health consequences. Wood burners can also be “blamed for smoke”. We are told that fine particulate has no safe level and health depends on the level of exposure. Responsible people who live near others should not burn wood. There are wiser and cheaper methods of keeping warm.
In my opinion all burning below the level of natural gas could be considered irresponsible. If there is no safe level of PM2.5 and if one can smell smoke, then burning should stop. Knowledge of health effects on others should be enough for a responsible citizen to stop burning.
Vic Steblin vsteblin@sd57.bc.ca
BSc Honours Math, MA Math Education from UBC
Currently teaching math in a secondary school in Prince George,
From----The Wood Smoke Activist
February 2010 Newsletter
Educating the world about the health and climate impacts of wood smoke and combustion aerosols.
Editor: Shirley Brandie
1/2/2010
Risky Business: Burning Wood and other Biomass for Energy
From----The Wood Smoke Activist
February 2010 Newsletter
Educating the world about the health and climate impacts of wood smoke and combustion aerosols.
Editor: Shirley Brandie
1/2/2010
Risky Business: Burning Wood and other Biomass for Energy
Though burning biomass is a source of renewable energy, the negative health consequences are so well documented that they far outweigh the benefits.
Wood smoke shares many common chemicals with tobacco smoke, including formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and carbon emissions. It is rich in dioxins, the most insidious family of toxins known to man, which accumulate in the environment and in mammalian lungs, building up over time, adding incrementally to health risks for every generation to come.
Smoke from biomass burning is implicated in skyrocketing birth defects, including reproductive defects in unborn babies, asthma attacks, heart attacks and even SIDS.
Morbidity and Mortality from Air Pollution—a Wake-Up Call
The American Thoracic Society, May 22, 2006, found that for an increase of 10 micrograms per cubic meter of particulates over two years, the risk of dying was increased by:
*32% for people with diabetes
*28% for people with COPD, asthma and pneumonia
*27% in people with congestive heart failure
*22% for people with inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis or lupus
A current American Lung Association brochure states that a majority of asthmatics cite smoke of all kinds as a trigger for asthma attacks.
“Particulate pollution has been linked to hospital admissions and emergency room visits for respiratory problems and to premature death.” Further, “The sulfur dioxide in wood smoke constricts air passages, making it a problem for people with asthma and for young children whose small lungs need to work harder than adult lungs. Even brief exposures to relatively low levels of sulfur dioxide can cause an asthma attack.”
The EPA, in “Health Effects of Particle Pollution,” March 8, 2006, states, “Many scientific studies have linked breathing particle pollution to a series of significant health problems, including chronic bronchitis, decreased lung function, and premature death.”
Do we need to hear more to rule out biomass burning in urban areas?
Biomass/Wood Smoke Particulates are Major Contributors to Climate Change
Smoke and other fine particulates influence cloud thinning by “choking” clouds, and absorb moisture from the atmosphere, contributing to climate change. For more detailed facts, see www.burningissues.org, a project of Clean Air Revival, a non-profit organization providing online scientific information on wood smoke and other fine particulates.
Julie Mellum
President, Take Back the Air
info@takebacktheair.com
Credit to----The Wood Smoke Activist
February 2010 Newsletter
Educating the world about the health and climate impacts of wood smoke and combustion aerosols.
Editor: Shirley Brandie
1/2/2010
February 2010 Newsletter
Educating the world about the health and climate impacts of wood smoke and combustion aerosols.
Editor: Shirley Brandie
1/2/2010
Risky Business: Burning Wood and other Biomass for Energy
Though burning biomass is a source of renewable energy, the negative health consequences are so well documented that they far outweigh the benefits.
Wood smoke shares many common chemicals with tobacco smoke, including formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and carbon emissions. It is rich in dioxins, the most insidious family of toxins known to man, which accumulate in the environment and in mammalian lungs, building up over time, adding incrementally to health risks for every generation to come.
Smoke from biomass burning is implicated in skyrocketing birth defects, including reproductive defects in unborn babies, asthma attacks, heart attacks and even SIDS.
Morbidity and Mortality from Air Pollution—a Wake-Up Call
The American Thoracic Society, May 22, 2006, found that for an increase of 10 micrograms per cubic meter of particulates over two years, the risk of dying was increased by:
*32% for people with diabetes
*28% for people with COPD, asthma and pneumonia
*27% in people with congestive heart failure
*22% for people with inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis or lupus
A current American Lung Association brochure states that a majority of asthmatics cite smoke of all kinds as a trigger for asthma attacks.
“Particulate pollution has been linked to hospital admissions and emergency room visits for respiratory problems and to premature death.” Further, “The sulfur dioxide in wood smoke constricts air passages, making it a problem for people with asthma and for young children whose small lungs need to work harder than adult lungs. Even brief exposures to relatively low levels of sulfur dioxide can cause an asthma attack.”
The EPA, in “Health Effects of Particle Pollution,” March 8, 2006, states, “Many scientific studies have linked breathing particle pollution to a series of significant health problems, including chronic bronchitis, decreased lung function, and premature death.”
Do we need to hear more to rule out biomass burning in urban areas?
Biomass/Wood Smoke Particulates are Major Contributors to Climate Change
Smoke and other fine particulates influence cloud thinning by “choking” clouds, and absorb moisture from the atmosphere, contributing to climate change. For more detailed facts, see www.burningissues.org, a project of Clean Air Revival, a non-profit organization providing online scientific information on wood smoke and other fine particulates.
Julie Mellum
President, Take Back the Air
info@takebacktheair.com
Credit to----The Wood Smoke Activist
February 2010 Newsletter
Educating the world about the health and climate impacts of wood smoke and combustion aerosols.
Editor: Shirley Brandie
1/2/2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)