I read with interest the recent letters page devoted to the topic of fires in fireplaces. Most surprising to me was the notion by some that regulating such a thing somehow usurps their right to do what they want in the privacy of their own home.
Since when is it acceptable to threaten the health of others just because the offending act takes place in the comfort and privacy of one's own home?
Sure, hearth fires are nice. But so is being able to breathe clean air.
Sure, burning hundreds of pounds of wood each winter can lower one's heating bill. But why should the rest of society have to breathe filthy, stinky, cancer-causing air so one household can lower its bill?
Just like noise from obnoxious, barking dogs, very loud music at 3 a.m., or a bullet from a firearm discharged randomly into the sky, toxic soot becomes society's business the instant it leaves the privacy of someone's property and enters the privacy of someone else's property.
I treasure my rights and privileges as an American, but I also understand that I should not gratuitously endanger others for the sake of my own pleasure or economic benefit.
Anyone who closes the flue, seals off the chimney, closes their doors and windows, shuts off all vent fans, and still chooses to have a fire should have the right to do so.
Because only then is the cozy hearth fire's smoke restricted to the privacy and enjoyment of the home, where it belongs.
But The Fire Is Not Delightful-Letter to the Editor
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Opinion--Article
StarTribune Newspaper
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Published December 5, 2007
Julie Mellum: But the fire is not delightful
We're snuffing secondhand tobacco smoke, but we continue to romanticize recreational wood burning -- a hazard all its own.
One big source of air pollution -- as deadly as vehicle exhaust, and with many of the same toxicants as cigarette smoke -- is wood smoke.
The Star Tribune's recent feature on the joys of back-yard wood burning ("All fired up," Oct. 24) was so well-written and enticing that it no doubt caused sales of wood-burning equipment to skyrocket. Yet it did not address the perils of wood smoke. Wood smoke is more than a nuisance -- it is a health hazard.
Minnesota's antismoking ordinance allows people to go to bars and restaurants and avoid smoke, because tobacco smoke is a proven killer. Yet because we still allow recreational wood burning in the city, where homes are close together on small lots, it has become a serious livability problem. All citizens are forced to breathe outdoor air that smells of smoke in many neighborhoods, night and day, in all seasons.
There is so much smoke, either faint or heavy, that many hardly notice it anymore. But wood smoke is there, heavy in most neighborhoods at night or around our many wood-fired restaurants, if you stop to notice.
How did this happen in a city such as Minneapolis, which has long been focused on improving air quality for the health of its citizens?
Wood smoke comprises fine particulates, many of which are carcinogenic, such as benzene, toluene, formaldehyde and polyaromatic hydrocarbons. It is far more concentrated than cigarette smoke and travels much farther, spreading soot and fine particulates directly into our air and our lungs. It also invades our water and food supply with persistent organic compounds that do not break down but remain for years, causing a host of health problems in frogs, bluegills and mammals -- including humans.
Everyone is at risk from wood-smoke exposure. But children of all ages, the elderly, and anyone with asthma, allergies, or heart disease are in the highest-risk categories.
The American Lung Association states that a majority of asthmatics cite smoke of all kinds as a trigger for asthma attacks. Asthma is epidemic in children, and it is life-threatening. Wood smoke is even implicated in sudden infant death syndrome. Are we OK with this? Aren't these facts reason enough to stop recreational wood burning?
Why, then, do people continue to burn? First, because they don't know how harmful it is. Second, because it is strongly promoted by the hearth and home industry. And third, because burning wood is an addiction.
I cannot be outside at all when wood smoke is in the air, because I have a "reactive airways" condition affected by it. I ache for clean air outdoors in a world where nature often is our only respite. Bad air is forcing many others I know inside when, as city taxpayers, we have a right to be outside breathing clean air.
We must urge our City Council members to ban recreational wood burning -- especially at a time when cities are looking for ways to reduce pollution to save lives and receive federal funding by being in compliance with air-quality standards. Many feel that our air-quality standards are not high enough. If air quality were measured near where people actually breathe it, when neighbors are burning, the results would be off the charts.
I look to the Star Tribune and to all citizens to start building public awareness of the hazards of wood smoke.
Julie Mellum is a Realtor and president of Take Back the Air, a Minneapolis group that works to address pollution at the neighborhood level.
StarTribune Newspaper
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Published December 5, 2007
Julie Mellum: But the fire is not delightful
We're snuffing secondhand tobacco smoke, but we continue to romanticize recreational wood burning -- a hazard all its own.
One big source of air pollution -- as deadly as vehicle exhaust, and with many of the same toxicants as cigarette smoke -- is wood smoke.
The Star Tribune's recent feature on the joys of back-yard wood burning ("All fired up," Oct. 24) was so well-written and enticing that it no doubt caused sales of wood-burning equipment to skyrocket. Yet it did not address the perils of wood smoke. Wood smoke is more than a nuisance -- it is a health hazard.
Minnesota's antismoking ordinance allows people to go to bars and restaurants and avoid smoke, because tobacco smoke is a proven killer. Yet because we still allow recreational wood burning in the city, where homes are close together on small lots, it has become a serious livability problem. All citizens are forced to breathe outdoor air that smells of smoke in many neighborhoods, night and day, in all seasons.
There is so much smoke, either faint or heavy, that many hardly notice it anymore. But wood smoke is there, heavy in most neighborhoods at night or around our many wood-fired restaurants, if you stop to notice.
How did this happen in a city such as Minneapolis, which has long been focused on improving air quality for the health of its citizens?
Wood smoke comprises fine particulates, many of which are carcinogenic, such as benzene, toluene, formaldehyde and polyaromatic hydrocarbons. It is far more concentrated than cigarette smoke and travels much farther, spreading soot and fine particulates directly into our air and our lungs. It also invades our water and food supply with persistent organic compounds that do not break down but remain for years, causing a host of health problems in frogs, bluegills and mammals -- including humans.
Everyone is at risk from wood-smoke exposure. But children of all ages, the elderly, and anyone with asthma, allergies, or heart disease are in the highest-risk categories.
The American Lung Association states that a majority of asthmatics cite smoke of all kinds as a trigger for asthma attacks. Asthma is epidemic in children, and it is life-threatening. Wood smoke is even implicated in sudden infant death syndrome. Are we OK with this? Aren't these facts reason enough to stop recreational wood burning?
Why, then, do people continue to burn? First, because they don't know how harmful it is. Second, because it is strongly promoted by the hearth and home industry. And third, because burning wood is an addiction.
I cannot be outside at all when wood smoke is in the air, because I have a "reactive airways" condition affected by it. I ache for clean air outdoors in a world where nature often is our only respite. Bad air is forcing many others I know inside when, as city taxpayers, we have a right to be outside breathing clean air.
We must urge our City Council members to ban recreational wood burning -- especially at a time when cities are looking for ways to reduce pollution to save lives and receive federal funding by being in compliance with air-quality standards. Many feel that our air-quality standards are not high enough. If air quality were measured near where people actually breathe it, when neighbors are burning, the results would be off the charts.
I look to the Star Tribune and to all citizens to start building public awareness of the hazards of wood smoke.
Julie Mellum is a Realtor and president of Take Back the Air, a Minneapolis group that works to address pollution at the neighborhood level.
Elk Grove Village, Illinois, Must Ban Wood Smoke
Letter to the Editor
Daily Herald Newspaper
Paddock Publications
Published December 5, 2007
Elk Grove Village Must Ban Wood Smoke
Soaring asthma and autism rates in our cities correspond with skyrocketing fine particulate pollution, caused mostly by vehicle exhaust and wood smoke.
When fine particulate pollution goes up, people die-from asthma attacks, heart attacks and even sudden infant death syndrome.
Burning for fun is wreaking havoc and infiltrating our lungs, air, water and crops with deadly pollutants that harm both man and the planet. Are we OK with this?
As the Midwestern director for Clean Air Revival, an international organization dedicated to providing scientific information on the hazards of wood smoke, I have been involved with the Elk Grove Village community in fighting wood smoke. I spoke in favor of reinstating the one-time progressive ban on outdoor recreational burning at its town hall meeting in October.
While Mayor Craig Johnson is concerned with stopping smoking by educational means, equally needed is a major educational campaign on the harms of wood smoke!
Just as the Illinois Smoking Ban will help people quit smoking and protect others from secondhand smoke, so would a wood-burning ban help people stop polluting for fun, and protect others from the fine particulate fallout.
We must ban wood burning now.
Julie Mellum
Midwestern Director
Clean Air Revival
Minneapolis
Note…Elk Grove Village, Illinois, is on the western border of O’Hare Airport, and is a northwest suburb of Chicago.
Comment...All of us need to continually write letters to the newspapers and our elected officials to ban wood burning.
Daily Herald Newspaper
Paddock Publications
Published December 5, 2007
Elk Grove Village Must Ban Wood Smoke
Soaring asthma and autism rates in our cities correspond with skyrocketing fine particulate pollution, caused mostly by vehicle exhaust and wood smoke.
When fine particulate pollution goes up, people die-from asthma attacks, heart attacks and even sudden infant death syndrome.
Burning for fun is wreaking havoc and infiltrating our lungs, air, water and crops with deadly pollutants that harm both man and the planet. Are we OK with this?
As the Midwestern director for Clean Air Revival, an international organization dedicated to providing scientific information on the hazards of wood smoke, I have been involved with the Elk Grove Village community in fighting wood smoke. I spoke in favor of reinstating the one-time progressive ban on outdoor recreational burning at its town hall meeting in October.
While Mayor Craig Johnson is concerned with stopping smoking by educational means, equally needed is a major educational campaign on the harms of wood smoke!
Just as the Illinois Smoking Ban will help people quit smoking and protect others from secondhand smoke, so would a wood-burning ban help people stop polluting for fun, and protect others from the fine particulate fallout.
We must ban wood burning now.
Julie Mellum
Midwestern Director
Clean Air Revival
Minneapolis
Note…Elk Grove Village, Illinois, is on the western border of O’Hare Airport, and is a northwest suburb of Chicago.
Comment...All of us need to continually write letters to the newspapers and our elected officials to ban wood burning.
Ban all outdoor burning-Crain's Chicago Business
Monday, December 3, 2007
December 3, 2007-Published
Letters to the Editor
Crain’s Chicago Business
letters@chicagobusiness.com
Note...Let's hope that all communities (and the state of Illinois) seriously consider passing a law to ban all outdoor burning-the sooner the better.
Let your elected officials know we want a ban!
It is a matter of your family's breath, health, and life!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ban all outdoor burning!
Regarding “Barrington, other suburbs oppose railroad’s plan” (ChicagoBusiness.com, Nov 12), these towns are concerned about more traffic congestion, noise, declining property values, and environmental issues. But these towns already condone an activity that affects two of these issues dramatically, and also negatively affects the health of all people living in the area.
A ban on all outdoor burning is what these concerned suburbs need to adopt if they want to show they care about their residents' health. All of us must take action to protect the air we breathe and the health of our children and those with respiratory illnesses. Even we healthy people need fresh, clean air, not air saturated and polluted with noxious, and poisonous smoky emissions.
These suburbs may not be able to stop the trains, but they can easily adopt a ban on burning leaves and outdoor wood-burning fire places and fire pits if preserving the air, the environment, property values and their residents' health are really important
Elk Grove Village, Illinois
P.S. Barrington is a northwest suburb of Chicago, Illinois.
Letters to the Editor
Crain’s Chicago Business
letters@chicagobusiness.com
Note...Let's hope that all communities (and the state of Illinois) seriously consider passing a law to ban all outdoor burning-the sooner the better.
Let your elected officials know we want a ban!
It is a matter of your family's breath, health, and life!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ban all outdoor burning!
Regarding “Barrington, other suburbs oppose railroad’s plan” (ChicagoBusiness.com, Nov 12), these towns are concerned about more traffic congestion, noise, declining property values, and environmental issues. But these towns already condone an activity that affects two of these issues dramatically, and also negatively affects the health of all people living in the area.
A ban on all outdoor burning is what these concerned suburbs need to adopt if they want to show they care about their residents' health. All of us must take action to protect the air we breathe and the health of our children and those with respiratory illnesses. Even we healthy people need fresh, clean air, not air saturated and polluted with noxious, and poisonous smoky emissions.
These suburbs may not be able to stop the trains, but they can easily adopt a ban on burning leaves and outdoor wood-burning fire places and fire pits if preserving the air, the environment, property values and their residents' health are really important
Elk Grove Village, Illinois
P.S. Barrington is a northwest suburb of Chicago, Illinois.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)