Air quality monitoring is a charade
Red Deer Advocate
By Advocate news services
Published: April 07, 2010 8:49 AM
No sophisticated air quality studies are needed to realize that Red Deer has a serious air pollution problem.
The air stinks of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals in acres of the city where residents are burning wood in their stoves and fireplaces.
The smoke and fumes are a threat to the health and lives of neighbours but dissipate before reaching an air quality monitor.
Even if emissions reach a monitoring unit, only a few simple chemicals are being monitored and the complex toxins and carcinogens produced by burning wood are not detected.
Surprisingly, only Toronto, which also relies on basic, Alberta-style monitoring, has checked to see if the Air Quality Index (AQI) is an effective indicator of the health impact of air pollution.
It is no surprise that 92 per cent of the pollution related illnesses and deaths are on days when, according to the air quality data, the air quality is “good” to “very good.”
Similarly about 12 years ago, the Suzuki Foundation identified the obvious: neglect of the Big Three sources of urban air pollution — domestic wood burning, automobiles and commercial trucks, was resulting in pollution-related deaths in Edmonton and Calgary (Red Deer was not included.)
Instead of seeing these findings as a need to start addressing urban air quality issues, the findings were rejected as there was no correlation between the AQI and the number of pollution-related deaths.
It is puzzling that so many people are prepared to believe that monitoring a few simple chemicals in a few locations will identify the health implications of urban air pollution.
Monitoring is even too basic to identify the source of pollutants and, in the absence of normal environmental data, several studies have shown that Albertans are most concerned about industrial pollution.
In reality, for urban residents, it is the pollution sources a few metres from your home that are the greatest threat to your family’s health — a busy road or a neighbour’s wood burning stove or fireplace.
The level of toxins and chemicals that cause cancer and birth defects was increasing rapidly in wood-burning areas.
There is nothing surprising about these findings as the emissions from wood or coal burning stoves and fireplaces are a world-wide concern and have been since historical times.
Unfortunately, most cities in the U.S. and Canada use basic Alberta-style monitoring which provides no protection from the most dangerous source of urban pollution — wood burning stoves and fireplaces.
In the seventies, when families found their health affected by the smoke and chemicals from a neighbour’s fireplace, politicians would point out that the data from the monitoring unit, possibly a kilometer away, “proved,” that the city had clean air.
Then as the number of wood burning appliances increased and finally air quality standards were being exceeded, politicians invariably decided that so many residents (voters) were burning wood, that it was now too political to do anything.
Several hundred North American urban centres have already followed this path and there are more every year.
Once fouled by woodsmoke, no city as been able to correct this situation and it will take a future generation that cares for the urban environment for cities to, once again, be healthy places in which to live.
Hopefully, city politicians will institute burning bans along the lines of U.S. cities when calm conditions are forecast and smoke is not expected to disperse.
In addition, the city needs to ban further installation of wood burning appliances and borrowing an idea from the British, all levels of government should cover the cost of converting existing dirty-fuel appliances to burn natural gas.
Allan Smith is a former member of the Urban Environmental Study Group of the Environmental Council of Alberta
From: Red Deer Advocate website
By Advocate news services
Published: April 07, 2010
North St. Paul, MN - The Most Polluted City In The World
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Recreational Fires Must Be Eliminated
WELCOME TO HELL ON EARTH
http://northsaintpaulresident.blogspot.com/
The air is smoky from burning wood in North St. Paul, MN, all the time. It is a nightmare. What used to be a nice place to live has become a living hell.
Fresh air is very rare around here. If you are considering moving to North St. Paul or buying a home here, I strongly recommend that you do not do it no matter how good of a price you get. The only way you will be happy in this town is if you love breathing smoky air almost every day.
The air was smoky 25 out of 31 evenings in July 2009. We had 37 hours of continuous wood smoke in the air Aug. 29th - 31st. There was wood smoke in the air 19 consecutive evenings from Aug. 21st to Sept. 8th. It rained heavily on Aug. 20th, providing the only relief we got from wood smoke for almost three weeks.
Is this a good way to live? No. It is a horrible way to live. Take it from someone who knows. Breathing smoky, polluted air every day is misery.
Every day in this city several people are having recreational fires. Every evening the air is filled with the stench of burning wood. I am one person sick and tired of breathing smoky air every day. Is it too much to ask to be able to breathe fresh air in your own home?
Who is responsible for this wood smoke nightmare? The four city council members are responsible. Council members Jan Walczak, Bob Bruton, Terry Furlong, and Dave Zick support wood smoke. They don't care if you have a child with asthma. They don't care if you have to live like a shut-in because the air is so polluted. They don't care if your sinuses burn because the wood smoke is so heavy.
Our four Council members have defended the rights of a small percentage of households to burn wood daily over the rights of all the rest of us to breathe.
You have no right to breathe under Walczak, Bruton, Furlong, and Zick. Burners have the right to burn wood 49 hours a week recreationally. The rest of us have no rights at all.
If you are considering purchasing real estate in the city of North Saint Paul, Minnesota (55109), factor this blog carefully into your decision. Buying a home in this city means that your kids will breathe smoky air while playing in the yard almost every day. Your baby will breathe smoky air in her crib should you leave the windows open around your house. If you leave your windows open you will wake up in the middle of the night choking on smoky air.
Perhaps worst of all, your utility rates will be high because you will have to run the air conditioner instead of leaving the windows open on a cool summer evening. You have no other choice because almost every night the air is too smoky to breathe in this city. Consider this blog your warning.
North St. Paul, Minnesota, is a wonderful community other than the wood smoke. If we could restore fresh air like we used to enjoy, life would be happy again.
Tell others about this blog!
http://northsaintpaulresident.blogspot.com/
Webmaster comment----Visit this great blogsite. Day after day woodsmoke terror is faced by these residents.
WELCOME TO HELL ON EARTH
http://northsaintpaulresident.blogspot.com/
The air is smoky from burning wood in North St. Paul, MN, all the time. It is a nightmare. What used to be a nice place to live has become a living hell.
Fresh air is very rare around here. If you are considering moving to North St. Paul or buying a home here, I strongly recommend that you do not do it no matter how good of a price you get. The only way you will be happy in this town is if you love breathing smoky air almost every day.
The air was smoky 25 out of 31 evenings in July 2009. We had 37 hours of continuous wood smoke in the air Aug. 29th - 31st. There was wood smoke in the air 19 consecutive evenings from Aug. 21st to Sept. 8th. It rained heavily on Aug. 20th, providing the only relief we got from wood smoke for almost three weeks.
Is this a good way to live? No. It is a horrible way to live. Take it from someone who knows. Breathing smoky, polluted air every day is misery.
Every day in this city several people are having recreational fires. Every evening the air is filled with the stench of burning wood. I am one person sick and tired of breathing smoky air every day. Is it too much to ask to be able to breathe fresh air in your own home?
Who is responsible for this wood smoke nightmare? The four city council members are responsible. Council members Jan Walczak, Bob Bruton, Terry Furlong, and Dave Zick support wood smoke. They don't care if you have a child with asthma. They don't care if you have to live like a shut-in because the air is so polluted. They don't care if your sinuses burn because the wood smoke is so heavy.
Our four Council members have defended the rights of a small percentage of households to burn wood daily over the rights of all the rest of us to breathe.
You have no right to breathe under Walczak, Bruton, Furlong, and Zick. Burners have the right to burn wood 49 hours a week recreationally. The rest of us have no rights at all.
If you are considering purchasing real estate in the city of North Saint Paul, Minnesota (55109), factor this blog carefully into your decision. Buying a home in this city means that your kids will breathe smoky air while playing in the yard almost every day. Your baby will breathe smoky air in her crib should you leave the windows open around your house. If you leave your windows open you will wake up in the middle of the night choking on smoky air.
Perhaps worst of all, your utility rates will be high because you will have to run the air conditioner instead of leaving the windows open on a cool summer evening. You have no other choice because almost every night the air is too smoky to breathe in this city. Consider this blog your warning.
North St. Paul, Minnesota, is a wonderful community other than the wood smoke. If we could restore fresh air like we used to enjoy, life would be happy again.
Tell others about this blog!
http://northsaintpaulresident.blogspot.com/
Webmaster comment----Visit this great blogsite. Day after day woodsmoke terror is faced by these residents.
Clean Air Matters...In Alberta, Canada
Saturday, April 3, 2010
From: Clean Air Matters! In Alberta
Date: February 21, 2010 9:46:49 AM MST (CA)
To: enviroinfo@ec.gc.ca
Subject: Environment Canada Public Education Materials: Wood Smoke Needs to be a Major Focus
Hello,
It's good to see the increased focus on clean air for Canadians. However, it's concerning that residential wood burning, a growing cause of indoor and outdoor air pollution, is not directly addressed on the Clean Air Act brochure, and not more strongly discouraged on other pages of the Environment Canada web site.
Wood burning is becoming a problem in many Canadian communities, as wood smoke releases much more fine particle pollution than heating with cleaner burning, non-solid fuels like natural gas and propane. Wood smoke in our neighbourhood has affected the health of my children and me - smoke from outdoor burning this past spring, and neighbourhood wood smoke pollution over this past fall and winter, caused health issues for us that were at times quite serious.
"The time for talk is over. The time for action is now." This statement at the end of the Clean Air Act brochure is so true, but Canadians visiting the Clean Air Act brochure web page and other Environment Canada and government links need to see that it's time to take action immediately toward the elimination of wood smoke emissions in all residential areas where less polluting fuels are available. Many communities are already taking action through public education efforts, regulations and bans, to prevent wood smoke pollution, and protect residents from toxic wood smoke emissions.
Environment Canada needs to show strong leadership and direction in this area. In some US states, air quality has been so harmed by wood burning emissions that major efforts are now needed to turn the tide and actively encourage people to switch to cleaner burning fuels. The American Lung Association has officially stated that people need to choose cleaner burning fuels instead of wood whenever possible. In places like California, even the fireplace industry is making the shift toward gas burning fireplaces in response to the movement away from unnecessary residential wood burning.
The disproportionate emphasis on vehicle and fossil fuels emissions in recent years has obscured the increasingly urgent problem of wood burning emissions, which produce pollution in great amounts that directly impact entire neighbourhoods, and the air quality of whole communities. Environment Canada needs to step in and make a clear distinction between the relatively miniscule emissions from heating with natural gas, propane, or even fuel oil, compared with wood burning, which can produce hundreds of times more particle pollution. In all regions of Canada where cleaner burning fuels are available, Environment Canada should strongly encourage people to use those cleaner burning fuels instead of wood.
In all areas where protective local bylaws are not yet in place to restrict or eliminate wood burning, the need to make people see that burning wood is very harmful for the environment and for community health is urgent. I hope that Environment Canada will consider making wood smoke a major focus of its website, links, and publications. Thank you very much for your consideration of increased attention to this important environment and health issue.
Sincerely,
Cathy Baiton
Lethbridge, Alberta
Date: February 21, 2010 9:46:49 AM MST (CA)
To: enviroinfo@ec.gc.ca
Subject: Environment Canada Public Education Materials: Wood Smoke Needs to be a Major Focus
Hello,
It's good to see the increased focus on clean air for Canadians. However, it's concerning that residential wood burning, a growing cause of indoor and outdoor air pollution, is not directly addressed on the Clean Air Act brochure, and not more strongly discouraged on other pages of the Environment Canada web site.
Wood burning is becoming a problem in many Canadian communities, as wood smoke releases much more fine particle pollution than heating with cleaner burning, non-solid fuels like natural gas and propane. Wood smoke in our neighbourhood has affected the health of my children and me - smoke from outdoor burning this past spring, and neighbourhood wood smoke pollution over this past fall and winter, caused health issues for us that were at times quite serious.
"The time for talk is over. The time for action is now." This statement at the end of the Clean Air Act brochure is so true, but Canadians visiting the Clean Air Act brochure web page and other Environment Canada and government links need to see that it's time to take action immediately toward the elimination of wood smoke emissions in all residential areas where less polluting fuels are available. Many communities are already taking action through public education efforts, regulations and bans, to prevent wood smoke pollution, and protect residents from toxic wood smoke emissions.
Environment Canada needs to show strong leadership and direction in this area. In some US states, air quality has been so harmed by wood burning emissions that major efforts are now needed to turn the tide and actively encourage people to switch to cleaner burning fuels. The American Lung Association has officially stated that people need to choose cleaner burning fuels instead of wood whenever possible. In places like California, even the fireplace industry is making the shift toward gas burning fireplaces in response to the movement away from unnecessary residential wood burning.
The disproportionate emphasis on vehicle and fossil fuels emissions in recent years has obscured the increasingly urgent problem of wood burning emissions, which produce pollution in great amounts that directly impact entire neighbourhoods, and the air quality of whole communities. Environment Canada needs to step in and make a clear distinction between the relatively miniscule emissions from heating with natural gas, propane, or even fuel oil, compared with wood burning, which can produce hundreds of times more particle pollution. In all regions of Canada where cleaner burning fuels are available, Environment Canada should strongly encourage people to use those cleaner burning fuels instead of wood.
In all areas where protective local bylaws are not yet in place to restrict or eliminate wood burning, the need to make people see that burning wood is very harmful for the environment and for community health is urgent. I hope that Environment Canada will consider making wood smoke a major focus of its website, links, and publications. Thank you very much for your consideration of increased attention to this important environment and health issue.
Sincerely,
Cathy Baiton
Lethbridge, Alberta
WOOD BURNING BIOMASS ENERGY-BAD!!!!
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
WOOD BURNING BIOMASS ENERGY
The biggest carbon Dioxide Emitter
Wood fueled biomass energy worse for carbon dioxide emissions than fossil fuels. Massachusetts Forest Watch released a report today (www.maforests.org/MFWCarb.pdf) stating that contrary to the belief that wood fueled biomass burning would help lower carbon dioxide emissions, it would instead dramatically increase them.
According to the group, wood fueled biomass burning is typically touted as a carbon neutral fuel by biomass proponents, but the key assumption about carbon neutrality is unsubstantiated and impossible when using existing forests as fuel.
In the report, wood fueled biomass power plants are shown to be worse than all fossil fuel power plants, including coal, for carbon dioxide emissions per unit of energy produced. Calculations provided show wood fueled biomass power plants emit about 50% more CO2 per MWh than existing coal plants, 150% more than existing natural gas plants and 330% more than new power plants.
Forest Watch spokesperson Chris Matera said, “It really is crazy. Hundreds of millions of dollars in public so-called “green” energy subsidies are being wasted on dirty wood biomass burning of forests instead of going to genuinely clean energy sources such as solar, geothermal, appropriate wind and hydro and importantly conservation and efficiency. At a time when budgets are being slashed, we are throwing away scarce taxpayer money on a caveman technology that will worsen our problems, not help solve them.”
Last Wednesday, a hearing was held in Boston by the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy on House Bill 4458 that would create into law the citizen‟s referendum that recently collected over 78,000 certified signatures, which is enough to put the measure on the ballot in November. The ballot measure would put a limit on carbon dioxide emissions in order for renewable energy sources to be eligible to receive taxpayer subsidies and other benefits and would effectively ban taxpayer subsidies from being directed toward wood fueled biomass plants since their carbon dioxide emissions are so high.
"We find that people are willing to support truly clean energy but do not want to pay extra on their electricity bills and tax bills to build these dirty biomass incinerators," said Jana Chicoine of the Concerned Citizens of Russell, "Everyone knows that the proposed biomass incinerators would add to air pollution and make carbon emissions worse, yet the Patrick administration is still forcing us to pay for it. It's a tragic situation, but we have a chance to fix it in the legislature over the next couple of weeks."
Meg Sheehan, chair of the Stop Spewing Carbon ballot question committee commenting about the hearing added, “last week the Massachusetts legislature received un-rebutted testimony from medical professionals that particulate emissions from wood burning biomass plants increase human mortality. A broad coalition of medical and citizen groups are urging our elected officials to support House Bill 4458 to address this public health threat. Action is needed now," she added.
Contact:
Chris Matera
Massachusetts Forest Watch
christoforest@maforests.org
www.maforests.org
413-341-3878
CREDIT TO---The Wood Smoke Activist
April 2010 Newsletter
http://WoodBurnerSmoke.net
The biggest carbon Dioxide Emitter
Wood fueled biomass energy worse for carbon dioxide emissions than fossil fuels. Massachusetts Forest Watch released a report today (www.maforests.org/MFWCarb.pdf) stating that contrary to the belief that wood fueled biomass burning would help lower carbon dioxide emissions, it would instead dramatically increase them.
According to the group, wood fueled biomass burning is typically touted as a carbon neutral fuel by biomass proponents, but the key assumption about carbon neutrality is unsubstantiated and impossible when using existing forests as fuel.
In the report, wood fueled biomass power plants are shown to be worse than all fossil fuel power plants, including coal, for carbon dioxide emissions per unit of energy produced. Calculations provided show wood fueled biomass power plants emit about 50% more CO2 per MWh than existing coal plants, 150% more than existing natural gas plants and 330% more than new power plants.
Forest Watch spokesperson Chris Matera said, “It really is crazy. Hundreds of millions of dollars in public so-called “green” energy subsidies are being wasted on dirty wood biomass burning of forests instead of going to genuinely clean energy sources such as solar, geothermal, appropriate wind and hydro and importantly conservation and efficiency. At a time when budgets are being slashed, we are throwing away scarce taxpayer money on a caveman technology that will worsen our problems, not help solve them.”
Last Wednesday, a hearing was held in Boston by the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy on House Bill 4458 that would create into law the citizen‟s referendum that recently collected over 78,000 certified signatures, which is enough to put the measure on the ballot in November. The ballot measure would put a limit on carbon dioxide emissions in order for renewable energy sources to be eligible to receive taxpayer subsidies and other benefits and would effectively ban taxpayer subsidies from being directed toward wood fueled biomass plants since their carbon dioxide emissions are so high.
"We find that people are willing to support truly clean energy but do not want to pay extra on their electricity bills and tax bills to build these dirty biomass incinerators," said Jana Chicoine of the Concerned Citizens of Russell, "Everyone knows that the proposed biomass incinerators would add to air pollution and make carbon emissions worse, yet the Patrick administration is still forcing us to pay for it. It's a tragic situation, but we have a chance to fix it in the legislature over the next couple of weeks."
Meg Sheehan, chair of the Stop Spewing Carbon ballot question committee commenting about the hearing added, “last week the Massachusetts legislature received un-rebutted testimony from medical professionals that particulate emissions from wood burning biomass plants increase human mortality. A broad coalition of medical and citizen groups are urging our elected officials to support House Bill 4458 to address this public health threat. Action is needed now," she added.
Contact:
Chris Matera
Massachusetts Forest Watch
christoforest@maforests.org
www.maforests.org
413-341-3878
CREDIT TO---The Wood Smoke Activist
April 2010 Newsletter
http://WoodBurnerSmoke.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)