Don't romanticize smoke
By Cathy Baiton
Edmonton Journal August 13, 2011
Re: "Scent of woodsmoke strikes primal chord; Backyard ovens lend themselves to casual outdoors entertaining," The Journal, Aug. 10.
This article romanticizes the smell of woodsmoke and praises the use of wood ovens. But wood-burning devices are part of a growing residential pollution problem across North America. Whether it is from a lit cigarette or any wood-burning appliance, all smoke is unhealthy to breathe.
Wood smoke in residential areas is a serious public health issue. The gases and fine particles in wood smoke pollute the air that children and others are breathing outside. As well, high levels of smoke pollution can enter nearby homes, even with doors and windows closed.
Most Albertans now support cigarette smoke bans in public places. Bans on equally harmful woodsmoke are also needed in Alberta municipalities.
Cathy Baiton, Lethbridge
© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Smoke
Sunday, July 3, 2011
What's In That Smoke?
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.
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).
What You Can Do
In order to mitigate the negative impacts caused by wood smoke, homeowners should consider converting their wood fireplaces to gas stoves. This type of heating is not only healthier for household members and the community, but it is a more efficient way to heat a home. Wood stoves often draw warm air from a room up the chimney along with smoke, resulting in less heat in a room. Gas stoves, on the other hand, provide a better, more efficient heating effect, with virtually no emissions.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Don't give up!!!!
Fight like your life depends on it....because it does! Being Mr. Nice Guy or Ms. Nice Lady does/will not work. Get angry. Take action NOW!
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.
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).
What You Can Do
In order to mitigate the negative impacts caused by wood smoke, homeowners should consider converting their wood fireplaces to gas stoves. This type of heating is not only healthier for household members and the community, but it is a more efficient way to heat a home. Wood stoves often draw warm air from a room up the chimney along with smoke, resulting in less heat in a room. Gas stoves, on the other hand, provide a better, more efficient heating effect, with virtually no emissions.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Don't give up!!!!
Fight like your life depends on it....because it does! Being Mr. Nice Guy or Ms. Nice Lady does/will not work. Get angry. Take action NOW!
City Banning The Wrong Smoke
Sunday, November 21, 2010
City Banning The Wrong Smoke
Letter to the Editor
Ladysmith Chronicle.com - Letters
341 1st Avenue, Ladysmith, B.C., V9G 1A3
1-250-245-2277
Published: October 25, 2010
Editor:
It was no surprise when the annual Cowichan Valley light up started last Friday. Following a notice sent to my phone, I watched as the sky slowly filled to its familiar haze. In fact, one of my neighbours celebrates the first day of light up by lighting his wet leaf pile to share the smoke with my children gallivanting in their own back yard.
As I hustle my children indoors on the lovely autumn day, I am struck by the fact that Duncan council has spent so much energy on this politically correct bylaw to try and ban cigarette smoking downtown, but are seemingly oblivious to the billowing of wood smoke.
I very easily keep my children away from cigarette smoke; however, I find it rather difficult to shelter them from the smog that all the open burning creates over our lovely valley.
I am sure it is much more politically correct to try and ban smoking. I have born witness to the wall anti-open burning campaigners come up against with the city.
It is a shame that the easy way seems to be taken when it comes to banning the correct light up.
A. Richards
North Cowichan
Letter to the Editor
Ladysmith Chronicle.com - Letters
341 1st Avenue, Ladysmith, B.C., V9G 1A3
1-250-245-2277
Published: October 25, 2010
Editor:
It was no surprise when the annual Cowichan Valley light up started last Friday. Following a notice sent to my phone, I watched as the sky slowly filled to its familiar haze. In fact, one of my neighbours celebrates the first day of light up by lighting his wet leaf pile to share the smoke with my children gallivanting in their own back yard.
As I hustle my children indoors on the lovely autumn day, I am struck by the fact that Duncan council has spent so much energy on this politically correct bylaw to try and ban cigarette smoking downtown, but are seemingly oblivious to the billowing of wood smoke.
I very easily keep my children away from cigarette smoke; however, I find it rather difficult to shelter them from the smog that all the open burning creates over our lovely valley.
I am sure it is much more politically correct to try and ban smoking. I have born witness to the wall anti-open burning campaigners come up against with the city.
It is a shame that the easy way seems to be taken when it comes to banning the correct light up.
A. Richards
North Cowichan
Press Release Source: Environment and Human Health, Inc.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Press Release Source: Environment and Human Health, Inc.
Monday October 25, 2010, 12:00 pm EDT
WOODBRIDGE, Conn., Oct. 25, 2010 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Environment and Human Health, Inc.'s (EHHI) newly released report, The Dangers from Outdoor Wood Furnaces, shows that current regulations for outdoor wood furnaces (OWFs) are not sufficient to protect human health.
Wood smoke contains many of the same toxic compounds that are found in cigarette smoke. Just a few of them include benzene, formaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene, all three of which are carcinogenic.
Currently, some states have OWF "set-back" regulations of 100 feet, others have "set-backs" of 200 feet and some states have no regulations at all.
EHHI measured two particle sizes found by EPA to be contained in wood smoke and designated to be the most dangerous to human health. These particles are PM 2.5 and PM 0.5.
The study showed that a house 100 feet from an OWF had 14 times the levels of PM 2.5 as houses not near an outdoor wood furnace and 9 times the levels of the EPA air standards.
A house 120 feet from an OWF had over 8 times the levels of PM 2.5 as the houses not near an outdoor wood furnace, and 6 times the levels of the EPA air standards.
A house 240 feet from OWF had 12 times the levels of PM 2.5 as the houses not near an outdoor wood furnace and 8 times the levels of the EPA air standards.
And a house as far away as 850 feet from OWF had 6 times the levels of PM 2.5 as the houses not near an outdoor wood furnace and 4 times the levels of the EPA air standards.
High levels were present in every 24-hour period tested inside homes neighboring outdoor wood furnaces. All houses tested had particulate exposures well above the EPA ambient air quality standard. Levels of PM 2.5 that exceed the EPA standards are associated with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) attacks and hospitalizations, and are also associated with increased risk of cardiac attacks.
Particles of wood smoke are so small that windows and doors cannot keep smoke out. A study by the University of Washington, Seattle, showed that 50 to 70 percent of outdoor wood smoke entered homes that were not burning wood.
Because wood smoke particles are so small, they are not filtered out by the nose or the upper respiratory system. Instead, these small particles end up deep in the lungs where they can cause structural damage and chemical changes. Carcinogenic chemicals and wood smoke irritants adhere to the small particles and enter the deep, sensitive regions of the lungs where toxic injury is high.
Public Health Toxicologist David Brown, Sc.D., an expert in wood smoke, says, "Some of the health effects reported to EHHI include awakening at night with coughing, headaches, inability to catch breath, continual sore throats, bronchitis and colds requiring children to stay home from school. In some cases the breathing difficulty has gone into asthma attacks requiring emergency-room treatment. Even episodes of short-term exposures to extreme levels of fine particulates from wood smoke and other sources, for periods as short as two hours, can produce significant adverse health effects."
Oncologist D. Barry Boyd, MD, says, "In addition to the fine particulate matter, wood smoke contains a number of organic compounds that are potential or recognized carcinogens. Exposure over time may raise the risk not only of chronic lung disease but also of lung cancer. As well, wood smoke interferes with normal lung development in infants and children. It increases children's risk of lower respiratory infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. Wood smoke exposure can depress the immune system and damage the layer of cells in the lungs that protect and cleanse the airways."
Outdoor wood furnaces create emissions different from either fireplaces or indoor wood stoves. The Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) found that the average fine particle emissions from one OWF are equivalent to the emissions from 22 EPA-certified indoor wood stoves, 205 oil furnaces or as many as 8,000 natural gas furnaces.
The short-term health effects of wood smoke exposures are burning eyes and throat, sinusitis, bronchitis and pneumonia.
The long-term health effects are asthma, COPD, cancer, cardiovascular problems and carbon monoxide poisoning.
Dawn Mays-Hardy of the American Lung Association, New England, says, "Because wood smoke has many of the same components as cigarette smoke, and because wood smoke emissions from outdoor wood furnaces are so thick and pervasive for all those who live near them, American Lung sees them as dangerous to health."
President of Environment and Human Health, Inc. Nancy Alderman says, "EHHI has now shown that wood smoke from outdoor wood furnaces enters neighboring houses in high enough amounts to cause serious health impacts to these families. States can no longer ignore this science and should ban outdoor wood furnaces until safer technologies are found."
For seeing or downloading the full report go to http://ehhi.org
The Environment and Human Health, Inc. logo is available at http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/prs/?pkgid=7516
Monday October 25, 2010, 12:00 pm EDT
WOODBRIDGE, Conn., Oct. 25, 2010 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Environment and Human Health, Inc.'s (EHHI) newly released report, The Dangers from Outdoor Wood Furnaces, shows that current regulations for outdoor wood furnaces (OWFs) are not sufficient to protect human health.
Wood smoke contains many of the same toxic compounds that are found in cigarette smoke. Just a few of them include benzene, formaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene, all three of which are carcinogenic.
Currently, some states have OWF "set-back" regulations of 100 feet, others have "set-backs" of 200 feet and some states have no regulations at all.
EHHI measured two particle sizes found by EPA to be contained in wood smoke and designated to be the most dangerous to human health. These particles are PM 2.5 and PM 0.5.
The study showed that a house 100 feet from an OWF had 14 times the levels of PM 2.5 as houses not near an outdoor wood furnace and 9 times the levels of the EPA air standards.
A house 120 feet from an OWF had over 8 times the levels of PM 2.5 as the houses not near an outdoor wood furnace, and 6 times the levels of the EPA air standards.
A house 240 feet from OWF had 12 times the levels of PM 2.5 as the houses not near an outdoor wood furnace and 8 times the levels of the EPA air standards.
And a house as far away as 850 feet from OWF had 6 times the levels of PM 2.5 as the houses not near an outdoor wood furnace and 4 times the levels of the EPA air standards.
High levels were present in every 24-hour period tested inside homes neighboring outdoor wood furnaces. All houses tested had particulate exposures well above the EPA ambient air quality standard. Levels of PM 2.5 that exceed the EPA standards are associated with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) attacks and hospitalizations, and are also associated with increased risk of cardiac attacks.
Particles of wood smoke are so small that windows and doors cannot keep smoke out. A study by the University of Washington, Seattle, showed that 50 to 70 percent of outdoor wood smoke entered homes that were not burning wood.
Because wood smoke particles are so small, they are not filtered out by the nose or the upper respiratory system. Instead, these small particles end up deep in the lungs where they can cause structural damage and chemical changes. Carcinogenic chemicals and wood smoke irritants adhere to the small particles and enter the deep, sensitive regions of the lungs where toxic injury is high.
Public Health Toxicologist David Brown, Sc.D., an expert in wood smoke, says, "Some of the health effects reported to EHHI include awakening at night with coughing, headaches, inability to catch breath, continual sore throats, bronchitis and colds requiring children to stay home from school. In some cases the breathing difficulty has gone into asthma attacks requiring emergency-room treatment. Even episodes of short-term exposures to extreme levels of fine particulates from wood smoke and other sources, for periods as short as two hours, can produce significant adverse health effects."
Oncologist D. Barry Boyd, MD, says, "In addition to the fine particulate matter, wood smoke contains a number of organic compounds that are potential or recognized carcinogens. Exposure over time may raise the risk not only of chronic lung disease but also of lung cancer. As well, wood smoke interferes with normal lung development in infants and children. It increases children's risk of lower respiratory infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. Wood smoke exposure can depress the immune system and damage the layer of cells in the lungs that protect and cleanse the airways."
Outdoor wood furnaces create emissions different from either fireplaces or indoor wood stoves. The Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) found that the average fine particle emissions from one OWF are equivalent to the emissions from 22 EPA-certified indoor wood stoves, 205 oil furnaces or as many as 8,000 natural gas furnaces.
The short-term health effects of wood smoke exposures are burning eyes and throat, sinusitis, bronchitis and pneumonia.
The long-term health effects are asthma, COPD, cancer, cardiovascular problems and carbon monoxide poisoning.
Dawn Mays-Hardy of the American Lung Association, New England, says, "Because wood smoke has many of the same components as cigarette smoke, and because wood smoke emissions from outdoor wood furnaces are so thick and pervasive for all those who live near them, American Lung sees them as dangerous to health."
President of Environment and Human Health, Inc. Nancy Alderman says, "EHHI has now shown that wood smoke from outdoor wood furnaces enters neighboring houses in high enough amounts to cause serious health impacts to these families. States can no longer ignore this science and should ban outdoor wood furnaces until safer technologies are found."
For seeing or downloading the full report go to http://ehhi.org
The Environment and Human Health, Inc. logo is available at http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/prs/?pkgid=7516
Would energy council address smoke issue?----Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Would energy council address smoke issue?
Written by Cathy Baiton
Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
Friday, August 27 2010
Regarding the energy-environmental council proposed in the Aug. 7 guest column, it may be helpful to have some concrete examples of specific issues and ideas the group would hope to advance for our community. As the column indicates, this council would desire complete independence in promoting its perspective, reinforced by what it would deem the best information.
If granted the privilege and public trust of a council like this, would it be fully receptive to information and suggestions from all citizens? As I’ve written before, one problem deserving attention is air pollution from the use of wood for heating and cooking, and wood-burning fire pit emissions. What sort of position or advocacy might the proposed council seek to provide on this issue?
Internationally, a movement supported by concerned citizens as well as environmentalists, researchers, scientists and physicians is opposing biomass burning on an industrial scale, and the use of wood as a residential energy source. Some experts are challenging the claim that wood burning is carbon-neutral, and science confirms what a lot of people have discovered through experience: the combustion of wood — even in new, “certified” wood stoves — is considerably more polluting, and far less kind to human lungs, than cleaner energy alternatives.
At times my children have coughed in their beds at night, while toxic second-hand wood smoke, from which our current bylaws offer no protection, seeped into their rooms. Should people really have to tolerate any needless wood smoke in our urban environment, where everyone is sharing the air? I think cleaner and more socially compassionate energy options can and should be encouraged, with the most polluting and harmful practices best left behind. Would the existence of an energy-environmental council help to ensure clean, smoke-free air for better community health?
Perhaps our local officials may become willing to provide informed and caring leadership on the wood smoke problem. It may help if more residents voice concerns about the importance of fresh, clean air.
Whether or not a council like the one proposed will be formed over the long term, wood smoke pollution is affecting parts of our city now. With outdoor wood burning occurring often in some neighbourhoods, and another season of harmful wood stove and wood fireplace emissions on the way, I’m sure many share my hope that positive change on this specific energy and environmental issue can come soon.
Cathy Baiton
Lethbridge
From:Lethbridge Herald
Box 670 T1J 3Z7
504 - 7th Street South
Lethbridge, Alberta
Canada
Written by Cathy Baiton
Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
Friday, August 27 2010
Regarding the energy-environmental council proposed in the Aug. 7 guest column, it may be helpful to have some concrete examples of specific issues and ideas the group would hope to advance for our community. As the column indicates, this council would desire complete independence in promoting its perspective, reinforced by what it would deem the best information.
If granted the privilege and public trust of a council like this, would it be fully receptive to information and suggestions from all citizens? As I’ve written before, one problem deserving attention is air pollution from the use of wood for heating and cooking, and wood-burning fire pit emissions. What sort of position or advocacy might the proposed council seek to provide on this issue?
Internationally, a movement supported by concerned citizens as well as environmentalists, researchers, scientists and physicians is opposing biomass burning on an industrial scale, and the use of wood as a residential energy source. Some experts are challenging the claim that wood burning is carbon-neutral, and science confirms what a lot of people have discovered through experience: the combustion of wood — even in new, “certified” wood stoves — is considerably more polluting, and far less kind to human lungs, than cleaner energy alternatives.
At times my children have coughed in their beds at night, while toxic second-hand wood smoke, from which our current bylaws offer no protection, seeped into their rooms. Should people really have to tolerate any needless wood smoke in our urban environment, where everyone is sharing the air? I think cleaner and more socially compassionate energy options can and should be encouraged, with the most polluting and harmful practices best left behind. Would the existence of an energy-environmental council help to ensure clean, smoke-free air for better community health?
Perhaps our local officials may become willing to provide informed and caring leadership on the wood smoke problem. It may help if more residents voice concerns about the importance of fresh, clean air.
Whether or not a council like the one proposed will be formed over the long term, wood smoke pollution is affecting parts of our city now. With outdoor wood burning occurring often in some neighbourhoods, and another season of harmful wood stove and wood fireplace emissions on the way, I’m sure many share my hope that positive change on this specific energy and environmental issue can come soon.
Cathy Baiton
Lethbridge
From:Lethbridge Herald
Box 670 T1J 3Z7
504 - 7th Street South
Lethbridge, Alberta
Canada
EPA'S BURN WISE IS BAD NEWS FOR ALL!!!
Friday, March 12, 2010
URGENT INFORMATION---ACTION NEEDED NOW
EPA'S BURN WISE IS BAD NEWS FOR ALL!!!
The EPA is about to begin a “Burn Wise” national campaign that promotes wood burning and advises people on how to burn cleaner with EPA certified wood stoves. This could result in more wood burning and more wood smoke. This campaign is a threat to children’s health and anyone with asthma or heart disease. Wood smoke is already ruining outdoor air in metro areas throughout our country. Outdoor wood boilers are being banned, due to the severe health effects of wood smoke. This is like the tobacco promotions in the past about “smoking cleaner” with filter cigarettes. We must use this opportunity to get our opposing voices heard. Now is the time to press our decision-makers nation-wide to restrict wood burning, before more wood smoke pollutes our air and further harms our families.
Pass this on and encourage all decision-makers in your community to disallow wood burning in your communities. This is “greenwashing” at its lowest level.
PLEASE all activists, put this on your web pages, Twitter, UTube, Facebook and other websites. If someone could add a no burn icon to this, please let me know.
THE ONLY WISE BURNING IS NO BURNING
The EPA begins a wood burning campaign this Friday to encourage people to “burn wise” by burning cleaner. They also promote EPA-certified wood burning appliances, which means more wood smoke.
At the same time, their promotion states that wood smoke is harmful to children and to human health, especially for kids and people with asthma or heart disease.
DON’T BE DUPED!
Wood burning is NEVER safe!
5 Reasons not to burn wood:
1. Wood smoke is implicated in asthma attacks, heart attacks, cancer, sudden infant death syndrome and premature death in people of all ages. (American Lung Association, EPA, MPCA websites).
2. Wood smoke is a major source of fine particle pollution, the worst kind. (MPCA and EPA websites)
3. Wood smoke carries fine particulates that can be drawn deep into the lungs, causing severe damage.
4. Wood smoke contains black carbon soot, which accelerates the melting of glaciers.
5. Wood smoke’s black carbon soot contributes heavily to global warming and climate change!
6. Wood smoke violates the property rights of others to enjoy their property smoke-free.
The only answer is to contact your city councils, legislators and other decision-makers and demand that they ban wood burning in residential areas. Outdoor wood boilers (OWBs) are being banned in many cities nation-wide. NO SMOKE IS GOOD SMOKE. If they have banned cigarette smoking in public areas, why are they forcing us to breathe wood smoke in our own home and property?
WOOD SMOKE IS MORE THAN A NUISANCE—it is a severe public health hazard!
We all need to work on this important issue and we need to do it now!
EPA'S BURN WISE IS BAD NEWS FOR ALL!!!
The EPA is about to begin a “Burn Wise” national campaign that promotes wood burning and advises people on how to burn cleaner with EPA certified wood stoves. This could result in more wood burning and more wood smoke. This campaign is a threat to children’s health and anyone with asthma or heart disease. Wood smoke is already ruining outdoor air in metro areas throughout our country. Outdoor wood boilers are being banned, due to the severe health effects of wood smoke. This is like the tobacco promotions in the past about “smoking cleaner” with filter cigarettes. We must use this opportunity to get our opposing voices heard. Now is the time to press our decision-makers nation-wide to restrict wood burning, before more wood smoke pollutes our air and further harms our families.
Pass this on and encourage all decision-makers in your community to disallow wood burning in your communities. This is “greenwashing” at its lowest level.
PLEASE all activists, put this on your web pages, Twitter, UTube, Facebook and other websites. If someone could add a no burn icon to this, please let me know.
THE ONLY WISE BURNING IS NO BURNING
The EPA begins a wood burning campaign this Friday to encourage people to “burn wise” by burning cleaner. They also promote EPA-certified wood burning appliances, which means more wood smoke.
At the same time, their promotion states that wood smoke is harmful to children and to human health, especially for kids and people with asthma or heart disease.
DON’T BE DUPED!
Wood burning is NEVER safe!
5 Reasons not to burn wood:
1. Wood smoke is implicated in asthma attacks, heart attacks, cancer, sudden infant death syndrome and premature death in people of all ages. (American Lung Association, EPA, MPCA websites).
2. Wood smoke is a major source of fine particle pollution, the worst kind. (MPCA and EPA websites)
3. Wood smoke carries fine particulates that can be drawn deep into the lungs, causing severe damage.
4. Wood smoke contains black carbon soot, which accelerates the melting of glaciers.
5. Wood smoke’s black carbon soot contributes heavily to global warming and climate change!
6. Wood smoke violates the property rights of others to enjoy their property smoke-free.
The only answer is to contact your city councils, legislators and other decision-makers and demand that they ban wood burning in residential areas. Outdoor wood boilers (OWBs) are being banned in many cities nation-wide. NO SMOKE IS GOOD SMOKE. If they have banned cigarette smoking in public areas, why are they forcing us to breathe wood smoke in our own home and property?
WOOD SMOKE IS MORE THAN A NUISANCE—it is a severe public health hazard!
We all need to work on this important issue and we need to do it now!
Wood Fueled Biomass Burning the Biggest Carbon Dioxide Emitter
Monday, March 1, 2010
From: Chris Matera [mailto:christoforest@maforests.org]
Sent: March-01-10 12:33 PM
Subject: PRESS RELEASE: Wood Fueled Biomass Burning the Biggest Carbon Dioxide Emitter
Contact:
Chris Matera
Massachusetts Forest Watch
christoforest@maforests.org
www.maforests.org
413-341-3878
WOOD BURNING BIOMASS ENERGY –
THE BIGGEST CARBON DIOXIDE EMITTER
For Immediate Release
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.
Sent: March-01-10 12:33 PM
Subject: PRESS RELEASE: Wood Fueled Biomass Burning the Biggest Carbon Dioxide Emitter
Contact:
Chris Matera
Massachusetts Forest Watch
christoforest@maforests.org
www.maforests.org
413-341-3878
WOOD BURNING BIOMASS ENERGY –
THE BIGGEST CARBON DIOXIDE EMITTER
For Immediate Release
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.
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/
The Wood Smoke Activist-January 2010 Newsletter-Editorial
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The Wood Smoke Activist
January 2010 Newsletter
Educating the world about the health and climate impacts of wood smoke and combustion aerosols.
Editor: Shirley Brandie
1/1/2010
Editorial
Now that winter is upon us many people are suffering greatly from the effects of wood smoke that is invading their homes. Instead of looking out the windows at glistening white snow instead they see dark speckles on the snow, those speckles being output from neighboring wood smoke. I remember it vividly as our snow was speckled also up until the burning was ended.
Not only that, what they see out their windows is clouds of wood smoke of varying colors , the colors depending on what is being burned at the time, surrounding the neighborhood.
Not a beautiful winter holiday scene at all. Can you imagine a Season’s Greetings card with a scene like that imprinted on it?
Now that their hopes for that beautiful special holiday scene are dashed, once again by the neighbor’s “need to burn”, they decide that the stench and irritating fumes are just too much to impose on their guests and give up the idea of a family get-together in their home again this year.
They busy themselves with trying to find something that will get the stench out of their house so that they can try to make the best of it. Nothing works and depression sets in.
In this day and age it is beyond belief that there are people that, even when they have been made aware of the discomfort they are causing with their wood burning, continue to stoke that burner and fumigate the neighbors.
For as many years as I have been researching the psyches of burners, I have not come up with why they have the need to hurt others. I know it is there but I can’t put my finger on it yet. Some have suggested pyromania, control issues, mental illnesses and even a wood fetish.
They say that you cannot help someone if they don’t think they need help. But we must not forget that we are the victims of their smoke. And, we don’t like to be thought of as victims. We are stronger than that! We will fight for our right to breathe fresh air in our own homes and yards!
This is a goal for all of us at the start of a brand new year. Let’s make 2010 the year we take back the air!
Shirley
The Wood Smoke Activist
January 2010 Newsletter
Educating the world about the health and climate impacts of wood smoke and combustion aerosols.
Editor: Shirley Brandie
1/1/2010
Shirley Brandie
http://WoodBurnerSmoke.net
Ontario Director of Canadian Clean Air Alliance
http://www.canadiancleanairalliance.ca
January 2010 Newsletter
Educating the world about the health and climate impacts of wood smoke and combustion aerosols.
Editor: Shirley Brandie
1/1/2010
Editorial
Now that winter is upon us many people are suffering greatly from the effects of wood smoke that is invading their homes. Instead of looking out the windows at glistening white snow instead they see dark speckles on the snow, those speckles being output from neighboring wood smoke. I remember it vividly as our snow was speckled also up until the burning was ended.
Not only that, what they see out their windows is clouds of wood smoke of varying colors , the colors depending on what is being burned at the time, surrounding the neighborhood.
Not a beautiful winter holiday scene at all. Can you imagine a Season’s Greetings card with a scene like that imprinted on it?
Now that their hopes for that beautiful special holiday scene are dashed, once again by the neighbor’s “need to burn”, they decide that the stench and irritating fumes are just too much to impose on their guests and give up the idea of a family get-together in their home again this year.
They busy themselves with trying to find something that will get the stench out of their house so that they can try to make the best of it. Nothing works and depression sets in.
In this day and age it is beyond belief that there are people that, even when they have been made aware of the discomfort they are causing with their wood burning, continue to stoke that burner and fumigate the neighbors.
For as many years as I have been researching the psyches of burners, I have not come up with why they have the need to hurt others. I know it is there but I can’t put my finger on it yet. Some have suggested pyromania, control issues, mental illnesses and even a wood fetish.
They say that you cannot help someone if they don’t think they need help. But we must not forget that we are the victims of their smoke. And, we don’t like to be thought of as victims. We are stronger than that! We will fight for our right to breathe fresh air in our own homes and yards!
This is a goal for all of us at the start of a brand new year. Let’s make 2010 the year we take back the air!
Shirley
The Wood Smoke Activist
January 2010 Newsletter
Educating the world about the health and climate impacts of wood smoke and combustion aerosols.
Editor: Shirley Brandie
1/1/2010
Shirley Brandie
http://WoodBurnerSmoke.net
Ontario Director of Canadian Clean Air Alliance
http://www.canadiancleanairalliance.ca
Montreal moves to snuff out wood stoves
Friday, March 6, 2009
Montreal moves to snuff out wood stoves
As air quality deteriorates, city proposes law banning installation of new wood stoves
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/02/04/mtl-wood-stove-ban-0204.html
CBC News
Smog hangs over Montreal on a January day.Smog hangs over Montreal on a January day. (CBC) Montreal is poised to pass one of the strictest laws in the country regarding wood stoves midway through a winter marked by record high levels of winter smog.
The City of Montreal wants to ban citizens from installing a wood stove in new and existing residential homes. Stoves that burn wood pellets will still be permitted.
Winter smog is becoming a major public health problem for Montreal, said Alan DeSousa, the city's executive committee member in charge of sustainable development.
So far this winter, the smog has been so bad that Environment Canada has issued 25 smog warnings, the most of any year on record. Public health authorities say chimney smoke makes up half of the air pollution during the winter in Montreal.
"The health of Montrealers is our priority," said DeSousa in a statement Wednesday.
"With more than 50,000 stoves on our territory, the city is taking action by adopting a law that will contribute to the reduction of the number of premature deaths … [caused by] the quality of air that we breathe."
The Montreal public health department estimates burning a wood stove for nine hours is the equivalent of driving a midsize car for a year, or about 18,000 kilometres of driving.
Proposed law contains exceptions.
While traditional wood stoves will be banned from being installed in new and existing homes, the stoves will be allowed for restaurants and other businesses that do food preparation requiring a wood oven.
The law does not require citizens to remove existing wood stoves, as is the case in the town of Hampstead, Que., which has given residents seven years to convert their stoves to gas or remove them entirely.
'With more than 50,000 stoves on our territory, the city is taking action.' Alan DeSousa, city councillor
However, DeSousa is encouraging residents to reconsider their choice of material they burn.
"I invite Montrealers to think about replacing their combustible wood stoves with devices that are less harmful to their health, that of their family and their neighbours," said DeSousa.
The City of Montreal is also calling on the provincial and federal governments to assist with tax rebates to help citizens cover the cost of replacing or converting old wood stoves.
The proposed law will make a first appearance before city council on Feb. 23.
The city will then hold public hearings on the issue.
The popularity of wood stoves spiked on the island of Montreal after the 1998 ice storm, which left some areas of the province without power for day
As air quality deteriorates, city proposes law banning installation of new wood stoves
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/02/04/mtl-wood-stove-ban-0204.html
CBC News
Smog hangs over Montreal on a January day.Smog hangs over Montreal on a January day. (CBC) Montreal is poised to pass one of the strictest laws in the country regarding wood stoves midway through a winter marked by record high levels of winter smog.
The City of Montreal wants to ban citizens from installing a wood stove in new and existing residential homes. Stoves that burn wood pellets will still be permitted.
Winter smog is becoming a major public health problem for Montreal, said Alan DeSousa, the city's executive committee member in charge of sustainable development.
So far this winter, the smog has been so bad that Environment Canada has issued 25 smog warnings, the most of any year on record. Public health authorities say chimney smoke makes up half of the air pollution during the winter in Montreal.
"The health of Montrealers is our priority," said DeSousa in a statement Wednesday.
"With more than 50,000 stoves on our territory, the city is taking action by adopting a law that will contribute to the reduction of the number of premature deaths … [caused by] the quality of air that we breathe."
The Montreal public health department estimates burning a wood stove for nine hours is the equivalent of driving a midsize car for a year, or about 18,000 kilometres of driving.
Proposed law contains exceptions.
While traditional wood stoves will be banned from being installed in new and existing homes, the stoves will be allowed for restaurants and other businesses that do food preparation requiring a wood oven.
The law does not require citizens to remove existing wood stoves, as is the case in the town of Hampstead, Que., which has given residents seven years to convert their stoves to gas or remove them entirely.
'With more than 50,000 stoves on our territory, the city is taking action.' Alan DeSousa, city councillor
However, DeSousa is encouraging residents to reconsider their choice of material they burn.
"I invite Montrealers to think about replacing their combustible wood stoves with devices that are less harmful to their health, that of their family and their neighbours," said DeSousa.
The City of Montreal is also calling on the provincial and federal governments to assist with tax rebates to help citizens cover the cost of replacing or converting old wood stoves.
The proposed law will make a first appearance before city council on Feb. 23.
The city will then hold public hearings on the issue.
The popularity of wood stoves spiked on the island of Montreal after the 1998 ice storm, which left some areas of the province without power for day
Wood-burning stoves: Smoke-related complaints, health problems on the rise
Monday, February 23, 2009
Wood-burning stoves: Smoke-related complaints, health problems on the rise
By David Funkhouser | Tribune Newspapers
February 22, 2009
HARTFORD, Conn. — Jodi Blanco said she never got sick until her neighbor installed a wood-burning stove a few years ago.
Now she has been ill for more than a month, she wakes up coughing in her sleep, and her two young children are plagued by breathing problems.
But she can't get anyone to do anything about it, and she's not alone.
"My daughter missed a whole week of school, and my son has a continual runny nose and watery eyes, and he's complaining he doesn't feel good all the time," said Blanco of East Windsor, Conn. "When I open the bay window in front, I can smell the smoke. It's coming in my house, and it's making us sick."
An increasing number of people are firing up wood stoves, furnaces and fireplaces as a hedge against rising heating bills, but wood fuel, steeped in history and romance, has become a health hazard for many.
Even though the number of complaints is growing, the laws regarding wood-burning devices are limited, and there has been little that health and environmental officials can do.
For all the poetry and nostalgia surrounding fireplaces and wood stoves, their smoke is loaded with toxic compounds and particles that have been associated with cancer and severe respiratory problems.
States nationwide are reacting, in some cases banning wood burning entirely on days when air quality is poor. That can happen in the winter when temperature inversions—cold air staying close to the ground below warmer air above—keep polluted air from dispersing.
The worst offenders are outdoor wood furnaces, which typically produce a dirtier smoke than wood and pellet stoves. The units are supposed to be at least 200 feet from other homes and have a smokestack higher than surrounding rooftops, and owners are only supposed to burn clean wood.
John Tarquinio, owner of Fireside Supply in Hebron, Conn., said stove and furnace sales shot up in 2008 when fuel prices spiked. He agreed that misuse can be a problem.
"It needs to be regulated, to be looked at. It needs to be cleaned up," he said.
When Dorothy Alderman and her husband moved to Andover Lake, just a few people among her 100 or so neighbors burned wood, and then only occasionally. A few years ago, that started to change.
"One day, I saw 26 houses with smoke coming out," Alderman said. "It's not just, 'Let's make a fire on the weekend,' it's all the time."
The smoke began to bother her and eventually led to a permanent medical condition, parosmia, in which her sense of smell is so damaged that she cannot stand even slight hints of smoke.
In 2006, after 20 years on the lake, she and her husband decided to move. Now they live in Hebron, which has banned the installation of outdoor wood furnaces.
The Hartford Courant
By David Funkhouser | Tribune Newspapers
February 22, 2009
HARTFORD, Conn. — Jodi Blanco said she never got sick until her neighbor installed a wood-burning stove a few years ago.
Now she has been ill for more than a month, she wakes up coughing in her sleep, and her two young children are plagued by breathing problems.
But she can't get anyone to do anything about it, and she's not alone.
"My daughter missed a whole week of school, and my son has a continual runny nose and watery eyes, and he's complaining he doesn't feel good all the time," said Blanco of East Windsor, Conn. "When I open the bay window in front, I can smell the smoke. It's coming in my house, and it's making us sick."
An increasing number of people are firing up wood stoves, furnaces and fireplaces as a hedge against rising heating bills, but wood fuel, steeped in history and romance, has become a health hazard for many.
Even though the number of complaints is growing, the laws regarding wood-burning devices are limited, and there has been little that health and environmental officials can do.
For all the poetry and nostalgia surrounding fireplaces and wood stoves, their smoke is loaded with toxic compounds and particles that have been associated with cancer and severe respiratory problems.
States nationwide are reacting, in some cases banning wood burning entirely on days when air quality is poor. That can happen in the winter when temperature inversions—cold air staying close to the ground below warmer air above—keep polluted air from dispersing.
The worst offenders are outdoor wood furnaces, which typically produce a dirtier smoke than wood and pellet stoves. The units are supposed to be at least 200 feet from other homes and have a smokestack higher than surrounding rooftops, and owners are only supposed to burn clean wood.
John Tarquinio, owner of Fireside Supply in Hebron, Conn., said stove and furnace sales shot up in 2008 when fuel prices spiked. He agreed that misuse can be a problem.
"It needs to be regulated, to be looked at. It needs to be cleaned up," he said.
When Dorothy Alderman and her husband moved to Andover Lake, just a few people among her 100 or so neighbors burned wood, and then only occasionally. A few years ago, that started to change.
"One day, I saw 26 houses with smoke coming out," Alderman said. "It's not just, 'Let's make a fire on the weekend,' it's all the time."
The smoke began to bother her and eventually led to a permanent medical condition, parosmia, in which her sense of smell is so damaged that she cannot stand even slight hints of smoke.
In 2006, after 20 years on the lake, she and her husband decided to move. Now they live in Hebron, which has banned the installation of outdoor wood furnaces.
The Hartford Courant
Blog comment---No intent to walk backwards a hundred years!
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Wood stove violations could result in fines
Monday, November 10 | 5:54 p.m.
BY:ERIK ROBINSON
COLUMBIAN STAFF WRITER
Columbian.com Serving Clark County, Washington
Below is a blog comment on the above story.
by Roger Wilco : 11/11/08
Our grandparents would have loved a little box on the wall you could turn a knob or push a button and have heat without the mess and hassle of a wood stove! Not being a Beverly Hillbilly I have no intent to walk backwards a hundred years and return to an inefficient and archaic heat source. My heat pump with electric forced air backup is great. I can't imagine still having an old wood burning, steam powered TV set either!
Monday, November 10 | 5:54 p.m.
BY:ERIK ROBINSON
COLUMBIAN STAFF WRITER
Columbian.com Serving Clark County, Washington
Below is a blog comment on the above story.
by Roger Wilco : 11/11/08
Our grandparents would have loved a little box on the wall you could turn a knob or push a button and have heat without the mess and hassle of a wood stove! Not being a Beverly Hillbilly I have no intent to walk backwards a hundred years and return to an inefficient and archaic heat source. My heat pump with electric forced air backup is great. I can't imagine still having an old wood burning, steam powered TV set either!
What's in that Smoke?--New Hampshire Dept of Environmental Services
Sunday, April 20, 2008
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
Website
April 20, 2008
What's In That Smoke?
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).
What You Can Do
In order to mitigate the negative impacts caused by wood smoke, homeowners should consider converting their wood fireplaces to gas stoves. This type of heating is not only healthier for household members and the community, but it is a more efficient way to heat a home. Wood stoves often draw warm air from a room up the chimney along with smoke, resulting in less heat in a room. Gas stoves, on the other hand, provide a better, more efficient heating effect, with virtually no emissions.
Website
April 20, 2008
What's In That Smoke?
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).
What You Can Do
In order to mitigate the negative impacts caused by wood smoke, homeowners should consider converting their wood fireplaces to gas stoves. This type of heating is not only healthier for household members and the community, but it is a more efficient way to heat a home. Wood stoves often draw warm air from a room up the chimney along with smoke, resulting in less heat in a room. Gas stoves, on the other hand, provide a better, more efficient heating effect, with virtually no emissions.
The environment demands attention-Letter to Editor
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Letter to the Editor
Fence Post
Daily Herald
Arlington Hts., Illinois
Published April 19, 2008
The environment demands attention
Despite all the recent press about global warming, the environment does not seem a pressing issue as long as we can see blue sky and trees and grass around us.
However, nature's peaceful beauty is deceptive; it masks a series of increasingly serious environmental issues that will likely intrude more and more onto our natural scenes.
Jared Diamond, in his startling book, "Collapse -- How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed," says our shrinking world has 12 types of environmental problems that will increasingly impact all citizens of the world:
1. Rapid destruction of natural habitats, including deforestation.
2. Depletion of fish stocks on a worldwide basis.
3. Extinction of species.
4. Soil erosion.
5. Depletion of fossil fuels.
6. Deterioration of freshwater supplies.
7. Diminished photosynthetic capacity -- sunlight being absorbed by manmade structures rather than absorbed by plants.
8. Toxic chemical build-up.
9. Introduction of alien species into new environments.
10. Release of manmade gases into the environment
11. Population growth.
12. High environmental impact of population in developing countries.
Diamond argues that all these problems are interlinked. We cannot solve just one. We must solve them all. And if we don't, nature will solve them for us -- in a very unpleasant way.
There are many environmental groups already working on these problems, but we desperately need political leadership -- and your involvement.
Jeff Kressmann
Palatine. Illinois
+++
Two Daily Herald blog comments are listed below:
posted by Richard Sustich on Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:32 AM
While many probably don't want to hear this, you are correct Jeff in that we need the personal involvement of every American, nay, every human, to protect our precious planet.
So much of the recent debate appearing in the Daily Herald, particularly on climate change, suggests many of us still believe we somehow stand separate (read "above") from the rest of nature, and that we have a divine imperative that justifies our domination of the planet, rather than our stewardship. Yet, at a more much more instinctual level, we all know that Mr. Diamond is indeed correct.
For my professional part, my focus has been clean and safe water. To that end, the Clean Water America Alliance, a not-for-profit educational institution, was recently created to bring much-needed attention to the coming water crisis in this country, to find innovative and responsible solutions to the issues, and to recognize the outstanding contributions of individuals and organizations in delivering clean water and protecting our water environment. Visit www.cleanwateramerica.org for more information.
Maybe others will join this discussion with opportunities for all to get involved.
+++
posted by Dion F Kendrick on Sat Apr 19, 2008 9:06 AM
The Divine imperative of Man's "dominon" over the earth and all that's in it does not mean "domination". It does mean stewardship. Which means we are charged by our Creator to husband all His gifts; the planet is but one of those gifts.
Not only should we not spoil our "nest" we should also keep holy our societies, our families and life itself. It is the "how" of our husbanding that gives rise to contentious debate and (sometimes) invective behavior.
If the initial orientation is that which flows from the Giver of all gifts the solutions would be easily discernible and readily attainable.
++
Note. The Breathe Healthy Air Coalition is trying its best to help save the environment, our quality of life, and lives.
Fence Post
Daily Herald
Arlington Hts., Illinois
Published April 19, 2008
The environment demands attention
Despite all the recent press about global warming, the environment does not seem a pressing issue as long as we can see blue sky and trees and grass around us.
However, nature's peaceful beauty is deceptive; it masks a series of increasingly serious environmental issues that will likely intrude more and more onto our natural scenes.
Jared Diamond, in his startling book, "Collapse -- How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed," says our shrinking world has 12 types of environmental problems that will increasingly impact all citizens of the world:
1. Rapid destruction of natural habitats, including deforestation.
2. Depletion of fish stocks on a worldwide basis.
3. Extinction of species.
4. Soil erosion.
5. Depletion of fossil fuels.
6. Deterioration of freshwater supplies.
7. Diminished photosynthetic capacity -- sunlight being absorbed by manmade structures rather than absorbed by plants.
8. Toxic chemical build-up.
9. Introduction of alien species into new environments.
10. Release of manmade gases into the environment
11. Population growth.
12. High environmental impact of population in developing countries.
Diamond argues that all these problems are interlinked. We cannot solve just one. We must solve them all. And if we don't, nature will solve them for us -- in a very unpleasant way.
There are many environmental groups already working on these problems, but we desperately need political leadership -- and your involvement.
Jeff Kressmann
Palatine. Illinois
+++
Two Daily Herald blog comments are listed below:
posted by Richard Sustich on Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:32 AM
While many probably don't want to hear this, you are correct Jeff in that we need the personal involvement of every American, nay, every human, to protect our precious planet.
So much of the recent debate appearing in the Daily Herald, particularly on climate change, suggests many of us still believe we somehow stand separate (read "above") from the rest of nature, and that we have a divine imperative that justifies our domination of the planet, rather than our stewardship. Yet, at a more much more instinctual level, we all know that Mr. Diamond is indeed correct.
For my professional part, my focus has been clean and safe water. To that end, the Clean Water America Alliance, a not-for-profit educational institution, was recently created to bring much-needed attention to the coming water crisis in this country, to find innovative and responsible solutions to the issues, and to recognize the outstanding contributions of individuals and organizations in delivering clean water and protecting our water environment. Visit www.cleanwateramerica.org for more information.
Maybe others will join this discussion with opportunities for all to get involved.
+++
posted by Dion F Kendrick on Sat Apr 19, 2008 9:06 AM
The Divine imperative of Man's "dominon" over the earth and all that's in it does not mean "domination". It does mean stewardship. Which means we are charged by our Creator to husband all His gifts; the planet is but one of those gifts.
Not only should we not spoil our "nest" we should also keep holy our societies, our families and life itself. It is the "how" of our husbanding that gives rise to contentious debate and (sometimes) invective behavior.
If the initial orientation is that which flows from the Giver of all gifts the solutions would be easily discernible and readily attainable.
++
Note. The Breathe Healthy Air Coalition is trying its best to help save the environment, our quality of life, and lives.
Global Warming-Guest Essay
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Elk Grove Times---Pioneer Press Publications
Arlington Heights, Illinois
Guest Essay: Timely symposium starts today
(http://www.pioneerlocal.com/evanston/news/forum/607867,pp-climateessay-101807-s1.article)
October 18, 2007
By ELIZABETH BANKOFF
It is time. It is time to tackle the increasingly urgent problem of global warming. This problem poses an extremely serious threat to the environment, health and economy of our nation and world. The most recent scientific studies show that global warming is a reality and is already causing environmental changes that will have a variety of significant impacts on our lives.
The issue of global warming or climate change has been gaining attention for a good while. Media coverage in the past year has resulted in a dramatic increase in public awareness. As with many 'hot' topics, while there is a growing interest in this critical problem among the citizenry, uncertainty and confusion remain. What is it? How serious of a problem is it? How is it being addressed at the different levels of government? What are the consequences of a wait-and-see approach? Can we combat global warming without serious consequences to our economy? What can concerned citizens do in their own neighborhoods and homes?
In the summer of 2006, the Wilmette League of Women Voters made a commitment to help inform citizens about global warming.
Our Climate Matters, a four-day symposium on global warming, is the culmination of that commitment. Sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Wilmette, with the Glenview Park District and the leagues of Winnetka, Northfield, Kenilworth, Glencoe, Highland Park, Lake Forest, Lake Bluff, Glenview, Arlington Heights, Mount Prospect, Palatine, Rolling Meadows, Schaumburg, Park Ridge and Deerfield, Our Climate Matters commences today and runs through Sunday evening at the new Glenview Park District facilities in The Glen.
What began as an idea has evolved into a wide array of programs -- each focusing on a different aspect of this complex problem. Offerings include prominent speakers, as well as panels, forums and workshops in which scientists, business people, economists, legislators and other policy makers, architects, and citizens will discuss and share information and consider possible solutions.
A "Green" film festival, a presentation of the Chicago Cool Globes exhibit as well as an evening of "Cool Jazz" add a change of pace.
For a complete program schedule, visit the Web site, www.OurClimateMatters.org. All programs are free and open to the public.
James Madison once declared, "A people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives".
Our hope is that Our Climate Matters will stimulate, educate and foster serious discussion on this critical issue. Ultimately, in our wonderful democracy, it is the will of the people that affects change.
Let the serious conversation begin!
Elizabeth Bankoff, a member of the League of Women Voters of Wilmette, is coordinator of Our Climate Matters.
Note---This article was posted because Wood Smoke affects global warming. For additional information see....
http://burningissues.org/car-www/science/Climate/index.html
Arlington Heights, Illinois
Guest Essay: Timely symposium starts today
(http://www.pioneerlocal.com/evanston/news/forum/607867,pp-climateessay-101807-s1.article)
October 18, 2007
By ELIZABETH BANKOFF
It is time. It is time to tackle the increasingly urgent problem of global warming. This problem poses an extremely serious threat to the environment, health and economy of our nation and world. The most recent scientific studies show that global warming is a reality and is already causing environmental changes that will have a variety of significant impacts on our lives.
The issue of global warming or climate change has been gaining attention for a good while. Media coverage in the past year has resulted in a dramatic increase in public awareness. As with many 'hot' topics, while there is a growing interest in this critical problem among the citizenry, uncertainty and confusion remain. What is it? How serious of a problem is it? How is it being addressed at the different levels of government? What are the consequences of a wait-and-see approach? Can we combat global warming without serious consequences to our economy? What can concerned citizens do in their own neighborhoods and homes?
In the summer of 2006, the Wilmette League of Women Voters made a commitment to help inform citizens about global warming.
Our Climate Matters, a four-day symposium on global warming, is the culmination of that commitment. Sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Wilmette, with the Glenview Park District and the leagues of Winnetka, Northfield, Kenilworth, Glencoe, Highland Park, Lake Forest, Lake Bluff, Glenview, Arlington Heights, Mount Prospect, Palatine, Rolling Meadows, Schaumburg, Park Ridge and Deerfield, Our Climate Matters commences today and runs through Sunday evening at the new Glenview Park District facilities in The Glen.
What began as an idea has evolved into a wide array of programs -- each focusing on a different aspect of this complex problem. Offerings include prominent speakers, as well as panels, forums and workshops in which scientists, business people, economists, legislators and other policy makers, architects, and citizens will discuss and share information and consider possible solutions.
A "Green" film festival, a presentation of the Chicago Cool Globes exhibit as well as an evening of "Cool Jazz" add a change of pace.
For a complete program schedule, visit the Web site, www.OurClimateMatters.org. All programs are free and open to the public.
James Madison once declared, "A people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives".
Our hope is that Our Climate Matters will stimulate, educate and foster serious discussion on this critical issue. Ultimately, in our wonderful democracy, it is the will of the people that affects change.
Let the serious conversation begin!
Elizabeth Bankoff, a member of the League of Women Voters of Wilmette, is coordinator of Our Climate Matters.
Note---This article was posted because Wood Smoke affects global warming. For additional information see....
http://burningissues.org/car-www/science/Climate/index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)