Don't romanticize smoke

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

Letter to Member of Parliament-Canada

April 2nd, 2011

Mr. Guy Lauzon
Member of Parliament
621 Pitt Street
Cornwall, Ontario
K6J 3R8

Dear Mr. Lauzon,

Today, Saturday, you were campaigning in the neighbourhood where I live. You came by our house and asked for our support and also permission to place a campaign sign on our front lawn. I said no to the sign.

The reasons I declined your request are as follows:

Woodsmoke is a public and private nuisance that continues to harm our residential neighbourhood. You have not, and are not, addressing this very serious concern.

You have taken absolutely no pro-active action in the previous two years to assist the Air Is Precious Coalition in prohibiting Woodsmoke and Woodburning in the community via a by-law and regulations.

Fire pits, and all Woodburning devices, continue to saturate our neighbourhood air doing grave harm to our health and our quality of life. You have taken no action to support ending this air pollution.

Many city residents are suffering, becoming ill and dying from Woodsmoke-related diseases. You have done nothing to assist ill and suffering residents who are subjected to endless hours breathing Woodsmoke.

Since you have shown no concern, regard, compassion or support and no hope of future support, I see no need to support you by way of placing a sign on my property. Unless you publicly support before the election, action to end Woodburning, my husband and my vote will not be cast for you and other members of your political party. Other members of the Air Is Precious Coalition will also join me in not voting for you.

Woodsmoke must be addressed and supported by each community leader and by all elected officials and parties. Sadly, that has not happened. This is not my opinion. This opinion is echoed by many residents who suffer in Cornwall from Woodsmoke Pollution.

It is deeply disappointing and deplorable to think that our leaders have pathetically failed their fiduciary duty to protect us from harm, yet expect us to offer them support!

Woodsmoke must be given the same respect and laws that are rightfully given to Tobacco smoking. Tobacco smoke is a Public Health issue. Woodsmoke is also a Public Health issue. Woodsmoke is even worse for our health than tobacco smoke.

Any form of Woodburning from all Woodburning devices in Cornwall that pollutes our air, make us ill, destroys our environment and does grave harm to our quality of life is not acceptable. Woodburning in urban areas such as Cornwall, and all residential areas in our Nation where our homes are in such close proximity is unnecessary, unneeded and unwanted.

The goal of the Air Is Precious Coalition is to see that every Canadian Citizen has the right and common decency to breathe healthy air—woodsmoke-free. You have not and are not supporting this issue.

We are very disappointed. You and your political party have failed us on this issue. I am saddened that you may be remembered by many in our community as the Member of Parliament who remained silent, apathetic and uncaring regarding Woodsmoke Pollution in Cornwall.

The end of Woodsmoke and outdoor open air burning needed your support Mr. Lauzon. We need Province-wide by-laws adopted to ban Woodsmoke Pollution. By doing so would have saved the health and lives of millions, just as prohibiting Tobacco smoke did. But, sadly it was not on your agenda as the priority issue it should have been. You offered us nothing in support.

My sincere hope is that you Mr. Lauzon and your family members never are made ill by Woodsmoke or made to endure the suffering that so many sick and ill city residents are presently coping with and have been for years.

You will find enclosed a letter regarding The Black Rose, which has been adopted as the International Symbol of Woodsmoke Pollution. Please take time to read it.

You, along with many other leaders are most deserving of this Black Rose that will explain in detail the suffering caused by Woodsmoke Pollution. The Black Rose can be placed in water and will live for a while. We, the Victims of Woodsmoke Pollution sadly may not have a long life expectancy due to the deadly, noxious, poisonous, toxic air we are subjected to breathe each day.

We who suffer from residential Woodsmoke Pollution in Cornwall have lost our belief in the political process that was supposed to represent each Canadian and be there for us. We, sadly, lost our belief when your support was not to be found..

But, I leave the door open to see if you will walk through it with us and support an end to Woodburning in our community. Will you join us or wait outside in the Woodsmoke?

Sincerely,

Linda Baker Beaudin
Founder, Air Is Precious
Cornwall, Ontario, Canada


Note...A Black Rose was delivered to Mr. Guy Lauzon's office on April 5, 2011.


Webmaster...The above is a copy of a letter delivered to a Member of Parliament-Canada. The frustration from this writer due to the apathy by this elected official (and other elected officials) is very sad. Let's hope action is taken soon to end woodsmoke emissions in Cornwall, and all other Canadian cities.

Woodsmoke victims caught in bureaucratic nightmare-Canada

Woodsmoke victims caught in bureaucratic nightmare

Published on August 4th, 2010 in The Western Star
A Province on the East Coast of Canada

Dear editor: Trapped in clouds of heavy plumes of tainted acrid smelling woodsmoke and in a bureaucratic system wrapped in red tape and apathy, the Victims of Woodsmoke Pollution are left to cope with a nightmare in their lives all alone and with no help in sight.

While millions of Canadians are suffering from woodsmoke health-related issues, the Canadian government, elected leaders and municipalities have rebuffed their pleas for immediate or any action to ban woodsmoke.

Woodsmoke pollution has become a Canadian crisis of monumental proportion. The victims of woodsmoke are physically suffering from asthma, COPD, cardiovascular, cardiopulmonary, cancer and other woodsmoke-related diseases. Their quality of life has been diminished. They are receiving no help from their government.

Government has been informed and alerted by victims across the entire nation about this woodsmoke crisis and have done nothing.

Ongoing communication with many levels of government only send the suffering Victims of Woodsmoke Pollution in a circle of desperation without one single iota of help or hope.

They are left with weakened immune systems and an ongoing assault of health concerns and thoughts of their impending demise. One by one the Victims of Woodsmoke Pollution topple into the abyss, neglected by their government.

Too many continue to suffer health-related issues from breathing the toxic chemicals in woodsmoke. Woodsmoke victims will remain vigilant and determined to see that one day the citizens of Canada will have the right and common decency to breathe healthy air, woodsmoke-free. Urban areas must be protected from all woodsmoke pollution. We are protected from tobacco smoke, yet woodsmoke is even worse for our health than tobacco smoke. Both cause suffering, illness and death.

The proximity of our homes and lungs are in the direct line of woodsmoke from neighbours’ woodsmoke. Woodsmoke pollution comes from woodburning fire places, woodburning stoves, and all outdoor open air burns. There no longer exists a need to pollute, saturate, and smother lives in toxic woodsmoke, hazed-filled clouds. Many cleaner methods of heating are available within urban areas.

Our bureaucratic process has failed us. Our life hangs on the balance of impending doom and more continued suffering until our government takes action to ban all outdoor open air burns across our nation and until regulations are implemented to phase out the use of woodburning stoves and woodburning fireplaces in all urban areas. No exceptions.

Will the Victims of Woodsmoke Pollution continue to be lost and forgotten in this bureaucratic nightmare wrapped in red tape or will our government awaken to the suffering and needs of our nation and ban all outdoor open air burns?

Linda Baker Beaudin, Cornwall, Ont.

Webmaster comment: To All Canadians
Please contact and join with this dynamic writer and supporter of wood burning bans in Canada.

Linda Baker Beaudin
Founder, Air is Precious
P O Box 22049
1236 Brookdale Avenue
Cornwall, Ontario, Canada
K6J 4P8
airisprecious@gmail.com

Boulder's Dirty Little Secret---Up in Wood Smoke

September 15, 2009
Boulder's Dirty Little Secret
Up in Wood Smoke

By KAREN KORENOSKI and MICHAEL YATES

Residents of Boulder, Colorado take pride in the city’s livability. The town has won “more accolades than any other city in America for its recreation, culture, health, business climate, and overall quality of life.” It has been voted “Number One Best Place to Live” and “Best Overall Place to Live”; it is among “The Best Small Cities” and the “Top Ten Places to Retire”; it is “Number Four Heart Healthiest City”; it is in the “Top Ten of World’s Greener Cities”; it is a city that is “Making a Difference in the Environment”; and it is in the “Top 20 Greenest Spots in the Country.” We have lived in Boulder for eight months, and we can attest that it is beautiful. Unfortunately, the city’s “accolades” neglect a dirty little secret.

We moved to Boulder from Tucson, Arizona after one of us underwent major surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. We have always been concerned about the environment, but such a serious illness made us more so. Tucson was just too polluted, congested, hot, and stressful to stay. So we looked for a place that was the “anti-Tucson.” Boulder seemed to fill the bill. We could decompress from months of trauma and begin to rebuild our lives.

We rented a downtown apartment in February, on the top floor of an office building.
It was removed enough from the main street to be quiet, a bonus in a college town. From our bedroom window we could see Mt. Sanitas; from our balcony we could admire the spectacular western sky over the eastern plains. If we turned right from the building’s front doors, we could walk to steep and challenging hiking trails that led up into the foothills of the Rocky Mountains; if we turned left, we could enjoy the shops, bookstores, restaurants, and street musicians of the traffic-free Pearl Street Mall. It looked like we had found the perfect place to heal.

The first sign that something was amiss happened a few days after we signed our lease. We noticed a plume of black smoke coming from a chimney on a roof directly below our patio. It turned out that we were next door to a restaurant that used a wood-burning oven, something that the landlord failed to tell us. A few months later, a second wood-burning restaurant opened, with its chimneys on an adjacent roof.

Our dream apartment turned into a nightmare. Every day, beginning in early morning, smoke from the ovens rises in steady plumes above the chimneys. This goes on, with the occasional break, for nearly twelve hours, seven days a week. The smell is so obnoxious that we cannot open windows or use our balcony, and it is so strong that it often permeates our living quarters. Our noses are runny; our throats are sore and scratchy; and we have a hard time breathing.

The two restaurants we have come to despise are named The Kitchen and Salt. Like many businesses in Boulder and quite a few other restaurants, these eateries claim to reflect Boulder’s refined environmental consciousness. The Kitchen says on its website: “The Kitchen believes in protecting our environment. Wind power provides 100 percent of the restaurant's electricity and we recycle or reuse nearly 100 percent of our discards. All of our paper products and straws are biodegradable. We give the remaining uncooked food and open bottles of wine to our staff at the end of each shift and all of our food discards are composted and often find their way back to the farms they came from.” This eatery has garnered many awards and citations for its commitment to the environment: “West’s Greenest Restaurant” (Sunset magazine, 2008) and Number 6 in “Top 10 Best Eco-friendly Restaurants” (Bon Appetit, 2008). It prominently displays a PACE decal in its window (Boulder County’s Partners for a Clean Environment).

Salt has joined the environmental bandwagon. One reviewer gushed about Salt’s love for Mother Earth: “. . . Salt will walk the sustainability talk,” he says, “. . . [doing] all the little things The Kitch[en] does so well.” Salt’s chef described himself to another reviewer as “Johnny Local,” referring to his use of local organic farm produce. “We’re doing fun, affordable, simple, seasonal food and supporting those who do right by Mother Nature. . . . We’re taking our food away from corporate greed and making good choices by buying as much as we can on a local level.” (This is amusing given that, as one blogger put it, “word on the street is that Salt’s . . .well-established Boulder area chef, and his team of investors, put in a million dollars in their renovation . . . .”---none of this in search of profit, we are to suppose).

While restaurant wood smoke has damaged our quality of life, it is doing much more than this. It is, in fact, a definite and well-established danger to the public’s health. A few examples will suffice. First, wood smoke contains numerous toxic substances, many of which are also found in tobacco smoke. A few of these are chlorinated dioxin, carbon monoxide, methane, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and fine particulate matter. Second, some wood smoke components are known carcinogens, including benzene, formaldehyde, and toluene. A google search of “wood smoke and cancer” yields thousands of entries. Third, wood smoke is definitely correlated with many other diseases and health problems, such as asthma, allergies, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), high blood pressure, strokes, and heart attacks, just to name a few. Children, the elderly, and people with existing lung and other diseases are especially susceptible to the harm done by wood smoke. Wood smoke “should be actively avoided” by such persons, according to the American Lung Association. Fourth, exposure to wood smoke can weaken the immune system, making us more susceptible to disease and weakening our ability to recover from both diseases and treatments such as cancer therapies.

Irony and hypocrisy abound here. These restaurants do not allow smoking. Yet, wood smoke is more dangerous to health than cigarette smoke; it penetrates deeply into the lungs and takes more time to dissipate in the air. It is chemically active in the body forty times longer than tobacco smoke. One study showed that a restaurant that burned wood but was nonsmoking was similar in terms of pollution to a restaurant without wood-burning equipment but which allowed smoking. The chefs claim to be concerned with the environment; one local reviewer has called businesspersons like them “greenpreneurs.” Yet, their kitchen equipment spews dangerous particulate matter into the air hour after hour, year-round (and we won’t even go into how the health of the kitchen workers and patrons is affected by the wood-burning ovens, grills, and rotisseries, or the sources of all those truckloads of wood). The owner of the building that houses one of the restaurants is a rich and generous philanthropist who donated millions of dollars for the building of a first-class cancer center in Boulder. How is it that he can condone the releasing of carcinogenic smoke into the town’s atmosphere? We spoke with him, and he seemed oblivious to the problem.

We know that, other things equal, wood smoke raises the mortality rate. As researcher Peter Montague tells us, "To summarize bluntly, any increase in fine particles in the atmosphere kills someone. The victims remain nameless, but they have been deprived of life all the same." Tens of thousands of people in the United States die every year from particulate pollution, to which wood smoke is an important contributor. Worldwide, the World Heath Organization estimates that there are nearly three million premature deaths worldwide from exposure to wood smoke.

We have complained to public officials in Boulder, and while some have not even bothered to return our calls (one is the city’s Environmental Affairs Manager), others have done what they could. One agency asked The Kitchen to clean its word-burning equipment so that the emitted smoke met the city’s opacity requirement. However, in the absence of a prohibition of the use of wood-burning devices, something that England enacted in 1956, Boulder cannot prevent their use, which means that heath-debilitating smoke will continue to permeate the city’s air. Besides The Kitchen and Salt, there are at least half a dozen more restaurants that use wood-burning equipment, all in an area about one mile square. We have begun to publicize the dangers as best we can and will continue to do so, in the hope that sooner or later citizen complaints will generate official action.

Peasants in poor countries cut down trees for wood fires to heat their homes and cook their food. This does tremendous damage to the environment. The peasants suffer disproportionately from the smoke-induced health problems described above; there is even a name for one infection common among them--“hut lung”). The deforestation that provides the wood makes their surroundings more susceptible to floods, mudslides, and drought. However, those who cut down the trees and burn the wood are desperately poor and have no real choice in the matter. Our restaurateurs, on the other hand, do have perfectly viable and probably cheaper choices. They do not have to use wood-burning appliances. We cannot think of a single justification for them. We doubt that many patrons could tell the wood-smoked food from any other. And even supposing that food cooked with a wood fire tasted marginally better, so what? The taste differential cannot possibly justify using wood when there are such obvious health hazards. What excuse is there for Boulder or any other city to continue to allow restaurants to employ this dirty, dangerous, and unnecessary cooking practice?

Karen Korenoski and Michael Yates live in Boulder. They can be reached at mikedjyates@msn.com.

The health information in this essay is taken from the many sources listed on the excellent website http://www.burningissues.org.

(Posted on Counter Punch http://www.counterpunch.org/yates09152009.html)

Letter to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich

URGENT---Letter to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich


Everyone should read this dynamic, factual, and straightforward letter (and supplemental documents) individually researched and written by a Supporter of the Breathe Healthy Air Coalition.

Here are excerpts from the letter presented to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.......

RE: Illinois State Implementation Plan for Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5): Proposal to Include a Ban on Residential Open Burning

"As the rest of the country is “Going Green”, the residents of Illinois continue to pollute the air with fine particulate matter PM2.5 (1-5), ozone precursors (3-8), carcinogens (3-5,8), and greenhouse gases (3,6,8) by burning leaves, yard waste, and recreational campfires during the spring, summer, and fall (Figure 1). Unfortunately, these residential burning practices are legal, and encouraged in most of Illinois, a state that is home to twelve non-attainment counties for two of the most hazardous EPA criteria pollutants: fine particulate matter (PM2.5) (9) and ozone (10).

Proposal: Include an immediate statewide ban on residential open burning (recreational campfires, leaf and yard waste burning) in the PM2.5 State Implementation Plan (SIP) that is due to the U.S. EPA in April 2008 (23). The following twelve (12) counties have been designated by the EPA as non-attainment areas for PM2.5: Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, Will, McHenry, Kendall, Grundy, Madison, Monroe, St. Claire, and Randolph.

Governor Blagojevich, please take action to include a ban on residential open burning (leaves, yard waste and recreational campfires) in the Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP) for PM2.5 due to the U.S. EPA in April 2008. Such a ban would protect Illinois residents and the environment from the detrimental and lethal effects of breathing the toxic smoke (smoke that contains the same carcinogens and toxic substances as tobacco smoke) from recreational campfires, and leaf burning that occur right next-door. "

A Lake County, Illinois Resident

Click on the Earth image or here for the letter and additional figures.

Dynamic Blog Comments---A Must Read--2-28-08

Posted on the Daily Herald newspaper (Arlington Hts, Illinois) blog site.


A MUST READ FOR EVERYONE!!!!!


These comments (14) were posted on the Daily Herald newspaper blog site in response to a story recently published regarding the negative and deadly effects of involuntarily breathing wood smoke, the efforts by the Breathe Healthy Air Coalition to help those affected, seeking support for relief from wood smoke from elected officials and governmental agencies, and to let the people in the community know that someone does care about their health and quality of life.

We sincerely thank you for your comments.

#1---Please do not ever become discouraged in your work by the comments of people who lack education on the harmful effects of wood burning smoke. My father (John Engelhardt) made it his life long mission to educate people on the harmful effects of wood-burning smoke. He left behind six children with spouses and sixteen grandchildren, who now have their own spouses, and their own children and are all going out into the world and carrying on the education of the harmful effects of wood burning smoke. DO PEOPLE NOT WONDER WHY SO MANY OF OUR CHILDREN ARE CARRYING INHALERS TO BREATHE? IS THERE NOT SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE? THANK YOU FOR THE WORK YOU ARE DOING!!!!!!! Posted by Laurie Schaefer on Sun Feb 24, 2008


#2---I have found the comments posted most interesting. My father, as I posted earlier, was a "stop second hand smoke" crusader for much of his life. It started with his neighbor burning "treated" lumber continuously in their fireplace. If you survive the wintertime fireplace burn, now there is even all the outdoor fire pits. People burning in their outdoor fire pits has gotten out of hand. If I have my windows open on a nice evening, it forces me to close up the windows and turn on the air conditioning as people who have stuffed their "fire pits" with their yard waste have started up their fires even though outdoor burning has been outlawed in our county. I walked down the street one evening to see what one foul, foul odor was and found a man burning a wet rug from his basement. Mind you, I do live in "civilization" where homes are close to each other. Posted by Laurie Schaefer on Wed Feb 27, 2008


#3---I live in North Riverside, and I've been getting the headaches too, as have others in my family. The pollution here is already bad, but the moment that my neighbor a few houses down starts up his hickory smoke-spewing fireplace, I get a headache that can be likened to a migraine. My throat begins to burn and my eyes become red and sore. This is not allergies - of that I am certain! There is a direct correlation between the chimney smoke being emitted and the sudden, severe onset of these symptoms.

I've often wondered how anyone could be so selfish and uncaring about the well-being of others as to place their entertainment through sitting and staring at a fire, or the few cents saved on heat above the health and safety of their entire neighborhood.

With regard to the comment about having things that I'd like banned as well, there is really very little that I would not sacrifice to have this stopped. No one who has experienced this would disagree with the movement to have this destructive, dangerous practice reduced. Posted by NR Resident on Sun Feb 24, 2008


#4---JIMB, I think before you speak you may want to do some research. I am not against fireplaces in the home. I wouldn't have one because they cause your home to stink and nothing but a waste of space and alot of work in my opinion to take care of.

The guy in the article does have a point. They are a health risk, a fire hazard, so what can be done to remedy the situation.

Maybe it would be best to have a residential homes and condo's have gas. Restaurants use wood only if needed, like the Pizza oven guy. What is wrong with that? Posted by callp on Sun Feb 24, 2008


#5---You are all grasping at straws to make personal attacks instead of focusing on the issue. If any of you have PhDs from Harvard or Stanford, you may comment on the science. If you don't, perhaps you are just reacting emotionally and don't know any other way to respond other than to threaten or whine. (Have you ever considered how ironic it is when you whine about the messenger instead of the issue?)

Researcher Dr. Wayne Ott, Stanford University, after 15 years of monitoring neighborhood air sums up wood smoke pollution this way:

"... this is the one source of air pollution that produces fine particles and gases containing a multitude of toxic substances and carcinogens, and fine particles are associated with morbidity and mortality in urban areas. For those on the receiving end of a neighbor's fireplace or wood stove, it is often similar to living with a chain smoker. The pollutant exposure is involuntary, repetitive, caused by a tiny minority of burners, and composed of a great array of toxic chemicals and cancer-causing compounds.." (Wayne Ott, Ph.D. Stanford University, Civil Engineering and Statistics, 2008)

http://burningissues.org/car-www/science/Ott-12-year-study.html. Posted by ThinkFirst on Mon Feb 25, 2008


#6---For the rest of you attacking the messenger, if a Staford PhD wasn't credible enough to speak on behalf of the science, consider a Harvard PhD...

"Particulate pollution is the most important contaminant in our air. ...we know that when particle levels go up, people die. " (Joel Schwartz, Ph.D., Harvard School of Public Health, E Magazine, Sept./Oct. 2002)

Have you ever considered that educated and well read activists like this are the ones saving you and your children from your own ignorance? Smoking in public places was banned to protect the health and liberties of those around you. Do you smoke around your children? How about in a closed car? No, we know it kills!

Should you not want to protect your own health, I guess that's your own liberty. I suspect that that's not what is trying to be controlled, so do as you will in the privacy of your own home. At issue, is that your outdoor wood boilers and fire pits are the ones that dump the toxins on the neighborhood! If you keep it within your own property, then I'm sure that this wouldn't be an issue any longer. Can't do that though, can you?
Please, Think First. Blog Second. Posted by ThinkFirst on Mon Feb 25, 2008


#7---Many suggest that the EPA should be involved and that good neighbors should respect one another. I could not agree more. I have seen and experienced first hand the agony experienced by individuals and similarly the complete unwillingness of wood burners to work towards a solution.

This is not about one man's headache. This is not about a wood fired pizza. It's significantly more serious involving Outdoor Wood Boilers, Wood Stoves, Firepits, fireplaces in DENSELY populated areas. There are countless horror stories throughout the country where entire families are forced to move because of concrete and negative impacts on their health and THEIR RIGHT to health.

During research, I found a fantastic website that not only details the problem, but also has the statistics that scientifically prove the danger. Check out this site...if you have questions, call the founder Mary J. Rozenberg and she'll back up the PhDs "opinions" with data.

http://burningissues.org

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, if you REALLY want to understand this issue, read the forum:

http://burningissues.org/forum/phpBB2/index.php

Families throughout the country suffer the negative effects , read their stories. Posted by ThinkFirst on Mon Feb 25, 2008


#8---Again, you give us an AVERAGE. It doesn't take a scientist to ascertain that when I am located 100 feet downwind of an obvious air pollution source (I can SEE the smoke coming at me) the effluent plume arriving at my property-line is about
99% from that source. I said 80% in order to be conservative, but since you see fit to criticize that figure, I'm going to estimate what it really might be; yes that is a guess, but I think not too far from the actual transient value of localized
concentration of airborne particles. State-wide (or otherwise area-wide) averaging doesn't amount to a hill of beans to the victimized homeowner recipient of obnoxious-smelling, and health-degrading wood smoke, blatantly arriving from a discernibly substantiated (seeing is believing) origin.

Since you are so fond of attempting to take apart my statements by using these useless averages, why don't I call you: "Mr. Average Guy."

Here is food for thought. Consider this observation:

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" - Benjamin Disraeli. Posted by Who Owns The Air on Mon Feb 25, 2008



#9---Clap, clap, clap.??? Thank you for making this some sort of game show for entertainment. It's not...This is a serious health issue which is caused by people against their neighbors and families WITHOUT their permission. If you want to eat fatty foods all day and skip exercise, that will have a serious health implications -- but you know...it's your life, go ahead and create YOUR OWN health issues! (Just, please don't make us pay for your health insurance!)

This is different. This is a community health problem caused by the "romantic" fallacy that crackling logs (and ejecting the poisons out of the chimney and away from your house) is a God given right. Tell me what God in any religion says that you should harm your neighbors because you like the smell of combustion? I agree this is "PERSONAL RIGHTS" and "LIBERTY" issue -- it's the rights of the victim, in this case, the neighborhood. The RIGHTS and HEALTH of those outside the home of the burning wood are the ones that are being grossly violated.

Above, it was suggested that this is about neighbors getting along. I ask you, if your neighbor said that it aggravates their child's asthma, would you stop burning wood for them? Posted by ThinkFirst on Mon Feb 25, 2008


#10---At this point, I recommend that we move this to a long term discussion forum that's ideal for a debate. It will also open up the audience well beyond the few people that are reading the comments on a story that is no longer on the front page. In this forum, you can learn that unregulated wood burning IS actually worse than the EPA regulated factories which undergo monitoring and controlled production along with scrubbers that significantly minimize their pollution, whereas a residential chimney 20 feet away just spews out all pollutants with zero monitoring and regulation by the EPA (for now).

I encourage more information like Trzupek posted, especially where we can discuss all the science and health implications, beyond just the simulated toxins. It's an interesting simulation deserves analysis and consideration of all factors that contribute to the impacts on others.

I thank those that put thought into their comments (instead of bashing an individual) and look forward to continued discussion at:

http://burningissues.org

Think First. Blog second. Posted by ThinkFirst on Mon Feb 25, 2008


#11---I disagree about fireplace smoke "rising." This only happens for a brief period, then the effluent sinks to the ground level, especially in very low ambient temperatures. The particles simply do not possess sufficient kinetic energy to remain buoyant. They do not rise into the stratosphere.

Random (Brownian) motion and high KE is necessary to maintain buoyancy of a colloidal heavier-than-air smoke particle. The colder the air molecules, the less the air-induced buoyancy. The tiniest airborne particles exhibit elastic and momentum-conserving collisions with energetic gas molecules, therefore can remain in the air stream. But they gradually lose this KE, and due to their mass, simply sink lower, to ground-level.

They can then collide with, therefore deposit, on to an available low-temperature, energy-absorbing solid/liquid surface. On a microscopic scale, the airborne particles collide with a cold solid/liquid surface, and thus rapidly lose their kinetic energy. Thus smoke effluent will thus condense (actually desublimate) on to cold surfaces. CONTINUED...posted by Who Owns The Air on Tue Feb 26, 2008
On a macroscopic scale, this is similar to a bouncing rubber ball. The ball will eventually come to rest on a surface, stripped of all of its kinetic energy. It thusly 'deposits' itself on the floor.

Your assertion that wood smoke effluent "rises" in a continual process, is simply false. Yes, high winds may carry the effluent over a distance. But they do sink.

And a close proximity to a smoke plume is not "harmless," as is your dubious claim. I suggest that you commence to research this pertinent subject carefully.

Moderator: sorry for exceeding the 1200-character limit. Posted by Who Owns The Air on Tue Feb 26, 2008


#12---"You don't have the 'right' to tell me what I can and cannot do--that IS in the Constitution."

I beg to differ on this comment also, have you not heard of our statuary law? Show me your direct quote in the Constitution that says this? Ever heard of mala in se and mala in prohibita?

As for the EPA not helping let me rephrase, The U.S. EPA IS DOING something about this issue, as I posted in their fact sheet above. I am referring to the Illinois EPA whom won't do anything about this is issue.

Ohio is currently in the process of setting a standard in this very subject, other states have already set the standard. (See the list on my page). So what I am saying is Illinois needs to catch up to the curve that other states already have enacted.

So once again do you know what the person from the ILEPA was asked on the stand at my hearing?

"What is air pollution?"

Her answer after a long pause: "I don't know"

Mind you this is someone who supposedly has worked for ILEPA in the air division for like 12-15 years. So that is a reflection of our state agency, read the law section on my page maybe you'll learn something. Posted by Freedom of Air on Wed Feb 27, 2008


#13---And I quote...
"No person shall.......be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

5th Amendment U.S. Constitution

Illinois Law:

2) (415 ILCS 5/) Environmental Protection Act.

TITLE I: GENERAL PROVISIONS

(415 ILCS 5/1) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 1001)

(415 ILCS 5/3.115) (was 415 ILCS 5/3.02)

Sec. 3.115. Air pollution. "Air pollution" is the presence in the atmosphere of one or more contaminants in sufficient quantities and of such characteristics and duration as to be injurious to human, plant, or animal life, to health, or to property, or to unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property.

(Source: P.A. 92‑574, eff. 6‑26‑02.)

Let me guess because it doesn't say wood smoke that doesn't count right? Posted by Freedom of Air on Wed Feb 27, 2008


#14---A woodburners' contention seems to be: (I've heard this idea ad-nauseam) "The smoke smells nice - how could something which smells nice possibly be harmful"" Let me enlighten all of you to a pertinent fact: Hydrogen cyanide (the gas used by the Nazis) has the not-unpleasant scent of roasted almonds. Yet this gas is deadly. So much for nice smell equals harmless! There is a well-known scientific principle known as "Haber's Rule." This rule states that "High Concentration/Short Exposure Time,
equals Low Concentration/Long Exposure Time" of poisonous gases. This principle has already been applied to airborne particle matter. That is, a person exposed to chronic long-term second-hand smoke pollution, inhales the same overall amount of particles as a firefighter entering a burning wood structure does, but over a
longer time interval. Thus the effects are cumulative and are still detrimental to health.

My credentials - I am a chemist, teach chemistry and physics at the college level, and have been researching particle matter pollution for several years. Posted by Who Owns The Air on Wed Feb 27, 2008


Web Master Note---thank you for your sincere, personal, and informative comments.

But The Fire Is Not Delightful-Letter to the Editor

Opinion--Article
StarTribune Newspaper
Minneapolis, Minnesota

Published December 5, 2007


Julie Mellum: But the fire is not delightful

We're snuffing secondhand tobacco smoke, but we continue to romanticize recreational wood burning -- a hazard all its own.

One big source of air pollution -- as deadly as vehicle exhaust, and with many of the same toxicants as cigarette smoke -- is wood smoke.

The Star Tribune's recent feature on the joys of back-yard wood burning ("All fired up," Oct. 24) was so well-written and enticing that it no doubt caused sales of wood-burning equipment to skyrocket. Yet it did not address the perils of wood smoke. Wood smoke is more than a nuisance -- it is a health hazard.

Minnesota's antismoking ordinance allows people to go to bars and restaurants and avoid smoke, because tobacco smoke is a proven killer. Yet because we still allow recreational wood burning in the city, where homes are close together on small lots, it has become a serious livability problem. All citizens are forced to breathe outdoor air that smells of smoke in many neighborhoods, night and day, in all seasons.

There is so much smoke, either faint or heavy, that many hardly notice it anymore. But wood smoke is there, heavy in most neighborhoods at night or around our many wood-fired restaurants, if you stop to notice.

How did this happen in a city such as Minneapolis, which has long been focused on improving air quality for the health of its citizens?

Wood smoke comprises fine particulates, many of which are carcinogenic, such as benzene, toluene, formaldehyde and polyaromatic hydrocarbons. It is far more concentrated than cigarette smoke and travels much farther, spreading soot and fine particulates directly into our air and our lungs. It also invades our water and food supply with persistent organic compounds that do not break down but remain for years, causing a host of health problems in frogs, bluegills and mammals -- including humans.

Everyone is at risk from wood-smoke exposure. But children of all ages, the elderly, and anyone with asthma, allergies, or heart disease are in the highest-risk categories.

The American Lung Association states that a majority of asthmatics cite smoke of all kinds as a trigger for asthma attacks. Asthma is epidemic in children, and it is life-threatening. Wood smoke is even implicated in sudden infant death syndrome. Are we OK with this? Aren't these facts reason enough to stop recreational wood burning?
Why, then, do people continue to burn? First, because they don't know how harmful it is. Second, because it is strongly promoted by the hearth and home industry. And third, because burning wood is an addiction.

I cannot be outside at all when wood smoke is in the air, because I have a "reactive airways" condition affected by it. I ache for clean air outdoors in a world where nature often is our only respite. Bad air is forcing many others I know inside when, as city taxpayers, we have a right to be outside breathing clean air.

We must urge our City Council members to ban recreational wood burning -- especially at a time when cities are looking for ways to reduce pollution to save lives and receive federal funding by being in compliance with air-quality standards. Many feel that our air-quality standards are not high enough. If air quality were measured near where people actually breathe it, when neighbors are burning, the results would be off the charts.

I look to the Star Tribune and to all citizens to start building public awareness of the hazards of wood smoke.

Julie Mellum is a Realtor and president of Take Back the Air, a Minneapolis group that works to address pollution at the neighborhood level.

To Board of Health Members in Massachusetts

The air we all have to breathe is being destroyed due to wood smoke emissions and our health suffers…….(http://masscleanair.org/documents/letter.htm)


February 2004
To Board of Health Members in Massachusetts,

I first began complaining to health officials about wood smoke from residential wood burning in January 1999 when my neighbors who burn wood were unwilling to respond to my concerns about the wood smoke that I was being exposed to. Smoke was coming into my home, onto my property and into the air in my neighborhood, often forcing me back into my house because the wall of smoke was so thick. One neighbor told me I should move; another put out a no trespassing order on me; the third agreed to only burn wood, not trash, in his stove. All three of these neighbors are within 150 feet of my house and I am downwind of all of them. All were confident that they were perfectly within their rights and acted as though there was nothing I could do about the fact that their wood burning was disturbing me.

I called the Department of Environmental Protection, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Public Health. I also spoke with people at the BOH in Northampton, where there are wood smoke regulations, and read extensively about the laws governing Boards of Health in Massachusetts. Various people at DEP were quite sympathetic, and agreed with me that wood smoke is air pollution. But those I talked with have stated that there is no intention at this time for DEP to regulate wood burning, even though it is regulated in other states and municipalities. I concluded that the only help for someone in my situation was through the BOH, which has statutory authority to abate nuisances and regulate matters affecting public health including air pollution.

When I looked into the health effects of wood smoke I was surprised at the volume of information that was available. I learned that an average wood stove produces 500 times as much particulate air pollution as a well-tuned oil burner per hour, and 1000 times more than a gas burner. Wood smoke contains dioxin, a well known carcinogen. Wood ash from wood stoves in New England is often radioactive because above-ground nuclear testing that took place 50 years ago deposited radiation in this part of the country. The EPA estimates that at similar exposures, wood smoke is about 12 times as carcinogenic as secondhand tobacco smoke, and that the free radicals from cigarette smoke remain in a person's system for 30 seconds, while those from wood smoke act for 20 minutes. Toxicology and epidemiological studies overwhelmingly conclude that wood smoke is harmful to people's health, especially in sensitive populations such as infants, children, the elderly, and those with existing heart or lung problems.

In the presence of wood smoke, I have experienced chest pain and tightness, chronic sinus infections and other symptoms. These are average, predictable responses as reported in the literature. When I am not being exposed to wood smoke, I don't have these health problems. However, when I reported my concerns to the Buckland BOH, it refused to take any action to help me. My understanding of the BOH's reasoning in refusing to address this problem is that, first of all, wood smoke does not harm anyone's health except for mine. They believe that asking people to curtail their wood burning is unfair, even outrageous, because wood burning is a necessity and a way of life. They are afraid that challenging the practice of residential wood burning would interfere with people's privacy rights. Some people, the BOH believes, have no choice but to harvest wood from their property to heat their homes. It would be unfair to ask people in one neighborhood, such as a densely populated area, to curtail burning, while allowing others to continue to burn. The BOH's arguments focus on the supposed environmental, political and financial advantages to heating with wood. But when a Board of Health does not recognize wood smoke as a health hazard, it cannot fulfill its function of protecting the public's health.

I cannot remember anyone burning wood in the town of Greenfield where I lived for the first 19 years of my life. Maybe wood burning is a "way of life," but ways of life come and go; air pollution is air pollution regardless of its source. I have not found anything to suggest that wood smoke is exempted from the nuisance law. It is my understanding that the open burning law is also predicated on the idea that wood smoke is a health hazard. When my BOH refuses to consider wood smoke a nuisance and/or a health hazard, instead choosing to protect my neighbor's "right" to burn, the BOH fails to consider the impact that these activities have on the rights of others.

The practical outcome for me of the BOH's refusal to tackle the wood smoke problem has included the necessity of leaving my house completely for two winters because the smoke inside my house was so severe that I feared for my health and safety. Now I spend hundreds of dollars a year on air filters in an attempt to reduce my exposure inside my home, leave my home and stay elsewhere whenever I can, and avoid walking in my neighborhood in the evening because the smoke is often very thick. During the colder months, while people heat with wood, I have had to keep my windows closed to keep smoke from coming into my house, creating a situation where "fresh air" in my home is not a possibility. I may be forced to sell my home and move, and I know that there are others across the State in similar or worse situations.

The reasons that many people give for heating their homes with wood instead of with a cleaner fuel are typically that wood is a renewable resource; it is a more environmentally sound method of supplying energy than the production of fuel oil or natural gas; and it will help Americans be less dependent on foreign oil. After spending the last six years suffering the effects of wood smoke air pollution for eight months a year, I have to seriously question whether wood burning is a acceptable way of achieving these goals, especially in densely populated areas. There are other strategies we can use to reduce negative impacts associated with our energy use.

The cost of heating with wood is comparable to heating with oil, and in past years has been even more expensive. I am confident that lower income residents can be given access to cleaner fuels instead of being allowed or encouraged to pollute their own air and their neighbors' air. Wood burning contributes to poor air quality inside the homes in which it is occurring.

The BOH in Buckland has agreed to engage in education on this issue. This is a worthwhile and important thing that the Board can do. But the majority of this Board has said that there will be no consequences for those who continue to burn, even if complaints are lodged against them. I am concerned that, as long as this type of air pollution remains legally acceptable, it will continue to exist and the public health will remain unprotected.

I have personally spoken with others in Massachusetts with similar complaints. Amherst and Northampton have opacity regulations for wood stoves. I know that some Boards deal with this issue on a case by case basis and have been able to convince the wood burner to stop burning. I also know of a number of people who complained to their Boards and have gotten similar responses to those I have described here. We are left with difficult choices when our Boards choose not to help us. We can move, and run the risk that we will be faced with the same problem in our next home. We can stay and continue to try to influence our neighbors, our Boards and other lawmakers, or go to court with expensive private nuisance complaints. Or we can suffer in silence. Unfortunately, this last option is the most common response. I know of a number of people in Franklin County who are adversely affected by inhaling wood smoke but who are unwilling to complain about it for a number of reasons. One of these reasons is that they believe there is nothing that can be done.

Where I live, there are at least twenty homes that burn wood on a regular basis within 2000 feet of my house, and I am downwind of most of them. About half of them moved into their homes and started burning wood since the time I first complained. The wood smoke problem is not getting better in Buckland. Wanting clean air to breathe is not a lifestyle choice, an aesthetic preference, a financial consideration or the special desire of very sensitive individuals. It is a necessity for health and well-being. Wood smoke is not a fact of life. It is the result of choosing to burn wood.

I am hoping that as BOH members, reading this letter will encourage you to look carefully at the research that has been done on particulate air pollution exposure and the legal authority that you are entrusted with, and take seriously the wood smoke complaints that come before you. As far as I have been able to ascertain, Boards of Health are our only protection (other than expensive, time-consuming private lawsuits) from this type of air pollution in Massachusetts.

Sincerely,
Janet Sinclair, Buckland Board of Health
http://masscleanair.org/documents/letter.htm

Wood Smoke Has Got To Go!---letter to editor

Letter to the Editor

By Leonard F. Bradley
Parksville
© Copyright 2007 Parksville Qualicum News

Feb 27 2007

Most of us have heard the slogan: Think globally — Act locally.

I would like to commend the Mayor and Council of Parksville for their progressive action in moving to eliminate burning in our city. Such action is important globally and locally.

Globally thinking British Columbians are buying smaller cars, reducing air travel, replacing light bulbs and doing many other things to reduce their emissions.

Yet, others will burn anything indiscriminately even though in Parksville, the city will, without charge, pick up and chip many of the items they are burning.

Locally, we must all become more aware that breathing in smoke of any sort is dangerous to health. Many studies have demonstrated that wood smoke, for example, contains up to a hundred carcinogenic substances. That is why many jurisdictions have banned burning.

Breathing in wood smoke harms our lungs. Moreover, small particles pass through lungs into the blood and heart. Why do we allow this to be done?

It is time to end to the frontier mentality of “anything goes.” Let’s clean up our air for the sake of Parksville and the planet.