Where there's smoke, there's trouble

Where there's smoke, there's trouble

Excerpted from: Burlington County Times February 13, 2011
By: JO CIAVAGLIA

Where there is wood smoke, there is fire - as well as invisible toxins you could be inhaling.

A little soot exposure probably isn't harmful to most people, pulmonologists say, but a new Danish-led study suggests regular exposure could damage DNA.
Local doctors call the findings interesting, though the implications in the United States are unclear since wood-burning stoves and fireplaces are generally used only a few months of the year.

Short-term health effects of wood-smoke particles on people with airway problems are well-known, the doctors said, as are other potential health hazards such as carbon-monoxide gas buildup, which is also invisible and dangerous.

A decade ago, Dr. Ira Horowitz, a pulmonologist with Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center in Camden, treated six patients whose respiratory illness was triggered by a major forest fire in Florida. A few drove through the area where the fire occurred, but others were bothered when winds carried the smoke hundreds of miles into South Jersey, Horowitz said.

"There is clearly a hazard with this," said Dr. Sandeep Dhand, chief pulmonologist at Holy Redeemer Medical Center in Abington, Pa. "It's a problem all around."
Wood-smoke particles are the fine powder containing mostly carbon, left after wood is burned.

Long-term exposure increases the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to equal that of a cigarette smoker, Dhand said. Recent medical literature has found that smoke from burning solid fuels like wood worsens respiratory diseases.
But since fireplaces and wood-burning stoves are used mostly during the fall and winter in most parts of the U.S., Dhand said wood-smoke particle exposure is more limited so it likely presents a lower lung cancer risk.

But some doctors said the latest study appearing last week in the American Chemical Society's journal, Chemical Research in Toxicology, raises new questions about potential long-term exposure. The study found the particles may cause negative health effects.

Considerable scientific evidence has linked inhaling fine particles of air pollution from car exhausts and coal-fired electric power plants and other sources to respiratory problems, cancer and heart disease, but little information exists about the same fine particles associated with burning wood.

In the study, scientists analyzed and compared airborne wood-smoke particles from the center of a Denmark village, where most residents used wood stoves, with a neighboring rural area with few wood stoves, as well as to pure wood-smoke particles collected from a wood stove.

Airborne particles in the village and pure wood-smoke particles tended to be the most potentially dangerous size - small enough to be inhaled into the deepest part of the lungs, where they could cause disease. Scientists also showed that the tiny particles damaged DNA when tested on human cells.

The scientists further found that wood-smoke particle matter contained higher levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which include "probable" human carcinogens. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are chemicals formed during the incomplete burning of coal, oil, gas, wood, garbage or other substances, such as tobacco and charbroiled meat.

The wood-smoke particles were found to be as harmful as the small particles created by car exhaust and coal-burning plants, the study found.
About half of the world uses solid biomass fuels such as wood and coal for indoor heating and cooking. A number of studies have associated indoor solid fuel combustion with health problems, including low infant birth weight, and lung and eye problems in adults.

The American Lung Association warns that burning wood emits harmful toxins, such as dioxin, arsenic and formaldehyde, and fine particulates into the air that can worsen breathing problems and lead to heart and lung disease.

In 2008, the lung organization recommended replacing wood stoves manufactured before 1995 with ones certified by the Environmental Protection Agency that meet stricter emission standards. Modern wood stoves also burn off less particulate matter than older stoves.

The newspaper was unsuccessful in reaching a representative with the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association, the North American trade group for manufacturers, distributors and specialty retailers of all types of hearth appliances, fuels and accessories, including stoves and fireplace inserts.

But statistics on the group's website show a steady and, in some cases, dramatic decline in popularity of wood-burning equipment in the United States.
Shipments of fireplaces, free-standing wood stoves and inserts declined about 30 percent from a high of 795,767 in 1999 to 235,647 in 2009. Pellet stove and insert shipments showed a pattern of dramatic one-year increases and decreases over the last decade, but most recently experienced a 67 percent decrease between 2008 and 2009.

Air quality indoors can be worse than outdoors in the winter since people spend more time inside. Homes tend to be sealed up and, over time, pollutants can become concentrated, said Dr. Chris Christensen, a pulmonologist at Abington Memorial Hospital in Pennsylvania. "Those conditions, where the airways are irritable on a good day, are made worse when it's indoors," Christensen said. "The idea that these could potentially be carcinogenic is something we never thought of being an issue. It's fascinating."

Currently there is no way to test for the presence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in wood-smoke particulate, so "it's a risk hanging out there," Christensen said. The potential long-term effects of hydrocarbons in wood-smoke particulate could possibly be the next asbestos situation, where the harmful health effects of exposure don't appear until decades later, Christensen said.
"I'm glad they are bringing attention to it," he added.


Source: The Wood Smoke Activist Network
April 2011 Newsletter
Web site: http://WoodBurnerSmoke.net

Earth Hour and Woodsmoke Awareness

Earth Hour and Woodsmoke Awareness

Earth hour World-Wide begins in a few weeks on March 26th.. Communities celebrating earth hour will focus on ways that we as citizens of the earth can protect our fragile environment by becoming educated and informed about the part we play in making ours a better, healthier world in which to live. We, and our environment, can also be healthier if the air we breathe is Woodsmoke-free too.

We embrace with pride new ideas to revitalize, enhance and renew our communities. We wisely acknowledge the fact that every step we take toward healthier Woodsmoke –free neighbourhoods also reflects our desire to better not only our own community but those world-wide. By achieving those goals and becoming empowered we too can encourage others to do the same.

Turning out the lights for an hour symbolically represents our global connection with each other, linking us profoundly as a united force. Our hope is for a better world in which to live and raise our families. If we turn out the lights for an hour, only to light up a Woodburning back yard fire pit, chimenea, outdoor fireplace, fire ring or other Woodburning device, we are absolutely defeating the purpose of Earth Hour. We then are taking part in destroying our health, air, environment, earth and communities. By allowing Woodsmoke to harm and destroy our life we are not protecting Mother Earth. Woodsmoke is a deadly silent killer taking away our breath, health, our quality of life and harming our fragile environment.

Community leaders must immediately become informed and aware of the toxic dangers we face from all outdoor open air burning in our respective neighbourhoods. All biomass burning destroys our air, making us ill, suffer and die from Woodsmoke-related illness. Millions die world-wide from Woodsmoke-related diseases.

Globally, we are aware of the impact of Tobacco smoking. Millions of lives were lost due to Tobacco related diseases. Woodsmoke is even worse for our health than tobacco smoke. Many of the same cancer causing chemicals found in Tobacco are also in Woodsmoke. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) when inhaled goes deeply into our lungs causing irreparable damage.

Woodsmoke and Woodburning are destroying our world. Scientists and doctors concur that Woodsmoke is killing us. Honour the role you play as a good steward of our Earth. Speak- up and take pro-active action to see that all outdoor open air burning (via a by-law) is prohibited in every community. Demand that regulations be implemented to phase out the use of Woodburning stoves, pellet stoves, Woodburning fireplaces, OWBs (outdoor woodboilers) and all biomass burning. New homes codes must exclude all Woodburning devices.

Make every hour Earth Hour when it comes to ending Woodburning. Protect your earth, health, community and most of all, your global family from the horrors of Woodsmoke Pollution. Make your voice heard. Speak up and fight for your life. Everyone deserves the right and common decency to breathe healthy air Woodsmoke-free. End destruction of the air we breathe…by ending Woodsmoke in 2011.

Author-Linda Baker Beaudin

Black Rose......and an Obituary--R.I.P.

Black Rose......and an Obituary-R.I.P.

The Black Rose……International Symbol of Woodsmoke Destruction

The Black Rose, the International symbol of Woodsmoke Destruction will bring attention to the eyes of the world the visual realization of the deadly impact of the suffering, death and destruction that Woodsmoke Pollution has made on our planet.

The Black Rose represents millions of lives world-wide that have died from Woodsmoke-related diseases. Adopt the Black Rose as your International symbol of suffering from World-Wide Woodsmoke pollution.

The Black Rose symbolizes the endless hours of relentless suffering endured by those who live in areas with OWBs (Outdoor Woodboilers), Woodburning fireplaces, Woodburning stoves, pellet stoves, outdoor open air burning and all biomass burning.

The Black Rose represents the black smoke from garbage, debris, painted wood, and other toxic material/wood that is burned in fire pits, fire rings, chimeneas, outdoor fireplaces and all Woodburning devices. Sadly, this continues to be sanctioned, condoned and enabled by our leaders and government everywhere.

The Black Rose symbolizes the black tires, toxic Railroad ties, C&D (construction and debris) and other deadly toxic materials that are burned in incinerators in many communities as biomass.

The Black Rose represents the toxic black soot that is found on Woodburning chimneys and the Black Carbon Soot that is destroying our precious, fragile environment.

Asthma, COPD, Cancer, Stroke, SIDs, Cardiovascular, Cardiopulmonary, respiratory and other related diseases are associated with Woodsmoke.

Demand that proactive action be taken to prohibit all Woodburning in every community. Advocate for the right and common decency for every human to be able to breathe healthy air-Woodsmoke-free.

Do not remain silent about a deadly poison that is killing you….Woodsmoke. There is no room for leaders who show complacency, apathy, uncaring, disrespect or disregard about a deadly, toxic issue such as Woodsmoke when your life is being assaulted and threatened.

Send a Black Rose to your city board members, trustees, council members, mayors, representatives, congressmen and women, President, Prime Minister, elected leaders, members of parliament, government and all others who have neglected to fulfil their fiduciary duty to protect all citizens from the deadly effects of Woodsmoke, and who have not yet taken immediate action to prohibit all Woodburning in every city and community.

Send a Black Rose on your letterhead by way of a stamp and ink pad, photo copy, fresh rose, a photo, a painting, a tinted black rose, an artificial black rose. Send IT! Share the story of the Black Rose with others world-wide. Make the Black Rose become your story!
Demand that immediate proactive action be taken by all leaders to ban all outdoor open air burning in every community. Demand that regulations be implemented to phase out the use of all Woodburning devices and biomass burning in every community.

Remember that negligent leaders are a deadly threat to your life and health. Give a Black Rose to show your disapproval of their lack of action, concern, compassion, regard, decency and moral obligation to end Woodsmoke in our world.

By: Anonymous



OBITUARY: DEATH FROM WOODSMOKE

They tried and tried to end the Woodsmoke

It ruined their life and it made them choke

It made them sad and made them weary

It left them broken and left them teary

For those who don’t believe this crime

Help for millions never came on time

Their death resulted in neglect

From the many leaders and their disrespect

They lived their dash and they lived it well

Warning others about the Woodsmoke Hell

Of Woodsmoke and its destructive tale

It’s waiting for you and will impale

Your life on its plume and toxic trail

So heed their warning and heed their call

End Woodsmoke soon for one and all

If not, you’ll end up dead of course

With great sadness and remorse

R.I.P. Death By Woodsmoke!

By: Anonymous



The "living" Obituary, written by Anonymous who is suffering and dying due to woodsmoke, should be a wake-up call to all elected officials who sit quietly, apathetically, and take no action to end woodsmoke. Elected officials who are doing nothing to end poisonous, deadly woodsmoke are leaving a legacy of inaction they should be ashamed of because they could have ended woodsmoke pollution with legislation...but, they did not!

Also, all people that are suffering from woodsmoke in their neighborhood and home should take action too, and inform their local elected officials to ban woodsmoke. Unless you take action now, many loved ones will continue to become sick, and die from woodsmoke emissions.

Outdoor wood-burning stoves are unhealthy to public

Outdoor wood-burning stoves are unhealthy to public

By By NANCY ALDERMAN
Norwich Bulletin

Posted Jan 12, 2011

Although New York has tried to get outdoor wood furnaces under control, its new regulations will not protect people who live in the vicinity of one.

The newer phase II units have not gone through field testing, and only the industry is claiming that they burn 90 percent cleaner. Environment and Human Health Inc., a nonprofit organization that receives no funding from business or corporations, has monitored the inside air of homes near outdoor wood furnaces and found that homes as far away as 850 feet have wood smoke levels way above Environmental Protection Agency standards.

So far, only Washington state has banned outdoor wood furnaces. It’s now time for other states, such as Connecticut, to follow. If people’s health and property values are to be protected, then a ban must be enacted.

The Farm Bureau fights regulations in every state so farmers can save a few thousand dollars on heating bills. But neighbors lose the entire value of their homes and their health. Outdoor wood furnaces emit as much smoke as 22 indoor wood stoves. Outdoor wood furnaces are not certified by EPA. Indoor wood stoves are.

New York’s new regulations require that units be 90 percent cleaner, but that does not apply to those already in existence. So, 90 percent clearner than what?

The industry claims phase II units are 90 percent cleaner than the old ones, but these newer units have never been tested in the field and people living near them say they’re almost as polluting as the old ones. The technology is the same — and it’s flawed.

Exposures of two hours or more — peak exposure — is enough to cause serious health effects. The 90-percent-cleaner claim is based on a 24-hour average, not peak exposure, which causes the greatest harm. The industry’s 90-percent-cleaner claim will not bring those peak exposures down to levels that will protect health or home values.

Not enough

New York requires only a 100-foot setback. Smoke from these furnaces, whether new or old, forms in a plume up to 1,000 feet — and sometimes a half mile. One hundred feet will in no way protect neighbors.

New York established stack-height requirements, but it doesn’t matter how high because the wood smoke that comes out of the stack falls toward the ground.

New York mandates “only good wood” can be used. Burning even the best and driest wood in the world will still give off toxic emissions. This is like saying when you smoke a cigarette, be sure to use “only good, dry and clean tobacco” as if that would keep the cigarette smoke from being toxic.

When an agency tries to regulate a product that is harmful, the agency often tries to please both the industry and the public. When this happens, too often, the public good is sacrificed.

These devices do not lend themselves to regulation. They must be banned until better technologies are found — and they have not yet been found.


Nancy Alderman is president of Environment and Human Health Inc. in North Haven.
Copyright 2011 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved

Breathe At Your Own Risk!--Letter to the Editor

Breathe At Your Own Risk!

Letter to the Editor
London Free Press Website
369 York Street, P.O. Box 2280
London, Ontario N6A 4G1
Posted November 19, 2010

Breathe At Your Own Risk!

It surrounds us. It is a life necessity. We cannot survive without it. AIR! Yet, the message being sent by our Canadian Government is to Breathe at your own risk!

Small Particulate pollution (PM2.5) is destroying our health, quality of life and fragile environment. People suffer and die from the toxic effects of Woodsmoke Pollution. Canada is a burning Nation. Today a most needed bill C-311 was killed by the Harper Government. Once again the message being delivered by the Conservative Government is that the health and well being of Canadians falls into the abyss. Sadly, we become the canary in the cage being subjected to breathing more cancer causing chemicals each day.

The facts are alarming. The statistics shocking! In October, 2010, a statement was issued from environment ministers "Air Pollution has a huge impact on the environment, human health and the economy" said the Honourable Charlene Johnson, Newfoundland and Labrador's Minister of Environment and Conservation, and CCME president.

A study released in 2008 calculated that the costs of illness caused by air pollution (exceeded) $8 billion (annually in Canada). "CCMC is the primary minister-led intergovernmental forum for collective action on environmental issues of national and international concern." The development of the major elements will begin in 2011. Implementation to improve air quality standards will begin in 2013. Meanwhile we become ill, suffer and die from particulate pollution in Canada.

Woodburning stoves, Woodburning fireplaces, pellet stoves, pellet plants, Biomass plants, all Woodburning devices, and all outdoor open air burning contribute to the toxic polluted air Canadians are breathing. All Woodburning must be banned, if not we continue to breathe at our own risk.

Scientific and medical evidence support the claim that Particulate Pollution and Woodsmoke Pollution are causing grave harm to our health and environment.

According to pediatrician, Dr. William Sammons, USA, biomass burning emits the most toxic chemicals known to science, including deadly dioxin, mercury, fine particulate matter and others. "These emissions cause asthma, heart disease, diabetes and other illness in children as well as adults, and should never qualify as the "cleanest" technology under our Clean Air Act," Dr. Sammons said. Over 77,000 doctors, the American Lung Association, Massachusetts Medical Society, North Carolina Academy of Family Physicians and others oppose burning biomass on health grounds.

Renowned global scientists and medical doctors concur and support the fact that biomass burning is contributing to our global warming. Biomass burning is a leading contributor to millions dying from the toxic cancer causing chemicals found in Woodsmoke.

It is long overdue that the Canadian Government becomes fully accountable for the mass suffering of millions of deaths each year from Woodsmoke related diseases, due to air quality and particulate pollution. Sadly the lack of efforts in leading our country toward cleaner air has become as toxic as the air we breathe.

We in Canada should not have to.....Breathe At Our Own Risk.

Written by....Linda Baker Beaudin, Air Is Precious, Cornwall, Ontario K6J 4P8

Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield, MA.

Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield is a grassroots organization dedicated to stopping a proposed biomass incinerator in Springfield MA.

http://www.springfieldincinerator.info/


The following groups have joined Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield to oppose this incinerator: Massachusetts Medical Society, Hampden District Medical Society, American Lung Association, Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition, Pioneer Valley Asthma Coalition, Toxics Action Center, Arise for Social Justice, Greater Springfield chapter of the Massachusetts Senior Action Council, Western Massachusetts American Friends Service Committee, Connecticut River Watershed Council, Conservation Law Foundation, Massachusetts Environmental Energy Alliance, The McKnight Neighborhood Youth Council, East Forest Park Civic Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility/Pioneer Valley.

October 19 2010 - Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield has just received notice that Epsilon Associates is planning to change its fuel from mostly construction and demolition debris to waste wood chips at its proposed Springfield facility! Although PRE's change is a testament to our hard work, this change requires immediate action on all of our parts at the state and local levels. Below is the link to the developer's Notice of Project Change document for your review:
http://www.springfieldincinerator.info/content_downloads/Submittal%209-30-2010%20Notice%20of%20Project%20Change.pdf

Our Position

No incineration in Springfield! Springfield does not need another polluting plant. The state and the city should abandon all incineration and support clean, safe alternatives and industry in order to protect public health. Springfield is an environmental justice community and a health-impaired community with asthma and respiratory illness rates nearly double those of the rest of the state. The switch to wood waste is still dirty and a danger to public health. Emissions from this incinerator will include the same amount of particulate matter 2.5 and 10, the same amount of VOC's, the same amount of SO2, same amount of NP3 and almost the same amount of HAPs. The plant will still emit arsenic, mercury and lead. There will be more truck trips - 140 per day - using heavier trucks to accomodate a larger amount of fuel - now 1,184 tons per day. No burning! Not this either!

We Need to Act Now

After giving Palmer unlimited time to craft their application to change fuel, the state gives the public only 20 days to comment on a more than 300 page document. We need more time to ensure that everyone’s voices are heard! Comment deadline is October 26. This project does not require a Beneficial Use Determination by the state, it does not require an Environmental Impact Report unless MEPA decides on this step, and it does not require a public hearing for an air permit from Department of Environmental Protection unless DEP decides on one. We need you and your members to comment on this proposal to ensure that an Environmental Impact Report for the region is required and to ensure that the DEP holds public hearings on this project. Without your comments by 10/26, we could lose our chance to stop this project.


Why The Rush? Can We Trust This Developer?

Epsilon openly states in its Notice of Change that is needs to start building by July 2011 to avoid new EPA clean air regulations:

3.1.2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
PSD review is a federally mandated program for review of new major sources of criteria pollutants or major modifications to existing sources. For PSD purposes, a biomass fired boiler facility is a major source if emissions of any regulated pollutant are greater than 250 tpy. The Facility will not emit greater than 250 tpy of the criteria pollutants NOx, SO2, VOC, CO, and PM10 and therefore is not subject to PSD review. According to the PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, issued May 13, 2010, PSD would apply to new construction projects emitting more than 100,000 tpy of GHG emissions started after July 1, 2011. PRE plans to begin construction before July 1, 2011, so PSD would not apply.


What they are saying here is, although EPA is going to start regulating CO2 as a pollutant, and even biogenic CO2, they are going to evade this because they plan on starting construction before the implementation date. Obviously Epsilon Associates needs to fast-track their incineration proposal to make it happen. Palmer has already proven they are untrustworthy; last month, the state fined them $27,000 for violating provisions in their air quality permits and hazardous waste management requirements at its paving operation. Palmer was also caught dumping waste water into the ground.

In addition, their proposal claims this incinerator will be carbon-neutral because it will use nonforest wood material. This woody biomass, however, is already claimed by other users. If they take away this woody biomass from current users, more trees will have to be cut to ensure the current supply. So how can this incinerator call itself carbon-neutral if it will harm our forest resources and landscape by ultimately requiring the cutting of forest land, as the Manomet Study has already made clear. And what happens when there is no longer enough woody biomass? Biomass plants in NH are now suing each other over dwindling wood reserves, and most "wood chip" biomass plants in Maine have converted to construction and demolition incinerators because of low fuel stock. Should we expect the same to happen in Springfield with another simple permit change?


================================

The Project: Palmer Renewable Energy proposes to build a 35-megawatt power-generating incinerator at 1000 Page Boulevard, Springfield. Each day, over 1000 tons of the wood will be burned, generating only 1/3 of 1% of Massachusetts' total power production.

Health Issues: In an unexpected and unusual move, The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) has responded to a request by members of Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield (STIS) and issued a letter of comment relating to the Springfield wood waste incinerator's Beneficial Use Determination (BUD) permit. This permit reclassifies the wood waste, declaring it suitable for fuel. The focus of the DPH letter is the lack of a health impact assessment (HIA), something the DPH feels is called for by the BUD regulations.

The Massachusetts Medical Society, an organization representing 20,000 Massachusetts physicians, has voiced their opposition to biomass incineration in general. In the first paragraph of their press release they state: "On the grounds that biomass power plants pose an unacceptable risk to the public's health by increasing air pollution, the Massachusetts Medical Society has adopted a policy opposing three currently proposed large-scale biomass power plants in Massachusetts and urging state government to adopt policies to minimize the approval and construction of new biomass plants."

The Hampden District Medical Society voted unanimously to formally oppose this plant because it presents "an unacceptable public health risk."

The Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition is also formally opposed to this plant as stated in their letter: "The Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition (MBCC) is the largest breast cancer organization in the state representing over 10,000 members. MBCC is dedicated to challenging all obstacles to the eradication of breast cancer. In particular, MBCC is concerned about the link between environmental toxins and the extremely high rate of breast cancer in the state and as a result, is in opposition to the burning of construction and demolition debris at the proposed Palmer Renewable Energy biomass plant."


The Physicians for Social Responsibility/Pioneer Valley oppose construction of incinerators in the valley. "It is the finding of the Physicians for Social Responsibility that the biomass power plants being proposed for several Pioneer Valley locations would contribute to particulate air pollution emissions in a region that already has pollution problems, and therefore we oppose the construction and operation of such plants."


Springfield air quality already receives a failing grade from the American Lung Association on many days of the year. American Lung Association of Massachusetts opposes this incinerator and explains why in a recent press release: "For years, the ALAMA has viewed biomass burning as a significant source of air pollution. We believe that the plants proposed in Massachusetts will create an unnecessary risk to both our state's health and air quality and are particularly concerned by inefficient and dirty sources of power located in communities that already suffer from poor air quality and high asthma rates."

Hampden County is already overburdened with lead pollution. According to the latest EPA figures, Hampden County sources emit 10,461 pounds of lead per year, which is 25% of the state's total.

EPA lead chart:

Effects on Our Children: The children of Hampden County are already suffering from this level of lead exposure with blood lead levels nearly double the state average. Lead can accumulate in bone and cause neurological impairment, developmental problems for children including loss of IQ, hearing impairment, delayed growth and behavior disorders. Researchers for the first time have linked air-pollution exposure before birth with lower IQ scores in childhood, bolstering evidence that smog may harm the developing brain.

The state asthma rate for children continues to climb and is now at 10%, but the Springfield rate is more than 16%! In addition to the emissions from the incinerator, there would be the added exhaust fumes from upwards of 140 truck trips a day. There are 55 schools within a five mile radius of the proposed toxic incinerator. A new study shows that children who breathe traffic-related air pollution at school are more likely to develop asthma, even after taking into account levels of air pollution at their homes.

Schools within a five mile radius of the proposed PRE incinerator

Fallout region with area schools-see website.


Environmental Issues: Burning wood releases 50% more carbon dioxide per unit of energy produced than a coal fired plant.

Carbon dioxide emissions from this incinerator are exempt from regulations.

"The science is clear: global warming is happening faster than ever and humans are responsible. Global warming is caused by releasing what are called greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The most common greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide. Many of the activities we do every day like turn the lights on, cook food, or heat or cool our homes rely on energy sources like coal and oil and that emit carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases. This is a major problem because global warming destabilizes the delicate balance that makes life on this planet possible. Just a few degrees in temperature can completely change the world as we know it, and threaten the lives of millions of people around the world."

Click here to view the source on 350.org and to learn more about how adding more corbon dioxide to the atmosphere could be disastrous!-see website

http://www.springfieldincinerator.info/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Webmaster: Please go to the Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield website for more details, charts, and graphs. Please support the effort by this organization.

Coalition Against Wood Burning

Coalition Against Wood Burning

(***This site is a work in progress as there is so much more to add!***)

New organization helping us to fight woodsmoke.

The International Coalition Against Wood Burning

Some excerpts from this new website are:

A site dedicated to ending wood burning and the health and environmental effects it causes.

------
THE ONLY WISE BURNING IS NO BURNING

Much has been published by wood burning appliance makers and forestry that might lead one to believe that wood burning is safe. Not so!

There is no such thing as 'good' smoke. All smoke carries particulate matter that can be drawn deep into the lungs to cause severe damage. If you can smell smoke then you are inhaling these particulates and the damage has begun. You cannot escape the wood smoke that makes its way into your home through ventilation systems and even minute spaces in doors and windows. No air cleaner will clear the air and make it safe to breathe.

We all need to work on this important issue and we need to do it now!

------

Wood smoke pollution and your health

For those that think that doctors are lax in speaking out on the wood smoke issue and its harmful effects on our health and environment, here are 3 prominent doctors who tell it like it is.

Please pass this on to your municipalities and governmental agencies, many of which have no idea of the seriousness of living next to someone who burns and releases the toxins into our air.

With gratitude to:

Dr. Jim Markos, medical lung specialist (Australian Lung Foundation)

Dr. Sverre Vedal of the University of Washington

Dr. Michael Aizen from the Australian Medical Association

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaxSgglRpLY
------

Effects of Wood Smoke

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons are produced in abundance when you burn wood.
"They are primarily formed by incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels such as wood, coal, diesel, fat, or tobacco. Tar also contains PAHs. Since human civilization relies so heavily on combustion, PAHs are inevitably linked to our energy production. In this sense, PAH can be thought of as marker molecules as their abundance can be directly proportional to combustion processes in the region and therefore directly related to air quality. Different types of combustion yield different distributions of PAHs."� Wikipedia�

The EPA estimates that the lifetime cancer risk from wood stove smoke is twelve times greater than that from an equal volume of second hand tobacco smoke. (The Health Effects of Wood Smoke, Washington State Department of Ecology)

"Burning two cords of wood produces the same amount of mutagenic particles as: Driving 13 gasoline powered cars 10,000 miles each at 20 miles/gallon. These figures indicate that the worst contribution that an individual is likely to make to the mutagenicity of the air is using a wood stove for heating, followed by driving a diesel car." ( Dr. Joellen Lewtas, Contribution of Source Emissions of the Mutagenicity of Ambient Urban Air Particles, U.S. EPA, #91-131.6, 1991 )
-----

This site is a gathering place for people around the world to come together to help clear our planet of wood smoke pollution.

To join us, send a comment or suggestion, please send an email to Shirley.

E-mail---s.brandie@sympatico.ca---for more information.

http://CoalitionAgainstWoodBurning.com
-----

Webmaster comment: Congrats on your new website and we welcome your organization.

No room for apathy this summer--Canada

Letter to the Editor
July 28, 2010
Philly.com website
CottageCountryNow.ca 1 week ago


No room for apathy this summer

Victims of woodsmoke pollution continue being assaulted from the toxic acrid woodsmoke filled air that permeates many communities.

Outdoor open-air burns are still permitted in urban areas in our nation. People continue becoming ill and thousands die each year in Canada from woodsmoke related illness. Asthma, COPD, cardiovascular, cardiopulmonary, cancer and other diseases have been linked with woodsmoke pollution.

Woodsmoke is a deadly silent killer. There is no longer room for apathy.
There is no longer room for the disregard and disrespect that is shown to the victims of woodsmoke pollution. Our health units, mayors, fire departments, council members and elected leaders are not acknowledging the pleas and petitions for help.
Woodsmoke pollution is a Canadian crisis that is affecting the life and health of every person in each city. Outdoor open-air burns must be banned in all Canadian urban areas. Our government is neglecting this ongoing, life threatening health crisis.

No longer is there room for apathy. This toxic woodsmoke pollution issue must be addressed in each community. We become sicker each day from being assaulted by outdoor open-air burns.

Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) from woodstoves, woodburning fireplaces and outdoor woodboilers when inhaled goes deeply into the lungs causing irreparable damage.
People are suffering. Our children live daily using asthma inhalers that provide them with easier breathing, while our officials and leaders show blatant disrespect and disregard to those demanding a ban on all outdoor open air burns.
The time has come and it is long overdue. We must see changes take place in our communities. We must see a ban on all outdoor open-air burns. Our health boards, elected leaders and governments must become accountable for their lack of action. In each Canadian province the outcry from the victims of woodsmoke pollution remains the same. Ban woodsmoke.

Ban it before we become even sicker and our families suffer even more.
People are dying in Canada from woodsmoke-related illness. People are dying worldwide from woodsmoke pollution.

Do not sit back apathetic and allow woodsmoke to destroy your life and health any longer. Demand change in your community. Do not accept woodburning as something you must live with. Our leaders can take action and ban all woodsmoke.
There no longer is room for apathy, but there is room for action. Take action in your community. Make becoming informed about woodsmoke your number one priority.
Your life and breath depend on it.

See the following Esteemed Websites for further information: Breathe healthy air http://breathehealthyair.blogspot.com Clean Air Revival http://burningissues.org/ Canadian Clean Air Alliance http://www.canadiancleanairalliance.ca Freedom of Air http://www.myspace.com/freedomofair

There is no room for apathy.

Linda Baker Beaudin
Cornwall

Webmaster: All Canadians should raise their voices and hearts and join others that want a ban on woodsmoke in Canada. Contacting this writer is a great way to begin.

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

Natural, Yes, But Wood Smoke is Toxic, Too

Natural, Yes, But Wood Smoke is Toxic, Too

By Deborah Schoch on June 14, 2010

Science is swiftly turning upside down the common notion that a fire built with wood is kinder to humans’ well-being than gas and other modern fuels.

From California to Sweden and China, researchers are reporting that wood smoke contains large amounts of harmful pollutants, including some of the same toxic chemicals found in cigarette smoke.

Those reports seem counter-intuitive. After all, wood is a natural substance, a heat source since prehistoric times and a seemingly safe alternative to dirty fossil fuels.

But natural does not necessarily mean harmless, and a growing number of published studies are associating wood smoke with asthma, other lung problems and heart disease — some of the same illnesses associated with smoking and with heavy exposure to car and truck pollution.

“Is it as toxic as something coming out of the tailpipe? We’re not sure yet,” said Robert Devlin, senior scientist in the environmental public health division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D.C.

But the new consciousness of wood smoke’s dangers is spurring scientific inquiries in communities across the West where wood heat is popular: in California, Montana, Idaho, Seattle and British Columbia.

Wood consists largely of two relatively harmless ingredients, cellulose and a strengthening substance called lignin.

If the wood burned completely, it would turn into simple water and carbon dioxide. But instead it forms what scientists call “products of incomplete combustion” — thousands of chemicals, including certain toxic and carcinogenic substances.

Many of the same chemicals form during the burning of other organic matter — whether waste from orchards and rice fields or tobacco leaves wrapped up in cigarettes.

That is why some scientists compare wood smoke to second-hand smoke and cigarette smoke.

“It’s not the nicotine in cigarette smoke that kills you. It’s the other stuff,” said Kirk R. Smith, a professor of global environmental health at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health who has studied smoke’s health effects around the world.

“The worst thing that you can do with this stuff is stick it in your mouth,” Smith said. “The next worst thing is to have it in your house. The next worst thing is to have it in your neighbor’s house.”

Researchers can rattle off long lists of dangers in wood smoke.

They often focus on the tiny particles — a mere fraction of the width of a human hair — that can lodge in tissue and blood vessels and disrupt lung and heart functions. Some are so small that they can pass right through the walls of blood vessels. Wood smoke also contains well-known cancer-causing chemicals such as benzene and formaldehyde.

Scientists have published dozens of studies on the human health effects of wood smoke. In 2007, a 40-page review of those studies in the journal Inhalation Toxicology concluded, “It is now well established … that wood-burning stoves and fireplaces as well as wildland and agricultural fires emit significant quantities of known health-damaging pollutants, including several carcinogenic compounds.”

Today, most U.S. regulators focus largely on the fine particles in wood smoke to measure its potential for harm, rather focusing on its cancer-causing ingredients as they did with tobacco smoke a generation ago.

The same is true in California.

“The main issue is that it has particulate matter. When it comes to particles, we treat all particles the same. We feel that all particulate matter is bad for you,” said Linda Smith, head of the health impacts section at the state Air Resources Board.

International public health officials have gone further. In 2006, wood smoke was labeled “probably carcinogenic in humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization.

But the 2007 journal review concluded that it was too early to formally link wood smoke and cancer, and that more research is needed.

An American Cancer Society advisory group recommended several years ago that the society not take a position on the issue, deciding “that the evidence linking wood burning smoke to cancer was much weaker than that for heart and lung disease,” the society’s statistics director, Kenneth M. Portier, wrote in an e-mail note.

Some activists believe California should act more aggressively and treat wood smoke just as it does second-hand smoke or fumes from diesel-burning trucks. The state has classified both “toxic air contaminants.”

Wood smoke deserves the same label, said Jenny Bard, regional air quality director for the American Lung Association in California.

“We’re going after tobacco smoke in all sorts of ways,” Bard said. “We’ve banned it from workplaces and restaurants. And the exposures to wood stove pollution can be so much more concentrated in localized situations.”

This story is a result of a partnership between the Center for Health Reporting and the Chico Enterprise-Record.

Posted in Airborne Hazards, Environmental Safety and Health

Credit to: Fair Warning wesite
http://www.fairwarning.org/2010/06/natural-yes-but-wood-smoke-is-toxic-too/

Biomass Busters-Newsletter

Biomass Busters
June 2010

From the Editors:
Meg Sheehan & Josh Schlossberg


The ground has been shifting under the biomass industry since the publication of our first issue of Biomass Busters last month! A few significant developments include: the EPA’s decision not to exempt biomass emissions from its greenhouse gas regulations; a letter from ninety scientists to Congress urging our Legislature to close the “biomass loophole;” and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s suspension of the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, following pressure from forest advocates.

Scientists and medical doctors continue to be galvanized by the public health and climate change threats from biomass incinerators, communities across the country keep fighting against incinerators proposed for their towns, and a national grassroots campaign is bringing together biomass opponents from sea to shining sea. Read on to find out more!

For submissions and feedback contact us at stopspewingcarbon@gmail.com.
Biomass Busters is a project of the Biomass Accountability Project, Inc., Energy Justice Network, Biofuelwatch, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, and Save America’s Forests.

From: http://www.mce3.org/BiomassBustersJune2010.pdf
Biomass Busters
June 2010-Newsletter

More from newsletter below...

American Lung Association vs. Biomass

The American Lung Association is a leading voice on the health impacts of biomass incineration. In 2009, the Association wrote to Congress: The Lung Association urges that the legislation not promote the combustion of biomass. Burning biomass could lead to significant increases in emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide and have severe impacts on the health of children, older adults, and people with lung diseases.

Doctor’s Orders

The Massachusetts Medical Society, publisher of the New England Journal of Medicine, insists that “biomass power plants pose an unacceptable risk to the public’s health by increasing air pollution.” Jefferson Dickey, M.D., internist at the Community Health Center of Franklin County, states that air pollution from biomass is associated with an increased risk of a broad range of medical problems, from asthma attacks and decreased lung growth in children to increased lung disease exacerbations, emergency room use, hospitalization rates, heart attacks, and death rates in adults.

Check out...http://www.mce3.org/BiomassBustersJune2010.pdf

Wood Fueled Biomass Burning the Biggest Carbon Dioxide Emitter

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.

Up in Smoke---(The Truth About Biomass)

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/

Risky Business: Burning Wood and other Biomass for Energy

From----The Wood Smoke Activist
February 2010 Newsletter
Educating the world about the health and climate impacts of wood smoke and combustion aerosols.
Editor: Shirley Brandie
1/2/2010


Risky Business: Burning Wood and other Biomass for Energy

Though burning biomass is a source of renewable energy, the negative health consequences are so well documented that they far outweigh the benefits.
Wood smoke shares many common chemicals with tobacco smoke, including formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and carbon emissions. It is rich in dioxins, the most insidious family of toxins known to man, which accumulate in the environment and in mammalian lungs, building up over time, adding incrementally to health risks for every generation to come.

Smoke from biomass burning is implicated in skyrocketing birth defects, including reproductive defects in unborn babies, asthma attacks, heart attacks and even SIDS.

Morbidity and Mortality from Air Pollution—a Wake-Up Call
The American Thoracic Society, May 22, 2006, found that for an increase of 10 micrograms per cubic meter of particulates over two years, the risk of dying was increased by:
*32% for people with diabetes
*28% for people with COPD, asthma and pneumonia
*27% in people with congestive heart failure
*22% for people with inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis or lupus
A current American Lung Association brochure states that a majority of asthmatics cite smoke of all kinds as a trigger for asthma attacks.

“Particulate pollution has been linked to hospital admissions and emergency room visits for respiratory problems and to premature death.” Further, “The sulfur dioxide in wood smoke constricts air passages, making it a problem for people with asthma and for young children whose small lungs need to work harder than adult lungs. Even brief exposures to relatively low levels of sulfur dioxide can cause an asthma attack.”

The EPA, in “Health Effects of Particle Pollution,” March 8, 2006, states, “Many scientific studies have linked breathing particle pollution to a series of significant health problems, including chronic bronchitis, decreased lung function, and premature death.”
Do we need to hear more to rule out biomass burning in urban areas?
Biomass/Wood Smoke Particulates are Major Contributors to Climate Change
Smoke and other fine particulates influence cloud thinning by “choking” clouds, and absorb moisture from the atmosphere, contributing to climate change. For more detailed facts, see www.burningissues.org, a project of Clean Air Revival, a non-profit organization providing online scientific information on wood smoke and other fine particulates.

Julie Mellum
President, Take Back the Air
info@takebacktheair.com

Credit to----The Wood Smoke Activist
February 2010 Newsletter
Educating the world about the health and climate impacts of wood smoke and combustion aerosols.
Editor: Shirley Brandie
1/2/2010

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)

Looking for support for the attached petition

Looking for support for the attached petition. The link is at the bottom.
Thanks Vicki Morell

A BREATH OF FRESH AIR

Many people don't think of smoke from wood stoves and fireplaces as air pollution but it is. Wood smoke is a threat to our health, well-being and environment. It contains hundreds of air pollutants, including gases and fine particulate matter that can cause cancer and other serious health problems such as: blood clots, heart attacks, stroke, lung disease, asthma, emphysema, pneumonia and bronchitis; irritation of the lungs, throat, sinuses and eyes; headaches; allergenic reactions, increased hospital admissions and even premature death.

Wood smoke is now recognized as a major source of air pollution. At current levels, fine particulates are now considered the worst kind of air pollution in BC, causing more illness and deaths (from lung and heart disease) than ozone. In fact, new research in the United States suggests that fine particulates are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in that country each year.

Wood burning fireplaces and stoves can emit hundreds of times more pollution than any other form of heat such as natural gas, electricity, or oil. These particulates are so tiny that they are emitted both indoors and outdoors and come into non-burning homes through cracks, ventilation systems and around closed doors and windows.

Wood smoke toxins stay active in your body up to 40 times longer than tobacco smoke. According to Environment Canada, burning wood in a conventional wood stove for 9 hours emits as many particulates into the atmosphere as a car does traveling 18,000 km.

Fireplaces release six times more fine particulate matter than conventional stoves. This is the new second hand smoke.


A BREATH OF FRESH AIR

We, the undersigned, call on all local governments in the province of British Columbia to create or amend existing bylaws to protect the residents of British Columbia from the health hazards, pollution, nuisance and interruption to normal daily life from all residential wood burning smoke and odour. We hold the Government of British Columbia accountable to its residents for making sure that these bylaws are enforced and for fulfilling its commitment to stop smoke pollution (particulate matter) in order to protect our health and environment.

Petition link----http://www.gopetition.com/online/21466.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.

Heating Your Home: Why Open Fireplaces Don’t Heat

Heating Your Home: Why Open Fireplaces Don’t Heat

Written by Chris Schille
Published on June 1st, 2008
Posted in Energy, Heating & Cooling


Open fireplaces have a reputation for polluting air. Actually, a fireplace, when burned hot and fast, creates very little pollution. The trouble is, a hot fire in a fireplace sometimes yields less heat than a smoldering fire. Where does the heat go?

The optimal amount of combustion air contains just enough oxygen to burn all combustible gases liberated by the heat. Any additional air grabs heat and sends it up the chimney. Under some circumstances, fireplaces can so far exceed this air-to-fuel ratio that they suck more heat out of a house than they radiate back into it. The fire actually makes the house colder!

The usable heat produced from the fireplace is primarily radiation, the same heat you feel on your face when you look at the flames. While fireplaces often contain lots of thermal mass (masonry), the unrestricted flow of cool air across this mass prevents it from capturing much heat. Nevertheless, if the damper is closed as soon as the fire burns out, a significant amount of heat will radiate back into the room instead of going up the chimney. Unfortunately, when the fire burns out, many fireplace users give up and go to bed without taking this critical step.

Here’s where pollution enters the picture: instead of burning a quick, hot fire and closing their damper, most people elect to burn their wood slowly to meter out heat.

Slow combustion means that the wood is burning at a lower temperature. At a lower temperature, a smaller portion of the combustible gases actually burn. More gases leave the chimney as smoke and soot (pollution).

With fireplaces, you really can’t win: if you burn a hot fire, you lose most of the heat up the chimney. If you burn a slow fire, you get very little heat, and lots of pollution.


Web master note---Stop burning wood. Convert to gas or electric!!!

Biomass, wood smoke, particulates and cancers

Biomass, wood smoke, particulates and cancers

From---Posted on March 17, 2008 by robertkyriakides-web blog site

When we breathe in we inhale not only air but dust, and very small particles of stuff that we humans have put in the atmosphere. We know that these can be harmful – coal dust and asbestos dust spring immediately to mind.

Because we are putting relatively speaking so much into the atmosphere scientists are trying to understand the effect of these particles on human health.There is therefore a great deal of study and experimentation involving the toxicology of particles and fibres.

Much of this is reported in Particle and Fibre Toxicology, which you can access at http://www.particleandfibretoxicology.com/ . The journal is peer reviewed and attracts papers from scientists of many different disciplines, in order to encourage the inter-disciplinary approach that is necessary in this field, and indeed in most fields of human study.

Climate change scientists examine global phenomena using physics, chemistry, geology climatology, meteorology, and many other disciplines. Particle toxicologists examine the reactions of tiny substances in small quantities on animals using physics, chemistry, physiology, biology. Sometimes you ignore the small things at your peril.

Climate change is a big thing, unable to be verified by experimentation and subject to much discussion and many alternate theories even though a scientific consensus has been reached which would be dangerous to ignore.Particle toxicology involves tiny substances, which you also ignore at your peril.I have written from time to time about biomass – wood burning to generate energy – either heat energy for homes or in the case of the propose Port Talbot Power Plant electrical energy.

Biomass is promoted as a carbon free or low carbon way to generate energy, because the plant material is replaced and the carbon emitted is reabsorbed. I have expressed my doubts about this being wholly true.There are health issues with burning biomass, and as a society we seem to be a little blind to them.

We woke up to health issues with coal mining and asbestos rather late in the day and I would hope we can avoid this happening with biomass.

Some studies were carried out in Norway where the main air pollutants are caused by vehicles and wood burning which together are responsible for 65% of Norway’s total emissions. The scientists wanted to try to understand how the content of particles, their size and characteristics affect human health and find physical or chemical properties of these particles.

Now particles from asbestos, cigarette smoke and similar matters have been associated with health problems – particularly cancers and heart disease, although the precise way in which they cause these problems is not fully understood.The scientists tested a traditional wood burning stove by burning wood in it at high temperature and collecting and analysing the smoke and also by collecting exhaust fumes.

These studies have been reported in the Particle and Fibre Toxicology Journal. The scientists found that the exhaust particles were smaller than the wood particles but that the wood smoke particles had a higher polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (“PAH”) content.

Some studies link particles with a high PAH content to these health problems and that there is a strong relationship between organic particles (such as cigarette and wood smoke) to lung cancer. One particular type of PAH has been identified by the US Environmental Protection Agency as a cause for concern – PAH 16 which is thought to be carcinogenic.

Because they found that the PAH content was much higher in wood smoke than in vehicle exhaust, they concluded that it was important to understand more about how the body responds to higher PAH content in particulates, rather than compare wood smoke and traffic fumes.

There are still many questions that need further research – what is the precise role of inhaled PAHs on human health? Does using different wood sources affect the PAH content? Does using reclaimed, painted or varnished wood provide a higher or lower PAH content when burnt?

The message here is not that wood stoves give you cancer or that biomass boilers will harm people. The message is that there must be a question mark against them and that we must move carefully with research based information before we embark on a biomass boiler programme because air quality is important and that we worsen air quality at our peril.

The European Commission thinks that air pollution reduces life expectancy on average by none months, and poor air quality in the UK is thought to cause 32,000 premature deaths each year. We traditionally blame vehicle particulates for this.

In the 1950s the Government introduced clean air legislation and “Smokeless Zones” which have had a profoundly beneficial effect on our health.In the UK there is no doubt that the Department of the Environment has been doing good work in improving air quality. My concern is that with an increased take up of biomass for energy this good work will be undone and that in twenty years from now we shall be facing similar public health problems that were caused by coal burning in the 1950s and 1960s.

Those in favour of biomass will point to improved filtering operations. I hope that they are right about the efficacy of the filters from biomass boilers. Even if they are right I think that we still have to factor in human behaviour. Boilers of all kinds need regular servicing and biomass boilers will not only need normal servicing but the filtration system will need to be regularly checked and renewed.

A biomass boiler will still work without proper servicing but will work in a very polluting way. Inertia is an important factor in human behaviour. How many people have their gas boilers serviced properly each year? How many condensing boilers no longer condense due to incorrect set up or lack of servicing? My fear is that inertia will lead to biomass boilers creating the very harm that we employ them to prevent.

Credit to...Posted on March 17, 2008 by robertkyriakides-web blog site

Wood Smoke May Be Worse than Originally Thought

The Solar Cooking Archive

A high-efficiency woodstove my actually create more greenhouse gasses than a traditional fire At the World Conference on Solar Cooking in 1992, Dr. Daniel M. Kammen, of the Department of Physics at Harvard University, gave a presentation on the emissions from traditional cooking fires and the effects they may have on the atmosphere and global warming. We spoke with Dr. Kammen at the conference.

SBJ: Dr. Kammen, what is it that you have discovered about the smoke from traditional cooking fires?

Daniel Kammen: While everyone knows that carbon dioxide produced from burning wood contributes to the greenhouse effect. What we discovered was that other gasses--carbon monoxide, methane, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, etc.--are produced in much greater quantities than previously thought.

SBJ: What does this mean?

DK: When you calculate the contribution that these gasses make to global warming, they rival or exceed the greenhouse effect produced by carbon dioxide alone.

The typical kilogram of wood is roughly 50% carbon. When it is burned under ideal conditions, the smoke consists mostly of water and carbon dioxide. But in traditional cooking practices, where there is not enough oxygen, those 500 grams of carbon produce 50 to 60 grams of carbon monoxide, 20 to 30 grams of methane, and 30 to 40 grams of other nasty stuff. Each of these non-CO2 products of combustion have a larger greenhouse effect, molecule per molecule, than carbon dioxide. Carbon monoxide's effect is five times greater, methane is 23 times greater, and nitrogen dioxide is 280 times more serious as a greenhouse gas.

When you multiply the amount of emissions by the global warming potential for each gas, and add it up, you find that the non-C02 gasses produce a C02 equivalent of 460 grams. The amount of C02 directly released by burning one kilogram of wood is about 440 grams, since oxygen from the air is added.

SBJ: So in essence we have twice the greenhouse effect?

DK: That's right. Now the key item is, how long do these gasses stay in the atmosphere? The half-life of each gas is not known precisely, but half the C02 released today will still be in the atmosphere 150 to 200 years from now. In another 150 to 200 years after that, only a quarter of it will still be up there. Methane has a half life of about 7 years.

SBJ: It seems fortunate that the more powerful greenhouse gasses have shorter half lives.

DK: Yes, but remember, these gasses don't suddenly vanish. When a molecule of methane stops being methane, it becomes C02. It is still a bad thing. Now, if you multiply how much of each gas is in the atmosphere by how reactive it is, then subtract what is decaying due to its half life, you find that over the first 20 years the non-C02 gasses have had the biggest effect.

SBJ: And this is not generally known?

DK: The atmospheric chemistry has been known for quite a while. The big surprise is that small-scale burning produces more non-C02 gasses than originally thought. Scientists just had not looked that closely at inefficient, smoldering cookfires.

SBJ: And you have actually measured the production of these gasses?

DK: That's right. And something I hope to look at more closely at this summer, while in Kenya, is the effect oxygen availability has on non-CO2 gas production. This could be significant. The high efficiency ceramic stoves currently being disseminated, reduce wood consumption by reducing oxygen supply. We might be producing just as much or more of greenhouse gasses with less wood. We will also be looking at baking bricks in a large solar box, eliminating another smoldering burn that produces lots on non-CO2 gasses.

SBJ: So, could you sum up the ramifications of all this for solar cooking?

DK: The contribution cooking fires make to the global "greenhouse budget" has been underestimated. The potential contribution solar cooking can make is bigger than we'd thought. The scary thing is this: even if by the year 2000 we wise up and do all the right things, we still have a long time to live with what we have done already. That is why it is so important that we get moving right away!


This document is published on The Solar Cooking Archive at http://solarcooking.org/ghouse.htm. For questions or comments, contact webmaster@solarcooking.org

RE: http://solarcooking.org/ghouse.htm

Burning issue costs neighbour $270,000

Burning issue costs neighbour $270,000 TheSpec.com - Local

Eric McGuinness
The Hamilton Spectator

(May 9, 2008)

A Hamilton judge has ordered a Niagara couple to pay their next-door neighbours $270,000 in damages and legal costs for the nuisance caused by smoke from a wood stove in their garage.

It's believed to be the first Canadian court ruling involving health effects of wood smoke, which some experts say is as dangerous as tobacco smoke. Ontario Superior Justice James Ramsay blamed Travers Fitzpatrick of Fonthill -- who was Welland city manager when the suit was filed in 2002 -- for acts he called "reckless, destructive, persistent and heedless of their neighbours' physical integrity and property rights;" and blamed his wife, Valerie, for allowing them to happen.

In his judgment Feb. 28, Ramsay held them jointly responsible for paying David and Brenda Deumos general damages of $80,000, punitive damages of $20,000 and legal costs of $170,000.

Hamilton lawyer Lou Frapporti, who represented the Deumos, said he had "literally begged" the Fitzpatricks to settle for $5,000 to avoid a trial.