One step closer to permanent wood heat ban in California?

[dave1949]

Thanks for that article Dave, I am interested in seeing any research. At the end of the report, the authors are reluctant to draw any firm conclusions (being responsible scientists), citing various dissenting opinions.

Something else to keep in mind about with that report - they are talking about Combustion Related Particulate Matter, in general. I'd call that painting with a pretty broad brush.

It is pretty widely recognized today that firefighters have higher cancer rates than the general population. I've seen it suggested that despite much better protective gear, today's firefighters have even higher cancer rates than those of pre-WWII firefighters - the likely culprit being the combustion byproducts of plastics burning in modern fires.

Long way of saying...... it stands to reason that not all Particulate Matter is equally evil. Banning private burning of wood may not accomplish much, if the biggest problems are caused by commercial incineration of plastic.

Unfortunately, the first priority of legislators is to make their life easy, so they much prefer to take a One Size Fits All approach. Doesn't sit well with ur, nor me either.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating...... given the higher concentration of wood burning activity in European areas like ur mentions, we should be seeing epidemiological data indicating problems IF woodsmoke is a significant issue. Many Euro nations have a big incentive to deal with these problems (given they actually exist) early, as they typically have state-funded public medical systems. Not an issue on that side of the pond, AFAIK - I'm still receptive to being informed otherwise, aka keeping an open mind.

A lot of important progress has been made by programs that supply small efficient cookstoves to people in developing countries - that one item can make a big difference in people's lives.

So no, I'm not a big advocate of dung-fired cookstoves ( ) , and I don't imagine there's much of that going on in Cali. (ur - perhaps up in Marin County ? :laughing: ).

Rgds, D.

The mention of wood and dung cooking fires was to illustrate what happens when people experience chronic, extreme exposures--we have an existing model for what happens if particulates are not controlled.

The report I linked sort of dispensed early on with larger particulates and focused on 2.5 micron or smaller effects. I guess an important question to ask is: In terms of health impacts are there any benign small particulates regardless of source? Does is it matter if cigarette or wood smoke or diesel exhaust is providing the particles? There is the obvious difference in toxicity and carcinogenic potential between various materials but what about the particle size itself?

According to the EPA, particle size does matter:
Health | Particulate Matter | Air & Radiation | US EPA
The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems. Small particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter pose the greatest problems, because they can get deep into your lungs, and some may even get into your bloodstream.

Exposure to such particles can affect both your lungs and your heart. Small particles of concern include "inhalable coarse particles" (such as those found near roadways and dusty industries), which are larger than 2.5 micrometers and smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter; and "fine particles" (such as those found in smoke and haze), which are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller.



I wouldn't think that Euro countries aren't having particulate issues of their own:
Wood-burning stoves ruining Germany
(DW--Deutsche Welle is the equivalent of the BBC in the UK)


Air Pollution due to Wood Burning for Heating: A Health Impa... : Epidemiology
Current scientific literature indicates that aerosol from wood incineration is at least as dangerous on a “per μg”-basis as the total ambient aerosol. Therefore, dose-effect estimates of ambient PM10 from epidemiological studies were used to estimate the health impact in the worst-case scenario.For the federal country of Upper Austria an increase in the annual average of PM10 by 3–5 μg/m3 translated into a relevant public health impact. For example, chronic exposure as reported in cohort studies would lead to up to approximately 170 additional deaths per year


About halfway down this page there is a good graphic that helps to understand the size of particles compared to sand and human hair:
Image of a Wood Smoke Particle

This page is a roundup of older reports on particulate pollution effects. It's not new news.
Wood Smoke Fact Sheets

 

[PILOON]

There was a reference to SUE AND SETTLE.

Buddy was accused of endangering the environment due to some land fill.
He is stubborn and does not appreciate being pushed around.
They sued, claimed a landslide would endanger the nearby stream. Told him they win 90% of the cases.
About 5-6 days before the appointed court date they served him with an $80,000.fine notification.
When he went to court at the appointed date/time the case was dropped. Pure scare tactics.
Meanwhile the lawyers all got rich.
We rarely fight a parking ticket (I have and won) and they figure most people will fold and pay and count on it.

Oh, and they accused him of bodily endangerment (a felony) claiming he chased them (3 armed and wearing armor) down the highway and attempting to cause a crash.
They could not even identify what vehicle supposedly chased them for some 20 miles. That was total fabrication bent on revenge. Case dropped.

To add to the charade, the gov't highway dept today asked permission to add 10 loads to his land fill to his site.
He does have a landfill permit.

 

[dave1949]

Some of the posts in this thread have brought up the issue of the importance of wood as a renewable heating fuel as a factor that should temper the strictness of wood smoke pollution control. I think it is important to put wood burning in context with that larger idea.

I support wood as a local renewable fuel resource, no question. But there are physical limits to the resource, there are biodiversity and water quality limits on the the amount of wood that can be harvested, there are other economically important demands on wood as a resource, and there are limits on the amount of pollution that can be produced by burning wood without health impacts. There is also much more to be learned about how wood harvesting actually impacts the carbon cycle, just saying it is carbon-neutral doesn't really provide a deep enough understanding.

Population growth is driving us to encounter limits. The first limit on wood as fuel is there is not enough sustainable wood to replace other heating energy sources if we wanted to. So, from the get go we have to look at wood as a resource requiring management. For example, this 2008 report from Maine concluded that wood heat could be expanded by 10% (45,000) of the homes in Maine without impacting the other forestry businesses (paper, lumber, etc.). That leaves a lot of homes that aren't able to use wood heat in a low population, highly forested state.
http://futuremetrics.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Wood-to-Energy-Task-Force-Report.pdf

If we wish to make the most of a limited resource such as wood (heat the most homes), using less through conservation and consuming less by smarter use is really important. We also need to ask questions such as: Which is better, a geothermal heatpump powered by solar electricity or burning wood? Those are both viable alternatives in Maine. Other areas have their own specific resources and alternatives.

If consuming less wood is the goal, then which is better: fireplaces, wood pellet stove, cordwood in a regular stove, wood chips, or wood gasification using cordwood or wood chips? Fortunately, the methods that make the smartest, most efficient use of wood are also the least polluting when done correctly.

It is dangerous to get lost in the weeds of EPA regulations, protesting emission limits, this stove or that stove while never getting the big picture correct--wood is a limited resource that needs to be used wisely. How well our resources are used (including human health) determines our global competitiveness. How well we compete determines our standard of living. It's not hard to connect the dots.

 

[RedNeckGeek]

When he went to court at the appointed date/time the case was dropped. Pure scare tactics.

Did the judge award your buddy anything for his legal fees? Seems like a sharp defense attorney could have done at least that to earn his pay...

 

[ultrarunner]

The mention of wood and dung cooking fires was to illustrate what happens when people experience chronic, extreme exposures--we have an existing model for what happens if particulates are not controlled.

The report I linked sort of dispensed early on with larger particulates and focused on 2.5 micron or smaller effects. I guess an important question to ask is: In terms of health impacts are there any benign small particulates regardless of source? Does is it matter if cigarette or wood smoke or diesel exhaust is providing the particles? There is the obvious difference in toxicity and carcinogenic potential between various materials but what about the particle size itself?

According to the EPA, particle size does matter:
Health | Particulate Matter | Air & Radiation | US EPA
The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems. Small particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter pose the greatest problems, because they can get deep into your lungs, and some may even get into your bloodstream.

Exposure to such particles can affect both your lungs and your heart. Small particles of concern include "inhalable coarse particles" (such as those found near roadways and dusty industries), which are larger than 2.5 micrometers and smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter; and "fine particles" (such as those found in smoke and haze), which are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller.



I wouldn't think that Euro countries aren't having particulate issues of their own:
Wood-burning stoves ruining Germany
(DW--Deutsche Welle is the equivalent of the BBC in the UK)


Air Pollution due to Wood Burning for Heating: A Health Impa... : Epidemiology
Current scientific literature indicates that aerosol from wood incineration is at least as dangerous on a è�Ÿer μg?basis as the total ambient aerosol. Therefore, dose-effect estimates of ambient PM10 from epidemiological studies were used to estimate the health impact in the worst-case scenario.For the federal country of Upper Austria an increase in the annual average of PM10 by 3? μg/m3 translated into a relevant public health impact. For example, chronic exposure as reported in cohort studies would lead to up to approximately 170 additional deaths per year


About halfway down this page there is a good graphic that helps to understand the size of particles compared to sand and human hair:
Image of a Wood Smoke Particle

This page is a roundup of older reports on particulate pollution effects. It's not new news.
Wood Smoke Fact Sheets

The German story is spot on and something that is aggressively monitored in Austria...

First... only clean and seasoned wood may be burned... the fines for burning trash are exorbitant.

Second... any chimney belching black smoke as shown in the story would be cited...

The story went on to say the problem is people burning trash...

Now, the area where I lived all heated with wood ceramic ovens... sometimes called Russian Stoves here.

These are super efficient with huge thermal mass... the only time I ever saw any smoke is the initial light after being dormant all summer... the firebrick can be damp from months of not being used...

Once the fire is going... it goes all winter... a handful of wood twice a day... 12 hours apart.

Californians think banning fireplaces equates with no more wood being burned... I beg to differ and all anyone need do is see the horrific forest fires we have in the West.... a loss in timber, loss in manpower, economic loss both present and future... yet my certified stove is the target?

 

[RedNeckGeek]

Californians think banning fireplaces equates with no more wood being burned... I beg to differ and all anyone need do is see the horrific forest fires we have in the West.... a loss in timber, loss in manpower, economic loss both present and future... yet my certified stove is the target?

With respect to clearing land and maintaining it, landowners are supposed to get a plan made up by a state certified forester before they cut a single tree, and in most cases the plan must include reforestation if certain trees like big oaks are cut. Then you have to use a state certified logger to make sure that the plan is followed. I had a local official in the California Department of Forestry tell me that they could compel someone to cut trees within a 100' "fire safe" perimeter around their house, or face steep fines if they failed to comply. I wonder how that works on fully forested lots with many big trees? Sounds like the right hand doesn't know what the left one is doing.

The CO2 in the wood will go into the atmosphere when it rots on the forest floor just as well as it will when it burns. Just takes a little longer is all. When the wood burns cleanly, there's very little particulate pollution, either. But when there's a wildfire, the smoke covers hundreds of square miles and can last for months. But try telling that to your friendly Sierra Clubber and they'll look at you like you've got three eyeballs or something. Trouble is, these idiots vote, they contribute big bux to the wrong political campaigns, and the idiots that win go off to Sacramento and enact idiotic legislation like this.

The real problem is that most Californians, maybe most Americans, just don't think. The loudest voice is the one to listen too, or maybe it just drowns out the voice of reason. It's no wonder, since the public schools here teach nothing of the scientific method, of logic, deductive reasoning, trouble shooting skills, or even independent thinking. Kids are lucky just to get a basic understanding of readin', writin', and 'rithmetic, and many don't even get that. A few years ago I went into a stationary store and asked to purchase two feet of wrapping paper. The young clerk said "I'm sorry sir, we only sell it by the yard." When I told her that was OK, and I'd take 2/3 yard instead, she happily retrieved her scissors and went to work.:shocked:

 

[dave1949]

The German story is spot on and something that is aggressively monitored in Austria...

First... only clean and seasoned wood may be burned... the fines for burning trash are exorbitant.

Second... any chimney belching black smoke as shown in the story would be cited...

The story went on to say the problem is people burning trash...

Now, the area where I lived all heated with wood ceramic ovens... sometimes called Russian Stoves here.

These are super efficient with huge thermal mass... the only time I ever saw any smoke is the initial light after being dormant all summer... the firebrick can be damp from months of not being used...

Once the fire is going... it goes all winter... a handful of wood twice a day... 12 hours apart.

Californians think banning fireplaces equates with no more wood being burned... I beg to differ and all anyone need do is see the horrific forest fires we have in the West.... a loss in timber, loss in manpower, economic loss both present and future... yet my certified stove is the target?

Yep, I noticed the German story said fire wood must be 25% or less moisture. Having lived in Germany for nine years, it is my opinion that Germans more willingly adhere to rules and regulations than is generally the case here and they reap some benefits from that national trait.

I don't know enough about the western forest issues to have an opinion regarding fires. How many trees would need to be harvested to make a difference? What would the impact of that be? I noticed a recent study published at Univ. Of CO at Boulder determined that the bark beetles don't have much impact on the number of acres burned in forest fires but the dead trees they cause results in higher intensity fires.

 

[Oldpath05]

After reading some of these horror story's about these woodstoves and causing world wide pollution which leads to global warming and the end of the world, I wont buy a wood fired evaporator for making maple syrup this year, instead I'll be looking for a solar or a battery powered evaporator.

I wonder how much pollution a volcano puts out in one year or are they eco friendly and soot free, full of nutrition and vitamin's that makes the green grass grow.

 

[thirdroc17]

Being a border state, I know something of the troubled Michigan economy. A lot of people are using wood, because they can't afford to do otherwise.

That said, whether someone is using a new $5,000 stove, or something 60 years old, there is no good reason to have a fire that is always smoking badly.

I don't consider ignorance or laziness to be good reasons.

Rgds, D.

If someone drops 20 grand on a Harley, drops a couple more so it's so loud it can be heard 5 miles away, roar through the neighborhood at all hours of the day and night, interrupting sleep, then claim to be so poor they can't afford to heat with anything but wood, I do think that person's priorities are a little bit off.

When the smoke burns my eyes, and stings my throat, be it from cigarettes or wood stoves, your "right" to pollute has taken away my right to comfortable breathing. Has taken away my right to live actually. Which is more important? Right to pollute or right to live?

 

[ultrarunner]

All the oak that we have for firewood is 100% storm fall... trees don't last forever and a big windstorm after hard rains, drought and infestation all take a toll...

I would never cut down one of our heritage oaks for firewood... no need because there is more than I could ever use scavenging the downed trees...

We also have issues with the wildland fire interface... every time a new fire inspector comes out to the property we are cited... then it takes hours and days to get it straightened out... problem is the inspector cites us for brush on property owned by the city... once this is firmly established the citation goes away and the kicker is the city is exempt...

Years ago the fire marshall directed us to put in fire breaks and perimeter clear... it caused a firestorm of complaints... even had law enforcement and code enforcement at the doorstep... I responded by saying we will do whatever necessary to comply and show them the letter from the fire marshall directing the work be done...

One side does not have a clue as to what the other side is doing.... and the Fire Marshall seems to be the top of the hierarchy and his word trumps all as long as I have it in writing.

Anyway... maintaining the property in compliance provides an abundance of Oak... so much so we invested in a splitter and other equipment...

As to regulatory bodies...

I work at a Hospital and we have inspectors inspecting inspectors... in the last 6 months my Medical Gas storeroom with cylinders of Oxygen, Nitrous Oxide and Nitrogen has been inspected by the following... Air Quality Management District, Fire Marshal, State Hazardous Material Division, Medicare, OSHPD etc... always pass without problem.

Which brings me to my point... each time a new reg like eliminating home Fireplace Hearths comes along... it also requires a new agency with inspectors to enforce...