I loved the irony of the company advertising some beautiful outdoor wood
fireplaces right next to this article.It reminds me of the attempt
by the EPA to identify the criminals responsible for the particulate pollution
in eastern Tennessee and bring them to justice and eliminate the haze there.Their analysis identified a particular specie of pine tree that gave off
the fragrance they found so visually repugnant. Hello? That is why they call
them the Great Smoky Mountains!Personally I like the "teach them
correct principles and let them govern themselves" approach, to the loss of
freedom to choose being proposed here. Very few new homes come equipped with a
wood fireplace anymore so the issue should be gradually resolving itself. The
only mandate I am interested in is when my wife takes me to Cabelas for our
Anniversary (and I take her to Thanksgiving Point).I do like it when
my neighbor stinks up the neighborhood with a little cherry wood and pork
shoulder. Yum!Viva la barbacoa!!
Seems to me like it wasn't too long ago that either KSL or Deseret News ran
an article stating which sources were responsible for the poor air quality along
the Wasatch Front. At no time in the article was wood stoves listed as a source
of the bad air. Now we have an article about the poor quality of air
attributing these conditions to wood stoves.It really appears that
we have access to data but refuse to present the facts properly. As
soon as these doctors ride bikes - not the bus - everywhere they go, I will be
more likely to listen to what they have to say. But as long as they jump on
airplanes for business or pleasure, drive to work and shopping, and etc., I can
only see them as hypocrites.
Ms. Kelly's study said that it was almost impossible to differentiate
between organic carbon particles from burning wood and those from frying meat -
but I didn't see that in this story. What her study shows, and what she
expressed at the Air Quality Board meeting when she presented it is we need
another study to know.Also, when the state says we can burn, it is
getting to be only during active storms, and is shut off right after the storm.
Is there an impact on neighbors' homes if I burn when the wind is howling
through the neighborhood? What if I spent thousands of dollars to buy a very
high-end stove that almost never has any visible emissions. Would Moench like
to buy that stove back from me? Would the State. I believe such a law would
result in a "takings" for which the state would have to compensate me
appropriately - and everyone else with EPA certified stoves. Perhaps they
should start by saying no new stoves can go in. That would be a baby step.
What kind of support do you think the state would get from those companies that
sell multiple thousand dollar stoves?
"lifetime exposure to wood smoke is 12 times greater than being exposed to
the equivalent amount of secondhand smoke."While I agree we need
to limit wood burning, what does this phrase mean? It doesn't mean anything
to me and I have a degree in Chemical Engineering with an emphasis on
Environmental Engineering. You can't compare cigarette smoke with wood
smoke, the types of pollution produced barely overlaps.Is this
supposed to mean that the average person in America (World?) has 12 times as
much exposure to wood smoke as secondhand smoke in their lifetime? But what
about people who live with a smoker, what about the different effects from the
different types of smoke? More exposure doesn't necessarily mean more
health risk.Maybe it means you are 12 times as likely to have health
problems or 12 times as likely to die or?More to the point - what
percent of particulate pollution or carbon dioxide pollution in Utah is due to
wood smoke, especially during the inversion situations in the winter?
When I buy/build a new home in Northern Utah or Southern Salt Lake County I plan
on having a fireplace w/ insert or free standing device. I agree that no
burning on inversion days is appropriate and plan on using gas heating with code
exceeding insulation.I agree that I'll reconsider this plan
when the good doctor turned busy body sells his vehicle(s), rides a bike to
work, sheds his current dwelling for a modest town-home close to his work and
swears off airplane travel for Amtrak.We do have an air pollution
situation that is somewhat unique. We could ban all new move-ins, require homes
to air-dry laundry, require college students to live on campus and ban cars,
raise the driving age from 16 to 18 or graduate from high school and require all
new drivers to purchase electric cars. All would reduce emissions.I
fear the good doctor's quest is more fueled by a desire to control the
behavior of others.
wow so no understands that we should try and limit all pollution. heck in the
way people voiced we should just all burn wood stoves and to heck with trying to
clean up the air. heck whats going to happen record numbers of lung disorders
and cancer? we no carbons good for lungs right? everything we burn puts out
carbon. is that a cancer thing? yes it is.
So, wood smoke is bad. Wood smoke is the same as from cooking meat.How long before the Doctor whose name appears in the paper at least weekly
demands we all become Vegans to avoid polluting by cooking meat?
My question is: Where is the reference to the study that says a "lifetime
exposure to wood smoke is 12 times greater than being exposed to the equivalent
amount of secondhand smoke."? Is that just in Utah, the nation, the world,
the universe? As Sgt. Friday of a long-ago tv show would say: "Just get the
facts m'am, just get the facts."
As a kid we had a wood stove in our house for cooking all our food. My
grandparents, my aunts and uncles all had wood burning stoves. All of them
lived to be old people, didn't seem to affect them too much. Of course, we
were farmers, and we used whole milk straight from the cow, made our own butter
(not margarine) you know -- all the things studies have shown to cause you to
die young???? Didn't work for us -- my dad was 93, mom was 91 when they
passed, and this was the same for their families. What gives??????
I love the fact that there was no discussion about more efficient stoves or
fireplaces. Just straight to the outright ban. I am sure there is no effort of
energy companies or electric companies behind this.
The first Wood Stove Decathlon (WSD) took place November 16 – 19, 2013 on
the National Mall in Washington DC. It was sponsored by the Alliance for Green
Heat and the Popular Mechanics Magazine. The WSD challenged teams to design and
build wood stoves that are low-emission, high efficiency, innovative and
affordable.Congratulations to the organizing team for lining up 14
finalist stove teams, 10 qualified judges and about 75 speakers/panelists over 4
days of presentations. The 10 judges have outstanding qualifications in
renewable technologies, environmental research, sustainability, air resources,
clean energy, global environmental health, etc. Stoves are judged on the five
categories of innovation, market appeal, affordability, emissions and
efficiency. There is much care about promoting and improving wood stoves.It all seems so impressive. Wood burning has joined the modern world.
There are Intelligent Heat Systems (IHS) that are computer controlled and have
lambda oxygen sensors, thermocouples and remote monitors. Yet to me
all this is like fine-tuning the stagecoach when we can drive modern cars. Why
all this expertise? Why all this work to promote something that should be as
long gone as the steam locomotive, icebox or outhouse? Makes little sense to me.