The new evil, fireplaces. Next up BBQ's, Camp Fires, Cooking (wood fires = smoking )

[The Straight Story]

Hard as it may be to believe, the fireplace — long considered a trophy, particularly in a city like New York — is acquiring a social stigma. Among those who aspire to be environmentally responsible, it is joining the ranks of bottled water and big houses.
...

Or as Starre Vartan, a 33-year-old blogger who goes by the name Eco-Chick, put it: “Any time you are burning wood or cow dung, you’ll be creating pollution. It’s like junk food: if you do it once a month, then who cares? But if it’s something you do every day, it’s important that you mitigate it somehow. It’s a hazard.”

Not surprisingly, the green community has been sounding the alarm for some time. For the last several years, TheDailyGreen.com, an online magazine, has advocated replacing all wood-burning fireplaces with electric ones; an article published in September by Shireen Qudosi, entitled “Breathe Easier With a Cleaner Fireplace,” argued that there is no such thing as an environmentally responsible fire: “Switching out one type of wood for another is still use of a natural resource that otherwise could have been spared,” Ms. Qudosi wrote. And last fall, an article on the Web site GreenBlizzard.com, “Cozy Winter Fires — Carbon Impact,” called wood-burning fires “a direct pollutant to you, your family and your community.”

...

Organizations like the American Lung Association are issuing warnings as well: the group recommends that consumers avoid wood fires altogether, citing research that names wood stoves and fireplaces as major contributors to particulate-matter air pollution in much of the United States.

Wood smoke contains some of the same particulates as cigarette smoke, said Dr. Norman H. Edelman, the chief medical officer for the American Lung Association, as well as known carcinogens like aldehydes; it has also been linked to respiratory problems in young children.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/garden/20fire.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general

Second hand camping - ban it now or more will die and it will cost us all of money in health care costs. No one can argue with the logic at all, it makes perfect sense, if you have fires while camping with your kids - you are abusing them, it is like giving them a pack of smokes....


:evilgrin: :popcorn:

[Dogmudgeon]

1. I'm guessing that this is really about a cigarette ban somewhere

--d!

[RKP5637]

2. I guess generation of electricity causes no pollution at all ...

:sarcasm:

[SharonAnn]

49. At a coal-burning power plant, scrubbers can be installed to minimize the pollution.

That's a little impractical with individual fireplaces and wood-burning stoves.

[RKP5637]

54. Very good point! n/t

[madinmaryland]

3. Heh! Second hand campfires. They always told you to not pee in the campfire.

Second hand steamed urine!

:P

:popcorn:

[toddaa]

4. I'm guessing these people live in big cities with a reliable heating infrastructure

Not everyone lives in NY, LA, or Chicago.

[Ichingcarpenter]

5. In Crested Butte Colorado for 30 years we had to have

a fireplace that did low emissions because of the altitude and very cold weather.

Even Denver came around to outlaw burning when most old residences
had a place in their back yard for burning their trash.

You don't know what it does until it gets very cold.

But it effects the planet the same way.

[Kalyke]

6. What else would a corporation tell you?

They'd rather you BUY your electricity or gas and pad their pockets as they sell the materials to quasi-governmental organizations who provided the converted fuels.

I mean, how can they make money if you purchase hard wood from the dude down the street who's clearing his lot of dead or dying trees? How can they make money if you light some wood up, keep your house warm AND turn off your fuel-driven heat.

P.S. It's also a cover-up of the real causes of lung cancer. They've just about gotten everyone fooled on the smoking idea, but since the W.H.O. has reported studies finding that cig smoking is going down whilst the rate of lung cancer is going up, they have to move to some other perceived "awful" to continue the cover-up that the real culprit is corporate pollution, our sloth-like lifestyles, our poisonous food and our lack of time off from work and access to affordable healthcare.

[Sinistrous]

16. +1

[Maru Kitteh]

30. So it's your position that the fact that cigarettes cause cancer is "foolery"

?

really?

[The Straight Story]

34. So it is your position that cars/fires don't have health affects?

And if they do should they not be banned as well?

[Donnachaidh]

37. FTW

:rofl:

[Angry Dragon]

7. So when god starts a forest fire

are they going to go after the christian churches??

[Coyote_Bandit]

8. Because the generation of coal fired electricity

is so much more environmentally responsible.

I'd suggest that the problem isn't burning wood in a fireplace for heat. Rather the problem is that we don't have the manufacturing infrastructure to produce the kinds of filters and such that would make the by-products of a wood burning fireplace more environmentally friendly.

[jwirr]

13. Some years ago I read an article about a fireplace designed in Germany

that actually reuses the CO2 and uses much less wood. I wish I had kept that article.

[blueamy66]

9. Eff em

If anyone wants to come help pay my electric bill, I will gladly stop using my fireplace.

And to the smokers that left 3 lit butts in the grocery store parking lot this morning, eff you too.

:evilfrown:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. They will get my BBQs from me when they pry them from my cold dead hands

Seriously, I have both a large outdoor kitchen and a smaller freestanding BBQ I use when its just me or a few friends. The former came with the place. Using them keeps the heat out of the house, which is important in the desert. Both run off of propane (I have a really big tank out back).


I live out in the twigs and have no neighbors in smelling or seeing distance. It is not like I have much choice for cooking and heating either.

[bluestate10]

21. I have your back.

Not only will they have to pry my BB grill from my cold, dead hands, they will have to put down my electrical pulse spasing corpse that will be kicking the shit out of them.

[Odin2005]

11. What a load of shit.

[jwirr]

12. Wood vs electric. Isn't most electric produced by using coal or some

other fossil fuel? From first hand experience I do know that an open wood fireplace pollutes the inside of your house because they seldom vent properly. Ceilings get sooty. We use our fireplace to supplement the furnace when it is -20 below and as a back up if the electricity goes out.

[bluestate10]

23. Electric produces less pollution per BTU.

Because of abatement equipment that is used at generating plans. A person burning a fireplace does not have abatement hooked up.

[catabryna]

14. What exactly does an "electric" fireplace look like?

Oh, wait... that must be one of those phony looking things that are made by Amish craftsmen. Puhleeze!

[bluestate10]

24. Yep.

They have fake logs that glow. You can even buy scents to put in them. Deep forest lilac anyone?

[postulater]

15. I knew I shouldn't have shaved my fur off.

[Kermitt Gribble]

35. Lol! n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. For those convinced fireplaces can do no wrong: Killer Smog and the Clean Air Acts

Great London Smog

During the 19th century, the increase in industrialisation in the major cities of Britain gave rise to a dramatic increase in air pollution. Throughout the autumn months, during periods of calm, smoke particles from industrial plumes would mix with fog giving it a yellow-black colour. Such smogs, as they became known, often settled over cities for many days. Wind speeds would be low at these times causing the smog to stagnate, with pollution levels increasing near ground level. London became quite famous for its smogs, and many visitors came to see the capital in the fog.

During the first part of the 20th century, tighter industrial controls and the declining importance of coal as a domestic fuel led to a reduction in smog pollution in urban areas. However, on December 4th 1952, an anticyclone settled over London. The wind dropped and the air grew damp; a thick fog began to form. The Great London Smog lasted for five days and led to around four thousand more deaths than usual. The deaths were attributed to the dramatic increase in air pollution during the period, with levels of sulphur dioxide increasing 7-fold, and levels of smoke increasing 3-fold. The peak in the number of deaths coincided with the peak in both smoke and sulphur dioxide pollution levels.

In response to the Great London Smog, the Government passed its first Clean Air Act in 1956, which aimed to control domestic sources of smoke pollution by introducing smokeless zones. In addition, the introduction of cleaner coals led to a reduction in sulphur dioxide pollution.

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/air_quality/older/Great_London_Smog.html

1962: Choking fog spreads across Britain

A thick layer of fog which has covered London for the last three days is spreading all over the country.

Leeds has recorded its highest ever level of sulphur dioxide in the air and pneumonia cases in Glasgow have trebled.

A spokesman for London's Emergency Bed Service said 235 people had been admitted to hospital in the last 24 hours and issued a "red warning" to prepare for more patients as thick fog continues to affect public health.

So far 90 people have died since the crisis began and the fog is not expected to lift for another 24 hours.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/6/newsid_3251000/3251001.stm

And then remember that you personally don't have more of a right to pollute than others. If you don't like pollution, then your own fire is part of the problem.

[hedgehog]

19. To be fair, few people in the United States burn coal in their fire place.

Still, it's easy to tell when a wood burning fireplace is in use nearby.

[bluestate10]

26. How are things on your side of the pond? Haven't heard much since the student riots.

Are you ready to boot your PM yet?

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. There are resignations going on, but Cameron will stay for the moment

On Thursday, Alan Johnson, the shadow chancellor for the Labour Party, resigned 'for personal reasons', which seem to be that his wife had an affair with the policeman assigned to give him personal protection. On Friday, Andy Coulson, an ex-tabloid editor (for Murdoch) who was David Cameron's comminucations chief, resigned, because the scandal over hacking into celebrities' (and politicians') phone mails looks likely to engulf him (one of his reporters went to prison for a a few years ago, but he claimed to know nothing about it; he resigned from the paper, and Cameron then employed him). Almost everyone now thinks he encouraged his reporters to do the illegal hacking; Murdoch is facing multiple lawsuits for invasion of privacy.

So Cameron's judgement is now in question. However, I don't think this will itself cause him many problems; the next major thing coming up is the local government elections in May, and, at the same time, a referendum on changing the Westminster voting system to Alternative Vote (generally known as Instant Runoff Voting in the US, I think). Getting a referendum on this was a big part of getting the Lib Dems, who are keen on it, into the coalition with the Tories. The parties are not going to have official policies on being for or against it, but most Tory MPs are against it, and Labour is split. Polls seem to show it might get through, but a lot of voters are undecided about it, and there are a lot of votes to be won by the campaigns, if they can get people to care about it (really, I think most people don't care).

If AV gets passed, Lib Dem morale may hold up enough for them to remain in the coalition; if it doesn't, and if Lib Dems do badly in the local elections (expected, since many of their voters think the coalition austerity policies are against what the Lib Dems stand for), it's possible the Lib Dems could fall apart, which might mean the coalition loses its majority (some, like the leader Nick Clegg, seem so committed to the coalition that I think he'll stay with it no matter what, even changing party if needed).

[hedgehog]

18. A fire place is actually a very inefficient way to heat a home, as opposed

to a wood burning stove.

There are catalytic converters available for stoves. I'm not sure how effective they are at removing pollutants, although they've got to be better than nothing.

This debate recalls our Christmas visits to family back when my asthmatic son was much younger. It was a toss-up between my in-laws' place with the leaky wood burning stove and my parents' place, with my mother's cigarette smoke.

[ohheckyeah]

20. I guess my

propane fireplace will be next. We use it all winter long because heat pumps are not efficient for heating this far north.

[timo]

22. poor bastards

in lesser developed countries will have to just eat raw food, since they cant use wood to burn anymore!!



second point, the electric issue is bullshit since the majority of electricity comes from burnt fossil fuel somewhere.....like electric car people....sure your not burning gas and oil, but its getting burned somewhere to charge your batteries!!

[Taitertots]

31. How does protecting Rich American fireplace users help them?

Your issue with this is less than meaningless.

[timo]

44. fireplace is a fireplace

So, if we cant burn they shouldnt either, and I would gander there are a shitload more people in the world cooking over open flame than there are American (regardless of financial status) fireplaces burning!!

[Taitertots]

45. We have more efficient alternatives, they do not

Why should rich American's luxury fireplaces be given the same consideration as third world sustenance fires?

One is wasteful gluttony, pampering rich people when efficient alternatives abound.
The other is the difference between living and dying, and there is no alternative.

[timo]

47. ???

are BOTH not equally bad in the eyes of the ecology? do not both produce the SAME amount of waste,smoke,pollution??
and I know ALOT of folks who DO use their fire places to heat their homes not just for aesthetics...should we not be focusing on getting better alternatives to those who have not? or just bash away on the "rich" ?????

[Taitertots]

51. We don't have to burn wood for heat, it is an inefficient luxury

They need to burn wood to survive. If they don't do it, people will die. If we don't do it, no one gets hurt and there is less pollution. It is deplorable to compare the life and death needs of the third world to luxuries enjoyed by rich Americans.

Of course we should be focusing on getting them better alternatives. How does preserving the luxuries of the rich in America help get them more efficient alternatives?

[timo]

55. how??

how does taking luxuries away from people help those without?? and you seem to ignore that alot of people who burn fireplaces in the states are not rich, and they do use it to heat their home.

[walldude]

25. Why is it when a sacrifice should be made it's the "people"

who have to sacrifice? I mean, is there a single person who if they ran their power 24/7 burned wood every night, drove their car to the mailbox and back daily, would pollute more than say Exxon? Monsanto? GE?

Fuck this, I am sick and fucking tired of being the scapegoat for the problems with this planet.

[raouldukelives]

28. I wonder how many times I have to use my wood stove

To equal as much pollution as one person flying a G6 across the country for a steak dinner.

[walldude]

29. Yep.. it's crazy.

And it's pissing me off.

[Kermitt Gribble]

36. +1 n/t

[MindPilot]

27. And what about the effects of third-hand fireplace emissions?!

The ash you carry out to the trash, every particle a micro-tumor just waiting to enter the lungs of your pre-conceived children. The partially burnt logs leech carbon into the soil and groundwater. And that very same carbon may stay in the chimney in your house for DECADES!!!111!!

[timo]

48. thats not shit

here locally THOUSANDS of acres of sugar cane are burned ANNUALLY ....leaving a black rain of burnt leaf and ash covering EVERYTHING, and its even done when burn bans are in effect!!!

[RegieRocker]

33. Homeless fires will be next. They want you to freeze to death.

[formercia]

38. Outlaw forest fires?

It doesn't matter if you burn wood or let it rot, the amount of CO2 released is the same.

Not all woods release the same amount of toxic byproducts when burned.

[cally]

39. My head is spinning at the comments here

California began banning outdoor fires 30 years ago, barbecues about 20 years ago, and fireplaces more recently. We have no burn days now where you get fined if you use your wood burning fireplace.

Wood burning emits many carcinogens and other air pollutants. The LA basin was called the land of 1000 smokes because of all the campfires before Europeans settled the basin. Scientists have found lung damage in humans who have lived around campfires their entire lives.

I love my fireplace but I do know that it causes air pollution.

[Kurovski]

40. Wisely put.

And I'm not just sucking up because you're a Mod.

[Texasgal]

41. I rarely use my fireplace

I only burn when it's REALLY cold which isn't often here in Austin.

This season I have only turned my heat on twice only when it got to be 20 degrees!

I recycle, I use the enegry saving bulbs, all my appliances are energy star, I save rain water, I only drive to work and back pretty much, I am veggie for the most part. I grow my own veggies in the back yard, I conserve water by using low flow devices and responsible landscape.

Just HOW MUCH MORE should I do? I mean really!!! This is all starting to get ridiculous!

[postulater]

43. Are you still breathing?

If so, then you're making CO2!

Stop that right now!!!

You are the source of the global climate change!

:sarcasm:

[IDemo]

42. Fireplace burning is commonly banned here

We frequently experience temperature inversions during winter - cold air is trapped in the valley, sometimes for weeks on end. The result is an ugly brown haze and terrible air quality. Only those who must rely on fireplaces for heat are permitted to burn.

[old mark]

46. We have the wood pellet stove linked below. It recycles the gasses from the burned

encapsulated sawdust and burns them. The entire process is sealed inside the stove, and the results exit through a simple steel tube, much less than what is legally required for a wood or coal stove. We have been using it to heat our home for several years, and it is the only source of heat we are using this year, despite record cold here in PA.

The OP article is probably paid for by the gas companies.


mark

[SOS]

50. How do fireplaces and wood stoves compare

with 275,000,000 cars and 1,552 coal burning plants?

Good old New York Times.

Ignore billions of tons of PM generated by the auto, coal and oil industry and blame the wood stove!

[meow mix]

52. i wish someone would ban fireplaces here too lol

with neighbors smoke billowing all over my house i can barely go outside some days.

[JVS]

53. As a suburban fixture used occasionally, the fireplace isn't a big deal. But if people begin...

to rely on fireplaces or stoves for frequent use and in more crowded areas, then we will see a return of late 19th century smog issues.

[krabigirl]

56. Lame. I love a nice wood-burning fireplace. Too bad it has been a while since we have used ours.