What's New

Wood Smoke Nazis?

Wood Smoke Nazis?

Cleaning our air hasn’t been easy. We’ve had to provide proof that air pollution is bad for our health, pass laws, and create new technologies. But our own perceptions and bad habits have proven to be the biggest challenges we’ve had to overcome.

Whenever a new regulation is passed to eliminate or control a source of air pollution, there is an outcry from industry and the public. Some people claim that it is wrong for the government to interfere with private rights, while others protest that such measures are too expensive. Air pollution laws have been called “communist”, “fascist”, and even “Orwellian”.

For example, when trash burning was banned, people were enraged that they couldn’t burn their own garbage in their own backyards. There were complaints about the cost of proper waste disposal. Similarly, when measures were taken to lessen automobile pollution, people were up in arms about catalytic converters and the smog check program, with many claiming that these measures were going to make it too expensive to drive their cars. More recently, people have protested that they have a “constitutional right” to smoke in public places, like restaurants and airports.

Looking back, it seems kind of crazy to think that we as a society fought these laws and regulations. We have seen such drastic improvements in our air quality and our public health that in hindsight, few would argue that these steps were unnecessary or unreasonable.

Wood smoke is a lot like these other types of air pollution. Most people haven’t yet recognized the harm that wood smoke has on public health or the need to reduce its dangerous impact on our air quality. In California, as well as around the country and the world, air quality officials are starting to wake up to the fact that wood smoke is a major source of particulate matter and other pollutants, as well as a major contributor to global warming. As such, it needs to be curbed in order to continue improving our air quality and reduce human contributions to global warming.

Just as people once argued that open garbage burning and cigarette smoking were personal rights and that the resulting smoke was innocuous to the community, they are now decrying regulations against burning wood in fireplaces and wood stoves as invasions of their privacy. Some even compare our public health agencies to Nazis (as seen in this recent local news story).

We at Families for Clean Air believe that ten years from now, when we look back at these early efforts to curb wood burning pollution, we’ll all agree that it was worth our trouble and effort–and that the relatively small impact it had on our habits and wallets was more than worthwhile.

Comparing Wood Smoke Pollution to Diesel Exhaust and Tobacco Smoke

Comparing Wood Smoke Pollution to Diesel Exhaust and Tobacco Smoke

After many exhaustive studies and discussions, The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the California Resources Board (CARB) identified Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Diesel Exhaust as Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). OEHHA has determined that there are no safe exposure levels for environmental tobacco smoke and particulates from diesel exhaust. So how does wood smoke compare to these other complex pollutants?

FCA recently conducted a direct comparison of the harmful constituents of wood smoke from fireplaces and wood stoves with diesel exhaust and tobacco smoke, and the results are striking. When put side by side, it’s obvious that wood smoke poses many of the same hazards to the public’s health as these two other complex mixtures of pollutants. However, wood smoke has not received the same kind of attention from regulatory agencies like OEHHA, CARB, and the USEPA.

Considering the fact that over one-third of the Bay Area’s winter time particulate pollution comes from wood smoke, it seems obvious that immediate action must be taken to address wood burning in order to protect public health. If it’s going to take more studies and discussions to ensure that wood smoke pollution is reduced in our communities, we say let’s get on with it already!

Pets and Wood Smoke Pollution

Pets and Wood Smoke Pollution

Wood smoke isn’t just bad for human health—it’s bad for animal health as well, as noted in a recent Mercury News article.

Our pets breathe the same air we do, so it should come as no surprise that dogs and cats are similarly vulnerable to the particulate pollution and toxic compounds in wood smoke.

Animals may not be able to complain, but asthma symptoms such as wheezing and coughing can alert owners that their pets are having trouble breathing.

The best way to control these symptoms is to make sure the air in your house is as clean as possible by not burning wood (or smoking) and by living in an area that’s free of wood smoke pollution from neighboring properties.

Sam Harris on the Wood Burning Delusion

Sam Harris on the Wood Burning Delusion

A recent piece by Sam Harris, The Fireplace Delusion, eloquently addresses the difficulty of convincing people that burning wood is a harmful practice. Harris, who has a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA, is best known for his books and articles that address issues concerning religion, science, tolerance, and society.

Harris points out that many rational, well-educated people love to burn wood, despite the plethora of studies indicating that wood smoke is harmful to human health.

Indeed, wood burning takes on an almost religious status for such people, who choose to believe that the smoke is harmless, regardless of clear evidence to the contrary.

“The case against burning wood is every bit as clear as the case against smoking cigarettes,” notes Sam Harris in a recent blog post, “Indeed, it is even clearer, because when you light a fire, you needlessly poison the air that everyone around you for miles must breathe.”

Harris declares, “It is time to break the spell and burn gas—or burn nothing at all.”

We at Families for Clean Air agree. Please, get the facts. Don’t burn wood.

Researcher Says Wood Burning Not Sustainable

Researcher Says Wood Burning Not Sustainable

A fascinating article, “Heating and Air Pollution,” discusses the disproportionate contribution of wood smoke to pollution when wood burning is used as a heat source. The author, Marcelo Mena, is the Director of the Center for Sustainability Research at Universidad Andres Bello and performs research on regional air quality and climate modeling.

The bottom line, Mena notes in a follow-up comment to the article, is that current use of wood burning in many developing countries and in the US is not sustainable because it generates orders of magnitude more particulate pollution than other fuel sources.

Mena notes that in Santiago, Chile, just 8 percent of the population uses wood burning stoves, yet the resulting soot makes up 49 percent of air pollution. This is paralleled by findings in the Bay Area, where the number of people who rely on wood stoves for heat is low, yet wood smoke makes up more than 30 percent of winter time air pollution.

Mena also notes that a stringent ban on wood burning on bad air days in the San Joaquin Valley in California led to a remarkable 44 percent reduction in the number of days when the air quality was unhealthful. “In my years working in air pollution,” Mena stresses, “I’ve never seen a single measure with such effectiveness in reducing pollution.”

What are the ramifications for clean air policies? Mena suggests that in cities, where the wood smoke pollution burden adds to that from vehicular pollution, we should think about outright bans in wood burning.

 

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →