Those detractors of a wood burning problem act as though this were another “weird” Davis initiative, to go along with the Toad Tunnel and the Night Sky Ordinance. The fact of the matter is that Davis is not taking the lead on the issue at all.
I was speaking with an individual last night at the council meeting and he told me he came from Chico and they decided their policy almost three years ago, there was no turmoil, the Air Quality District came down with a ruling and the people, by and large, accepted it.
It took us forty years or more to figure out that second-hand smoke could kill us.
I was reading once again Bob Dunning’s column, as he turned it into an Alan Pryor versus Tom Cahill fight.
Writes Mr. Dunning, “It’s turned nasty, with ordinance advocate Alan Pryor using his million-word op-ed in this very newspaper on Sunday to demean the acknowledged world expert in air quality, Tom Cahill. Wrote Pryor in the longest op-ed in the history of newspapering, ‘Tom Cahill made a number of serious misrepresentations and false statements opposing implementation of a widely-supported wood-smoke ordinance in Davis.’ – note the words ‘widely-supported.’ – now it’s Pryor who’s making the false statements.”
He continued, “With all due respect to the power of lengthy op-eds, when it comes to a scientific analysis of the effect of wood burning on the air in Davis, are you going to listen to an expert like Cahill or an amateur like Pryor? – this would be the same Tom Cahill who was commissioned to study the air at the World Trade Center after the attacks of 9/11 – Pryor received no such request for his services.”
However, Mr. Dunning might be a bit too sanguine about Dr. Cahill’s column. Dr. Cahill was considerably more ambivalent than Mr. Dunning has ever been.
Writes Dr. Cahill, “[the ordinance] has the unhappy distinction of being simultaneously too lenient and too stringent.”
“It’s too lenient in that it does not address a real issue we all agree upon – nearest-neighbor smoke in stagnant conditions,” he continues. “It’s too stringent in attempting to reduce citywide aerosol mass values by essentially shutting down all fireplaces and most Environmental Protection Agency-approved stoves all winter, to reduce mass concentrations that are regional in nature and not amenable to anything the city can do.”
Dr. Cahill argues that overall, the voluntary program worked. He writes, “This last winter saw a successful burn/no burn voluntary program from the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District, based on the 77 percent reduction below the federal standard the city requested.”
However, complaint data also shows a problem as well. “These data also showed that many of the complaints were nearest-neighbor problems that must be addressed,” he writes. “I recommend that the council ask the Natural Resources Commission to address the real issue almost all of us agree upon – nearest-neighbor smoke emissions from persistent burners in stagnant (circa 1 mph) wind conditions. We should reinstitute the call-in line for smoke complaints, and evaluate those that may need urgent resolution as a public nuisance.”
As Dr. Cahill acknowledges, “this is tricky business , and as commissioners admit, ‘the published literature on wood smoke-related health effects is sparse.'”
Mr. Dunning continues in his Tuesday column arguing “It’s all about trust.” He writes, “Since there were only three complaints all last winter on the 16 voluntary ‘no-burn’ days, it’s evident that the good folks of Davis who like to occasionally have a fire in their fireplaces are respectful of atmospheric conditions and not stubborn about their ‘right’ to burn wood for heat or ambiance … or both – that high degree of good will and neighborliness is not enough for those folks who must legislate their every whim – our overworked and understaffed Police Department must be absolutely thrilled about having to turn its attention to this newly-defined class of urban ‘criminals.'”
That is not the only conclusion that one might reach. It may be that there are just not a lot of complaints in general about wood burning, and yet the health impacts might be creeping up on people unbeknownst to them.
I come down on this issue in the same place I have previously. The public is not there yet on this issue, but that does not mean it is not an issue. Second-hand smoke is again a good example. We may simply not know what the impacts are of exposure to wood smoke, or we may not see them in close enough proximity to the source to really get a grasp of them.
We need to educate ourselves long before we consider more stringent measures. For whatever reason, the rest of the region is much further along on this than Davis.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Guess I missed seeing a single reference to the toad tunnel and night sky during the last two months, let alone enough times to allow labeling the entire opposition as “acting” a certain way. (You may have been confused by the references made by several proponents about Davis’ smoking and and noise ordinances.)
Opposition to the Commission’s proposal comes primarily from people who see it as an over-reaching, unenforceable, expensive and/or ineffective solution to the problem it identified (nasty “nearest neighbor” burning on “bad-condition” days).
Opposition also comes from people concerned that proponents charge ahead–brushing off science (or lack of it), failing to address issues raised by the potential enforcers of its proposed ordinance and failing to address the tiny numbers of bad actors involved in affecting their “nearest neighbors.”
Opposition also comes from people who see this so-called “compromise” (only when compared with last year’s draconian offering) as a stalking horse for many proponents’ real intention of a total ban on wood burning in Davis.
Your Chico comparison is puzzling to me. Chico apparently had the worst wood-burning air quality in northern California. The city had not “decided their policy” three years ago, as Davis is trying to do now. As you note, the air quality district imposed its rules on the city that [u]failed[/u] to “decide” a policy to combat an acknowledged, serious health hazard that’s not even close to Davis’ situation.
“Davis Actually Lags on the Wood Burning Issue” [u]because[/u] “Davis is not there yet.” We don’t have a problem like Chico’s, so we don’t need a solution like Chico’s. As you say: [quote]“We need to educate ourselves long before we consider more stringent measures.”[/quote] PS–David, you’ve just got to stop reading Dunning! It’s hazardous to your health, the way he’s messing with your mind.
I agree with JustSaying.
The real issue is that a small group of people have a definite agenda–to ban all wood-burning. The end result is that many people who generally support “progressive” reform feel alienated, while Dunning and some others on this blog mock (with some justification) the whole debate.
There are a number of obvious compromises here which have been suggested. THe easiest solution would be to treat wood burning as an issue between neighbors. Instead we are burdened with a complicated procedure which pleases no one.
I was sitting in on a few hours of the council meeting last night… this was actually a very fascinating issue.
What I got out of it is that there’s a lot of conflicting information and the impact of wood-burning is arguably influenced by varying factors and is unclear (of course, this might also only mean that one side is wrong, and is doing an awfully good job of blurring the details to make it questionable).
Saying people have an agenda is maybe an over-simplification. Some people believe, through word of mouth or research, that wood burning has significant impacts. Clearly, at least certain types do have negative health impacts. The question is whether these impacts are serious enough to infringe upon people’s personal freedoms. I know I’d be pissed if I was told when and how I could use my television, for example.
I support the council’s decision that was made. Souza’s questions in particular were right on. The steps the council is taking can accomplish much of the intent of the ordinance without creating a potentially intrusive law which is difficult to enforce.
What we should really be doing is put some restrictions on leaf blower use. we’re spending a lot of time blowing smoke about burning wood, how about some push to stop the overuse of leaf blowers. there is a way to do some good for our air quality!!
Davistownie–motion is seconded, seconded, seconded!
It would be great to get Cahill’s view on leafblowers.
Types of pollution:
1. Noise–increases stress level of entire neighborhood
2. Dust, including dirt, insect parts, pollen and other allergens, etc.
3. Almost useless use of gas/electric energy–as you say, just blows things from one place to another; smaller particles take a long time to settle and are re-distributed throughout entire area–including lungs of animals and people. I used to live in an apartment; if I forgot to close my windows on leafblowing day; the entire apartment would get dusted–especially thick on the windowsills.
This may be the worst aspect of leafblowing (besides the obnoxious ubiquitous noise that is now unnecessarily part of the background noise in any urban or suburban area); the small particles that are lifted up from the ground by the highly focused hurricane-force leafblower jet wind and slowly settle back to the ground over time periods as long as several hours or more; that otherwise would stay on hard ground until rinsed away to softer ground or into storm drains by rain; or permanently removed from the area by very strong winds associated with storm weather systems.
These small particles likely often consist of a significant proportion of pollen and other allergens that a high % of people have negative reactions to; may even play a role in sensitizing people to allergens.
I would support a science research program investigating effects of leafblowing on dust, pollen, and particulate levels in suburbs; and contribution to allergen exposure and other breathing problems!
Leaf blowers and firewood , fall is here and I’m cranking up both into high gear , makes the yard look great so I can relax by my fire at night !
What a night for knocking down straw men this last Tuesday was.
One “reason” that Steve Souza gave for not voting for the NRC’s current proposed woodburning ordinance was fear of severe health consequences to people with only wood heat on a very cold night. Guess he missed or forgot reading this section: “Exceptions to the general restrictions on wood burning are proposed to allow
wood burning for heat during power outages; in hardship cases where wood
burning is the sole source of heat for the entire dwelling unit; and in appliances
designed and exclusively used for cooking.”
And I just don’t get it how so many people came in speaking against a ban when the actual proposal called for limits, not a ban, with enough exceptions to still allow for many miserable smoky days and nights.
Barbara:
My understanding was that the ordinance however was quite restrictive, reaching far beyond anything the BAAQMD, Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District, or other local entities had implemented. It was a big step… I mean, that was the idea, wasn’t it? To be a “leader” on the issue.
But to your point… the fact is that any time an issue arises which tells people what they can or can’t do within their own home, people will often interpret it in the most hostile, obtrusive way possible. It’s like if you think someone just insulted a family member. People get belligerent rather quickly. Regardless of whether it’s founded or not.
Everyday that government meets you lose a little bit more of your liberty.
This coming from the guy complaining about legalization of marijuana.
Big difference between a good fire in your fireplace, some poor guy trying to blow leaves off of his driveway and having a bunch of stoners walking around town. Don’t you think Kudo?
Both are laws that restrict a person’s normally granted freedoms. Both are recreational.
Oh, and both involve burning something!
My point though, was that it’s hypocritical to talk about government taking away liberty in one sentence, when you’re complaining that a liberty shouldn’t be restored in the next.
But, it’s my experience that we have no shortage of people whose idea of liberty is the freedom to do what they want, while restricting other people from doing things they don’t agree with. It’s like Libertarians supposedly being fiercely pro-freedom of self-determination, yet fiercely against gay marriage.
“Both are laws that restrict a person’s normally granted freedoms. Both are “recreational.”
“Oh, and both involve burning something!”
So is free basing coke on the corner of B and 2nd.
That’s how naive your argument is.
rusty49: “So is free basing coke on the corner of B and 2nd.
That’s how naive your argument is.”
Good comeback!
[quote]some poor guy trying to blow leaves off of his driveway[/quote]
he can use a broom or rake. his right to use a power blower should not trump my families right to clean air and quietness. When I was a did, I never heard a leaf blower, yet the leaves seemed to get picked up. Maybe we could create some more jobs pushing brooms and rakes.
I mean when I was a kid.
Rusty: It was said in jest. We could go into a lengthy side conversation about the merits and detractions of legalizing or illegalizing certain behaviors, but it’d just be a bunch of blabber.
The point is, whimsical statements about how the government always takes away our liberty are a load of crap. Sometimes, you want certain freedoms restricted. It’s subjective, and what we make of it.