by Pam Nieberg –
Based on these analyses, pollution from burning wood in stoves and fireplaces and elsewhere was reported to be the top cancer risk in some areas of the country. According to the EPA, the analysis indicates that burning wood creates a greater cancer risk than even benzene, a carcinogen emitted by cars and trucks in the tens of thousands of tons each year.
Oregon’s highest ranking for wood smoke cancer-causing potential is partly due to the fact that Oregon has done a far better job of documenting the generation of wood smoke, Palma said, including surveying residents three times since 2000 to gauge actual wood stove and fireplace use. “If the other 49 states did as good a job as Oregon,” Palma said, “Oregon wouldn’t be at the top.”
These results are not surprising. As long ago as 1989, the scientific community has known that the pollutants in wood smoke have a much greater biological impact in the human body compared to cigarette smoke or even automobile exhaust on a per unit weight basis.
In a laboratory at Louisiana State University, researchers found that the free radicals produced from wood smoke are chemically active 40 times longer than those produced from cigarette smoke, so that once inhaled they will attack the body’s cells longer. (See Pryor, William, “Biological effects of cigarette smoke, wood smoke, and the smoke from plastics: The use of electron spin resonance”, Free Radical Biology and Medicine, Vol. 13:6 (659-676) 1989.
“Burning 2 cords of wood produces the same amount of mutagenic (capable of causing cell mutations that can cause cancer) particles as driving 13 gasoline-powered cars 10,000 miles each at 20 miles/gallon. These figures indicate that the worst contribution that an individual is likely to make to the mutagenicity of the air is using a wood stove for heating.” (See Lewtas, Joellen. “Contribution of Source Emissions of the Mutagenicity of Ambient Urban Air Particles”. US EPA, #91-131.6, 1991.
There is no reason to believe that wood smoke produced by California’s fire places and stoves is any less carcinogenic and stringent restrictions on burning should thus be enacted just as with cigarette smoking.
Burning my fireplace right now , sure feels good .
I’m glad you’re burning your fireplace.
It’s hard to believe that you can be fined $100 for smoking a cigarette in a Davis city park yet someone could put out literally thousands of times as much carcinogenic pollution from their fireplace at anytime under any conditions without any restrictions whatsoever…even right next to a school or senior home! Go figure.
OK, now let me get this straight. There is a call to limit burning wood as a source of second hand smoke; a local ban on directly inhaling cigarette smoke via a no cigaratte smoking ordinance; a ban on burning rice as a source of second hand smoke – as CA is trying to approve the direct inhalation of burning marijuana leaves? So one has to assume, I guess, that burning wood, rice, tobacco leaves is harmful, but burning marijuana leaves is perfectly safe? Just a rhetorical question…
It’s great to see that Avatar finally has come around. But it’s discouraging that police-enforcement supporters continue to beat the dead horse about the ill effects of breathing concentrated wood smoke (or plastic smoke or cigarette smoke or gasoline emissions) without dealing with the real issue for Davis. The world is convinced that it’s “nasty” to suck in pollutants; this no longer is news; we’re all believers.
The question for the City Council: Is the neighbor burning problem in Davis serious enough to establish a significant new enforcement program here? Proponents consistently refuse to deal with the question.
However, I see today’s [u]Enterprise[/u] carries a dueling banjos opportunity for readers. Time to read the Cahill-Dunning vs. Pryor musings.
[quote]So one has to assume, I guess, that burning wood, rice, tobacco leaves is harmful, but burning marijuana leaves is perfectly safe? Just a rhetorical question… [/quote]
First of all, California isn’t trying to approve the direct… some voters put an initiative on the ballot that would… You have different people with different agendas pushing different things.
Second,the amount of smoke generated by marijuana smoking is probably not going to be an issue certainly not like wood burning or second hand cigarette smoke.
You are comparing a very small quantity of plant material versus portions of a log. I think that’s problematic.
[quote]The question for the City Council: Is the neighbor burning problem in Davis serious enough to establish a significant new enforcement program here?[/quote]
That’s why I really look at this as an educational issue rather than a law enforcement. I mean how long did it take us to recognize that smoking was dangerous even for non-smokers before we started banning smoking in public places? It took awhile. Now part of that may have been the tobacco industry, but it still would not have created public awareness overnight. And that’s where we are with this.
I mean what if you found out that exposure to your fireplace created a measurable possibility that your child could die of lung cancer when they are in their forties or fifties? Would you still do it?
dmg: “First of all, California isn’t trying to approve the direct… some voters put an initiative on the ballot that would… You have different people with different agendas pushing different things.”
What?
dmg: “Second,the amount of smoke generated by marijuana smoking is probably not going to be an issue certainly not like wood burning or second hand cigarette smoke.”
Now let me get this straigt. You are claiming that inhaling smoke from someone burning tobacco leaves 100 feet away or burning logs in a fireplace 100 blocks away is more harmful then directly inhaling smoke from someone burning marijuana leaves? LOL
“You are comparing a very small quantity of plant material versus portions of a log. I think that’s problematic.”
I am comparing burning of logs, rice, tobacco leaves from sometimes huge distances, with direct inhalation of burning marijuana leaves.
““Burning 2 cords of wood….”
This figure is nearly 4 times what I would normally burn in a season from Nov. through Feb.,in my EPA certified wood stove when used almost daily in the evenings(and early morning hours on really cold nites). This is most likely the wood consumption of the vast majority of evil Davis wood-burners.
To your first what, the initiative process works like this, someone writes an initiative, circulates a petition and if it gets enough signatures it gets on the ballot. The people pushing Prop 19 were different people for those making the regulations on wood burned smoke.
[quote]Now let me get this straigt. You are claiming that inhaling smoke from someone burning tobacco leaves 100 feet away or burning logs in a fireplace 100 blocks away is more harmful then directly inhaling smoke from someone burning marijuana leaves? LOL [/quote]
You are mixing issues. The issue here is second hand smoke, not first hand smoke. Smoking a cigarette is legal. The question is where you can smoke it given the impact on other people’s health. That is the same issue inherent in the wood burning debate. The question is not one’s own health, they can make their own calculations about that, but the impact of others.
As such, marijuana laws is not really a new issue, people already cannot smoke in certain public places, that will likely if not certainly extent to marijuana.
Ah, winter approaches, as the heat generated by the hysterics of this blog and Alan Pryor reduce the need to burn wood. In this most Politically Correct of politically correct towns, I am sure that victory will eventually come, and all burning of fireplaces, pellet stoves, corn stoves, EPA stoves, Duraflame logs, etc will be banned. Given the vehemence of this blog, I doubt that birthday candles have a secure future in Davis. But yet I wonder: when that day comes,as it certainly will, what will become of the pizza ovens at Bernardos: Seasons? And other restaurants that burn cords of wood, day and night, summer, fall, and winter? What about the billows of smoke that pour forth from Burgers and Brew, laced with carcinogens? What about the diesel trucks that produce the most cancerous smoke, yet continue to ply the streets of Davis, leaving their engines running sometimes for hours while they are unloaded? What about…? Oh well, it doesn’t matter. The issue isn’t really smoke or health; it is control of one’s neighbors.
ERM:“but burning marijuana leaves is perfectly safe?”
This is a complete side issue for the topic of this thread. But I don’t know anyone who believes that burning marijuana leaves is “perfectly safe.” Marijuana smoking should be subject to the same restrictions as tobacco smoking, and that can be regulated by any local government in any way its citizenry prefers. Davis can simply add marijuana to the current smoking ordinance.
But just a reminder: the topic of this thread is wood burning.
DMG: “I mean what if you found out that exposure to your fireplace created a measurable possibility that your child could die of lung cancer…”
There are many things we do every day that create a “measurable possibility” of cancer risk. There are very few zero-risk activities. LIkewise, there is no zero-risk means of heating the home that is affordable to everyone. Just ask the residents of San Bruno.
The description of this study would be more useful if it would compare the impact of using EPA-certified devices.
Observer: you do understand that this issue is not exclusive to Davis and that every town in this region is going through the same thing and many of them have come down with much more stringent regulations than Davis?
“driving 13 gasoline-powered cars 10,000 miles each at 20 miles/gallon. “
Davisite: “This figure is nearly 4 times what I would normally burn in a season from Nov. through Feb.,in my EPA certified wood stove when used almost daily in the evenings(and early morning hours on really cold nites). This is most likely the wood consumption of the vast majority of evil Davis wood-burners.”
My guess is you also don’t drive 13 gasoline-powered cars 10,000 miles each at 20 miles/ gallon either.
[quote]“I mean what if you found out that exposure to your fireplace created a measurable possibility that your child could die of lung cancer when they are in their forties or fifties? Would you still do it?”[/quote] Of course not. This debate isn’t about whether we’d purposely kill our own children in our own houses. It’s about whether we’d intentionally sicken or kill our neighbors and [u]their[/u] kids. I’ve seen no evidence that that such a problem exists in Davis, and ordinance proponents repeatedly choose not to offer any.
At this very moment, our fireplace has a nice rack of wood in it. It looks like it did when we moved in, now having sat unused for 16 years. I don’t want to pay a fee, but I might want a fire some Christmas Eve to use my well-seasoned wood supply. If a neighbor tells me it’s not a burn day–or that it’s hurting someone next door–I’d stop. That’s the way I view the Davis community today, but I’m open to any data showing that there’s a “nearest neighbor problem” in our town.
[quote]“Observer: you do understand that this issue is not exclusive to Davis and that every town in this region is going through the same thing and many of them have come down with much more stringent regulations than Davis?”[/quote] The issue isn’t, of course, “exclusive to Davis.” However, even those who are pushing for police enforcement note that the Commission’s proposal is “unique” in the history of solutions. Do we really need such a stringent attack now if, as all sides agree, the City hasn’t given the education/voluntary approach a fair trial?
[quote]“My guess is you also don’t drive 13 gasoline-powered cars 10,000 miles each at 20 miles/ gallon either.”[/quote] I think you may have missed Davisite’s points, David. Or, I missed yours.
Wow, the Enterprise has more than an argument today. It’s a special edition on wood burning. The lead story, by Crystal Lee, includes this report: [quote]“Pryor wants a total ban on wood-burning, especially since, he says, there is no such thing as a clean-burning fireplace or stove. Pryor says wood-burning is unnecessary and inappropriate in urbanized areas where neighbors live in close proximity.”[/quote] I guess I have to ask whether this since Mr. Pryor isn’t quoted directly. Is the current proposal really a “compromise,” as advertised, or is it actually a little different first step on the road to a total wood-burning ban in Davis?
“Observer: you do understand that this issue is not exclusive to Davis and that every town in this region is going through the same thing and many of them have come down with much more stringent regulations than Davis?”
Yes, I do recognize that the question of wood burning and pollution in general is being discussed at large, but I suspect without the degree of hysteria that our fair city seems prone to. I’d like to remind your readers of the original NRC proposed law based on nothing more than Mr. Pryor’s “research:”
1. A complete ban on all wood or wood-products including pellet stoves and Duraflame type logs.
2. Punishment of up to 6 months in jail for violating this law 3 times in any given year.
2. No differentiation on what is burned or how much smoke produced (or not produced.) That is, under the proposed law, burning a Duraflame log three times in a year could have the same consequences as burning tires in in open hearth fireplace three times. (The issue wasn’t smoke: it was burning.)
To its credit, the NRC is now proposing something much more moderate, but I contend that it continues to inch toward a total ban, and in fact continues to suggest that police cars be equipped with infrared sensors to catch miscreants that may be burning in a way that produces no visible smoke.
As to my comments regarding this blog, I have seen a number of articles featuring Mr. Pryor, but have not noticed any featuring Dr. Cahill or anyone of his ilk. If such articles have appeared that I missed, I apologize, but I think the feature article today enhances my view that the Vanguard is committed to a “the sky is falling” perspective that discourages rational discussion of a question that does in fact have more than one point of view.
to paraphrase an old joke… what’s the difference between Al Quida and the wood fire “banners”? you can negotiate with Al Quida.
[quote]“…I have seen a number of articles featuring Mr. Pryor, but have not noticed any featuring Dr. Cahill or anyone of his ilk.”[/quote] Observer, I notice lots of Cahill references in the Enterprise, but most of them involve Mr. Pryor (attempting to discredit him) or Dunning (quoting him). But, I came across a Sept. 26 op-ed by Dr. Cahill which I hadn’t noticed when it originally was published: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=132842D71DAC8308&p_docnum=1
[quote]“(The proposed 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. 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. The ordinance should be rejected in its present form.”[/quote] He goes on to discuss the Davis complaints filed during last winter’s test period, something the Natural Resources Commission, Mr. Pryor and other proponents ignore and still refuse to discuss.
I guess the Commission’s failing shouldn’t be surprising, given the history of attempts to demean Dr. Cahill’s research with insults, name-calling and mis-characterizations of and failure to acknowledge his earlier conclusions. Dr. Cahill is a long-time Davis resident and world-renowned expert in the very sciences that are critical to evaluating the Davis situation. With nothing better to counter Dr. Cahill’s science and studies, those who want to criminalize wood-burning in Davis simply close their eyes and cover their ears to conflicting facts. [quote]“…but I contend that it continues to inch toward a total ban, and in fact continues to suggest that police cars be equipped with infrared sensors to catch miscreants that may be burning in a way that produces no visible smoke.”[/quote] With all the talk of “compromise,” Observer, I also thought the Commission might be moving toward a less-misguided alternative. I guess I’ll have to forgo that hope, given today’s description of Mr. Pryor’s commitment to a “total ban on wood-burning” because “it’s unnecessary and inappropriate…(and) there is no such thing as a clean-burning fireplace or stove.” (And, I presume, never will be.)
Crystal Lee might have been mischaracterizing Mr. Pryor’s intentions; I’ll leave it to him to clarify his stand on a “careful burning future” vs. a “no burning future.”
“My guess is you also don’t drive 13 gasoline-powered cars 10,000 miles each at 20 miles/ gallon either.”
A cord of wood is a stack,4x4x8ft. My use in my EPA certified wood stove to supplement my gas heating system which does not adequately heat a family room addition. I probably burn less than 1/3 cord per season and I would guess that this is what the overwhelming majority of Davis wood-burners consume from Nov.thru Feb. This is less than 1/6 the wood consumed,spread out over 4 months,of the 2 cords talked about.
I think Cahill is truly excellent:
[img]http://blackchristiannews.com/news/610×34567890.jpg[/img]
You’re right, and Calill’s almost never charged with errors.
Burning tonight again and loving it , I really have no problem with smoke ! The smell is seductive .
Cahill’s pitches are fast and straight, he doesn’t need to throw curves to fool the opponent.
All this fuss over wood burning. Where is the call to outlaw leaf blowers. I’ll gladly give up my wood burning stove on bad air quality days if we could put a stop to those landscape companies running around town blowing leaves and dust back and forth. (at this moment I’m watching two different companies blowing leaves back and forth toward each other from two different businesses in downtown. It’s ridiculous.
Davistownie–motion is seconded, seconded, seconded!
It would be great to get Cahill’s view on leafblowers.
Types of pollutions
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); 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!
Considerate people have butted out long ago with wood smoke in populated areas. Central heat is also only a luxury that we got used to with once cheap clean fuels. Cavemen and pioneers cooked food rather than heating and it is smoke from cooking that still causes problems in the warmer third world countries. But external heat has never been necessary for basic health. Consider how the Arctic peoples managed to somewhat survive without wood. Children have brown fat which produces individual heat and us adults can easily wear more layers of clothes in a colder house to reduce costs and pollution. It comes down to basic consideration to others. Butt out already, should it matter if smoke is cancerous or just a public nuisance? Die-hard burners just become bullies.
John in BC, Canada
It is good to read informed debate, so I will comment on my own experience. After six weeks of two neighbours burning wood to heat their homes (burning 12 hours a day), I had Asthma and heart arrythmias, my dog had a hacking cough, and my wife had a permanent sore throat. Those were the visible symptoms. After 6 months of frustration dealing with neighbours, Agencies who would not leave their offices, great fears for our health, and innumerable medical tests that cost our health system $6,000, we moved and this cost us $60,000.
Right now you can burn your wood Avatar, but soon commonsense will prevail and non-essential burning will be eliminated to sustain our civilized way of life. Our physiology can only tolerate so much poison – it is all about exposure levels and neighbourhood and ambient pollutions are entering the Danger Zone.
Please be part of the solution and not part of the problem, Thank you, John