by Alan Pryor –
The Davis Wood Smoke Study That Never Was
1) Stationary monitors were used to collect hourly particulate matter samples at two locations – one behind City Hall for 3 months and the 2nd at a park in South Davis for 2 months. These were installed and maintained by Dr. Cahill and his staff.
2) A mobile monitor provided by Dr. Cahill was to be used by staff to measure instantaneous particulate matter concentrations during a series of transects across Davis to determine particulate matter variations throughout the City and compare them to the stationary monitors.
3) The same mobile monitor was to be also used by Staff to measure PM concentrations surrounding homes whose owners had complained to Staff about excessive exposure to wood smoke during the winter. To facilitate this aspect of the study, Dr. Cahill provided a concise methodology and set of instructions to Staff. Staff was also to have posted notices on the City’s website inviting citizens experiencing wood smoke problems in their neighborhoods to lodge their complaints with Staff and City representatives would quickly respond and measure PM at the complainants’ locations according to predetermined criteria established by Dr. Cahill
Unfortunately, the laudable goals of this study to get at the “real science” as represented by Dr. Cahill and the accompanying educational component demanded from Staff by the Council were never realized and the projects functionally failed for a variety of reasons.
Firstly, in spite of their prior commitments to Council, Staff never posted any type of notices on the City’s website to solicit complaints nor attempted to reach out to citizens with any type of structured educational program. Further, the few citizens who otherwise made multiple attempts to contact Staff to try to get the wood smoke near their homes measured and documented never even received a response from Staff. Thus, no problem sites were ever investigated nor were the number and type of complaints registered by the Staff. Thus, in spite of the clear necessity to study the nearest neighbor impacts of wood burning as stated by Dr. Cahill previously to Council, the failure of Staff to properly solicit prospective complainants meant that no particulate matter measurements were made at any neighborhood problem sites last winter.
Secondly, the mobile monitoring equipment provided by Dr. Cahill provided wildly erratic and high readings when attempted to be used to obtain transect measurements across Davis by Staff. Thus, the promised transectional studies of wood smoke in Davis air were also never completed as envisioned by Dr. Cahill. Dr. Cahill attributed his equipment’s failure to the sensitivity of it to vibration when moved. Ironically, had Staff properly responded and arranged for testing at the houses of the few complainants who did call in (despite the absence of promised web announcements), the mobile equipment could have been placed in a secure, locked environment at these sites for up to 24-hours or longer thus obviating the movement-induced vibration problem. Staff was informed of this option but apparently this information was either not forwarded to Dr. Cahill or not considered by him. Another excellent opportunity to collect valuable data was thus irretrievably lost.
Thirdly, although accurate readings were seemingly obtained by the stationary monitors employed by Dr. Cahill, only summary data was released by Dr. Cahill for the Davis City Hall site and the comparative Sacramento 13th and T St. monitoring site maintained by CARB. The raw hourly data has not yet been released for evaluation by third parties as requested. Nor was any data released for the second stationary site monitored in South Davis. In the interests of full disclosure, this data should be made available, as requested, for any 3rd party analysis.
Fourthly, the conclusions presented by Dr. Cahill in his report were often not supported by the summary data he provided in the report and were inconsistent with Dr. Cahill’s own prior statements about Davis air quality and meteorology as documented in his own report’s appendices and in previous appearances before Council.
These inconsistent conclusions were discussed at length in a previous Vanguard article submitted by this author.
Finally, the comprehensive educational program as promised by Staff and demanded by Council was never implemented beyond a simple link to the YS AQMD website on the City’s website. No programs were developed for outreach, no brochures were distributed, as no informational displays were ever made at Farmers Market or Celebration Day as previously proposed by Staff.
What Happened at the Last Council Meeting and Where We are Now
When Dr. Cahill presented his findings to the NRC in late June of this year, the general consensus of the group was summarized by one Commissioner who stated that there did not appear to be any new information in Dr. Cahill’s report nor any provided by Staff that would cause them to substantially alter their prior recommendation. As a result, the NRC forwarded a modestly revised recommendation to Council in June, 2009 that was functionally very similar to that submitted 6 months earlier with only two substantive changes.
The first change was that use of open hearths and non-approved devices, previously proposed to be completely banned, were now proposed to be allowed but only when forecasted evening wind speeds exceeded 12.5 mph. The proposed minimum wind speed of 5 mph required for use of EPA-approved wood burning devices remained unchanged. The 2nd change, made at the suggestion of Dr. Cahill, was the requirement that only seasoned hardwoods, manufactured logs made without petroleum binders, or wood pellets be used for burning to further reduce excessive soot emissions that result from burning wet or softwoods.
The Council considered this latest recommendation from the NRC two weeks ago on July 21st. Early in the meeting, Dr. Cahill announced that he was in support of immediate mandatory bans on the use of open hearths and non EPA-approved devices on from 25 – 50% of the days each winter.
Dr. Cahill testified,
“We have learned that the greatest threat from wood burning is what we call the nearest neighbor impact…My personal feeling looking at the data is that a sharp reduction in the threshold mass numbers would, in fact, handle the regional area problem and the nearest neighbor impact. The number I am recommending is about half of the Sacramento (AQMD) value or about 18 ug/m3…So what we come up with is between one-quarter to one-half of the days each winter where I think we should have a ban on open fireplace burning and use of non-approved devices.” The immediacy of his recommendation was obvious later in his responses to various questions from the Council, Dr. Cahill added “I think waiting to do something is not smart” and “I do recommend that action be taken tonight”.
The Council was also reminded by this author that just since their last Council meeting on this issue in January, only 6 months earlier, the following new developments had occurred for which information had been made available to them:
1) Downtown Davis air particulate matter in the preceding winter had exceeded that of downtown Sacramento for the first time ever recorded. Further, month-to-month particulate matter measurements at the UC Davis monitoring site increased by an improbably large 81% from January, 2008 to January, 2009! This was in the month immediately after the Council last declined to implement any mandatory or voluntary restrictions on wood burning;
2) The American Lung Association had given Yolo Co a grade of “D” for its particulate matter air quality in 2009;
3) The EPA had issued a final ruling in 2009 listing portions of the Yolo Solano AQMD (including the City of Davis) as being in regional non-attainment for particulate matter; and,
4) The California Air Resources Board had issued a new report of their review of the toxicology of wood smoke in 2009 and indicated its adverse health effects were far greater than previously thought.
Yet in spite of the above findings and the NRC and Cahill recommendations for mandatory restrictions; in spite of Council’s earlier unambiguous proclamations in support of clean air for Davis residents; and in spite of the Council’s own earlier statements that doing nothing was essentially going backward, the Council unanimously agreed to essentially do nothing! Fundamentally, this continues our long and now quite unique practice of uncontrolled and unfettered burning in Davis!
Further, not only did the Council reject the NRC and Cahill recommendations for mandatory restrictions, they also rejected Staff recommendations for voluntary compliance based on the Sacramento AQMD “Spare-the-Air” No-Burn Day alerts. This would have resulted in about 40 voluntary No-Burn days in the 120 day wood burning season which was, by far, the most aggressive position taken by Staff thus far in the wood burning debate. They have generally been strongly against even substantial voluntary restrictions and stated the preferred approach was educational. The NRC also did not support voluntary restrictions but for a complete different reason…THEY HAVE NOT WORKED!
All voluntary restriction programs tried in the past in California have a history of complete failure in reducing wood burning. For instance, in the SJ Valley Pollution Control District and in the Sacramento and the Bay Area AQMDS, independent surveys estimated that voluntary compliance rates hovered between 17% and 23% in all jurisdictions when they voluntary restrictions were tried in the past. All of them subsequently imposed mandatory controls.
Instead of accepting any of the NRC or Cahill recommendations for mandatory restrictions or even the Staff recommendations for 40 days/year of voluntary restrictions based on the Sacramento AQMD “Spare-the-Air” alerts, an alternative program was essentially designed on the spot and introduced by Council Member Saylor as a substitute motion. This motion was unanimously approved by Council wherein voluntary-only restrictions would be called only between 1 and 5 days of the 120 day wood burning season based on the Yolo Solano AQMD forecasted regional PM concentration of 25 ug/m3 or higher – or about 1 to 4% of the time. For all practical purposes, this is the same as doing nothing to address the nearest neighbor impact which all Council Members had previously agreed was the most important public health issue and the most serious problem to address.
The primary justification of the Council for not implementing mandatory restrictions was stated to be that the City was in a financial bind and that there was no money for enforcement of any mandatory restrictions. The Council also stated that if mandatory restrictions were not properly enforced, people would not respect the Council’s decisions and lose confidence in their judgment…?
This decision to not implement mandatory restrictions due to perceived excessive costs of enforcement was not based on any quantitative facts, however. Staff had already admitted at that Council meeting that implementation of any voluntary restrictions would essentially cost the City the same as implementing a mandatory program in terms of setting up automatic web-based analysis and notification systems.
Both Staff and the City Manager clearly stated that the key difference between the costs of a voluntary vs. a mandatory program is the cost of enforcement and both said these costs would be problematic given the financial straits the city was in. But neither Staff nor the City Manager even offered guesses as to what these actual costs might be. And, improbably, the Council did not even ask! The simple reality, though, is that enforcement of a mandatory wood burning ordinance would probably not cost the city a single dime in additional enforcement costs other than the cost of sending a complaint through the mail.
For instance, enforcement of a mandatory ordinance as proposed by Dr. Cahill would probably only result in police response to 7 complaints a year based on the proportional enforcement experiences of the Sacramento AQMD last year (281 complaints out of a population base of 1,900,000). But the Davis police already have officers in cars on the street 24/7 and the enforcement of any wood burning ordinance was proposed by the NRC to be on a complaint basis only. The police were NOT expected to cruising looking for violators and a police response to a complaint would only occur only if there were no more pressing crimes requiring a police presence.
So the reality is that the Police would probably not incur any extra expenses enforcing any mandatory restrictions. Further, most police responses could be accomplished by simply driving by the suspected infringing wood burner’s home, observing a smoke plume, and issuing a ticket by mail just as they do in the Sacramento AQMD. In most cases, it could be done without the police officer even leaving their car. In almost all cases, it was envisioned that a police officer would not even have to knock on any doors of any suspected infringing wood burners. Additionally, the NRC had recommended that there not even be any fines issued the first year but rather only notices sent as warnings to help usher in the program in the first year.
In any event, it would be a far sight less complicated and expensive than trying to enforce the City’s somewhat nebulous noise ordinances. And if single response costs are otherwise estimated to be a problem for the anticipated 7 wood burning complaints per year, the City should probably eliminate the hundreds of police calls every year responding to complaints from neighbors about loud parties and barking dogs. Both of these types of noise complaints have a substantially less impact on the health of our residents but have an equal or greater cost/visit to implement than a wood burning violation. The obvious fact is that bringing up imaginary enforcement costs is simply a smoke screen behind which Staff and Council are trying to hide.
While not imposing any mandatory wood burning restrictions, though, the Council did commission yet another study by Dr. Cahill and Staff and yet another educational outreach program. These were approved despite the fact that last year’s study and outreach programs were functional failures. The “do-over” study for this coming winter, however, was substantially reduced in scope.
No longer are there going to be any transectional measurements of air quality through out the City nor at specific hotspots based on complaints by citizens. Instead, Staff is only going to note the time and date of each “complaint” received by the City and turn this information over to Dr. Cahill. Dr. Cahill claimed he will then correlate the time and date of the complaints with local meteorological conditions to hopefully gain insights into the meteorological conditions that cause complaints about wood smoke problem in Davis. While any information is useful to some degree, this does not even approach the comprehensive onsite PM monitoring program that the previous year’s study was supposed to have provided.
Even more incredulously, the Council clearly understood that their latest failure to responsibly act to reduce the wood smoke problem in Davis means that our citizens unknowingly or unwillingly have been turned into laboratory rats during future unrestrained wood burning activities for another year while this less intensive study is occurring. Indeed, even while ignoring the overwhelming body of solid scientific evidence and turning a deaf ear to the pleas of dozens of Davis citizens for clean air, at least one Council member didn’t miss an opportunity to promote their environmental credentials over their reckless actions!
“I am really interested by this idea that Dr. Cahill could use Davis as a laboratory. I think this would make a tremendous contribution to mankind…This is the type of environmental leadership we are known for…I know this is frustrating to people who have health issues who want a ban right now but it is a sacrifice that might be able to help people later.”
– Sue Greenwald, July 21, 2009
How could the supposedly greenest of City Councils fail to act responsibly in implementing even the least effective of the mandatory restrictions proposed by Dr. Cahill, much less the long-considered and very reasoned and substantiated approach recommended by the NRC that was supported by numerous world renown experts and health organization?. In the face of overwhelming evidence that wood smoke is harmful and that Davis residents are being adversely affected, the Davis Council essentially did nothing and then in the same breath claim they are serving mankind and asserting their environmental leadership!
How the Council eventually got to this point is a sorry and complicated tale. Initially stated good intentions and proclamations by the Council were completely circumvented by their appeasement to a small but vocal group of local prominent business interests and self-interested wood-burners combined with an unresponsive Staff. The net result is that the Council has thus far completely failed to implement any method of restricting wood burning in Davis to protect its citizens despite having looked at the problem for 5 years now. The ironic part is that the Council could have easily implemented any of the latest mandatory or even voluntary recommendations which would have at least provide some degree of public protection while actually enhancing the likelihood of success and quality of the next study proposed by Dr. Cahill as he testified at the July 21 Council meeting.
Instead, Council and Staff have turned the City into a giant unprotected experiment where seniors, kids, and those with respiratory impairments are essentially treated no better than laboratory rats. In fact, they are treated worse than many rats because at least in a laboratory experiment you always have a control group of rats that are not exposed to whatever toxic agent is being tested. Here in Davis we are all potentially exposed to our neighbors’ wood smoke without any protections for the respiratory disadvantaged while the Cahill-Staff study proceeds.
And really what is this new study amount to? Essentially, the plan is as follows: If wood smoke starts bothering you, call in to the City or the YS AQMD. I’m sure they will very pleasantly collect your information and thank you and maybe, just maybe, it might help in some obtuse way to craft a more effective ordinance in the future. Just don’t expect anyone to come out to help with the smoke surrounding and seeping into your home any time soon because it will not happen given the choices made by our Council members.
The simple truth is that the Council was presented with some clear alternatives in terms of implementing appropriate regulations. Instead of accepting any of the logical mandatory restrictive alternatives presented by the NRC or Dr. Cahill or even Staff’s probably ineffective voluntary program, the Council collectively froze like deer in the headlights and did nothing.
Council simply would not support clean air when faced with the contradictory choices of providing true public health protection for susceptible individuals in the community vs. pacification and continued political support by those individuals and businesses opposed to any restrictions on wood burning in Davis. Obviously, the Council chose the path of political expediency instead of honoring their obligations and past proclamations to protect the public health…Good for Burners…Bad for Breathers!
Council should provides answers to Davis citizens to 2 very unambiguous questions in evaluating the appropriateness of their decision and accepting responsibility for the adverse impact this will have on many Davis residents with respiratory impairments.
1. Given the breath and reputation of the experts and health organizations that supported the NRC recommendation and/or urged the Council to adopt it or go beyond it, does the Council really think they or Staff were more informed or more knowledgeable such that they could ignore these experts’ testimony and functionally do nothing?; and,
2. Given that epidemiological studies based on CARB analysis of the Sacramento AQMD region suggested that 2-3 people each year will die prematurely due to wood smoke pollution in a city of the size of Davis, would Council like to pick out these 2-3 Davis residents this next winter that may pass due to Council’s irresponsible inactions?
It is almost incomprehensible that the council could continue to subject us to this ongoing fumigation.
I understand your passion for this issue, but in some ways you shoot yourself in the foot. By noting at most, there would be only 7 complaints per year in Davis out of 65,000 people, it pretty well indicates smoke would effect an extremely small percentage of the population. The CC probably noticed this as well, so went with what they considered the path of least resistance. Their doublespeak on the issue is pretty typical, and common among gutless politicians.
My advice to you is rather than push for the stricter NRC version, encourage the adoption of Sacramento’s program. We can piggy back onto their costs, it is tried and true, and makes the most sense. I know that is all I am willing to support. Think about it from a strategical perspective. Half a loaf is better than none.
So don’t give up, just tone down the rhetoric a bit, and go for something the CC will have more trouble weasling out of. Or do you consider this a dead issue?
David Greenwald,
This has been a very polarizing issue for the town. We have received more communications expressing passion, anger and angst on both sides this issue than on any other. Most who are strongly opposed to a ban have been elderly living on low fixed incomes.
I think four of us were looking for a compromise, and a way to ratchet down the anger and anxiety. It is certainly fair to call it “gutless” or “weasling”, and we could have come down hard on one side or the other.
Although I take full ownership for my comments, I do think that I have been quoted out of context. I certainly think Dr. Cahill has the potential to do valuable research. He has a large grant, and I stand by my statements that we could contribute a lot to society by helping Dr. Cahill sort out the regional from the local effects of wood burning.
That said, I have been quoted out of context, because I also commented in the same breath that there are twice as many people in the U.S. today as there were when I was born, and that means that we are going to have to make some changes in the way we live, and give up some of the things that we enjoy. I said that we are moving towards some form of banning of wood burning.
I suspect it was this part of my comment annoyed Mr. Dunning, who doesn’t like the ban, and prompted him to take out of context my quote about Mr. Cahill’s research. Although four councilmembers voted for final motion, and Don Saylor spear-headed it, the Vanguard chooses to parrot Mr. Dunning’s poke at me and put my out-of-context quote in a special gray box. Although Mr. Pryor wrote the article, David Greenwald controls the gray box.
Again, I hope that my disagreement on the issue of the Wildhorse Horse Ranch does not consciously or unconsciously effect which of my quotes get the gray box treatment in the Vanguard.
Thank you.
Clarification: When I say that we are probably going to move towards some form of banning of wood burning, I am thinking along the lines of coming into conformance with Sacramento’s regulations.
Sue: Please address your concerns to Mr. Pryor. The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect the views of the Vanguard.
Ms. Greenwald,
I’m one of the people very affected by neighborhood wood smoke in the winter. My health suffers significantly. I will be happy to introduce you to my primary care physician and my pulmonary specialist [actually you probably know both of them] who can tell you with medical and scientific certainty what effect your [lack of] policy is going to have on my health this upcoming winter. I so appreciate your volunteering me for your research. You shouldn’t ever again think of yourself as a *progressive* person — not after your abrogation of this, the clearest of duties.
By the above council member’s statement, it seems that if an issue is “polarizing” they should “compromise” (as opposed to doing what is right). By the council’s actions, it seems that if an issue is polarizing (even if time sensitive), they should abrogate their duties and kick the can down the road. Council members should spend less time defending their actions and more time reflecting on them.
Davis is an expensive overated pit of pollution and apathy. it’s not worth the expensive real estate prices. people need to know this place is not as green as you think and David you better not delete my comment so as to keep the prices of real estate over inflated. don’t become another slave to high real estate prices.
“By the above council member’s statement, it seems that if an issue is “polarizing” they should “compromise” (as opposed to doing what is right). By the council’s actions, it seems that if an issue is polarizing (even if time sensitive), they should abrogate their duties and kick the can down the road. Council members should spend less time defending their actions and more time reflecting on them.”
Very, very good point. Sue, stand by your convictions, don’t give in, and vote your conscience. But did you? Sounds like you believe going along with Sacramento’s system is the best solution (and I happen to agree), so why not say that? In the future, help Alan Pryor push for it. Sound good Alan? It’s better than nothing…
Let’s just begin the process by adopting an ordinance similar to Sacramento’s as a starting point. Alan Pryor’s demands are outlandish, and Sue’s fence-riding should have revealed her for the hypocrite she is.
I have an open-hearth fireplace, but haven’t burned a fire for over 20 years. Therefore, I have contributed ZERO particulates. But, if my relatives visit this holiday season, and I wish to treat them to a fire, will I be jailed or guilty of sending neighbors to the emergency room?
I’ve seriously considered extra spending to install an EPA-approved insert, but don’t even know if (or how long) that might be acceptable to “Big Brother” (and “Sister Sue”).
So, why can’t the Council just let us know once and for all what we can or cannot do for the next 10 years? (And, yes, I need that timeline before spending thousands of dollars to “upgrade” my fireplace.) Otherwise, guess I’ll just burn as the mood arises; catch me if you can!)
Really, do people not realize the dangers of wood smoke to human health and to the environment? Are they unaware of the rising particulate matter that is endangering health? Or, are they just telling themselves that it just isn’t true so that they can carry on with their filthy outpouring of smoke?
All wood smoke is dangerous and it does not belong in a residential area at all. The answer is so simple that I just don’t understand municipalities that are afraid to upset the people that are causing this problem and continue to let the victims of the wood smoke pay the price.
I am in Ontario, Canada. We have the very same issues here. After literally being smoked right out of our house, we obtained a lawyer to get an injunction. Our entire house had to be gutted to the bare floors to rid it of toxins and restored. A very expensive ordeal. One that most people cannot afford to do. BUT, that’s the way it is when your mayor and council members just look the other way!
So, those affected by wood smoke…. fight with all you have even if it’s the council meetings, the press, the TV or whatever else you can think of, as burning season is about to hit you again soon.
http://WoodBurnerSmoke.net
Do people not realize that at least 98% of people don’t report residential wood smoke
pollution because they don’t want to cause any bad feelings with their neighbours. They would rather hold their breath and pretend that their closed windows and doors are keeping them safe.
Our politicians in Canada & the USA need to wake up and protect people from this grave health hazard and
major contributor to global warming.
Wouldn’t that be the same point with the noise ordinance? It remains a tool that can be used if there is a problem rather than an absolute and enforceable limit.
A few months ago a circuit court judge in Michigan proclaimed burning in an Outdoor Wood Burner and burn barrels to be a public health hazard and ordered the devices shut down. The decision was based on the Michigan Department of Community Health and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality conducting an air study. The PM 2.5 levels were 400 times what is considered safe air. Because the person affected complained on numerous occasions to local government and provided medical documentation from his doctors warning that future exposure to smoke would cause him a serious disability or contribute to his demise, lawsuits are now pending against each board member and the fire chief for gross negligence.
In other words, local government is responsible for the safety of their constituency. When it discounts science and ignores medical statements to appease for political survival it may find itself in an unattainable position if challenged in court.
The EPA, American Lung Association, and numerous scientists adamantly proclaim that young children, the elderly, and people suffering from chronic heart and lung disease are at increased risk from wood smoke. If a person with heart or lung disease suffers a stroke or heart attack and local government had knowledge of the condition and also knew that PM 2.5 levels in the area were above what is considered by the EPA to be safe air then a lawsuit could be filed.
It’s uncomprehendible that we as a society will not allow smoke from a single cigarette in most public buildings, yet many local governments run for cover when wood burning devices envelope entire neighborhoods with air contaminants that have been proclaimed to be much more dangerous than cigarette smoke.
I live in the suburbs of New York and have been fighting for clean air and protection against neighborhood wood smoke for quite some time.
As Vicki Morelli states above, many people do not report burners (neighbors) to avoid bad feelings OR for fear of reprisal. Some wood burners burn twice as much, creating even more smoke, if they are reported. I also believe my suffering neighbors who have called police and complained to the Town Board realize that our Officials do NOTHING to help us, thus their fear of burner reprisal is even greater. Our complaints and concerns fall upon deaf ears.
I contact local and state officials on a regular basis. This past July was to be the month of a new wood smoke regulation in Dutchess County, NY. Well, that never happened. In contacting the NYS EPA in Albany, I was told there may be something drafted by October. One of my local legislators told me he has been fighting the smoke issue since 2007.
So why is it so hard for them to protect the innocent when there are numerous complaints and studies that prove breathing wood smoke is lethal? Television commercials warn of second hand tobacco smoke dangers. Wood smoke is worse, yet rather than seeing TV wood smoke inhalation warnings, we see ads for OWBs and wood stoves for sale in daily papers and at state fairs.
Is it the industry that our officials fear? Is it payoff? Is it lobbying? If our Administration is so worried about our health care and preventing illness, you would think Washington would pay more attention to the hundreds of wood smoke complaints that are directed to Lisa Jackson, administrator of the EPA in DC. Banning wood smoke would prevent many unnecessary illnesses and dreaded disease.
As a citizen who has been gravely affected by wood smoke, I have written my own guidelines and suggestions, offering my assistance to these officials. As someone who has suffered wood smoke induced illness, I’ll help them draft legislation through my experience!
Although I’d love to see a total ban, at this time I know it’s impossible. I asked for stricter regulation: limit the burning season to the coldest 3 winter months when winds have a chance to disperse wood smoke. Do NOT permit wood to be the primary or sole source of heat and hot water. Impose minimum acreage requirements so that OWBs and wood stoves don’t directly impact us. Even on a one acre lot, my neighbor’s stove might as well be mine. Smoke surrounds my home and infiltrates. The air on the street outside smells like a dirty ashtray all fall and spring when it’s really too warm to burn. We all know this is the filthy air that we’re breathing inside our homes.
Why are we subjected to wood smoke at all? Why can’t we open our windows when we want to? Why do we have to spend thousands of dollars on home improvements and air cleaners so that a thoughtless neighbor (thinking they are saving $$$) can burn at our expense? This just doesn’t make sense. We are granted no rights.
It’s either greed or carelessness by government officials, but in any event, no one is doing anything to protect us from harmful wood smoke. I wonder if regulations would be written and enforced if their families were exposed to wood smoke and became ill?
It’s the same thing as our proposed health care bill. The Administration, Congress and their families won’t be subject to this lower grade health care or rationing – or end of life counseling. They have only the best – using OUR money! It’s time for citizens to join together for a cleaner, better way of life. Remember, they work for us. It’s our money that pays for their luxuries. They could at least listen and protect us while we support them! Where would they be without us?
Why must we BEG for Clean Air??? This isn’t rhetoric – this is truth and the message we should all be sending to our representatives.
Sign our petition online: http://www.woodsmokefreeny.com and http://www.cleanairhudson.com
No person has the right to put a neighbor, neighbourhood, and the environment in Harms way just because one burner feels like burning wood.
Do you know that about two million people die each year world wide due to wood smoke…STOP THE KILLING, AND WAKE UP!
BAN WOOD BURNING SO THAT WE CAN ALL LIVE HEALTHER AND LONGER LIVES!
Also, from one wood stove including the E.P.A. stoves, the smoke can travel up to seven hurdred miles
invading, and killing what ever is in it’s path!
WOOD SMOKE CAN NOT BE CONTAINED THERE FORE WE ARE ALL AT RISK!