NRC Hears Results of Last Winter’s Davis Wood Smoke Monitoring and Citizen Complaint Studies –
NRC Hears Results of Last Winter’s Davis Wood Smoke Monitoring and Citizen Complaint Studies – by Alan Pryor, Yolo Clean Air
Introduction – On Monday, May 24, the Davis Natural Resources Commission (NRC) heard the long awaited results of the wood smoke monitoring study conducted by the Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) last winter from 11/1/09 – 2/28/10. As reported in a recent Vanguard article (Part I of this two-part series – see 6/3/10 Davis Vanguard article), the results showed that East Davis had concentrations of particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in size (PM2.5) that were from 80-100% higher than simultaneous measurements taken in Central Davis and to the West of Hwy 113 at a California Air Resources Board (CARB) permanent monitor over the same time period.
Scope of Additional Study – Simultaneous with the air quality monitoring data collected by the YSAQMD and CARB, complaints were registered by citizens in Davis in which they contacted either the City or the YSAQMD and registered their wood smoke complaints during the wood burning season. Some citizens alternatively kept logs in which the date, time, location, and severity of the wood smoke detected was noted.
The purpose of registering of these complaints was to see if there are pockets in Davis in which the detection rate of wood smoke or citizen intolerance is much greater than in parts of the City and if the number of complaints could be correlated with certain weather patterns. This collected information was all transmitted to Dr. Thomas Cahill of the UC Delta Group who analyzed the data and submitted a separate report to the City (see – City of Davis website).
According to the report submitted by Dr. Cahill to the City, 68 complaints of wood smoke were logged by the Yolo-Solano AQMD and the City of Davis in the period November 1, 2009 to February 15, 2010 by 19 named and 7 anonymous citizens. Additionally one citizen’s private log was included in Dr. Cahill’s analysis. Unfortunately, 3 additional private citizens’ logs (not including any kept by this author) were provided to Dr. Cahill that were not included in the analyses. Requests to Dr. Cahill for an explanation of why this data was not included in his analysis have not been returned. If this data is included in the results, there were a total of 121 complaints from 29 individuals.
As is often the case, different people viewing the same data often come to different conclusions and this author’s analysis of the complaint data differs substantially from Dr. Cahill’s conclusions; as follows:
1) Complaint Frequency on No-Burn vs. Burn Days
Dr. Cahill stated “The first point to note is that few complaints (3) were received during the 14 called no-burn days. This is strong evidence that the no burn restrictions are being followed because these are days of the worst ventilation”.
Unfortunately, Dr. Cahill did not include any statistical evaluation of the data to support his conclusions which I believe are erroneous. Firstly, Dr. Cahill did not include Christmas Day as a “called” No-Burn day. However, Christmas Day was noted in the YSAQMD email alerts as having a high predicted AQI. It was noted on the YSAQMD website and voice mail call-in as being a No–Burn day. The YSAQMD did not, however, send their normal email alerts specifically advising that it was a no-burn day on that particular occasion. All the major regional media otherwise reported it was a No-Burn day in the broader Sacramento AQMD. Secondly, Dr. Cahill did not include the No-Burn Day complaints from the 3 additional private citizen logs logs submitted to him.
Including Christmas as a No-Burn Day and including the 3 additional private citizen logs, there were actually 16 complaints of wood smoke made on a total of 15 announced No-Burn days in Davis. That left a total of 105 Complaints made on the remaining 105 days of the 120-day wood burning season
- 16 Complaints/15 No-Burn Days = 1.07 Complaints/No Burn Day
- 105 Complaints/105 Burn Days = 1.00 Complaints/Burn Day
Author’s Alternate Conclusion – The complaint frequency was actually higher on No-Burn Days than otherwise although there does not appear to be any statistical difference at all between complaint frequency on Burn and No Burn days. From this data one could infer there is virtually no compliance with voluntary No-Burn days in Davis.
2) Overall Number of Complaints –
Dr. Cahill also concluded from the data that “There were a relatively limited number of people who filed complaints…”.
There were 121 complaints registered by Davis residents with an approximate population of 60,000 people. In the entire Sacramento YSAQMD with a population of approximately 1,500,000 people, there were 285 complaints recorded in the 2008-2009 120-day wood burning season (data for last season is not yet available).
• Davis Complaint Frequency for 2009-2010 = 121 Complaints/60,000 Davis Population = 20.3 Complaints/10,000 Population
• Sacramento AQMD Complaint Frequency for 2008-2009 = 285 Complaints/ 1,500,000 Sacramento AQMD Population = 1.9 Complaints/10,000 Population
Author’s Alternate Conclusion
Davis (with NO mandatory wood burning restrictions) has a total wood smoke complaint frequency about 10 times greater that of the Sacramento AQMD (that has mandatory wood burning restrictions). This indicates that citizens in Davis are affected much more by exposure to local sources of wood smoke than the average resident in the Sacramento AQMD. This is in spite of the fact that awareness of the complaint process is far greater in the Sacramento AQMD region than in Davis because of the extensive and effective outreach program in the Sacramento AQMD. One could infer from this data that mandatory restrictions on wood burning on problematic days in Davis, such as occur in the Sacramento AQMD, could dramatically reduce the number and frequency of wood-smoke complaints from Davis residents.
Further, the complaints were spread out across the length and breadth of Davis with multiple complaints coming in from West Davis and Village Homes, Central Davis, South Davis, and East Davis. This indicates that wood smoke is a problem city-wide and not just isolated to East Davis. And ironically, but perhaps not surprisingly, the largest single source of complaints came from Hunt Way in East Davis – the home of Davis’ loudest wood burning supporter, Bob Dunning.
Correlation between Complaints and Wind Speed
Based on the following graph, Dr. Cahill stated that “The complaints on permissive burn days were spread across the entire spectrum of AQI values and were not closely associated with mean daily wind velocity. No complaints were received for mean wind velocities 11 mph to 26 mph”.
Closer analysis of this data suggests a different conclusion.
• Number of Complaints between 0-5 mph = 45 (65% of total complaints)
• Number of Complaints between 5-10 mph = 24 (35% of total complaints)
• Number of Complaints greater than 10 mph = 0
• Percentage of Winter Days with Average Wind Speed of less than 5 mph ~ 45%
• Percentage of Winter Days with Average Wind Speed of 5 – 10 mph ~ 35%
• Percentage of Winter Days with Average Wind Speed of greater than 10 mph ~ 20%
(from 2007-2009 YSAQMD/CARB data)
Author’s Alternative Conclusions
The fact that 65% of the complaints were recorded on the estimated 45% of the days with the average wind speeds less than 5 mph and that no complaints were registered on those 20% of days with wind speeds in excess of 10 mph clearly indicate an inverse relationship between complaints and wind speed. As average wind speed drops, the number of complaints increases. Assuming complaint frequency is correlated with wood smoke concentration, this is exactly what was predicted by the EPA-approved modeling tools used to predict wood smoke concentrations at different wind speed in Davis.
Author’s Note: This correlation must be subjected to rigorous statistical testing and verification which testing requires access to the same raw wind speed data as used by Dr. Cahill. Requests for this data have not yet been honored.
Author’s Overall Conclusions Derived from the Complaint Data –
1) Davis citizens register wood smoke complaints at an extraordinarily high rate compared to people living in the Sacramento AQMD. This indicates that Davisites are far more affected by wood smoke on a per capita basis than their neighbors across the causeway. This is telling because the Sacramento AQMD has had mandatory wood-burning restrictions for years while Davis has continued to allow unfettered and unrestricted burning in any type of fireplace at any time regardless of weather conditions or background PM2.5.
2) There does not appear to be any statistical difference in complaint frequency on Burn vs. No-Burn days indicating that there is very little compliance with calls for voluntary wood-burning cessation on low air quality days.
This sentiment was echoed by one Village Homes’ resident in West Davis who has resorted to taping his doors and windows shut every winter for years to prevent wood smoke intrusion from affecting his asthmatic wife. He wrote “I did not keep a log, but I did subscribe to the voluntary Yolo/Solano no-burn advisory. On every day and evening that an advisory was given I smelled smoke in my neighborhood in Village Homes. Sometimes even more smoke on the no-burn days. Voluntary does nothing and means nothing to reduce wood smoke on no-burn-days. Sadly disappointed”.
A Final Note: There is a clear choice facing our elected officials in Davis. They can choose to implement mandatory wood burning restrictions like those affecting 90%+ of the population in Northern California. Or they can continue to do nothing and ignore the mounting and incontrovertible evidence that 1) wood smoke is bad for health especially children and seniors, 2) that concentrations of wood smoke are excessive and rising in Davis and in some spots in Davis the wood smoke concentrations are now among the highest recorded in the entire greater Sacramento region, and 3) that an inordinately large number of Davis citizens are adversely affected by wood smoke sufficient to register complaints at rates far greater than elsewhere in the region.
Where it not for the fact that many everyday folk in Davis are truly suffering during the winter wood-burning season, I would find it greatly amusing (albeit grossly hypocritical) that our current Council majority takes every opportunity to loudly proclaim their green credentials and pat themselves on the back for Davis’ green reputation (which was actually earned by previous more, responsible administrations). Yet when there is a clear and convincing health risk facing Davis residents, Council members Saylor, Souza, and Asmundson have repeatedly balked before the shouting din of the wood burners loudly proclaiming their inalienable rights to burn. Burning is optionable…breathing is not! I just wonder what these Council members’ reactions would be if it were they who were subjected to the daily onslaught of wood smoke from their neighbors as is currently experienced by many Davis residents.
How about 29 people out of 60,000. I think that is .0005 complainers or .05% or more simply one in every 2000 people. Not really that high. In fact its low enough that you could set up a program to try and address the individual point sources of the smoke that leads to these complaints.
But I write to raise another question. Is this a reason to oppose densification and infill? For those who worship at the alter of ag land preservation this is a classic consequence putting too many people in too small a place. Let us hope that an outbreak of TB isn’t next.
The problem with that analysis is that you forget the congressional letter theory, for every person that writes there is 10 or even 100 that don’t. The same holds here, it’s a pain to complain and so the real complaint rate is far higher than those numbers imply.
“Is this a reason to oppose densification and infill?”
Probably not, as most densified homes would not have word burning stoves most likely.
19 people complaining in a city of 62,000? in a city where some people make formal complaints for sport?
some crisis.
Most people won’t file a complain, I would say 29 is a pretty high number, it’s far higher for instance than the number of citizen complaints to the police department and yet I hear frequent complaints about things like racial profiling, but almost none of them actually file a complaint with the police department.
Nice try David, but you’re trying once again to create something out of nothing. Trying to say that many more didn’t bother to file a complaint to pump the miniscule numbers is weak. I could just as easily say that many of those complaints were by activists or environmentalists that were pushing a cause.
“I could just as easily say that many of those complaints were by activists or environmentalists that were pushing a cause.”
rusty 49… I agree with your observation here as Mr. Pryor’s article,IMO> appears to confirm. David’s reply to the above is patently “reaching”. There is no comparison between the concern(legitimate or not) of retribution, which can reduce the number of a racial profiling complaints, with complaints about woodsmoke.
I think most of the people here are missing the point that wood smoke is often not just an inconvenience – it is a genuine health hazard. People are complaining about a situation that could easily send as asthmatic child or senior to the hospital if they are continuously exposed to a wood smoke assault. This isn’t just a theory either. It is backed by decades of research by world-class scientists and pediatricians everywhere are speaking out about this danger.
I think most people who dismiss these claims are either wood-burners themselves or lucky enough to live well away from a serial burner so their lives aren’t adversely affected. And so they think, “heck, I ain’t got a problem with it so nobody else should have a problem with it either”. But what if they did have a problem with it and it was their kid with asthma that flared up any time their neighbor fired up their wood stove? Or what if it was their wife who started sucking on inhalers every winter and wouldn’t go outside the house most days because the smell of smoke from their neighbors was constant? What if their aging parent was so senitized to their neighbor’s constant burning that they had to tape their doors and windows shut to keep the smell out during the winter months. But this couldn’t happen in Davis…right? Wrong! It happens every winter. I suspect these good folks would be singing quite a different tune about their individual “rights” if they were the people adversely affected
And I agree with David that these complainers represent just a small fraction of the total number of people who are adversely affected by wood smoke. I know there are dozens of others who do not like the smell or effects of wood smoke in their neighborhood but simply did not complain because they thought it would do no good at all so why bother…and they are right! To date, a complaint to the YSAQMD or the City gets you absolutely nothing.
And even if you use a figure of 29 complainants (or complainers, if you prefer) instead of 121 total complaints, this is still a per capita ratio that is greater than twice that seen in Sacramento even if you assume that every complaint in Sacramento came from a distinct separate person.
29 complainants/60,000 population = 4.8 / 10,000 population in Davis vs.
285 complainants/1,500,000 population = 1.9 /10,000 popuation in Sacramento AQMD.
Any way you look at it, whether at the number of complaints or complainants or our wood smoke concentrations in the air, Davis is now identified as the smokyest (sp?) little city in the region. Congratulations Green Davis!
” Davis citizens register wood smoke complaints at an extraordinarily high rate compared to people living in the Sacramento AQMD. This indicates that Davisites are far more affected by wood smoke on a per capita basis than their neighbors across the causeway. This is telling because the Sacramento AQMD has had mandatory wood-burning restrictions for years while Davis has continued to allow unfettered and unrestricted burning in any type of fireplace at any time regardless of weather conditions or background PM2.5.”
David, did you ever consider that Davis citizens may just be a bunch of whiners. Perhaps those folks in the Sac Air District may have better things to do than constantly phoning in complaints, like trying to survive a depression?
It is common knowledge that this whole controversy was started by a member of the Natural Resources Committee who had a beef with his wood burning neighbor and chose to use his position on the N.R.Committee to get back at his neighbor by shutting down all wood burning in Davis.
I would like to see the data on how many of the few complaints were generated by the same folks lodging repeated calls. Any body who tapes up his windows and doors when he lives in a modern air tight structure definitely has too much time on his hands! Part of the reason people have wood smoke problems in Village homes is because, in an attempt to save land by densification, the homes are built way too close together. Too many rats in the maze always causes fights.
Any modification of wood burning in Davis needs to consider the difference between under-combusted fireplace smoke and the smoke generated by modern efficient high heat wood burning stoves. Let’s hope the City Council does their homework before imposing draconian measures that would negate the positive environmental impact of wood burning in lieu of burning fossil fuels.
If we want to have a positive affect on air quality lets pass ordinance to ban barbeque charcoal lighter fluid and “easy light” briquettes,(which Sue Greenwald unknowingly referenced in a previous wood smoke debate). Both have already been banned in the L.A. Air District. When my neioghbor lights his barbeque I literally have to evacuate my back yard!
Over regulation. People and businesses are leaving California in droves due to over regulation and taxation. Everytime you turn around California is regulating or outlawing our freedoms. Where does it stop? Some people are allergic to peanuts, should Davis stores be outlawed from selling them? You lose a little more freedom everyday with Federal, State and Local laws being pushed on the public.
Re: “David, did you ever consider that Davis citizens may just be a bunch of whiners….If we want to have a positive affect on air quality lets pass ordinance to ban barbeque charcoal lighter fluid and “easy light” briquettes…When my neioghbor lights his barbeque I literally have to evacuate my back yard!”
I guess this fellow unwittingly proved his own point about Davis being a bunch of whiners.
But I agree with him on one issue, he should not have to be subjected to his neighbor’s pollution in his own back yard whether it be wood smoke or lighter fluid in the air. The main difference is that most barbeques are used for only an hour or so and maybe for a few times a week whereas some serial wood burners go at it 24/7 for months at a time
Re: Any modification of wood burning in Davis needs to consider the difference between under-combusted fireplace smoke and the smoke generated by modern efficient high heat wood burning stoves. Let’s hope the City Council does their homework before imposing draconian measures that would negate the positive environmental impact of wood burning in lieu of burning fossil fuels.
Firstly, the ordinance proposed by the NRC did very clearly distinguish between restrictions imposed on users of EPA Phase-II approved stoves and more polluting open hearth fireplaces. I would suggest the above writer actually do their homework and read the past proposed ordinance.
Secondly, what positive environmental impact resulting from wood burning are you referring to? – Burning wood is far less efficent on a lb of material used vs. the BTUs of heat generated than natural gas (which is all sourced from domestic or North American wells ). Burning wood is also far more polluting than natural gas in terms of particulate matter, carcinogenic compounds, toxic gases, and greenhouse gases per BTU of heat delivered.
Re:”It is common knowledge that this whole controversy was started by a member of the Natural Resources Committee who had a beef with his wood burning neighbor and chose to use his position on the N.R.Committee to get back at his neighbor by shutting down all wood burning in Davis.”
I was the person who originally brought up this issue before the City Council more than two years ago and it was referred by the Council to the NRC to grapple with an make a recommendation back to the Council. I am not and have never been a member of the NRC and had never known or even spoken with an NRC member before this issue came before them. I think most NRC members would just as soon preferred that this issue never came before them because of all the nastygrams and slights thrown their way. They are all volunteers just doing what the Council asked them to do…So, not surprisingly, the “common knowledge” is just flat out wrong.
That’s the trouble with committees like the NRC and Gov’t bodies like the EPA. They have to justify their existence so they come up with recommendations and laws that might not be needed or have merit.
Hey, I’m allergic to certain types of pollen. I say a ban on anyone planting trees that I’m allergic to.
“I know there are dozens of others who do not LIKE(my caps) the smell or effects of wood smoke in their neighborhood but simply did not complain because they thought it would do no good at all….”
“Like”??? ….really Mr. Pryor! I also do not particularly LIKE when the winter Davis air occasionally smells of woodsmoke but my neighborly inclination is to TOLERATE it unless it really distresses me(akin to calling the police because of excessive party noise).
Exactly Davisite,
That’s the society we’re creating. Instead of manning up and tolerating the occasional inconvenience we now seem to have a policy of “if you don’t like it just cry to your politician and get it changed or banned”.
I guess I need to make two points, I think I differ somewhat from Alan on this issue overall. I would favor Davis taking Sacramento’s approach with regard to wood burning. But I also think the citizens are not there yet and as such I think there needs to be a good deal community discussion before we strengthen the laws – if we do at all.
However, my point which seems to have gotten lost is not that there is some comparison between citizen complaints in the two areas I mentioned, but rather that usually it takes a lot for someone to pick up a phone or write a letter of complaint. Most people will take a lot before that happens. Some will do so more easily. But that’s why when I worked in a district office many years ago, the politician always told me when you see a letter of complaint, it’s really 100 letters, one for that person and 99 for the people who think likewise but didn’t bother to write.
29 complainants/60,000 population = 4.8 / 10,000 population in Davis vs.
285 complainants/1,500,000 population = 1.9 /10,000 popuation in Sacramento AQMD.
You’re comparing the population of Davis to the population of Sacramento County. The population of Sacramento city is about 450,000.
Re: Don Shor Comments – “You’re comparing the population of Davis to the population of Sacramento County. The population of Sacramento city is about 450,000. The population of Yolo County is about 200,000.”
No I am comparing the Davis population to the entire population of the Sacramento AQMD which is substantially larger than just the city of Sacramento. The complaints on this side of the causeway were all from within Davis and not anywhere else in Yolo Co so we obviously need to use just the Davis population as the denominator to determine complaint frequency. The complaints to the Sacramento AQMD were all from within the district’s entire jurisdiction (Roseville, Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, etc. – not just Sac City) which covers 1.5 million people according to their website…so I think the complaint frequency numbers are correct as stated.
So what was the complaint frequency within the Yolo/Solano Air Quality district? You really are comparing apples and oranges here, IMO.
It is pointless as to whether Davis residents complain at a higher frequency than other areas. There is considerable public opposition to stringent controls on wood burning. I don’t think you have the support of the current city council, nor of the likely incoming council, for tighter restrictions. I think the tenor of the debate long ago became such that people aren’t willing to express their disagreement on this. So if you want to go forward, you may wish to speak more civilly (“serial burners”?) and focus on incremental changes.
Re: David Greenwald’s Comments – “I would favor Davis taking Sacramento’s approach with regard to wood burning. But I also think the citizens are not there yet and as such I think there needs to be a good deal community discussion before we strengthen the laws – if we do at all.”
David, you mentioned this exact same thing (re: the need for community discussion) at the first City Council meeting when the issue of wood smoke regulation was first brought to the Council more than 2 years ago. Altogether since then, the issue of wood burning has been on 4 city council agendas with three different proposals on how to deal with the problem. The issue has been agendized and before the NRC about 7 times during the past 2 1/2 years with a few meetings in Community Chambers more crowded than for most Council meetings! There have been countless Op-Eds and Letters to the Editor in the Enterprise (more than 2 dozen at my last count) and 4-5 articles in the Vanguard (all with extensive blogs) including a segment on your radio show. The question of regulating wood burning has also been publically put to all Council candidates in the last two elections in the Sierra Club candidate forums which results were sent out to about 1,000 Sierra Clubbers in the city. It was an issue discussed at 3 of the 4 town hall meetings last year. It is a favorite rant of Bob Dunning in his column where he has probably mentioned it more than any other issue on his radar. I doubt there are very few people left in Davis at all who have not heard extensively about the issue over the past two years. In fact, I’d venture to say that there has been far more public discussion about this issue than almost anything else that has gone on in Davis for years. Plus, we have also now had two years of “special studies” which confirmed what was stated at the very beginning of the process – Wood smoke is quite toxic and you can excessively accumulate wood smoke in neighborhoods where a lot of people burn if there is not a good wind to disperse it. Finally, ALL the medical and atmospheric experts who have weighed in on the issue have publically supported some type of mandatory restrictions – including even Dr. Tom Cahill as of last year.
So my question to you, David, is this: If this is not enough “public discussion” about the issue, what exactly more would you want to see happen before you felt comfortable saying enough is enough and it is time to act?
I think I’m with Don Shor, I think you have to take this approach incrementally. I agree with your science, but the politics are not there yet. You are not going to get community consensus to go as far as you propose right now. You have to finesse the process along. Start slow. Get community buy in. I’m sorry, I understand and even agree with a lot of your concerns, but I see too much opposition (and heated opposition if you pardon my pun) to move the process much faster. Continue to do what you are doing, play the education roll, hold their feet to the fire (again!), and move the process.
I don’t think there is a lack of awareness of the issue. I think the public is not with you on this. Many disagree about the magnitude of the problem. Many disagree about proposed solutions.
Alan, you are with Yolo Clean Air, which states on their web site:
“we believe an outright prohibition of wood-burning in urban areas is the only reasonable solution that can truly protect susceptible individuals with respiratory problems as well as the general population at large.”
If that is the course you are advocating, you are facing a monumental battle about perceptions of risk, individual freedom, and practical issues such as home heating cost. If it is not the course you are advocating, perhaps you should not sign your articles with your affiliation with Yolo Clean Air.
Liberal agenda = “do what you are doing, play the education roll, hold their feet to the fire (again!), and move the process” and it doesn’t matter if the public is against it as long as in the end we get our way.
Isn’t that what the conservative agenda has been as well for the last thirty years?
To Don Shor – Re: “If that is the course you are advocating, you are facing a monumental battle about perceptions of risk, individual freedom, and practical issues such as home heating cost. If it is not the course you are advocating, perhaps you should not sign your articles with your affiliation with Yolo Clean Air.”
I truly believe that public dispersion of wood smoke should be banned just as we ban public cigarette smoking in most public venues now-including city parks in Davis. I think it is ridiculous that you can be fined for smoking a single cigarette in a public park in Davis that puts out about 0.4 gram of smoke yet 100 ft away a wood burner can put out thousands of times as much wood smoke with impunity and no consequences. There is just a comlete public health logical disconnect there.
However, despite my personal beliefs, I have consistently advocated step-wise compromise restrictions of wood-burning in recognition of the political reality; which you would have known had you been following the issue closely enough. In fact, there have been two times when less effective compromise versions were proposed by me directly to the Council that were less restrictive than the NRC proposals simply because I did not think the NRC proposals were going to fly in the face of the wood-burners self-righteous fury.
You had also mentioned “individual liberties” and “home heating costs” as issues to consider. I think these are simply red herrings thrown out by detractors – kind of like the “death squad” charade used by those opposed to health care reform.
Speaking of “individual liberties”, I find it amusingly hypocritical that a number of bloggers here have lambasted efforts to regulate wood smoke because it infringes on their individual rights but they say in the same sentence that what the City should really should be doing is regulating lighter fluid in outdoor barbeques because it makes their backyard stink or that they are OK with calling the police when the neighbors noise gets so loud that it “distresses” them. I guess when you look at those “important” individual liberties, an individual demanding the right to breathe clean air not polluted with wood smoke does seems pretty shallow and petty by comparison. In fact, we might as well get rid of a lot of things that infringe on our personal liberties – like speed limits, stop signs, the fact that we are forced to pay to have the city take away our trash, the fact that we can’t have cesspools in our backyards but instead have to pay outrageous sewage rates. “But wait”, you might say, “all of those are issue about public health and safety”. And I would agree just as is the issue of wood smoke in our air.
And the cost of home heating is a hollow argument also. Unless you get your wood for substantially less than $200/cord (the going rate in Sac last winter was $400 per cord for hardwood plus delivery), you are always better off economically using natural gas or even electricity for home heating. Numerous independent researchers in the Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Bar Area Air Pollution Control Districts have all come to the exact same conclusion when they imposed mandatory restrictions in their own jurisdictions (some going back 6 years now). I was at the home of one wood burner having a spitited debate about just this very issue last winter. He claimed he could not afford to heat his home unless he used wood. When I worked through the math with him though, I found he was spending $400 a year in wood costs which actually lowered his natural gas bill by $350 from the previous winter. Not exactly an informed trade-off would you say? And this same guy was spending over $300 PER MONTH on his zillion channel TV cable plan, unlimited cell phone access, two land-line phones, and a high speed broadband internet connection. He stopped pleading economic hardship when I pointed this out to him.
“…the wood-burners self-righteous fury….
red herrings thrown out by detractors – kind of like the “death squad” charade…
amusingly hypocritical…
can’t have cesspools in our backyards…
his zillion channel TV cable plan, unlimited cell phone access, two land-line phones, and a high speed broadband….”
Alan, you are your own worst enemy on this issue.
“Unless you get your wood for substantially less than $200/cord (the going rate in Sac last winter was $400 per cord ..
it is obvious that people who buy wood for $200-$400/cord do not burn wood for economic reasons. I would venture to guess that most people who burn wood to supplement their energy needs and reduce their high winter PG &E bills take advantage of the free wood that is rather readily available. In addition to the reduction in PG&E bills, there is the satisfaction of utilizing wood that would otherwise just be taken to the landfill. Then there is the sheer physical pleasure of cutting, splitting and stacking it for storage/seasoning which, as that MasterCard commerical claims, is “priceless”.
To Don Shor: Re:”Alan, you are your own worst enemy on this issue”
Well, it just goes to show you can’t please everyone. Actually, to many of the asthmatics and people with respiratory impairments in the city, I “am the only person with a strong enough spine to stand up and represent their interests” (from an actual email to me from an 85-year old Davis man with chronic BOPD). I’m pretty comfortable with accepting the accolades from the people who are actually hurt by wood smoke and dismissing the criticism of the naysayers who claim I am too blunt but otherwise represent only the interests of the wood-burners. Besides, where would we be in Davis if someone didn’t stand up and scream about this problem…no where and nobody would be even discussing it! Or are you trying to tell me if I just let our City Council and AQMD work on the issue at their own leisurely pace that they would eventually look after us?
You want to take a big hammer to a small problem. It seems like neighborhood mediation for the few people who are bothered and can’t communicate with their neighbors would be appropriate. Otherwise people should do what my neighbor did, he came over and told me to let him know if it was ever a bother. Of course it never is and is much less a bother than my other neighbors charcoal bar-b-que. Of course exposure to back yard cooking with Mesquite charcoal is another consequence of densification.
Wow, this is quite the heated issue, especially for Alan. I had to go do some work and came back to this thread to find a lot of heat but not much light.
Re: Alan’s comment about barbeque lighter fluid polluting my backyard air to the point where I have to evacuate… I am hoping to figure out who the offender is so I can present them with a barbecue chimney and explain about all the REAL pollutants involved in using diesel/kerosene to saturate the wood based fuel upon which food is grilled, such as poorly combusted hydrocarbons volatilized into the surrounding air and partly unburned hydrocarbons saturating the food being cooked. The smoke emanating from this guy’s barbecue literally makes my nasal passages close down so that I have to breath through my mouth. This is not the case with wood smoke. When I light my wood burning stove it is because it is cold and most of us are indoors. When my neighbor lights his barbecue using the diesel/kerosene stuff it is typically a beautiful Davis evening where folks are outdoors and are adversly affected
I was amused to hear Sue Greenwald mention this kind of smoke during a previous City Council debate. She was offended by the smell but had no idea what was causing it. That is why I mentioned that the C.C. could bring about some meaningful change in air quality by instituting ordinance banning the use of lighter fluid as has occurred in many air districts.
I have yet to lodge a complaint about this real air pollution, preferring instead to have a talk with the neighbor whose behavior is causing me discomfort.
As for “serial wood burners” running their stoves 24/7… mine gets run about 4-5 hrs. at a time on the coldest nights. I have a circulation system, which pulls super heated air from above the stove into my central heat system where it is distributed to the whole house. More than five hours of burning would cook me out of my house. I find that it doesn’t get cold enough in Davis to use my natural gas heater, except for a few minutes just before we get up in the morning to relieve the chill. My buddy in central Montana, where it frequently dips to 40 below zero, doesn’t even burn his stove “24/7 for months at a time”
I’m delighted to hear that the N.R.C. proposed ordinance distinguishes between fireplaces and Phase II wood burning appliances. It would certainly be a shame to punish those of us who burn dry wood in modern wood burning stoves for the sins of folks who burn in fireplaces which fail to control induction air and therefore produce a lot of PM-2 byproducts.
Rather than doing my homework and reading an ordinance, which is little more than a solution looking for a problem, I think I’ll let the Council do their homework. That’s what we elected them to do. Personally I’d rather spend the time splitting and stacking some of Davis’ abundant wasted biomass fuel which would otherwise end up in the landfill.
In his reasoning, Alan fails to realize that we have a few folks who are offended by wood smoke and then we have the worldwide threat of global climate change. Burning the byproduct of Davis’ urban forest unleashes carbon, which is reabsorbed/sequestered by the trees replacing the ones burned. Burning fossil fuels unleashes into the atmosphere carbon, which has been sequestered for millions of years. The release of carbon from burning petroleum products is a major contributor to global climate change. Burning waste wood obviates much of the carbon footprint from home heating. That natural gas could instead be used as a stopgap measure until we can convert our vehicle fleet to electric. No need to waste it for something as easily accomplished as heating a stationary structure.
And finally I would like to remind Alan that I am just dieing to replace my wood burning stove with an even more efficient Phase II appliance, but will not be making that expenditure until I can be assured by Davis that they are not going to pass a law outlawing my efforts to reduce my carbon footprint. The sooner they let us know the rules of the game, the sooner I can take the next step to reduce my P.M.-2 impacts on our most vulnerable breathers!
Roger Bockrath argues: “Alan fails to realize that we have a few folks who are offended by wood smoke and then we have the worldwide threat of global climate change.”
In fact, smoky woodheaters emit methane, which causes 25 times as much global warming over 100 years, and 72 times as much global warming over 20 years. So, even if the wood is being regrown, methane emissions from the average wood heater will cause as much global warming over 100 years as heating the same house with gas. More importantly, over 20 years, the average wood heater will cause as much global warming as heating 3 similar houses with gas.
The shorter time span is relevant because, according to the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development (www.igsd.org/): “With abrupt climate change approaching faster than predicted according to scientists, fast-action mitigation strategies (reducing black carbon, methane, and tropospheric ozone) are essential in order to avoid passing the tipping points.”
Assuming this is true, it means that the average wood heater is contributing more to catastrophic climate change than any other form of heating. For more info and a link to a research paper, see woodsmoke.3sc.net/greenhouse
I hope Roger will read the research paper and, if he cares about climate change, advise people about the dangers of burning wood.
Roger Bockrath: “Alan fails to realize that we have a few folks who are offended by wood smoke”
Surely there’s a big difference between something that is merely offensive and something than can send someone to hospital? Montreal banned the installation of all new heaters because of the serious health effects of woodsmoke, including 6,028 cases of infantile bronchitis, 40,449 days of asthma symptoms and 1,540 premature deaths every year – http://www.pq.lung.ca/environment-environnement/wood_smoke-fumee_bois/enjeu-montreal/
Given that health is more important than woodstoves in Montreal (where in January the average daily min & max are -15 and -5C), surely residents of Davis should also be concerned enough to get rid of their woodstoves?
Given the double whammy of methane emissions from smoky woodstoves also causing global warming, the change will not only benefit people’s health, but also help reduce climate change.
CaresAboutHealth:
“Assuming this is true, it means that the average wood heater is contributing more to catastrophic climate change than any other form of heating.”
There are many variables, but I doubt if that statement is true.
I assume you are referring above to the Australian study comparing wood burning with natural gas at the heating end-point. But as you know, significant methane losses occur during the production, processing, storage, transmission, and distribution of natural gas. In fact, those methane losses are the third highest source of methane release in the United States. Landfills are an even higher generator of methane. Wood that is burned is often diverted from landfills.
I don’t believe that climate change is a very compelling argument against wood burning, although it would be even better if people were burning pellets than firewood.
Look, if one person has to complain then that is one too many. We all know this smoke causes cancer, brings on asthma and other respiratory diseases, and shortens lives. Many kids will not reach their full potential because of this smoke and some will die. Doesn’t that concern those of you who want to burn?
The study is a good one and the authors must be congratulated.
Every day should be a no smoke day. If you need to get warm put more clothes on or move to a warmer climate.
Please don’t foul the air for others by being inconsiderate and playing with matches.
Just let you burners know that there is a petition going around to BAN ALL WOOD BURNING IN RESIDUAL AREAS, AND WITH THE HELP OF A FEW FRIENDS
WE HAVE COLLECTED OVER 1,000.00 SIGNATURES IN LESS THEN SIX WEEKS!
Many don’t speak up because of fear from their wood burning neighbours, and other are unaware of their rights to breathing fresh clean air but times are changing. Burners are being sued, and the courts are helping the woodsmoke victims to have some justice. I know because we have brought our next door burners (neighbors) to small claims court, and have won our case.
Not all neighbours enjoy the smell of toxic waste coming from wood smoke also, woodsmoke is a health hazard, and is also harming our environment.
There are over two million people world wide that die prematurely due to wood smoke.
WHAT GIVES YOU BURNERS THE RIGHT TO HARM US ALL?
All wood burning is a severe health hazard and major contributor to global warming. Most people will not complain about their neighbour’s wood burning appliance. Nobody has the right to take anyones breath away.
As we all look at the horror that is happening in the Gulf of Mexico, we must now look at where we are polluters in our own individual lives and burning wood is at the top of the list.
It is time for everyone to be able to wake up and smell the roses not the toxic emissions from any wood burning appliance. This earth is not ours to destroy.
So David, are these new poster “burner” haters going to always have to post under “harmfulsmoke, smokemenot and smokelessinvancouver” under you new rules of engagement or somehow is there a window for Davisvanguard friends and favorites to slip through the rules?
Just curious, from “burnershaverightstoo”.
“As we all look at the horror that is happening in the Gulf of Mexico, we must now look at where we are polluters in our own individual lives and burning wood is at the top of the list.”
How do you think natural gas gets to your house? There are currently nine proposed offshore LNG facilities being reviewed for the Pacific coast, including one off Southern California. Do you use electricity to heat your house? What is the source of your electrical power? The Potrero Hill power plant in San Francisco will finally close this year. It polluted residents of the southeastern waterfront for over 40 years, and very likely generated some of the electricity you used. Prior to that, the Hunters Point plant in south San Francisco polluted the low-income neighborhoods there for over 40 years as it generated electricity.
“Nobody has the right to take anyones breath away.”
Other sources of power are factors in global warming. Most people who stop burning wood will shift to natural gas or electricity for home heating. Solar is not an option for most people. As I noted earlier, methane from natural gas transmission is one of the biggest contributors to global warming. A policy eliminating wood burning is not cost-free in terms of the effect on emissions. Power plants also pollute neighborhoods far from Davis.
There is a lot of posturing going on with this issue as opponents of wood burning seek the moral high ground. Things are not that simple.
Rusty: I’m not sure what you are complaining about. As far as I can tell, the individuals who posted are separate individuals. So what rules violation should I get them for?
By any chance do you live next to a burner?
Is your air being polluted on a daily bases due to a wood burning appliance of a neighbour?
Do you have any idea’s at the suffering most victims of wood burners go through?
There is a growing amount of citizens that have had enough of burners destroying their lives and our environment.
most wood smoke victims find us by these articles and comments
and it is our given right to help others who are suffering at the hands of inconsiderate wood burners.
I’d rather use gas heating then destroy the air of a neighbor, and their enjoyment of life, property, and of the environment
due to a filthy wood burning appliance!
If you need to heat your house by burning wood to save some money maybe you can’t afford to live in that house, and should move into a cheaper home because it is not up to your neighbours nor the environment to pay with their health to keep you burners in something you can’t afford!
To Don Shor: Re: “There is a lot of posturing going on with this issue as opponents of wood burning seek the moral high ground. Things are not that simple. For the record: I don’t burn wood to heat my home; I use electricity and propane.”
I think both sides believe they have the moral high ground and that is why the argument is so heated…both sides believe they are fighting for what is right! But in addition to claiming a moral high ground, what I have tried to bring to the table was a higher level of objective analysis based on what science predicts in happening with the wood smoke once released.
I gather from your use of propane that you live in the country. For the record, I have no problem with people using wood for home heat if they are in the countryside and they use a EPA-Phase II stove on non-inversion days. Any wood smoke they generate will dissipate to background levels within a few hundreds of yards. The problem, from my perspective, is an urban problem because people live so close together that the wood smoke just does not adequately dissipate before acutely adversely affecting some neighbors – i.e. the nearest neighbor impact. That is, the wood smoke does get reasonably adequately dispersed until sufficiently high wind speeds are obtained(> 5 mph for EPA Phase II and > 10 miles per hour for open hearths) to protect nearest neighbors – this is what the last NRC proposal was based on. But the NRC proposal only addresses the nearest neighbor impact. If you get a group of people simultaneously burning in the same neighborhood and you have converging plumes, even higher wind speeds are necessary to have adequate dispersal of those plumes. Otherwise, you get a whole neighborhood impact. That is just was the atmospheric modeling studies showed previously, and with the results seen in East Davis last year, that is now what the monitoring studies show.
In my opinion, it is the burners who are the whiners, especially if they cannot burn near others. If you CANNOT see a neighboring house, or if the whole neighborhood likes smoke, then burn away. Central heat (and also the opposite air conditioning)is a modern luxury unknown to the cave or pioneer days, who used wood for the healthy tradition of cooking parasites out of food. A cave or cabin was a shelter from chilling wind and central heat is a modern, expensive luxury, unnecessary for basic health. Wear warm clothes inside a colder house, after awhile it becomes quite comfortable. External heat is for wussies who have lost most of their heat-producing brown fat due to laziness or age since we lose brown fat as we age. Children have lots of brown fat and do not need all that external heat!
As to freedoms, I am sure that drunk drivers, smokers, even pedophiles protest certain restrictions. As to costs, most burners can easily afford cleaner heat. They have money for coffee, diesel trucks, and anything except being considerate to neighbors. Sure the cost of clean heat has gone way up, but one can also turn down the thermostat way down. Next will be the whining about costs to keep a house cool.
Having been a victim of a neighbor’s wood smoke to the point of literally being forced out of my own home by it for nearly 8 months while obtaining a court injunction, I can tell you that, unless bylaws are created and enforced, there will always be the type of burner that will continue to and even increase the burning after he receives a complaint by a neighbor.
In our case, the burner was not even heating his home by burning. He said it was ‘his pleasure’. I don’t think he is having so much ‘pleasure’ now with a trial pending.
Photos are on my web site: http://WoodBurnerSmoke.net You will see the different things that were burned and that we were forced to breathe. This is a major problem, even with bylaws… how can there be enforcement of what is burned? Many burners think nothing of throwing whatever is around into the wood stove.In my opinion, there should be no burning whatsoever in residential areas.
Burning is an option, breathing is not!
The science and studies speak for themselves. All wood burning is a severe health hazard and major contributor to global warming. Why are people so against looking at the truth! It is time to harness wind, solar and geo-thermal. Wood burning does not belong in urban areas and anywhere where it is allowed should have nuisance laws attached so that nobody is effected by these toxic emissions against their will.
These anti-burners are hillarious. They invoke the Gulf oil spill, climate change, drunk drivers, smokers and even pedophiles into their arguments. Way too much overkill for a pretty much non-existent problem.
Burners, if you don’t believe that wood smoke is harmful to us all why don’t you just stick your faces into the smoke and breathe for awhile the smoke, and see for yourselves if it has any effects on your health!
I am not addicted to wood smoke so please don’t smoke me!
you burners have no right to burn wood when it effects everyone of us with our health…it is not up to your neighbourhood and environment to pay for your home that you can not afford!
rusty49, what planet do you live on?
Wood burning is a major issue because of all the toxics that are found in wood smoke, maybe you should read up about wood smoke before you state your opion. maybe in your dreams it is non-existent problem…WAKE UP!
Alright, smokemenot, please try to tone down your rhetoric a bit and avoid personal attacks.
Activists are usually created by some extreme situation or personal tragedy, and those in opposition belittle those activists. The smoke issue is no exception. An issue also tends to be made fun of at first,(called hilarious) then violently opposed by those at fault, and finally accepted by the masses as common sense.(attributed to the philosopher Schopenhauer)
Amen to vsteblin!
My experience with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in the SF Bay Area is they can do little to stop the “determined” wood burners. “Spare the Air” Day, inversion layer, outstanding citation — it makes no difference. These people burn whenever and however they choose.
I wouldn’t read to much into the number of complaints debate going on here. In my experience most people who are bothered by wood smoke DO NOT complain. Why? Because the “determined” wood burners are often vocal and strident in asserting their “right” to burn (and poison the neighborhood.) Frankly, many people are intimidated by their aggressive behavior and would rather not deal with it.
What do I think of wood smoke? Wood smoke is an unwelcome intruder in my family’s life. It is a insidious, odious and murderous presence. Wood smoke makes its ghostly appearance unwelcome and uninvited. When I go out on a fall or winter’s day I am assaulted by its cancerous corpus. Sometimes wood smoke overwhelms and creeps and slithers into our living space. I will not rest until it is out of our lives.
For all you “determined” wood burners who still insist on burning. Go ahead. Knock yourselves out. Just one thing — Vent your wood smoke into your attic and leave it there. I do not want myself and my loved ones to have anything to do with your toxic waste.
Don Shor: I don’t believe that climate change is a very compelling argument against wood burning, although it would be even better if people were burning pellets than firewood.
The problem is that time and time again I’ve heard the wood heating industry argue that burning wood helps reduce climate change, based on the fallacious argument that the only combustion product is CO2!
As Alan Prior notes, it’s one thing to burn wood in the country where the only people affected by the toxins and carcinogens are the wood burners themselves. It’s a totally different situation in urban areas. We think of cars as polluting. A device that produces as much health-hazardous PM2.5 pollution per year as 200-300 passenger cars has no place in urban areas.