The thermometer this week may have been over 100, but my calendar this morning tells me that it is October 1 and that soon cold weather will be here. That means once again things will be heating up on the issue of wood-burning smoke, which the council is once again set to hear about next week.
For the most part on this issue, I have let others talk who I believe know more than I do. I take a more moderate and nuanced position than the one that argues that we need to ban wood burning smoke immediately. It is not that I do not think it is a serious problem, especially for people with bad allergies and asthma.
But it is more than that. We tend to think that we know more about our bodies than we actually do. Case in point, would you walk into a heavily smoke-filled bar or restaurant – you know, one where you can see the smoke particles lingering in the air? Would you let your children?
And yet, when I was young we often did just that. Why? Because we did not then know that not only was smoking dangerous and it could lead to cancer, but so too was second-hand smoke. Indeed, we have a relative just diagnosed with lung cancer. She did not smoke, but she was around her father who did.
It may turn out that exposing your kids and family to wood-burned smoke could be just as dangerous. We just do not have the research, perhaps, to prove it just yet. Do you want to take that chance? Is your fireplace that important that you are willing to put your family’s health and your neighbor’s health in danger?
The city has relied on the expertise of Dr. Tom Cahill to help guide them on technical matters that far extend beyond their expertise. Some have suggested he is too cautious in his recommendations.
However, one thing that should be noted in his recent editorial in the Davis Enterprise is “these data also showed that many of the complaints were nearest-neighbor problems that must be addressed.”
What he is arguing is that while Davis wood burning may not be largely contributing to a regional problem, your fireplace may be impacting your neighbor’s health.
Recently the Chico Enterprise-Record asked a number of physicians, research scientists and other experts in Chico and nationwide how tiny particles and other ingredients of wood smoke may affect people’s health.
These are doctors or researchers, and they are alarmed about the health risks.
“Wood smoke definitely has a negative health impact,” said Mark Lundberg, MD, Butte County public health officer and president, Butte-Glenn Medical Society
Michael Lipsett, who helped develop public health and medical guildelines for air quality standards said, “I’m convinced that it causes potentially serious health effects in some people, particularly asthmatics … If you’re immediately downwind from someone who’s burning, you can really get a significant exposure.”
Mark Miller a pediatrian and director of the UC San Francisco Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit said, “Your lung function at seven years of age predicts your lung function at 35 years of age. So factors that might impact the growth and development of your lungs early in your life are relevant to problems in your natural lung function as adults.”
“Studies have shown that if you expose people to air pollution particles, you can see that it changes heart rate. We’ve also shown that it can cause clotting. In one of these susceptible populations, that can be a problem,” said Robert Devlin, a senior scientist at the US Environmental Protection Agency.
“There are nationwide and local epidemiological studies showing that when particulate matter (in air pollution) goes up, premature deaths go up,” said Matthew Lakin, Ph.D., scientist, Risk Assessment at the U.S. EPA.
“I think it’s a fair comparison to look at wood smoke as similar to burning vegetable matter such as tobacco,” said Melanie Marty, Ph.D., chief of the Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Branch, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency.
“I think we need to educate the public … I don’t think they realize how toxic wood smoke is. I don’t think we’ve done a very good job about that,” said L. Gretchen Wooding, MD.
The last comment rings loudly for me. I read the comments and letters on this subject. I see a certain columnist stir things up as though the problem were ludicrous, as though this were somehow a Davis-based movement.
The great thing about these quotes is that not one of them came from people in Davis.
It took us forty or fifty years to figure out the true nature of the dangers of smoking, why would it be a surprise that we might not know all there is to know about the dangers of wood burning?
If you want to take a chance and roll the dice on your own family that is fine, but when it affects others it becomes a public health matter and this community needs to catch up with the rest of the region on the true dangers here.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]I take a more moderate and nuanced position than the one that argues that we need to ban wood burning smoke immediately. [/quote]
[quote]If you want to take a chance and roll the dice on your own family that is fine, but when it affects others it becomes a public health matter and this community needs to catch up with the rest of the region on the true dangers here.[/quote]
I humbly suggest you ‘fish or cut bait’. Where do you stand on the recommendation being made to the City Council?
I support the continuation of current policies with a greater emphasis on education and outreach to the community.
As do I…
dmg: “”I think it’s a fair comparison to look at wood smoke as similar to burning vegetable matter such as tobacco,” said Melanie Marty, Ph.D., chief of the Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Branch, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency.
“I think it’s a fair comparison to look at wood smoke as similar to burning vegetable matter such as tobacco”… And marijuana leaves isn’t vegetable matter?
dmg: “It took us forty or fifty years to figure out the true nature of the dangers of smoking, why would it be a surprise that we might not know all there is to know about the dangers of wood burning?
If you want to take a chance and roll the dice on your own family that is fine, but when it affects others it becomes a public health matter and this community needs to catch up with the rest of the region on the true dangers here.”
The same could be said about smoking vegetable matter such as marijuana leaves…
I’m burning any day I want to !
The point source matters. If I climbed on top pof someone’s roof and smoked (neither of which I am about to do) then it would be less dangerous that if I smoked next to someone in a restaurant.
I don’t have a wood burning fireplace but this whole debate seems to just divide the community–what are the real risks and are we willing to have an enforceable ban as opposed to a compromise solution that won’t work?
[quote]are we willing to have an enforceable ban as opposed to a compromise solution that won’t work? [/quote]
I don’t believe those are the two choices. I’d like to believe that between education, weather data, common sense, common courtesy, we could proceed as we are. Not sure the last two attributes are readily available in Davis.
BTW… I do have a little bias in this debate… many breathing difficulties are self-induced… I know of one activist in another jurisdiction, after damaging their lungs (and probably family, co-workers, etc) with chain smoking, “got religion” (and a bad diagnosis from his doctor), and decided nobody at any time, for any reason, should add one mote to the air because it could hurt his “health”. Sorry, may be politically incorrect, but I can’t give his argument credence.
To hpierce re:” I’d like to believe that between education, weather data, common sense, common courtesy, we could proceed as we are. Not sure the last two attributes are readily available in Davis.
The city staff has supposedly been educating the public for 2 years and the YSAQMD has been actively educating the public for a good 10 years on the harmful effects of wood smoke. Yet, according to CARB monitors, East Davis air was the worst in the entire region. And there were still reports from last winter where people were forced back into their homes at night because of the smell of smoke in their neighborhood. Many report having to bring their kids in at night and having to close all their doors and windows when a neighbor starts burning. Some even report having to tape their doors and windows closed to prevent wood smoke intrusion into their homes. The problem is that there are many folks like Avatar above who have the attitude that “I’m burning any day I want to”. He is the poster child of why regulations like this are needed.
The obvious first step is to make excessive smoke violations similar to violations of our noise ordinance. Both are behaviors that should be responsive to a plea for neighborly consideration but if this fails, the DPD
should be empowered to make a visit and “encourage” the offending wood-burner to change their ways
“The obvious first step is to make excessive smoke violations similar to violations of our noise ordinance. Both are behaviors that should be responsive to a plea for neighborly consideration but if this fails, the DPD
should be empowered to make a visit and “encourage” the offending wood-burner to change their ways”
Even though I’m against too much regulation I agree this would be a fair way to handle the problem. We just don’t need any smoke nazis trying to force their overregulation on us.
[quote]The obvious first step is to make excessive smoke violations similar to violations of our noise ordinance. Both are behaviors that should be responsive to a plea for neighborly consideration but if this fails, the DPD should be empowered to make a visit and “encourage” the offending wood-burner to change their ways.
[/quote]
I agree this is reasonable approach. There are two issues–local impacts on neighbors and broader environmental concerns. While both are important the first function of local government is to come up with a set of regulations that is reasonable and workable. The suggestions of the City task force involving calculations of wind speed, etc struck me as too complex. If a neighbor complains there should be a mechanism for working it out.
To all of those complaining about regulations forced on us by smoke nazis
Your all right, of course! Get the damn government out of our lives! And while we’re at it, let’s get rid of those pesky ordinances that say we can’t smoke in city parks or public buildings (damn cigarette Nazis!). And I think the ordinances for noise benefit only the old fogeys who don’t want kids to have any fun or hate dogs (damn noise Nazis!). And what’s with the all the freakin’ speed limits, stop signs and traffic lights in this town (damn traffic Nazis!). And why the hell can’t I burn my trash or yard waste in the privacy of my own back yard (damn trash Nazis!. And why do we have to get our cars smog-checked or get pulled over by the police when we’re belching just a little cloud of smoke from our tail pipes (damn car exhaust Nazis!)
You freedom-lovin’ guys are a real hoot! I bet if it were YOU who came in coughing from your your neighbors’ wood smoke after raking leaves in the PRIVACY OF YOUR OWN BACKYARD or had to race your mother into the emergency room at midnight because she is wheezing from the neighbor’s wood smoke cloud that infiltrates the PRIVACY OF HER OWN HOME, it would be a whole different story. Then the song would be, “Where the hell is our government when you need them”.
As I have said before, if wood burners would first vent their chimneys through their own living rooms so they could experience first hand the pleasures of their own pollution before releasing it into our common air, then I swear I would shut up and go away…but that isn’t going to happen is it?
Whoa, a little overreaction there Mr. Pryor, some regulations such as traffic laws are needed and some aren’t, like fireplace smoke laws. But why did you stop there? If I live near you and you planted a tree that gives me hay fever you’ll just have to remove it, if your car spews a little too much exhaust when I’m out enjoying my front patio you’ll just have to go buy an electric car, if I’m at a ball game and you’re sitting near me you’d better not buy any peanuts because I might be allergic to them. Where does it stop? There’s always going to be a few who have problems with anything you might do and if we cave as a society to everyone’s dislikes we’ll soon have little in the way of freedoms.
We don’t need Davis police tasked with this issue. Other city staff could send a form letter when (and if) a complaint is filed. We also don’t need to move this issue into criminality.
A true problem burner is difficult to accurately identify because the crime is weather conditions based. To “solve” that, it’s proposed to call a no-burn day based on the previous day’s conditions. If Monday was fine, Tuesday wouldn’t be labeled “no burn,” but what if the weather turns Tuesday and people have lit up? Tuesday’s caring people are causing big problems, but nothing can be done until the next day’s designation. So, Wednesday is labeled “no burn,” but the people who violate the ban really aren’t causing a problem because the wind picked up again. Sound complicated, but not productive? Then, why would we take our police away from other tasks to enforce this?
David, has the proposal been revised since the last heated discussion here? The last version called on police to arrest resisters and to become fire-fighters in our living rooms. It also required fireplace owners to pay fees of “not greater than $50” each year.
The most vocal supporters still have refused to report data for which the Council asked, tracking numbers of complaints to the City to determine whether offensive fireplace burning is a problem here. (As of 2008-09, Dr. Cahill and Dr. Barnes reported that that there were “perhaps a dozen credible problems…with very few of the complaints files on no-burn days….”) This is typical of the “trust our data, ignore and discredit the rest” approach the commission has taken on this issue.
Until we have all relevant information, this looks more like zealotry driven by limited personal experience and opinion. There is not yet evidence of a problem in Davis.
To: justsaying
It is obvious you have not even read the NRC Recommendations or you would not be asking your questions which have already been answered in their extensive report.
To Rusty49 re …”…some regulations such as traffic laws are needed and some aren’t, like fireplace smoke laws.”
Well, the American Lung Ass, Breathe Calif, Dr. Tony Wexler of UCD, Dr. Lowell Ashbaugh of UCD, Dr. Michael Lipsett of the California Dept of Health, and Dr. Tony Gerber of the UCSF Dept of Pulmonology would disagree with you. They have all written the Council supporting the proposed ordinance or methodology used to write it or the adverse health effects of wood smoke.
Even a major industry trade organization, the Alliance for Green Heat, who’s Board members include an executive of WoodPellets.com and who’s Advisory Group includes executives from The Wood Heat Organization and New England Wood Pellets, has written to the Council supporting the NRC’s recommendations. In their very recent letter to the Council they stated, “The Alliance for Green Heat is an independent, national non-profit that supports wood heat as a sustainable, environmentally friendly, affordable heating alternative…The Alliance for Green Heat urges you to pass the wood burning ordinance recommended by the Davis Natural Resources Commission. While wood heat is a vital affordable heating source for many low-income families, it must be carefully regulated to ensure a healthy community. We at the Alliance applaud your proactive approach in recognizing the benefits of the clean high efficiency wood stoves while controlling unhealthy burning practices…. Our organization is heartened to discover regulations that recognizes the health benefits of clean-burning technology and restricts unhealthy polluting stoves and irresponsible burn practices. The nuanced approach your city is taking to the levels of emissions produced by different stoves is unique and could become a valuable model for other cities. With strict emission standards and clear guidelines on how and when it’s safe to burn we feel your city will best protect the interests of its citizens.”
Alan, “It’s obvious”? Actually, I thoroughly read, evaluated and questioned the NRC’s “Recommended Ordinance” of July 26, 2010. (You might have [u]asked[/u].)
I still am interested whether the commission’s proposal has been changed since then.
The last time it dealt with this, the [quote]”…City Council again elected to not impose any mandatory restrictions on wood burning but instead passed a resolution supporting the existing Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District voluntary wood burning restrictions and supporting continued studies on neighborhood air quality and collecting citizen complaints….citizen complaints were collected and analyzed and the results discussed by the NRC (pertinent findings are presented below).”[/quote] As you read the NRC recommendations, do you disagree that the commission proposal does not analyze the complaints or even tell how many were received during the study period?
As you read the NRC recommendations, do you disagree that the proposal’s only reference to Dr. Cahill’s work is support for the proposal when, in fact, his study identified only a small number of problems reported and that few complaints actually came on no-burn days?
As you read the NRC recommendations, do you disagree that the proposal states the only burning on “allowable burn days” would be with: [quote]”…seasoned wood with a moisture content less than 20% by weight or pellets or manufactured wood products specifically manufactured for use in wood burning or pellet stoves, and only if wood burning produces no visible wood smoke emissions beyond an initial 0.5 hour start-up period.”?[/quote] As you read the NRC proposal, do you disagree that the proposed ordinance states:[quote] “Upon the third confirmed violation of this chapter within a twenty four-hour period of time beginning on the first notice of violation issued, the police department may take action as necessary to abate the wood-burning violation, including but not limited to [tasering? checking citizenship?] instructing the wood-burning appliance user to “extinguish the fire” or physically arresting the wood-burning appliance user.”?[/quote]
Alan, would you please answer these important questions rather than stooping to insults?
Again, I suggest: “Transgressors and near neighbors don’t know how the system works now. How about serious efforts to educate re. voluntary compliance before pushing for this questionable ordinance and its police enforcement methods? All for a handful of offenders whose neighbors can’t or won’t convince (their) neighbor to stop.”
Until these questions are answered, the City Council should maintain its present position and insist that the commission respond to its requests from its past consideration. Again, we have a commission with a solution in search of a problem and offering up a divisive, over-reaching ordinance!
To: Justsaying
Re: Complaints –
The extreme shortcomings of Cahill’s complaint study have already been documented in detail – Please refer to this Vanguard article – https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3474:coughcough-there-were-sure-a-lot-of-wood-smoke-complaints-from-davis-residents-last-winter-&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86.
Re “How about serious efforts to educate re. voluntary compliance…” –
Repeating my comments from above, “The city staff has supposedly been educating the public for 2 years and the YSAQMD has been actively educating the public for a good 10 years on the harmful effects of wood smoke. Yet, according to CARB monitors, East Davis air was the worst in the entire region. And there were still reports from last winter where people were forced back into their homes at night because of the smell of smoke in their neighborhood. Many report having to bring their kids in at night and having to close all their doors and windows when a neighbor starts burning. Some even report having to tape their doors and windows closed to prevent wood smoke intrusion into their homes. The problem is that there are many folks like Avatar above who have the attitude that “I’m burning any day I want to”. He is the poster child of why regulations like this are needed”
I love this, “people forced were forced back into their homes…” (number of people?), “many report report having to bring their kids in…” (how many?), “Some even report having to tape their doors…” (some???).
I’m willing to bet that the “people” complaining are just “some” and not “many”.
Alan, I was hoping you’d answer my questions now that I’ve convinced you I’ve read the NRC’s ordinance proposal. Now, I’ll try to convince you that I already also had read the reference you cite, a Vanguard article written by [u]you[/u] with [u]your[/u] “alternate conclusions” to the Cahill study’s conclusions. He said, he said.
Your problem convincing citizens that this ordinance is needed really isn’t coming from one person who announces he’s “burning any day I want to” and another who yells “smoke nazi.” It’s really a waste of your time to be so nasty to them, and broad-brush suggest that people who question this ordinance’s approach fall into that category.
You problem is with people (like David) who agree with you about the hazards of breathing wood smoke, but who don’t agree with your proposals because the enforcement recommendations are too costly, too intrusive, too divisive and, above all, provide almost no proof that they’re needed–or even will work–here.
I only can imagine what it’s like for you to be convinced that your neighbors continually contributed to your mother’s ill health and that they apparently refused to comply with requests to stop. I’d like to understand whether your situation is unique for Davis neighbors.
But if the Commission reports ignore Dr. Cahill’s findings and refuse to analyze the most recent year’s Davis complaint data as directed by the council, I conclude that it’s purposeful. (I’ve just located the council packet, and see the recommendation appears unchanged since July 26. So, my 2:23 and 3:42 questions still are unanswered, and my observations still are accurate.)
If supporters continue to call dissenting views “specious and/or unsubstantiated” without substantiating the reasons or answering questions, it’s difficult for undecideds to join in demands for an ordinance that calls for annual licensing of our fireplaces, police involvement including arresting those who won’t put out their fires, moisture measurements of firewood and violations based on weather conditions that might not still exist at the time a fire is started.
I’ve been advised to: “…prepare a reasonable proposal with City Staff letting everyone know a complaint process exists, visiting addresses signaled by complainers, telling them health consequences, mediating if that doesn’t work, recording the result for future legislation if that doesn’t work.” Now that I know more, I’d add a requirement that new homes and remodels be built with current EPA-certified fireplaces/stoves.
I agree with your implication,”The city staff has supposedly been educating the public for 2 years….” I’d like to see a [u]real[/u] City program, with more public outreach and education. I don’t think we can consider the City’s past efforts have been a fair test of a voluntary program here.
I think most folks agree about the hazards of breathing pollution (whether ag. chemicals, smoking, field burning, exhaust, wood burning or anything else that fouls our air), so supporters don’t need to keep pressing that point.
It’s time to let people know whether wood-burning neighbors constitute a Davis problem that needs our Police Department’s attention. So far, there’s little evidence that it’s true. Getting questions answered about specific of complaints filed in Davis since the commission’s last proposal would be a start to seeing whether we have such a problem here.
I’ve been desperately trying to figure out why my 2 boys are suddenly asthmatic. My 18 month old has been in emergency 4 times and my 4 year old has suddenly become asthmatic – i was in emergency with him this week too. So overwhelming. I’m doing everything on my end on the home front to keep them healthy. We live in a duplex and have new neighbours. All of this started when they moved in – 7 months ago. I’m only realising now – they are constantly using their old wood burning fireplace as a means to heat their place. I can smell it constantly. I’ve spoken to them about it – but they don’t seem to care. I don’t know what I can do. Their wood doesn’t seem clean or dry either. I’m so frazzled – by boys are full of meds to help them breathe and – i am afraid to bring them home – i try to spend as much time away.
I’m sorry to hear about your family’s problems and hope you’re getting good health care for your children. I’m surprised your neighbors are so unresponsive.
I’m wondering whether there’s some mediation service available, either city or private, that could help with your situation. But I don’t know, so hope another blog reader can help direct you. (One of our City Councilors who visit this blog would know about city services.)
Have you reported burning on no-burn days to the city staff and the air quality district? There’s a special, but under-publicized, effort going on now to determine the seriousness, extent and location of the burning problems in Davis.
Uncaring people like your neighbor encourage regulatory over-reactions that unfairly affect all residents. It’s important to identify, isolate and work with the real problem burners.