By Alan PryorI read with interest Bob Dunning’s column a week before Christmas when in the midst of his angry tirade against proposed restrictions of single-use bags he proclaimed “that virtually all Davisites are courteous and considerate and don’t burn wood on “No Burn” day“. Well, as often seems the case, Bob Dunning must inhabit an alternate Davis universe from many of the rest of us. As those of us accustomed to taking long walks on winter evenings know well, there are parts of Davis in which an acrid odor of wood smoke is almost continuously present during calm winter nights – even on those nights in which voluntary wood burning restrictions have been called.
A Pall of Wood Smoke has Been Hanging over Davis and Sacramento for Weeks
And judging from the dozen or more complaints I have received from Davis residents in the Christmas to New Year week alone (including many from people with severe respiratory problems such as COPD or asthma), the voluntary calls by the YSAQMD to cease wood burning in Davis are having a negligible impact. Indeed, in my own South Davis neighborhood, one could smell wood smoke every single night for the past 12 days! Typically it is worst from 5 to 7 pm in the evening when many of the neighborhood fires are being lit but you can often smell wood smoke well into the night. One some days you can still smell smoke again in the morning and, in the worst cases, it lingers all day long as a result of the few that burn 24/7 for months on end.
Clearly, there are either some wood-burning Davisites that are either not “courteous and considerate” as Bob Dunning claims or they don’t get the alert warnings from the YSAQMD. Having talked to some of my wood burning neighbors, I know there is a segment of the population that does not adhere to the voluntary alerts because of personal obstinacy. But there are others who simply do not get the word that there are voluntary alerts issued.
The YSAQMD and City of Davis Staff Impede Dissemination of Information
Part of the problem is that, despite the pronouncements of extensive outreach by Mat Ehrhardt (Executive Director of the YSAQMD) and Jacques DeBra (Utilities Manager of the City of Davis), the Don’t Light Tonight alerts are not reaching the majority of people in Davis. For instance, the YSAQMD only has a few hundred Davis subscribers to its email alert system. Much of the blame for not getting the word out about the Don’t Light Tonight alerts, though, rests squarely on the City Staff. Despite repeated promises and assurances from City Staff to the Natural Resources Commission and the City Council, the City has done virtually nothing to mitigate or minimize the problem of excessive wood burning through public education.
For instance, the NRC was told by Staff that the City has would have an aggressive outreach program to alert Davis residents when Don’t’ Light Tonight alerts are announced. Their sole efforts to date, however, have been to put a small link on the home page of the City’s website directing you to the YSAQMD website for burn status notifications. Why the City can’t just tell the public directly when it is or isn’t a Don’t Light Tonight alert day instead of having citizens chase links to another website remains a mystery. The City Staff also promised the NRC that they were going to have a focused outreach program to help afflicted neighbors identify the serial wood burners in their neighborhood and attempt to educate those excessive burners about the harmful impact that their wood burning has on their nearest neighbors and local air quality. To date, no such efforts have been made.
There is not even a separate link on the City website for residents to file wood smoke complaints in the City as in past years. Jacques DeBra of City Staff has repeatedly stated over the past year that he did not believe the number of complaints received by the City warranted a special protective wood burning ordinance to be enacted. It would seem, though, that the City’s policy of making it as difficult as possible for a citizen to even file a complaint has served as a self-fulfilling prophecy. In many respects, the City is moving backwards on the issue of wood burning education and outreach compared to efforts in past years.
And effective public outreach is not the only promise that the City Staff and the YSAQMD have failed to deliver on. In October of 2010, Mat Ehrhardt of the YSAQMD promised in testimony before the City Council that he was going to provide a specific recommendation to the Council on enacting mandatory wood burning restrictions by last April or May. And this recommendation was to have specifically addressed the nearest neighbor impacts as requested by Councilmember Rochelle Swanson who is also a Board member of the YSAQMD.
Yet despite repeated requests to receive those recommendations from the YSAQMD since last June, they were never delivered to the NRC much less presented to the Council as promised. Eventually, in a non-public meeting between Dean Newberry (chairperson of the NRC) and Messrs. Ehrhardt and Debra last October, a draft proposal for mandatory restrictions was finally submitted to Mr. Newberry by Mat Ehrhardt. Messrs. Ehrhardt and DeBra told Mr. Newberry that the alternate proposal was also going to be submitted to the NRC at the then upcoming NRC meeting at which wood burning was scheduled to be discussed. Unfortunately, Dean Newberry was not at that next NRC meeting and, lo and behold, no such proposal was ever presented to the NRC by either the YSAQMD or City Staff as indicated.
It is hard to imagine a pathway to ever implementing protective wood burning restrictions in Davis in conjunction with the YSAQMD as long as the leadership of the YSAQMD in concert with City Staff continually fails to meet commitments they made to the City Council and the NRC.
Important Research Data has been Withheld from the NRC and City Council
Additionally, vital research information has been withheld from the NRC and City Council in the past as it deliberated wood burning restrictions in Davis. For instance, last spring and summer both Staff and Matt Ehrhardt had for months been claiming that before new wood burning restrictions were considered in Davis they wanted to review Davis air quality monitoring data performed by Dr. Cahill last winter. In this research both the quantities of particulate matter in Davis winter air were measured in addition to determining the source of the particles collected (i.e. to determine whether the particulate matter was derived from transportation sources or wood burning). Readers familiar with the wood burning debate in Davis have for years heard claims by Dr. Cahill that the amounts of wood smoke in regional and local Davis air was a very small fraction of the total amount of particulate matter in the air.
In fact, only a little over a year ago Dr. Cahill claimed before the Davis City Council that only 5-10% of the particulate matter in local Davis and Sacramento winter air was the result of wood burning and the remainder was primarily derived from transportation sources. He thus claimed that wood burning restrictions in Davis would be ineffective in reducing wood smoke concentrations in Davis air. Despite assurances from Staff and the YSAQMD that Dr. Cahill’s data would be forthcoming in a timely manner and available for review in mid 2011 (and presumably prove or disprove Dr. Cahill’s hypothesis), the results have never been submitted to the NRC or otherwise made available for public review.
One can speculate, however, on the results of that study based on other research done by Dr. Cahill’s own son (also named Tom Cahill) at Arizona State University. This research took samples of particulate matter collected along the length and breadth of California’s central valley (including Sacramento) by the senior Dr. Cahill in 2010 and submitted to his son at Arizona State for speciation (e.g. determining the source of the particulate matter pollution).
In an article entitled “Size-resolved organic speciation of wintertime aerosols in California’s Central Valley” published in Environmental Science Technology (2010), Vol. 44, Issue 7, the junior Dr. Cahill reported that “Levoglucosan, a tracer of wood smoke, was the most abundant organic chemical detected, thus demonstrating the predominance of wood smoke in the valley (emphasis added)…. Some chemicals, such as benzoapyrene, had similar aerosol size profiles as levoglucosan and likely arose from the same source“. Benzoapyrene is a highly carcinogenic byproduct of combustion also found in cigarette smoke. This research performed on the senior Dr. Cahill’s own collected samples conclusively demonstrates what has been reported by others for years; that being that wood smoke is the primary contributor to wintertime particulate air pollution in the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys.
Unfortunately, withholding such pertinent data from the NRC continues a pattern seen over recent years. For instance, during the 2008 – 2009 wood burning season Dr. Cahill also performed a particulate monitoring study at South Putah Creek Park in Davis and again did so on the roof of Walker Hall on the UCD campus during the 2009 – 2010 wood burning season. None of the results of these studies were made public, however, despite similar assurances that the data was to be put in the public domain. One can only wonder at the justification for withholding this data.
The City of Chico Goes It Alone and Implements Their Own Wood Burning Restrictions in Defiance of Their Local Air Quality Management District
Because of the continued and vocal opposition by Mat Ehrhardt to any mandatory local wood burning restrictions that supersede the YSAQMD voluntary alerts, the best route for the City to protect its citizens from the harmful effects of wood smoke is to enact its own ordinance without the cooperation of the YSAQMD.
Mat Ehrhardt of the YSAQMD has publicly stated on a number of occasions last fall that there were no municipalities in California that had implemented mandatory wood burning restrictions if the local AQMD had not first initiated such a policy. Those statements by Mr. Ehrhardt were objectively false. Last August, the City of Chico promulgated their own stand-alone, mandatory restrictive wood burning ordinances when the local Butte County AQMD failed to do so in successive years (http://www.centerforhealthreporting.org/blog/update-chico-regulate-wood-burning-stoves). It is a sad day when Chico climbs further up the environmental ladder than Davis and provides more protection from air pollution and does more to improve public health for its residents than our own City Council.
Over the course of the past year, everybody in Davis has become acutely aware of the tremendous costs of ensuring we have a safe and secure water supply and comply with waste water discharge standards. Well I would say that breathing clean air is every bit as important to our citizens as drinking pure water. This is all the more true after receiving an independent report on wood burning from world-renowned atmospheric scientists and respiratory toxicologists from right next door at UCD. This report, discussed later, indisputably confirmed the toxicity and carcinogenicity of wood smoke. They also reported that the prior NRC-recommended proposal for wood burning restriction (previously rejected on multiple occasions by our self-proclaimed “environmental” City Council) was clearly superior in terms of providing increased protection to Davis citizens from nearest neighbor smoke than any other program based on restricting wood burning on regional air quality.
Other Hidden Costs of Wood Burning in Davis
Many of the objections raised by past City Councils that opposed wood burning were based on objections by Staff that the annual costs of enforcement could run into the tens of thousands of dollars. Depending on the nature of the proposed restrictions and the degree of enforcement, this may or may not be true. I have stated that Staff has grossly inflated these estimated costs. Like many other environmental initiatives, however, the cost to the City of Davis if nothing is done may be even greater and actually cost the city more money than enacting a protective wood burning ordinance!
For instance, it turns out that wood burning-related fires are not uncommon in Davis. The Davis Fire Department recorded 37 such fires between July 1, 2001 and June 30, 2007 – averaging more than 6 per year. Each of these fires required an emergency dispatch of at least one fully-crewed fire truck. According to the Davis Fire Department, in many cases two or more fire trucks turned up at the house at which the fire was burning.
The total estimated property loss in Davis due to these wood burning related fires was $41,950. Fortunately, there were no injuries to our fire department personnel but the cost to the city to respond to these fires was easily in the multiple tens of thousands of dollars.
Further, every year there are multiple false alarms called in by Davis residents who believe there was excessive smoke in the neighborhood caused by a nearby house or grass fire. For instance, last winter an elderly woman off Shasta Dr. in West Davis called the Davis Fire Department sure that a local house or grass fire was raging in her neighborhood because the outside air was so full of smoke. The fire department immediately responded with a fully staffed fire truck only to discover it was a false alarm and that the smoke was due to a nearby neighbor stroking up their fireplace – probably with wet wood. Well this one false alarm incident alone probably cost the City several thousand dollars or more to respond and these are repeated numerous times each winter.
Summary
Our Davis City Council members can’t resist any opportunity to raise their own environmental awareness flag. It is interesting to note, however, that in doing so they can only recount achievements by the City that are now decades old – West Village, expansive bicycle paths, early no-smoking ordinances, one of the first energy efficiency building standards, and early innovative recycling programs to name a few. In the past 15 years, however, the City has clearly fallen from its environmental leadership position. Our recycling rates are far lower than many Bay Area cities. Our water conservation program is non-existent. And Davis now blindly incorporates state-imposed water efficiency and building energy efficiency standards instead of leading with our own progressive standards.
With respect to wood smoke, 95% of the population of Northern California from Bakersfield to Chico and including the entire 9-county Bay Area are now covered by some type of mandatory wood burning restrictions – but there are absolutely none in Davis! It is high time for the new leaders on this current City Council to prove their oft-stated progressive environmental intentions and produce measurable results instead of passing meaningless non-binding resolutions and proclamations.
Our Council can start by implementing real, effective wood burning restrictions instead of simply following the lead of the Director of the YSAQMD who demonstrably has no intentions of providing the highest level of air quality and public health protection in Davis. The Council should also direct our new City Manager to prove his mettle by getting a grip on City Staff and force accountability instead of allowing continual disinformation and environmental obstructionism as in past years.
Moreover, even if the current City Council were to somehow muster the will to implement their own mandatory wood burning restrictions based on ambient air quality projections as the current voluntary YSAQMD program provides, those types of restrictions would very likely prove ineffective in preventing excessive exposure to residents living down wind from serial wood burners. In a future edition of the Vanguard, the second of this 2-part series on wood burning will report the findings of the independent Davis Wood Burning Scientific Advisory Committee who evaluated the previously proposed NRC-recommended ordinance and found it far superior in terms of protecting public health than mandatory restrictions based on regional air quality.
This committee was comprised of world renowned atmospheric scientists and respiratory toxicologists independently convened by the NRC to evaluate competing claims on the toxicity of wood smoke and the efficacy of different mandatory wood-burning restrictions promulgated elsewhere. Look for this report in a future edition of the Davis Vanguard.
[quote]”…it turns out that wood burning-related fires are not uncommon in Davis. The Davis Fire Department recorded 37 such fires between July 1, 2001 and June 30, 2007 – averaging more than 6 per year. Each of these fires required an emergency dispatch of at least one fully-crewed fire truck. According to the Davis Fire Department, in many cases two or more fire trucks turned up at the house at which the fire was burning.
The total estimated property loss in Davis due to these wood burning related fires was $41,950. Fortunately, there were no injuries to our fire department personnel but the cost to the city to respond to these fires was easily in the multiple tens of thousands of dollars.”[/quote]What’s a “wood burning-related fire”? Does it involve a stove or a fireplace? The small amount of property damage from 37 house fires(?) is curious.
Alan, would you be okay with a citizen vote on this issue?
According to former Chief Conroy…
“Causes of Chimney/Fireplace Fires
Fire too hot/ too large – 5
Unattended fire (burning logs) – 1
Closed damper – 6
Chimney/Flue needed cleaning or maintenance – 18
Fire box needing repair – 1
Discarded Hot Embers/ashes – 2
Unknown – 4″
The reason the damage was not greater is because our fire dept is so good at early responding.
To ERM – Yes I would absolutely be OK with a vote. After 5 years of obstruction by Staff and the YSAQMD and our Council ducking the issue, a vote may be the only way the issue is resolved.
ERM and alanpryor, while we’re at it lets also vote on the plastic bag issue.
I have to laugh at the assumption that using the fire dept. costs us anything more than just the cost of fuel to fight a fireplace fire. If the firemen weren’t out on a call they’d hust be sitting around the staion getting paid anyway. Nice try though, maybe we can also use them to pick up plastic bags.
To Rusty49 re :I have to laugh at the assumption that using the fire dept. costs us anything more than just the cost of fuel to fight a fireplace fire. If the firemen weren’t out on a call they’d hust be sitting around the staion getting paid anyway.”
If true, then the cost of the fire department or police enforcing any wood burning restrictions would also only be the cost of fuel – or close to nothing. Yet the naysayers have repeatedly claimed that the cost of the enforcement of wood burning restrictions would be astronomical in terms of personnel costs to these departments. You can’t have it both ways and say the costs of enforcement are huge but the costs of putting our fires is negligible.
Alan: I believe that is correct, the only cost is that of fuel. There would be a possible opportunity cost that the fire department or police is preoccupied with a fire place issue rather than another emergency, but that is manageable.
Rusty and Elaine: I would not be in favor of a public on the matter. That should be the purview of the council. If we are going to have the public vote on every matter before the council, then why have a council.
If you ask then why on water, I would say only because we already have a Prop 218 process, which I believe is unfair.
[quote]they can only recount achievements by the City that are now decades old – West Village,[/quote]West Village? It’s a UCD project, not within the City, and the City has no control over it. It’s not “decades old” – Phase I is still under construction. There will be [i]plenty[/i] more of it. Be glad it’s not in south Davis.
“identify the serial wood burners in their neighborhood”
This has a Big Brotherish overtone to it. I think a better, more personable approach could be taken: I.e., if the wood smoke is so thick and noxious it becomes onerous to you, go over, knock on your neighbor’s door and let them know. Receiving information in informal, polite, face-to-face fashion preserves the integrity of one’s home and, I would submit, be more effective than getting government authorities involved.
Alan probably meant to write “Village Homes”, not West Village.
To: oddmanout – re “West Village”
Thanks for pointing out my obvious gross error. Yes, I meant “Village Homes”…I can only blame a brain hiccup late at night.
To Briankenyon – re: “I think a better, more personable approach could be taken: I.e., if the wood smoke is so thick and noxious it becomes onerous to you, go over, knock on your neighbor’s door and let them know”
Of course that is the best approach. We had 4 wood burners on our block several years ago. Two were home owners that were very sympathetic when approached and stopped almost all burning except on very windy days when it did not cause any problems. Two were renters that did not stop. One claimed they had a 1/2 cord of wood to burn and would stop after thet. They moved out after a few very smoky months and the new buyer does not burn. The other said they would be more careful but they still burned every night during the recent no-burn periods even after approaching them a 2nd time and showing them pictures of their smoke plume and pointing out the number of asthmatic kids on the block and the affected seniors (one dying of lung cancer). So sometimes it works with conscientious people who are simply unaware of the smoke problem they cause and other times it does not work and for those we need mandatory restrictions.
It is curious that we wood-burning “devils’ are again being pilloried at this time. IMO, this winter so far, without significant still, fog-laden air hanging over Davis, has been ideal for burning well-seasoned wood in an EPA certified wood stove. In my North Davis neighborhood where several of us have active wood stoves, I cannot recall any day where there was more than just a hint of smoke fragrance in the air.
[quote]Rusty and Elaine: I would not be in favor of a public on the matter. That should be the purview of the council. If we are going to have the public vote on every matter before the council, then why have a council.
If you ask then why on water, I would say only because we already have a Prop 218 process, which I believe is unfair.[/quote]
It is interesting to me that you would be in favor of putting the water rate increases to a vote, but not the plastic bag ban, both which will cost folks (especially those of low income) money.
In point of fact, putting the water rate increases to a vote is also patently “unfair”, in that non-ratepayers will be able to weigh in on an issue on water rate increases they will not have to pay for/it doesn’t effect them. So your “fairness” argument that only water rate increases should be put to a vote bc the Prop 218 process is somehow “unfair” just doesn’t hold water (pardon the pun). Both methods (public vote; Prop 218 process) are in some way “unfair”.
However, I am in favor of putting all three issues (water rate increases; bag ban; wood burning ordinance) to a public vote, since all three have become very contentious, divisive issues in the community, and I suspect a public vote on the matter would satisfy everyone as the fairest method of resolving these contentious and acrimonious matters…
[quote]ERM and alanpryor, while we’re at it lets also vote on the plastic bag issue. [/quote]
Amen! I’m willing to abide by a majority vote…
Elaine:
As I attempted to explain, the problem with water is that there is already a flawed process for a quasi-vote. So at that point, we are left to decide whether to accept a flawed process or try to get a better process.
Also the water project is a quarter-billion capital project, plastic bags and wood burning are marginal costs – at best. I just don’t see the need for it.
I would point out this is not an outcome oriented position, as I expect the public to ultimately vote to approve a water supply project and the council to continue their current policy on wood burning and not take action on plastic bags.
[quote]As I attempted to explain, the problem with water is that there is already a flawed process for a quasi-vote. So at that point, we are left to decide whether to accept a flawed process or try to get a better process. [/quote]
But you are making a very subjective assessment, that the Prop 218 process is somehow far more flawed than a public vote. Both are “unfair”/”flawed” for different reasons. I don’t think either one can be judged to be somehow “better” than the other. And by law Prop 218 MUST be carried out. Putting it to a public vote is optional – another reason your “unfair” Prop 218 process argument falls apart…
What happened to the idea that residents shouldn’t burn wood for the sake of their health and to reduce climate change?
The American Lung Association “[i]strongly recommends using cleaner, less toxic sources of heat. Converting a wood-burning fireplace or stove to use either natural gas or propane will eliminate exposure to the dangerous toxins wood burning generates including dioxin, arsenic and formaldehyde[/i]” see http://www.lungusa.org/press-room/press-releases/cleaner-alternatives-for-winter-heat.html
Earlier this year, 50 scientists from the UN and the world meteorological association recommended that developed countries phase out wood heating to reduce the risk of catastrophic climate change – http://tinyurl.com/7j6vr9t
The result of introducing wood burning restrictions in the San Joaquin Valley was that the: “Risk of age-standardized mortality due to ischemic heart disease and cerebrovascular disease decreased 4.8% (95% CI: 1.00, 1.09) and 5.4% (95% CI: 0. 97, 1.14), respectively” http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Fulltext/2008/11001/The_Potential_Impact_of_Residential_Wood_Burning.707.aspx
New research shows that chemicals in woodsmoke called PAH affect the developing brain. A study in New York found that children of mothers exposed to PAH concentrations over 2.26 ng/m3 during the third trimester of pregnancy had a 5-point reduction in IQ when starting school – http://autismjabberwocky.blogspot.com/2009/07/study-watch-prenatal-airborne.html Average PAH levels in areas where woodsmoke builds up are usually a lot higher than 2.26 ng/m3.
The cost to the health system of all the additional heart attacks and strokes and respiratory complaints is extremely high. The cost to the educational system of kids with lower IQs than they would otherwise have had. There’s also the cost to the kids themselves – how much does a 5 point reduction in IQ affect earning potential?
These aren’t hypothetical health problems – they are just as real as the effects of cigarette smoking. Now that there are alternative forms of heating e.g. electric air conditioners that produce much less global warming, have lower running costs in the Davis Climate than buying firewood, and don’t produce toxic pollution, why isn’t Davis phasing out wood heating, as recommended by the 50-scientist WHO/UNEP expert report – http://tinyurl.com/7j6vr9t ?
Given the choice between having a wood fire and kid with a 5 point reduction in IQ, or a stroke or heart attack, I know which I’d choose. So what makes Davis residents prefer wood fires their own health, and the health and intelligence of their kids?
@CaresAboutHealth
I supplement my gas furnace with heat derived from biomass. That biomass was grown down the street by a family farmer. That farmer planted nut trees as a commercial crop and periodically looses trees to disease or removes trees due to age and loss of yield. When the tree is removed, the tree is replaced becuase trees, and the crop they produce, are his source of income. In fact, I’m quite certain trees are their livelihood. Have your way with the potential for health effects, but please don’t make this wood burning issue in Davis about global warming or climate change, because it is not.
@Davis Enophile
If your heater smokes, you are producing methane and black carbon.
A report by 50 scientists from the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Association shows that about half of current global warming is caused by methane, black carbon and ozone. Even if your wood is from a totally sustainable source, the inefficient burning of domestic heating systems causes, on average, more global warming than gas heating.
That’s why the UNEP/WMO recommended phasing out log-burning heaters in developed countries. The lead author was Drew Shindell of NASA. He’s been appointed as Coordinating Lead Author of the forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – clearly he and the other 49 scientists that recommended phasing out domestic log-burning heaters in developed countries know what they are talking about.
The best option for waste biomass is to use it in installations where the burning temperatures are too high to produce methane or black carbon. Most coal-fired power stations can be modified at minimal expense to burn a certain proportion of biomass.
So yes, this is about global warming as well as health.
If you care about either, change your heating. There’s an emerging consensus that, to minimize global warming, at least when the ambient temperature is above freezing, efficient heat pumps cause less global warming than other forms of heating.
For example, Matthew Wright (executive director of Beyond Zero Emissions) wrote in the Climate Spectator that, last year, he used the equivalent of 3000 kWh of gas to heat his home, in Melbourne, Australia. This year, he installed air conditioners – ended up with a warmer house – and measured electricity consumption of 328 kWh – a tiny fraction of what you can generate from the average rooftop photo-voltaic solar cell system – http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/why-i-have-six-air-conditioners –
[i]If your heater smokes, you are producing methane and black carbon.
[/i]
The natural gas which arrives in Davis homes travels through a transmission network which leaks methane, after leaving production and distribution facilities which leak methane.
I suppose we could turn this into a long back-and-forth where you attempt to persuade Davis residents to forego their EPA-approved pellet-burning stoves in order to forestall climate change. But you’ll probably make more headway if you keep it as a local issue where neighbors are affected by neighbors.
Good pellet heaters emit about 0.5 g PM2.5 per kg of pellets. You never see any visible smoke from a good pellet heater. That means they don’t produce much black carbon or methane.
Most of the problem is from log-burning heaters, which not only produce visible smoke but have been shown to cause major health damage, as well as more global warming than other forms of heating.
My understanding is that leaks (fugitive emissions) from the gas network contribute about 10% of global warming from gas use. So, the contribution per gas-using household is tiny compared to the global warming from methane and black carbon emissions of the average log-burning heater.
Matthew Wright, executive director of Beyond Zero Emissions, argued in the climate spectator that modern efficient electric heat pumps are so effective (big reduction in heating costs compared to gas and much less global warming) that we don’t need gas.
But gas has advantages above the snow line and it’s many times better than log-burning heaters. People forget that, as well as causing more global warming (from methane and black carbon emissions) than the carbon dioxide from other forms of heating, the average log-burning heater emits more health-hazardous PM2.5 pollution per year than about 200 passenger cars.
So if you have a good pellet heater that never produces visible smoke, your main worry is not your own heating, but smoke entering your house from other people’s chimneys. A videoed press launch features Dr Brian Moench describing how fine particle (PM2.5) pollution affects not just the lungs, but the heart and brain and genetic damage that affects the health and IQs of future generations – http://environews.tv/dr-brian-moench-discusses-how-air-pollution-degrades-our-genes-and-effects-children-at-the-rio-tintokennecott-lawsuit-press-conference/
So if you don’t want a stroke, or a heart attack, or reduced brain function, or to inflict genetic damage that affects the health of future generations, everyone in the neighborhood should follow the advice of the American Lung Association and not use log-burning heaters when less polluting alternatives are available – http://www.lungusa.org/press-room/press-releases/cleaner-alternatives-for-winter-heat.html
My log burning stove is rated at greater than 75% efficient. It is also rated at 4.1 grams particulat matter per hour. The only time you’d see smoke coming from this stove is during start up. Gas is a fossil fuel with a carbon content that would have never seen daylight had it not been brought to the surface of the earth. My ears are open to a debate about nuisance producing open hearth fireplaces. Global warming concerns are silly.
What makes Davis Enophile think he knows more than a panel of 50 scientists, led by a Coordinating Lead Author of the forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
Anyone who is genuinely interested in learning about global warming and wood heating should read the scientific papers. Dr Shindell’s website has a link to the UNEP/WMO report http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/dshindell/ There’s also a detailed peer-reviewed paper on global warming and health effects of heaters with similar emissions to the EPA-certified ones at http://www.atmospolres.com/articles/Volume2/issue3/APR-11-033.pdf
Real-life emissions tests generally show much higher hourly emissions than the EPA certification ratings. Ames tests on bacteria and tumor initiation tests on mice show that wood smoke has 12 to 30 times the cancer causing potential of cigarette smoke.
That’s why the American Lung Association (ALA) recommends not using wood heaters when less polluting heating is available. If Davis Enophile’s stove actually emits 4.1 g/hr, over a 5 hour burn period, its emissions have the cancer-causing potential of 12,300 to 30,750 cigarettes. In reality, it’s probably a whole lot more.
I hope that one day Davis Enophile will be concerned enough to follow the advice of the ALA, for the sake of health if not the climate. Until then, I’ll keep my fingers crossed for the health of the downwind neighbor.