Make it three days in a row.
At noon today, Bay Area air quality officials issued a Spare the Air alert for Friday.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District already had a wood burning ban in effect for Thursday.
Friday will be the third consecutive Spare the Air day. It'll also be the sixth time this month a Spare The Air order has been issued.
The prohibition is in effect all day and all night both Thursday and Friday.
The alerts prohibit the burning of wood, firelogs, pellets or other solid fuels in a fireplace or other wood-burning device. Residents whose only source of heat is wood burning are exempt from the prohibition.
First-time violators are given the option of taking an online wood smoke class or paying a $100 fine. Second-time violators are fined $500. The fines continue to increase with each violation.
"Like cigarette smoke, wood smoke has immediate health impacts for both residents inside the home and surrounding neighbors as well," said Jack Broadbent, executive officer of the air district. "When a Winter Spare the Air Alert is called, wood smoke pollution sits in our neighborhoods creating unhealthy air for Bay Area residents."
In the winter, wood smoke from the 1.4 million fireplaces and wood stoves in the Bay Area is the single largest source of air pollution, contributing about one-third of the harmful fine particulate pollution in the air. Exposure to wood smoke — like cigarette smoke — has been linked to serious respiratory illnesses and even increased risk of heart attacks.
http://video.mit.edu/watch/using-aerosol-injections-for-geoengineering-4828/ In other words we are being sprayed with Sulpher Dioxide and eating food that has Transgenic GMOS - ie. gene of a pig in your apple or human hepatitis in your corn?: http://cls.casa.colostate.edu/transgeniccrops/pharmpermits.html and non-scientific GMO story: http://sustainableweston.org/2011/06/12/waiter-there%E2%80%99s-a-fish-in-my-tomato-a-gmo-story/ and the little guy is in trouble if he has a fire - in the middle of winter - the coldest week in a year ? Is told to tattle on his elderly neighbor ? What ? Something's wrong with this picture. We are forced to obey an agency like the EPA whose bizarre human experiments are getting attention in court - allegedly parking a truck next to a hospital at UNC Chapel Hill and pumping particulate matter directly into the lungs of sick and elderly's lungs and then claiming in court their actions are above the law because there is no law barring their actions: http://www2.nbc17.com/news/2012/sep/28/10/lawsuit-claims-subjects-epa-trial-inhaled-dangerou-ar-2647994/ I'm glad people are waking up to how insane these rogue, expensive and controlling quasi-agencies are...they do NOT operate because they care about humans, it's about money and control and the UN/IMF/World Bank Agenda and It is a CRIMINAL back door take over of the Bay Area.
Today they attempt to extend their losing streak with a 7th "Spare the Air" day. If anyone cares to understand the fraud that is being perpetrated in the Bay Area, see: http://www.epa.gov/pm/2012/fsstandards.pdf For PM2.5, every area in the Bay Area meets the annual standards for long-term exposure. For 24-hour periods (which the Spare the Air program is aimed at), a level of 35 is the "Upper end of Moderate" and translates to an AQI of 100. The newly-strengthened EPQ standards says "unhealthy" begins at 55 (AQI = 150). Yesterday, the AQI for the WORST location in the greater bay area was (conveniently?) forecast at 102 (a hair above moderate). This triggered a Spare the Air Alert *everywhere*. In reality, the worst 24-hour levels were an AQI of 77 (in San Jose-- 40 miles away from here). We were at an AQI of 26--- right in the middle of the "Good" range. The range goes from 0 to 500. We were at 26.
I have severe hay fever in the Spring. Can I demand that the State make everyone cut down their oak trees?
Please see: http://familiesforcleanair.com.
The following argument proves nothing: 1. Carcinogens are bad 2. Wood smoke contains carcinogens 3. Wood smoke should be banned. If you find that persuasive, replace "wood smoke" with gasoline, diesel, alcohol, burnt toast, broccoli, etc.
There’s no safe level of PM2.5 pollution, the particles are so tiny they infiltrate houses just like the air we need to breathe, even if all doors & windows are shut. In an woodsmoke-affected area with outdoor PM2.5 of just 10 ug/m3 (a fraction of the current Federal limit of 35 ug/m3), HEPA filters reduced woodsmoke concentrations inside houses by 75% & in what were considered healthy volunteers, reduced inflammation & improved blood vessel function, reducing the risk of heart attacks & strokes http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-01/ats-hfr011811.php Prof Piers Forster, lead author of a major IPCC report on climate change stated "Reducing emissions from diesel engines and domestic wood and coal fires is a no-brainer as there are tandem health and climate benefits," http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21033078 With not burning wood such a "no brainer", why are you so keen to do the wrong thing for your health and the environment?
My best guess(es) as to why people are "so keen": 1. They don't work for ABAG? 2. They aren't seeking grant monies at a university? 3. Their ancestors have enjoyed it over thousands of years? 4. For the same reasons people with central heat pay extra to have a F/P? 5. It uses renewable resources to economically produce heat and energy? 6. It celebrates the discovery that made human evolution possible? 7. They view "it still prevented a lot of ill-health" as unsubstantiated, highly subjective, opinion? 8. They question the judgment and utility of those who seek to govern by demonizing things like F/P, sex, soda, hamburgers, chocolate, and the like? Personally, I've installed electric in most of my rentals. I don't like the F/P because it is messy, a fire hazard, and less safe for kids. However, I guess I'm in the #8 camp, above -- as to why your commentary makes me want to fire-up my fireplace, after all these years.
Do you have the same reaction to cigarette smoking? Wood smoke contains all the same and very similar chemicals to cigarette smoke, except that tumor tests on mice and Ames tests on bacteria show that wood smoke is about 12 times worse than the same amount of cigarette smoke. Demonizing sex, soda, hamburgers, chocolate is silly - it's your life and your choice. The problem with wood smoke (like cigarette smoke) is that it affects the health of other people. In cavemen days, half the children died before the age of 5 and wood smoke led to the premature deaths of many others who didn't die of cholera, smallpox and the many other infections that people suffered from. Wood smoke is still a major killer today - http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/11/10/cookstove-smoke-pneumonia-iq/ If you want to be a caveman, why no go out to the back of beyond and spare the air for the large numbers of people now living in urban areas?
When this has been done, e.g. by looking at the improvement in health from even minimal burning restrictions, the results are staggering - a 25% reduction in PM2.5 (almost all of which was woodsmoke) reduced deaths due to ischemic heart disease and cerebrovascular disease by 4.8% http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Fulltext/2008/11001/The_Potential_Impact_of_Residential_Wood_Burning.707.aspx If everyone was considerate enough to switch to alternative heating, wintertime PM2.5 pollution could decrease by 90% leading to another 10-15% reduction in heart attacks, strokes as well as improving respiratory health, reducing cot deaths, middle ear infections etc. The argument is not that woodsmoke is bad because it contains carcinogens, but that if people living in an areas with high woodsmoke have higher death rates and end up in hospital more often. More importantly, if you reduce wood smoke levels, death rates fall and fewer people end up in hospital. If you live in the back of beyond, your smoke is unlikely to make anyone else sick. But if you live in an urban area, please be polite and consider the health of your neighbors.
I expect governments to take action against people who sell unhealthy products such as baby milk adulterated with melamine. Fireplace smoke is no different - study after study after study has shown it's darned unhealthy, about 12 times worse than the same amount of cigarette smoke. Few people argued in the UK after the Great London Smog that, just because houses were built with fireplaces, people had a right to cause as much pollution as they liked. Most people valued the benefits of cleaner air. Remember that the American Lung Association "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” see http://www.lungusa.org/press-room/press-releases/cleaner-alternatives-for-winter-heat.html It may not be quite the same, but at least you'll be doing your bit for health and the environment.
I appreciate that you wanted to take this opportunity to showcase the dangers involved, as an industry professional. However, most of WC is SFH on 1/4 acre, not "urban." We don't even have many Guatamalan women perched over an open flame, cooking in a confined mud hut. I'm not even sure about correlating indoor, Canadian stove, exposure levels with remote, outdoor, WC fireplace emission concentrations, beyond noting that less exposure is better. What your evidence doesn't provide, however, is justification for an unelected regional body to exercise arbitrary discretion to restrict everyone, based upon contentions like potential chronic heavy metal exposure naturally translates into obvious acute concern. There is some acute affect but, its health risk is another question. That's fear mongering, not science. The bottom line is, unlike Library Bob, I have a degree in PChem from a prestigious university and I do not have a serious reading disability. I do not burn. My neighbor does. I don't care and question why BAAQMD would, beyond showcasing utility to justify budget. One might even opine that they make sense in an urban environment; in which case, one has to question their jurisdiction over vast regional areas where their prevaling assumptions are irrelevant --just as one does with ABAG, MTC, and other unelected regional entities seeking to supercede local authority. Oakland, SF, and San Jose are as relevant as Guatamala to Danville, WC, etc.
I call BS on your interpretation of the abstract of the study you cite.
Although (as with asbestos even a small amount can cause harm), repeated exposure such as living in an area where wood smoke builds up (or next door to a smoky wood stove) is much more harmful. It might not kill you immediately, but you may well lose 5 or 10 years of healthy life. One classic study exposed mice to woodsmoke, clean air or oil furnace fumes for 6 hours, after which they were given a dose of a respiratory bug. Only 5% of those exposed to clean air or oil furnace fumes got sick and died, compared to 21% of those exposed to woodsmoke. Later studies identified that acrolein in woodsmoke suppresses the ability of the lungs to fight infection. You may think it's BS, but that's just wishful thinking on your part. I hope other people are wise enough to follow the advice of the American Lung Association who strongly recommend "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” see http://www.lungusa.org/press-room/press-releases/cleaner-alternatives-for-winter-heat.html It may not be quite the same, but, unlike you, they will be doing their bit for health and the environment.
My point is that Beijing's PM levels are about 1500-2000% higher than ours.
“Results taken during the winter months (June – August) for males and females combined showed even higher reductions: cardiovascular 20 per cent; respiratory 28 per cent. http://www.media.utas.edu.au/general-news/all-news/reduction-in-air-pollution-from-wood-heaters-associated-with-reduced-risk-of-death There have been similar studies in Utah and Christchurch, NZ, as well as the Canadian study I quoted earlier. The Quebec Lung Association website says that:, "In Quebec, wood heating is responsible for 61% of fine particle emanations." http://www.pq.lung.ca/environment-environnement/wood_smoke-fumee_bois/enjeu-montreal/ Virtually every study (and there are literally thousands) shows that breathing woodsmoke (or other combustion particles) reduces life expectancy. Just because China is more polluted, doesn't mean that the air we are breathing is safe.
Putting Canadian mouse and Guatemalan housewife morbidity studies aside, have you ever been to Walnut Creek or the area, in general? I just ask, because you present yourself as a preacher for reducing premature deaths, to a community where life expectancy is 84 years. I think that makes my case as to why governance by remote technocrats, or those that defer to them -- whether "Cares", Library Bob, BAAQMD, ABAG, MTC, etc. -- often appears as fabricated need to achieve bureaucratic welfare. Educating the public on the chemistry of burning is good. Fabricating the need to pay bureaucrats to restrict everyone by unnecessarily regulating it, not. Now, "Cares", if you are suggesting the need to prosecute REGIONAL authorities who promote urbanization -- by withholding funding if communities don't completely dismiss in EIRs urban impacts they find severe enough to aggressively REGIONALLY regulate, such as spare the air days through BAAQMD -- I'm behind you 100%. If urban concerns are severe enough to justify restricting everyone's rights, they probably rise to worthy of mention in an EIR. The same obviously applies to those who ignore urban crime stats, and other documented impacts, that are a matter of public record. Fraud isn't the vision it gets sold as in WC, it's a crime.