After a one-day reprieve, another Spare the Air alert is hitting the East Bay.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has ordered a wood burning ban for Friday.
It's the ninth such prohibition since Jan. 1.
Air quality officials said Wednesday's rains did not flush out the fine particulate matter that had built up in the air. In some locations, the pollution exceeded federal health standards.
“Smoke pollution was high in many neighborhoods throughout the Bay Area on Wednesday, making it difficult for people to breathe," said Jack Broadbent, executive officer of the air district. "Unfortunately, we are expecting unhealthy conditions again on Friday.”
The alert makes it illegal to burn wood, manufactured logs or other solid fuel indoors or outdoors all day and all evening on Friday.
First-time violators can either pay a $100 fine or take an online class. Second-time violators are subject to a $500 fine. Subsequent violations result in higher fines.
I think levels did exceed 100 AQI in some areas yesterday, but the levels were still pretty clean/safe.
I'm guessing this: you resent anything that may detract from the enjoyment of your properties - is that it? Or maybe what you do on your own, private property is nobody's business but yours? Or maybe this is a back-door way the climate-change folks can harass you? Pray tell!
Electricity goes onto a huge grid which is shared nation wide. I also found PG&E's explanation of where their power comes from complete BS. What they make may be over 50% clean renewable, but how much do they make? And how much do they use from others who make it? Be careful when you read their gibberish. It is full of holes and out right lies. So they would have us use electricity and not wood? Coal is much worse. And this is just the beginning. I could write a book on this. I'll write more later.
Just like whether or not you're enjoying the company of another man in your bedroom, right?
Yeah, I could probably do better than that, but that's my answer to Peter's "what compels you to protest" question. There are reasonable arguments as to why there should be regulations on burning, but saying the other side is "merely" claiming that what we do on private property is our business is not one of them.
Hey, Jack Broadbent and your fellow idiots at BAAQMD: the Bay Area's weather is not homogeneous. Want an example? I live in Castro Valley. It can be cold and windy here yet just over the hill in Dublin it's hot and calm. Jack: Why don't you get a real job where you have consequences for your terrible actions?
Guess what? Gasp! It was just wasted money. So, they shut that down (presumably solely due to the recession, not a sudden burst of rationality). Now you have a defunct arm of the BAAQMD trying to seem relevant. The facts are that the current Chicken Little rantings (STA alerts) are not grounded in good science or public health policy). Only hypersensitive people will notice even the worst pollution day in the SF Bay area, an no one will suffer material longterm health consequences. We've basically solved our pollution problem in the Bay Area. Now the EPA and state agencies have seen fit to lower further the standards. This is based NOT on health concerns, but on (and I am not kidding here): (i) Global Warming and (ii) improving VISIBILITY. Instead of being honest about it, STA employs disingenuous alarmist tactics and falsely claims that STA days mean dangerous air. Anyway, that's why I find it fun and interesting to make fun of them.
Food for thought: Beijing has the worst air quality of any major city (we are talking pollution rates of 10-20X EPA standards) and has longer life expectancy than the Bay Area. Go figure.
You should have a real reason for restricting someone's freedom. The idea that it could harm others is a reasonable argument. Restricting the freedom to do what you want on your own property should require a very high hurdle. The government has squandered its credibility on this issue by restricting property rights in many ways with less valid rationales, and you should ponder this as you continue to support the government's constant diminution of citizens' rights and liberties.
I re-read the Constitution in vain seeking the section granting one the "right" to pollute another's air. In this case, the individual actions of many can collectively harm other individuals. Doesn't seem right.