There have been an unusual number of Spare The Air days so far this year, and that has caused the usual chorus of protests on Patch to become louder and more numerous.
A typical complaint goes something like this: with four major refineries in the Bay Area, why does the Bay Area Air Quality Management District feel the need to ban fires in home fireplaces, particularly on cold, and even rainy, days?
People have burned fires in their homes and backyards for years, with seemingly no ill effects on health. So why are there suddenly a rash of days when people are legally prohibited from having a cozy fire in the privacy of their own homes?
Patch asked air district spokesman Ralph Borrmann for a few minutes. Here’s what he had to say:
Patch: Why can refineries operate normally on Spare The Air days, but private citizens can’t have a simple fire in their fireplace?
Borrmann: The air district does regulate and enforce regulations and restrictions on refineries. But you have to keep in mind that there are also roughly 1.4 million fireplaces in the Bay Area. Fifty percent of the homes in this area have fireplaces. They produce much larger particulates than refineries. When those levels look as if they are going to be elevated on certain days, that’s when we restrict wood burning. Fine particulate pollution is one of the greatest health threats. It’s associated with asthma, heart disease and other very serious illnesses. If you can’t see it, people assume it isn’t there. But that’s not true with drinking water or eating food, and it’s not true with air. That’s why we have a monitoring network, and a technical staff that has decades of experience.
Patch: People have been burning fires since the stone age. What’s the problem now?
Borrmann: In the last couple of the decades, we’ve learned a lot about wood smoke that we didn’t know in the past. High amount of particulates are linked to respiratory incidents. So just as the air district regulates industrial sources of pollution, it also has authority to regulate fireplaces. We are also required by federal law—the Clean Air Act--to meet standards of clean air. It makes sense that when we believe air quality to be unhealthy, to have a ban on those days.
Patch: What about rainy days?
Borrmann: Wind is the major factor. You can have a little bit of rain and still not have enough pressure in the system to move the pollutants and ventilate them. You need wind. What’s been happening this month is this system sitting over northern California is impacting the Bay Area, and it’s not allowing for the dispersal of pollutants. They build up day by day. On certain days they’re going to peak. That’s when we call an alert. People think particulates are washed out by the rain. When we talk about particulates, especially fine particulates, they behave like a gas to some extent. They don’t necessarily get washed out. They penetrate the body’s defenses.
There are particulates associated with any type of combustion. Refineries put out air pollution. Diesel trucks put out a lot of particulates. They’re a concern, and the air district has focused on the Port of Oakland to reduce particulates in that location.
So what you see when you see smoke is incomplete combustion. When it comes out of a chimney, it’s not combusting it cleanly, it’s still highly polluting. And that’s very harmful. We know a lot more now about the health effects of things than we did decades ago. As we know more, the health standards issued by the federal government get stricter.
We don't regulate refineries so we don't care about that question. We focus on the burning matches not the forest fires. We do regulate you in order to keep our jobs, but we need to back up our decisions with lots and lots of bogus data. You will never see the data nor will an independent unbiased source. Throw out a crazy number like 1.4 million fireplaces and make it seem like all 1.4 are burning at the same time, some are gas, most are not used but it sounds dramatic. Tell us that rain does not reduce smoke particles, right. This will be the new normal if we don't call them out on this. What's next?....................Clear blue skies are an indication of major smoke pollution.
(i) Why does BAAQMD use 101 AQI as the "unhealthy" trigger, when EPA uses 151? If not PR/scare tactics/obfuscation, then why? (ii) Why impose a STA ban in the ENTIRE Bay Area based on a forecast of being over 100 AQI ANYWHERE in the Bay Area? That wind mixes the air is a bogus answer as their models can easily account for this impact and predict air quality by area AFTER accounting for wind/mixing. (iii) Why do their forecasts seem systematically OVER estimate AQI before STA days? The claim that at STA day REDUCES AQI because people heed the alert seems suspect-- they could easily prove/disprove this statement with data that they hold. Show it. Are they TRYING to be accurate? (iv) PM2.5 are directionally bad, but is there evidence that wood smoke sourced PM2.5 is as dangerous as diesel-sourced particles that research HAS linked (correlation) to health harms? (v) So as to not irrationally panic the public, please quantify the incremental risk to an average person by spending a couple of hours outside on an AQI 102 day versus the AQI that would prevail with zero domestic wood burning (Perhaps AQI 80?). The evidence suggests that if Bay Area PM2.5 levels doubled, that continuous lifetime exposure might shave up to six months off your life. Short term exposure to moderate increases will do nothing. At current levels, the Bay Area has among the cleanest air of any large urban area on earth.....
They set up into several geographic areas yet treat every area the same. They do not test for particulate "in the air". They cover Alameda Contra Costa Marin San Francisco San Mateo Santa Clara Napa BUT only portions of Solano & Sonoma FOLKS... go to their website and study the regulations. Not easy as they slip the site into 2 websites http://www.baaqmd.gov and sparetheair.org. It looks like they are claiming 33% fine particulate you and me. In 1994 I think they exempted refineries http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/Rules-and-Regulations.aspx In 2009 I think they obtained control of refineries http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Rules%20and%20Regs/reg%2008/rg0833.ashx?la=en
On the easy coast it costs 75% less than California to heat a home. Been there... freezing and yet $less than $100 per month. My California bill 3 to 5 times more. Yes $500.00 of my $763. Social Security. COZY I agree but what if you can not afford PGE rates. Is it approved by YOU that we be cold?
Plus, apart from global warming concerns (which, BTW, no rational person would choose to focus on wood fires on that topic--- grow some more trees if you want to re-sequester that carbon), particular matter is transient and won't impact you next week let alone our ancestors.
-- The BAAQMD should make an exception to allow use of EPA-certified stoves and fireplace inserts, as many other air quality districts do, including the ones covering the Seattle and Sacramento metropolitan areas. Failure to do so is simple laziness, and ignores the science that shows the tremendous difference in outputs of particulate matter/smoke between open fireplaces and EPA-certified inserts and stoves; -- Someone made the odd claim that banning wood burning will save future generations. This makes no sense -- wood is a renewable resource and the harvest and burning of firewood have no probable adverse impact on future generations. Heating via fossil fuels, however, depletes non-renewable sources of energy; -- Someone else said we should trust the BAAQMD's science as they are doing the right thing. This is a soft-headed thought and anyone who agrees should recall the MTBE fiasco of 15 years ago, where "doing the right thing" resulted in severe groundwater contamination and greater use of fossil fuels; -- There is something inherently creepy and, dare I say it, un-American about a government entity encouraging citizens to report anonymously on their neighbors.
I will bet the farm that in just one week on planet earth more wood is burned by nature than allt he wood burnded since caveman days by humans. We are but a drop in the bucket of wood burners on earth. If yu have ever been close to a forrest fire and flames 400 feet high and the sheer power and smoke they generate, fuel they consume, it all goes into our thin little livable space of some 25,000 feet film around the globe, and has for millions of years. Does anyone honestly think fire place fires , that are rarely if ever used these days anyway, if they even have a fire place, matters? This agency could be scrapped and like someone said, use the money for somethign we need. What a waste. And yes, wood is renewable. Fossil fuel is not, not in our lifetimes anyway. Get real. And what about chiminey sweeps? I have never even seen one, ever, or smoke coming out of a chiminey very rarely. Let us enjoy our fires, on cold nights warm up a bit by the fire. You want to make a difference, try reducing the millions of cars and trucks buzzing all around the bay area everyday. Now that is the real polluters.