Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If anybody would know which products cause cancer, he or she would become incredibly wealthy in a very short period of time. As far as anybody can tell, all kinds of things can aggravate asthma or increase the likelihood of getting cancer, but there is no a definite answer.
More than likely we all are predispose to get cancer or not, but the way a person's body works compared to the next is completely different (not every one of us reacts the same way to certain chemicals and other things we are exposed to). My grandfather died in his late '90s, and smoked to the end. Then you can have a young person who has never smoked and is in great shape... dying of a heart attack while jogging.
Another example about wood stove smoke and asthma: the highest concentrations of asthma sufferers are found in the cities where wood stoves aren't used. There aren't wood stoves in the middle of NYC, nor the Bronx, Manhattan, and so forth. So what is causing all the asthma?
One thing for certain, the most polluted air we breathe is not necessarily outdoors, but indoors. Excessive amounts of smoke in our bodies has to be bad, but nobody can tell me that wood stove smoke is worst than the smoke we inhale from tobacco products and pot
And how about all those boilers and furnaces that use heating fuel, coal, and so forth running day and night to keep the big-city folks nice and warm? Well, maybe they believe that the electricity comes from the outlet, the food is produced at the supermarket, the water at the tap, and the heat straight from the heater.
I think the huge carbon foot print of the large population of Alaska over such a tiny geographic region poses a large risk! (Sarcasm). Honestly though, I live 18 miles from downtown Reno and 600' higher. When we drive into town on Monday we drop down into the valley it can be bad. Whether it is all wood smoke I doubt, but I can see why people are concerned to reduce emissions. Last Summer when California was on fire it blew straight over us. It was so bad I wore a respirator outside, and ash would be on the truck during thick days.
If we can do better, I'm all for it, but everyone should be grandfathered existing devices. I can't imagine why you guys would have such issues unless your areas sit in valleys that trap smoke like Reno. I know in California it was really political. We had two no burn days one year. Thanksgiving, and Christmas day. I knew then people were abusing their authority. I guess i'm just saying it's possible certain areas need regulations, and I would think you're in the last place that would be a problem.
The real question here is that should we welcome or fight new technology as if it somehow takes right away? I say welcome it if it improves our lives.
I think the huge carbon foot print of the large population of Alaska over such a tiny geographic region poses a large risk! (Sarcasm). Honestly though, I live 18 miles from downtown Reno and 600' higher. When we drive into town on Monday we drop down into the valley it can be bad. Whether it is all wood smoke I doubt, but I can see why people are concerned to reduce emissions. Last Summer when California was on fire it blew straight over us. It was so bad I wore a respirator outside, and ash would be on the truck during thick days.
If we can do better, I'm all for it, but everyone should be grandfathered existing devices. I can't imagine why you guys would have such issues unless your areas sit in valleys that trap smoke like Reno. I know in California it was really political. We had two no burn days one year. Thanksgiving, and Christmas day. I knew then people were abusing their authority. I guess i'm just saying it's possible certain areas need regulations, and I would think you're in the last place that would be a problem.
The real question here is that should we welcome or fight new technology as if it somehow takes right away? I say welcome it if it improves our lives.
The whole thing has turned political all over the US
The problem in Fairbanks is that there is what's called an inversion problem (long story). This, in addition to the lack of wind to move air pollutants of all kinds (from wood stoves, boilers and furnaces, and automobiles) away from the area, leaves a concentration of particulates floating around. With the cold temperatures in the low areas, a portion of Fairbanks included, this polluted air blankets the whole valley and concentrates at the outskirts of the hills all around Fairbanks. Then during the summer to make matters worst we usually have numerous wildfires all Around the interior of Alaska.
But there is not much the EPA can do against nature, other than politicizing the whole issue. So we have a group of people (environmentalists, others who are just concerned about smoke in the air, etc.) opposing the use of wood stoves, while the other side are deciding if staying warm or putting food on the table. The high cost of living makes it quite difficult for a great portion of the working people (those with low-income jobs), except for those who are complaining and hold the best jobs, the public sector (schools, State, and so forth).
Bringing affordable natural gas to the interior would be the answer since we have plenty of natural gas, and this fuel burns quite clean compared to the rest; but our State politicians, just like the ones at the national level, just make deals day and night to only cover their behinds. The interior of Alaska should have had readily available natural gas 25 years ago
I meant IS sparsely populated. That was my point. There are enough people producing pollution. It's all indoor pollution causing the asthma.
Over the years, there's been problems with acid rain in the Adirondacks in NY. They didn't produce the acid rain. That place is less populated than Vermont. The acid rain and pollution came from Ohio and west from factories and coal power plants. Air doesn't stand still. It moves and most of it moves west to east. Sometimes it fluctuates because of the jet stream, but not much.
Many homes nowadays are too air tight. There are chemicals released into the air from pretty much everything in your house. Without airflow, those chemicals just build up in the air. Carpets and upholstered furniture give off tons of fumes. Paint does as well. All that poly crap they're putting inside new homes instead of real wood trim also release chemicals that aren't so hot for one's health.
I don't necessarily have an issue with these standards because as I understand it they are achievable for little or no cost. What I do take issue with is outlawing a perfectly usable piece of equipment as some of these areas are doing. I's akin to someone telling you that you can no longer drive a perfectly fine car from the 80's.
Part of my point exectly.
The problem is, they will never quit. It'll be like gas mileage; Manufacturers will never, ever make an efficient enough car for the EPA. Each succeeding administration will announce "new stricter standards" and will point to the tons of this and that that they have removed and on and on.
There will come a day when wood burning stoves will require an electrically heated catalytic converter in order to be legal.
Exactly. that is the problem, in my mind, with Progressives. They keep wanting more and more and more regulation, interference, etc.
The problem I have is some are politicking this issue to gain an agenda for their argument against big government when in fact it is only progress. Would we want to go back to those cars of the 80's we used to drive? No, because the raised standards we set forth have improved our lives making the stove argument a moot point. Only the ignorant can ascribe to such and ideal, and those who prey know it.
Big government is FAR too big and reaches into far too many areas of our lives. I am, by far, not the only one that feels this way. As far as going back to the 80s cars, that is another argument, but personally I have/had nothing against them. As far as raised standards improving our lives, that is a matter of opinion. At what price? And one is not ignorant just because one does not subscribe to the progressive argument. Typical government-worshipping progressives ALWAYS thinking they own the moral/intellectual high ground. But that is not why I brought this issue up. I was wondering if anyone else heard this mentioned anywhere. And it IS a big deal.
I don't necessarily have an issue with these standards because as I understand it they are achievable for little or no cost. What I do take issue with is outlawing a perfectly usable piece of equipment as some of these areas are doing. I's akin to someone telling you that you can no longer drive a perfectly fine car from the 80's.
Part of my point exectly.
The problem is, they will never quit. It'll be like gas mileage; Manufacturers will never, ever make an efficient enough car for the EPA. Each succeeding administration will announce "new stricter standards" and will point to the tons of this and that that they have removed and on and on.
There will come a day when wood burning stoves will require an electrically heated catalytic converter in order to be legal.
Exactly. that is the problem, in my mind, with Progressives. They keep wanting more and more and more regulation, interference, etc.
The problem I have is some are politicking this issue to gain an agenda for their argument against big government when in fact it is only progress. Would we want to go back to those cars of the 80's we used to drive? No, because the raised standards we set forth have improved our lives making the stove argument a moot point. Only the ignorant can ascribe to such and ideal, and those who prey know it.
Big government is FAR too big and reaches into far too many areas of our lives. I am, by far, not the only one that feels this way. As far as going back to the 80s cars, that is another argument, but personally I have/had nothing against them. As far as raised standards improving our lives, that is a matter of opinion. At what price? And one is not ignorant just because one does not subscribe to the progressive argument. Typical government-worshipping progressives ALWAYS thinking they own the moral/intellectual high ground. But that is not why I brought this issue up. I was wondering if anyone else heard this mentioned anywhere. And it IS a big deal.
This perception you claim that the EPA is all the fault of progressives (I'll assume what you mean here is Democrats) is completely false. Nixon signed the EPA into law in 1970, and has been supported by members of both political parties.
The definition of Politics is:
is the practice and theory of influencing other people on a civic or individual level. More narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance.
I can only assume the OP is trolling for a single party and indoctrination with these claims. We've heard you'll be forced to change your stove, and possibly remove it before you sell without a single shred of documentation to back up said claims. The intent is to paste ones opposition as ideals to take away rights of citizens. I wonder how the OP feels about the right to choose? How about equal rights for all citizens, and not just the rights of those that are akin to their values.
This is a house forum, and trolls should not be allowed to come in here and post a twisted political message with a slight twist of the forum subject matter. These new standards have a no cost impact to consumers, and are intended to reduce particulate matter in our air. It doesn't take away your rights in anyway, and actually saves money by being more efficient by using a greater percentage of the wood it burns. Funny that a conservative would be against saving money, but most here know the term conservative means religious, and not monetary.
I'm not registered to a political party, and vote for each members that best keeps from a single party dominating. For an individual to think a single party has ALL the answer to the issues we face only paints this individual in a poor light.
The house we just bought in Oregon had an uncertified wood stove that had to be removed - by state law - before the house could be sold. We knew it beforehand and planned replacement accordingly. So it does happen in several states, but it is not new and it isn't a result of the EPA.
Upthread somewhere someone made a comparison between old cars and old woodstoves, which is a false comparison. If you live in an area where cars are required to have emissions inspections, that old car generally has to pass inspection as well or it can't be driven. Since we live in an area that has burning restrictions in the winter because of inversions and bad air quality, a requirement to pull out old stoves at the sale actually makes sense - it is the only way to get rid of them for cleaner alternatives.
And sure, SOME people are smart enough to burn only clean, well-seasoned firewood. Going by the area I lived in prior, that is a low percentage of the population. One charming fellow, who was about 2 miles away, liked to burn all of his trash, including plastics, in his wood stove, which left a horrible, stinking, sludgy cloud over the area.
The house we just bought in Oregon had an uncertified wood stove that had to be removed - by state law - before the house could be sold. We knew it beforehand and planned replacement accordingly. So it does happen in several states, but it is not new and it isn't a result of the EPA.
Upthread somewhere someone made a comparison between old cars and old woodstoves, which is a false comparison. If you live in an area where cars are required to have emissions inspections, that old car generally has to pass inspection as well or it can't be driven. Since we live in an area that has burning restrictions in the winter because of inversions and bad air quality, a requirement to pull out old stoves at the sale actually makes sense - it is the only way to get rid of them for cleaner alternatives.
And sure, SOME people are smart enough to burn only clean, well-seasoned firewood. Going by the area I lived in prior, that is a low percentage of the population. One charming fellow, who was about 2 miles away, liked to burn all of his trash, including plastics, in his wood stove, which left a horrible, stinking, sludgy cloud over the area.
EPA certifications for wood stoves have been in place since 1988. Your home is either older than that, or it was not installed and blessed by the municipality. I put one in back in 88, and had to have a building department inspection, and one by the fire department. Mine was in a fairly mild part of the country, and I was one of a few who burned wood.
If we can do better, I'm all for it, but everyone should be grandfathered existing devices.
The new regulations only apply to the manufacture and sale of new stoves, and will be phased in over 4 years. Any laws regarding what you can or can't have in your house are strictly state or municipal laws.
The EPA hasn't really been all gung-ho to put new regulations in place - by law they were supposed to enact new regulations in the mid-90's and never bothered to do it. They're doing it now because they were sued by 7 states and the American Lung Association. Even now they're proposing that the regulations be phased in over 8 years instead of 4.
This perception you claim that the EPA is all the fault of progressives (I'll assume what you mean here is Democrats) is completely false. Nixon signed the EPA into law in 1970, and has been supported by members of both political parties.
Correct and the most substantial environmental legislastion which would be the 1990 amendment to the Clean Air Act consisted almost entirely of proposals made by the Bush administration before it was passed by Congress almost unanimously.
Correct and the most substantial environmental legislastion which would be the 1990 amendment to the Clean Air Act consisted almost entirely of proposals made by the Bush administration before it was passed by Congress almost unanimously.
This isn't 1970 or 1990 though. It's 2014.
My point was more that this was not a partisan issue than common sense. Feel free to make it a sheeple issue if you want, but I've done more research in the meantime. In 1948, industry poisoned a town in PA that killed 20, and sicken 6000 in a community of 14,000. The result was passage of the 1956 Air Pollution Control Act signed by Eisenhower (last Republican worth a schitt) which was the basis of the 1963 Clean Air Act. My point was simply that, like all current legislation both parties are involved, and tied 70's, and 90's versions (both signed by Republicans), and even amendments in the last decade by Republicans prove an awareness and concern for the public value. Too now ascribe that a certain party has been against these values is insane at best, so fess up to a reality that this issue faces all Americans. I realize the GOP choice is to gain agenda by dividing the weak (and it works) by using simple issues of guns, gays, and, god. Let's not forget the newly acquired platforms of gold, and Anti environment that they've chosen for a broader base from the easily indoctrinated.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
