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.
Well, aside from the idea of using USA Today as a reliable source of scientific information(!), this information ostensibly from the EPA is worth noting: "The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that wood stoves are responsible for 5% of the smallest, deadliest particles emitted in the USA." That means that 95% of them come from another source or sources.
According to the California EPA Air Resources Board, "between 20 to 80 percent of ambient wintertime particulate matter is due to wood smoke. Studies have found up to 70 percent of smoke from chimneys can re-enter a home or neighboring residences."
The 5% figure probably includes isolated areas where few people breathe the air. In urban areas where many people burn wood, the proportion can be up to 80% and up to 70% of smoke can enter people's homes. In fact, wood smoke particles are so tiny they infiltrate not only the deepest recesses of our lungs (where they cause the inflammation that leads to heart and respiratory diseases), but enter our homes in the same way as the air that keeps us alive. Making the house airtight might keep out the smoke, but it would also keep out the air we need to breathe
Here's some info from the California EPA Air Resources Board press release, January 22, 2009:
Wood smoke is a serious threat to public health Fireplace smoke is major source of winter time air pollution
SACRAMENTO: Today, the Air Resources Board heard the results of several studies that show smoke from wood fires aggravates lung and heart disease and increases the number of hospital admissions.
"Today's report to the Board underscores the need for air districts throughout the state to curtail fireplace burning when air quality is suffering," said ARB Chairman Mary Nichols. "This starkly illustrates our need to continue reducing particulate matter emissions."
At this morning's hearing, board members heard a presentation of research results that indicate exposure to wood smoke may reduce lung function and reduce the blood's ability to clot properly. In addition, wood smoke exposure may also increase substances in the body that lead to cardio-vascular and pulmonary inflammation. These health threats could be particularly dangerous to those with preexisting heart or lung disease.
ARB research staff reviewed four recent national toxicological studies in presenting today's findings to the Board. The findings support fireplace ordinances that many local air districts throughout California are implementing.
The research found that wood smoke can cause a 10 percent increase of hospital admissions for respiratory problems among children. ARB estimates that between 20 to 80 percent of ambient wintertime particulate matter is due to wood smoke. Studies have found up to 70 percent of smoke from chimneys can re-enter a home or neighboring residences ...
More info: Press Release: 2009-01-22 Wood smoke is a serious threat to public health (http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr012209.htm - broken link)
You could always rent in a big apartment building.
Make sure you get on the second floor.
That way you can get the thudding noise from the people walking above you and the loud music from the ones below.
But you probably won't have to smell any wood smoke.
Not necessarily. If you can earn $500 by driving to work, but the pollution you generate has health costs of 10 cents, society is still $499.99 ahead.
Now consider wood burning - the Montreal public health department estimates burning a wood stove for nine hours is the equivalent of driving a midsize car for a year, or about 18,000 kilometres of driving - see Stop using wood stoves so much, Montreal pleads
So, if the guesstimate of 10 cents per day or $36.50 per year for driving a midsize car is accurate, this is also the health cost of using a wood stove for 9 hours. If you do this for 100 days per year, the annual health costs would be $3,650.
In fact, this isn't far from the mark. In Christchurch, NZ death rates are about 16% higher (respiratory deaths 68% higher) in areas where woodsmoke builds up. A team of 25 health experts has estimated the health cost, which worked out at more than NZ$2,700 per heater per year - see Wood smoke pollution increases death rates
So people who drive cars and pay more than $36 per year in driving taxes are paying their debt to society for the health costs of their pollution. I hope that the people who advocate wood heating are also paying back their debt of $36 for every 9 hours of wood burning. This is, of course, an average figure for urban areas - a carefully-operated stove where you can't see or smell the smoke might be less than half the average, a carelessly operated stove belching out smoke might cost 3-4 times as much.
Most health authorities recognise that most wood stoves are many times more polluting than the average passenger car and advise against using them. For example: "When possible, the American Lung Association strongly recommends using cleaner, less toxic sources of heat." - Latest Press - American Lung Association site (http://www.lungusa.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=34893&ct=6014983¬oc =1 - broken link)
This is why the California's Healthy Hearths Program bans prohibits wood-burning devices in new homes, and strongly encourages people in existing homes to convert to non-polluting heating - Why Healthy Hearths?
Once upon a time people thought that cigarettes were healthy, but when statisticians compared death rates with smoking habits, the evidence told a totally different story. The same has now happened with wood smoke, which contains the same and very similar chemicals to cigarette smoke and is associated with the same and similar health problems, including respiratory diseases, heart diseases, middle ear infections and mouth and throat cancers.
People who care about these risks and don't live in an area covered by a Healthy Hearths program should ask their local politicians to consider introducing one.
Sorry but that study fails to take into account the health and human risks and/or cost benefit analysis associated with using other energy sources used for 'heat'.
Think natural gas comes at no cost to health? To extract gas from the Marcellus shale formation, water mixed with chemicals are pumped down into the ground, remaining or leftover 'contaminated water' is left in pools, supposedly cleaned, then released or discharged into fresh water streams.
Right now there is a ban on the discharge into the Mononghalia River due to the impact it has on water quality, which is drinking water for many.
Coal? Look at the recent slurry discharge in KY, or the environmental impact of mountain top removal, or the heavy metals associated with burning it. No health risks? Riiiight.
Oil?- Need I even go into that?
So if I cut and burn 5 cords of wood myself (which I did), and use a stove that emits no more than 1gpm particulate (which I did) and only relied on 'non-wood' resources for heat 25% of the time, I saved over $1,200 in the winter months. That's money back into the economy, using a fully renewable resource, emitting discharges on par with most diesel trucks.
So if one is going to use a study to form their opinion on the matter, one would hope that you have the foresight to take into account ALL the variables, not just one. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I'm not sure how "society" is head in your figuring. YOU might be ahead, but how is society ahead based on the amount of money you earn?
I don't know about you, but I've lived long enough to see things (such as coffee and wine, for example), flip-flop back and forth several times between whether they're healthy for you or bad for you. Frequently when someone has to publish and thus has to do a study to prove something "new" in order to publish. (After the first few flipflops you start paying attention to such things as timing and when a new book comes out and study methodology and such.)
So anyone who thinks that that the current thinking is on something like this is the Absolute Truth is, at best, fooling themselves.
Dorre, I hope you learn to develop your skills parsing information and examining for credibility. You quote:
According to the California EPA Air Resources Board, "between 20 to 80 percent of ambient wintertime particulate matter is due to wood smoke. Studies have found up to 70 percent of smoke from chimneys can re-enter a home or neighboring residences."
"Studies have found up to 70 percent of smoke from chimneys can re-enter a home or neighboring residences???" Oh, PHULEESE! Do they take us for COMPLETE imbeciles? I think there is a 90 percent chance that this is smoke being blown up our (donkey cousin).
Even in a temperature inversion, with a chimney that sits outside of an open bedroom window spewing smoke, 70 percent of that smoke entering the house would mean that there is more smoke coming in than air. If the fire was larger than a matchstick being used to burn two twigs, the other combustion byproducts, like increased CO2 and CO formation would be significant enough to asphyxiate. A car idling in a garage MIGHT put as much as 20% of the exhaust fumes into a home. Show me a home where 70% of wood smoke re-enters the home, and I'll show you a home built on top of a chimney for the express purpose of data for a study meant to frighten and exaggerate.
Once a source provides such a ludicrous, positively idiotic factoid as this, you can rest assured that there has been no vetting by that source for their information and that there is an agenda being promoted. This one gets a big gold star for being one of the most stupid ones I've ever seen.
Dorre,
You are comparing apples and oranges when you compare what you are looking at to Tx Horse Lady's posting. The 5% figure she quotes is the amount of respirable particulate. Wood burning sources may emit alot of particulate and your figures may be correct but only a small percentage of the whole will be respirable (dangerous) particulate. Wood smoke in general tends to produce large particles, when compared to the particulate generate by your auto exhaust, coal fired sources, gas fired sources, and other types of particulate matter emitted by other processes.
Dorre,
You are comparing apples and oranges when you compare what you are looking at to Tx Horse Lady's posting. The 5% figure she quotes is the amount of respirable particulate. Wood burning sources may emit alot of particulate and your figures may be correct but only a small percentage of the whole will be respirable (dangerous) particulate. Wood smoke in general tends to produce large particles, when compared to the particulate generate by your auto exhaust, coal fired sources, gas fired sources, and other types of particulate matter emitted by other processes.
Who told you that? Someone with a vested interest in wood burning?
Virtually all particles from both traffic and wood burning are PM2.5 – the most dangerous category of respirable particles. Here's a reliable web reference: "The particle size varies strongly during the different phases of the wood combustion process. The emissions are largest during the start-up phase when the particle size is in the range 60-70 nm. During the intermediate and smouldering phases, the emissions decrease and the particle size distribution has two modes, one in the 20-30 nm range and another in the 100-200 nm range. Measurements in a neighbourhood dominated by wood combustion emissions showed a particle size distribution composed of all three combustion phases, with particles from the start-up phase as dominating. It is likely that particles from different phases and size modes have a somewhat different chemical composition. (Forsberg et al. 2005)." Miljøstyrelsen
So we are talking about nano particles with sizes 20 to 30 nanometers, as well as larger particles 100 to 200 nanometers or 0.1 to 0.2 microns - a very dangerous size for our lungs!
By definition, respiratory particles are those less than 10 microns (millionths of a meter) in diameter. However, over the past 15 years many hundreds of studies (possibly even thousands) have shown that those less than 2.5 microns (called PM2.5) are associated with the worst health effects. PM2.5 are so small they infiltrate the deepest recesses of our lungs and they often stay there. Autopsies on people have found them there many years after being breathed in, as well as in the lymph nodes draining the lungs, if the immune system managed to get them out of harm’s way.
PM2.5 are considered so dangerous that the US EPA has set a limit of a daily maximum of 35 ug/m3 and an annual average of 15 ug/m3. Places that violate this air quality standard are designated as nonattainment areas and face CAA required sanctions and other penalties. However, air with an annual average of 15 ug/m3 shouldn't be considered "safe". Death rates at 15 ug/m3 are on average 10% higher than at 5 ug/m3. But the EPA has to start somewhere - it makes sense to tackle the worst areas first.
Most of the nonattainment areas for the PM2.5 standard are caused by a small proportion of households using wood heating. That's why California has banned wood heating in new homes and is encouraging people in existing homes to switch to non-polluting heating.
California (and many other localities) issue burn bans on days when the smoke won’t get blown away and instead build up to dangerous levels that would violate the air quality standard.
Again- what are the health cost/benefit analysis of other sources of 'heat'? Or is it so far removed from your local that you don't care about their adverse effects?
Water quality? Dead crops due to contaminated irrigation? Heavy metals due to coal discharge?
If I burn wood, and burn it responsibly even as your neighbor, is it really that bad for you? Or are you satisfied in passing the ill effects of your comfort for warmth onto someone else, from a place far removed from you.
9 hours of wood smoke averages 1 year of car pollution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Threerun
Sorry but that study fails to take into account the health and human risks and/or cost benefit analysis associated with using other energy sources used for 'heat'.
So if I cut and burn 5 cords of wood myself (which I did), and use a stove that emits no more than 1gpm particulate (which I did) and only relied on 'non-wood' resources for heat 25% of the time, I saved over $1,200 in the winter months. That's money back into the economy, using a fully renewable resource, emitting discharges on par with most diesel trucks.
So if one is going to use a study to form their opinion on the matter, one would hope that you have the foresight to take into account ALL the variables, not just one. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Nothing in my post suggested otherwise - you have to compare costs (in the case of wood smoke, health costs) with benefits.
If you live in a rural area with a highly efficient stove that hardly ever emits visible smoke and few people are around to breathe it, your savings of $1,200 could well be greater than the health costs.
But if you live in an urban area, especially one prone to night-time inversions so the smoke gets trapped until morning, even the best stoves are likely to impact on people's health. Think of the example I quoted of Christchurch, NZ, where people living in the smokiest areas have 16% greater total mortality (and 68% greater respiratory mortality) than areas with the cleanest air. How much would you pay to avoid living in an area with 16% greater total mortality and 68% greater respiratory mortality?
Putting a monetary value on health helps people appreciate the problem, both of petrol cars, diesel vehicles and wood stoves. in NZ, this has led to strict new policies to discourage wood heating and make sure that the woodburners that are installed have as low emissions as possible.
In Australia, they have calculated that every kg of PM10 emitted to Sdyney's air has health costs of about $132, or perhaps $200 per kg of PM2.5 (the component of PM10 responsible for the vast majority of serious health effects).
EPA-certified stoves are supposed to emit no more than about 7 g per hour, but many emit more than this in real life because people don't operate them correctly and so (like fireplaces) can easily emit 20 to 40 g per hour. The worst smoke ever measured from a single stove was about 100 g per hour.
This can be compared with the average passenger car that emits about 0.01 g/km, which works out at 180 g per year if driving 18,000 km per year.
The best thing is to think about the amount of pollution you produce and work out the health costs - and remember that not using an average wood stove for 1 day means you've reduced your pollution by the same as about a years worth of driving.
Yet 5% of the particulate emission 'pollution' in the US is from woodstoves?
This is hardly Sydney. In the US it's about a gnats worth of pollution in the scheme of things.
Again- the study fails to account for the adverse effects of obtaining your desired source of heat. NG, propane, coal, oil.. These forms all come with an adverse effect. Most of the time it happens to not come from your neighbor. (In fact- it more than likely comes from my expense living in the middle of coal and gas country).
It's whether or not you choose to recognize this fact is really the point here. Your neighbor emitting greater than 7gpm for one night, or two, may not be as harmful as say- a discharge of slurry from Wyoming that goes into a fresh waterway that feeds the Colorado, that feeds crops, that feeds fresh water to CA, etc... We're talking about a renewable resource, wood, that yes- does emit some form of pollution, vs. mostly non-renewable sources that, in fact, do have similar and sometimes devastating ecological and health impacts.
It really depends on perspective and reality, doesn't it?
I choose to be self reliant, use an EPA certified stove and care for my 'energy source' properly-
6 cords could be racked off the ground and air dried containing nothing but hardwood. Cheap, clean, heat.
Last edited by Threerun; 01-23-2009 at 06:51 PM..
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.
Wood smoke = nano particles
9 hours of wood smoke averages 1 year of car pollution
