Infinite MonkeysBay-area busy-bodies are contemplating banning the burning of fires in the family hearth. All for the betterment of the environment, you see. And this is hardly a new concept. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Board contemplated such a ban in September. And Southern California air quality nannies debated restrictions on burning fire places this summer.
We are supposed to believe, for instance, that soot and particulates from fireplaces cause 5,400 "premature deaths" every year. As a "compromise," regulators want to force Californians to install $3,600 pollution-control devices on their chimneys — which make the psychic and heating benefits of a warm fire a luxury for only the wealthy.
The nanny-staters are completely out of control. And, it takes a country bumpkin from NoCal to talk any sense in the San Francisco Chronicle:
The scientific method follows a rigid methodology. Ask a question. Do background research. Construct a hypothesis. Test the hypothesis. And then, communicate the results.So what is the question? Are the fires in our homes bad because they add to global warming? Release carbon dioxide into the air? Pollute the atmosphere with soot and particulate matter? All of the above?
Where is the research? The Chronicle reported that "government studies" indicate that 33 percent of all "particulate matter" comes from your fireplace and mine. With all the industry and all the cars in the Bay Area, does anyone actually believe that?
Shouldn't we be given more quantitative information such has, "How many fireplaces are there in the nine counties? How many are used each night? How many hours is each fireplace used? How much "particulate matter" is expelled from each fire? How many parts per million are in the air? How much dissipates into the atmosphere?"
... We worry that the real issue here isn't about health, global warming or energy savings, but about control.
No kidding. I love living in California. But sometimes it's maddening. The question is: Why stop at fireplaces when attempting to legislate away public hazards? Every year, dogs bite 4.7 million Americans, send 800,000 people to the hospital and kill dozens. Nearly 3,500 people drown in swimming pools every year. Even slip-and-fall accidents in the home kill thousands every year. When does the state's attempts to protect us from ourselves ever end?
I trust that the first politician to put fireplace bans on their platform will not be long for public office. And if our unaccountable Air Quality Management boards ban fireplaces on their own, I'll vote for anyone who pledges to reverse the foolish decision.
At what point will global warming panic-stoking reach its peak? I hope its with this issue.
Posted by Dr. Zaius at November 24, 2007 09:16 AM | TrackBackYou haven't done your homework, and are reacting emotionally rather than with any facts to back you up. Particulates are a very real problem in air quality and health, and the studies proving that go back decades. Limiting fireplace use has very real value, when done in combination with other measures. Denver went from trading 1st place with Los Angeles as having the dirtiest air in the nation, to getting a clean bill of air health - but it took 15 years of restrictions, new laws, testing, and technology to do it.
Other cities are now experiencing what we've already been through.
You can get a start on learning the reality of air-borne particulates (which includes fireplace soot) here:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/tamethechaos/messages?msg=883.1
From there, you can go to any one of the following pages:
http://denverozone.blogspot.com/
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-04/ru-rsi041803.php
http://cleanairsciencecorner.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-study-particle-soot-boosts-heart.html
http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/modules/prb98-4-smog/effectsofozone-e.htm
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/1997/11aqmd.php
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYP/is_9_111/ai_107123527
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/a16b318fd6d8e076852572a000650bff/72643714eb5905c185256a01005878db!OpenDocument
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/iyh-vsv/environ/smog_e.html
(Do a search for "smog particulate studies" on Google, if those links don't go through for you.)
Wow, Cstar. You spent all that time and energy providing links, but missed the point entirely. Dr. Z's blog entry cited a post in the SF Chronicle that pointed out the lack of compelling evidence that using fireplaces contributed to the overall particulate problem. He never claimed that particulates do not constitute an air-quality problem.
Moreover, even if fireplaces do contribute to the particulate problem in anything remotely resembling a statistically significant manner, how far will the nanny-state go to address the issue?
Sometimes, the cure is worse than the disease.
Posted by: rabidsquirrel at November 26, 2007 07:41 AMCstar,
Some interesting links you've got there. Thanks for sharing. I especially liked the information in the "EurekAlert" link. These passages caught my eye:
The researchers found that diesel engines are the primary contributors of fine particles to Houston's air, followed by gasoline-powered vehicles and road dust. Smoke particles from wood burning and fatty acids from meat grilling contributed considerably smaller but nonetheless significant amounts of the particulates in Houston's air.
Ok. Putting aside the absurdity that "meat grilling" is a public health hazard, that last sentence tries to have it a little bit both ways -- as in "considerably smaller" yet "nonetheless significant." Very vague terms, those. I keep them in mind, however, as I read on and come across this passage.
The source apportionment of fine particles did not focus on ammonium sulfate -- a byproduct of large scale, industrial fossil fuel combustion. As the largest single component of particulate matter -- accounting for some 40 percent -- a number of previous studies have investigated the sources of ammonium sulfate. Instead, Fraser's team focused on less understood sources of fine particles like vehicle emissions.
Ooooo-Kay. So the study of particulate dangers purposely excludes the single largest cause of dangerous particulates. That sure would have been nice to know before the 8th paragraph of this story. Now the term "considerably smaller" takes on better meaning. Though the story never says what percentage of particulates fireplaces and hamburgers are responsible for, it sure is looking more and more like if you combine the terms "considerably smaller" and "nonetheless significant", you come up with "considerable nonsense."
It is well known that diesel exhaust from trains and big rigs, as well as gasoline exhaust from ordinary cars, are the two biggest (by far) sources of non-factory particulate matter. It is so big that it dwarfs barbecues and fireplaces. So our focus should be on reducing those emissions for three good reasons: (1) building cleaner-burning vehicles is not a freedom-sapping regulation; (2) telling people they can't burn fires is; and (3) going after idling trains and slow-moving diesel trucks would actually do some good.
Posted by: Dr. Zaius at November 27, 2007 05:07 PM