Anyone else hear burning wood is the most expensive and dangerous form of heat?

It's easy to get defensive, but the research with regard to the effects of wood smoke are valid. In the Puget Sound region, we get temperature inversions that concentrate wood smoke over time. During a temperature inversion, it's really apparent when someone is burning wood poorly. If you have a few folks burning poorly in your neighborhood it is like sticking your head in their smokepipe. Your eyes water and lungs feel it. Now imagine how this is for a kid with asthma. Where there is a high concentration of wood or coal smoke, health problems increase. Your ancestors experienced this and some cities like London and Athens experienced this bigtime.

While I don't agree with the economic analysis, (I'll challenge them to prove this), the health effects of concentrated woodsmoke are real. There are lots of volatiles that head into the atmosphere when one burns wood. If you are fortunate to be in an area where the prevailing winds diffuse this effect, great. Some are not. I think burning cleanly is the real message of this website. It's a priority in a densely populated region, especially when atmospherics contribute to the concentration of woodsmoke. As noted in other threads, there are folks that are my neighbors that are only stopped from burning like a smudgepot, by county enforced burning bans when the air quality becomes health threatening. I am glad to have this oversight because left to their own devices, a lot of people are only concerned about themselves.

So I'm for wood burning, but I'm also for any and all technologies that make it as clean as possible. The Puget Sound region (with the help of Tom Oyen and others) has been a leader in establishing cleaner burning standards for woodstoves. I think we all benefit from this in the long run.

First thing for us all to do is give up our cars....then stop eating meat, which requires 10-15x the energy to produce (per lb of protein) than grains/legumes. Soon after we should stop using anything made of plastic.

Words are strong medicine. Sure, as someone else mentioned, putting your face in your chimney (or toilet) can be quite dangerous to your health. But using wood in a responsible way in the vast majority of the country is, on balance, a good things.

The amount of pollution from burning cane fields in florida and other forest fires is immense.
So, reality look like this to me:

1. There is little chance that more than 5% of the population will ever burn wood for a major source of heat.
2. Many of these people live in rural or rural/surburban locations.
3. Hopefully, more and more will use cleaner burning stoves (this is one reason Elk, I and others are unhappy with certain waterstoves, etc.)
4. There is a place for ALL the fuels, including electric (especialy produced from PV, wind and water) natural gas and even oil. Efficiency and conservation are key.

When we isolate one thing and try to make our choices look black or white I think we make a big mistake. This is one of my political beefs with either the right or the left wing. People want simple solutions...but you can't always have that with complex problems.

It is a DIRECTION we must head in, and 75% efficient gas fireplaces are a heck of a lot better than 10% efficient gas logs.

75% efficient gas appliances also (in my opinion) beat out 20-30% polluting waterstoves or open fireplaces.

The world does not turn on a dime, and we have to sometimes take baby steps. More MPG, more public transport, more home telecommutters and more wood burners - when taken together - surely help the situation.

In the short run, this being perhaps the rest of my life, I don't expect a major change in the USA...although some parts of the world are already on the right path. We have too many people here who have been taught from birth that selfish behavior is the best behavior (Ayn Rand?) - while the truth (IMHO) lies in a combination of civil society (either voluntary or partially legislated) along with individual reward. Unless we get a government that leads we can hardly expect the mass of people and our industry to follow along. After all, why invest billions in solar energy if the next administration decides to pull the rug out from under you?

While we like to think government has no role, both NASA and the Military have helped create the internet and MANY other modern marvels. I should correct that and say "government money", because it was mostly private researchers that created the miracles...but they had some funding from Uncle Sam.

Warren, this is based on the Puget Sound region, not Ma, Mi, or Mo. . I'm not agreeing with all the data, but here pellets go for about $130-200/ton, even this winter. In Seattle electricity is ~.05/kw and nat. gas = .83/therm. And there is not as much free wood in suburban areas, almost none in the urban region which is large. Buy wood here and it will be ~$200-300/cord unless one lives in the more rural areas.

A temperature inversion is a meteorological phenomenon in which air temperature increases with height for some distance above the ground, as opposed to the normal decrease in temperature with height. This effect, which can be caused by a number of different factors, can lead to pollution such as smog being trapped close to the ground, with possible adverse effects on health.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_inversion

Worst temp inversions I've experienced are Mexico City and New Delhi. In both locations the inversion can last for weeks. Lots of wood (and in Delhi's case dung) smoke in the air = lots of respiratory disease. Worst I've experienced locally is about 2 weeks. But during that time smoke accumulates so badly you can easily see it. From the air you can see the brown blanket of smoke stretch over 70 miles.

As to proof, do a little research. There is lots of data, particularly in rural areas of the world where wood is used by entire communities.
http://www.webcom.com/~bi/ws-cancer-reuters7-05.htm
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=27585
http://www.co.yakima.wa.us/cleanair/wood smoke.pdf
http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/hearings/109th/wp/feca052605/johnson.htm

Craig's summary is correct. (though the meat statement is specific to beef I believe and not so much other meats.) We all need to try burning as cleanly as possible. This website has helped a lot of people transition to new, cleaner burning stoves, to learn how to burn better/cleaner and how to use newer technology like catalytic convertors properly. As Martha would say - that's a good thing and like Red Green says, we're all in this together. Clean burning stoves make good neighbors.

Good catch wahsega. Ironic timing, eh?

Evidently lots of people asked about the seeming policy contradiction. I asked the author of the PI story about this and he in turn asked Seattle Steam. Here is their response:
"When we burn wood, it's not like burning it in a home fire," says Stan Gent, Seattle Steam's chief executive. Between the technology used to burn the wood chips and filters for the flue gas, the plant's emissions should meet or beat all standards of the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, he said. In a few cases, such as nitrogen oxide, emissions will actually be reduced from the current levels that result from using natural gas.

So far no word back from PSCAA, but I believe that they eventually are the ones that will supply the permit.