Here we go again with this burn ban crap

I think you hit the nail on the head.. Those who frequent this forum are aware of what is necessary for responsible and efficient wood burning .. There are many who do not know what goes on here.. I say Craig Issod for Prez!!

:smirk:

Ray

A solution that is likely already possible is to target the nonattainment areas. Meaning, a ban only in those areas, (zip codes?) that are measured to have exceeded the threshold. The stage 2 burn bans are triggered by an exceedence of the fine particulate threshold as measured in one of about a dozen stations. Our state law requires the bans only in those areas exceeding the threshold. Trick is, the agency is not willing to divide the counties up due to laziness or they are afraid of confusing the residents.

I don't want to be in an unhealthy location. I do believe that it is possible to muck up a location with smoke. In those locations I would support a temporary burn ban along with education and stove replacement programs. In the adjacent healthy locations I do not see a need for punishment.

So that's my solution.

Another possibility is that the measuring stations cost money, that the department has a limited budget, and that there is a distaste for tax increases to fund more measuring stations.

I wonder what the true pollution rate is of oil when you factor in the drilling, refining, and multiple deliveries (to each state, to each heating oil provider and then to each home). I wonder the same for electricity since the majority comes from coal.

Another wild guess on my part: there are fewer restrictions on coal-fired power plants, diesel engines, oil furnaces (including the full supply chain, as you note), etc., because their lobbyists have a lot more money behind them than woodstove lobbyists. Why do we continue to let lobbying dictate national policies?

Far as I know there are no coal plants here in Mass... I know PA has lots of coal probably why they use it there..

Ray

Don't regulate me or my fire.

Dan,

I burn, and I'm in favor of regulation - whether it be tightening particulate emission rates on new stoves, burn bans, or blanket prohibitions.

Moreover, I expect the trend to be towards increased regulation, not less regulation, irrespective of the current Tea Party 'small government' fad. The diesel guys are living this stuff right now with the Tier I through IV regulation. So if we're going through the coniderabe expense of cleaning them up, it makes very little sense to give the biomass types a free ride.

A fair question to ask, however, is at what level to make to make regulation. In my neck of the woods we've just introduced legislation to ban outdoor wood boiler setups due to complaints and concerns over respiratory ailments. The legislation is based in part on http://ehhi.org/reports/woodsmoke/.

My preference would be that wood stoves be subject to a local permitting process where factors like local topography, proximity to neighbors and the like could be considered on a case by case basis. It seems like something for which the bizarre, fragmented town government system here in CT is suited.

I understand opinions vary. So if you're out on the left coast and don't like the burn ban legislation, then run for office. Your other options are (1) comply, or (2) accept the risk of the fine. And a pox on your house for cursing us with Waters and Pilosi...

Cheers!

I'm in contact with the clean air folks. The least we can do is put them on the spot for shady implementation of a decent law. It is pretty clear that the agenda of that organization is to eliminate all solid fuel burning so you need to beat them at their own game. Sitting on the sidelines griping is fine while formulating your action plan. You do have plans to act don't you?

Give me a break. You actually want to pay more money to the government. Yes please make me pay to have my wood moisture content checked!! Please come by and check my stacks. I'll even let you climb up on my roof and show you my chimney.

I think a neurologist should do a CT guided brain biopsy on you and check the moisture content because I think its dry.

We don't need any more "entities" to set any standards for our lives. We have to many now. You work for the government or what? You want more control over people? You want some money a wood burner might save heating with wood? Bite me!!

Im with you cal, hold on while I go throw a few more old tires in my OWB. They can check out my old tire pile while they are there. Goverment regualtion on my wood pile? WTF, you guys must be a bunch of democrats

Hey Hanko you might want to try this stuff.

Rubber Bark - Recycled Rubber Mulch - burns great in OWB's to.

Shovel ready job right off the truck into the OWB.

Rubber Barkâ„¢
Made form 100% recycled tires, Rubber Bark™ by Ag Link looks exactly like wood. It lasts up to 12 times longer than wood mulch and doesn’t contain wire. It is safe, durable, and easy to burn and maintain. Using Rubber Bark for home heating instead of wood can reduce the carbon footprint by as much as 88%-94%!

Like you, I don't need/like/want governments making more rules.
I can't afford their help anymore.

I think for the most part, there are a lot of good people here that really have good info, and offer constructive criticism. but then there are many regulars who must stay up at night thinking of stupid crap to post on hearth.com. Government inspections on woodpiles. Whoever came up with that out to have his nuts stapled to a stump.

While I don't agree with Dan I respect his right to voice his opinion.. Both you and Cal have been insulting and assaulting Dan because he voiced what he thought.. This is America and we are ALL entitled to free speach.. Like I said I do not agree with Dan but he is an intelligent person and playing devil's advocate and making people think of what could happen rather than what has actually happened (burn ban).. We should stick together here and remember why we enjoy being here.. FYI: It's the regulars that also offer the best guidance and lend their knowledge freely that make this such a great forum!

Ray

Dan's "go live in china" comment wasn't exactly constructive nor intelligent...

A quote from CALJREICH:

"Give me a break. You actually want to pay more money to the government. Yes please make me pay to have my wood moisture content checked!! Please come by and check my stacks. I’ll even let you climb up on my roof and show you my chimney.

"I think a neurologist should do a CT guided brain biopsy on you and check the moisture content because I think its dry.

We don’t need any more “entities†to set any standards for our lives. We have to many now. You work for the government or what? You want more control over people? You want some money a wood burner might save heating with wood? Bite me!!"


Sorry, Cal. I think you misread the threads. It was the moderator, BeGreen, who proposed that wood piles be certified. I questioned how it would be done.

And BrowningBAR, if you'll read my post, it said the air quality in China might be more to their liking, not that they should go live there. Big difference, I believe.

I have been playing devil's advocate and trying to get some constructive discussion going around the topic of air quality, but it appears to have degenerated into name calling. In order to lower the temperature a notch or two, I'll bow out of this thread.

I took that remark as in China they can pollute all they want (for now).. Eventually the reality of the air pollution problem they are creating there will cost them plenty.. But that's a debate for the Ash Can.. I feel Dan is illustrating what could happen here instead of a burn ban..

Ray

Actually you weren't.

From the beginning you were implying that those that were unhappy with the ban had no right to complain, even though you do not live in that state, do not have to live with the ban, and your own state ranks lower on air quality than Washington.

Sarcasm. Look it up.

Sarcasm; a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter jibe or taunt.

Which is the exact opposite of "get some constructive discussion going".

Less regulation, more education

I fully agree Todd!

Ray

+1 Insults are uncalled. If you disagree with something, back up your stance with facts not insults.

I think Dan has been nothing but civil and has conveyed his ideas clearly and intelligently. I agree with a lot of what he is trying to convey. We don't unfortunately live in a perfect world, mostly due to our human nature. Some regulation is required because there is always someone out there who does not respect the well being of their fellow man/woman. This is especially pronounced now that our population is at an all time high.

The idea of being neighbourly (absence of government enforcement) did not always work in the past. Sometimes it involved family feuds and shoot-outs. Things were probably solved quickly, but the good-guy did not always win.

I do agree that regulations need to be fairly written and fairly applied, encompassing all contributors to air pollution (eg. diesel emissions vs EPA rated wood stove). Unfortunately, like what has already been stated, big business tends to tell government what and how to regulate, mostly in part to human nature.