What are the facts on this one?

rkshed Posted By rkshed, Nov 20, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. rkshed

    Feeling the Heat 2.

    Jan 15, 2012
  2. Adios Pantalones

    Adios Pantalones
    Minister of Fire 2.

    May 20, 2008
    S.NH- Mass's smoking section
    The facts are- EPA rating ensures cleaner burning, MORE EFFICIENT stoves. Old ones were grandfathered in. It's like requiring car manufacturers to make cleaner burning cars or install airbags- it's good for the consumer and helps the manufacturer's reputation.

    Outdoor wood fired boilers have a bad rep because they often previously regulated heat by damping down until they belch terrible smoke. In some towns there really have been issues with air quality due to wood burning, and I wouldn't want to live on a 1/2 acre lot with one of those old boilers on my property line. I think that regulation may actually HELP producers expand markets by avoiding bans in many of these places.

    (You can be sure that any article that uses the sort of language in that piece of... ahhemmm... journalism doesn't have the consumer in mind)
  3. webbie

    Seasoned Moderator 2.

    Nov 17, 2005
    Western Mass.
    Wow, that article reminds me of stuff a couple decades old!

    The basic fact is a singular one. If you feel that it's OK to drive a car down the road with exhaust and burning oil spewing out the tailpipe and hood, then you should be on the side with the author. Otherwise, you should be like us.......here!

    That article is simply political theater. I could write one for you in 5 minutes complaining about how Big Gubment wants me to pour concrete for a skyscraper before it starts setting....or why they want me to get a vaccine, etc. etc......
  4. stoveguy2esw

    Minister of Fire 2.

    Nov 14, 2006
    madison hgts. va
    typical, articles these days arent actually news, theyre all editorial in nature, most either embellish certian stats over others, cite only parts of data which support the view of the writer (or his benefactors) while ignoring anything that may contradict their opinion. some straight up lie, then deny it citing sources which may or may not be real.

    short version, dont believe anything you cannot go back and check multiple sources to confirm
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page