Tag archief: Wood burning

Bomen als brandstof gebruiken leidt vaak tot een hogere CO2-uitstoot dan bij steenkool.

1vd-BRON EENVANDAAG

Massaal worden er bossen gekapt om aan de vraag naar houtpellets te voldoen.

light_blue

Adam Macon (milieu-organisatie Dogwood Alliance)Adam Macon (milieu-organisatie Dogwood Alliance) ;

Je weet niet wat je ziet op zo’n plek waar al het hout is gekapt.

Dan sta je ineens in een woestenij. Een compleet ECO-systeem is daar weggevaagd.
En dan te bedenken dat het allemaal gebeurt in de naam van duurzame energiewinning. Dat is krankzinnig en ik vind het vreselijk. Ik kom hier vandaan, ik ben opgegroeid in de Appalachen. En als je dan ziet dat de bossen waar je je altijd zo thuis voelde worden verwoest en vermalen tot houtpellets om naar Europa te worden verscheept en daar verbrand om bij jullie warm te maken, dat is werkelijk vreselijk! En wij hopen dat regeringen, ook in Nederland, zo verstandig zijn om niet langer in te zetten op biomassa als energiebron. Bijna 90% van de bosgrond is hier in handen van particulieren. Er is een groot gebrek aan regelgeving om onze bossen te beschermen. Ministerraad

Minister Kamp (VVD) is voorstander van gebruik van Amerikaans hout.

Ik zou ‘m allereerst uitnodigen om hier zelf te komen kijken, in North Carolina. Om met eigen ogen te zien wat de gevolgen zijn.
Om eens te kijken naar zo’n gigantische open plek in het bos.

Bomen als brandstof gebruiken leidt vaak tot een hogere CO2-uitstoot dan bij steenkool. Dus als je iets wilt doen aan de klimaatverandering:

Biomassa als energiebron stimuleren is een stap achteruit, niet vooruit.
 light_blue

Amerikaans hout verstoken in Nederlandse centrales. CO2 vrij???
Nederland heeft niet genoeg hout, dus halen we het uit Amerika!!!

light_blue

Transport en verwerking, dat kost alleen maar energie!!!…
Daar hoor je de  houtkachelbranche nooit over.

Wageningen - Portret Directeur NIOO Louise Vet. Brochure NIOO.Ik zie het als een enorme foute weg volgens Louise Vet van het Koninklijke Nederlandse Academie van Wetenschappen.
Waarom halen wij hout uit Amerika om het te verstoken?
Dat is natuurlijk een idiote situatie, maar die ontstaat doordat privé bosbezitters daar goed geld mee verdienen!!!
Boom wordt gerooid, dat kost energie, hij wordt versnipperd, dat kost energie. Het wordt verscheept over de wereld, dat kost energie.  Tegen die tijd ben je de ‘winst’ eigenlijk al kwijt.
En die milieuwinst daar was het allemaal om te doen.

light_blue

Jacqueline Cramer (oud-milieu minister)ICT~Milieu - 100 miljoen kilo ICT- apparatuur gerecycled
Het verstoken van biomassa in kolencentrales is niet de toekomst.
Nederland geeft subsidie voor het slopen van Amerikaans bos.
ehhhh dat is ehhhhh daar moeten wij mee stoppen en zo snel mogelijk….. en dan hebben wij het nog niet over de extra luchtvervuiling door het verbranden van de houtpellets.

wwi_range

New wood-burning rules will save Valley lives

BRON: Who doesn’t love a crackling wood fire on a cold day?

Answer: People with asthma, allergies and heart conditions.

So while many of us — if not most of us — love the smell of burning almond or oak and the sight of flickering flames, the right thing to do is to comply with the San Joaquin Valley’s new wood-burning regulations.

The new rules are expected to shut down most wood burning in fireplaces, older stoves and inserts from Nov. 1 to Feb. 28. These fireplaces and older heaters create more than 90% of the Valley’s soot pollution. The only exceptions during this time will be when a storm scours harmful pollution out of the air.

We wish the rules — some say they are the toughest in the country — weren’t necessary. But our Valley’s unique pollution-retaining shape and federal health standards leave us with no other options.

The Bee’s Mark Grossi wrote in an Oct. 31 story on the new regulation:

“As one of the dirtiest air basins in the country, the Valley needs dramatic cutbacks in fireplace soot, which is among the most dangerous air pollutants. On the worst winter days, soot is about a third of the particle pollution hanging in the air over neighborhoods.”

Some folks are bound to be angry with the rule. They’ll view it as infringing on their freedom — another example of California nanny-state politics.

But if they think about a loved one coughing all winter or dying prematurely because a neighbor burns wood in the fireplace all winter, they might change their tune.

Good neighbors respect and support each other. Sacrificing the ambience of hearth and logs is a small price for significantly improving somebody’s health.

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District is backing the rules with a carrot-and-stick approach.

Homeowners can get up to $1,500 for certified inserts, which can cost up to $5,000 or more. Applicants who qualify as low income can get up to $2,500. Another $500 is available for those who are converting to natural gas, which is exempt from all restrictions because it burns so cleanly.

Beware: The district is cracking down on violators. Fines start at $50 and can climb as high as $1,000 for repeat offenders.

If you still think this is much ado about nothing significant, you are wrong. Dozens of lives will be saved this winter by the new rules, district officials say.

One of those spared might be someone you know.

 

Comment by going to fresnobee.com and clicking on the editorial.

How to reduce the effects of smoke inhalation as bushfire rages in Adelaide Hills

How to reduce the effects of smoke inhalation as bushfire rages in Adelaide Hills

Five homes destroyed in SA fires

Five homes destroyed in SA fires

AS fires rage across South Australia today, billowing smoke from fires in the southern Mount Lofty Ranges cast a shadow across the state.

Health officials have warned of the effects that come with it.

Smoke, made up of matter from burning debris, causes irritation to the eyes, nose, throat and lungs. Finer particles also penetrate deep into the lung tissue and toxic gases, such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides can also cause serious health issues.

The increasing winds can carry smoke and ash particles long distances so those who are not directly impacted by the bushfires, including built-up areas, are also at risk.

According to SA Health, high concentrations of smoke can cause shortness of breath, wheezing and coughing, burning eyes, running nose, chest tightness, chest pain, dizziness or light-headedness.

Smoke from the bushfire over Adelaide this morning. Picture: Mal Brown

Smoke from the bushfire over Adelaide this morning. Picture: Mal Brown

Preventive measures issued by SA Health include:

STAY indoors and close windows, doors and, where possible, air vents.

IF possible stay in air-conditioned premises. Switch refrigerated airconditioner to ‘recycle’ or ‘recirculate’. Evaporative air conditioners should be turned off at the first sign of thick, heavy smoke.

REDUCE other sources of air pollution or household activities such as cooking with gas, burning candles or vacuum cleaning.

AVOID vigorous activities, especially if the older person has asthma or other chronic lung or heart conditions.

Face masks are also an effective preventive but SA Health advises that ordinary paper masks, handkerchiefs or bandannas do not filter out fine particles from bushfire smoke. A better option is P2 masks which filter bushfire smoke and are available at hardware stores.

The elderly are particularly susceptible to the effects of bushfire smoke. It can aggravate existing health problems such as chronic bronchitis, emphysema, heart conditions, asthma and other chronic respiratory diseases.

The National Asthma Council Australia released advice for asthmatics living in a bushfire zone to activate their fire safety survival plan.

“Bushfire smoke and increased air pollution could irritate the lungs and cause breathing difficulties in people with asthma, and children and the elderly are most at risk,” said NAC Chairman Dr Jonathan Burdon.

Preventive medication, reliever medications and an evacuation kit should be kept on hand at all time.

“Unless advised to evacuate, people with asthma in smoke-affected areas should stay indoors and close all windows, doors and air vents to prevent smoke entering their home,” he said.

“If you can’t prevent smoke from entering your home, consider staying with friends or going to a place where you will be less exposed to smoke, such as an air-conditioned shopping centre.”

Inhalers should not be kept in the car glove box or other hot places as heat can make the medication ineffective.

An asthma action plan asthma action plan can is available on smartphones via the Asthma Buddy app for iPhone and Android.

Air Pollution A Big Factor In Heart Disease, Experts Warn

buitenland

The World Health Organization sets the safe outdoor exposure limit for PM2.5 at an average of 25 micrograms, or 25 millionths of a gram, per cubic meter of air over a 24-hour period, or average annual levels of 10 micrograms per cubic meter.

(Reuters Health)BRON – Air pollution should be one of the avoidable heart risk factors – just like smoking and excess fat – that doctors warn patients to steer clear of, according to a new statement from 20 heart experts.

Citing pollution’s heavy toll on cardiovascular health, the panel urges people to take steps to protect themselves from breathing heavy traffic fumes or industrial air pollution whenever possible, and public officials to pass laws to reduce air pollution.

“Cardiovascular disease is a huge global problem, causing immense suffering and premature death, as well as placing severe strain on national healthcare budgets and/or family finances,” said Dr. Robert Story, a professor of cardiology at the University of Sheffield in the UK and senior author of the new position paper.

Air pollution causes more than 3 million deaths worldwide each year and causes 3.1 percent of all cases of disability, Story and his coauthors write in the European Heart Journal.

Air pollution is also ninth most important on a list of modifiable heart-disease risk factors – ranking above low physical activity, high-salt diet, high cholesterol and drug use, the authors point out.

Although gaseous air pollutants can be dangerous too, Story said, airborne particles are the biggest contributor to cardiovascular disease because they cause inflammation of the lungs and enter the circulation, inflaming blood vessels, provoking clots and causing heart rhythm disturbances.

Particulate matter includes coarse particles from road dust, construction work and industrial emissions and fine particles from traffic, power plants and industrial and residential burning of oil, coal or wood for heating.

The bulk of particulate air pollution is made up of these fine particles, known as PM2.5, that are less than 2.5 micrometers – about one fifth the size of visible dust.

The World Health Organization sets the safe outdoor exposure limit for PM2.5 at an average of 25 micrograms, or 25 millionths of a gram, per cubic meter of air over a 24-hour period, or average annual levels of 10 micrograms per cubic meter. In 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lowered the 24-hour exposure limit to an average of 12 micrograms.

European studies have found that PM2.5 levels are often markedly higher near heavy traffic zones compared to elsewhere in the same city, and that the levels can more than double during rush hours, according to the position statement.

Some of the authors’ advice for people to protect themselves is as simple as walking, cycling and using public transportation instead of driving cars, and exercising in parks or gardens, rather than near busy roads.

And everyone should avoid being outside when pollution is highest, though this is especially important for infants, elderly and people with heart problems, the authors say.

People who live in heavily polluted areas should also consider ventilation systems with filtration in their homes, since a large portion of outdoor pollution can penetrate buildings.

The use of fossil fuels for heating and energy should also be decreased, according to the statement.

“Many countries have made good progress towards reducing risk factors such as smoking, high cholesterol and high blood pressure but much less effort has been extended on reducing exposure to air pollution,” Story said in an email to Reuters Health.

Studies have shown even short-term exposure to high PM2.5 levels increases deaths from heart disease and respiratory disease, and that people living in places with high PM2.5 have an 11 percent greater risk of dying from heart attacks, strokes and heart failure than those who live in cleaner areas.

Dr. Robert Brook, a cardiologist at the University of Michigan Health System and another author of the policy statement, said many people don’t realize the dangerous effects of air pollution on the heart.

“While most people can readily observe and believe that air pollution may cause lung diseases, it is in fact cardiovascular diseases that are the largest adverse health effect of fine particulate matter exposure,” Brook said in an email.

Dr. Alan Abelsohn of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto in Canada, called the statement an important reminder. Too few cardiologists and primary care doctors advise their patients of pollution’s risks, he said.

“It’s a very important and neglected area of prevention,” he said.

Abelsohn, who was not involved in the position statement, noted that national-level guidelines on allowable amounts of pollution can only do so much. He said individuals should always pay attention to the local Air Quality Index, which rates the level of air pollution according to health risk, and reduce their exposure accordingly.

Brook said that while the U.S. has made great strides reducing air pollution since the 1970s or even 2000, the efforts should continue.

“What we should not do is lessen our regulations and pose a threat to the cardiovascular health of the nation in the name of expediency or supposed economic growth or stimulus,” Brook said.

SOURCE: http://bit.ly/1zt1Iw6 European Heart Journal, online December 9, 2014.

Stemmen tegen houtrook het kan in Utah…

Ga naar de pagina en stem voor of tegen houtrook.

Meeste stemmen zullen voor zijn, want kom niet aan de heilige kachel hoe vervuilend deze ook is.
State seeks input on proposed wood smoke ban
By Amy Joi O’Donoghue
December 6th, 2014 @ 7:25pm
bad_air.jpg

Jeffrey D. Allred/Deseret News/File

SALT LAKE CITY — An outright prohibition on wood burning during the notorious inversion season along the Wasatch Front and in Cache Valley is under consideration by Utah pollution regulators, who want the public to weigh in on its ramifications.

The proposal will be put out for public comment from Jan. 1 to Feb. 9, after a Wednesday vote by the Utah Air Quality Board, which will also hold seven public hearings early next year in the impacted counties.

“I know this is a really contentious issue, and people have strong opinions about this,” said board member Kathy Van Dame, adding she’s glad there will be broad public outreach. “I really hope we can do some effective listening to each other.”

Any ban would not be implemented until the start of the 2015 inversion season on Nov. 1 and is under consideration by the board at the request of Utah Gov. Gary Herbert.

“We have to tip our hats to him,” said Brian Moench, president of the Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment. “We were not sure if he would press forward with this.”

Herbert first called for stricter controls on wood burning nearly a year ago in his State of the State address, citing Utah’s notorious air quality problem as a top issue that has to be tackled on both a state regulatory level and by a shift in personal choices.

The ban would be for those counties that remain out of compliance with federal clean air standards for PM2.5, or fine particulate matter. Those areas are Salt Lake and Davis counties, Weber and Utah counties west of the Wasatch Mountain range, portions of Tooele and Box Elder counties, and Cache Valley in Cache County.

Wood smoke is the most toxic form of community pollution that there is. … Wood smoke in a residential area does not disperse well.

–Dr. Brian Moench, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment

A pollution alert system that includes mandatory no-burn or action days already exists in Utah’s nonattainment counties when pollution reaches a certain level, but enforcement is difficult, and regulators worry about the extent of compliance.

In the last legislation session, Utah lawmakers ponied up $250,000 for an education campaign aimed at stoking public awareness over wood smoke with radio spots and other outreach.

The education campaign is different from aneffort to convert those households that rely on wood or other solid fuel burning as their “sole” source of heat. Those residences are already on a registry, eligible for another pool of money to cover costs of conversion to electric or natural gas heat.

With a wood-smoke ban, that action targets households that burn wood or other fuel to augment in-place heating systems or for ambience, and the commercial, industrial and institutional food preparation, such as meat smoking operations or restaurants with wood-fired pizza ovens.

Joel Karmazyn, an environmental scientist with the division, said there has been a push by some to exempt wood-smoke sources above the 7,000-foot elevation from the ban and to carve out other exemptions for certain types of businesses.

Moench said wood smoke is a health hazard every bit as dangerous as secondhand cigarette smoke and should be regulated out of public exposure.

“Wood smoke is the most toxic form of community pollution that there is,” he said, adding that exposure permeates neighborhoods because of the poor choice of one household.

“Wood smoke in a residential area does not disperse well.”

But John Mortenson with Energy Distribution Systems — a local distributor of wood stoves and fireplaces — said an outright ban on all wood burning is an excessive regulatory reaction to the pollution problem.

“To be asked to give 100 percent compliance on a complete burn ban is not reasonable. A more balanced and proportionate approach would be better,” he said.

Mortenson said it would make sense to encourage people to upgrade to EPA-certified, cleaner burning stoves and work toward phasing out the least efficient and most polluting appliances.

Wood smoke pollution

Tien “geboden” houtrook

– by Josh Schlossberg, The Biomass Monitor

Wood heating is on the rise. 2.7 million U.S. households, making up roughly 2% of the population, are projected to burn wood as a primary heating source over the winter of 2014-2015, a 3.9% increase from the previous year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Approximately 7.7% of households use a wood or pellet stove as a secondary heating source, based on 2012 census data.

In every state except for the balmy locales of Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida and Hawaii, wood heating has increased over the last decade, largely due to lower costs in comparison to oil and local sourcing opportunities.

Despite some recent advances in stove technology, wood heating still involves combustion, a process that emits air pollutants that have been linked to various health concerns. With the recent uptick in residential and industrial wood burning, it’s in the public’s best interest to be mindful of the risks that come from stoking up the stove.

1) Respiratory Problems

Residential wood burning “greatly increases” the amount of particulate matter (PM) in the air, pollutants smaller in diameter than a human hair, that can lodge deep inside the lungs, as well as enter the bloodstream and organs. Exposure to particulate matter can result in “aggravated asthma, chronic bronchitis, non-fatal heart attacks, and premature death,” according to theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). PM can also trigger emphysema and strokes, with children, the elderly, sufferers of lung and heart disease, and those of lower income at highest risk.

A study by the California Air Resources Board reported that “wood smoke can cause a 10 percent increase of hospital admissions for respiratory problems among children, who are at most risk since their lungs are still developing.” Particulate matter can harm lungs during only a four hour exposure and cause even greater damage over the long-term.

The chance of premature death is 17% more likely in cities with high particulates compared to those with cleaner air, with every increase of 50 µg/m3 (microgram per square meter) of PM into the air resulting in a 6% spike in deaths and 18.5% increase in hospital admissions results, according to a study from the Harvard School of Public Health. In some cases, up to90% of PM pollution can come from residential burning, with wood smoke regularly responsible for half of the California Bay area’s winter PM pollution.

Other health concerns related to wood smoke include “irritated eyes, throat, sinuses, and lungs; headaches; reduced lung function, especially in children; lung inflammation or swelling; increased risk of lower respiratory diseases; more severe or frequent symptoms from existing lung diseases.”

Health costs related to wood smoke particulate matter in the U.S. have been estimated at up to $150 billion a year.

2) Carcinogenic

Despite wood’s natural origin, wood smoke includes known carcinogenic chemicals such as benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), with studies demonstrating that wood smoke can cause lung cancer.

Wood burning is the largest source of PAHs in the US, with studies showing it to be the “worst contribution” to the air’s mutagenicity (likely to cause mutations in DNA, including cancer). One study concluded that burning two cords of wood can emit the same amount of PAHs as driving 13 gasoline powered cars 10,000 miles each at 20 miles/gallon.

Other studies have shown that wood smoke causes mouth, throat, lung, breast, and cervical cancer, in scientific literature compiled by Dr. Dorothy L. Robinson. Even more studies linking wood smoke and cancer can be found at the Australian Air Quality Group’s website.

3) Toxic Chemicals

Wood burning emits dioxin, one of the most toxic and persistent substances on the planet as well as isocyanic acid, which can cause atherosclerosis, cataracts, and rheumatoid arthritis.

Combustion of wood also re-releases heavy metals and radioactive pollution that have been absorbed by trees, in amounts significant enough that wood ash can qualify as hazardous waste under Europe’s definitions, if the standards for coal ash were applied to wood ash.

4) Worse Than Cigarettes

The health impacts of cigarettes was one of the biggest public health scandals of the 1980’s, resulting in smoking being banned in restaurants, bars, and other businesses and public places around the world. Despite the risks of cigarettes, you’retwelve times more likely to get cancer from wood smoke in comparison to an equal volume of second hand cigarette smoke, according to the EPA, cited in the Washington State Department of Ecology’s The Health Effects of Wood Smoke.

Wood smoke is thirty times more potent than cigarette smoke, according to “tumor initiation” tests done on laboratory mice, with another study showing that burning hardwood created three times the likelihood of tumors in mice than cigarette smoke, and more than fifteen times when burning softwood.

A fireplace burning for an hour puts out 4,300 times more PAHs than a pack and a half of cigarettes. Additionally, wood smoke “attacks” the cells of the body forty times longer than tobacco, with free radicals from wood smoke chemically active for twenty minutes, with those of tobacco lasting only thirty seconds.

Burning 1 kg of wood can emit more carcinogenic benzo[a]pyrene than 27,000 cigarettes and more formaldehyde than 6,000 cigarettes, according to Comparison of Toxic Chemicals in Wood and Cigarette Smoke, while another study calculated ambient air levels of benzo[a]pyrene from wood smoke the same as smoking two to sixteen cigarettes/day.

More comparisons of wood smoke to cigarette smoke are studied in Impact of Fuel Choice on Comparative Cancer Risk of Emissions,by Joellen Lewtas, Health Effects Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

5) Exceeds Federal Standards

The World Health Organization maintains that exposure to fine particulate matter 2.5 (PM 2.5) shouldn’t exceed 25 μg/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter) over a 24 hour average, though the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a much laxer 35 μg/m3 under its National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

Yet even with the EPA’s leniency, a single wood stove can be responsible for a neighborhood exceeding even those levels, according to the American Lung Association. Since the beginning of the 2012-2013 winter stove season, the greater Fairbanks, Alaska area has logged 48 days that exceeded EPA standards. In November 2012, the air quality in the town of North Pole, Alaska, was measured as being twice as bad as Beijing’s, primarily due to wood smoke.

New Hampshire monitoring showed wood smoke violating PM standards by almost double the allowed levels in January 2009, with many communities in southwestern New Hampshire recording 35 μg/m3 and higher.

A study in New York — where up to 90% of the Particulate Matter measured came from wood combustion — found 26% of the population was exposed to wood smoke, with the poorer, more crowded and less-white populations receiving the highest levels of PM. Spikes of over 100 μg/m3 per cubic meter occurred during nighttime mobile monitoring, with the report linking such peaks to heart and lung problems, including heart attacks and asthma.

6) Smoke Enters Homes

It’s a common misconception that the only exposure to wood smoke occurs outdoors. However, a substantial amount of smoke actually enters the homes of wood burners, with particulate matter levels found to be 26% higher, benzene levels 29% higher, and PAHs 300% to 500% higher in the homes of wood burners, compared to those who use other heating sources. Another study estimated 70% of outdoor smoke can re-enter a home.

Those who don’t burn wood themselves, yet live in a neighborhood of wood burners, experience indoor particulate levels 50-70% of outdoor levels, according to a Seattle study, as wood smoke has the tendency to hang close to the ground and infiltrate homes, schools, and hospitals.

7) EPA Stoves Not Much Better

EPA stoves have improved somewhat upon conventional woodstoves. Instead of emitting 250 times more particulate matter than an oil or gas furnace, EPA stoves now emit eighty-five times more.

In Libby, Montana over $2.5 million financed the replacement of old wood stoves with EPA certified stoves, resulting in only a 28% reduction in emissions. Measures to further improve wood stove emissions are getting major pushback from the wood heating industry and some politicians.

8) Doctors Want Ban

Some medical professionals who have been studying the health impacts of wood smoke are concerned about the health ramifications, while others are calling for a phasing out of wood stoves. Dr. Brian Moench, president of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, wants to see an end to residential wood burning. “We don’t have a lot of options,” he said. “We can accept our air pollution is not solvable, we can stop driving all our cars, we can tell industry to shut down, or we can stop burning wood.”

American Lung Association urges that the public “should avoid burning wood in houses where less polluting heating alternatives are available.”

9) Taxpayer Subsidized

Trends show more and more Americans burning wood to heat their homes, causing shortages of cordwood and pellets in some regions and the resulting price spikes. While an individual may choose not to operate a wood stove, a portion of his or her tax dollars may still subsidize those who do.

A $300 federal tax credit has been available to those purchasing new wood stoves or pellet stoves, with the policy set to expire in January 1, 2014, though industry groups claim an extension is possible. Eight states provide tax credits, rebates or deductions for wood heating, including Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Maine, Maryland, Montana, and Oregon, with New York State offering a $1,000 tax credit for the purchase of a new pellet stove.

10) Alternatives to Burning

There are options for those seeking non-combustion technologies to heat their homes. Alternatives include ground source heat pumps, air source heat pumps, solar thermal, passive solar, and even experimental technologies, such as compost heating. No matter the heating source, the most basic and important step any homeowner can take to reduce energy demands is through insulation and other conservation and efficiency measures.

In some areas, you might not have a choice about whether you burn wood or not. Many states, such as Arizona, California, and Washington, enforce burn bans and restrictions, based on changes in air quality.

Several court cases, including one in Nebraska, have determined that a neighbor’s wood stove is a nuisance. A recently adopted bylaw in the County of Essex, Ontario, Canada states that one or more complaints in regards to smoke that has a “detrimental impact on the use and enjoyment” of property, will result in a cease and desist order barring future burning.

Montreal has taken things a step further, with plans to phase out wood stoves altogether by 2020.

Gedupeerde uit de staat New York stuurt video…..

Houtrook is een wereld wijd probleem.
Ook de regels zijn vaag……………….heel bekend dit.
Luister naar de video en herken een hele hoop het lijkt Nederland wel…………..

Bijzonder dat ik deze oproep uit de USA ontving via mijn site. 🙂

<50% FIJNSTOF PM2,5 KOMT VAN HOUTVUREN, 7% van het …

Please add this video of my family in NYS to the list of videos for viewers. Here is the link.

logoBekijk de video

http://video.wcny.org/video/2365195324/

Concerns and conversations about the use of outdoor wood boilers in New York State are growing; so too are the regulations governing their use. Proponents are eager to use these to save money on heating costs and say that individuals should have the right and freedom to do what they want on their private properties. Opponents cite environmental and emissions issues. What will happen next?

Up in Smoke? Health Impacts from Wood Burning

Newswise — With the winter weather still going strong, lots of people will be restocking the wood pile next to their fireplaces and wood burning stoves. Can using a wood burning stove or fireplace pose a threat to my health?

The health impacts of wood burning have received increased attention from the scientific community in recent years. The recent research activity has focused on the role of wood burning in air pollution, its potential health effects and measures to control the negative impacts. Wood burning is used in a variety of settings including homes, schools and industrial settings around the world. It has been used for a variety of purposes, including generating power, heating, cooking and for recreational purposes. The use of wood has increased in the United States for a variety of reasons, including economic factors and efforts to decrease dependence on oil.

When wood burns it releases a complex mixture of chemicals, including gases and particles. The exact nature of the chemicals released varies depending on a number of factors, including what type of wood is burned, if the wood has been treated and how it is burned. Exposures in particularly susceptible populations, including pregnant women, children or individuals with pre-existing lung or heart disease, are of particular concern.

Scientific studies have included research involving exposing humans to controlled exposures to chemicals released during wood burning. During these studies, changes related to inflammation in the body, including the lungs, were seen. In addition, many studies have looked into the health effects from air pollution released from wood burning. Effects observed have included irritation effects (such as eye irritation), small birth weight in babies, increased ear infections and lung inflammation/decreased lung function. Exposures in particularly susceptible populations, including pregnant women, children or individuals with pre-existing lung or heart disease, are of particular concern.

A number of government efforts have been developed to attempt to decrease the negative impacts of wood burning. For example, programs have been set up to encourage users to switch to newer and more efficient wood burning stoves, to use HEPA filters and/or to switch from wood burning to electricity as a power and heating source. However, wood burning remains relatively unregulated, especially compared to other sources of pollution such as cars. For an example of how outdoor wood burners can impact your neighbors, please view areport written by the nonprofit group Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA).

So, it is important for parents to be aware of the potential for health effects from wood burning exposure at home, in schools (such as where wood is used as a heating source) or in the community. Parents should engage in discussions with their children’s’ healthcare providers and review information from available resources, such as the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), including the resources listed below. For example, the USEPA recommends burning dry and seasoned wood that has been stored and covered and using cleaner burning stoves.

 

Courts bans fires (Rechter verbiedt houtvuren)

court bans fire

Onze medestrijders tegen het terreur van houtstokers.