EPA issue ban on wood stoves

[dave1949]

Sodo,
I think maybe you are the one who is not thinking.
Pull back from your little keyboard and take a deep breath. Now.. Before Europeans took over this land, there was no problem with wood smoke. Everyone used nature's renewable wood.( Hmm....)
American Indians used wood for heat all the time with no laws, or catalytic converters.
Now.... We have a wood burning problem... or do we really ?
We allowed massive miniaturization of land plot size. We let countless illegals come in to the land because they mean future voting power.
We let land areas get outrageously over congested with people.....
And you think the problem is a wood smoke problem???:thumbdown:

What makes you think the Native People did not have a problem with wood smoke? Science indicates they very likely did due to cooking over wood fires and indoor fires for warmth.

WHO | Indoor air pollution and health

 

[DarkBlack]

C'mon dave, keep with us. We're talking about pollution.
On second thought, If you are willing to resort to questioning the American Indian, on wood fires, then I have no time/desire to debate/discuss with you.

 

[charlz]

Wildfires have always been a natural part of the forest ecology in coastal northern California. Since sequoia and coastal redwoods depend on wildfire for propagation, it would be safe to assume that they developed that characteristic in an area where periodic wildfires are the norm.

Lodgepole, which you find all over the West at the upper elevations, also requires a burn for propagation. The high temps are what open the pine cones and spread the seeds.

 

[Egon]

<Wildfires have always been a natural part of the forest ecology in coastal northern California. Since sequoia and coastal redwoods depend on wildfire for propagation, it would be safe to assume that they developed that characteristic in an area where periodic wildfires are the norm.

Conflating that fact with the impact of 14 million residents is sort of pointless.>

Wildfires have always been around. My comment was a sorta tongue in cheek comment as it would be pretty pointless in banning wildfires would it not.

But; fire and smoke are fire and smoke regardless of the source.

 

[dave1949]

Wildfires have always been around. My comment was a sorta tongue in cheek comment as it would be pretty pointless in banning wildfires would it not.

But; fire and smoke are fire and smoke regardless of the source.

That be true.

 

[charlz]

If you live in an area that is prone to inversions wood smoke is certainly an issue. Sounds like Anchorage is one of those places, so is Boise. It can get quite Shanghai-like thick here in the winter when we have a lengthy inversion. The valley in Montana where I grew up also had bad inversions. We were lucky enough to live above the inversion layer. Both Boise and back home can be just as bad in the summer with smoke from various wildfires.

I can't see Boise or Anchorage developing their own wood stove standards for manufactures and getting them to comply... which is why the EPA does it for everyone.... to help those places that need it and yes it is at the expense of other places that don't really need it.

 

[DarkBlack]

I see nothing wrong with the EPA tightening burning laws in an across the board equal way that allows manufacture's adequate time to comply.
I have issue with states, and cities with their unlawful bans on wood burning people, while allowing all other forms of fuel to be burned.
That should be obviously wrong to all...

 

[Sodo]

Sodo,
I think maybe you are the one who is not thinking.
Pull back from your little keyboard and take a deep breath. Now.. Before Europeans took over this land, there was no problem with wood smoke. Everyone used nature's renewable wood.( Hmm....)
American Indians used wood for heat all the time with no laws, or catalytic converters.
Now.... We have a wood burning problem... or do we really ?
We allowed massive miniaturization of land plot size. We let countless illegals come in to the land because they mean future voting power.
We let land areas get outrageously over congested with people.....
And you think the problem is a wood smoke problem???:thumbdown:

I will gladly take a deep breath, and I appreciate that it's (relatively) clean air. Who's doing all the "thinking" here anyway! I couldn't have picked a better history lesson than your example above. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Dark, using American indians as an example here is a strange way to make your points. You may be unaware how hard the Indians tried to stop the population, stop miniturization of land plot size, stop 'illegals' from coming in. That's an entirely different subject and not so sure you should try to use it for your point. Plus they lost that battle bigtime. Wait…..are you an American Indian? If yes then you do have a point, but then you're off-topic.

Back to the subject of pollution, Indians soiled their villages until they couldn't stand it any longer and 'managed' pollution by MOVING their entire village to another spot (probably upriver and upwind too).

Today we don't move so much, and try to prevent living in a cesspool, or in Bejing for that matter…..

 

[ultrarunner]

<Wildfires have always been a natural part of the forest ecology in coastal northern California. Since sequoia and coastal redwoods depend on wildfire for propagation, it would be safe to assume that they developed that characteristic in an area where periodic wildfires are the norm.

Conflating that fact with the impact of 14 million residents is sort of pointless.>

Wildfires have always been around. My comment was a sorta tongue in cheek comment as it would be pretty pointless in banning wildfires would it not.

But; fire and smoke are fire and smoke regardless of the source.

I was just taking it a face value... if the forest is on fire... it's a disaster and out of control.

If someone burns wood from the same forest to keep warm... it's now a problem with dedicated law enforcement to catch the offenders. (Speaking again of where I live)

 

[BobRip]

I will gladly take a deep breath, and I appreciate that it's (relatively) clean air. Who's doing all the "thinking" here anyway! I couldn't have picked a better history lesson than your example above. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Dark, using American indians as an example here is a strange way to make your points. You may be unaware how hard the Indians tried to stop the population, stop miniturization of land plot size, stop 'illegals' from coming in. That's an entirely different subject and not so sure you should try to use it for your point. Plus they lost that battle bigtime. Wait…..are you an American Indian? If yes then you do have a point, but that's not the subject here.

Back to the subject of pollution, Indians soiled their villages until they couldn't stand it any longer and 'managed' pollution by MOVING their entire village to another spot (probably upriver and upwind too).

Today we don't move so much, and try to prevent living in a cesspool, or in Bejing for that matter…..

Also the Indians had a population of about 250,000. We now have 300,000,000. About 1000 times more people and pollution. The more people we have the more governmental controls we will have and the more care we must take with the environment.