Woodburning, health interest

[bigden]

cental boiler

Did any body look further in to it to see the Central boiler report showing all the inaccuracy's in the report.

 

[solvent]

Ironic you speak of 'blowing ignorant fallacy out of the water' yet you counter one with another and your life expectancy references. Nevermind how heavily skewed they are because of infant and child mortality, they're not exactly what you'd call a controlled indicator of the hazards of wood smoke.

But beyond that, what was the point of your post? Do you wish to spark a discussion? Perhaps you should try giving some direction, or asking specific questions instead of just throwing up a link and running, guerilla style.

Thanks for the pointers on how to conduct a discussion here.

Sorry, I don't see the irony. All I'm saying is that if we're going to invoke ancient history as some better, proven way to live, I don't think that dialectic holds much water when we're talking about health, of which a pretty good indicator is life expectancy, skewed or not. Saying the cave men burned wood and therefore it's ok because it didn't kill them is not the best reasoning. Seems like shotgun thinking.

And the point of my post was that I found some information that seemed relevant to the topic. That's all. Seems like anyone would be interested in the effects of wood particles on their health. If you're not interested, you can easily ignore it.

And it seems like it started a discussion with all sorts of opinions, mostly people feeling provoked. That's too bad, it wasn't the intention. But I particularly enjoyed the clever reply about California falling into the ocean.

I'm not sure it's fair to say that posting something with relevant information that might help some make informed, perhaps better, choices is deserving of so much virulence.

I burn wood at home. Now that I've read this, I don't. Do whatever makes you happy.

 

[trimmmed]

I burn wood at home. Now that I've read this, I don't.

Wow! That's too bad you don't burn anymore........I know where there is a decent pile of oak all cut up and in your general vicinity......

 

[lfnh]

Seems like wood burning stoves pale in comparision to the annual ritual of Califorians burning canyon brush and their well preserved forests. Maybe
the study groups should forcus on the health effects of opening burning.

Oh yeah, let us not forget the countless studies that all conclude the traffic conjestion and asociated ozone inversions in Calfornia are its biggest, long term, chronic health problem.

....7 largest economy....hmmm an so why is California looking for a record amount of money from the feds to avoid bankruptcy.

Enough. The rest of us have been paying for California's mis-direction for a long time. A quick auction of the whole state wouldn't bring a tear to my eye.

(gee, wish i could brag about the I-5 parking lot from Diego to the Artic Circle)

 

[derwood91]

Not all of California...............

I actually think Northern California is one of the most beautiful places that I've seen, but Southern California seems bursting at the seems with groups that wish to push their opinions on the rest of us!!! I travel there often for work and it's definitely the armpit of the state.

Maybe these non-profit agencies should try to raise money to help combat the many LARGE wildfires raging across the state every year.(so much wasted firewood!!) Evergreen Aviation developed a Boeing 747 Water-Bomber for just that purpose, but the good folks of California did not want to pony up the money for the operational cost.

Check it out..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvBRWTumoZI&NR=1

If this group wishes to combat smoke then why not pick up a shovel help work a Fire Line!!

:deadhorse:

 

[John D]

They are worried about the particles from burning wood? If we are going to seriously clean up a things that supply heat and recreation.
I think the ciggarette industry needs to start fitting catylists to there Marlboros,because those things burn dirty and smokey.Tar,tobacco,and paper all crunched together tightly so it starves for air,and burns inefficiently.In addition you are burning known carcinogens.Millions of these things burning every day,not one burns cleanly,and they are burning Hazmat materials,and they are worried about the smoke from wood.
So Solvent,are you gunna quit smoking now too,and preach to those who do?Hopefully you do,that way you'll leave this firewood forum alone,since you have nothing factual or productive to add here.:hmm3grin2orange:

 

[dingeryote]

I always enjoy such reports.

But it seems it got Zapped, and the linky no worky.

Lemme guess....I did the Industrial firefighter gig as part of my last poor Career choice. I'll bet the report said something to the effect that Wood smoke has LOTS of Bad stuff in it, and can cause Cancer, birth defects, Lung disease, mental abnormalitys, bad manners around drunken inlaws etc... Plus the effects of global warming/climate change.

I appreciate OP's heads up on the health issues. Seriously.

It's good to know I COULD live forever, but wont, and will make my Wife Happier than a bunch of flowers.

Dingeryote

 

[dingeryote]

Thanks for the pointers on how to conduct a discussion here.

Sorry, I don't see the irony. All I'm saying is that if we're going to invoke ancient history as some better, proven way to live, I don't think that dialectic holds much water when we're talking about health, of which a pretty good indicator is life expectancy, skewed or not. Saying the cave men burned wood and therefore it's ok because it didn't kill them is not the best reasoning. Seems like shotgun thinking.

And the point of my post was that I found some information that seemed relevant to the topic. That's all. Seems like anyone would be interested in the effects of wood particles on their health. If you're not interested, you can easily ignore it.

And it seems like it started a discussion with all sorts of opinions, mostly people feeling provoked. That's too bad, it wasn't the intention. But I particularly enjoyed the clever reply about California falling into the ocean.

I'm not sure it's fair to say that posting something with relevant information that might help some make informed, perhaps better, choices is deserving of so much virulence.

I burn wood at home. Now that I've read this, I don't. Do whatever makes you happy.

OP,

If you're worried about woodburning health hazzards, do NOT, I repeat DO NOT invest in a Microscope and several petry dishes. One swab of the dishes in your Cabinettes will have you starving to death.:O

Just sayin'.

And don't be so thin skinned.
These guys are a good bunch. They just don't cotton much to certain ways of thinking that seem popular in your state.

Kinda like going to a NASCAR forum and mentioning the health hazzards of going 200mph in a car with no emissions controls..... Folks are gonna think you're a Troll, or worse, a Dang Hippie!

Now if ya ask nicely, I'll bet one or two of these gentlemen can tell you how to mitigate the possible negative sides of burning wood, and to a point that is proven to have few if any health effects on the end user.

Honest newbies rarely seem to get hammered around here, unless they get off on a bad foot. Try your other one.

Just sayin'.

Stay safe!
Dingeryote

 

[jburlingham]

Warning to all Anti-wood burners, EPA freaks and tree huggers:
If you hug trees in my immediate area you may end up cut, split and stacked:chainsawguy: hey but you might not give off particulates

 

[chowdozer]

I burn wood at home. Now that I've read this, I don't. Do whatever makes you happy.

Living in Pasadena, I don't know why you'd have to burn any wood.

:notrolls2:

 

[willsaw4beer]

Haven't read many postings but my thoughts on wood are that it is a renewable energy source, that it is not a resource controlled by countries that hate us, that it does not get 'spilled' and destroy marine life or pollute the groundwater. Although it arguably does produce more particulate matter, the toxicity of the emissions are no worse than burning fossil fuels- in this case it's not what you see, it's what you don't see.

And I love trees as much as any tree hugger, probably more than most considering that I use 'em to heat my house. I've planted more than my share of trees- my way of keepin' nature green instead of bein' dumb and not cutting down trees...and more to cut down when I get old too, hehe.

 

[mtfallsmikey]

WTF, I've been exposed to PCB's, asbestos, VOC's from ABS/PVC glue/cleaners, lead fumes from pouring joints on cast iron pipe. I probably won't live to see 80...smelling like wood smoke is like a redneck version of Hai Karate! (remember that cologne, fellow geezers and relics of the 70's!)

 

[mtfallsmikey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAnU9zT87j4

Same results when you go into a bar in W.VA. smelling like wood smoke!

 

[Marc]

Thanks for the pointers on how to conduct a discussion here.

Sorry, I don't see the irony. All I'm saying is that if we're going to invoke ancient history as some better, proven way to live, I don't think that dialectic holds much water when we're talking about health, of which a pretty good indicator is life expectancy, skewed or not. Saying the cave men burned wood and therefore it's ok because it didn't kill them is not the best reasoning. Seems like shotgun thinking.

It is, and I don't disagree with that point. But that's pretty much all that needs saying.

And the point of my post was that I found some information that seemed relevant to the topic. That's all. Seems like anyone would be interested in the effects of wood particles on their health. If you're not interested, you can easily ignore it.

And it seems like it started a discussion with all sorts of opinions, mostly people feeling provoked. That's too bad, it wasn't the intention. But I particularly enjoyed the clever reply about California falling into the ocean.

And this is why I thought I'd give you some friendly advice; I harbored no malcontent. It's all well and good that you wanted to disseminate information, but what benefit is it if the reactions are negative? Seems to me like several pages of anger and terse exchanges could have been avoided by some simple clarification near the begining. You're clearly not so ignorant as to expect all cheery roses and welcoming arms after posting a link to an organization so against burning wood fuel in a forum trafficked almost exclusively by people who burn wood.

I'm not sure it's fair to say that posting something with relevant information that might help some make informed, perhaps better, choices is deserving of so much virulence.

I burn wood at home. Now that I've read this, I don't. Do whatever makes you happy.

And I never said it was deserving virulence, but the presentation of information is extremely important, especially when it's painfully obvious, as in this case, the source is categorically against the practices of your entire audience. It's hard to see you having any intentions other than that of a provocateur, without any clarification on your part.

 

[mtfallsmikey]

Nice explaination Marc...I like to see lotsa two-dollar words in a reply!

 

[woodlumn]

Warning to all Anti-wood burners, EPA freaks and tree huggers:

I consider myself a "tree hugger" (to use your words) and I heat my house and water with wood for environmental reasons.

Tossing out generalities like that does not help your cause.

Anyway, back to Solvent: I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on my reply on page two. Or have you left us for good?

 

[Major Wood]

Am I missing something here, I wish somebody would explain what could be more "GREEN" for this planet than heating with a renewable resource, that releases the same amount of carbon whether it is burned for energy or lays on the forest floor and rots? If the BIG energy corporations were behind any study could it be because they are losing money? No because we all know how honest they are!! I would put the integrity of every member on this site up against 1 CEO of an energy company and the results wouldn't be close. The lack of honesty and integrity are why our economy is in a tailspin. What belchs more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, drilling, transporting, refining, transporting again, and then burning any fossil fuel or the harvesting and burning of a renewable resource? Unfortunately those of us that harvest have to use those fossil fuels to get our product to market. I would estimate that BIG OIL is losing over a BILLION dollars every heating season because of those that choose to get off the grid. Won't be long before the negative (besides aesthetics) of wind power will be studied, and scrutinized. Who will fund that study? Just my 2 cents worth!

 

[AOD]

I was a responsible wood burner until I saw this thread. Now I have a chunk of railroad tie and some styrofoam to throw onto the fire, just for you solvent......

Seriously, come on! There are much, much bigger environmental.pollution issues than burning wood for heat. I can understand the OWB smoke issues but the fact they these people are going after ALL solid fuel burning homeowners, even pellet stove users, leaves me no other opinion than there has to be some big energy/money/control politics behind this "research". Any true environmentalist would have much bigger fish to fry. Just like most environmental BS, its not about cleaning the air/water/whatever, its about money and control.

In closing, for every tree you don't burn, I will burn three.

 

[jburlingham]

I'm with AOD.
Control is the major issue, under the guise of "health concerns", burning is considered evil, the same way that other laws are passed for "the children" and guns are banned for "safety".
A safe and responsible occupant burning firewood cause minimal pollution an a hell of a lot less then that caused in California every year by wildfires.

If I offended people by calling them tree huggers, It wasn't intended to offend. I used a common generalization for the enviro-hippies. I'm just sick of mindless idiots trying to ban items, objects, and ways of life because they are afraid of them, because they don't know the truth or get invalid information from half ass studies.

 

[Butch(OH)]

Thanks for the pointers on how to conduct a discussion here.

Sorry, I don't see the irony. All I'm saying is that if we're going to invoke ancient history as some better, proven way to live, I don't think that dialectic holds much water when we're talking about health, of which a pretty good indicator is life expectancy, skewed or not. Saying the cave men burned wood and therefore it's ok because it didn't kill them is not the best reasoning. Seems like shotgun thinking.

And the point of my post was that I found some information that seemed relevant to the topic. That's all. Seems like anyone would be interested in the effects of wood particles on their health. If you're not interested, you can easily ignore it.

And it seems like it started a discussion with all sorts of opinions, mostly people feeling provoked. That's too bad, it wasn't the intention. But I particularly enjoyed the clever reply about California falling into the ocean.

I'm not sure it's fair to say that posting something with relevant information that might help some make informed, perhaps better, choices is deserving of so much virulence.

I burn wood at home. Now that I've read this, I don't. Do whatever makes you happy.

You missed my point too, I'll try to sum here as I dont joust with a keyboard very well.

I was not offended but curious. The study in your original link (how did it now get changed to this site? LOL) has been proven to my satisfaction to be canted to the point of being just plain false but even away from that point (which can be argued till the next kingdom comes) There is no reason to post such things on a wood burning forum except to stir the pot. If I want to read environmental rants I can choose from a VERY large selection of sites where a post like that would be On-Topic, Here it is not only off=topic, it is offensive to the people who frequent the place. I can only conclude that you posted it to see how many hackles it would raise. My question was and still is, why?