Wildfires

Air out your smoke complaint here. We can give advice from members who have found themselves in a similar situation as yours, gasping for a breath of fresh air.

Moderator: pm2.5mary

more smoke.......

Postby bodhi » Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:27 am

woodburner wrote:A wood stove will still never expose you to the same concentration of smoke that a cigarette does.


i hope you can back that up wood burner.
thinking about the 1991 lewtas study it appears that
it would take 12X less wood smoke to do the same chemical
damage as cigs.
~bodhi

p.s. thanks for the log....
bodhi
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:31 pm
Location: orlando, florida

Postby woodburner » Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:58 am

Wood smoke is dissipated in the atmosphere when/if it reaches your lungs. To get the same concentration as you would from smoking a cigarette you would have to breath the smoke directly from the stove door or chimney.
woodburner
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:37 am
Location: Upstate NY

differences in references

Postby JackPine » Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:23 am

bodhi, thank you for your reference, but the final link to the wording is dead.

I have found a paper from the Boise, Idaho study written by Lewtas et al dated 1991, but nowhere in it does it mention your assertion about cigarettes vs wood smoke. It does however state:

This study concludes that PICs [products of incomplete combustion] comprise a major fraction (35%) of the identified risk from toxic air pollutants and of this fraction, mobile sources contribute sustantially more to the risk than does wood smoke.

So although we don't agree on the exact wording of wood vs cigarette smoke, we agree that mobile source pollution is a serious issue; a much greater issue.
JackPine
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:54 am
Location: Northeast

mortgages and science

Postby bodhi » Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:35 pm

JackPine wrote:bodhi, thank you for your reference, but the final link to the wording is dead.
I have found a paper from the Boise, Idaho study written by Lewtas et al dated 1991, but nowhere in it does it mention your assertion about cigarettes vs wood smoke. It does however state:
So although we don't agree on the exact wording of wood vs cigarette smoke, we agree that mobile source pollution is a serious issue; a much greater issue.
jack,
there is really nothing to agree on. unfortunately, the wording you are attempting to refute is in the title of the paper.... this could be far out but i'm thinking the title reads exactly the way the authors intended.
once more for jack pine:
1) Lewtas et al., 1991. Mutagenicity testing of air containing smoke emitted from woodheaters in Boise, Idaho, US, using the Ames test on salmonella and tumor initiation assays in mice found that woodsmoke was 12 times more carcinogenic than an equal concentration of cigarette smoke.
if you don't get that, i certainly can't help you work it out. i don't know what paper you were looking at but the link i gave you works fine. if the link to view the entire paper is dead, you will have to search the work out in a university library. you may have to get an interlibrary loan. don't worry its not a mortgage... but don't put your check book away yet.... if you are still unhappy, you should repeat the study and publish your results.
sorry jack, i don't agree with your last statement . auto pollution is not more serious than wood smoke pollution. particulate pollution is deadly serious no matter what form it takes.
good luck,
~bodhi
p.s. http://www.3sc.net/airqual/smog_refdescr.htm
bodhi
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:31 pm
Location: orlando, florida

Title of paper

Postby JackPine » Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:04 pm

And for you bodhi, that is not the title of the paper. And no, the link to the paper which used to be on an Australian website does not work. We all can get to where you linked, but there is a link beyond that (supposedly to the paper) which is dead.

Bodhi, you don't think mobile source pollution is more serious than wood smoke?

Even Lewtas wrote mobile source pollution posed more of a risk than wood smoke. That statement in and of itself shows mobile source pollution IS more serious than wood smoke.

In another article Lewtas stated the mutagenic potency of motor vehicle sourced organics was three times greater than that of wood-smoke. Back to a statement by woodburner that since the risk of motor vehicle pollution is 3X greater than wood-smoke and the risk from wood smoke is 12X greater than cigarette smoke, that means the risk from mobile vehicle pollution is 36X greater than that of cigarette smoke.

Is the mobile source sector just too big for you to go after? Based on your passionate postings, nothing is too big for you to go after. Yes, you can take that as a compliment.

My thought is that if you are going to go after a pollution source, go for the source which poses the higher risk factor to the public so as to have the most benefit. Once that one has been lowered, the one behind it rises to the top of the list. Then go after that one. Does this make sense to you?
JackPine
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:54 am
Location: Northeast

broken links, auto and wood pollution...

Postby bodhi » Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:59 pm

jack,
thanks for your bodhi is passionate compliment.sheesh, it takes all of that and more to deal with you smoke heads... nyuk nyuk nyuk......
i think auto and oil is just too huge and powerful to dent. sadly, massive damage will probably occur before anything can happen on that front. i feel the wood smoke pollution problem is more likely to change first. this is already changing on a small scale. scattered cities and towns are beginning to ban some of the wood burning devices. rightfully so, when you think about the proximity of homes, weather conditions, wind patterns and inversion layers, the noxious qualitys of wood burning are vastly multiplied. it appears that wood burners are now shooting each other in the foot by using the owbs. those units are drawing lots of attention because of the large amount of smoke they emit. this will bring the smoke pollution into sharp focus.

as far as the details on the auto vs. woodsmoke, i defer to the studies.
although all sources of particulates add to the ambient air quality mix... a ban on woodburning would be a quick and easy way to take out a massive amount of carcinogenic matter.

standby for more on the the 12X paper....

~bodhi
bodhi
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:31 pm
Location: orlando, florida

smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette...

Postby bodhi » Fri Nov 17, 2006 12:56 pm

jack,
the paper in question will be in hand next week.
it is being mailed to me on monday 11-20-06.
specifics will be available then.
~bodhi
bodhi
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:31 pm
Location: orlando, florida

paper

Postby ME-air » Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:09 pm

very interesting thread here.

Bodhi, I hope you can scan the paper you are talking about and put it either here or on the website in .pdf format for all to read. After reading through the 3 pages here now I want to read the paper and see for myself.
ME-air
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:46 pm
Location: Maine

paper

Postby JackPine » Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:26 pm

Thank you bodhi for contacting the author of the paper.

Like me-air said, I hope you can post the paper here so all of us can take a look at it.
JackPine
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:54 am
Location: Northeast

paper scan...

Postby bodhi » Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:39 pm

hi jack and Me-air,
as soon as i get it i will share it with you.
i am now very curious about the origination of the table i used for my reference. it is on the aussie site (see previous posts) as well as on the bay area air quality management web site.
http://www.sparetheair.org/data/woodsmoke_effects.htm
click scientific studies. check the last entry on table 2 page 3. it finishes on the next page. like the aussie site, unfortunately, the actual paper is not available.
i do have a line on the paper now and hope to see it this week.
i have also found the oclc# for the publication in which it appeared in 1991. it is in a montana library.
thanks for your patience.
~bodhi
bodhi
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:31 pm
Location: orlando, florida

interesting study...

Postby bodhi » Tue Nov 21, 2006 10:31 am

this is interesting info on the topic of Wood smoke, tobacco smoke and cancer.

July 11, 2005 — Exposure to wood smoke may increase the risk of lung cancer via a mechanism similar to that of tobacco, according to the results of a study published in the July issue of Chest .
"... our findings demonstrate that wood smoke could produce similar effects on p53, phospho-p53, and MDM2 protein expression as tobacco.… It is important to consider wood smoke exposure as a possible risk factor for the development of lung cancer in nonsmoker subjects."


NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Although tobacco smoke is the top cause of lung cancer, some cases of the disease can be traced to smoke of a different sort, according to a new study.

Researchers in Mexico found that of 62 lung cancer patients they assessed, more than one-third of the cases were associated with exposure to wood smoke. These patients, mainly women, were non-smokers who for years had used traditional wood-burning stoves that were not equipped with a chimney to funnel the smoke outdoors.

In many countries, wood and other solid fuels are still used for heating and cooking, and some studies have found potential health hazards. A study in Brazil showed that wood-burning stoves may raise the risk of mouth and throat cancers, while others have found that smoke from wood and other sources may contribute to chronic bronchitis, emphysema and asthma.

There has not, however, been sufficient evidence to tie wood smoke to lung cancer, according to the authors of the new study, led by Javier Delgado of the National Institute of Respiratory Diseases in Calzada de Tlalpan, Mexico.

An analysis of tumor samples from some patients showed that both wood smoke and tobacco smoke seemed to cause similar molecular changes. Patients in both groups showed, for example, increased activity in the tumor-suppressing p53 gene, the gene that is most commonly mutated in cancer.

Their study, published in the medical journal Chest, included 62 patients scheduled to undergo chemotherapy for lung cancer, as well as nine smokers with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and nine healthy non-smokers with no exposure to wood smoke.

Overall, 39 percent of the lung cancer cases were associated with wood smoke, while 37 percent were linked to tobacco smoking. The rest could not be clearly tied to either.

"Our findings," Delgado and his colleagues write, "suggest that wood smoke, like tobacco smoke, could be involved in lung cancer(development)."

SOURCE: Chest, July 2005.

~bodhi
bodhi
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:31 pm
Location: orlando, florida

Refuting the idea that your 'clean' wood smoke doesn't harm

Postby pm2.5mary » Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:08 am

Mr. McKinnon - could you let me know how we become members of the
>> Beaconsfield Citizens` Association? (address to send membership, etc)
>>
>> Nathalie (our daughter) was searching in the law library today and came
>> across a publication, Urbanite (Sept.06) -
>> www.ouq.qc.ca/documents/urbanite/urbanit-environ.pdf. This issue dealt
>> with
>> "A standard municipal by-law for wood-burning appliances" which along
>> with
>> the Denver example should provide examples of by-laws if more is
>> necessary.
>> But perhaps little is needed considering what already exists.
>>
>> Mr.Philip Iacovone Beaconsfield Planning and Environmental Health
>> Department
>> gave us a copy of the Consolidated By-Law No. 418 this week. That
>> document
>> says that "...soot or smoke from chimneys or other sources" are declared
>> nuisances and are prohibited in Beaconsfield.
>>
>> Yet here at 211 Westcroft we are surrounded by neighbours who burn wood
>> and
>> cause smoke/soot on a daily basis in the air so that there is little
>> oxygen.
>> This burning smoke and soot fills our new home and daily compromises our
>> "peace ...health and general welfare". This smoke/soot enters our bodies
>> and causes headaches, eye irritation and, worse, heart pains. Of course,
>> people in their 70`s, such as ourselves, are probably more affected, but
>> everyone`s health is damaged (certainly children). We have talked with
>> our
>> neighbours and given them some information about the dangers of wood
>> burning, but we think our word needs to be strengthened by some
>> requirement
>> that this smoke is not permitted. Today at noon for more than an hour
>> black
>> smoke from the south filled the whole front of our house - there was no
>> answer when we called our neighbour which illustrates our daily problem.
>>
>> These fumes stay in our home and are virtually impossible to remove (we
>> are
>> left with the terrible taste of soot and chest pains). The problem is
>> that
>> no one in authority is telling the public that there is anything wrong
>> with
>> this burning - rather the public constantly is urged to participate in
>> this
>> "cosy" holiday activity.
>>
>> Electric fireplaces, for example, are much safer (and legal as opposed to
>> burning smoke) for us here in Beaconsfield. If people were clearly told
>> about the medical effects of smoke (see attachment), we would suspect
>> that
>> many would make changes to their habits. We notice that artificial logs
>> are
>> now more and more advertised on TV and promoted at Loblaws and Canadian
>> Tire. These logs are even more damaging as well since they are filled
>> with
>> formaldehyde, resin and other highly toxic chemicals.
>>
>> We suspect that the existing by-law is perhaps enough to start to take
>> some
>> action to improve matters in the immediate future.
>>
>> We hope that this information helps in the collective efforts to solve
>> this
>> urgent public health and environmental problem.
>>

>> Thank you again

I am receiving many emails similar to this one. Jack Pine, Harley fire and woodburner, wood burning is creating a frightened and increasingly ill society that is rationally trying to protect itself. There are new methods every day to look at the toxicity and actions of the toxins in the body. Your smoke travels 700 miles and remains airborne for up to 3 weeks. It causes untold damage to others as it becomes accumulated with other pollution, and when it is washed out, the toxins (including dioxins) contaminate our water and soil.
"Particulate pollution is the most important contaminant in our air. ...we know that when particle levels go up, people die. " (Joel Schwartz, Ph.D., Harvard School of Public Health, E Magazine, Sept./Oct. 2002)
Find more at http://burningissues.org
User avatar
pm2.5mary
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:04 pm

12x... 12x... 12x...

Postby bodhi » Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:19 am

Jack and Me-Air,
topic of discussion
the comparison between cigarette smoke and wood smoke is ridiculous.
~jack pine
vs.
wood smoke was shown to be 12X as carcinogenic as an equal volume of tobacco smoke
~attributed to Lewtas et al :
http://www.3sc.net/airqual/smog_refdescr.htm and:
http://www.sparetheair.org/data/woodsmoke_effects.htm
vs.
EPA researchers suggest that the lifetime cancer risk from wood stove emissions may
be 12 X greater than the lifetime cancer risk from exposure to an equal amount of cigarette smoke.

~ health effects of wood smoke: washington state department of ecology.

while i am waiting for the arrival of an interlibrary loan of the 1991 Lewtas paper (which will hopefully clear up the source of the 12X statement) please view the following paper:
the paper is available as a pdf.
Complex mixtures of air pollutants: characterizing the cancer risk of polycyclic organic matter.
J Lewtas
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1519568

note the chart: figure 6 page 215
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1519568&pageindex=5

regards,
~bodhi
bodhi
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:31 pm
Location: orlando, florida

Wood burning accelerates greenhouse gas emissions.

Postby pm2.5mary » Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:01 pm

Wood fuel is not carbon neutral! To view more on this visit:http://burningissues.org/woodpower-plants06.html
or see the whole quote under news.
"Particulate pollution is the most important contaminant in our air. ...we know that when particle levels go up, people die. " (Joel Schwartz, Ph.D., Harvard School of Public Health, E Magazine, Sept./Oct. 2002)
Find more at http://burningissues.org
User avatar
pm2.5mary
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:04 pm

Carbon neutrality of wood combustion

Postby JackPine » Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:15 pm

Whether a tree burns in a wood stove or decomposes in the forest, it will release the same amount of carbon into the environment in the form of CO2, but trees absorb carbon from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. Natural decomposition also emits methane, which doesn't occur when seasoned wood is burned in a newer wood stove. Since methane has a Global Warming Potential of 23 and CO2 has a Global Warming Potential of 1, methane has a greater effect on global warming than CO2 and combusting the methane helps reduce the impact on globalwarming.

Fossil fuels took millions of years to lay down, but have been dug up and burned in just a few hundred years. From an environmental point of view, burning wood residues from logging and lot thinning is better than letting the tree decompose in the forest. In addition, wood fuel emits a mere fraction of the SO2 coal and oil emit when combusted.

However, wood must be grown and harvested according to sustainable forestry practices. Selective harvesting preserves the bio-diversity and integrity of the forest, which in turn ensures that the CO2 will be reabsorbed and that more trees will be grown for timer and wood fuel. Small, local timber growers employing certified foresters are ideal sources for wood fuel. They take pride in their wood lot, usually open the lot up to the public for outdoor enjoyment and it takes less fossil fuel to deliver the wood fuel to you house.
JackPine
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:54 am
Location: Northeast

PreviousNext

Return to Smoke Complaints and Advice from our members.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron