site plan has been passed

Personal Situations - Problems or Solutions.

Moderator: pm2.5mary

Postby turning_blue » Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:47 pm

Did I miss any literature posted here about the hazards of these smokers? Is there any data about the emissions of smokers? What exactly do these things put out into the air? Is there anyway to find this information? For example wood smoke and cigarettes, they are almost identical in what they emit. We can easily find a list here on burning issues of what's in wood smoke and in second hand cigarette smoke. What about these smokers. This is new to me.
User avatar
turning_blue
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:45 am

Postby woodburner » Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:53 am

Did I miss any literature posted here about the hazards of these smokers? Is there any data about the emissions of smokers? What exactly do these things put out into the air? Is there anyway to find this information? For example wood smoke and cigarettes, they are almost identical in what they emit. We can easily find a list here on burning issues of what's in wood smoke and in second hand cigarette smoke. What about these smokers. This is new to me.


Smokers burn wood to make smoke. Never had smoked ribs?
woodburner
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:37 am
Location: Upstate NY

Postby turning_blue » Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:00 am

No, I didn't know that. I never had smoked ribs. I thought there was some other toxic chemicals that gave it the smoked flavor. Like the 'smoke in the bottle' people buy to add a smokey flavor to a dish.

We used to grill over a gas grill. I never really liked smoked meats. Are there pictures of these in use? I truthfully never even heard of a smoker before this post. Also, to be honest, when I first read the initial post, I thought he/she was talking about someone smoking... "A smoker." Embarrassing to admit. :oops:
User avatar
turning_blue
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:45 am

Postby Wilberforce » Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:43 am

One of my neighbors has a "smoker" in his yard, which fills with smoke from it.
Can barely see the house thru the smog. Thankfully he doesn't use it very often.
There is a "for sale" sign on his lawn (pleeaase move out...)
User avatar
Wilberforce
 
Posts: 6106
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:36 pm
Location: USA

Postby turning_blue » Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:41 pm

Oh yuck!

Hopefully he brings the smoker with him. I have to find a photo or video of one of these in use.
User avatar
turning_blue
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:45 am

make this site a center for fighting this issue

Postby burningflorida » Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:46 pm

If you honestly want to be the center of this issue help me fight this case. I will spread the word of burningissue like no other. This is the first and only wood burning commercial smoker in this city, if we defeat it then this city will be smoker free and set the quality goals for this county to reach. Pinellas County Florida is one of the most visited places on the Planet, and this site will be able to take credit for helping the visitors stay in a smoker/wood burning clean zone. it's easy here we don't need heat, no life or death situations. This smoker is a luxury, part of the Culinary Art of deception. Mask wood smoke with Barbecue sauce and watch the zombies inhale deeply as if they were sniffing the pan on their electric stove.

If you honestly have a way to beat this, where's the beef?

I could acquire an attorney of course, and will, but what purpose would a site like this have if an attorney is the only option? Collecting data is not enough to make this site a best seller. It has to be engaged and earn it's stripes.

I have been a PHP administrator and IT advisers for years, I know from experience that; it's results that counts, where these BB's are concerned. A successful claim would put this site in the bookmark list of everyone who will face this issue in the future as this cultural trend of cooking with wood for flavor continues to grow.
burningflorida
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:18 am

Postby Wilberforce » Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:36 am

Our site is not, unfortunately, as well-funded and powerful as we would like.
Our primary purpose is to propagate information to concerned citizens.
Please feel free to use the information found here to help achieve victory
against local air polluters.

We are a very small and powerless organization. But we are growing.
Our future success depends upon the dedication of concerned citizens,
like yourself, and others, who wish to volunteer their time (and donations)
to fight the fight. No one here is paid. I for one, put in several hours a day,
sleuthing news and research from the web. And that is not easy work; it is
eye-straining and often is a migraine-generator. But I am happy to make this
effort for Mary Rozenberg and Clean Air Revival. They were here for me
when I needed them.

I wish we were as powerful as the ACLU, so we could send out a cadre of
high-priced attorneys to combat these battles all over the country (like they do)
but alas, we are not in such a position.

I thank you dearly for being on our side. But consider that this is primarily
an information-source, non-profit website. Our mission is to raise public
awareness of particulate air pollution. We appreciate your support, and we
will do what we can for you and others. At this point in time, this is limited
to the dissemination of manifold pertinent information to the public.
User avatar
Wilberforce
 
Posts: 6106
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:36 pm
Location: USA

Postby burningflorida » Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:43 am

Woodnyet, I'm not disparaging your site or your efforts all I wanted was direction to any specifics about this Smoker issue. That resource could be linked and used in the legal argument which would bring the whole State to Burninissues. When the people come the donations would follow as the issue is challenged from County to County.

As old politician and family friend once said "all politics is local" so these issues will be handled one town at a time, one state at a time until they're gone. The only other approach, as mentioned is for the medical community to finalize a determination that this activity is hazardous and then the insurance industry would not take on the liability.

So if you have any data on this specific issue, I can open the gates and let the SunShine State in. ;)
burningflorida
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:18 am

Postby Wilberforce » Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:56 pm

I do not want to sound as if I were scolding you. I was trying to point out that there is a limit to
what we can do, as our resources are constrained. Being an all-volunteer group with few funds,
the most we can do is to pass along suggestions, (or advice) and as I've said, we have no resident
attorney to give legal counsel, nor do we have any professional scientist membership (at least not
to my knowledge)

I have not seen any articles (yet) specifically concerning the so-called "backyard smoker" having
been connected with air pollution/public health. This is probably a trail which will have to be blazed
by whomever is doing the online research. (including myself) That is, as of this moment, I do not
have much to offer on the topic. While there is an abundance of published papers on the toxicity of
woodsmoke itself, and of the potentially harmful effect of human consumption of smoked foods,
I can't remember having encountered a specific situation as yours. Therefore I can only offer help
within the domain of information presently available to myself already on this site. I will keep an eye
out for relevant information this topic, (science, not opinions) as it is something which must be
explored. Surely there are many others across the nation who have encountered similar troubles.

I am presently working on several projects at once, all of which pertain to smoke pollution. So I
cannot guarantee quick results on this specific research. Please be patient. There is a solution to
this problem. The biggest problem, as I see it, is the startling lack of public awareness of the
insidious danger of wood smoke inhalation, as well as the ingestion of foods which contain
poisonous chemicals resultant of "smoking" (e.g. benz(a)pyrene)

If the government has not banned something, people figure all is well. They have not banned
tobacco (yet) so people continue to use it. People are strange - they will use something, even
though it has been outlawed (consider narcotics) and these folks KNOW drugs are bad for them.
Of course, sensible people stay away from these things - but probably primarily because they do
not wish to run afoul of the law.

Take for example, seat belt laws. In my state, it became required to wear one twenty years ago.
I began wearing one three years before that; I was not going to wait around for a law to be passed
requiring me to protect myself. But sadly, there are still those who consider it an infringement of
their "rights" to drive a car as they see fit - which probably includes speeding or drunk driving in a
car with bald tires, broken lights, and worn out brakes. Incidentally, these are often the type of
people who burn the smoky backyard firepits, in defiance of city ordinances. Risk-takers, they are.
Inform such people of the hazards of secondhand smoke, and they will surely change the subject
(because they know we are right?) This is why the folks that we really must reach are the
lawmakers and regulators. After all, there are still people out there who don't care about harming
themselves and (worse) others.

I cannot come into someone's town/state and raise hell on this issue. I'm not that smart. You are
correct; hiring a lawyer is the thing to do. What we need is a clever attorney like Henry Drummond
in the movie Inherit the Wind to argue for our cause.

Again, please search this site for information; there is much here for all to use. Here is an article
from our Health Matters section: Could I Be Allergic to Barbecue Smoke?
User avatar
Wilberforce
 
Posts: 6106
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:36 pm
Location: USA

Postby burningflorida » Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:21 pm

Well I guess I'm not making my point clear enough.
I've had an attorney on-board from jump street and in mock trials we can win on Careless Disregard, but how does it benefit you? I wanted you to make your argument, contribute to the process, bring attention to the cause.

More than just we could benefit, you could tOO. ;)
burningflorida
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:18 am

Postby Wilberforce » Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:45 pm

Can you provide more detail on your case? You have only thus far given us sketchy
information. Can you submit to us, for example, a copy of the town hall meeting minutes?
(or post a link to an online version of it?) Can you provide us with a statement written by
your lawyer? It may be helpful to us if we had more of an idea of what he/she requires(?)
In order for us to help you, we need you to help us out on this.

I will speak with Mary and the others on this. Can you be more specific on what you would like
us to do? Do you need a short essay on wood smoke toxicity? In order for this to be accepted
in court, it would probably have to be written by an expert. If you (and your lawyer) are willing
to accept an essay written by a non-expert (myself) I would be happy to contribute. But I am
not sure the court would consider the article(?) As far as legal arguments go (such as public
nuisance laws) that is not in our field of expertise.

Try to think of C.A.R. as you would think of your local newspaper. We provide, and link to,
information sources for uninformed people to learn about the consequences of air pollution.

Again, can you be more specific? Would it suffice to provide pertinent links to scientific
research papers on the health effects of wood smoke? I can give you several dozen of
these right off the bat. (from our Health Matters section) If this is acceptable, I will email
you a good long list of links to articles I would consider to be useful and relevant.

I think you may also be able to tie in the notorious "outdoor wood boiler" into your case, as
these have been documented to generate large quantities of thick, poisonous smoke, not at
all unlike a "backyard smoker." Your lawyer should research into these machines and the
ongoing legal troubles they have created for towns and neighborhoods. I think you may have
a lot to go on there, as the principle of this is not unlike your own conundrum. Remember,
this whole buzz about residential air pollution is something relatively new. Even here at
C.A.R., we are just trying to get our arms around the thing. There is still much to be learned.

Again, I will speak to the others here. I thank you for coming to us with your fight, and offering
us the opportunity to help you. But keep in mind, we are not lawyers. We are only a group of
concerned citizens who care deeply about those innocent parties victimized by residential
air pollution. For that, we provide a wealth of educational information. Please be patient. 8)
User avatar
Wilberforce
 
Posts: 6106
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:36 pm
Location: USA

Postby turning_blue » Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:47 pm

Woodnyet, I think burningflorida wants you or someone from CAR, Inc., to go to court with him/her and help fight this smoker battle. Burningflorida, is that what you are asking? Do you want an expert witness?
User avatar
turning_blue
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:45 am

Postby burningflorida » Sun Jul 20, 2008 9:17 pm

turning_blue wrote:Woodnyet, I think burningflorida wants you or someone from CAR, Inc., to go to court with him/her and help fight this smoker battle. Burningflorida, is that what you are asking? Do you want an expert witness?


No sir/mam I do not want a personal appearance, that would defeat the purpose of this exercise. The point I'm trying to make is that: you've collected all this data so obviously you know what your looking for and what your talking about. Being part of this case gives this site the recognition it deserves for the work that has been done.

Although the data supplied here has not directly effected the argument, the data does reflect the enormity of the issue.

As I stated earlier, these issues are local, the laws that govern them are framed in such a way that the local community makes a determination on there own merit.

One needs to find a contradiction in the local law that is antithetical to the proposal before them. Like this little honey right here.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/publicat ... /tip10.htm

Though the Smoker is going to be behind a building zoned as Commercial, the residential area is 40 feet away. The property owners and or renters if there are such, had no reasonable expectation that this would occur in a Urban area. A Smoker is a unit used primarily in a manufacturing process, it is not a Barbecue tub that burns at 700º it burns at 250º and then is exhausted up a 12 ft. stack into a humid 90º atmosphere with the prevailing wind pushing the smoke into the lives of the residents. As soon as the cold smoke hits the hot humid air it will drop like a rock.

To add insult to injury the meeting opened up with an announcement that the City had received a grant award from the EPA. :)

Woodnyet, I couldn't give out legal docs and the minutes are not posted yet. I'll look into the links you've suggested and get back to you. What's C.A.R. ??
http://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action= ... rrent_hour

http://www.pinellascounty.org/environme ... q2000.html
burningflorida
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:18 am

Postby Wilberforce » Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:01 pm

"C.A.R." is "Clean Air Revival", the main site of this message board.
Click the link at the top of this page: "BurningIssues.org" is aka "C.A.R."

Does it look like you will need the health articles? I will get to work on
assembling a list of links to articles which I think you can use. In the legal
section, there are some precedents. Be sure to scour the main burningissues
site yourself also — you may find something I might miss.

Again, thanks for visiting us.
User avatar
Wilberforce
 
Posts: 6106
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:36 pm
Location: USA

Postby Wilberforce » Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:34 am

Another option is to ask your doctor to certify that you or a family member has
an allergy to smoke, a lung disease, or a heart disease. There are several recent
studies which point to particulate pollution as being one of the causes of heart
attack, stroke, blood clots, even high blood pressure. It seems that, similar to
environmental tobacco smoke, ultrafine particles from wood smoke and internal
combustion engine exhaust also affect the body's cardiac (blood) system as much
as, maybe even more than, they affect the pulmonic (breathing) system.

Also, there are inexpensive particle counters on the market which can be used
to measure local ambient air pollution. Mary Rozenberg is the expert on these
devices (I am not) If particle counts exceed EPA standards of 35 µg/m³ of
combustion-generated particles, the polluter can be cited for excessive pollution
and possibly shut down. (The device must be calibrated to the source measured)

I am more in favor of particle counts (as is done in Europe) as opposed to
particle mass measurement (as is done in United States) because it
presents a more accurate parameter measurement of the ultrafine particulates,
the most damaging of the airborne particles.
User avatar
Wilberforce
 
Posts: 6106
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:36 pm
Location: USA

PreviousNext

Return to Opinion Letters, Blogs, and Discussion Groups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron