1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Give me the chestnuts, hold the open fire

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by hondo, Nov 26, 2007.

  1. hondo

    hondo Well-Known Member

    Okay, I know this is San Francisco, which carries its own particular brand of wackiness, but for the love of God .... banning fireplaces???

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/22/EDNKTDK1S.DTL
     
  2. D-3 Fan

    D-3 Fan Active Member

    San Fran must hate holiday traditions... :-\
     
  3. jgmacg

    jgmacg Guest

    Woodsmoke pollution is a huge problem out west - even in urban areas.

    http://www.baaqmd.gov/pio/wood_burning/

    By the 1980’s, wood smoke became the largest area-wide stationary source of particulate matter in the Bay Area. Studies by the Air District indicated that wood smoke was responsible for an average of one-third of the PM10 in the air basin during the winter months and almost 70 percent of the PM10 in Santa Rosa. In addition, wood burning generates carbon monoxide and toxic air pollutants such as benzene and dioxin.

    http://burningissues.org/car-www/index.html

    http://www.emagazine.com/view/?1107

    Fireplace facts
    In winter, fireplaces and wood-stoves generate 40 percent of the Bay Area’s particulate air pollution. The very fine particles—invisible to the eye—are the most harmful to health because they lodge deep in the lungs. Woodsmoke is also an important source of dioxins and other toxic compounds. Wood-smoke contributes 39 percent of dioxin air emissions in the Bay Area.

    A natural gas fireplace eliminates more than 99 percent of the pollution generated by a traditional fireplace, and is six to nine times more energy-efficient.
     
  4. EStreetJoe

    EStreetJoe Well-Known Member

    Shouldn't campfires, bonfires and all other outdoor fires be banned first, then ban the fireplace fire?
     
  5. jgmacg

    jgmacg Guest

    Looks like they already have.

    http://www.baaqmd.gov/enf/open_burning/index.htm
     
  6. Cansportschick

    Cansportschick Active Member

    No one should ban bonfires. :eek: :eek: :eek: They are one of the best creations on the universe. The things that have come out of bonfires I have gone to... ;D
     
  7. da man

    da man Well-Known Member

    I can think of a few people at Texas A&M who might disagree.
     
  8. Cansportschick

    Cansportschick Active Member

    True, I'll give you that.
     
  9. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    The two-percenters, maybe.
     
  10. Cansportschick

    Cansportschick Active Member

    That small number is crazy.
     
  11. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    I know we'd love to have no negative impact whatsoever on the environment, but it's just not realistic.

    Problem is, where do you draw the line? At what point do mandated automobile improvements become too onerous? At what point do other restrictions become too onerous? And who gets to decide.

    Sadly, I think this is a case that's maybe going a bit too far.
     
  12. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Well the automobile "improvements" aren't within a NBA 3-pointer of onerous yet. They aren't even in the mildly inconvenient neighborhood.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page