Give me the chestnuts, hold the open fire

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

Looks like they already have.

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

 

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

 

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

 

True, I'll give you that.

 

The two-percenters, maybe.

 

That small number is crazy.

 

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.

 

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