Re: San Francisco considers banning fireplaces...

On Nov 24, 7:10�am, Jim Higgins <gordian...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
�From the Land of Fruits, Nuts and Flakes:

San Francisco considers banning fireplaces...http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/22/EDNKTDK1S...

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Under the auspices of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District,
"public hearings" are being held to determine the fate of the family hearth.

Those of us who live in rural areas have a pretty good idea what the
outcome is going to be.

Still, in the interest of basic fairness, we'd at least like the
decision-makers to employ the rudiments of the scientific method, rather
than riding the winds of energy dependence and global warming hysteria,
before coming to a final decision.

The scientific method follows a rigid methodology. Ask a question. Do
background research. Construct a hypothesis. Test the hypothesis. And
then, communicate the results.

So what is the question? Are the fires in our homes bad because they add
to global warming? Release carbon dioxide into the air? Pollute the
atmosphere with soot and particulate matter? All of the above?

Where is the research? The Chronicle reported that "government studies"
indicate that 33 percent of all "particulate matter" comes from your
fireplace and mine. With all the industry and all the cars in the Bay
Area, does anyone actually believe that?

Shouldn't we be given more quantitative information such has, "How many
fireplaces are there in the nine counties? How many are used each night?
How many hours is each fireplace used? How much "particulate matter" is
expelled from each fire? How many parts per million are in the air? How
much dissipates into the atmosphere?"

Is this decision truly about air quality or global warming?

Interestingly, one loses on the issues of global warming because the odd
paradox is, the more there is cloud cover or "smoke" in the air, the
cooler the Earth will be. It is well documented how the Earth's
temperature cooled after the explosion of the volcano Krakatoa. From
that standpoint, one ought to encourage fires which produce the maximum
amount of smoke.

Of course, that position is politically absurd.

Those of us in rural communities feel bullied by this sort of nanny
state legislation. We'd like to believe that a man's home is indeed his
castle. Most of us live in small towns or the country for a reason. We
don't like cities. We don't like traffic. We don't like noise. We don't
like the dirty air.

Our air is clean, and we take umbrage when someone says our fires are
polluting their air.

If the ban goes into effect, what is the cost to society? What is the
benefit? We need to weigh these carefully.

Then there is this question: Why do we burn?

We stoke our hearths for two reasons.

First, many rural people burn wood because they can't afford to heat
their old houses with electricity. Many more feel that burning wood does
less damage to the planet than increasing their carbon footprint by
using so much electricity.

Banning fires would hurt the elderly who live on fixed incomes and the
poor in general. It would be an added tax on the rest of us and increase
dependence on petroleum.

Second, for many of us, a fire crackling in the fireplace is about a
different kind of energy - psychic energy. After a day's work, is there
anything nicer than coming home and having a class of Napa Valley
Cabernet in front of a roaring fire?

Rainy Sundays find us stretched out on the couch, newspapers scattered,
49ers on the TV, and a fire roaring in the fireplace.

On wintry school nights, our children used to come down into the living
room to do their homework in front of the fire as my wife and I read.

During the energy crisis in California, our family closed the parlor
doors and gathered in one tiny room around the fire. it was a scene out
of a Jane Austin novel. Five of us read, played chess, did homework and
paid bills, in a chilly room heated only by our tiny hearth.

Never was our family closer. The fire was more than a source of heat. It
was a mystical, magical magnet of love, warmth and togetherness.

We worry that the real issue here isn't about health, global warming or
energy savings, but about control.

Were it not about control, the dialogue would be about baffles and
filters to eliminate soot, not about outright bans.

Home fires are not about "particulate matter." They are about warmth,
love, quality of life - and for many an economic necessity. How cold are
those who would take that from us, their neighbors?

I can only respond that I am allergic to smoke from the fireplace. On
cool evenings when everyone is using their fireplace, I go into asthma
attacks. I would agree with those who say that fireplaces are
responsible for more pollution that cars or other sources.
.

Loading