[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

The lowest smoking incidence in that study (other than zero) works out to 5 pack-years. That is, one pack a day for 5 years.

Not a small dose. Nowhere near comparable to two days of fireplace per year.

Edit: closer to 4.5 years.

Two days of fireplace multiplied by the total number of fireplaces burning for some amount of time, coupled with the smog that already exists and is probably heightened by holiday travel, and is also quite hard to control.

Maybe you are over-simplifying things?

[subego]

I got tired of typing "unrestricted fire days".

If two days could have that big an effect, it would be outlawed year round.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Wood fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Hence my thinking to focus on the wood.



Ignoring the emotional stuff about teams.

Did ja happen to take a look at the citations in that section? They are non-existent/misleading. In other words, aside from the words of some government somewhere, can you show me the harmful affects of a fire in the fireplace during christmas? (i'm gonna go with my gut here and say no, no you can't).

We do have, however, many instances of the government attempting to suppress Christmas itself for whatever reason. This phenomenon is readily observable.

[P]

Not that I particularly agree with the ban, but there is some sane reasoning behind it. What's bad in the wood-burning fireplace is the soot. Soot is particles, and if there are too many particles in the air at the same time, it gets hard to breathe. There are links to asthma and all sorts of allergies, excess deaths at days with high particle counts etc. Pellet-burning stoves need not apply, because they don't produce anywhere as much soot.

(That said, the way to treat this is to lower the average particle concentration in the air enough that you can take a peak at Christmas and times like that, because bans like the above are a perfect way to get people upset about environmental protections micromanaging their lives)

[andi*pandi]

While I agree that this ban is silly, I think calling this an attack on Christmas is a bit much Snow-i. A fire is not part of the official holiday, and if there are religious aspects they stem from the pagan origins (ie Tree). I mainly think we like it because it's pretty.

As for smog, the reason I didn't have a fire in the fireplace this Christmas Eve is because I tried a few weeks ago, the smoke backed up into my house. Yes, flue was open. New furnace last year created some kind of backdraft. I can tell you, that smoke was noxious. Chimney guys coming to fix it.

[subego]

Santa got stuck in there.

[andi*pandi]

2 years ago?!?!?!

[besson3c]

Andi killed Santa?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Did ja happen to take a look at the citations in that section? They are non-existent/misleading. In other words, aside from the words of some government somewhere, can you show me the harmful affects of a fire in the fireplace during christmas? (i'm gonna go with my gut here and say no, no you can't).

We do have, however, many instances of the government attempting to suppress Christmas itself for whatever reason. This phenomenon is readily observable.

https://www.google.com/search?q=envi...m=119&ie=UTF-8

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

2 years ago?!?!?!

That explains why NORAD kept giving me telemetry for your front yard.

[ghporter]

...and yet it seems the City of San Francisco has banned fireplace burning while still not managing the traffic issues that are apparently the real cause of the chronic bad air in the San Francisco area...

While encouraging low-emission and no-emission vehicles, the City by the Bay has still not managed to reduce chronic traffic problems that lead to lots and lots of emissions, more than everybody in town using a fireplace could cause, and on a pretty much daily basis. City leaders have managed to come up with a fix for a problem that has almost nothing to do with the mechanism of their fix, and it makes them look "less than intelligent" from this bleacher seat.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

...and yet it seems the City of San Francisco has banned fireplace burning while still not managing the traffic issues that are apparently the real cause of the chronic bad air in the San Francisco area...

While encouraging low-emission and no-emission vehicles, the City by the Bay has still not managed to reduce chronic traffic problems that lead to lots and lots of emissions, more than everybody in town using a fireplace could cause, and on a pretty much daily basis. City leaders have managed to come up with a fix for a problem that has almost nothing to do with the mechanism of their fix, and it makes them look "less than intelligent" from this bleacher seat.

[ebuddy]

DOH!

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

While I agree that this ban is silly, I think calling this an attack on Christmas is a bit much Snow-i. A fire is not part of the official holiday, and if there are religious aspects they stem from the pagan origins (ie Tree). I mainly think we like it because it's pretty.

i take extreme issue with you (or anyone) deciding what is and isn't part of my religion. There is no "official holiday" and its that very attitude that is so disturbing to me when it comes to protecting our rights. The whole idea of the 1st amendment is so that no one can tell you how to practice your traditions and your religion.

I really don't think you can argue that a fire in our fireplace with family gathered around isn't officially part of my religion, because its been tradition for my family since before I was born, as with millions of others.

[Shaddim]

True that, though I don't believe andi personally meant anything by it.

For half the year, late Sept - early April, there's a fire going in our livingroom hearth at night, and to us it's as much a religious tradition as anything else, because that space is where we gather as a family in the evening for; reading, meditating, talking, praying, singing, etc.. It's a significant part of our lives and part of what binds us so closely together as a family. Other people don't need to understand it, condone it, or even practice it for themselves, but they should respect that we hold it in high regard. That's the real foundation of tolerance, after all.

Good point by Glenn too. Until the city has exhausted all other options in pursuit of cleaner air, they need to leave peoples' homes and traditions alone. That should be the very last place the government should try to intrude into, and even then they must tread lightly.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

True that, though I don't believe andi personally meant anything by it.

No, I don't think so at all. The strong language is only meant to convey how important I think maintaining those rights are. Like, the #1 issue that our (or any, really) generation will face.

For half the year, late Sept - early April, there's a fire going in our livingroom hearth at night, and to us it's as much a religious tradition as anything else, because that space is where we gather as a family in the evening for; reading, meditating, talking, praying, singing, etc.. It's a significant part of our lives and part of what binds us so closely together as a family. Other people don't need to understand it, condone it, or even practice it for themselves, but they should respect that we hold it in high regard. That's the real foundation of tolerance, after all.

Bingo, to me thats what the first amendment is all about, freedom of expression in whatever form you may wish to do in the confines of your own house. That's tolerance, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness IMO.

Good point by Glenn too. Until the city has exhausted all other options in pursuit of cleaner air, they need to leave peoples' homes and traditions alone. That should be the very last place the government should try to intrude into, and even then they must tread lightly.

Bingo again.

[BadKosh]

Since the FedGov sanctioned the Pellet Stoves as renewable resource burner, and because the pellet stoves optimize burning to keep the ash and clunkers to a minimum, I would run mine for heat, whatever those ass canyons in SF say. That is what I use to heat my home. I guess you have to have an IQ below 25 to make decisions in CA anyway.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I guess you have to have an IQ below 25 to make decisions in CA anyway.

Only to hold office.

[Shaddim]

It's not IQ, it's the ability to kiss Hollywood's collective ass.

[Jawbone54]

If someone can't see how unequivocally insane that ban is, there is no argument that will persuade them.

I Hate Being Retarded - The Stand - YouTube