the dems at work in SF....no fireplaces....

[manu1959]

no guns .... no fireplaces....no smoking....classic

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

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?

[JohnDoe]

I'm going through that dilemma now with my fireplace...50% of maine households use wood to heat....all kinds of complaints going on from asthmatics and the state is probably gonna pass laws agains outside wood boilers and making wood stoves the EPA standard mandatory and crap like that.... want to get a wood stove, but the ones that are EPA approved are double the price of the standard wood stove that emits much more toxins and ash in to the air, and we don't have the money at the moment to get the EPA one.... just a mess.... and confusing when you read the EPA site about what kind to get and crap.... I want to do the right thing but crap, the money to do it is limited for us... so I am pretty much burning OIL at 3.20 a gallon which can't be much better I suppose than burning wood in the fireplace imo, but still researching it... :(

from what I have read, California and Washington state have the strictest regulations on wood burning already....? some of the non epa stoves can not even be sold in those 2 states now, and what if I buy one of them and then maine also makes them illegal?


jd

[avatar4321]

so we cant have fires now because of global warming???

you know, one of these days the global warming extremists are going to push it too far and people are going to tell them to shut the heck up (usuing much more colorful language im sure). I think they might be pushing it on this one.

[actsnoblemartin]

thats hilarious


no guns .... no fireplaces....no smoking....classic

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

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?

[Pale Rider]

no guns .... no fireplaces....no smoking....classic

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

What are you doing there manu? Why don't you just move the heck otta there? You just don't seem to be the type to put up with that horse hocky for long.

[trobinett]

My understanding is that fire places in "new construction" has been baned for about 15 years in California.:coffee:

[April15]

Fireplaces in new construction is the norm not the exception. What is different is they are built with improved heat exchange units around the firebox or they are zero clearance inserts. Many are gas with ceramic logs.
The only problem with wood is from the sap which is what makes particulate matter as the sap keeps the fire from becoming hot enough to reduce and or eliminate the exhausting of particulates. Pellet stoves don't have this problem as the wood is processed.

[manu1959]

My understanding is that fire places in "new construction" has been baned for about 15 years in California.:coffee:

no you can still build fireplaces....

[manu1959]

What are you doing there manu? Why don't you just move the heck otta there? You just don't seem to be the type to put up with that horse hocky for long.

it is better than reality tv....plus i have a really good job and a really nice house....and i am living in the town i grew up in.....