@shaun,You're a creative person. You can probably think of a
way to reduce the number of days you drive your car.@2 bitsI appreciate your focus on our personal responsibility in reducing pollution.
Keep beating that drum; it's going to take a while before enough people
RE: "Suppose we do something about the magnesium refinery"...---OK, we get it. industry is the villain, we get it. But did you
know industry isn't the biggest contributor to our air pollution?It's not #1. It's not even 2nd. It's 3rd.Google
"Pollution Sources | KUED.org"...#1 57% of our air pollution
comes from transportation (cars,etc).#2 Coming in at 32%, is not industry,
its your home (heating the air, heating water, cooling the air in summer,
lights, etc).#3 Causing 11% of our air pollution, is Industry (Mines,
refineries, large industry)Industry is doing better all the time on
reducing their emissions. Kennecott's new refinery will have 90% less
emissions than it's old one.Google "Kennecott’s role
in reducing emissions"...Have you reduced your home/car
emissions by 90%?Blaming industry doesn't solve the problem.Blaming industry is a copout. It's the only one of the 3 that
doesn't require you to make any changes, and just sit back and think you
are doing your part (blaming industry).We have to change.If each of us changes a little... the aggregate change is HUGE.
Interesting lets take all things into consideration here Utah gives tax breaks
to real estate developers, tech companies and corporations. Utah
your adding hundreds of thousands of people to to the population, that's
hundreds of thousands of cars, hundreds of thousands of buildings that need to
to be heated, not to mention the pollution building these huge developments.
Sorry but its too late the only way your going to clean the air is
to slow the population growth.
Suppose we do something about the magnesium refinery. They we can talk about the
I don't think anyone has a right to burn wood along the Wasatch Front for
mere recreation or ambiance. I do think everyone has a right to heat their
homes, including those who don't have a natural gas furnace.Let's turn the question around. Does anyone have a right to live along
the WF and expect not to deal with winter weather, city crowds, or well known
amd long standing periodic air quality issues? Lots of people end up
moving to St. George or other sunbelt areas to avoid SL winters. Some move to
rural areas to get away from city crowds. And for the last 100 years, some
people have moved out of SL to escape winter air quality issues.Some
people can't afford to live in Draper or Park City. Some can't
tolerate cold weather. Some are highly sensitive to air quality.When
the media stops supporting wasting money on mass transit that does nothing to
improve air quality and instead encourages efforts to convert cars to CNG, to
synchronize lights and oppose high density in the suburbs so as to reduce
congestion, amd other material benefits, I will believe they care about air
quality. Until then, it looks like air quality is just an excuse to push other
Not all wood burning pollutes equally. I have lived in a logging town, in a
basin, where over half the population heated with wood. Yah, it really stunk.
Our bad air is better than theirs by a lot. They did enact some burning
regulations, but with sensitivity to the fact that it was a poor town, and many
people had no other heat source. I hear no public mention in Utah of the fact
that burning small hot fires, and having a modern wood stove with a secondary
burn cycle, significantly reduces the emissions. It was preached constantly in
that little town. Perhaps such stoves could be subsidized by the public
(preferably voluntarily) for those in need. Real solutions will only
come when we think and talk in terms of loving our neighbors instead of
demanding our rights. Rights are important and need to be respected, but our
society is torn apart by those who love only themselves and their own, and make
demands accordingly.And remember folks, we live in a desert basin.
We can't blame anyone for that except ourselves.
It's a classic urban vs. rural issue. No you shouldn't be able to
smolder green wood in a stove to heat your house in urban Utah, but a good fire
in a wood stove shouldn't be a problem in rural Utah, as long as you
don't smoke out your neighbor(s). We have the same problem in
Washington State. They make the rules in urban Washington and say I can only
have an outdoor fire that's 4'X4'X3'. After a windstorm I
might have a pile of tumbleweeds that 20'X20'X10'. If I were to
choose to burn that whole pile at once I know my neighbors, and I wouldn't
have a problem as long as the wind goes the right direction and my fire is hot
to keep the smoke from being excessive, and I burn on a burn day. A smokey
nasty 4'X4'X3' fire would not endear me to my neighbors.Common sense says know your neighbors and work with them & things will be
ok. That might mean helping your parents with the electric bill when the city
surrounds them. Helping family is an American value, regardless of your
I don't. On a different note, do the refineries, taking a bus from
Bountiful to Salt Lake, have a right to pollute in Winter and red and yellow air
days? Yes, yes they do.
How am I not suppose to drive? Should I quit my job?
A quote from the story about the difference between winter and summer inversions
in Utah...... "While the science behind the two air quality
issues is different, a major factor in both are transportation emissions. These
are responsible for an estimated fifty-percent of ground level ozone and nearly
half of the emissions that fuel an inversion. So by simply reducing vehicle
trips, we can protect our health, our environment and our quality of
life"...No mention of wood burning. So maybe that's not
the big problem some make it out to be.transportation emissions are
a much bigger contributor, and what we need to control to control the
problem.Don't burn wood unless you must to live, but
that's only 5% of the problem. You can help much more by not driving your
car (unless absolutely necessary)
@NeifyT" I don't know what the meteorological term for the
weather pattern that traps pollutants in the valley during the summer months is
called; but it is just as bad as winter "inversions.""It's still an inversion. We do get inversions in the summer too. They
are just sometimes less visible, but they are there. And you are right, they
are just as bad.The main problem in summer is Ozone. When we get a
no-drive day in Summer it's usually because of high ozone levels (not
particulates).But particulates can be a problem too. That's
the main problem with the smoke we get from forest fires, that's mostly
particulates (AKA PM 2.5).But there can be different problems than
just particulates. Some you can't see (like Ozone).Google
"The Difference Between Utah’s Summer Ozone and Winter
Inversions"...It can be as bad as a winter inversionAnd the prevention is the same... don't drive. That's why they
will announce no-drive days on the news and on the overhead signs on the
freeways in the summer. Mostly for ozone. But there are PM 2.5 problems too
in summer too.
@NeifyT" I don't know what the meteorological term for the
weather pattern that traps pollutants in the valley during the summer months is
called; but it is just as bad as winter "inversions.""It'd still be an inversion. An inversion is just when temperature
increases with height leaving a stable layer.We can still have
particulate issues during the summer, they tended to coincide with wildfire
issues (or the occasional dust storm but that also tends to drop back down in
less than 24 hours), but because most days the air mixes out it doesn't
tend to build up the same way as it does in the winter. It just stays as long as
the smoke plume is pointed our way. Ozone is the more summer-focused pollution
@liberal larry RE: "It's odd that a culture that is almost
fanatical about cigerette smoke is so blase about smoke belching home
fireplaces!"...---It's also befuddling that people so
concerned about an orange air day would be OK with sucking smoke directly from a
cigarette or a joint directly into their lungs. When we know for a fact how
damaging that is (much worse than breathing the air on the worst red-air
day).I've watched people smoking at a clean air rally... and
just scratched my head.I mean if you're going to demand clean
air... and then sit and suck nicotine, tar, and carcinogen laced smoke through a
straw with your friends, isn't that a little weird?I don't
have a wood burning stove or a fireplace, so I'm not your problem. But I
also don't know that it's our right to prevent you from smoking, or to
prevent somebody else from heating their home (if this is the only heating
source they have).Burning wood just for atmosphere seems silly
though. It's not worth it. But it's not my decision, it's
yours. Just like smoking.BTW cigarettes and fireplaces are not what
quickly fill our valley with smog when high pressure moves in. Most of it is
Your right to burn wood or coal ends where my lungs begin.
liberal larryRE: "It's odd that a culture that is almost
fanatical about cigerette smoke"...---Actually Utahns are not
fanatical about cigarette smoke. At least not as fanatical as some places
I've lived.Utah was not one of the first States to ban smoking
in public places. In fact they were one of the last.Google
"List of smoking bans in the United States - Wikipedia"...California was the first State to enact a statewide smoking ban (1995). We
didn't ban it till 2007.So... California is more fanatical
about it than we are.We may not smoke as much as other populations.
But we are slow to ban others from doing it. Well... at lest slower than
California and other places.And you can still smoke in Utah. Just
not where other people have to breath it. Same as in California or any other
State. That's not "fanatical". It's the same as most
justawhim RE: "I don't see Jay calling for a complete ban on wood
stoves"...---He didn't call for a total ban. But he did
pretend he has the right to ban it at his whim (or his son's).He said, "Someone’s right to burn wood ends at my son's right
to breathe"...That sounds good, but how do we know when that ban
goes into affect? How do we know when his son is having problems breathing?
And do we know that just banning wood burning would fix it? What if the problem
is really from the cars driving around?It's true his son has a
right to breath. But how we respond to that is not simple. Do we ban wood?
Or do we ban cars? Which would have a bigger affect on his son?And
if I can ban somebody else from driving because my son has asthma... what else
can I ban?
It's odd that a culture that is almost fanatical about cigerette smoke is
so blase about smoke belching home fireplaces!
This is simply a case of politicians wanting to look like they are doing
something, while not actually fixing the problem. Imagine we totally ban wood
burning stoves during the winter. Air quality will not be changed because there
are so few people who use wood.This is like the money they are
spending on fixing pollution by adding in green energy. Yes it sounds like they
are doing something, but the end result is nothing actually changes.
Air pollution is the "second hand smoke" of the day. We should do
everything in our power to mitigate it. Air pollution irritates the lungs, and
causes damage to living and unborn children, crops, forests, animals, bodies of
water, and the ozone layer. It is a factor in increased nutrients in bodies of
water (the cause of algal blooms) and global climate change. Health problems
such as heart disease, stroke, COPD, lung cancer, and acute lower respiratory
infections can be attributed to air pollution.
Environmental moralizing is fun. Does a person have a right to
drive 200 miles to get a hamburger? Think of the pollution and the children?Does a person have aright to joy ride to Europe to eat French pastries?
Think of the pollution and the children.The environment shaming and
virtue signalling is not helpful.
.0003% of Utahns use a wood stove or fireplace to heat their homes.There are already no burn days that the vast majority of that .0003% abide
by.I think the 15% of the 39% is likely based on if all that .0003%
were using their stoves on no burn days? I really question that 5%, especially
after there are a lot of no burn days.If someone were to use their
wood stove the day or two before and during a storm when all the bad air will be
blown out of the valley, I know I don't have a problem with it.Wood is renewable.
@NeifyTI would love to see a ban on fireworks here in Utah. Or at
least some additional regulations. They cause immense pollution and are a
danger to homes and forests.I don't see Jay calling for a
complete ban on wood stoves. He is merely causing attention to something that
many homes could do that would help lessen their contribution to our pollution.
Having incentives to switch over is a great idea. Every little bit helps.
It doesn't matter at all, salt lake valley will always have the pollution
problems, been that way over a hundred years and no agentcy is going to change
anything...burn the wood.
@Frozen Fractals,We may not get a weather pattern called
"inversion" in the summer, but particulates do not always just blow
right on out of the valley in the summer either. As I said, the air this past
summer was tremendously worse in the valleys along the Wasatch front the whole
summer. I don't know what the meteorological term for the weather pattern
that traps pollutants in the valley during the summer months is called; but it
is just as bad as winter "inversions."Again, it all depends
on those weather patterns whether fireworks during the month of July (and I have
neighbors that light them off every single night in July and plenty often
throughout the whole year) whether the pollution moves on out or stays in the
valley. And is has become worse ever since they lifted the ban on specific
types of fireworks.I certainly admit that most of the pollution this
past summer was from wildfires not fireworks. But, fireworks started some of
those fires; hence, unless one is advocating the banning of fireworks; it is
hypocritical to even talk of banning wood burning. At least winter wood burning
serves a valuable purpose. Fireworks do not!
If 69% of workers say they would leave the state due to bad air... why
don't we let them? That would fix our problem right there! 69% less
drivers on our roads... can you imagine the air quality improvements that would
bring?I say let them leave. It would help them and it would help
Ya want to breath carbon monoxide (oil) or dioxide ( wood). I'd love to
have natural gas but propane is the other option, wood is the preferred cost. .
@cork"39% times 15% in my calculator comes up with 5.58%. Seems pretty
darn small compared to all the other polluters out there. Again, go get them.
Why attack 6%? An easy target?"6% is a lot for something that is
just a tiny percentage of homes in the valley. @NeifyT"Fireworks cause far far far more pollution than winter wood burning.
"The spikes on big fireworks nights are easy to detect, but they
are quite temporary and the next day one would struggle notice as the air mixes
out to a high enough level that it can escape out of the valley. It doesn't
just settle into our November-February soup.@Vanceone"They
love it when old people die... less burden on the health care system!"Because liberals are totally the ones saying that we need to cut
spending on things like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security...@2bits" (Which contributes much more to our air pollution)?"Depends on what we're referring to. Overall vehicles are around 50%
and assuming cork's math is correct wood burning is 6%. But if car
ownership is 9x higher than wood stoves then on a per owner level the wood
burning is worse.
Jay,I'm not familiar with any Constitutional "Right" to burn
wood in the winter. But there are limitations on what the government
can/can't do to the people. At least the Federal Government. But I
don't see anything about the right to burn wood in the winter shall not be
infringed, or anything like that.===RE: "The
discussion should focus on where someone’s right to burn wood ends and his
right to breathe begins"...---If their right to heat their home
with wood ends... where does your right to drive end?Does my right
to drive end because of your son's asthma?I mean if one ends,
why doesn't the other (Which contributes much more to our air
pollution)?More of our air pollution and your son's problem is
from cars. So if you claim the right to curtail people heating their homes
because of your son's condition... do you not also have the right to make
driving illegal (if it bothers your son)?Just pointing out that you
can't just apply it to one thing an not others. Especially when wood
burning is such a small contributor and cars are such a HUGE contributor.
None if only we could out law high pressure systems.
Ban wood burning stoves? That is not an American thing to do. Pretty soon
we'll be banning people from smoking in public places and places that serve
the public under the guise of protecting health. This needs to stop. No one will
stand for trampling on our rights in this state. Smokers, watch out or our
liberal state government will ban you from your right to smoke. We conservatives
will never advocate for restricting your rights to do as you please. I
don't care what liberal scientists say about health. It doesn't trump
my rights to do as I please.People with health problems are responsible
for their own health, not me. Your bad health is not my responsibility.
People should be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm
anyone else.The problem is we all live together and share resources
such as air and water. As our population has grown we finally realize that
things that we once considered acceptable really were not as we were/are harming
others by the pollution we create. People have never paid the true, complete
price for our conveniences, we just push the pollution we create out into the
air, water and ground. We have merely kicked the problem down the road to the
next generation and that bill is overdue. At least some are paying more
attention to the problem and working to alleviate it. I've also changed, I
quit idling vehicles and using a fireplace decades ago, I no longer own a
gas-powered muscle or performance vehicle, I've focused on vehicles that
minimize pollution, but even electric vehicles aren't pollution free, they
just make pollution easier to manage. We can't all do
everything, and I have no issue with people who must heat their homes with wood
if they can't afford better options. What we all need to do is everything
each person can do to reasonably help reduce pollution which affects all of us.
Attacking the little guy again. Why don't you see what comes out of your
own chimney. Yes you have one connected to your furnace. Millions of homes,
apartments, and businesses pollute our air constantly each day and night when
their furnace clicks on and it's not as CLEAN as they say it is and you
can't even smell it when it leaks. That's why people sleep right
through it and die in their own homes when there is a problem. Find out how
dangerous that is to our air along with all the cars, trucks, etc. Pollution is
the price of living in the world. I'm sorry your son suffers from asthma. I
have a heart problem of my own that I deal with, but I can't let that stop
me from living life that way I want to live it. It's my freedom of choice
just like it's a smokers to smoke or to use charcoal instead of gas when
using the barbeque. I consider it freedom precious.
So let's see. My mom and dad, getting pretty elderly. Their home
doesn't have natural gas. It's miles from a natural gas line, in
fact.Electric heat is prohibitively expensive. The cheapest is coal,
second is wood burning. Leftists want to ban both, of course. And
since it's too expensive to heat with electricity.... my parents will
freeze to death.But then, that's a feature, not a bug, for
leftists. They love it when old people die... less burden on the health care
Without reading the article... I have to ask Jay"Do you still
think you have the right to light fireworks in the summer?"Fireworks cause far far far more pollution than winter wood burning. And they
then commonly start wild-fires which burn far far far far more pollution than
winter wood burning.Last summer the air in Utah was far worse than
it has been all winter long this winter. Calling out winter wood
burners is absolutely hypocritical!
Concerns about particulate matter in the air and health problems from pollution
are so 1990s. With my crisis fatigue, I can only focus on one crisis at a
time. Today the fashionable problem de jour is carbon dioxide, or carbon
pollution, or carbon footprint, because this contributes to the impending doom
of global warming. It should be noted that carbon dioxide does not
cause exacerbations of asthma or really any health problems related to
pollution, but we have been told it will apparently annihilate the entire human
race within a few decades, so perhaps that's a concern. Lots of thing
burn cleaner than wood and would cause less pollution, but they don't cut
down on the C02 emitted and thus don't combat the great evil. Thus using
natural gas or other cleaner energy, etc is only nipping at the edges of the
true crisis. Everyone should really be powering their homes with windmills or
solar (such as all Democrats obviously already do) as well as completely give up
their cars (as all Democrats have already done) and that would show some
I have a crazy idea! If 69% of workers say they would leave the state due to
bad air, and we want to get rid of coal, why not move the companies that have
"high tech employees" to Carbon and Emery counties! The sky is
beautiful, housing is way cheaper, there is a university and fiber and very
willing workforce to secure employment to keep our kids here.
Let;s see: 39% times 15% in my calculator comes up with 5.58%. Seems pretty
darn small compared to all the other polluters out there. Again, go get them.
Why attack 6%? An easy target? Yep, typical government.As for your
son, I'm sorry for his asthma, but it doesn't preclude my right to
burn in my stove any more than my rights infringing upon his. With that logic,
we'd have all the cars off the streets, the TRAX at a standstill, the
factories shut down, etc. etc.
Wait. This is about jobs (just like the coal argument). There are many
Utahn's that make their livings cutting trees, buying and selling firewood
and manufacturing and selling wood burning stoves. These restrictions can put
them out of business. So what if the air gets a little nasty? We are a pro-jobs,
republican state. We need less regulation. We don't need leftists telling
us what we can or can't do in our own homes-right?
There are many personal air quality sensors scattered around the valley these
days and what they find going along the streets is that pollution levels take
noticeably huge jumps near homes using a wood-burning stove.