Friday, September 6, 2013

California beach fires and particulate emissions

Excerpts from the recent ruling about beach fires in California [full text available at link on right "SCAQMD..."]:


"The particulate emissions rate per minute from one beach bonfire is equal to that from:
  • Three average big-rig diesel trucks; or
  • The secondhand smoke from 800 cigarettes. Wood smoke contains many of the same toxic chemicals as secondhand cigarette smoke."
"Smoke does disperse and is diluted as it travels downwind from a fire pit. An air quality model indicates that the concentration of PM2.5, the key harmful ingredient in wood smoke, decreases by about 98 percent at a distance of 700 feet from a fire pit, SCAQMD officials said."

Why do we allow backyard fire pits?

Friday, July 19, 2013

Medical Relief? Well, not really...

I learned last week at the fire station that a completed "Medical Relief" form means only that the lots adjacent to the requesting home will be denied burning permits.
As if the smoke didn't travel!
And it may be pretty obvious to the fire pit owner exactly who requested the medical relief, which may deter some suffering parties from filing the form, in fear of retribution.
In my home, we're not bothered by the smoke from "adjacent" properties.
We've even had a carbon monoxide detector set off by a fire pit further away.
This policy is about as silly as the old one restaurants used to use, with "smoking" and "non-smoking" tables in the same dining room.


Monday, May 6, 2013

New "Open Air Burning By-Law" is on Woodstock's website

And so is the "Medical Relief" form, and the phone number for complaints.
The link is on the right, under "Woodstock".

The cost structure seems rather twisted:  the city will issue Open Air Burning Permits for free.
The person with the medical condition may have to PAY their doctor for a note for "relief" (e.g. our family doctor now charges $25.00 for notes).

Thursday, May 2, 2013

Lessons in hypocrisy, courtesy of Woodstock Council

Lesson #1
March 2013:  Endorse a strategic plan with a vision of a "green" city, and an objective to "Protect the quality of our air and water".
May 2013:  Pass an Open Air Burning By-Law to ensure lots of toxic wood smoke pollution.

Lesson #2
2012:  Spend taxpayers' money on a survey of public opinion for strategic planning purposes; learn that 81% of the population feels strongly that tax dollars should be spent on "air quality".
2013:  Pass an Open Air Burning By-Law that will require hundreds of hours of Fire Department staff time (= thousands of tax dollars) to be spent on issuing free burning permits.

Lesson #3
2003:  Pass a "Smoking in Workplaces and Public Places By-Law"; issue a brochure proclaiming "The public has the right to breathe clean air".
2013:  Pass an Open Air Burning By-Law, demonstrating that residents of Woodstock don't have the right to breathe clean air on their own private property.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.


Sunday, April 28, 2013

Delegation to Woodstock Council, April 18 2013


Your Worship Mayor Sobeski and Members of Council: 

Let me begin by thanking you for having requested that clarification regarding medical condition complaints be included in the Open Air Burning By-Law.
The response in Item I-1 of tonight’s agenda, is to include “a new Sentence” in the By-Law, referring to “an established Woodstock Fire Department policy”.   I would respectfully request a commitment to making that policy public, given that two weeks ago no one, including most of you, seemed to know of its existence.  Unless the details are available to the public, I don’t think you are meeting your own Accountability and Transparency Policy.
I would like to know, for example, the radius of the smoke free area around an affected home.  In my home we had a carbon monoxide detector set off by a fire pit about 130 ft. away.

We heard here on April 4 how both the number of permits and the number of complaints have increased.
With greater public awareness of the medical condition policy, I expect the trend to continue.
For implementation I am imagining a map of the city at the Fire Dept. with thumbtacks marking affected homes, and little circles drawn around them representing the “no burn” areas. 
But how many thumbtacks will there be? 
According to the Canadian Lung Association, over 8% of the Canadian population suffers from asthma.
Add the homes where residents suffer from heart problems or COPD.
And what about pregnant women, who are supposed to avoid second hand smoke?  I trust they will be eligible for the no-burn zone privilege?
And since second-hand smoke is a risk factor for Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, I expect that homes with babies will also qualify?
I think that you may be facing an administrative and a public relations nightmare, as you grant permits, get complaints, get doctor’s notes, revoke permits, and if you collect fees, you will be refunding fees… lots more money spent on administration.  

I wonder too if the city might be facing liability issues in the future, as you know, or ought to know, that wood smoke may cause very serious health problems.

At the Council meeting on April 4 there was discussion regarding the permit fees in the proposed Open Air Burning By-Law. 
No one mentioned the costs to individuals adversely affected by the smoke, or the costs to society of poor air quality, so I will speak to those issues. 
Doctor’s notes
Doctors may or may not charge for notes.  I called my family’s doctor’s office, and their charge for a note is $20.00.  I can pay that, but I’m not a senior on a fixed income.
Medication
In my own home, we stock prescription “puffers” for asthma, and over-the-counter antihistamines.  There is a direct correlation between poor air quality and necessary consumption of both of those.   I don’t know about heart or COPD medications, but perhaps there are some people watching at home right now who would like to tell you what poor air quality costs them for medications or other treatments.
Energy costs
It seems to be taken for granted that those who don’t want to be exposed to their neighbours’ smoke can just go inside, close their doors and windows, and turn on their air conditioning.  We are being forced to consume – and pay – for more power than we otherwise would.   I will remind you here of your recently endorsed Strategic Plan, Objective 15:  Reduce our energy consumption.
Physical suffering
It’s not a monetary cost, but as Chief Tegler pointed out on April 4:  not everyone has air conditioning.  What kind of choice are you forcing on citizens, who either have to leave their windows open and breathe their neighbours’ toxic smoke, or close their windows and endure stifling heat.
Costs to society
 On May 21 2009 Woodstock hosted the first Southwestern Ontario Clean Air Summit.  Maybe some of you were there.  Woodstock was a signatory to an Intergovernmental Declaration on Clean Air.  The full text is on the internet; here are two excerpts:
“The Ontario Medical Association estimates that in 2005 air pollution in Southwestern Ontario caused almost 1300 premature deaths and health care costs from hospital emergency room visits was in the amount of $112 million.” 
Of course we all pay the cost of those hospital visits.  2nd quote:
“By sharing the best practices from jurisdictions across Southwestern Ontario and beyond, we can support one another in achieving improvements in air quality and climate change at the local and regional level for the benefit of all.”

I suggest to you that those “best practices” are demonstrated by the virtual elimination of open air burning , as in Guelph, Cambridge, and Waterloo.

Delegation to Woodstock Council, April 4 2013


Your Worship Mayor Sobeski and members of Council:
First, let me congratulate you on your new Strategic Plan.  I have been following the process and was quite excited about some of the content.
I HAD been hoping that your vision of Woodstock as a “green and sustainable community” and objective 14 “Protect the quality of our air and water” would lead to the demise of the “Open Air Burning Policy”.  To quote from the mayor’s opening remarks to the Strategic Plan:  “…This Plan and the goals and objectives contained within it will help to guide this Council and Councils of the future in our decision making process”. 
And here we are, only two weeks after your endorsement of that Strategic Plan, and what do you have before you in this agenda?   a recommendation to establish a by-law to regulate open-air burning with permit fees.
It is my opinion that both the existing policy and the proposed by-law are totally incompatible with the above-mentioned Vision and Objective.

There is a common misconception that because wood is a natural product, and a renewable resource, it’s okay to burn it; it’s safe, it’s a “green” practice.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.

With the utmost respect for the Fire Department, their focus is clearly on fire safety. 

You, your worship and members of Council, need to be concerned with the larger issues: the smoke produced by open air burning and its effects.  Have any of you, councilors or staff, researched the topic of wood smoke and can you cite reputable sources that will assure the residents of Woodstock of the safety of wood smoke for human health and the environment?

Here are a few sources that will NOT give you that assurance:

Health Canada
Environment Canada
The Canadian Lung Association
The  Heart & Stroke Foundation
The Canadian Cancer Society
The Ontario Ministry of the Environment
The United States Environmental Protection Agency
The World Health Organization….I’ll stop there.

Instead, you will read over and over the list of toxic components of wood smoke, which are pretty much the same as those that occur in tobacco smoke.  You will read about fine particulate matter, which can be inhaled deep into the lungs, pass directly to the bloodstream, and affect the heart – as in “heart attack”.   You will read that the people most vulnerable to the ill effects of wood smoke are children, seniors, and those with heart disease, COPD, allergies, asthma, and other breathing problems.
After you have spent some time reading about wood smoke, have a look at the Community Survey data in Appendix F of the Strategic Plan, specifically Table 11.  Q5a – Importance of spending City tax dollars on environmental services/programs.  On the subject of “Air quality”, a whopping 81% of those surveyed responded with a ranking of 4 or 5.  Think about that:  81% of the population cares enough about air quality to encourage you to spend their tax dollars on improving it.  Why, then, are you doing the opposite, by giving permission for burning?   Open air burning of wood is a source of air pollution over which you have absolute and complete control.  You are not obliged to give anyone permission to burn under the Ontario Fire Code 2.6.3.4 (1) and when you give that permission you are DENYING access to clean air.
You might wonder if other cities have better practices.  I’ll give you two examples.
Guelph, which has long had a reputation for green initiatives, sets the gold standard:  there, open air burning is “strictly prohibited”.
In Cambridge, you can apply for a burning permit, and there is a charge.  But the fire MUST be 150 meters (492 feet) from any building – which will preclude fires in most backyards.   Also, “Burning cannot be done where the smoke will bother your neighbours”.  Bravo, Cambridge!

To conclude:  you have endorsed a strategic plan with a vision of Woodstock as green and sustainable.   Open air burning of wood is diametrically opposed to that vision.  Please, maintain your credibility, stick with the vision, align your policies and by-laws with it, and eliminate outdoor burning of wood.  As your smoking by-law brochure says:  The public has the right to breathe clean air.

Happy Earth Day to you all.

COMMENTS:

Thanks to Councillor Bes, who asked how many complaints were received annually, we learned the statistics:
2010:  51
2011:  64
2012:  80
... so complaints have risen about 25% each year.

Councillors appeared to be unaware of the Fire Department's medical exemption policy.  [Not one of them mentioned it to me, after my June 2012 delegation!]

Saturday, April 20, 2013

Delegation to Woodstock Council, June 7 2012


Your Worship Mayor Sobeski and Members of Council

I am here today to talk to you about Woodstock’s Open Air Burning Policy. 
Having lived most of my life in or near Toronto, I was thrilled to move to Woodstock two and a half years ago, one of the reasons being cleaner air. 
We are a family of four.  Two of my family members have respiratory-type allergies, and one of those two also suffers from asthma.

I live in a new subdivision, where there is a lot of building going on.  At the present time there are two backyard fire pits that I can see, and smell, from my own house.
I am horrified at the thought that more and more homes around me could be granted open air burning permits by the City of Woodstock, and subject my home and family to  smoke.

As I understand the legislation:

First, there is the Ontario Fire Code, which states:
2.6.3.4.  (1)  Open-air burning shall not be permitted unless approved, [except for barbecues].
Here in Woodstock, approval is granted through the Open Air Burning Policy. Let’s look at it.

2.2 tells you that you can apply for a permit:  you make application for a permit from the Fire Chief
(a) tells you when you can burn:  between 4 PM and Midnight .
(b) tells you what you can burn:  charcoal, briquette or wood
(c) limits the size of your fire pit   two feet by two feet
(j) tells you that you can’t burn under certain weather conditions:  wind speed more than15 k,rainy or foggy weather or during a smog alert

What this actually means:  you buy or build a pit the right size, you call the fire department to come and approve it, they grant you the permit, and any fine day you can light a fire in an area of 2 x 2 feet – in which you can get a pretty good blaze going – and keep it burning for 8 hours!

Why do we care?  Because during the time you are burning, you are subjecting your own home, your neighbours’ properties, and the whole community to smoke and  the toxic byproducts of the burning.

I supplied you with information from the Canadian Lung Association.  I hope you will read and re-read the marked passages, concerning Open burning:  human health, what’s in the smoke, and chimineas.

I am sure you are all familiar with this brochure:  Breathe Easy:  City of Woodstock Smoking in Workplaces and Public Places Bylaw.    The first paragraph reads:

“The public has the right to breathe clean air.  Smoke free workplaces and public places protect the public and employees from involuntary exposure to second hand smoke.”

If we are willing to protect “the public” and “employees” from second-hand cigarette smoke, why are we not willing to protect the most vulnerable - children and seniors – as well as everyone else, on their own property and in their own homes, from recreational fire smoke?  And what about the public using the wonderful green spaces that Woodstock has to offer: the parks, playgrounds, sports fields, golf courses, and the trail system, to name a few.  Most of these are adjacent to residential areas, and therefore vulnerable to contamination from “recreational burning”.

This brochure tells me that if I were to light a cigarette here in City Hall, for example,
I could be convicted under the bylaw and subject to a fine of up to $5,000.00.
This document, the Open-Air Burning Policy, tells me how to get a permit to subject my neighbourhood to hours of smoke and toxic byproducts.

What’s wrong here?  Does the left hand know what the right hand is doing?

In closing, I would like to return to the Open Air Burning Policy.  2.2 (k) reads:
the owner, occupant or permit holder must take steps to ensure that adjacent properties 
      are protected and that the byproducts of open air burnings do not have a negative impact 
      on persons, pets or the environment.
I suggest to you that said permit holder would need to be in possession of supernatural powers in order to fulfill this requirement.   No permit holder can confine the smoke to his property, nor can he prevent other “persons or pets” in the neighbourhood from inhaling the smoke.

Only you, your worship and members of Council, can offer that protection to the citizens of Woodstock.  And the only way to do it is to STOP recreational burning. 

I thank you for your attention here today, and being an optimist, I thank you in advance for your action on this important matter.

COMMENTS:

These comments were "received as information".
Sympathy was expressed by Councillors Bes, Northcott, and Talbot.

Councillor Northcott:  "I personally love the smell of wood burning; it doesn't make me sick or anything."

Councillor Talbot:  "I have a wood-burning fireplace in my home in which I burn wood all the time because I love the fire and I love the smell of fire.  I remember younger days at home when we used to be able to rake the leaves to the curb at the side of the road and burn them on the side of the road and everybody seemed to go out and do that and enjoy that."