Canadian Cancer Society (Why I no longer support this organization)

Like many health organizations, the Canadian Cancer Society condemns smoking, but turns a blind eye to residential wood burning.

FACTS:
Air pollution and particulate matter were both classified by IARC as Group 1 carcinogens in 2013.
That means “CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS”.
Anyone near a wood fire is exposed to a megadose of particulate matter.

In 2016 Public Health Ontario and Cancer Care Ontario jointly published a report entitled The Environmental Burden of Cancer in Ontario, in which they ranked 23 environmental carcinogens.
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) ranked #3, far ahead of other well-recognized carcinogens such as asbestos, formaldehyde, and secondhand [tobacco] smoke.

Despite the evidence, the Canadian Cancer Society website has minimal warnings about wood smoke.

Using the website’s search function, there are no hits for the term “PM2.5”
“Particulate matter” retrieves the pages “Air Pollution and Cancer” and “Risk factors for lung cancer”, although neither links PM to recreational wood burning.
But wait; here it is!  Buried WAY down, under the heading “Pollutants from cooking and heating”, we find:  “Burning wood and other fuels, such as dung or grass...can also increase the risk for lung cancer.”
And a second mention, on the “What is air pollution” page, where “indoor burning of coal or wood” is listed as a major source of indoor air pollution.
On the “7 ways to reduce your exposure to air pollution - indoors”, we finally find a piece of good advice: “Switch from a...wood-burning heat source...”, unfortunately followed immediately by this howler:  “...lower your risk by using efficient stoves and fireplaces with effective chimneys.”

There is no mention anywhere about RECREATIONAL wood burning:  backyard fire pits, campfires, or fireplaces.

Why isn’t residential wood burning treated like smoking?
This message should be upfront on the website, where the public is encouraged to “Make healthy choices”.

Heart & Stroke (Why I no longer support this organization)

Heart & Stroke

Way back in 2009, H&S published a position statement entitled “Air Pollution, Heart Disease and Stroke”.
In this document they:

• Linked air pollution with premature deaths
• Recognized wood stoves and fireplaces as “sources of dangerous air pollution” and PM2.5
• Described the ways PM2.5 affects the cardiovascular system and increases the risk of heart disease and stroke
• Recommended that public take action to reduce air pollution by limiting wood burning

Strangely, a decade later, none of this information is reflected in the front end of the H&S website.
Evidence that air pollution, PM2.5, and wood smoke have a detrimental effect on the cardiovascular system has increased, and yet residential wood burning is not included among “lifestyle risk factors”.  There are no warnings about inhaling wood smoke.
“Particulate” and “PM2.5” retrieve nothing in the H&S website search function.

There is even Canadian research showing the link between heart attacks in seniors and wood burning:
https://www.cantechletter.com/2017/03/wood-burning-stoves-fireplaces-increase-risk-heart-attack-canadian-study/

Bizarrely, in 2017 H&S used an image of a fire pit in their lottery brochure:

WHY WON’T HEART & STROKE TELL CANADIANS THE TRUTH ABOUT THEIR FIREPLACES, WOOD STOVES, CAMPFIRES AND FIRE PITS?

The position statement can still be found [archived] on the website...if you know where to look:

https://www.heartandstroke.ca/-/media/pdf-files/canada/2017-position-statements/airpollution-heartdisease-andstroke-ps-eng.ashx?rev=b3f18cce0f4249d0b7349d3e426843d7&hash=BC224590A86220A51F6F093C27F16FFE

Open Air Burning and Asthma (To Council, #5)

You probably know someone who suffers from asthma; according to Health Canada, this chronic condition afflicts 12.1% of the population of Ontario.

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/diseases-conditions/asthma-chronic-obstructive-pulmonary-disease-canada-2018.html

If you have been following the news about the forest fires elsewhere in the province, you may have heard special warnings directed at people who suffer from asthma, as well as for those with COPD, or other respiratory or cardiovascular problems.

What you should realize is that inhaling smoke from neighbourhood fire pits is just as dangerous as inhaling forest fire smoke.

Here is more information from the Lung Association, Asthma Canada, and the Government of Canada:

“Breathing in wood smoke can cause increased respiratory symptoms, increased hospital admissions, exacerbation of asthma and COPD, and decrease your ability to breathe normally. If you have a lung disease, breathing in wood smoke can make your disease worse and cause a flare-up.”

https://www.lung.ca/news/advocacy-tools/our-position-statements/residential-wood-burning

“Exposure to smoke of any kind, whether the source is tobacco, marijuana, forest fires or camp fires, can be harmful.”

https://www.asthma.ca/get-help/asthma-3/triggers-3/common-asthma-triggers/

“Asthma is one of the most common chronic respiratory diseases in Canada. It affects Canadians of all ages, but younger Canadians are disproportionately affected.

Symptoms of asthma include shortness of breath, wheezing, coughing, and chest tightness. There is currently no cure for asthma; however, it can be well controlled by maintaining a healthy lifestyle, avoiding allergens and other triggers, quitting smoking, and taking medication properly.”

https://infobase.phac-aspc.gc.ca/datalab/asthma-blog-en.html

The number of residents of Woodstock who suffer from asthma is probably close to 5,000.

(2016 census population: 40,902 x provincial asthma rate 12.1%) = 4,949.

Now that you know that wood smoke may be triggering asthma attacks in approximately 5,000 residents (many of them children), how can Woodstock Council justify continuing the practice of open air burning?

e-mail to 100reontario.org and endorsing organizations

Hello
I sent the following e-mail to 100reontario.org, and am copying your organization because you have endorsed the 100% RE vision.
I, too, am a supporter of clean renewable energy, but not of the Oxford County Plan, as explained below, and on my blog.
If your organization has not had occasion to examine the issue of wood smoke pollution, I would encourage you to do so.
May we all have cleaner air to  breathe!
Alma

Hello 100reontario.org
Your website has recently come to my attention.
As a resident of Oxford County and a clean air activist/blogger, I would like to point out some serious flaws in Oxford's draft plan, which is available here:
http://www.oxfordcounty.ca/Portals/15/Documents/SpeakUpOxford/2016/100RE/OCDraft100REPlan20160622.pdf
The major problem is that the report condones "wood" and "biomass" as acceptable "renewables" (Chapter 1, Background) and as "targets" (2.1)
Burning wood is a way of life in Oxford County. As the area is largely rural/agricultural, wood stoves and outdoor wood boilers are common, as is open air burning in backyard fire pits (the latter being the issue that pushed me into being a clean air activist).  The county charges $2.00 for every bag of garbage picked up, so probably a lot of trash gets burned, too.
The report also perpetuates the fallacy that burning biomass is "carbon neutral" (8.1.4).
A second problem is that there is no plan to measure carbon or any other greenhouse gas emissions, nor is there a commitment to reduce emissions.
There isn't a single provincial air quality monitoring station in the county, which means that current wood smoke (and other) pollution is undocumented, and there is no historical data.
There appears to be no plan even to take inventory of existing carbon emitters (all those back road wood stoves and boilers).
What the county DOES propose to measure is its progression towards the 100% renewable target.  Since wood and biomass are defined as renewables, having homes change from natural gas heating to wood stoves would presumably be seen as progress in the right direction.  (!)

Many people have positive and sentimental associations with fireplaces and campfires, which may help explain why wood smoke pollution seems to fly below the radar.  Given that smoke from wood and other biomass combustion has now been shown to be worse than that produced by all fossil fuels (including coal), should you not make that fact clear on your website?   Your intention is to advocate for CLEAN renewables, so perhaps a detailed list of these would be helpful.  
You may wish to reconsider using Oxford County's plan - in its present form - as an example.

If anyone in your organization is in need of a primer on wood smoke, I recommend this website from Doctors and Scientists Against Wood Smoke Pollution:
http://woodsmokepollution.org

There are links to many more wood smoke-related websites listed on my blog:
www.cleanairforwoodstock.blogspot.ca
The posts dated Aug. 13 & 16, 2016 relate to Oxford County's Plan.

I would love to be in the front lines of those cheering for clean renewable energy; but it's impossible to cheer when one is choking on wood smoke.

Thanks for your attention to this; I will be sending copies of this e-mail to your "Endorsing Organizations", in the hope of raising awareness and generating more discussion on the topic of wood smoke pollution.

Smog? In Woodstock, it's public policy.

With wry amusement I read the "Green Tips" column by the Woodstock Environmental Advisory Committee in the July issue of What's on Woodstock (p.12), entitled "Every breath you take".
To be fair, the concerns expressed about smog, its environmental and health effects, and the suggested tips, are all valid.
Conspicuous by its absence, however, is any mention of one of our greatest seasonal pollutants: WOOD SMOKE, which is all too often in evidence on calm summer evenings.
Is it not hypocritical of Woodstock to encourage me to avoid volatile organic compounds, while forcing me to inhale the same substances from nearby fire pits?

When the current Open Air Burning Bylaw was passed in 2013, the Fire Department reported that 1,282 burn permits had been issued; that worked out to about one toxic backyard incinerator for every 30 residents of Woodstock.  The northwest corner of the city, near Cowan Park, is peppered with them:  fire pits, chimineas, and (for those with a serious commitment to burning) large outdoor masonry fireplaces (gasp).
To put this situation in context:  it's illegal in Ontario to light a cigarette within 20 metres of playground equipment or a public sports field.  But properties near Cowan Park can light backyard fires, and blanket the soccer fields with wood smoke, thus exposing young athletes and their family members to lung-clogging fine particulate matter and an assortment of toxic substances.

Open air backyard burning is illegal in many cities, including Guelph, Waterloo, Hamilton, and Toronto.
Shouldn't our elected officials be protecting air quality and our health, rather than enabling wood smoke pollution?

Those of us who value clean air can only attempt to light a (metaphorical!) fire under Woodstock Council.

Excerpts from Oxford County's website, on Open-air burning:
"Burning wood will release various pollutants into the air that may be harmful to us and the environment, including particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, ozone, and water vapour. Wood smoke may also contain cancer-causing substances, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and benzene formaldehyde."

"Some of the substances found in smoke from open-air burning are so small that our noses and upper respiratory systems are not able to filter them out. As a result, they may end up settling deep within our lungs, potentially damaging cells that protect our airways. 

Breathing in wood smoke is associated with an increase in respiratory irritations and symptoms such as coughing, chest tightness, asthma attacks and shortness of breath. Exposure to wood smoke may also decrease lung function and is associated with an increased number of visits to emergency departments and hospitalizations." 

The above text was published as a UR Opinion piece on the Sentinel Review's website on July 26, 2016.