2010 May: Wood Smoke Activist Newsletter

2010 May: Wood Smoke Activist Newsletter
The Wood Smoke Activist
May 2010 Newsletter
Educating the world about the health and climate impacts of
wood smoke and combustion aerosols.
Editor: Shirley Brandie


Wood Smoke Issues
Fighting Wood Smoke
Pollution from the
Grassroots to Government
 Volume 2, Issue 5
 May, 2010
 Editor: Shirley Brandie
I hope that this newsletter will give you the information and inspiration
you need. Regain clean air to breathe and eliminate the wood burning that
is affecting your health and your home environment.
Please pass this issue on to others in need of help and suggest that they
send an email to s.brandie@sympatico.ca to be added to the mailing list.
To be removed from the newsletter, please email to Shirley
**** A doctor’s letter verifying how wood smoke compromises
your health or public health in general would be beneficial in
showing that wood smoke truly is doing damage to you.****
Mission Statement
Our mission is to educate public officials, government and all
citizens about wood smoke as a major form of hazardous air
pollution that affects our health, use of our property, water,
crops, livestock, the environment and climate change. We
urge citizens everywhere to press for legislative changes to
call wood smoke a public nuisance under state health codes
and to ban all wood burning.”
“Breathing wood smoke is smoking!”

Wood Fueled Biomass Burning
By: Chris Matera
CORE MESSAGE: Wood fueled biomass energy is worse than fossil fuels for
carbon dioxide emissions and similar for air pollutants. It threatens forests,
rivers, and air quality and will worsen global warming impacts. Wood fueled
biomass burning is a false solution to our energy and environmental problems
that diverts attention and resources from truly clean energy sources such as
solar, geothermal, appropriately located and scaled wind and hydro, and most
importantly conservation and efficiency.
Contrary to industry claims, wood burning biomass energy does not reduce
carbon dioxide emissions, it increases them. Wood burning biomass power
plants emit about 50% more carbon per unit of energy than coal.
Additionally, wood burning biomass power plants produce similar or higher
levels of other air pollutants such as CO, NOx, VOC’s, and particulates as coal
plants. Biomass power plants are extremely inefficient and operate at about
25% efficiency. This means enormous amounts of wood are required to produce
tiny amounts of energy and in effect, 75% of the forest cut for biomass fuel
goes up in smoke. Instead, achievable and economic conservation and
efficiency measures, which cost a third of new energy, could reduce our energy
use by 30%. Furthermore, already stressed rivers are often targeted to provide
large amounts water to cool the plants.
In addition to the threat from large wood fueled biomass power plants, a
multitude of smaller wood fueled heating plants are being proposed. While a
smaller plant may have less local impacts, it does not take many “small” plants
to create a big problem. More wood burning in small biomass plants is still a
step backwards, and the cumulative carbon dioxide, air pollution and forest
impacts of many small plants can easily supersede those of a few large plants.
Instead of moving backwards with more polluting and carbon emitting wood
fueled biomass burning, we need to move forward with genuinely clean energy
sources such as solar, geothermal, appropriately located and scaled wind and
hydro, and importantly and least expensively, conservation and efficiency.

. Hundreds of millions of dollars in public “green” energy subsidies are
being wasted on dirty wood biomass burning instead of going to
genuinely clean energy sources such as solar, geothermal, appropriately
located and scaled wind and hydro and conservation and efficiency.

. Wood fueled biomass energy emits more carbon dioxide per unit of
energy than coal and other fossil fuels.

. Wood fueled biomass burning is dirty and emits air pollutants at levels
similar to coal and other fossil fuels.

. Enormous amounts of forest would need to be cut and burned to produce
tiny amounts of power. Instead, achievable conservation and efficiency
measures could reduce energy use 30%. Conservation measures cost
about 1/3rd the cost of new production.

. Public forests as well as private lands are targeted for large increases in
logging to supply this wood. Clear cutting would increase.

. Thousands of truck trips would be generated mostly on narrow rural
roads, and millions of gallons of diesel would be burned each year to
cut, chip and deliver the wood.

. Wood fueled biomass burning is not clean and not green, emits more
carbon dioxide than coal, and should ineligible for receiving or
benefitting from any “green”, “clean” and “renewable” taxpayer
subsidies and preferential legislation.


1. Timothy Searching Report, October, 2010 from Princeton “Fixing a Critical
Climate Accounting Error” http://www.maforests.org/SCIENCE.pdf
Critical point that Biomass burning of existing forests is not carbon neutral and
biomass carbon emissions have been accidentally left out of the carbon
accounting process leading to incentives to wipe out forests that will greatly
increase carbon in the atmosphere.
“Harvesting existing forests for electricity adds net carbon to the air.
That remains true even if limited harvest rates leave the carbon stocks of
re-growing forests unchanged, because those stocks would otherwise
increase and contribute to the terrestrial carbon sink"
2. Keeton, et al, No Logging Provides Highest Forest Carbon Storage, Keeton:
January 2010 www.maforests.org/Keeton.pdf
3. Dr Eric Johnson, “Goodbye to carbon neutral: Getting biomass footprints
right” July 2008 www.maforests.org/Carbon.pdf
4. Chris Matera, P.E. Biomass Power Plant Emissions Carbon Calc
5. Dr. Mary Booth, Biomass Briefing: www.maforests.org/DrBooth.pdf
Mass Medical Society Opposes Biomass: www.maforests.org/MassMed.pdf
Mass Medical Society Opposes Biomass, Part 2: www.maforests.org/Doctors2.pdf
Hampshire District Medical Society: www.maforests.org/HDMS.pdf
Physicians For Social Responsibility: www.maforests.org/PSR.pdf
Dr. William Sammons: www.maforests.org/Sammons.pdf

Toxic emissions and devaluated CO2-neutrality
Rolf Czeskleba-Dupont of Denmark has written a research report,
which was edited last November at a transnational publisher on "Toxic
emissions and devaluated CO2-neutrality. Expanded combustion of
stem wood violates sustainable development".
Reviewers may order it as an e-book from:
Possible readers are those, who are interested in climate politics without suppressing
local pollution themes as e.g. Chlorinated dioxins (PCDD/F) from the combustion of
wood. The Danish Ministry of the Environment has, unfortunately, made a junction
between these two issues in its 2006 report to the Stockholm Convention. In an
appendix, technicians recommended to restrict the use of wood stoves and other
small combustion appliances without flue gas cleansing. But they were stopped in
this initiative by a statement on climate politics favoring wood combustion as CO2-
neutral. However, according to earlier information, wood combustion (as all
biomass combustion) emits more CO2 pr. unit of energy released than all fossil
fuels. And, according to the most recent country statistics reported to international
conventions, 2/3 of all dioxin emissions from Danish sources stem from wood stoves
(also 70% of fine particle mass and 91% of PAH). Concerned citizens may be
inspired to further information gathering.
Environmental, energy and climate policies need fresh reflections. In order to
evaluate toxics reduction policies the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants is mandatory. Denmark’s function as lead country for dioxin research in
the context of the OSPAR Convention is contrasted with a climate policy whose
goals of CO2-reduction were made operational by green-wash. Arguments are given
for the devaluation of CO2- neutrality in case of burning wood. Alternative
practices as storing C in high quality wood products and/or leaving wood in the
forest are recommended.
A counter-productive effect of dioxin formation in the cooling phase of wood
burning appliances has been registered akin to de-novo-synthesis in municipal solid
waste incinerators. Researchers, regulators and the public are, however, still
preoccupied by notions of oven design and operation parameters, assuming that
dioxin behaves on line with other toxic pollutants from incomplete combustion.
Evidence is given that this is not the case.
Societal-historical problems of lacking consistency in dioxin research are contrasted
with more sustainable approaches.
This is obligatory reading for concerned citizens.


Here is a site that I have joined and hope that you will too.
It’s a place where both pro-wood burners and anti-wood
burners can meet, talk and collaborate to try to find a solution
to the wood smoke issue. This is a great opportunity to be able
to hear both sides of the issue and input your own thoughts
I think you will find that it’s a place where you are free to tell
the burners why you feel the way you do and share your stories
of how wood smoke has changed your lives forever.
You may also find that all wood burners are not of the
mentality as those you are dealing with at present. And, most
importantly, they might be able to help all of you find solutions
to your problem. Simply ask them what they would do if they
were in your position and get their input. Perhaps uploading
your photos (remember to keep them small) will do much in
showing others what we have all been through so that they
understand why we feel as we do.
Please join!
Click here



Outdoor wood burners to go up in smoke
Stillwater, Minnesota council set to pass nuisance law
By: Loretta Harding
Thursday, March 11, 2010
After months of fielding phone calls complaining about pollution and
poor air quality from a neighboring outdoor wood boiler, the Stillwater
City Council unanimously approved the first reading of a new nuisance
ordinance outlawing outdoor wood boilers.
At the end of the March 2 public hearing, the council considered an
amendment to City Code Section 38-1 by declaring outdoor wood
boilers a public nuisance and prohibiting them in the City of Stillwater.
The ordinance will be adopted without a grandfather clause, meaning
that even existing wood burners have to go.
Jeff Shaleen, who installed a wood burner in September, told the
council he did everything the city asked and obtained a permit. The
burner was expensive to install, Shaleen said, and asked that he be
granted grandfather rights.
Mayor Ken Harycki and members of the City Council assured Shaleen
that conversations with residents suffering from respiratory conditions
convinced them not to grant grandfather status. "I understand your
plight," Harycki told Shaleen. "The swing point was the asthma of a
resident’s daughter. If my kids were affected health wise and a wood
burner was next to my backyard, I wouldn’t want to live next to it. I
know you took steps, but we still get the calls."
City Attorney David Magnuson said that other communities have
declared outdoor wood burners to be nuisances due to medical issues,
and that people were not entitled to damages for the elimination of the
nuisance. "It seems unfair, but that’s what the law provides now," he

Before reaching a decision, city staff researched the effects of wood
burner pollution and what other cities had done about it.
Studies by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the New
York State Attorney General’s Office showed that outdoor wood
burners cause health hazards for people with cardiovascular disease
and breathing ailments, City Planner Mike Pogge said. A free-standing
outdoor wood burner will create 12 times the amount of fine particulate
matter than an EPA-approved indoor wood fireplace and 1,800 times
more fine particulate matter than a natural gas furnace, the study
The policies of other communities run the gamut, Pogge said. Oak Park
Heights and Forest Lake regulate and prohibit wood burners within
their city limits, providing sound footing for Stillwater to do the same,
he said.
The only question remaining for council is the effective date. By default,
the ordinance becomes effective on the date of its publication. However,
specific wording in the ordinance could delay its effective date until the
end of the heating season.



 Put an End to Wood Smoke
Excerpted from: http://www.saultstar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2493670
Our journey in life takes us on many different paths. We meet so many people.
Some make a profound impact on our life and we never forget them. We see
people who stand up for goodness. We see their outreach, their kindness, and
compassion to mankind. We are honoured to know such people in our life.
Our journey takes us sometimes into directions we have not planned. We know
we only have this one life to live. We know we do not come with a specific
expiration date. We know it will end one day, and it could come sooner or later
than we think.
But, what we do know is that our time here on earth will be our legacy of what
we did and who we really were. With our time on this earth, did we try to
make it a better planet to live for others and preserve its wonder and beauty
for future generations? Did we help those less fortunate than us and sought
nothing in return?
Many times, our journey in very unexpected ways links us with those who feel
as we do. We know it takes strength and courage to make changes if we are to
live a better life and if we are to try to help lessen the daily suffering of
Our journey is leading us, guiding us, to make the right and caring decisions
and efforts about bringing about change in our society. We all should hope and
act for the betterment of mankind today, and for tomorrow.
Our journey now is telling us millions in Canada are suffering greatly from the
effects of toxic wood smoke pollution. It happens continuous, day after day.
Our loved ones, friends, and neighbours are becoming so ill, and feeling so
hopeless. What are we doing to help as they suffer in silence? They suffer
because no one in government is willing to take the proper steps to address this
grave danger.
 Greed and apathy regarding wood smoke has caused us to ignore our
compassion, our goodness, and love of others who need us in order to just
survive one more day on this journey on this earth.
We must join together to end wood smoke—the misery and suffering of
millions in Canada. Please join me and make it not my journey, but…our
Linda Beaudin,
Cornwall, Ont.

Are You Going To Pay?
A letter in the Prince George Citizen ended its support for wood
stoves with “If someone was to knock on my door and ask me to
put out my wood stove, my response would be this: Are you going
to pay my heating bills?”
How about asking wood-burners to pay the bills for asthma
medicine? How about paying the funeral costs for about 5 people
every year in Prince George who die because of wood smoke?
How about paying for all the people who will not move here
because of the bad air?
Are the wood-burners going to also ask me to pay for their truck
and fuel to get the wood? Do I pay for the saws, fine wood stoves,
splitters, sheds and gloves?
I am NOT going to pay your heating bills. I converted to natural
gas and now pay for it so that my neighbours can have healthy air
to breathe. Yes it costs me to care about my neighbours. Wood
burners should do likewise, and care more about those who have to
breathe in their smoke.
Vic Steblin vsteblin@sd57.bc.ca
BSc Honours Math, MA Math Education from UBC
Currently teaching math in a secondary school in Prince George, B.C.

Court Case Between Beaudoin & Corbeil, et al
Beaudoin asked the Quebec Court to condemn Corbeil to pay damages to the
total of $73,000 and to deliver a permanent injunction against the defendants
requiring to cease a) the use of their chimney and b) to cease any airborne
contamination from that chimney.
Since 1999 the Beaudoin family stated that a dense smoke was being emitted
from the Corbeil family chimney in the neighbourhood and the smoke made the
area smell like a “dump”. The Beaudoin family felt that this odour prevented
the enjoyment of their home. Between 2004 and 2005 the Beaudoin family
complained to their municipality, their fire department, and to the police.
In 2005 court procedures began against the Corbeil family and in the same year
a judge orders that the Corbeil family no longer use a slow burning combustion
wood burning stove.
In August 2005 the Corbeil family sold their property to another couple who are
now included in the court action.
The Beaudoin family contended that:
a) the neighbour’s chimney was not conforming to municipal regulations;
b) the suffering which they endured was well beyond the normal
c) the Corbeil couple were grossly negligent and acted in bad faith as they
continued to use their wood stove knowing fully well that such burning was
causing health problems to their neighbours;
d) the offending wood stove was burning all year long.
These sections of the Quebec Civil Code were used in the case:
Section 6, 7, 976, 1375, 1457, 1615.
(section 976 is the key section here in terms of outlining what is a normal
neighbourhood inconvenience)
The Court:
– received partially the injunction request of the Beaudoin
– ordered the defendants to no longer use their chimney
– condemned the defendants to pay $5000.00 + interest


BOZO of the Month
This month’s Bozo is Elizabethtown, New York
Section of Elizabethtown’s OWB law:
“It is the intention of the Town Board of the Town of Elizabethtown by
the adoption of this law to establish and impose restrictions upon the
construction and operation of outdoor wood-burning furnaces within the
Zoning Regulated area for the purpose of securing and promoting the
public health, comfort, convenience, safety, welfare and prosperity of the
Town and its inhabitants. It is generally recognized that the types of fuel
used, and the scale and duration of the burning by such furnaces, create
noxious and hazardous smoke, soot, fumes, odors and air pollution, which
can be detrimental to citizens’ health, and can deprive neighboring
residents of the enjoyment of their property or premises.”
The town passed an OWB law but existing ones were allowed
to stay. In every other surrounding town, where OWB laws
were passed, the stack height, if less than 150-200′ of an
adjoining house or business, if they were allowed to be
grandfathered in, would have to be 2′ higher than the peak of
the adjoining structure. The town supervisor said "we’re just
simplifying the language" when the proposed law came up to
vote. There were also two public hearings.
And yet, this is allowed?

May… warm and sunny days to enjoy outdoors at last.
Although many people can there are many that cannot enjoy these
sunny beautiful days due to residential burning.
Children, hurrying home after school to play outdoors, are
bombarded with smoke. Asthmatics are using their inhalers and
debating whether a hospital visit is in order. Windows cannot be
opened to let in fresh air.
Why? Because our municipal leaders are still not responding to their
residents begging for bylaws to end this smoke invasion. What does
it take to make them see that every day that they delay dealing
with this health issue is a day of complete misery for many people?
Perhaps if these same leaders lived next door to a burner they
would take action. Or, would they still consider it a ‘civil’ issue. One
in which they themselves would have to fork out mega dollars to end
the smoke? I don’t think they would like to find out how much that
civil action would cost them! My thinking is that they would then
realize that residential burning would have to end.
It really is too bad that we can’t put a burner next door to each one
of them!
The best we can do is to take a hard look at what these people have
NOT done for us and do our best to get them out of office and
bring in people with the decency to help their residents have a safe
environment to live and grow in.

(Names are omitted)
Please add me to your mailing list.
I am behind you 100% in regard to ending wood burning.
My next door neighbors burn wood in their back yard from early spring through late fall, and
when the awful smoke from the burning wood permeates through my windows, it literally makes
me sick. I get instant headaches when ever I smell it, and it’s not fair to me that I am forced to
smell and breathe it.
Thank you so very much for encouraging me to call the comment line, as well as write to my
countries leader about this most important issue.
I took an Environmental Science course at my local Community College in 2006, and I definitely
learned the negative effects caused from the burning of fossil fuels, besides the fact that my head
is hurting as I am writing this email message to you this very second due to my neighbors at it
again. The old song by Spirit- "Nature’s Way" now comes to mind.
Thank you for letting your voice be heard!
Thanks for writing your letter to the Edison, New Jersey Sentinel newspaper. I am assuming it
was in response to the case in Woodbridge, New Jersey. My husband and I live in a house in the
Triangle section of Highland Park, NJ, close by, and we struggle with a polluter across the street
in an illegal basement apartment. He burns wood and debris all winter long, all day, every day.
We have complained to every agency we could think of and still the burning goes on.
 I sympathize with everyone who lives with this problem, and I can only hope that someday
science will prevail. Unfortunately, bureaucrats will do as they always do: nothing.
Thanks again for writing; I hope that because of your letter many people wake up to the facts of
this horrible situation and decide to stop burning.
Would you please add me to your newsletter email list? I’m battling an upwind, next
door neighbor that burns outdoor fires at least twice a week. I could definitely use some
direction. Does it help to inform them of the dangers of wood smoke and ask them to
quit, or should I threaten to sue (I can back up my threats)? Even burn bans haven’t
helped. There’s a little known loophole in our county that defines any fire that a piece of
food is cooked over as a grill. When the firemen showed up, he just put a hotdog on a
stick over the chiminea; even though he had three LP and charcoal grills within a few feet
of the chiminea.



Teaming Up With Others: Strength In Numbers
Like tobacco smoke, wood smoke can be banned or regulated in cities or states. Our
national elected officials also need to hear from us. Please contact any of the names
below–you do not have to live in their area to build our network. Nor do you have
to leave your name if you prefer not to. But we all need to build a network for
strength in numbers.
Here is a partial list of contacts who are working on wood smoke issues from
various states and regions. Please click here to email me if you are willing to have
your email address or other information published in this newsletter monthly to
connect with others.
Web site: http://WoodBurnerSmoke.net
Victoria Valentine
Web site: http://www.woodsmokefreeny.com
New York,
Julie Mellum
Web site: http://www.takebacktheair.com
Vic Steblin
Prince George, British Columbia,
Short Letters about Air Quality are
listed in OPINION section of
Vicki Morell
Website: http://www.canadiancleanairalliance.ca
 "A breath of fresh air – for all generations"
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada


Julie Burgo
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Ernest Grolimund
19 Johnson Hts.,
Waterville, Maine USA 04901
Giulia D’Alesio
Notre-Dame-De-L’ile Perrot
Quebec, Canada
Phone and fax (514) 425-5288
Janet Irvine
Nanaimo, B.C.
 Linda Beaudin
Cornwall, Ontario
Nathalie Doiron
Quebec, Canada
 Cathy Baiton
Alberta, Canada
All burning results in very fine micro particulates and there is no safe level of this
asbestos sized, dangerous air pollutant. Solid fuels, such as pellets and especially wood,
produce more smoke and emit more fine particulate air pollutants than cleaner fuels such
as gas and electricity.

Canadian Clean Air Alliance
 A totally new Canadian site that deals with wood smoke pollution.
Open to all countries!
Mission Statement
Our mission is to educate public officials, government and all citizens
about wood smoke as a major form of hazardous air pollution that
affects our health, use of our property, water, crops, livestock, the
environment and climate change. We urge citizens everywhere to press
for legislative changes to call wood smoke a public nuisance under state
health codes and to ban all wood burning.”
“Breathing wood smoke is smoking!”
We are looking to include every province in Canada.
Please email to Shirley to start a provincial page for your province.


 Photos and Videos
Just a few photos to show to your public officials and others you want to convince
that only a ban on smoke release will change this!
Click here for videos
To see some photos that victims of wood smoke have sent click here
To have your own listed, send an email to: s.brandie@sympatico.ca

C:UsersShirleyDocumentsNews LettersPhotos to publishclive_logo.gif
Take Back The Air
Click here for a heart-breaking story & video of a family subjected to wood smoke.
Click here to see Clive Stott’s peaceful, but meaningful protest of forestry burning
in Australia.
My PowerPoint Show Chase, B.C. video
Editor’s Site
Freedom of

If your health has been affected by exposure to chromated copper arsenate
(CCA) pressure treated wood, please visit: http://noccawood.ca
http://www.canadiancleanairalliance.ca Please visit us here!
http://www.alap.qc.ca Quebec Association for clean air –French & English
Please take a minute to sign the petition there.
http://rawsep.spaces.live.com Residents against wood smoke emission particulates
http://rodfarmer40.blogspot.com A blog dedicated to shaming the Launceston City
Council and Tasmanian State Government to start enforcing wood smoke legislation in
“Burning 2 cords of wood produces the same amount of mutagenic (capable of
causing cell mutations that can cause cancer) particles as driving 13 gasoline-
powered cars 10,000 miles each at 20 miles/gallon. These figures indicate that
the worst contribution that an individual is likely to make to the mutagenicity of
the air is using a wood stove for heating, followed by a diesel car.” (Dr. Joellen
Lewtas, Contribution of Source Emissions of the Mutagenicity of Ambient Urban
Air Particles. U.S., EPA, #91-131.6, 1991)

Canadian Action Activities
Wood smoke is a major problem in all of America and Canada.
National efforts are gaining momentum. Regardless of where we live,
our actions should focus on getting our national governments to
regulate wood smoke. To make an impact, if each reader calls or emails
each of these contacts, we can move mountains.
Go for it now!
Health Canada assesses scientific evidence about the health effects of wood smoke
and makes this information available to Canadians. Health Canada is also working
with other government departments to determine the best ways to minimize risks
associated with wood smoke.
In addition, Health Canada is a contributor to the Burn it Smart! Campaign
sponsored by Natural Resources Canada.
Environment Canada: www.ec.gc.ca/cleanair
Health Canada: air@hc-sc.gc.ca
Air Health Effects Division, Safe Environments Program, Health Canada
400 Cooper Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0K9 Telephone: (613) 957-1876
Natural Resources Canada Burn it Smart! Sir William Logan Building,
11th Floor, 580 Booth Street, Ottawa, ON K1A 0E4
Write or email to your local council & MPs to request that they create or amend a
bylaw to cover nuisance smoke. Preferably, a ban on all wood burning in residential
The Ontario Ministry of the Environment has released the latest news on Smog
Click here for the Canadian Bill of Rights You can apply for a review here.

U.S. Action Activities
URGENT—Immediate Action Needed
A new EPA-certified wood stove promotion gives a 30% tax credit and a
huge discount to the public. It is being funded by stimulus money from
the US government. This flies in the face of the known hazards of wood
smoke that the EPA acknowledges on their website. If we don’t stop our
states’ stimulus money from funding this major promotion, it will be
next to impossible to regulate or ban wood burning in any form.
If you have never protested wood smoke or called your public officials
before, this is the time to do it!
. Contact your US Senators and Representatives, as well as your state
Senators and Representatives and City Council members. Ask them
to see that the stimulus money does not go towards this promotion.
It is crucial to let your elected officials know that you don’t want the
stimulus money used for this promotion in your community—but
only to apply to gas or electric technology. (California has a change-
out program that only allows swap-outs to gas or electric.)

. Let them know that wood smoke is a major health hazard and is a
major contributor to global warming.

. Send an email to others and ask them for their help too. (See
suggested email below).

. Be sure to call your US legislators and State legislators and City
Council Members, to alert them to the problem and asking for their
help too in keeping new EPA certified wood burning equipment out
of your community, even if a state-wide promotion allows them.

. If we don’t stop this unthinkable promotion, there is little hope for a
healthy legacy for our children and grandchildren.


Action #1- Suggested message for calling and emailing U.S. legislators
and state legislators. Please also relay on to others and urge them to
contact others.
Dear (elected official):
Please use your influence to disallow stimulus money to be used for EPA
wood stove promotion in (your state and/or your community.)
According to the EPA’s own website, wood smoke is a killer responsible
for premature deaths nation-wide at a rate of 3% of the total deaths
every year from fine particle pollution. (Harvard School of Public
Health). That is close to 73,000 people in the U.S. each year–an
epidemic! Wood smoke is extremely hazardous for children, the elderly
and especially those with asthma. Asthma is already the number one
reason for school absenteeism. It is even implicated in sudden infant
death syndrome.
Our states are looking for ways to limit fine particulate pollution and
better air quality. This should be a “no-brainer.” Wood smoke emits
over 9,600 % more lead than natural gas, according to the EPA’s own
data. It also emits arsenic, mercury, formaldehyde, polyaromatic
hydrocarbons and dioxins, persistent organic compounds that do not
break down in the environment or in human lungs, crops, soil and water
supply. See http://BurningIssues.org for the facts.
Please do not allow stimulus money to be used for promoting more
(Sign your name and contact info)


About the Editor:
Shirley Brandie
Ontario Director of Canadian Clean Air
Alliance http://canadiancleanairalliance.ca
 She is retired from a medical laboratory
and currently doing in-depth research on
the effects of wood smoke on health and
the environment.
Web site: http://WoodBurnerSmoke.net
If you would like to have your wood smoke story published, click here to
email it.
** We do not accept responsibility for errors in articles submitted for
publication. It is the responsibility of the author to ensure the facts are,
to the best of their knowledge, correct. **
Please pass this issue on to others in need of help. Send an email to
s.brandie@sympatico.ca to be added to the mailing list.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s