Skip to comments.Bay Area air regulators consider ban on wood fires
Posted on 02/02/2007 2:21:49 PM PST by SmithL
San Francisco Bay area air quality regulators are proposing a mandatory ban on wood fires in fireplaces and stoves when the air is bad.
Under the proposed rules, wood fires would be prohibited in the nine-county Bay Area on "Spare the Air" days when air quality is expected to reach unhealthy levels.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board has asked its staff to draft rule options so it can hold hearings on a proposed ban this summer.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
How about a Spare the Rear day to help stop the spread of AIDS?
Should be enough Bay Area air regulators to build a good fire.
I am sure the duraflame I burn 10 times a year is the cause of this, it certainly is not the hundreds of thousands of cars which run daily.
"It is sad that they died but at least the air is clean", said Tempeh Rainbow, a county social worker investigating the case.
Why does anyone choose to live on this planet of SF?
Why don't they just ban living in San Francisco and let it go back to the way it was 200 years ago.
Can a ban on farting be far behind?
Say what you want. But after seeing this type of stuff for so long I now believe it empowers the left to take away pleasure. It allows them to chip away at your initiative to achieve and fight off their control.
50 years ago it would have been called Anti-Americanism.
Seattle has burn-ban days, when a temperature inversion traps smoke low to the ground, and there's no wind to disperse it.
I still think it's silly. Wood smoke is not pollution. Wood smoke is a heavy particulate-laden smoke that is entirely natural and not chemically harmful. It will eventually disperse and/or settle to the ground. There's nothing particularly unhealthy about it.
I think I've even heard it said that it's not done for health reasons, but merely asthetic reasons. They're afraid that somebody's going to take a picture showing something other than crystal clear air.
The job I'm in now... is technically located at our company headquarters in the Bay Area. I took the job on a first condition that I could work in our Bellevue, WA office, and not move to SF. There was no way I would have accepted the position if I had to move to SF. Not for double the salary. Not worth it.
No smoking, no spanking, no fireplace,
Nanny State PING...........
Time to throw another log on the woodstove........
No light bulbs, no grills no power mowers and no chain saws.
California - The Land of NO!
I'm not gonna go there - to SF. Litterally. LOL.
From the article: The Bay Area air district issued voluntary no-burn advisory on 26 Spare the Air nights this winter, but many people lit fires those nights anyway, officials said.
And the Mayor says make love..not campfires.
Will they ban beans too?
Why not ban wood stoves. Fairbanks banned the use within city limits when the air is bad, which is usually when it is really cold.
Here is an example of steps being taken on making CO2 regulated at the local level.
Why not ban chainsaws?
Why not ban SUVs?
Why not ban gas-powered mowers?
Why not ban barbecue grilles?
Why not ban lawns?
Why not ban the use of non-indigenous species in all landscaping?
Why not ban disposable diapers?
Why not ban internal combustion engines?
Why not ban electricity?
Why not ban ...?
You DO realize, don't you, that some statist dog reading this stuff is nodding it's head going, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sure, let's ban all of it, man. why the Hell not?"
That kind of crap just NEVER ends. Or perhaps you missed the one from earlier this week about the two-bit motard in Sacramento that want's to ban incandescent light bulbs??
Liberals are straight-up, stone-cold WHACK! Bent on dragging the whole human race, kicking and scrreaming back into the Dark Ages. Mock them. Gawk at them. Poke them with a stick to see what they'll do. But, for crying out loud, DON'T join them!
I installed a steel swedish style fireplace with triple layer pipe in an add-on room in Ohio following all the instructions and cautions.
I placed a duraflame log in that sucker and lit it up.
Thirty minutes later, I had all the windows open, the door open, the garage door open trying to cool that crazy thing down.
When the log finally burned out and the paint had fully cured, my toes were curled and I learned how to saw the dumb things in half lengthwise.
actually, you may well be wrong there. modern cars hardly pollute the air at all.
I'd make more disparaging comments about the state but FR is located there.
If islam attacked the Queen city, I doubt I would be upset.
Believe it, or not....
Wind breakers (Global Warming friendly underwear?)
They are working on no fire extinguishers next
U.S. EPA: CO2 as a Fire Suppressant: Examining the Risks
I think he is one of them. Or have you not noticed all the 'pretend to be' conservatives on this site?
I give up.........
Could someone please remind me WHY this country was founded?
San Fransicko burned down decades before its time.
Time for me to throw another log in the woodstove.
I was really looking forward to a pleasant Friday evening........our daughter is at a sleep over, hubby and I were able to actually go out for dinner with other adults...........
Have a great evening. If you don't, they have won.
A really good one... one to make the regulators cringe in their boots... A homemade fireplace log composed of a section of 6 inch schedule 80 PVC pipe packed with sawdust and ground high sulfur coal soaked in used motor oil, leftover paint, and the last of the diazinon granules you couldn't use on your yard anymore because it got banned... :-)
Stewart Brand - WHOLE EARTH CATALOG
This was around 30 years ago. Marching to Utopia.
>>>Stewart Brand - WHOLE EARTH CATALOG
A Real-Life Jurassic Park
attn: to post 7 and 9
"environmentalists celebrate the "rewilding" of America"
Do you refer to the Declaration of Independence and Confederation or the 1787 Federal Constitution?
He and his type are the perpetual yeast infection academia and the present-day body politic can't seem to shake.
Peter Pan's running the world.
They broadcast red, yellow, and green alerts on the television stations in the Winter for burning, in the Summer for watering the yard and washing the car.
I just ignore them.
Sooner or later, I expect a visit from the SWAT team.
Thanks for the ping!
If he's one of them, he's just been roundly mocked, which makes me happy. If he's not, it's possible he's learned something, which also makes me happy.
So, you see, whatever his actual position, I am happy.
I hear you. Loud and clear.
But, part of the challenge we have lies in how we determine whether someone is, or is not, "a conservative". How 'pure' is our labling requirement?
Despite the large numbers of truly conservative people throughout these United States, if you talk to any one of them long enough, you will often discover some area in which they are NOT, in fact, conservative at all. Are they, then, NOT a conservative? In how many areas does one have to hold a moderate or liberal view in order to be considered "not a conservative"?
This is a very core issue because it drives at the heart of the "big tent" mentality that seeks to embrace as many as possible in a bid to gin up more votes for those on the ballot who have an "R" after their names. We are forced head-on into the cold reality that through-and-through conservatives -- those people who are conservative in all aspects -- are not, in fact a majority at all. Many who seem to be through-and-through conservatives seem to be so only because we've never had occasion to engage them in the subject areas where they do not hold conservative views.
The calculus for each person is this: "What of my non-conservative views am I willing to reorder to a lower priority because of the value I ascribe to my conservative views."
In that mental assessment, you find the gamut: pro-choice views get shelved in favor of conservative economic policy; or socially liberal views get shoved to the back of the line in favor of a conservative stance in the war of terror. All kinds of these values clarifications occur, and they produce individuals who, on certain subjects in which they hold the conservative view, sound no different in their advocacy of those views than bona fide through-and-through conservatives. Take the pro-choice fiscal conservative and talk economics with them and you'll find yourself in the same camp enjoying some fine camaraderie. But broach the subject of Roe v. Wade, and they instantly become some kind of alien being; sometimes one with whom you can no longer even reason.
All of this points up the foundational error that we have made in asserting the label "conservative", and it is exactly this: PEOPLE are NOT "conservative". Our error is one of category. We have attempted to evaluate a container in which are held a collection of diverse views on myriad subjects, and assess whether this collection is conservative or not. The truth is, we may likely find individual views within the collection that are diametrically opposed to conservative principle. Still, we take a collection of 100 opionions on 100 subjects and call it "conservative" if 65 or more of those opionions are in concert with conservative principles. Nevermind that the other 35 may be Marxist to the core. And what of the collection wherein only 51 of the views is conservative? Numerically, the person holding those views is still more conservative than not, but do we let them wear the label? Why or why not?
This is the nature of the conservative labeling error, and it applies equally to other such labels.
In truth we ought not label people; we ought rightly to label the views themselves. People are containers that hold a huge collection of views, and it is improper to take that which is a property inherent to that which is contained, and ascribe that property to the container itself.
If I take a large bowl and fill it with a mix of red and blue marbles -- 137 red, and 363 blue -- am I correct in asserting that the bowl is blue? No, of course not. The bowl could be chartruse, but it's color is NOT impacted by the particulare blend of its contents. Yet, our present methods of political assessment would assert that the chartruse bowl is, in fact, blue by virtue of the fact that over 70% of it's contents are blue. This is an absurdity, and it must stop.
When we no longer make a similar error in assessing people, then we will less freqeuntly find ourselves diappointed.
I absolutely have areas where I'm not conservative.
But when I sign up to all the leftist activism groups....then send out their newsletters and days talking points, then I see the same typical suspects parroting those talking points here...well you know the rest.
Yeah, I do. THAT is really desheartening. It makes you wonder "Who's scammin' who?"
I really believe that the heart of all of this is that, in this day and age, fewer and fewer people are capable of tracing their views back to root principles; whatever the reason for that may be. Begin with bad principle -- or no principle at all -- and one ends up with bad values, which translate to bad views that, if implemented, will be bad policy.
That reasoning from principle is not core to education at all levels is, I believe, the greatest single damnation of our present system of public instruction. For it is one thing to say, "So-and-so believed this," but it is quite another thing entirely to continue from there and to explain, "And this is why So-and-so believed this."
As a sort of coda to my previous post, although it is thought sufficient to identify a view as "conservative" or "not conservative" -- to see that the marble is red or blue -- it is more wise to ask the follow-up question, "Why?"
The Christian and the cannibal may both express opinions against abortion, but only by asking, "Why," can we discriminate which expression is admirable and which is damnable. In the arena of politics, however, we assert that such differentiations are unnecessary; petty, even, in the face of garnering a few more political allies. So, since the cannibals are against abortion; we are to jump up, glad-handing all around, clap them on the back and welcome them to the "conservative" big tent.
Aside from the actual number of people expressing conservative v. liberal views, it is the pooh-poohing of the significance of underlying values that most concerns me.
I would far rather meet an honest liberal, than a card-carrying conservative with views predicated on damnable values.
In sum, there is no expressed view either admirable or infernal, but what the underlying value and the foundational principle make it so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.