Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bay Area air regulators consider ban on wood fires
AP via SFGate ^ | 2/2/7

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 ...


TOPICS: Local News
KEYWORDS: cleanairact; environment; epa; nannystate

1 posted on 02/02/2007 2:21:51 PM PST by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

How about a Spare the Rear day to help stop the spread of AIDS?


2 posted on 02/02/2007 2:23:19 PM PST by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Should be enough Bay Area air regulators to build a good fire.


3 posted on 02/02/2007 2:25:56 PM PST by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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.


4 posted on 02/02/2007 2:28:22 PM PST by SF Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SF Republican
The problem is most likely cause by all the foul hot air spewed by these idiot bureaucrats
5 posted on 02/02/2007 2:30:05 PM PST by clamper1797 (What's black and brown and looks good on a lawyer ... a pair of Doberman's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
San Francisco, February 14th 2010(AP) It was a sad Valentine's Day for at least a dozen elderly Bay area citizens who were found frozen to death in their homes today. In all cases the gas lines had been cut off for failure to pay. Wood stoves were present in all the homes but were not used due to the anti-burn "spare the air" regulations.

"It is sad that they died but at least the air is clean", said Tempeh Rainbow, a county social worker investigating the case.

6 posted on 02/02/2007 2:36:16 PM PST by Rb ver. 2.0 (A Muslim soldier can never be loyal to a non-Muslim commander.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Why does anyone choose to live on this planet of SF?


7 posted on 02/02/2007 2:36:21 PM PST by JustaDumbBlonde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Why don't they just ban living in San Francisco and let it go back to the way it was 200 years ago.


8 posted on 02/02/2007 2:39:29 PM PST by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Can a ban on farting be far behind?


9 posted on 02/02/2007 2:40:23 PM PST by dfwgator (The University of Florida - Championship U)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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.


10 posted on 02/02/2007 2:42:08 PM PST by Vision ("Delight yourself in the Lord; and he will give you your heart's desires." Psalm 37:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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.


11 posted on 02/02/2007 2:44:22 PM PST by Ramius ([sip])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustaDumbBlonde
Why does anyone choose to live on this planet of SF?

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.

12 posted on 02/02/2007 2:48:02 PM PST by Ramius ([sip])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
In a South Park epi, San Franciscans were farting into wine glasses to savor the smell.
13 posted on 02/02/2007 3:02:43 PM PST by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

No smoking, no spanking, no fireplace,


14 posted on 02/02/2007 3:03:05 PM PST by Frankss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL; Just another Joe; CSM; lockjaw02; Publius6961; elkfersupper; nopardons; metesky; Mears; ...

Nanny State PING...........

Time to throw another log on the woodstove........


15 posted on 02/02/2007 3:06:24 PM PST by Gabz (I like mine with lettuce and tomato, heinz57 and french-fried potatoes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

No light bulbs, no grills no power mowers and no chain saws.

California - The Land of NO!


16 posted on 02/02/2007 3:08:06 PM PST by VeniVidiVici (Celebrate Monocacy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

I'm not gonna go there - to SF. Litterally. LOL.


17 posted on 02/02/2007 3:09:56 PM PST by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFFi6gmSdQ8


18 posted on 02/02/2007 3:10:38 PM PST by Rb ver. 2.0 (A Muslim soldier can never be loyal to a non-Muslim commander.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
In the 90s, they proposed an outright ban. And a ban on new home construction including "fireplaces".

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.

19 posted on 02/02/2007 3:22:20 PM PST by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

And the Mayor says make love..not campfires.


20 posted on 02/02/2007 3:22:37 PM PST by right-wingin_It
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Will they ban beans too?


21 posted on 02/02/2007 3:23:15 PM PST by Redcloak ("Shooting makes me feel better!" -Aeryn Sun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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.


22 posted on 02/02/2007 3:25:59 PM PST by RightWhale (300 miles north of Big Wild Life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45; Always Right; Gabz

Here is an example of steps being taken on making CO2 regulated at the local level.


23 posted on 02/02/2007 3:50:42 PM PST by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Why not ban wood stoves[?]

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!

24 posted on 02/02/2007 4:10:37 PM PST by HKMk23 (PRO-LIFE: Because a Person's a Person, no matter how small.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SF Republican

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.


25 posted on 02/02/2007 4:15:37 PM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SF Republican

actually, you may well be wrong there. modern cars hardly pollute the air at all.


26 posted on 02/02/2007 4:17:06 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
So Californians learned nothing from the recent cold snap that hit the state.

I'd make more disparaging comments about the state but FR is located there.

27 posted on 02/02/2007 4:18:41 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Forgot your tagline? Click here to have it resent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

If islam attacked the Queen city, I doubt I would be upset.


28 posted on 02/02/2007 6:24:09 PM PST by bfree (Liberalism-the yellow meat,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Believe it, or not....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1775407/posts?page=11
Wind breakers (Global Warming friendly underwear?)


29 posted on 02/02/2007 6:30:34 PM PST by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Frankss

They are working on no fire extinguishers next

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/fire/co2/co2report.html
U.S. EPA: CO2 as a Fire Suppressant: Examining the Risks


30 posted on 02/02/2007 6:35:18 PM PST by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: HKMk23

I think he is one of them. Or have you not noticed all the 'pretend to be' conservatives on this site?


31 posted on 02/02/2007 6:37:07 PM PST by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

I give up.........

Could someone please remind me WHY this country was founded?


32 posted on 02/02/2007 6:38:39 PM PST by Gabz (I like mine with lettuce and tomato, heinz57 and french-fried potatoes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

San Fransicko burned down decades before its time.


33 posted on 02/02/2007 6:43:11 PM PST by MaxMax (God Bless America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Time for me to throw another log in the woodstove.


34 posted on 02/02/2007 6:47:43 PM PST by Gabz (I like mine with lettuce and tomato, heinz57 and french-fried potatoes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
Never forget, WW2 had a few partnerships. Nazis partnering with el Husseini was one of them. Hitler's Islamic name was Abu Ali. el Husseini's nephew was Arafat. Saddam Hussein married a close friend of el Husseini.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1775846/posts?page=7#7

WW2 didn't start when Pearl Harbor was bombed. Hitler was taking over countries through the 30s. During the 30s, our country was taking in Nazi Youth through our universities. This is how we accumulated so many liberal professors and lawyers.

They are our politicians and our children's teachers now. Amazng how we come full circle.
35 posted on 02/02/2007 6:51:25 PM PST by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

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...........


36 posted on 02/02/2007 7:00:26 PM PST by Gabz (I like mine with lettuce and tomato, heinz57 and french-fried potatoes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

Have a great evening. If you don't, they have won.


37 posted on 02/02/2007 7:01:57 PM PST by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

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... :-)


38 posted on 02/02/2007 8:14:02 PM PST by Axenolith ("pound pastrami, can kraut, six bagels bring home for Emma")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
"We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into the Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion - guilt-free at last!"

Stewart Brand - WHOLE EARTH CATALOG

This was around 30 years ago. Marching to Utopia.

39 posted on 02/03/2007 4:09:31 AM PST by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge

>>>Stewart Brand - WHOLE EARTH CATALOG

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1568683/posts
A Real-Life Jurassic Park

attn: to post 7 and 9

"environmentalists celebrate the "rewilding" of America"


40 posted on 02/03/2007 6:28:02 AM PST by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

Do you refer to the Declaration of Independence and Confederation or the 1787 Federal Constitution?


41 posted on 02/03/2007 9:04:20 AM PST by RightWhale (300 miles north of Big Wild Life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia
Stewart Brand

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.

42 posted on 02/03/2007 12:13:52 PM PST by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Unless and until the people of Kaleephornya stop electing these Nazis to the legislature, this kind of sh*t is what to expect from the agencies that implement the laws...in spades.
43 posted on 02/03/2007 12:18:51 PM PST by stboz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
Same thing going on here.

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.

Oh, well.....

44 posted on 02/03/2007 7:13:31 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

Thanks for the ping!


45 posted on 02/03/2007 10:56:34 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

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.


46 posted on 02/03/2007 11:50:02 PM PST by HKMk23 (PRO-LIFE: Because a Person's a Person, no matter how small.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: HKMk23
Send some of that happiness my way. I'm pretty depressed about the lack of conservative posters on this site.
47 posted on 02/04/2007 3:17:39 AM PST by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia
I'm pretty depressed about the lack of conservative posters on this site.

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.

48 posted on 02/05/2007 11:27:54 AM PST by HKMk23 (PRO-LIFE: Because a Person's a Person, no matter how small.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: HKMk23

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.


49 posted on 02/05/2007 11:32:42 AM PST by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

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.


50 posted on 02/05/2007 1:04:41 PM PST by HKMk23 (No view is admirable or infernal but that the root principle makes it so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson