First off, it should be clarified that the by-law outlaws wood-burning appliances for new homes; not fireplaces. For homeowners who already have such installations, they have a seven-year grace period to convert and phase them out.
Hampstead mayor, Bill Steinberg is adamant that the by-law was the most appropriate for his town and feels strongly that the City of Montreal will soon be introducing a similar by-law of its own.
While some reactions have been extremely positive, praising Hampstead for its environmentally conscious decision, others have not been so kind, one reader going so far as to cheekily suggest that homeowners should burn all unnecessary by-laws in their fireplace.
Despite an inability to reach a popular consensus as to how much exactly wood-burning appliances and fireplaces actually contribute to air pollution and health problems, there is undisputed evidence that they do.
A report by the Regroupement montréalais pour le qualité de l'air on the impacts of air pollution on health and the environment identified wood heating as one of the major sources of air pollution in the greater Montreal area; according to the report, it is responsible for 53% of total suspended particulate (TSP) emissions and 26% of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, such as formaldehyde. These pollutants have been proven to have harmful health effects in asthmatics, young children and seniors and have long been suspected carcinogens.
Of course, population density, topography, combustion equipment used and the conditions in which wood is burned greatly influence the content of emission and that's something that Montreal should take into consideration when (and if) the time comes to pass their own by-law.
With 48% of smog caused by wood-burning appliances, it's important that concrete measures are taken and awareness is raised. On the other hand, fireplaces, used only occasionally by most people in Hampstead and only rarely as a means for heating a home, did not require a ban. Here again however, assumptions should not be made and more studies should be undertaken to find out exactly what the percentage of Montrealers use their fireplaces on more than an occasional basis.
Financial considerations, which are sometimes cited as a reason for using wood-burning appliances to heat a home, are not a viable deterrent, according to Mayor Steinberg, who feels that most Hampstead residents don't use wood-burning appliances as a means to saving money and don't need to.
While it wasn't his intention to be the first in the country in enacting such a by-law, Steinberg feels others will follow and considers it a "decision that makes sense". We tend to agree.
Hampstead ban a burning issue – and a good call
Hampstead ban a burning issue – and a good call
-
Published on
November 25, 2008
- Published on February 6, 2010
-
Toula Foscolos
Hampstead's decision to ban wood-burning appliances, announced by The Monitor two weeks ago, has prompted a number of letters to the editor, both for and against the by-law.
- Rate
- Top of the page
Comments
-
- perplexed
- - February 17, 2010 at 14:18:05
Hmmm, let me get this straight. Major air pollution in heavily populated areas is caused by burning wood. So all of those automobiles and city buses, oh I almost forgot, oil fired furnaces only present a negligent health hazard. Hmmm. Every once in a while we are surprised by our fearless leader's decisions, however it is becoming increasingly alarming to witness outright politiking disguised as legitimate lawmaking. These guys are nuts. And dangerous.
-
- perplexed
- - February 10, 2010 at 12:55:35
Hmmm, let me get this straight. Major air pollution in heavily populated areas is caused by burning wood. So all of those automobiles and city buses, oh I almost forgot, oil fired furnaces only present a negligent health hazard. Hmmm. Every once in a while we are surprised by our fearless leader's decisions, however it is becoming increasingly alarming to witness outright politiking disguised as legitimate lawmaking. These guys are nuts. And dangerous.
-
- Giulia D'A lesio
- - February 10, 2010 at 11:46:29
This PROBLEM is not just in Canada but world wide and the children pay etc. Here is one story that had my blood boiling. CITY OF LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 23, 2004 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Lautenschleger called the Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Laguna Hills, California, to order at 7:01 p.m. in the Laguna Hills City Council Chamber, 25201 Paseo de Alicia, Suite 150, Laguna Hills. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilwoman Carruth led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Joel Lautenschleger, Mayor Randal J. Bressette, Mayor Pro Tempore Melody Carruth, Council Member R. Craig Scott, Council Member Absent: L. Allan Songstad, Council Member STAFF PRESENT: Bruce Channing, City Manager; Donald White, Assistant City Manager; Mary Carlson, City Clerk; Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney; Ken Rosenfield, Public Services Director/City Engineer; Vern Jones, Community Development Director; Bob Blackburn, Chief of Police Services; Kim Monach, Community Services Director; Butch Cleveland, Battalion Chief, Orange County Fire Authority; and Peggy Criswell, Assistant City Clerk. 1.1 7.3 Community Development Director A. A. REQUEST FOR AN ORDINANCE BANNING WOOD-BURNING FIREPLACES AND STOVES AND REQUIRING THE CONVERSION OF EXISTING WOOD-BURNING STOVES AND FIREPLACES TO GAS OR PROPANE FUELS (0230‑05) Community Development Director Jones reported that on February 10, 2004, a resident from the Laguna Terrace neighborhood, Lynn Alix-Edwards, provided the City Council with comments, written information, and photographs indicating her neighbor’s wood-burning stove had created poor air quality around her home, which contributed to her child’s health problems. She asked the City to consider adopting a nuisance code for smoke and embark on a program of eliminating wood-burning stoves and fireplaces and converting them to gas and propane only. Staff reviewed her request, and there was a lack of general acceptance by most agencies and insufficient evidence that the typical quantity of smoke generated by wood-burning stoves and fireplaces was considered a health hazard. Due to the substantial expense and effort required to convert all of the existing wood-burning stoves and fireplaces to natural gas, as well as the difficulty of monitoring and enforcing a ban against smoke coming from wood-burning devices, staff did not believe is was reasonable to ban wood-burning fireplaces and stoves or to require their conversion at this time. Lynn Alix-Edwards, Laguna Hills, responded to the agenda report she had received regarding banning of wood-burning stoves and fireplaces. She indicated the City did not have the full knowledge of the adverse health effects of allowing the smoke to contaminate the ambient air. She wanted to address these effects and inform the City Council Members of facts of which they might not be aware. She presented the following exhibits supporting the fact that there was a definite health hazard established, not only acute, but chronic: Exhibit 1 – A letter from the hospital she was admitted to for carbon monoxide poisoning due to excessive smoke inhalation. Exhibit 2 – Letters from her doctor, her foster child’s doctor, and her handicapped brother’s doctor describing the adverse health effects they had experienced from breathing smoke. Exhibit 3 – Testimonies from several neighbors who had to move from the neighborhood due to the excessive smoke invading their property. Exhibit 4 – Statements from agencies, including the Lung Association, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Air Quality Management District (AQMD), stating the devastating health facts of those who breathe wood smoke on a continual basis. Exhibit 5 – A lab report revealing the carcinogenic chemicals found in their ambient air from the smoke. The chemicals were found in massive quantities, over and beyond the maximum allowance for any human to breathe without getting acute and chronic illnesses. Exhibit 6 – A video tape from a news channel interview of the neighbors regarding the adverse health effects from breathing the wood smoke that was allowed to invade their properties. Exhibit 7 – A regulation set by AQMD stating that no person should discharge this type of pollutant. Exhibit 8 – A petition from the neighborhood requesting that the smoke stop. Ms. Alix-Edwards asked if the City knew the ashes were examined, and they contained remnants of burnt plastics, human waste, urea and other human byproducts (Exhibit 9). She asked if the City knew that the creosote found contained evidence of carcinogenic chemicals and that the burning had been going on for many years. She indicated there was no trash pick up during one summer and questioned where the trash went and why there was burning that summer. She indicated she did not know what was happening today; the board and care home no longer existed; but the smoke was still coming into her yard. Her family was seen by a toxicologist, who after extensive testing found that breathing this contaminated smoke for so many years may have taken off as much as seven years from their lives. She noted that the AQMD cited this smoke at 100% opacity (at one time), and the limit was 20% opacity. Although the AQMD (can) fine people who burned at this opacity, fining does not necessarily stop the burning. She felt she was correct in stating that all the environmental agencies felt smoke was unhealthy, no matter where it came from. She asked that the City Council consider a compromise, requiring use of a fireplace instead of tin stoves or an electric fireplace or stove, the central heating system, or propane or to require her neighbor to raise the roof to a peak rather than it being flat. There were alternatives to heating a home, but there were no alternatives to breathing the air. She asked for some change, even a small one. Ms. Alix-Edwards indicated her two sisters, her mother, and her uncle died of lung cancer. Her child had lung problems. The AQMD was checking into her concerns. Mr. Jones reported a few weeks ago a representative from AQMD contacted the City’s Code Enforcement Officer. He had just been to Ms. Alix-Edwards residence, and he wanted to discuss Mrs. Alix-Edwards’ issues with the City’s Code Enforcement Officer. He wanted to discuss what the City could and could not do regarding the smoke issue. Mr. Jones did briefly meet with the AQMD representative. The representative let him know that AQMD did not regulate or typically get involved in reviewing residential smoke issues, but they had made an exception in this particular case. He showed staff an AQMD provision which was not specific in terms of having any measurable standard for smoke that was considered unhealthy. He was asking the City to enforce a vague AQMD regulation. Mr. Jones had advised him the City did not have any regulations regarding this issue, and the City would not be enforcing the AQMD regulations. They should be enforcing their own regulations. The AQMD representative had indicated to Mr. Jones that the 20% opacity level was their threshold for concern, and the AQMD representative thought the smoke he saw was somewhere close to that, but he did not have a precise measurement. The AQMD representative indicated he would be filing a report. City staff had followed up a couple times to obtain a copy of the report, and to date, no report has been provided by AQMD. There were a few Cities in the Bay Area that were considering stricter regulations regarding wood-burning stoves and fireplaces, but Mr. Jones was not aware of any Cities that had actually adopted regulations. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN SCOTT, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN CARRUTH, TO Request staff advise the City Council by memo of any action taken by the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) regarding Ms. Alix-Edwards’ concerns AND TO receive and file the report. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Carruth, Scott, Mayor Pro Tempore Bressette, and Mayor Lautenschleger NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Songstad
-
- Vicki Morell
- - February 10, 2010 at 11:46:26
This is the petition I just started because of wood burning in our neighborhood in Vancouver BC . TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED We, the undersigned, residents of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following: THAT, it is the duty of Parliament to protect the residents of Canada from the health hazards, pollution, nuisance and interruption to normal daily life from all residential wood burning; THAT, the health hazards from all wood burning be recognized as a preventable burden to our health care system and a threat to our environment and well-being; THAT, black carbon from wood smoke be recognized as a major contributor to climate change; THAT, wood burning fireplaces and stoves can emit hundreds of times more pollution than natural gas, electricity, or oil; and THAT, the most effective thing we can do to reduce the risk of health effects from wood smoke is to switch to a different source of heat, such as natural gas or oil, per Health Canada. THEREFORE, your petitioners request that the House of Commons in Parliament Assembled ban all residential wood burning in Canada except in remote locations where no other heat source is available. We also respectfully ask the House of Commons in Parliament Assembled to provide financial assistance to the residents of Canada who are unable to pay for an alternative heat source and to establish a campaign to educate Canadians about the health hazards from residential wood burning. Date 27th day of November, 2008 If you wish sign or get names email me vmorell@telus.net
-
- james Donnosey
- - February 8, 2010 at 11:15:09
I totally agree !!! Burning oil is much easier on the enviroment and also creates a "trickle down " effect on the economy with respect to what little profits if any are generated by oil companies and tax dollars. This money will subsidise everything from abolishing breast cancer to creating a better health care system. Shame on anyone who thinks just because it's probably the cheapest way to heat a home, that they have some sort of right !! Hooray finaly for goverment stepping up to the plate and making the right decision for a change.
