A friend sent me this - I haven't located the paper yet

"the following was a Q & A in the Sunday paper, thought it may be of help?

Q
My neighbour has built a workshop in his garden, with planning approval from
the District Council. It has a wood-buring stove with a flue that emits
smoke, which I have read could contain carcinogens. Is there anything I can
do?

A
Much depends on whether you are living in a smoke-control area. If so, it
is an offence under the Clean Air Act 1993 for your neighbour to emit smoke
from a chimney, whether domestic or commercial, unless he is burning an
'authorised fuel' or using an 'exempt appliance' - one that produces very
little or no smoke. Visit smokecontrol.defra.gov.uk for further
information. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the smoke might
also be a statutory nuisance. In either case, consult your Local Authority
Environment Department. You could take action under the 1990 Act or common
law.

If you are not in a smoke-control area, your situation is covered only by
the 1990 Act - but, again, the local authority should assist you. If you
wish to take proceddings yourself, you should consult a solicitor.
"

My first reaction was this was a red herring, assuming the stove was
included in the plans.

The statutory nuisance regulation IIRC are intended to cover stuff like
bonfires on washing days etc.

However a quick Google to see if I could locate the newspaper article turned
up stuff like
http://www.ehhi.org/woodsmoke/health_effects.shtml

"–*Although wood smoke conjures up fond memories of sitting by a cozy fire,
it is important to know that the components of wood smoke and cigarette
smoke are quite similar, and that many components of both are carcinogenic.
Wood smoke contains fine particulate matter, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde,
sulfur dioxide and various irritant gases such as nitrogen oxides that can
scar the lungs. Wood smoke also contains chemicals known or suspected to be
carcinogens, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and dioxin.
–*Wood smoke interferes with normal lung development in infants and children.
It also increases childrens risk of lower respiratory infections such as
bronchitis and pneumonia.
–*Wood smoke exposure can depress the immune system and damage the layer of
cells in the lungs that protect and cleanse the airways.
–*According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), toxic air
pollutants are components of wood smoke. Wood smoke can cause coughs,
headaches, eye, and throat irritation in otherwise healthy people.
–*For vulnerable populations, such as people with asthma, chronic respiratory
disease and those with cardiovascular disease, wood smoke is particularly
harmful€” even short exposures can prove dangerous.
–*The particles of wood smoke are extremely small and therefore are not
filtered out by the nose or the upper respiratory system. Instead, these
small particles end up deep in the lungs where they remain for months,
causing structural damage and chemical changes. Wood smokes carcinogenic
chemicals adhere to these tiny particles, which enter deep into the lungs.
–*Recent studies show that fine particles that go deep into the lungs
increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes. EPA warns that for people
with heart disease, short- term exposures have been linked to heart attacks
and arrhythmias. If you have heart disease, these tiny particles may cause
you to experience chest pain, palpitations, shortness of breath, and
fatigue."

and loads of other stuff mainly from the US.

Assuming that wood burning is more prevalent in the US as opposed to coal
burning and thus is top of the problems list, I presume that similar issues
may arise from burning coal (although the particulate size may make a
difference).

Certainly this still raises a question about 'green' heating by harvesting
renewable woodlands.

However in this particular complaint the carcinogen issue is still a red
herring until action is taken to ban all fires and stoves which burn
wood/peat/coal etc. and do not have a particllate filter.

Up until now I hand't thought of my 'fake coal' gas fire as being
particularly environmentally friendly compared to a wood burner.

Ho hum

Dave R

David WE Roberts wrote:
A friend sent me this - I haven't located the paper yet

"–*Although wood smoke conjures up fond memories of sitting by a cozy
fire, it is important to know that the components of wood smoke and
cigarette smoke are quite similar, and that many components of both are
carcinogenic. Wood smoke contains fine particulate matter, carbon
monoxide, formaldehyde, sulfur dioxide and various irritant gases such
as nitrogen oxides that can scar the lungs. Wood smoke also contains
chemicals known or suspected to be carcinogens, such as polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and dioxin.


Homo Sapiens has had open fires in enclosed spaces for a quarter of a
million years. Why are open fires so bad for us all of a sudden?

Dave Osborne wrote:
David WE Roberts wrote:
A friend sent me this - I haven't located the paper yet

"–*Although wood smoke conjures up fond memories of sitting by a cozy
fire, it is important to know that the components of wood smoke and
cigarette smoke are quite similar, and that many components of both
are carcinogenic. Wood smoke contains fine particulate matter, carbon
monoxide, formaldehyde, sulfur dioxide and various irritant gases such
as nitrogen oxides that can scar the lungs. Wood smoke also contains
chemicals known or suspected to be carcinogens, such as polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and dioxin.


Homo Sapiens has had open fires in enclosed spaces for a quarter of a
million years. Why are open fires so bad for us all of a sudden?

*sigh* google 'smog clean air act'

On 10/05/10 13:26, Dave Osborne wrote:
David WE Roberts wrote:
A friend sent me this - I haven't located the paper yet

"–*Although wood smoke conjures up fond memories of sitting by a cozy
fire, it is important to know that the components of wood smoke and
cigarette smoke are quite similar, and that many components of both
are carcinogenic. Wood smoke contains fine particulate matter, carbon
monoxide, formaldehyde, sulfur dioxide and various irritant gases such
as nitrogen oxides that can scar the lungs. Wood smoke also contains
chemicals known or suspected to be carcinogens, such as polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and dioxin.


Homo Sapiens has had open fires in enclosed spaces for a quarter of a
million years. Why are open fires so bad for us all of a sudden?

I *think* in the USA (at least until recently if not still) that arsenic
treated tanalised timer was still common. There's a claim by some woman
that her neighbour is burning loads of lumber offcuts in his workshop
giving rise to arsenic laden smoke. MAybe someone's picker up on that? I
agree that would be nasty, but a bit of smoke from an ordinary wood burner?



--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.

On Mon, 10 May 2010 14:09:20 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:
Homo Sapiens has had open fires in enclosed spaces for a quarter of a
million years. Why are open fires so bad for us all of a sudden?

I *think* in the USA (at least until recently if not still) that arsenic
treated tanalised timer was still common.

Yeah... 2003 I think, which means there are an awful lot of decks etc.
still out there that people might be tempted to cut up and burn when they
reach end of life.

People in this area of the US seem pretty clued-up about not burning
treated stuff, but I suspect that's not the case country-wide.

cheers

Jules

On Mon, 10 May 2010 13:26:48 +0100, Dave Osborne wrote:
David WE Roberts wrote:
A friend sent me this - I haven't located the paper yet

"–*Although wood smoke conjures up fond memories of sitting by a cozy
fire, it is important to know that the components of wood smoke and
cigarette smoke are quite similar, and that many components of both are
carcinogenic. Wood smoke contains fine particulate matter, carbon
monoxide, formaldehyde, sulfur dioxide and various irritant gases such
as nitrogen oxides that can scar the lungs. Wood smoke also contains
chemicals known or suspected to be carcinogens, such as polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and dioxin.


Homo Sapiens has had open fires in enclosed spaces for a quarter of a
million years. Why are open fires so bad for us all of a sudden?

Some possibilities spring to mind.
- yer average hom. sap. lives long enough (now that predation from sabre-toothed
tigers is on the decrease) that _prolonged_ exposure to smoke has a measurable
effect on the death rate, and not in a good way.

The high living densities we have now means that if everyone did it, we'd
all look more like kippers than people.

All the whingers used to be turned into sacrifices for the gods when they
becoame too vociferous. Now they go on telly or write newspaper articles.

BTW, A staggering proportion of the population still have no access to
electricity. Figures vary from 500M to 1.6B depending on what agenda
the authors are pushing.

"pete" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 May 2010 13:26:48 +0100, Dave Osborne wrote:
David WE Roberts wrote:
A friend sent me this - I haven't located the paper yet

"?Although wood smoke conjures up fond memories of sitting by a cozy
fire, it is important to know that the components of wood smoke and
cigarette smoke are quite similar, and that many components of both are
carcinogenic. Wood smoke contains fine particulate matter, carbon
monoxide, formaldehyde, sulfur dioxide and various irritant gases such
as nitrogen oxides that can scar the lungs. Wood smoke also contains
chemicals known or suspected to be carcinogens, such as polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and dioxin.


Homo Sapiens has had open fires in enclosed spaces for a quarter of a
million years. Why are open fires so bad for us all of a sudden?

Some possibilities spring to mind.
- yer average hom. sap. lives long enough (now that predation from
sabre-toothed
tigers is on the decrease) that _prolonged_ exposure to smoke has a
measurable
effect on the death rate, and not in a good way.

The high living densities we have now means that if everyone did it, we'd
all look more like kippers than people.

All the whingers used to be turned into sacrifices for the gods when they
becoame too vociferous. Now they go on telly or write newspaper articles.

BTW, A staggering proportion of the population still have no access to
electricity. Figures vary from 500M to 1.6B depending on what agenda
the authors are pushing.

Once upon a time everyone did do it: that's where all the trees went; until
we discovered coal... and we've just got some trees back; in time for
'greens' to start using wood again! With a population that is 12 times the
size!

S

spamlet wrote:
"pete" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 May 2010 13:26:48 +0100, Dave Osborne wrote:
David WE Roberts wrote:
A friend sent me this - I haven't located the paper yet

"?Although wood smoke conjures up fond memories of sitting by a cozy
fire, it is important to know that the components of wood smoke and
cigarette smoke are quite similar, and that many components of both are
carcinogenic. Wood smoke contains fine particulate matter, carbon
monoxide, formaldehyde, sulfur dioxide and various irritant gases such
as nitrogen oxides that can scar the lungs. Wood smoke also contains
chemicals known or suspected to be carcinogens, such as polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and dioxin.

Homo Sapiens has had open fires in enclosed spaces for a quarter of a
million years. Why are open fires so bad for us all of a sudden?
Some possibilities spring to mind.
- yer average hom. sap. lives long enough (now that predation from
sabre-toothed
tigers is on the decrease) that _prolonged_ exposure to smoke has a
measurable
effect on the death rate, and not in a good way.

The high living densities we have now means that if everyone did it, we'd
all look more like kippers than people.

All the whingers used to be turned into sacrifices for the gods when they
becoame too vociferous. Now they go on telly or write newspaper articles.

BTW, A staggering proportion of the population still have no access to
electricity. Figures vary from 500M to 1.6B depending on what agenda
the authors are pushing.

Once upon a time everyone did do it: that's where all the trees went; until
we discovered coal... and we've just got some trees back; in time for
'greens' to start using wood again! With a population that is 12 times the
size!


yeah. Not far wrong. we used to use windmills as well.


S

pete wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2010 13:26:48 +0100, Dave Osborne wrote:
David WE Roberts wrote:
A friend sent me this - I haven't located the paper yet

"–*Although wood smoke conjures up fond memories of sitting by a cozy
fire, it is important to know that the components of wood smoke and
cigarette smoke are quite similar, and that many components of both are
carcinogenic. Wood smoke contains fine particulate matter, carbon
monoxide, formaldehyde, sulfur dioxide and various irritant gases such
as nitrogen oxides that can scar the lungs. Wood smoke also contains
chemicals known or suspected to be carcinogens, such as polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and dioxin.

Homo Sapiens has had open fires in enclosed spaces for a quarter of a
million years. Why are open fires so bad for us all of a sudden?

Some possibilities spring to mind.
- yer average hom. sap. lives long enough (now that predation from sabre-toothed
tigers is on the decrease) that _prolonged_ exposure to smoke has a measurable
effect on the death rate, and not in a good way.

The high living densities we have now means that if everyone did it, we'd
all look more like kippers than people.


That was what was behind teh clean air acts.

Everybody did it. Oil was only used as a transport fuel in the 50s and
all heating was by coal, or by coal gas. Coal gas was formed from
heating and IIRC slaking coal. It produced nearly as much pollution as
burning coal did.

Never mind steam trains as well. Smuts all over your washing.


All the whingers used to be turned into sacrifices for the gods when they
becoame too vociferous. Now they go on telly or write newspaper articles.

BTW, A staggering proportion of the population still have no access to
electricity. Figures vary from 500M to 1.6B depending on what agenda
the authors are pushing.


Quite right too. Would ruin the internet bandwidth if they ALL had
computers.

In article ,
Dave Osborne writes:
David WE Roberts wrote:
A friend sent me this - I haven't located the paper yet

"–*Although wood smoke conjures up fond memories of sitting by a cozy
fire, it is important to know that the components of wood smoke and
cigarette smoke are quite similar, and that many components of both are
carcinogenic. Wood smoke contains fine particulate matter, carbon
monoxide, formaldehyde, sulfur dioxide and various irritant gases such
as nitrogen oxides that can scar the lungs. Wood smoke also contains
chemicals known or suspected to be carcinogens, such as polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and dioxin.


Homo Sapiens has had open fires in enclosed spaces for a quarter of a
million years. Why are open fires so bad for us all of a sudden?

They aren't all of a sudden - they've always been bad for us.
It's still a significant cause of ill health and death in the
3rd world, just like it has been for a quarter of a million years.
Most severely affected in each family is the person who cooks the
food on such a fire, spending most time near it.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 10 May, 12:40, "David WE Roberts"
wrote:
A friend sent me this - I haven't located the paper yet

Q. My neighbour has built a workshop in his garden, with planning approval from
the District Council. It has a wood-buring stove...........................


The answer given is quite right. You can only burn smokeless fuel in a
smoke control area or use an 'exempt' appliance. The exempt appliances
(see HETAS approved list) are gasifiers which should emit little/no
smoke once at the operating temperature. You can also apply for a
specific exemption since many local authorities have designated their
entire areas to be smoke control areas.

On 10 May, 15:26, (Andrew Gabriel) wrote:


Homo Sapiens has had open fires in enclosed spaces for a quarter of a
million years. Why are open fires so bad for us all of a sudden?

As stated by another above, they've always been pretty bad because of
a fundamental design flaw.

The wood is 80% volatile organic compounds (VOCs) & 20% carbon
(charcoal); when heated, the volatile compounds are emitted as gas and
tars which can be burned, if there is a secondary air supply above the
fire bed. In an open fire, they aren't burned and are emitted as smoke
(unburned fuel) or condense in the flue as tars. You could also heat
the wood to drive off the VOC gas and use it to run your car or
whatever, as done during WW2.

You need about 600 degC (I think) to burn the VOCs. The airflow
through a fire is generated by convection so the air passes through
the glowing embers (charcoal) and then through the hot wood, carrying
the VOC vapours away from the heat which would burn them to CO2 and
water vapour. It's really a bad design, the airflow goes the wrong
way.

Most/all of the 'green' boilers being promoted now are gasifiers,
often downflow; they will emit no more smoke, when at operating
temperature, than a gas or oil boiler and have efficiencies in the
high 80s (I think).

Much of the 3rd world still cooks and heats with open wood fires, so
they're collecting 3 or 4 times as more wood than an efficient stove
would need. have a Google for "wood stoves" and you'll see what I
mean.

On 10 May, 16:04, Onetap wrote:
have a Google for "wood stoves" and you'll see what I
mean.

On second thoughts, that brings up a mound of adverts for cheap grey
cast iron wood stoves (that are expensive).

Try Googling for:- wood stoves " third world" for more relevant
stuff, this for example;

http://www.journeytoforever.org/at_woodfire.html

"Onetap" wrote in message
...
On 10 May, 12:40, "David WE Roberts"
wrote:
A friend sent me this - I haven't located the paper yet

Q. My neighbour has built a workshop in his garden, with planning
approval from
the District Council. It has a wood-buring
stove...........................


The answer given is quite right. You can only burn smokeless fuel in a
smoke control area or use an 'exempt' appliance. The exempt appliances
(see HETAS approved list) are gasifiers which should emit little/no
smoke once at the operating temperature. You can also apply for a
specific exemption since many local authorities have designated their
entire areas to be smoke control areas.
snip

You snipped the bit about when it is not a smoke control area.

I just looked up my local area (Suffolk Coastal District Council) and there
are no smoke control areas.

Massive lack of detail in the original report, but given that the workshop
was built under planning control that would have encompassed smoke control
if applicable.

I suspect that if smoke was being generated in a 'smokeless zone' then there
would have been no need to write to the paper for advice.

"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...

"Onetap" wrote in message
...
On 10 May, 12:40, "David WE Roberts"
wrote:
A friend sent me this - I haven't located the paper yet

Q. My neighbour has built a workshop in his garden, with planning
approval from
the District Council. It has a wood-buring
stove...........................


The answer given is quite right. You can only burn smokeless fuel in a
smoke control area or use an 'exempt' appliance. The exempt appliances
(see HETAS approved list) are gasifiers which should emit little/no
smoke once at the operating temperature. You can also apply for a
specific exemption since many local authorities have designated their
entire areas to be smoke control areas.
snip

You snipped the bit about when it is not a smoke control area.

I just looked up my local area (Suffolk Coastal District Council) and
there are no smoke control areas.

Sorry, missed out link
http://smokecontrol.defra.gov.uk/loc...map_name=wilts
shows nicely where the smoke control zones are.

My old haunt of West Berkshire doesn't have any either.

On 10 May, 18:29, "David WE Roberts"
wrote:

You snipped the bit about when it is not a smoke control area.

Not being devious, I'm not Drivel. I just leave the first few lines to
indicate what I'm replying to.


I just looked up my local area (Suffolk Coastal District Council) and there
are no smoke control areas.

Great; old tyres, mattresses and pallets are fine then.

I suspect that if smoke was being generated in a 'smokeless zone' then there
would have been no need to write to the paper for advice.

Not necessarily; most people don't know about smoke control, have
never had any need to know and have never burnt anything other than
natural gas.
As to whether it's a smoke control zone, a non-exempt stove is being
used, non-approved fuel or whether the building control officer missed
the requirements for the stove, we shall never care.

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Homo Sapiens has had open fires in enclosed spaces for a quarter of a
million years. Why are open fires so bad for us all of a sudden?

They aren't all of a sudden - they've always been bad for us.
It's still a significant cause of ill health and death in the
3rd world, just like it has been for a quarter of a million years.
Most severely affected in each family is the person who cooks the
food on such a fire, spending most time near it.

2 billion, 1/3 of the population, are still reckoned to cook on biomass
fires.


Acute respiratory infections are still the biggest cause of child death,
particulates from wood/dung cooking fires are highly implicated. That young
children may be carried by mother whilst cooking may be a reason for high
exposure.

AJH

andrew wrote:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Homo Sapiens has had open fires in enclosed spaces for a quarter of a
million years. Why are open fires so bad for us all of a sudden?
They aren't all of a sudden - they've always been bad for us.
It's still a significant cause of ill health and death in the
3rd world, just like it has been for a quarter of a million years.
Most severely affected in each family is the person who cooks the
food on such a fire, spending most time near it.

2 billion, 1/3 of the population, are still reckoned to cook on biomass
fires.


Acute respiratory infections are still the biggest cause of child death,

No, its infant diarrhoea, and the odd starvation.

"Dave Osborne" wrote in message
...


Homo Sapiens has had open fires in enclosed spaces for a quarter of a
million years. Why are open fires so bad for us all of a sudden?

That's like saying homo sapiens have died of disease for millennia why are
they bad all of a sudden?

Just because things have been done for ages doesn't make them good.

David WE Roberts wrote:


Assuming that wood burning is more prevalent in the US as opposed to
coal burning and thus is top of the problems list, I presume that
similar issues may arise from burning coal (although the particulate
size may make a difference).


You must be too young to remember the 50's smogs, severe respiratory
illnesses and the Clean Air Act.

Certainly this still raises a question about 'green' heating by
harvesting renewable woodlands.


It is possible using high temperature 'blast' burning to break down MOST
of the organic compounds that are deeply unpleasant.


However that's not the case with the average wood burning stove or open
fire, most of which are pretty illegal in urban areas.

Its not so much that the smoke is lethal per se, its that high
concentrations of smoke means that of everybody does it, everybody suffers.


However in this particular complaint the carcinogen issue is still a red
herring until action is taken to ban all fires and stoves which burn
wood/peat/coal etc. and do not have a particllate filter.

In reality that would simply destroy the market for solid fuel, Its far
too expensive to burn it that way.

Its puerly a matter of density: there is not actually enough wood in the
countryside to make burning it a huge issue, niot teh way iot was with coal.



Up until now I hand't thought of my 'fake coal' gas fire as being
particularly environmentally friendly compared to a wood burner.


It is. In that it is less polluting. It isn't, in that it's not a
renewable source. *shrug*.

But wood smoke in moderation is no big deal.


Ho hum

Dave R