Posted on 11/12/2003 3:46:36 PM PST by chance33_98
Air District Clarifies New Fireplace Rules
Rule Violators Could Be Fined
POSTED: 11:35 PM PST November 10, 2003 UPDATED: 11:19 AM PST November 11, 2003
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. -- New fireplace regulations that went into effect Nov. 1 mean before people light a log in their fireplace, residents will need to know if it's been declared a "no burn night."
Dale Karnes uses his wood burning fireplace solely to heat the room where he and his wife spend most of their time.
"We need the heat. It's not because our age or anything, this room is like a tomb in the wintertime. It's cold," Karnes said.
However, if they use their fireplace for heat on a "no burn night," they could face a fine because it's not their sole heating source.
"It is hooked onto the main heat, but it's so far away. I mean it's probably a good 40 feet from that exchange to the unit," Karnes said.
The No. 1 question being asked about the "no burn nights" is who is exempt from the no burn rules.
One point the San Joaquin Valley Air District wants people to know is that pellets and manufactured fire logs are not exempt from the rules.
"If wood burning is your soul source of heat and you don't have another heating device built into the home then you are exempt. We are going to allow questions about that because people aren't sure if they qualify or not," said Kelly Malay of the San Joaquin Valley Air District.
Malay said there is no "permit" application -- residents will either be exempt, or not.
"The best answer is call us and we'll talk about it and find out because there are some gray areas that we need to know all the details about," Malay said.
The Air District will enforce the no burn nights with both random patrols and through complaints that are called in.
"If you are caught violating the rule the fine can be between $50 and $1,000. The $1,000 case would obviously be someone who has violated the rule repeatedly," Malay said.
The "no burn nights" do not apply to residents with natural gas or propane fireplaces.
Call (800) SMOG-INFO for the daily no burn status and if you have any questions about the no burn rules, call the Air District at 326-6900.
You sense overpopulation.
Uhmmm, no.
That's just the excuse used by old hippies who don't know how to do anything else but work at imposing their wills on everyone else.
They say that gas fires are exempt. Ha! If they could see the comparison of combustion products of a wood fire and a gas fire, they wouldn't say that. Of course, that naively assumes that the air pollution board is honest.
Welcome to Amerika.
It's pretty obvious that their goal is not clean air, but total control over the lives of everyone.
BTW, In the late 50's in the LA basin, it was still legal to burn your trash in a back-yard incinerator. The incinerators were made out of pre-cast concrete, and you could buy them at the hardware store.
Satellite infra-red.
Reading this thread makes me sad. In a lifetime we have gone from the wonderful smell of a wood buring stove or fireplace, burning leaves and trash in the back yard, driving cars with open exhaust systems, logging our private forests,and landscaping riverbanks to living under an oppressive system of increasing regulations and laws.
And there is no denying that the restrictions come with increasing population (and there is no doubt that some in government want to have greater and greater control over the lives of others). As Natural Processes points out, many approaches are not just ineffective, they are wrong.
Still it is a compromise. Each law would not have a chance of passage if it did not address in some way the germ of a problem. If a majority of our neighbors choose to do something stupid, and we can't get them to be rational, the only other alternative is to move to less crowded conditions, try to live in your lifetime as well as you can, and recognize that our children will have to do the same.
Tell that to the people of Lake Arrowhead. It depends upon the situation. The balance of trade-offs too complex for a blanket approach.
My, how erudite. No it isn't. If that dense population is adjacent to a forest there are two ways to deal with the fuel, rot or burn, else the forest becomes a hazard. Burning is the natural method and is necessary for protecting that forest and its performance as a watershed (else you get those nasty landslides they are getting in LA tonight). One would like to minimize the destructive force. The best way is to remove some of that fuel.
Most of that timber and brush is no good for lumber. The paper mills don't want it. There are two ways to deal with the fuel, rot or burn. Woodstoves today have catylitic converters. So do pellet stoves. Both (especially the pellet stoves) are relatively clean compared to the alternatives. What then remains to be resolved are temporal and spatial considerations of climate conditions including dispersion patterns. For example, it might be better to burn on the downwind side of town. What would be really great is if we stopped with the crap about purity and started using more wood fired power plants.
The alternative is to rot the material, for example to chip it and turn it into soils. This is a good thing but it is VERY energy intensive and expensive. It also induces airborne mold spores which are highly allergenic.
Air quality is a lot more complex an issue than just smoke.
"Solar Only!"
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.