Posted on 11/23/2007 7:47:54 AM PST by Turret Gunner A20
Under the auspices of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, "public hearings" are being held to determine the fate of the family hearth.
Those of us who live in rural areas have a pretty good idea what the outcome is going to be.
Still, in the interest of basic fairness, we'd at least like the decision-makers to employ the rudiments of the scientific method, rather than riding the winds of energy dependence and global warming hysteria, before coming to a final decision.
The scientific method follows a rigid methodology. Ask a question. Do background research. Construct a hypothesis. Test the hypothesis. And then, communicate the results.
So what is the question? Are the fires in our homes bad because they add to global warming? Release carbon dioxide into the air? Pollute the atmosphere with soot and particulate matter? All of the above?
Where is the research? The Chronicle reported that "government studies" indicate that 33 percent of all "particulate matter" comes from your fireplace and mine. With all the industry and all the cars in the Bay Area, does anyone actually believe that?
Snip
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Maybe they should ban breeders too.
Can control of intestinal gasses be far behind?
If you are a conservative heterosexual and live in San Francisco, move!
I knew this was coming...they’re already all over gas lawnmowers like a cheap suit...
No and no.
The carbon in the wood was removed from the air by the tree when it was growing. Now that the tree is dead the carbon will return to the air in exactly the same volume whether the wood is burned or decays. Only difference is how long it takes.
However, a lot of people burning wood in a small area can indeed create a great deal of air pollution. 20 years ago I lived in a small CO mountain town, and on winter nights the air would get quite thick with wood smoke, sometimes to the point where breathing outside was almost painful.
Well they have plenty of other flaming things up there
It’s really about lifestyle. White European male lifestyle. F em.
I’d stockpile weapons and refuse to comply with the firewood ban. Burn baby burn.
Depends. Where to they stand on abortion, guns, and immigration? ;)
Ban pokers too.
If I had bought a house there with a fireplace that I used regularly, AND GONE THROUGH ALL THE RELEVANT PROCESSES AND PAID THE PROPERTY TAX,
I’d sue the living tar out of them. This whole “changing the rules after you’ve paid all the Fees” crap has got to end.
And all these county commissioners and board members with their delusions of being the new Mussolini oughta get a real job.
Stay tuned for “The Fate of the Hearth” by Jonathan Schell (?)
sadly, San Francisco is beautiful......Sodom and Gomorra probally were too
BWAHAAAAAA!!!!
This, from *that* filthy Liberal-Socialist-Communist rag?
Hmmmmmm.
What's wrong, Mr. SFC Editor?
...just buy a load of firewood? ;^)
I know. My wife and I used to travel there practically every year to stroll about the city: Fisherman's Wharf and dine at Alito's, et al.
We would be in bad shape if they banned them here in Los Angeles. It is our only method of heat.Seriously, as I type this hubby is making a wonderful fire in the fireplace.
I cannot believe this is all happening.
I guess burning wood kills trees, so its bad. But being San Francisco, burning flags will still be OK.
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.