The Emporia Gazette

glarson (anonymous) says...

Additional comment on the original letter:

http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/20...

March 18, 2009 at 7:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

nutsabouttools;
The burning of biomass materials has much of the same chemicals in the smoke and the SHS as tobacco product smoke/SHS has in it. Also some of the particulate particles in biomass smoke is even more dangerous than cigarette smoke/shs. However the burning of biomass material, such as wood in fireplaces, heating stoves, etc., pasture, farmland burning, grass, leaves, landfill material, etc. has been deemed as necessary by the CAE and its supporters. If these smoking ban advocates really believed that smoking or smoke and SHS were a health issue, wouldn't these types of smoke and SHS be worthy of a smoking ban also ?

Wood burning also creates cyanide.
Cyanide contaminates water from biomass burning: Chemosphere, 2003.

Go to the following websites, very interesting info.
http://burningissues.org/bi/table2.htm
http://www.burningissues.org/car-www/...
Here is a table of chemicals in wood smoke from one of the above websites.

Table 1: Wood Smoke Emissions
Burning Issues/Clean Air Revival, Inc.
Draft: Wednesday, June 6, 2001
1
Pollutant Physical
State
Emissions for
g/kg Wood
Carbon Monoxide V 80-370
Methane V 14-25
VOCs (C2-C7) V 7-27
Aldehydes V 0.6 -5.4
Formaldehyde V 0.1- 0.7
Acrolein V 0.02- 0.1
Propionaldehyde V 0.1- 0.3
Butryaldehyde V 0.01-1.7
Acetaldehyde V 0.03 - 0.6
Furfural V 0.2-1.6 1.6
Substituted Furans V 0.15 -1.7
Benzene V 0.6-4.0
Alkyl Benzenes V 1-6
Toluene V 0.15 -1.0
Acetic Acid V 1.8 -2.4
Formic Acid V 0.06-0.08
Nitrogen Oxides (NO,NO2) V 0.2-0.9
Sulfur Dioxide V 0.16-0.24
Methyl chloride V 0.01-0.04
Napthalene V 0.24-1.6
Substituted Napthalenes V/P 0.3-2.1
Oxygenated Monoaromatics V/P 1 - 7
Guaiacol (and derivatives) V/P 0.4-1.6
Phenol (and derivatives) V/P 0.2-0.8
Syringol (and derivatives) V/P 0.7-2.7
Catechol (and derivatives V/P 0.2-0.8
Total Particle Mass P 7-30
Particulate Organic Carbon P 2-20
Oxygenated PAHs V/P 0.15-1
PAHs V/P
Fluorene V/P 4x10-5 - 1.7x10-2
Phenanthrene V/P 2x10-5 - 3.4x10-2
Anthracene V/P 5x10-5 - 2.1x10-5
Methylanthracenes V/P 7xl0-5 - 8x10-5
Fluoranthene V/P 7xl0-4- 4.2xl0-2
Pyrene V/P 8x10-4 - 3.1x10-2
Benzo(a)anthracene V/P 4x10-4 - 2x10-3
Chrysene V/P 5x10-4x10-2
Benzofluoranthenes V/P 6x10-4- 5x10-3
Benzo(e)pyrene V/P 2x10-4 - 4x10-3
Benzo(a)pyrene V/P 3x10-4- 5x10-3
Table 1: Wood Smoke Emissions

March 18, 2009 at 10:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Here is a bit of info for everones scrutiny.

Exposure to Wood Smoke May Increase Lung Cancer Risk
Laurie Barclay, MD;

Medscape Medical News 2005. © 2005 Medscape
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/5...

July 11, 2005 — Exposure to wood smoke may increase the risk of lung cancer via a mechanism similar to that of tobacco, according to the results of a study published in the July issue of Chest .
"... our findings demonstrate that wood smoke could produce similar effects on p53, phospho-p53, and MDM2 protein expression as tobacco.… It is important to consider wood smoke exposure as a possible risk factor for the development of lung cancer in nonsmoker subjects."

March 18, 2009 at 10:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Visit this website and see the chemicals found in biomass smoke/shs and their related health causes.

http://fire.forestencyclopedia.net/p/...

March 18, 2009 at 11:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack;
There is only one way to answer your absurd, illogical, nonsensical arguments about this issue, as harmful smoke is harmful smoke, no matter what the source, necessary or not necessary. And the only answer you deserve is a very famous one ! NUTS!
VOTE NO !

March 19, 2009 at 11:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Folks, as you can see by the answers to practical, factual, truthful information about any smoke exposure that has the same properties and health affects of the so called deadly tobacco/cigarette smoke/SHS the logic and flawed thinking of some or most of the ban smoking advocates is " if what causes this "other smoke and SHS," that by the way, has been found to have just as high or higher health risk factor. Is deemed by the ban smoking "nannys" as serving a useful purpose, then all of us are supposed to accept the logic and reasoning of the ban smoking "nannys" that tobacco/cigarette smoke/shs is the only smoke that is deserving of being banned and the people that smoke or allow smoking in their businesses should be punished for allegedly
harming them !
Now is that flawed logic or what ? Health issue, I say NO !
If SMOKE/SHS were truly a " HEALTH " issue, theses anti-smoke/shs advocates would include any activity that produces potentially harmful SMOKE/SHS in a " SMOKING BAN " and not be targeting just those individuals who use tobacco products, smoke cigarettes, etc., businesses that allow smoking or private business owners that allow smoking in their businesses. Furthermore all businesses and business owners already have the legal right to either allow smoking or not allow smoking in their businesses and smoking is already banned in all public buildings now also ! Health issue, definately not. This proposed smoking ban is an attempt by certain individuals or group of individuals to control the life style of certain individuals and businesses that allow smoking to their own selfish beliefs and wants !
Send a message to these controlling individuals and VOTE NO !

March 19, 2009 at 11:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...

methusla,

Oh you're right about the burning of wood (and grasses/fields) (we moved here about 6 yrs ago, and were surprised about the burning fields) (I've lived in many states, and so far Kansas is the only state that I've seen that burns fields). Humans will be the cause of their own extinction (global warming, polluting our air, water and earth, etc). However, I don't think the concentration of toxic gases (by volume) would match the levels encountered indoors, with a room full of smokers. Not smoking in-doors is 1 step towards reducing the risk to health of all citizens.

I think human beings (and especially Americans) should be more conscientious of their environment, the health of others, etc. Maybe we wouldn't need these ridiculous bans if we took responsible action before the government decides they need to do something.

Dave R.

March 19, 2009 at 12:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

nutsabouttools;
After you have been here long enough to see the air in town absolute filled with the smoke of pasture and field burning and you can't hardly go outside and take a deep breath and I am still around, I would like to hear your thoughts then, as I have seen and experienced the dense pasture, field fire smoke in Emporia itself. Also when several of your neighbors in your neighbor hood start chuffing smoke out their chimneys and you can hardly breath in your own home because of it or go outside because of it, let me know what you think about that situation also !

March 19, 2009 at 12:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...

OBTW, even though I believe that we (smokers, and I'm one of them) need to stop smoking indoors, where there are other fellow citizens that do not smoke, I will likely vote NO on the ban. I don't think it was well thought out and I'm especially concerned about the enforcement aspects (and impact on local law enforcement, fire dept, etc).

Dave R.

March 19, 2009 at 12:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...

methusla,

I don't disagree with you. I have a hard time understanding why they have to burn fields here, when other states I've lived in (Wisconsin, Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and New York) don't need to burn fields (they use other means to minimize the risk of brush fires). Just driving through some of those dense clouds of smoke is very irritating. I had to stop once, to clear my vision, because my eyes watered up so much.

We Americans sure do find so many ways to crap up this planet. We'll either all die of early extinction or nuke each other in the next decade or two.

Dave R.

March 19, 2009 at 1:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

nutsabouttools;
Pastures and fields are burned here, because it is less expensive than herbicides to get rid of weed and unwanted vegetation on pastures and farmland. I don't really know which is worse the choking and blinding smoke or the spraying of poisons that may become air-borne and both the smoke or the sprays can travel on the wind for miles as can the smoke that comes out of house chimneys.
All I am saying is that if this were truly a health issue about smoke and SHS the proposed ban would not be just a tobacco product smoke/SHS ban, that targets just certain businesses, business owners, individuals or group of individuals, it would be a Smoke/SHS ban, that would ban all purposely instigated activities that produce SMOKE/SHS that are known to be health risks. Whether such activities were thought to be necessary or not. I also believe that the smoking ban advocates do not like the idea of anyone even suggesting a ban on one aspect of their life style of burning wood in their fireplaces, etc, because they see that as one of there necessary " RIGHTS ". When it is not anymore necessary to them than smoking is any less necessary to anyone who smokes !

March 19, 2009 at 2:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

You would think Californians would be extinct by now with all that smoke from all those raging wildfires they have every summer-----WAY more smoke from those things than from our pastures. The way they talk about smoke out there, it's a wonder the wildfire smoke hasn't scared them to death.

Yes, I know the wildfires aren't comparable because they are already illegal, but my point is that the sheer volume of that smoke would have killed them all if smoke toxins were SO deadly.

March 19, 2009 at 2:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...

That's the problem oh4. These "toxic" chemicals and gases are accumulating in our atmosphere, streams, lakes, oceans and soil in small, steady doses. Eventually they will reach "toxic" levels (maybe not in our generation, but likely in a near future generation). We know already that the upper ozone layer is "shrinking" because of the crap we put in the air.

We moved here from Central New York. We had rather large (at one time beautiful) lake, call Onondaga Lake. We managed to pollute that lake so much you're not allowed to swim in it or eat any fish that are caught in it because of the high amounts of lead.

I know I'm expecting a lot, but if people don't like government stepping in, then they should quit their b_tch'n and do their part to do the right things (ie. recycle, walk or ride a bike instead of the car whenever possible, carpool, quit smoking (something I need to do) to name a few) so that government doesn't find the need to do something for them.

Dave R.

March 19, 2009 at 3:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

oh4theluvof ;
That is exactly the point I have been trying to make with my posts about biomass smoke to the ban smoking bunch, but they either can't comprehend the comparison or they are just plain hard headed ?
VOTE NO !

March 19, 2009 at 3:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Just a thought for all of you touting the health issue!

You have all said it, we endure health regulations on serving food at certain temps, labeling of food containers, hand sanitation, restroom cleanliness, rodent and insect control, water temperatures, mold control, cooking and server cleanliness, heck we even have to have self-closing trash containers outside to prevent health issues to our customers. This is all done by the state and county to protect the consumers. Why then in the over thirty years I have been in business has my business never been checked by the state or county for shs? If shs is truly a health issue, wouldn't we be inspected on it?
Could it be, it's not a proven fact?

VOTE EARLY
VOTE NO
I DID
Steve

March 20, 2009 at 8:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

I'm still waiting for crack, 1sgt, or irish to reply to my "health Post"?

March 20, 2009 at 9:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )