I'm sure there is some truth to the article, but it paints a very different picture than the referenced paper at the buttom. > Finally, returning to the questi

I'm sure there is some truth to the article, but it paints a very different picture than the referenced paper at the buttom. > Finally, returning to the questions posed at the start, we conclude that although there is a large and growing body of evidence linking exposure to wood/biomass smoke itself with both acute and chronic illness, there is insufficient evidence at present to support regulating it separately from its individual components, especially fine particulate matter. In addition, there is insufficient evidence at present to conclude that woodsmoke particles are significantly less or more damaging to health than general ambient fine particles. > Nevertheless, given the importance of woodsmoke as a contributor to particle concentrations in many locations, strategies to reduce woodsmoke emissions may be an effective means of lowering particle exposures. In addition, given the weight of toxicologic evidence, additional epidemiologic studies are needed to confirm our conclusions.