6 ms·

> and into the homes of others. I really wish indoor wood burning, especially if not used for heating but luxury, would be banned at least in cities like wtf.

> and into the homes of others. I really wish indoor wood burning, especially if not used for heating but luxury, would be banned at least in cities like wtf. is it legal to harass your neighbors with smell and toxic fumes every day just because you want to feel a bit comfy (to clarify: I mean comfy by having a fancy looking fire place you use additional to your normal heating system because you like how it looks) sure there are countries and areas in countries where for various sociology economical reasons banning it isn't acceptable at all and should not be done but a ~4 million city where one of the _most costly ways to heat_ is by burning wood logs it's a bit of a different story ;) and I know some parts of the city are poor and use very old ovens, but funnily they have less of an smell issue (I can't judge the toxicity) because they tend to burn preprocessed pellets for heating instead of not necessary well suited or fully dry wood for the looks

Fatnino 3y ago
I live on a street of single family homes in Palo Alto and my next door neighbor smokes weed every day starting around 10am and it's totally legal for that stench to drift into my backyard shed and harass me where I'm trying to work.
dathinab 3y ago
> very old ovens it's kinda fascinating, some of this ovens are older then 70 years, some where build in when this houses where build ~120 years ago (but update) they also are all health hazards as in you manually have to control the exhausts when starting them and if you mess that up (e.g. fall asleep) CO will leak into you apartment and might silently kill you ....
- t0bia_s 3y ago
  Have you ever used that oven?
antisthenes 3y ago
While we're doing that, can we please also ban 2-stroke engines used for landscaping. The gasoline fumes mixed with small particles that get kicked up are absolutely noxious and can't possibly be good for you. This is especially egregious in dense suburban areas, where there's landscaping going on _every_ single day of the growing season.
- formerly_proven 3y ago
  > While we're doing that, can we please also ban 2-stroke engines used for landscaping. Why only for landscaping? These fucks need to be banned, period. It was a huge mistake to ban them in vehicles while grandfathering all the old crap in. Unfortunately mechanics keep decade-old two-stroke junk alive, and spare parts aren't even banned.
  - 3-cheese-sundae 3y ago
    How exactly would you propose spare parts get banned?
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      Spare parts are manufactured and supplied into channels. If you ban that, inventory eventually depletes, and people shift to alternatives. Similar to freon. I would maintain a carve-out for chainsaws. Low use, specialty requirements, and electric alternatives can't replicate.
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        > Spare parts are manufactured and supplied into channels. If you ban that [...] Easier said than done. You'd need to impose BATFE-style regulations and measures. You're talking about arresting people for selling partially manufactured parts, parts which they claim are actually for other things, plans for parts paired with uncut sheet metal, etc. Is a clutch illegal to manufacture if it happens to fit on some model of two-stroke motor, even though it could also be used for other things? Have fun getting tangled up in these weeds. And the only way you'd stand a chance of enforcing this is by threatening people with many years in prison for what are non-violent crimes. People tolerate this sort of thing in the case of the BATFE because nobody really needs a machine gun, very few people have one in the first place, there's little parts commonality with other machines and because machine guns kill people in very visceral and obvious ways. But with two-stroke motors you have a whole ton of people who use these machines to save on huge amounts of labor (you're fucking with the way they put food on their table and pay rent, not just their fun at a gun range) and the alternatives are subpar. You exempt chainsaws from this, but that merely reflects what you are personally familiar with and consider reasonable. And even if the alternatives weren't subpar, you'd still be asking people to purchase new expensive machines instead of performing cheap repairs on machines they already own. Point is, the incentive and willingness to skirt two-stroke spare part bans would be much higher than with machine guns. Your bans would fail without extremely draconian enforcement.
kiliantics 3y ago
> like wtf. is it legal to harass your neighbors with smell and toxic fumes every day just because you want to feel a bit comfy Same can be said for car use. Majority of trips are a few miles and could be done by bike or replaced with transit.
- paganel 3y ago
  Only if you live in urban areas where you don’t have to wait longer than 15 minutes for the bus to come, and, most importantly, where it is safe (especially for women) to take said bus late in the evening/at night. I hope that that recent and horrific stabbing in NYC made many people aware of the security aspect.
  - dathinab 3y ago
    so if you life in any arbitrary urban area in most of the EU because then you often don't even need to take the bus due to places you need to go to (e.g. super market) and places you come from (e.g. home) being much more intermixed/closer to each other e.g. for me places to buy food, medicine, a doctor, dentist, fast food, train, bus, package station, kiosk, bakery, restaurant, cafe, a park like thing all in ~8min walking distance and I'm somewhat at the outer are of the city still if you have disabilities and can't properly walk 8min you still need a car
    - paganel 3y ago
      I'm saying that, as a man, if you have to wait for your SO at the bus/train station late in the evening when she comes back from work then maybe public transport is not for everyone, in this case for almost 50% of the population (i.e. women). Been there, done that. If you live in an European big city where this problem doesn't exist, where women have no problem and especially no fear to use public transport late in the evening all by themselves, then consider yourself (and your SO) lucky.
chongli 3y ago
I really wish indoor wood burning, especially if not used for heating but luxury, would be banned at least in cities It doesn’t need to be banned, it just needs stringent regulations to limit the particulate emissions. You can buy wood stoves today that emit less than half a gram per hour (0.5g/hr) of PM2.5 particulates. These modern wood stoves are also very efficient and beautiful to look at, so they provide a bit of luxury to go with their heating performance.
- philips 3y ago
  The testing of many wood stoves was called into question a few years ago. https://energynews.us/2021/03/18/report-finds-systemic-failure-in-epa-wood-stove-tests/ https://energynews.us/2021/03/18/report-finds-systemic-failu...
- brnt 3y ago
  The problem with filters is they have a lower limit. PM2.5 cuts out much of the smell, but none of the carcinogenicity (PM0.1 or so). The only filter that really works is a sealed cap. Burning biomatter is just not worth the health impact or the cost and effort to mitigate. It's like capturing CO2: a stupid idea.
bigstrat2003 3y ago
> like wtf. is it legal to harass your neighbors with smell and toxic fumes every day You say harass, I say enhance. I love when I can smell a neighbor burning wood, it's one of the best things in the world. And therein lies the reason why your wish isn't going to come to pass any time soon: we don't all agree that the thing you want to ban is bad.
- hollerith 3y ago
  The PM2.5 not only gets in your lungs, it enters your bloodstream and gets everywhere including your brain. Peter Attia MD says there is no doubt it will shorten lifespan and healthspan. >your wish isn't going to come to pass any time soon It is coming to pass: for example, in the Bay Area, woodstoves and fireplaces have been banned in new construction since 2005.
  - ipaddr 3y ago
    If Peter Attia says it, it must be true.
  - joecool1029 3y ago
    > It is coming to pass: for example, in the Bay Area, woodstoves and fireplaces have been banned in new construction since 2005. It doesn't make much sense to install it there anyway, the climate isn't cold enough...
  - bigstrat2003 3y ago
    Dude, the Bay area is quite possibly the most atypical culture you could ask for compared to the rest of the nation. That isn't exactly a compelling argument.
    - hollerith 3y ago
      Back when vaping was still legal, a vaper surfaced on this site asserting that there was no way vaping would ever be banned, obviously, at least outdoors, e.g., while waiting for a bus, and guess what? At least where I live (Bay Area) vaping is illegal while standing outside waiting for a bus. So don't assume that your appreciation of woodsmoke is widespread enough prevent its becoming illegal some day.
eternityforest 3y ago
If we care about the climate and want to spend money on it, subsidizing cleaner tech for those countries that need it seems like a great way to start, because even if you don't believe in climate change you're still preventing poverty and unhealthy air for people. I don't think it should be banned entirely though, that seems a bit extreme and likely to stir up controversy, even though it sure would be nice to have less smoke. I don't quite get the appeal of indoor fires, most houses are so warm all winter I wouldn't want any more heat, but outdoor bonfires are a nice tradition, as long as they're not happening enough to kill people with fumes.
wannacboatmovie 3y ago
Meanwhile Seattle is under a perpetual cloud of choking smoke for like 2 months out of every year because WA and Canada are incompetent when it comes to forest management, and the best people can do to pretend to care is tell you to rubber band a furnace filter to a box fan and wear N95 masks to work. Banning wood stoves is like banning plastic bags. It's a superficial, empty gesture that is a drop in the bucket that makes no meaningful impact. I'll continue to heat my cabin with wood, thank you.
- 5e92cb50239222b 3y ago
  Making general statements is superficial and empty. I live in a cold climate where wood and coal powered stoves are responsible for more than 90%+ of particulate pollution. The difference between warm and cold months is quite significant: around 20 µg/m³ daily average in the middle of summer vs 300-400 µg/m³ in the middle of winter. Maximum values are somewhere around 1000-1500 µg/m³, with short-term spikes up to more than 3000+ µg/m³ due to temperature inversions.
t0bia_s 3y ago
If state is not capable bring cheap energy for heating, what can we do? Let people freeze by regulations and ideology of clean CO2 free environment?

Fatnino 3y ago

I live on a street of single family homes in Palo Alto and my next door neighbor smokes weed every day starting around 10am and it's totally legal for that stench to drift into my backyard shed and harass me where I'm trying to work.

dathinab 3y ago

> very old ovens it's kinda fascinating, some of this ovens are older then 70 years, some where build in when this houses where build ~120 years ago (but update) they also are all health hazards as in you manually have to control the exhausts when starting them and if you mess that up (e.g. fall asleep) CO will leak into you apartment and might silently kill you ....

t0bia_s 3y ago
Have you ever used that oven?

antisthenes 3y ago

While we're doing that, can we please also ban 2-stroke engines used for landscaping. The gasoline fumes mixed with small particles that get kicked up are absolutely noxious and can't possibly be good for you. This is especially egregious in dense suburban areas, where there's landscaping going on _every_ single day of the growing season.

formerly_proven 3y ago
> While we're doing that, can we please also ban 2-stroke engines used for landscaping. Why only for landscaping? These fucks need to be banned, period. It was a huge mistake to ban them in vehicles while grandfathering all the old crap in. Unfortunately mechanics keep decade-old two-stroke junk alive, and spare parts aren't even banned.
- 3-cheese-sundae 3y ago
  How exactly would you propose spare parts get banned?
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    Spare parts are manufactured and supplied into channels. If you ban that, inventory eventually depletes, and people shift to alternatives. Similar to freon. I would maintain a carve-out for chainsaws. Low use, specialty requirements, and electric alternatives can't replicate.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      > Spare parts are manufactured and supplied into channels. If you ban that [...] Easier said than done. You'd need to impose BATFE-style regulations and measures. You're talking about arresting people for selling partially manufactured parts, parts which they claim are actually for other things, plans for parts paired with uncut sheet metal, etc. Is a clutch illegal to manufacture if it happens to fit on some model of two-stroke motor, even though it could also be used for other things? Have fun getting tangled up in these weeds. And the only way you'd stand a chance of enforcing this is by threatening people with many years in prison for what are non-violent crimes. People tolerate this sort of thing in the case of the BATFE because nobody really needs a machine gun, very few people have one in the first place, there's little parts commonality with other machines and because machine guns kill people in very visceral and obvious ways. But with two-stroke motors you have a whole ton of people who use these machines to save on huge amounts of labor (you're fucking with the way they put food on their table and pay rent, not just their fun at a gun range) and the alternatives are subpar. You exempt chainsaws from this, but that merely reflects what you are personally familiar with and consider reasonable. And even if the alternatives weren't subpar, you'd still be asking people to purchase new expensive machines instead of performing cheap repairs on machines they already own. Point is, the incentive and willingness to skirt two-stroke spare part bans would be much higher than with machine guns. Your bans would fail without extremely draconian enforcement.

kiliantics 3y ago

> like wtf. is it legal to harass your neighbors with smell and toxic fumes every day just because you want to feel a bit comfy Same can be said for car use. Majority of trips are a few miles and could be done by bike or replaced with transit.

paganel 3y ago
Only if you live in urban areas where you don’t have to wait longer than 15 minutes for the bus to come, and, most importantly, where it is safe (especially for women) to take said bus late in the evening/at night. I hope that that recent and horrific stabbing in NYC made many people aware of the security aspect.
- dathinab 3y ago
  so if you life in any arbitrary urban area in most of the EU because then you often don't even need to take the bus due to places you need to go to (e.g. super market) and places you come from (e.g. home) being much more intermixed/closer to each other e.g. for me places to buy food, medicine, a doctor, dentist, fast food, train, bus, package station, kiosk, bakery, restaurant, cafe, a park like thing all in ~8min walking distance and I'm somewhat at the outer are of the city still if you have disabilities and can't properly walk 8min you still need a car
  - paganel 3y ago
    I'm saying that, as a man, if you have to wait for your SO at the bus/train station late in the evening when she comes back from work then maybe public transport is not for everyone, in this case for almost 50% of the population (i.e. women). Been there, done that. If you live in an European big city where this problem doesn't exist, where women have no problem and especially no fear to use public transport late in the evening all by themselves, then consider yourself (and your SO) lucky.

chongli 3y ago

I really wish indoor wood burning, especially if not used for heating but luxury, would be banned at least in cities It doesn’t need to be banned, it just needs stringent regulations to limit the particulate emissions. You can buy wood stoves today that emit less than half a gram per hour (0.5g/hr) of PM2.5 particulates. These modern wood stoves are also very efficient and beautiful to look at, so they provide a bit of luxury to go with their heating performance.

philips 3y ago
The testing of many wood stoves was called into question a few years ago. https://energynews.us/2021/03/18/report-finds-systemic-failure-in-epa-wood-stove-tests/ https://energynews.us/2021/03/18/report-finds-systemic-failu...
brnt 3y ago
The problem with filters is they have a lower limit. PM2.5 cuts out much of the smell, but none of the carcinogenicity (PM0.1 or so). The only filter that really works is a sealed cap. Burning biomatter is just not worth the health impact or the cost and effort to mitigate. It's like capturing CO2: a stupid idea.

bigstrat2003 3y ago

> like wtf. is it legal to harass your neighbors with smell and toxic fumes every day You say harass, I say enhance. I love when I can smell a neighbor burning wood, it's one of the best things in the world. And therein lies the reason why your wish isn't going to come to pass any time soon: we don't all agree that the thing you want to ban is bad.

hollerith 3y ago
The PM2.5 not only gets in your lungs, it enters your bloodstream and gets everywhere including your brain. Peter Attia MD says there is no doubt it will shorten lifespan and healthspan. >your wish isn't going to come to pass any time soon It is coming to pass: for example, in the Bay Area, woodstoves and fireplaces have been banned in new construction since 2005.
- ipaddr 3y ago
  If Peter Attia says it, it must be true.
- joecool1029 3y ago
  > It is coming to pass: for example, in the Bay Area, woodstoves and fireplaces have been banned in new construction since 2005. It doesn't make much sense to install it there anyway, the climate isn't cold enough...
- bigstrat2003 3y ago
  Dude, the Bay area is quite possibly the most atypical culture you could ask for compared to the rest of the nation. That isn't exactly a compelling argument.
  - hollerith 3y ago
    Back when vaping was still legal, a vaper surfaced on this site asserting that there was no way vaping would ever be banned, obviously, at least outdoors, e.g., while waiting for a bus, and guess what? At least where I live (Bay Area) vaping is illegal while standing outside waiting for a bus. So don't assume that your appreciation of woodsmoke is widespread enough prevent its becoming illegal some day.

eternityforest 3y ago

If we care about the climate and want to spend money on it, subsidizing cleaner tech for those countries that need it seems like a great way to start, because even if you don't believe in climate change you're still preventing poverty and unhealthy air for people. I don't think it should be banned entirely though, that seems a bit extreme and likely to stir up controversy, even though it sure would be nice to have less smoke. I don't quite get the appeal of indoor fires, most houses are so warm all winter I wouldn't want any more heat, but outdoor bonfires are a nice tradition, as long as they're not happening enough to kill people with fumes.

wannacboatmovie 3y ago

Meanwhile Seattle is under a perpetual cloud of choking smoke for like 2 months out of every year because WA and Canada are incompetent when it comes to forest management, and the best people can do to pretend to care is tell you to rubber band a furnace filter to a box fan and wear N95 masks to work. Banning wood stoves is like banning plastic bags. It's a superficial, empty gesture that is a drop in the bucket that makes no meaningful impact. I'll continue to heat my cabin with wood, thank you.

5e92cb50239222b 3y ago
Making general statements is superficial and empty. I live in a cold climate where wood and coal powered stoves are responsible for more than 90%+ of particulate pollution. The difference between warm and cold months is quite significant: around 20 µg/m³ daily average in the middle of summer vs 300-400 µg/m³ in the middle of winter. Maximum values are somewhere around 1000-1500 µg/m³, with short-term spikes up to more than 3000+ µg/m³ due to temperature inversions.

t0bia_s 3y ago

If state is not capable bring cheap energy for heating, what can we do? Let people freeze by regulations and ideology of clean CO2 free environment?