It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Physicians Organization Gives 17 Reasons to Ban Wood Burning

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 07:50 PM
Oh man! You're breaking my heart! Tell you what though, when I put one of those "fake logs" in the fire place you don't have to be particularly blessed in the olfactory department to smell chemicals chemicals chemicals!

Those things have to be bad. (But sometimes I use them anyway). Sigh.

Have even our trees turned against us in protest? (Can't say that I blame them, if that's the case.) sniff.
edit on 1/13/2015 by ladyinwaiting because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 08:05 PM
a reply to: ArnoldNonymous
Next thing you know all fire will be outlawed.
Matches, lighters, all fire starters will be banned. All open flame will be called arson.
In a couple generations no one will even know how to make fire and all will be at the mercy of the masters.

That cave with the wood burning stove is sounding better and better...

I know a bit extreme but stranger things have happened in this crazy upside down world
edit on 13-1-2015 by Elostone because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 08:18 PM
a reply to: ArnoldNonymous

Can we publicly beat the people that think they have the right to make health choices for others?

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 08:22 PM
a reply to: ArnoldNonymous

Dont need chemistry experts to disprove what these morons are saying.

Wood burning is fine. these idiots are from UTAH so nothing more need be said....cant take anyone seriously from there.

This is some gimmick to get us to rely on companies for our energy NOTHING more.

UTAH a state full of people with less sense than two amoebas

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 08:25 PM
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

How do you like being criminilized?

Tired of Control Freaks

I love you.

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 08:27 PM
so cave men who started using fire had cancer?
when I was a kid you only had wood and coal fires! um!
All the poor used wood and slag.
it is Total Cow turds!!!
and we all wear told it was cigarets!

do you know I dont think people in the old days
Ever got cancer? over 120 years.
PLEASE some one see if you can find out more about this.
but the Gov will Kill you

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 08:35 PM
Fact : All smoke created from combustion of any material is unhealthy, the larger the amount or the longer the exposure, the more unhealthy.

This is nothing but information, you can choose to live by the rule or not.

A person can live a healthy life far away from pollution, eating healthy food, exercising their body, and still get cancer or any other random disease.

A person can live an unhealthy life next to a highway, smoke, drink, eating fastfood and never leave their sofa, and still never get cancer or any other random disease.

edit on 13-1-2015 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 09:20 PM

originally posted by: Mianeye
Fact : All smoke created from combustion of any material is unhealthy, the larger the amount or the longer the exposure, the more unhealthy.

This is nothing but information, you can choose to live by the rule or not.

Very true. I personally like a good ol' fire in the fireplace and have been doing so many times this winter. However, it's not good to sit there and huff the friggin' fireplace smoke, anyone can figure that out, combustion is dirty -- full of bad crap for just about every material you can burn. However, a few times a week over the winter isn't going to be the death of us like a few fifths of something a day for drunks is. All good things in moderation, people, that's the key to everything in life.
edit on 1/13/2015 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 09:37 PM
a reply to: TheWhiteKnight

Note the huge emphasis on what you're doing to your neighbors, every time you burn a few logs. It goes right through their walls! 88% the concentration of outdoor air!!!!

They are trying to get your neighbors to report you. Zionist trademark. Works for guns and lots of other stuff too.

Watching the weather channel yesterday morning and saw a short video about a woman being sued by her neighbor because she uses a wood stove to heat her house in New Jersey. My jaw dropped.

Link to article

My jaw dropped lower when I read some of the comments. People are actually in support of the neighbor who is suing. The judge actually wrote an injunction for her to stop burning during certain hours of the day and weekends. I swear I died back in the late '80s and was reincarnated into some other twisted universe.

I have grown up my entire life in homes heated by wood, as have all my children and my parents and their parents. I still get wood to burn in my fireplace on extra cold nights (it's south carolina, so ... it's not so cold.) I'll be damned if one of my neighbors decides to sue me.
I was so mad when reading this I wanted to punch the internet right in the megabits.

They came for the smokers,

Now they're coming for the wood burners....

I completely expect that soon we will be reading articles on how your neighbor's BBQ grill is killing your children.

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 09:56 PM
At my old place we used wood exclusively for a few years and it sucked. Now I'm going w/a small coal stove in the basement. It isn't smoky or smelly, but coal is tricky to keep lit. I mix in a lil cedar shavings. Handling it is really easy compared to wood. I like it so far.

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 11:52 PM
lol that is crazy.

They are using the most extreme situations and using padded statistics/polls. Anyone with enough vested interest in something can easily do this. All it takes is money and no heart while using "random" polling and statistics.

Why are they measuring the smoke and trying to use it as a tool for why wood is bad? The smoke should be vented out elsewhere while the heat and smell remains. Who the hell lets the smoke fill up their house? CO2 much? So what purpose would it be to highlight something we already know; CO2 can kill, smoke can kill, fire can kill?

They are trying to set up for something, most likely stupid laws that do more harm then good.

Politician's bank accounts should be accessible to the American people so we can see the bribes being deposited daily. One can dream...

Any how, yeah that study may be legit but anyone with enough money can do the same. Just look at how big tobacco has been playing the system.

posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 12:08 AM
So... if wood smoke is such a danger, why haven't we seen steep decreases in related cancers since most people stopped heating/cooking with wood fires? Why weren't people ravages with cancer back when wood was commonly used? Why is it that as they get more and more strict on what things we can put in the air, people's health continues to decline?

Anything that burns lets off dangerous chemicals, but I absolutely refuse to believe that people burning wood in their fireplace is causing any significant health impact on society. The burden is on them to prove that this action is actually causing harm to society, and the data to show a correlation between the two doesn't seem to exist.

People get sick, they blame something for it, then people stop doing that something, then people get even sicker. Zero credibility.

edit on 14-1-2015 by James1982 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 04:48 AM
Who died and made all of those doctors into chemists? I would like to see the source material for all of those statistics.

By the way, none of the posts on the doctors' website are credited to a single person, which makes it hard to fact check with the author.

I don't think the motivation is control so much as a desire to keep people dependent upon utilities for heat in order to increase profits. Or they could be creating a scapegoat for the large amount of pollution in the area so the industry that IS foulng the air can go on making profits without being hounded by environmentalists.

posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 05:22 AM
I don't have a background in chemistry, but I do know we have been burning wood for a few tens, if not hundreds of thousands of years.

If it was really that toxic, then those who are susceptible to wood smoke would have been weeded out a LONG time ago. Us modern humans are all descended from people who had traits making them immune to the toxicity of wood smoke, a fairly decent example of evolution by natural selection.

TL;DR... BS.

posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 05:31 AM
There's 1 reason and one reason only.


I've been expecting it for a while now as more people turn to wood burners to heat their houses.

I've got one plumbed into my central heating and my gas bill has dropped from 120 a month in wiinter to £12.

What do I burn? I get broken pallets from various businesses that would otherwise have to pay to dispose of them, skips full of kitchen cupboards and broken down stud walls from builders, trees people want cleared. It's rare one has to pay for any of it.
Now you multiply my experience by the number of people doing the same and you can see what a difference it makes.
In the UK 5% of domestic fuel price is tax, then you have to factor in the corporation tax of the profit making energy company and you soon work up to a tidy sum of money.

Health has bugger all to do with it, else they'd concentrate on more serious health issues, such as forcing people to work shifts or banning HFCS in food and drink.

posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 08:54 AM

originally posted by: ArnoldNonymous

I think the article is written with a lot of bias and stretching though. Just from point #7: burning wood is poisoning your neighbors!!!

And the final point throws in global warming....I mean climate change....and how those nasty wood burners are going to destroy the planet!

What do ya'll think?

I think doctors should worry about working on the corruption in their line of work first. Big Pharma, excessive and double billing practices, unnecessary surgeries, and treatments.

Clean up their own backyard first, then maybe they can postulate on something else, instead of trying to deflect the chaos they create.

posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 09:21 AM
I see no data on what concentration of smoke was used to arrive at their conclusions nor anything to back those conclusions - it'd not surprise me at all to find funding for study came from utility concerns weeded through a useful enviromental group.

Demonizing anyone who burns wood for heat seems to be the goal.

Heaven forbid one would attempt to be self sufficient.

posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 09:37 AM
a reply to: ArnoldNonymous

Typical agenda driven "science."

This is about global warming, not health.

They started with a desired result, then created a "model" to reverse engineer the desired result they wanted to "prove."

From the sources cited:


A three-stage approach was used to identify and quantify the links between air quality and the health-related economic benefits of attaining the California standards for ozone and PM10.

A Regional Human Exposure Model, known as the REHEX 11 moue_, was developed to estimate the population's exposure to concentrations above the California standards. This model accounts for the spatial and temporal pollution patterns across the region, and the amount of time that different groups in the population spend indoors, outdoors or in transit. These factors are all important because ambient pollutant concentrations vary significantly within the region and indoor levels differ from ambient levels. Activity levels are also accounted for. This improves the model's ability to estimate dose, which is the integrated amount of pollution crossing the body's boundary in a given time interval.

Exposures are estimated for the period from 1990 to 1992. These are then compared with projected exposures, assuming that all monitors are brought into compliance with the relevant standards. The difference represents the reduction in population exposure.

After the REHEX II model generates estimates of reductions in exposure and dose, information from the health effects literature is used to calculate reductions in the frequency of a set of adverse health effects observed to result from exposure to concentrations above the state standards. For ozone, these effects include: eye irritation, cough, throat irritation, chest discomfort, headache and Minor Restricted Activity Days. For PM10, associated effects are Restricted Activity Days and increased risk of premature death.

Finally, economic values are attached to estimated reductions in the frequency of health effects. These values are derived from a large set of economic studies.

posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 09:45 AM
a reply to: ArnoldNonymous

Hello! Oh my, I never thought I would hear it all, but I have now. Tptb are really good at what they concoct...

posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 10:00 AM

So I guess the next ice storm that we have that knocks power out, instead of using the fireplace to keep warm, we'll just freeze to death instead.

There goes all the camp fires we do at scouting (no more smores, alas, or camp fire stories or camp fire ceremonies).

Looks like camping is going to be REALLY cold. Have to only camp in late spring or summer time.

Oh darn! I've got a Webber grill that burns charcoal. No more BBQs! Have to switch to propane I guess......

No more using my Dutch Oven to cook anything either.

I guess when we go on backpack hikes, we'll either just have to stay cold and miserable....or lug very heavy bottles of propane with us 5 or 10 miles on a narrow hiking trail up in the foot hills.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in