It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Alaskans’ Cost of Staying Warm: A Thick Coat of Dirty Air (This is What Climate Regulations Do)

page: 2
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: desert

Might it be the price of the "High Efficiency Stove"? Just a guess.

Woodland Direct High Efficiency Wood Burning Fireplaces

Add to that the cost of installation. It's not gonna mate to the old stove pipe. To add one to a house that was older would run up to 8k+ at a minimum.




posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Shame.

Running these regulations in half of the countries in the world would kill the citizens.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: jellyrev



Running these regulations in half of the countries in the world would kill the citizens.

Really? Which half?

It doesn't seem the regulations will be killing anyone in Fairbanks.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: jappee

There's no program to help Alaskans change over to efficient wood stoves, now that there is a concern? That sucks. A subsidy or rebate would help small businesses sell and, if they need to, help install. We had wood burning regs go into effect here, and a friend got a rebate to buy and install an efficient system. Helped the local small business and the customer.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

looks like a nice city in the summer but how are those residential homes gonna feel in -50. Have you every, in your whole life, felt what that kind of cold is?

My friend walked a block in that kind of cold. Why he never put them in his pockets or tucked them up in his sleeves, I will never understand. He said that he just couldn't feel the cold. He ended up with hypothermia and almost lost them.

I still feel the frostbit in my fingertips when I accidently got them wet. I shoved them in my pockets real fast but it was already too lake in a matter of 10 seconds.'

Are you just flapping your gums on matters you just don't understand?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: desert

Because there are people living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford one. Or because buying a new stove might mean not being able to feed themselves, or their family.
edit on 31-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks




Are you just flapping your gums on matters you just don't understand?

Yeah, I understand how much cold sucks. Have you actually read the article?
It's a city. A lot of people in a small area. Burning wood and the wood smoke doesn't go anywhere. A lot of wood smoke.


“I’m not big on government, and I think there’s a lot of overreach, but I’m trying to be a good steward,” he said. “I see now that there is a problem.”
www.nytimes.com...



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

And that's why my next post asked about subsidies or rebates for changing over. That makes sense for small businesses and their customers. Efficient wood stoves are so much better than the old ones. And I still could cook on the top.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

No, the cold doesn't "suck"!

The cold kills, maims and injures, if you are not careful. The cold means you have emergency rations in your car for every trip. The cold means you never ever drive past a stalled car. You stop! you bring people to safety because not stopping means someone could die. The means you don't stay in your house during a blackout - you evacuate out to where there is heat!

You don't fine people for having an old wood stove. You provide rebates so that they can have more efficient stoves, if you have to.

Besides, imposing particuate regulations appropriate to Los Angeles, is not appropriate for Alaska. PM 10 and 2.5 are too large to get into the lungs.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks




You don't fine people for having an old wood stove. You provide rebates so that they can have more efficient stoves, if you have to.

People are being fined?



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Don't change the topic.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Don't change the topic.

I didn't. (I can't, actually. Only the OP can do so, for a limited period of time.) I asked if people are being fined for smoke violations.

Do you think that wood smoke is not a problem in the Fairbanks-North Pole area? Ignore it, maybe it will go away.


edit on 12/31/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks



You provide rebates so that they can have more efficient stoves, if you have to.


Agree. Alaskans need to voice this to their state reps.




PM 10 and 2.5 are too large to get into the lungs.



One is referred to as PM 10 and the other PM 2.5. For the layman, think of PM 10 as dust-sized particulates while PM 2.5 refers to smoke. Both are harmful but the PM 2.5 more so. They can be easily ingested and lodge in the lungs posing significant health risks. PM 10 is something between 2.5-10 micrometers in size, PM 2.5 is anything under that. A micrometer is one-millionth of a meter. The human eye generally cannot discern anything smaller than 40 micrometers.


Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 10:58 PM
link   
When it gets cold, the smoke from wood fires sometimes settles in some areas because of the cold and it means that people are exposed to higher concentrations of particulate than the EPA deems healthy. So they want to outlaw wood burning stoves. Unfortunately in Alaska, there isn't easy or cheap access to heating oil or natural gas alternatives.

I guess the EPA thinks that someone would rather freeze to death than risk breathing unhealthy air until the cold lifts enough for the wood smoke to lift off.

That seems to be the rationale.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




So they want to outlaw wood burning stoves.

No. At this point they want people who burn wood to do so more efficiently. Which equates to cleaner.


I guess the EPA thinks that someone would rather freeze to death than risk breathing unhealthy air until the cold lifts

Lung damage is an accumulated and chronic condition. For those with breathing problems, "periodic" exposure can be debilitating.

edit on 12/31/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ketsuko




So they want to outlaw wood burning stoves.

No. At this point they want people who burn wood to do so more efficiently. Which equates to cleaner.


I guess the EPA thinks that someone would rather freeze to death than risk breathing unhealthy air until the cold lifts

Lung damage is an accumulated and chronic condition. For those with breathing problems, "periodic" exposure can be debilitating.


So the EPA wants to save people from themselves by making it financially insupportable for them to heat their homes in winter?

You do know that freezing to death is also a "debilitating condition"?

The problem with what is going on here is that the overlords of the EPA haven't actually created any solutions, they've only created rules, and those rules have created a whole lot of problems for people who are financially capable of heating their homes efficiently (as per EPA ... and Phage ... standards). But that's not the problem of the overlords of the EPA. They have decreed that it should be so, and thus it will be ... over the frozen bodies of the poor in Alaska if need be.
edit on 31-12-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

So the EPA wants to save people from themselves by making it financially insupportable for them to heat their homes in winter?
Is that what the EPA is doing? Is that what Juneu is doing? Is that what Fairbanks is doing? Seems like there is a problem. Cesspools used to be a problem too. SO2 used to be a real serious problem.



They have decreed that it should be so, and thus it will be ... over the frozen bodies of the poor in Alaska if need be.
How very dramatic. The complaints seem to be more from people who resent government interference than from anyone freezing to death.

edit on 12/31/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
How very dramatic. The complaints seem to be more from people who resent government interference than from anyone freezing to death.


Yeah, how very dramatic that people are complaining that the globalists under President Obama are slowly turning the U.S. into another Venezuela... perhaps you don't understand that people don't want to be taxed to death, and frozen to death because of "Obama's (and your) fight against climate change"...

Let's hope President elect Trump does something about this BS about "fighting climate change"...


edit on 31-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yeah, well.
This is about smoke. Local pollution.
I guess that's a myth too.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

No, it's about people being able to warm themselves during winter, and not being fined for not being able to upgrade their stoves...

Understand the difference Phage? Or do you agree with Obama's "fees that truckers can pay to avoid climate change regulations"?... That must be your way, as well as President Obama's way of "fighting climate change"?
edit on 31-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join