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: 6
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks




We are discussing what COULD happen.

What COULD happen? Anything COULD happen. The OP seemed to think that something had happened. The OP seemed to think that Obama's war on climate change is going to cause residents of Fairbanks to freeze to death.

Tell you what. When the EPA starts pulling peoples' stoves out of their houses let me know. Let me know, especially, if it happens in winter.

edit on 1/2/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: desert

Aside from the puff of smoke (maybe evil wood burning?) middle- left, it looks like another cold day to me. What do I know though.....



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

NOW this is exactly what I am talking about! I was referring to car emissions - how did that get turned to wood smoke!

Where did I say that wood smoke is not a problem. Wood smoke CAN be a problem. NOT having wood smoke can be a problem when you freeze to death. Which is more toxic and dangerous? Freezing to death or "increased risk of 70% of stroke in young persons"

This is where you do where you do cost/benefit analysis! Not dying is a pretty huge benefit. Further, why was the standard of pm 60 ug/m3 good enough a few short years ago and now its 35 ug/m3? on a daily average. I keep emphasizing that because people tend to forget it. where is the justification for the reduction?

Stop patronizing and stop putting words in my mouth.

Tired of Control



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Oy vey! This is same time of year, seven years ago....

Fairbanks mayor promises air quality plan
Smoke from wood stoves the culprit for hazy skies, pollution



FAIRBANKS - The Fairbanks North Star Borough assembly approved an agreement with the state that designates the borough as the lead agency in the effort to clear the polluted winter sky.

Smoke from inefficient wood stoves is believed to be the No. 1 contributor to the problem that has put Fairbanks on the Environmental Protection Agency's list of communities violating fine particle pollution standards. Frequent winter temperature inversions in the Tanana Valley keep the pollution from scattering into the atmosphere.

Borough Mayor Luke Hopkins told the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner he will introduce an air quality plan in the coming months. He provided few hints about what the blueprint will contain, but said it will have an education component.

"We are discussing the plan now in the administration," Hopkins said. "We need to get moving on this."

Though talk of regulating wood burning caused a backlash last summer, there was little debate before Thursday's assembly vote. Only a handful of people testified and most were in favor.

Jerry Koerner of North Pole described for the panel how air pollution has soured neighborhood strolls with his wife.

"We were breathing through our jackets, trying to keep the pollution from getting into our lungs," Koerner said.

Meanwhile, former Assemblyman Mike Prax said something must be done to persuade wood burners to use seasoned or dried firewood. "We really need to focus on voluntary efforts to address our wood smoke problem," he said.

The temperature dipped to 40 degrees below zero in Fairbanks earlier this week. With the state's lack of affordable heat, officials say many residents use wood because they can't afford anything else.



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


So, wood smoke is not a problem. See, that's one of the questions I asked earlier. You're the first one to answer it.

Particulate matter of the size being discussed need not be visible. One can usually smell smoke long before one sees it.

The problem is atmospheric temperature layers. When smoke from a wood fire (or any heat source, actually) exits a chimney, it is usually extremely hot and rising due to the density differential induced by the temperature differential. If the atmosphere is cold enough just above the chimney exhaust, that temperature differential disappears rapidly, before the smoke can dissipate, and the cooled gasses descend back toward the ground. In my area it is a good indicator that colder weather is approaching; in Alaska I would presume it is more common due to colder normal temperatures.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks




Stop patronizing and stop putting words in my mouth.

What words did I put in your mouth? You said this:

We of the North are extremely familiar with this kind of "non-pollution" and recognise for what it is.

Forgive me for thinking you were talking about wood smoke when that is the topic of this thread.



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: desert

There again, it appears to be frozen (possibly just condensed, aka fog) water vapor. You can see a blanket of vapor hugging the ground. The yellow tint indicates ice in the higher levels of the atmosphere. It all depends on temperature.

Over distance, particulate pollution can be seen more clearly, and I cannot say with certainty that your second pic does not show some particulate matter... only that it does show water vapor. In California, when fog is not present, haze in the air could more reasonably be called as particulate matter.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Particulate matter of the size being discussed need not be visible.
I know. Pollution is not necessarily visible.

I have a pretty good idea of how convection works, thanks. I also know that Fairbanks resides in a valley and that valleys are particularly suseptible to temperature inversions which prevent pollution from escaping the immediate area. Inversions mess up convection patterns. They can result in high local particulate (and any other atmospheric pollution) levels.
dec.alaska.gov...
articles.latimes.com...

edit on 1/2/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I assumed you did. I replied to you to ensure that others did not confuse the issue.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Which is why I gave up on pictures and just posted the article in my post above.


Though talk of regulating wood burning caused a backlash last summer, there was little debate before Thursday's assembly vote. Only a handful of people testified and most were in favor.

Jerry Koerner of North Pole described for the panel how air pollution has soured neighborhood strolls with his wife.

"We were breathing through our jackets, trying to keep the pollution from getting into our lungs," Koerner said.

Meanwhile, former Assemblyman Mike Prax said something must be done to persuade wood burners to use seasoned or dried firewood. "We really need to focus on voluntary efforts to address our wood smoke problem," he said.


ETA Apparently, if in seven years the voluntary efforts didn't work, then there must be other solutions.
edit on 2-1-2017 by desert because: ETA



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Redneck and I were discussing the visible car emissions - how you decided we were discussing wood smoke is beyond me. Steam is visible but it is not a pollutant, in and of itself.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks




Redneck and I were discussing the visible car emissions - how you decided we were discussing wood smoke is beyond me.

Again, forgive me for thinking you were talking about the topic.
Is the EPA going after car owners in Fairbanks?

I'm glad you agree (seem to, anyway) that wood smoke is a problem.



edit on 1/2/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Just because the EPA has not taken action YET, does not mean that they won't. Over regulation is when government regulate just for the sake of having power and control over people.

It is too late to protest when the jackboots are at the door.

The standard of 35 ug/m3 is highly questionable and has been questioned all over the US. That is why I keep talking about cost benefit analysis.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

hold the phone - I said wood smoke Can be a problem but not necessarily....
www.npr.org...




Cathy Cahill is an associate professor of chemistry at the Geophysical Institute in the department of chemistry and biochemistry at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. She joins us today. Welcome to the program. DR. CATHY CAHILL: Thank you, Ira. FLATOW: Let's cut right to the chase, Dr. Cahill. What - why wood is - why is it so bad for us? CAHILL: Well, it's the function of the concentration of the particles that were getting produced by burning of the wood. So burning wood is something humans have been done for thousands of years and we're somewhat adapted to it. We've seen evidence when there are severe wildfires, people don't get as sick as we really thought they would from - as if they were breathing industrial pollution. So we think there might be a little bit of an impact there. But the concentrations here are just so high that we're seeing adverse impacts in the population, so things like increased stroke risk and kids having asthma issues and cardiovascular effects. So it's not the function of just the burning wood. It's a function of how much wood we're burning.


There is a significant difference between industrial pollution and wood smoke

Maybe a standard to control industrial particulate is not appropriate for wood smoke. If that is true, city's and states are spending tax dollars on something that may not be an issue at all.

I fully and very strongly support using efficient wood burning stoves, insulating old houses and burning only dry clean wood however, it is silly to penalize people who are trying to stay alive when forest fires occur often!

This issues needs far far more discussion.

Especially if the cost of petroleum products rise and more and more people turn to wood burning as a money issue.

The issues here are grey .... not black and white

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks



It is too late to protest when the jackboots are at the door.

I know. Ask Elian. But there was plenty of protest before the jackboots and it is off topic.

Ok, so the EPA could pull peoples' obsolete stoves. Are you sure about that?

To recap:
1) A Fairbanks resident sues the EPA over particulate levels in the area.
2) The EPA loses the lawsuit.
3) The EPA says, "Ok, Fairbanks. It seems there is a problem with wood smoke in your valley. It seems those levels exceed federal standards. What are you going to do about it. All we can do is fine someone. You, Fairbanks, for example. Or maybe even you, Juneau. That won't do much to resolve the problem though, will it?"

So, do you want the EPA to lower standards for Fairbanks? An exemption? I suppose that's a possibility, not sure.


Here's a bit of a different perspective. There was a recent thread about reductions in radiation standards. How do you feel about the shoe on that foot? In principle. Never mind that the claim is pretty much bogus.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
 



I said wood smoke Can be a problem but not necessarily


Your source:

So it's not the function of just the burning wood. It's a function of how much wood we're burning.

They are burning enough wood under adverse conditions, to cause particulates to exceed standards.

So now I'm not sure about your position again. Is wood smoke a problem in Fairbanks, or not?

edit on 1/2/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

YES - let us exactly address the issues before we make every citizen a criminal!

Let us have real scientific review of the standard, particularly with an eye to the differences between wood smoke and industrial pollution. Not politicized science

For interest - look what happened to James Engstom when his epidimiological study did not conform to EPA fake science. He lost his job (after 30 years) and his grants. In the end, the university had to return his grants. His work definitvely proved that reductions of the PM 2.5 standard was unnecssary. That is when he lost his job. This adversely impacted the trucking industry.

We don't have enough money to support politicized science

What about standards that too high? Same solution. Honest science to provide answers.

Protest by SJW and the misapplication of the justice system to force your way onto others is unreasonable and we have to stop funding it.

And at the end of the day, just like my example with the forest fires, we need to start recognizing that the discharge should never be regulated to the point where it is cleaner than the intake.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks




YES - let us exactly address the issues before we make every citizen a criminal!


Huh.
Good thing no one seems to have been arrested or convicted of a crime.



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

They were burning enough wood to exceed standards - is compliance with unreasonable standards the goal?

Prove adverse effect (don't assume it) - I noticed in one of the papers that slightly increased hospital visits, the day after an event was express as increased risk of hospital stays. Now why do you suppose the study didn't provide proof of increased hospital stays instead of just increase risk of hospital stays? It makes the entire statistic very questionable doesn't it?

What are we trying to do here - comply with standards - or more reasonably, determine by cost benefit analysis what level of averse impact is acceptable (sorry there is no such thing as O risk in any situation).

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

So...
You think that maybe there is a problem that should be looked into in more detail before any punitive action is taken?

Do you think that is not the case?



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

People, states and corporations have the right to be innocent until proven guilty. Government regulations that exceed requirements are just a sneaky way of making sure that people are guilty for things not normally considered a punishable offence.

It is far far easier to control a population of criminals than a population of innocent citizens.

What if the government wants your land and you won't sell. So then they decide to enforce the law and yank your stove. You can't afford a newer stove, so your forced to sell. Burning wood to stay alive is not a crime and should never be considered one.

Tired of Control Freaks




top topics



 
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join