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.

 

Banning wood stoves in new home construction

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Banning wood stoves in new home construction


www.montrealgazette.com

Enviroment Canada says pollution from wood burning stoves needs to be addressed. More like controlled. In case of gov. crack down. This has a bad smell to it.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.cbc.ca




posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
In the coldest city in the western hem. our gov. (Enviroment Canada) wants to ban the installation of wood buening stoves in new homes. Now if the gov. controls the natural gas and oil all that people can use to heat their homes in an emergency is wood. Say a natural disaster or gov. prevoked disaster, how cananyone servive a winter in Canada. We may not have FEMA camps up here but what kind of control is this? Wil this be a precurser to you Yanks. Maybe they want to see what kind of controls they can put on us docile Canadians before moving south! We are not free. Our rights are being stolen from us

www.montrealgazette.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Since when did Canada turn into California?



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Oh yeah ... let's make people more dependant on "Commercial" forms of heating.

Create a stove that burns wood more effectively and there won't be as many "solid particles" to be emitted. A more efficient stove would be better than banning them completely.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   
You lost me on the Canada turning into California Question.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Cnochols
my point exactly.
thanx for condensing it.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
to cnichols your secondary point is something I hadn't even thought of in my outrage
very forward thinking. i like that idea.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
With all of the available targets, it's hard to reconcile how this one came to the top of the list.



I suppose your government will eventually mandate the purchase of long-johns:



Good luck with that.

*wavy*

[edit on 9-2-2009 by loam]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
With all of the available targets, it's hard to reconcile how this one came to the top of the list.



I suppose your government will eventually mandate the purchase of long-johns:



Good luck with that.

*wavy*

[edit on 9-2-2009 by loam]


You found that picture way too fast


If my state banned it I would have frozen in the Ice storm that hit recently


It would all depend on the population per sq. mile that I would think it would be needed.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
There are also "Masonry Stoves" ... maybe those should be promoted a bit more instead of fireplaces. Amazing things they are.


One of the many unique attributes of a masonry stove is that it burns so cleanly. With a properly used masonry heater, creosote is non-existent. The reason for this is the high combustion temperatures reached in the masonry core of the stove. When wood burns at temperatures in excess of 1100º F., virtually everything that can be burned is consumed. Thick, black soot and creosote do not survive these temperatures. In a masonry stove, temperatures of 1400º-1800ºF. are not uncommon within the secondary combustion chamber.


More information on Masonry stoves here.

I've actually looked into investing in having one added to our "Underground House" when we finally get it built. Not to mention they're "perty"



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
With all of the available targets, it's hard to reconcile how this one came to the top of the list.



I suppose your government will eventually mandate the purchase of long-johns:



Good luck with that.

*wavy*

[edit on 9-2-2009 by loam]


As a Randist I mean Objectionalist I'm surprised your surprirised at anything a colonialist Gov. would do. Oh we do have to wear long johns.
but its for our own good.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by cnichols
 


Ive never heard of these . They sound like a great solution. The link you provided was great



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
With all of the available targets, it's hard to reconcile how this one came to the top of the list.



I suppose your government will eventually mandate the purchase of long-johns:



Good luck with that.

*wavy*

[edit on 9-2-2009 by loam]


My, that’s quite an… arm on that guy.


--------------------------------------------------------------

Seriously, this is forced dependence on gov, IMO. Anything that might tend to make you self sufficient is being systematically outlawed. The global warming/climate change crapola is simply the excuse. Total control is the goal. You will either completely obey and depend on gov or you will not be allowed to exist.

editschmedit


[edit on 9-2-2009 by resistor]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by juiellineau


In the coldest city in the western hem. our gov. (Enviroment Canada) wants to ban the installation of wood buening stoves in new homes. Now if the gov. controls the natural gas and oil all that people can use to heat their homes in an emergency is wood. Say a natural disaster or gov. prevoked disaster, how cananyone servive a winter in Canada. We may not have FEMA camps up here but what kind of control is this? Wil this be a precurser to you Yanks. Maybe they want to see what kind of controls they can put on us docile Canadians before moving south! We are not free. Our rights are being stolen from us

www.montrealgazette.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Although I prefer wood burning fireplaces to artificial heat, I have not lived in a house with a wood burning fireplace in about 10 years. I find this law ridiculous thats for sure.....But

...what about all those homes there already with no wood burning fireplace? How do they survive? Do they all freeze to death? Or does every home have one already?



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
How many people actually live in houses with wood burning stoves ?


People can survive, they might not like how they will have to learn to live all over again but its possible just ask the Inuits, they've survived it for thousands of years up there but get some lessons or read up on them.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Most homes have gas or oil furnaces. As a supplimentary heat souce many not all have wood burning stoves. Thats not the issue. The issue is does the government have the right to tell me I cannot have a wood burning stove. Heat is a very basic human nessecity. What if they said you cannot eat organic food, you must buy our fuel/food only. This restiction is crazy! We,ve had situations where al electicity and gas is cut off. A result of natural disaster ie. ice storms, snow storms etc... now the gov. is trying to tell me I cannot have a self sustaining natural avalible time-tested source of heat that might be needed in an emergency? How woud you feel? Sure take away might right to have a wood stove? I'll gladly pay for your alternative what ever the cost to me. I,ll be a reliant obedient robot. What else would you like? Although I,m not a Randist this is exactly what she was against. Government intervention.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Many people in Canada crindge at the fact that because of not being able to pay their bills they could have the heat turned off. A lasy resort would be the wood stove. what if you had an RFID chip that was "turned off" and all your ability to sustain yourself was also curtailed? No wood stoves in all new homes is a bad idea that advances the gov. ability to control people in times of unrest.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   
In this world economy and outrageous fuel and energy prices! If I lived in Canada I would sure be pissy! Everybody deserves the right to keep themselves warm and cook sometimes over wood. Crazy!



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by juiellineau
You lost me on the Canada turning into California Question.


I read somewhere San Francisco is trying to ban the use of fire places.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
We just recently renovated our flat in a 70 year old house. We inherited it from grandma. We decided on a new wood stove in the kitchen as was before. Just new. We had such troubles with the chimney cleaner who is in charge of that building. Some years ago they just closed the chimney, assuming the new owner would never use it again. He was wrong. As it is with governments, not admitting mistakes and not wanting to pay to reopen it, we had to fight. We did for 3 months. And we won. But during the time he came constantly (almost every day) to convince us his cousin could do a cheap installation for a oil heater system. Well, that would have cost us 20 times for what we paid to install the wood fire system. The monthly cost of oil would have been 3 times higher as well.
It is a drag. Yes. Ordering wood and coal. Cutting and grabing it from the cellar and carrying up. But we think twice. We only heat when it's realy neccescary. Compared to our neighbours we spend 20% of what he pays for heating. They say the problem is, it is too convenient. And our problem is, it is too cold sometimes. But we got used to wear an extra jumper or pull a blanket over when watching telly. Anyway, we need new windows. They are as old as the house almost. But once they're in, we can save even more.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join