posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 12:21 PM
reply to post by timetothink
The fact that wood fires are natural does not make any difference to anything ever.
Wood fires release harmful substances.
There are alternatives which do not release as many harmful substances.
Not using wood fires for a day is a mild inconvenience to most.
Not using them on this specific day prevents an unusual buildup of harmful substances in a certain area due to weather conditions.
People who rely solely on wood fires for warmth/cooking and whatnot are rare, and will be exempt from the ban.
Your/everyone else's comparison to cars does not factor risk/reward.
If we had a method of transportation exactly like cars in every way which released less harmful substances, we would be encouraged to use the
alternative instead. But we don't.
We do however have a safer alternative to wood fires.
The result of not using a wood fire is purely aesthetic for most people.
The result of not using cars is massive loss of revenue for most people.
That's the logic behind the ban. I still think it's silly to ban wood fires though.
edit on 2-1-2013 by Dispo because: (no reason
edit on 2-1-2013 by Dispo because: (no reason given)