Hey anti smoking bullies....I told you so!!

reply to post by tgidkp


Do you drive a car? How many cars in your household? Do you have electricity? Do you eat and wear clothes?

Then shut it.

Because you are killing my family with your choices.

It goes both ways.

Being human and living pollutes the planet and like always the planet will heal.

Do you really think fireplaces are the bane of your existence?

Like I said earlier that apparently the extremists did not read, Mother Nature accounts for 90% of the dangerous particulates in the air, including sea spray in a Bay Area.....duh. Which causes smog. Read the information before you people start screaming at me to read the information.


Mother Nature creates many fires and particulates from volcanos etc which are going off everyday.

PLUS........there are millions more cars than fireplaces so get off it, shutting down fireplaces doesn't make a damn difference.

Some people are just not happy unless they are telling someone else what they can't do.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by 0mage

 

I love when childish nut jobs call others childish.....it's like watching the Abbott and Costello.


We are so childish for wanting fire a natural process, created by NATURE, but they aren't childish for wanting their cars and everything else they use daily that creates pollution. Unnatural processes that are destroying the earth and lungs more than my fireplace or cigs ever could.

Fallacy. Appeal to nature.

reply to post by timetothink


risk/reward

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.

reply to post by grey580


Do you not understand that banning little things one by one is a slippery slope that leads to great loss of freedom.

You can see how it snowballs by all the people that jump on the "we hate people with fireplaces" bandwagon as soon as the post us made.

Go to NY city and ask them.....fat banned, large sodas banned, honking a horn banned, salt banned in restaurants, guns banned and on and on it goes. They just keep banning, trying to control society into some type of dystopian Orwell novel.

The bottom line is, people are not dropping dead from fireplaces or wood stoves. I have never seen anyone I know drop dead from them, and many have had them their whole lives as have their neighbors.

You are creating panic over something that is negligible to air quality, despite what the talking heads are telling you.

reply to post by timetothink


Its the "I wasn't a Gypsy syndrome". People who back this crap will soon enough see their own cherished rights abolished and then the crying will begin.

In the meantime, the banners never seem to notice that the officials who love to ban smokers and fireplaces are the same officials who say : "uhh, we'll have to just let all these devestating wildfires burn themselves out because all the tankers we'd need to fight them are in Afghanistan and Iraq." So people who cringe at the thought of smoke coming from the neighbor's firewood are sometimes forced not only to breathe fouled air from burning forests, they must also contend with the stench of burnt wildlife while running for their own lives.

But they care about your lungs. Yeah, right.

reply to post by timetothink


On this specific day, the difference to air quality is exacerbated by weather conditions in one specific area. That makes it dangerous for people in that area.

Edit: do you think all rules are bad?

reply to post by graceunderpressure


no, I dont hate California. I love all of my country. You guys are just a real pain in the ass and passively endorse leftist fascism.

Plus your music tends to really suck and you have many crazies. Also you guys are very out there as far as what you think you believe. I would venture to say that Californians are more socially "cultish" than other people.

BUT,

you have some really beautiful weather, people, the pride of American wine, the worlds best movie industry, and some really funny and kick ass people....ect.

I would visit, its nice there, just not for more than a month at a time. Home is better....LOL

reply to post by GrandStrategy


You may think comments like this make you look smart.......uh no.

fal·la·cy [fal-uh-see] Show IPA noun, plural fal·la·cies. 1. a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.: That the world is flat was at one time a popular fallacy. 2. a misleading or unsound argument. 3. deceptive, misleading, or false nature; erroneousness. 4. Logic. any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound. 5. Obsolete , deception.

It is a fact that Mother Nature is responsible for 90% of pollution in the air, I referenced it earlier. Facing that fact makes your argument against fireplaces moot.

You can shut down all the fireplaces in the world and Mother Nature will still defeat your efforts. Humans are not as important as you think.

reply to post by winofiend


The envirommtal cost of the fuel to heat a house via electric or gas I'm sure is 10 times higher than than a few cords of wood. So maybe 1 decent tree will heat a house for a winter. Millions of trees burn every year and treds breath the co2. The forests burn for a reason it us humans that decide to put them out while nature would rather them burn. Thats we keep having fires every year. The tree nature want to burn humans put out so nature catches them again next year. If we let the forest burn the old dead stuff we could get a few years without fires. But now think of how much pollution was released from that coal plant to make the electricity to heat the house.

Point being humans have no idea what we are doing to the earth. Trust me every human could burn everything on earth an the earth will still be here to provide for life that will come out of the water once everything on the land is dead.

reply to post by Dispo


No I am not an anarchist, I am a realist.

I am tired if be regulated to death over things that make almost no difference in the grand scheme.

"Nickel and diming"

"Penny wise, pound foolish"

Etc.

Originally posted by timetothink
The bottom line is, people are not dropping dead from fireplaces or wood stoves. I have never seen anyone I know drop dead from them, and many have had them their whole lives as have their neighbors.

Yes they are. Fireplaces and wood stoves are massive killers. The damage they do to your lungs is catastrophic. Not only that, the damage they do to your neighbours lungs is significant.

There's plenty of science on this. Millions who've died because of the toxic smoke. People drop dead from wood smoke all the time, it's one of the biggest killers on the planet. The only reason this comes as a shock to you is because the rich fat cats in the business and government world have been suppressing their information, because they like sitting in their big houses around their big log fires

reply to post by timetothink


If you had a choice between having a 96% chance of developing cancer and a 94% chance of developing cancer, which would you choose?

The fact that our impact is small is irrelevant - it still exists.

reply to post by timetothink


Thanks for answering that question. How did you feel about the other post I made?

Originally posted by Dispo
reply to post by timetothink

 

If you had a choice between having a 96% chance of developing cancer and a 94% chance of developing cancer, which would you choose?

The fact that our impact is small is irrelevant - it still exists.

And I'd say it's only that it's log fires that some people are defending this. I'm sure these same people would be outraged if their neighbour was causing them the same level of harm, but by a different mean. let's say, for sake of argument, by burning plastic in the garden or something daft

reply to post by GrandStrategy


How can it be suppressed when in my 46 years on this earth, 90% of my family friends and neighbors have had wood stoves, fireplaces, wood cooking stoves in the kitchen, coal furnaces etc. and not one of them had lung cancer, copd or died from carbon monoxide poisoning. Not one out of hundreds of people I personally know.

That is the proof, not the propaganda you READ about.

reply to post by Dispo


Looking at those numbers, I don't think the difference s enough to force someone to do or not do something.

Liberty and freedom if choice us more important.

reply to post by timetothink


Your anecdote does not invalidate the entire concept of statistics.

reply to post by ShadeWolf


Cabs and buses are available almost everywhere. You do not NEED a car you only WANT a car.

reply to post by timetothink


Fair enough then, but I would take the 94% chance.

Good lord, the melodramatic freedom fighters will look for anything to get riled up about.

Your freedom ends when the next person's freedom begings.

Which means you can't choke up the air with pollution and send every person with allergies, asthma, and serious conditions, into the hospital.

Just like you are not allowed to dump a tanker of sulfuric acid into the water supply.

Don't like the health restrictions? Then you have the freedom to move to another area.