A well-reasoned reply in an e-mail from Alan Kandel of Fresno:

"It depends. Individuals or families who have no other means to heat their homes and stay warm, what do you say to them, that they can't light a fire to provide needed heat? However, if there are better, more efficient, more cost-effective, more eco-conscious/friendly ways to provide warmth then these ways should be shared with such current wood-heat-dependent residents so as to educate them as to the better, more efficient, more cost-effective, more eco-conscious/friendly ways. For others who are burning wood in their fireplaces strictly for ambiance, what do you say to them, that they too can't light a fire to provide such ambiance? I will say this. Knowing the atmospheric conditions of our Valley, on the days when it is okay to burn wood in the fireplace, this too can present air quality problems if the concentration of wood smoke is so pronounced that it would be detrimental to human and animal health. So, short of the steps the Bay Area Air Quality Management District is purportedly taking (reference "Wood Burning Ban Discussion Turns Up the Heat" at The People's Vanguard of Davis at:
http://davisvanguard.blogspot.com), what's the answer?"

Unless wood-burning is the only available method of heating in the home, then YES -- wood burning should be banned here. As one of the thousands of people who suffer from life-threatening asthma, I spend much of my winter gasping for breath and struggling to breathe -- and its is soooo much worse when people near me are using their fireplaces. And for those of you who want to tell me "Just move" ... let me point out that my husband is active duty miitary and stationed HERE.

Another e-mailer, Jeanne Aceto of Oakhurst, wanted to post this article for folks to read:

Efficient Wood Heating is Good for the Environment

Dec 1st, 2008 9:30 AM
Cut greenhouse gas emissions and save money at the same time - heating with wood does not contribute to global warming and climate change the way the "fossil" fuels do

Firewood is a renewable energy resource like wind, solar and hydroelectric power. To adequately respond to the global warming challenge, we need to start using more renewables and less oil, gas and coal. Heating with wood can be a part of the solution, provided the wood is burned efficiently. Fortunately, that is not hard to do these days.
When oil, gas and coal are burned, the carbon they contain (which was buried millions of years ago) is oxidized to carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas. The use of fossil fuels releases ancient carbon, increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2.

Wood also releases carbon when burned but its use is almost carbon neutral because trees absorb CO2 as they grow. When trees fall in the forest and decompose they release the same amount of CO2 as if they were burned. In other words, rotting is slow oxidation, whereas combustion in a wood stove is fast oxidation, with heat as the main by-product. When considered over the normal tree life cycle of about fifty years, heating with wood can be considered almost CO2 neutral, except for the energy used to harvest, process and transport the firewood.

When heating our houses with wood, we are simply tapping into the natural carbon cycle in which CO2 flows from the atmosphere to the forest and back. When wood is burned as a substitute for fossil fuels, the result is a net reduction in CO2 emissions. For every cord of wood used for home heating instead of oil, more than a tonne of carbon is kept out of the atmosphere. Plenty of households in rural areas and small towns could easily cut their carbon emissions by four tonnes each winter by substituting firewood for just two tanks of fuel oil.

Trees can be thought of as big batteries because they take energy from the sun and store it in the wood. Burning wood converts the stored energy into heat.

Old style wood stoves could heat a house just fine but they wasted wood and made a lot of smoke. Since 1990 a new generation of wood stoves, furnaces, and heating fireplaces certified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have been available. These advanced technology wood burners generate about ten percent of the smoke of old style 'airtights' and burn about one-third less wood to get the same heat.

Done responsibly, heating with wood can be a great way to be kind to the environment. As an added bonus, firewood costs a lot less than the alternatives for people who live outside large urban areas.

© 2005-2008 Environmental Communication Options.

We as a people do lots of things that can and do harm others. Do we want government controlling every aspect of our lives because it may affect others. Why don't we ban natural gas fireplaces too, you are wasting energy to get your ambiance. Future generations will suffer because they can't use that gas. While we are at it lets lower the speed limits to 25 miles and hour everywhere, saves more gas, reduces emissions and lives. My point is, where does it end?

I am an asthma sufferer AND a skilled operator of an EPA Phase II certified fireplace wood insert.

Wood heating should NOT be completely banned and the regulations should be modified to reduce/eliminate the usage of open fireplace and non-certified wood appliance usage.

The issue is not whether we should "burn" or not. The issue is how much wood smoke is released into the air from a chimney during stagnant air periods.

I state this because simply lighting a "home wood fire" can result in VASTLY VARYING smoke emissions based on fuel quality, wood heater appliance type/condition, and operator skill (or lack thereof).

The current unfair regulations lump all wood burning into a single category and do not take into consideration the amount of emissions produced.

When an EPA Phase II certified wood stove or insert is properly operated, it produces NO VISIBLE SMOKE FROM THE CHIMNEY and emits some 90% fewer emissions than burning wood in an open fireplace or non-EPA certified stove.

I, and other responsible, skilled operators of EPA Phase II appliances, are being treated the same as those sending ugly columns of smoke from their chimneys using house-chilling OPEN FIREPLACES (yes, an open fireplace removes heat from your home) even though we produce 90% FEWER EMISSIONS! The current regulations are unfair and assume all wood fires in the home produce the same amount of emissions.

A better, fairer solution is to adopt a "staged" system such as the one in Sacramento:

Stage 1 permits EPA appliance use (remember, 90% less smoke) while banning all others when a certain level of PM 2.5 is reached.

Stage 2 prohibits all burning when the PM 2.5 get bad.

This solution doesn't punish those who burn cleanly and hopefully encourages others to upgrade there wood heat appliances and learn how to burn cleanly.

I don't need to reiterate the environment benefits of wood burning that Jeanne Aceto of Oakhurst posted.

There are also local economic benefits from wood heat. Firewood is often purchased from local farmers and other local providers of firewood. The local hearth shop makes a sale here and there. The wood heat industry comprises small businesses, not multinational corporations. With wood heat, the money stays in the local economy and doesn't go to a big energy company.

Proper wood heat in the home is also more effective and cheaper. This is especially important during these tough economical times.

This current burn restriction *is* Draconian and invasive.

And remember, I have asthma and have had it for the last 30 years.

If I was burning and the fireplace police drove down my street looking for smoke from my chimney, they wouldn't see it.

And yes, Mr. Grossi, I did let my fire burn out last night so I could play by the rules.

I`ve used wood to heat my rural home for fourty years. I can`t help but wonder why OSHA doesn`t require wild land fire fighters to wear self contained breathing apparatus, if wood smoke is so toxic. We payed a premium for a cleaner burning, EPA approved stove, but get no credit for it. Confused Retired Wildland Firefighter

It appears that the air district is using a divide and seperate strategy to attack one segment of the smog problem at a time to limit the public outcry.

If the conditions are bad enough to limit burning then lets go all out and ban drive-throughs for the day, Leaf blowers, small engines, and other known sources.

This approach would seemingly reduce our smog numbers rapidly and save those lives each year that are now being blamed on wood burning. ALL OR NOTHING. To allow the district to pick and choose one victim at a time is NOT a good solution.

Hello,

I know this is going to sound like a stupid question but can you tell me what type of furnace produces cleaner indoor air quality. A wood furnace or a gas furnace? I have someone telling me the indoor air quality is the same with either one. Gas is just as clean as wood. I find this hard to believe. Please educate me.

Thank you.
Stupid question asker

What type of furnace gives you better indoor air quality a wood furnace or a gas furnace?