Date: Aug. 14, 2008

Subject: The Brandie wood smoke problem and arguments for banning wood burning.

You have an opportunity to solve an important societal problem and make an impact on the world which is watching.

I heard about the Brandie case on www.BurningIssues.org  and read a legal brief on it. Then I met Mrs. Brandie on line in the forum. Both of us and many others have been smoked out and ignored by local and state or provincial governments.

The Brandies have been fortunate in being able to get legal help but many others can not afford the tremendous legal fees. Therefore, I am trying to help this brave, courageous leader in her fight. She has asked for my help, and I volunteer it, and affirm as if in court and before God that everything I say is true to the best of my ability. I have a Bachelors degree in Civil Engineering, and made important contributions to the U Mass Wind Furnace, which is in the Smithsonian. I helped plan a state of the art energy and material recovering incinerator, helped start a hydropower movement in New England, and lately helped develop the #1 rated air cleaner in the world to protect my asthmatic daughter from extreme wood smoke. I have also been a leader in getting the historic Outdoor Wood Boiler bill passed, and the first amendment to it, and the historic State Building Code. The Governor has thanked me and commended me for this work. My wife has a similar background as a who's who college graduate and she works in a hospital as a Med Tech.

There are many laws on the books for health nuisances, air emission laws, dangerous heating equipment and dangerous buildings. However, enforcement is difficult because of enforcement costs and monitoring difficulties and fast changing science and environmental law. Building inspectors and health officers theoretically are supposed to have power to step in when there are emergencies. However, Mayors and Governors claim discretionary powers to not enforce and few have the resources to fight them. Therefore, I agree with the Brandies that a different mode of enforcement is necessary, to save the life, health, safety, and welfare of people in a timely manner. She has proposed a simple ban on woodburning and I can support that or other alternatives. But her proposal is the simplest and easiest to enforce and the least costly.

The millions of people in the Clean Air Revival support her; doctors, lawyers, engineers and scientists and victims.

It eliminates arguments and costly trials. It eliminates time consuming and expensive testing and it recognizes what the leading doctors and environmentalists are saying. Sudden discoveries in science reveal that outdoor wood boilers create 40 mcg/cm of pm2.5 within 500' of them, in zero wind conditions that are common. Further, hospital consensus is that 30 mcg/cm can cause heart attacks and asthma attacks and this can kill some people. KILL !!!

Old Stoves can cause 30 - 40 mcg and old fireplaces can cause 30 mcg and ambient air in zero winds is 30 mcg. Just the ambient air from car pollution in the summer can cause asthma attacks and heart attacks. The Am. Lung Assoc. educated me on this to protect my daughter. I was faced with a multiple burner; smoker, who had two heart attacks and when he started burning, another neighbor had a heart attack and bypass surgery. Then my daughter had progressive asthma worsening until she had an asthma attack and I was affected too. The Am Lung and Dr, Brown predicted it, and it happened in my back yard. I bought a Sears Envirosense air cleaner with two opacity meters that read very unhealthy dust and odors or particulates and aromatic hydrocarbons. I have a doctors testimony and a lawyers opinion. By now, I'm a little like Rachel Carson who noticed the birds dying. Except, I am noticing people dying. I noted a death in a mill inundated by woodsmoke and noted the town did not investigate or the coroner, but hospitals are making the connection in more educated areas.

When you consider that 30 mcg ambient air and 30 mcg from one fireplace alone can kill, replacement becomes necessary. The Maine Task Force recognizes it and is recommending replacement of all old equipment somehow. They seem to be settling in on change-outs but I'm arguing for a simple ban with some support of the Am Lung that recognizes they take decades to work.

I also warned the Governor that a disaster like the London Fog Inversion could happen killing thousands in one day. If there is a blizzard, power failure, extensive burning, and an inversion, it could happen. Within weeks there was an inversion with 10% burning and the pm went to 67 mcg/cm and again the hospitals and Dr. Brown and ALA say 30 mcg for a few hours can cause asthma attacks. The EPA told me later that they are seeing 300mcg in woodburning communities in valleys and isolated spots. This is another factor leading to replacement recommendations.

You may be saying what about cert stoves? The governments say they are safe. Actually, some EPA tests are showing highly variable emissions and some cert stoves are just as polluting as the old stoves, though results are variable and the EPA is not acting on this. The average is 15 mcg say after 1 year from creosote and many other possible causes. 30 mcg plus 15 mcg gives 45 mcg and this can kill. That is why I support the Brandies in calling for a simple inexpensive ban, that by the way can still save people money. If people convert to gas, and use an outside source of air which is common, and they use a zone heating scheme and take advantage of radiant heating, they can still save 50% on their heating bills.

In a way, The Brandies are putting all woodburning on trial. Law says that in health nuisance cases, if there is an alternative source of energy that does not cause health problems, then it must be used. Grandfathering is also illegal when life and health are at risk. Alternatives are gas appliances, free solar energy streaming through windows that can be tapped with insulating shutters like Jefferson's, and the traditional oil, gas, and electricity combined with more insulation or super insulation. The Maine wood to energy task force said insulation and conservation are more important than wood surprisingly, though ordered to promote wood. When is anyone going to have another chance to do this? This is the most famous case on wood smoke in decades, and city councilmen in Waterville and all over are thinking of this case.

Sudden changes in science are driving this. Changes in medical science are leading lagging changes in pm standards, and now global warming. Woodburners argue that woodburning is carbon neutral but the US EPA says that is not accepted science and others argue that NASA scientists find pm causes global warming ignored by woodburners. Gore, a world leader, says that woodburning is 30% of the problem right now, and even if wood is regrown, there will be a 100 year time delay accelerating warming immediately. Then there is methane which is prevalent in wood smoke and is 23 times as bad for global warming, according to the Clean Air Revival.

Given the complicated nature of the science and the never ending regulations that could ensue, such as regulations for drying, and storing, and operating, and maintaining, and cleaning, and monitoring, and enforcing. Given the quick action of smoke, the best way to handle this is to keep it simple for the stupid, and do a simple ban. It is like asbestos and lead and other toxics and environmental problems. The Maine DEP recommended this for outdoor wood boilers and now the other equipment is shown to be a problem as well. Unfortunately, the non scientific legislature refused to follow the recommendations of the DEP, Am. Lung Assn and NESCAUM. You could force the uneducated public to obey the doctors essentially and treat all woodburning as on big nuisance for individuals and the planet.

90% of the people in Maine were polled by the state, and they said they did not want tobacco smoke in their living environments. Wood smoke is the same basic thing, maybe worse. 90% are also refusing to burn wood according to statistics. People have been educated about tobacco smoke and second hand smoke by the doctors and seem to instinctively know smoke is bad now, except for the smokers and woodburning minority. It has been said that judges rule by what is common and accepted. Fireplaces used to be commonly used and accepted but now the reverse is true.

Finally, the costs must be considered. The wood burners go right to this and say we want to save $2,000/yr on energy bills. But health costs must be considered. The EPA says the value of a human life is $6 million from life insurance costs, lost productivity, and economic multipliers ! This is staggering. Add $1,000/day hospital beds for asthma and heart attacks and you have to realize that this could all add up and it does. $300 billion/ yr for pm according to Dr. Schwartz who is the world authority. $150 billion/yr for woodsmoke pm according to the Clean Air Revival, recognized as having the #1 rated educational website in the world on air pollution, assuming wood smoke is responsible for 1/2 the pm. I tried to break this down to stove costs and came up with $2,000 to $10,000/yr for every stove. If wood burners save $2,000 but it costs society $10,000, then the balance falls towards a ban. But this needs to be checked. God does not use money to weigh human life according to the prophets. We all can become the next St. Paul or Benny Hinn, so human life is precious, and a price cannot be put on it. But economic advantages to not burning are noted. Less moving out. More moving in. Higher valuations and tax revenues. More money spent on business instead of health and medical costs. Economic multipliers apply to this too. There is also something noted in Maine as increased quality of place attracting business and tourism. Putting numbers on this is hard and beyond me but the Am Lung and the Maine task force concluded that the economic benefit to Maine of a change-out could be 1.5 billion, on the same magnitude as the Clean Air Revival estimate and Dr. Schwartz's. It's enough to pay for a $1,500 change-out rebate. The benefits, whatever they are, would exist for a ban with no expenditure of money.