San Francisco to Ban Fireplaces

[Racerbvd]

WTF will these fruitcakes come up with next??

San Francisco is holding public hearings to find out how big an outcry
would come if they move forward with their plans to legislate away the
rights of citizens to own a fireplace. This legislation is being done
to answer the hypothesis called Global Warming. What is next? One
child per couple? Kids do expel carbon dioxide when they breath.
Sounds far fetched - but then who ever imagined the government being
able to tell someone they cannot own a fireplace?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/22/EDNKTDK1S.DTL&hw=San+Francisco+to+Ban+Fireplaces&sn=001&sc=1000

[svandamme]

if the town where i live were to ban fireplaces, i'de just burn their front lawn

it's the right thing to do

[sammyg2]

If you live in Frisco, I heard you have to sign a paper that says you will let a bunch of bleeding heart politicians make every single decision for you and run your lives because they are smarter than you.

[Hugh R]

The fact is that wood burning fireplaces put out a LOT of air pollution. And I'm not refering to CO2. remember in Los Angeles 40 years ago they banned backyard incinerators for that reason. Its not one fireplace, its thousands going at one time. Not taking a position with the SF liberals, just stating a fact.

[nostatic]

now now Hugh, don't start thinking that way. It's all about the individual's rights to do whatever they want. Forget the common good or environmental concerns.

Besides, the 75th amendment guarantees the right to bear fireplaces. The founding fathers were all about the fireplace. You are talking like a commie now...

[Racerbvd]

I highly dought that fireplaces cause more damage than the fires that have burnedoff & on since this planet was formed. Who put out the raging fires in the west before we were there??

[nostatic]

the fires don't burn in the middle of the city. I don't necessarily buy the "global warming" argument, but could easily understand an air quality concern. Due to the microclimates in the city, it is easy for particulate matter to not clear leading to less-than-stellar air quality. As Hugh said, take a look at LA air quality over the past 100 years. The bans on certain activities along with stringent environmental controls have made a night-and-day difference.

and yeah, the earth did just fine before the people started messing it up

[Dan in Pasadena]

Hugh is right. As a child all the grade schools I attended had a big brick incinerator where all the trash was burned.

I DO have a problem with the banning of fireplaces in homes but I wouldn't have a problem if someone proposing a method of limiting their output of O2. If someone could come up with a device you could install that would limit it, I'd be in favor. WHat I am NOT in favor of though would be a giant bureaucracy springing up. An annual smog check of your fireplace, for example.

I bigger; and probably insurmountable issue, is the emission of methane from enormous herds of cows! How do you put a catalytic converter up a cow's a$$?

[Racerbvd]

What about the cost of heating???? Oil is up, and the NE uses most of that.

Originally Posted by Dan in Pasadena

I bigger; and probably insurmountable issue, is the emission of methane from enormous herds of cows! How do you put a catalytic converter up a cow's a$$?

Sounds like a job for that guy on Dirty Jobs he was sticking his finger up gator butts earlier today
I don't have a problem with the big brick incinerator being muffled, but the guy who wants a romantic fire with his lady & a nice bottle of wine, that is who shouldn't be punished. Question, are they going to let the homeless build fires???

[Hugh R]

SF is fundamentally different than LA in geography. LA is surrounded by mountains and gets an inversion layer to hold the air pollution in. SF doesn't. The fundamental problem with air pollution, is that without regulation its free to pollute and others sufffer. Your dirty filty fireplace/old smoking beater pollutes the air that everyone else breathes. I'm fiscally pretty conservative, but my Bachelors is in environmental engineering. You shouldn't be able to dump waste in the river behind your factory because its flows down stream to someone else's property. Same with air pollution. LA used to have 100 Stage 1 smog alerts per year in the 60's and 70's, today it has zero to 1 per year, and there are a lot more people living here. Did you know that Denver has Stage 1 and 2 smog alerts all the time from fireplaces? Oh, I worked in air pollution control for about 20 years, so maybe I'm a little biased. I'll bet some of you would object to your neighbors kids rock band playing loudly in the garage at 2AM, keeping you awake. How is it different you (collectively) putting a cloud of soot and ash in my house from everyone in certain areas burning wood in fireplaces. Not saying fireplaces are bad everywhere, but in some areas, they may not be appropriate. I see the problem in the Los Angeles air basin, but not so in SF, due to the climate and the geography.

[Joeaksa]

I live in Phoenix and wood burning fireplaces are not allowed on new homes. My house is grandfathered so I get to still have a nice fire during the holidays but its few and far between as wood is just a bit expensive in the desert. As well its not the most effecient method of heating so reserved for the holidays.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Racerbvd

I highly dought that fireplaces cause more damage than the fires that have burnedoff & on since this planet was formed. Who put out the raging fires in the west before we were there??

Actually, before "we" were here there were no raging fires such as there are now in SOCAL, the reason being that there was no forest "management" as there is today.

When nature ruled there were plenty of fires that burned themselves out naturally. Annual wild fires thusly kept growth in balance, not allowing vegetation to thrive to the extent that it would support larger fires.

These fires were much smaller than today's because there was not the accumulated growth that there is today. Today the small fires are now quickly put out before they spread, allowing the "saved" areas to thrive.

So now there is typically much more fuel to burn if a small fire is not put out before it gets out of control and a very large fire results. This is compounded when multiple fires break out and join to become even larger fires.

Across the border in Mexico there is no such forest management. The huge fires we have here every so many years never occur there because nature is left to maintain her balance. Here we have periodic holocausts.

Accepting that, many of the wild fires that break out each year should be allowed to run their natural course, except of course where structures and homes need to be saved.

This would work if nature was allowed to regain its balance. There would be many more small fires each year than there are now but those that encroached on structures and lives would be very much more easily controlled at probably less expense and definitely with less loss of lives and property.

[svandamme]

well yah , same here, it won't heat my house at all, i put my couch closer crack open a beer and chill out...and i might roast some dead critters occasionally...

in fact, this thing got me in the mood to burn some logs...

[widgeon13]

Why don't they do something useful and outlaw butt ****ing!

[Jeff Higgins]

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by DARISC

Actually, before "we" were here there were no raging fires such as there are now in SOCAL, the reason being that there was no forest "management" as there is today.

When nature ruled there were plenty of fires that burned themselves out naturally. Annual wild fires thusly kept growth in balance, not allowing vegetation to thrive to the extent that it would support larger fires.

These fires were much smaller than today's because there was not the accumulated growth that there is today. Today the small fires are now quickly put out before they spread, allowing the "saved" areas to thrive.

So now there is typically much more fuel to burn if a small fire is not put out before it gets out of control and a very large fire results. This is compounded when multiple fires break out and join to become even larger fires.

Across the border in Mexico there is no such forest management. The huge fires we have here every so many years never occur there because nature is left to maintain her balance. Here we have periodic holocausts.

Accepting that, many of the wild fires that break out each year should be allowed to run their natural course, except of course where structures and homes need to be saved.

This would work if nature was allowed to regain its balance. There would be many more small fires each year than there are now but those that encroached on structures and lives would be very much more easily controlled at probably less expense and definitely with less loss of lives and property.

With as much forrest as there was before we hacked it down, how long do you think it burned?? If there was no rain or anything to stop, how did there just burn out?? BTW, are we not part of nature?? Who is to say that we are not part of that balance???

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Racerbvd

With as much forrest as there was before we hacked it down, how long do you think it burned??

Do you mean all that forest that wasn't burned when we hacked it down? I'm not sure what you're asking.

If there was no rain or anything to stop, how did there just burn out??

No rain? Obviously there was rain or there'd have been no forrests. The fires were controlled by a combination of factors, rain being one, rivers, natural geographic barriers and, to the point of the mismanagment perspective, less new growth that is more suceptible to fire than are mature trees. Fires can burn off low growth in mature forests without burning off large trees. Plenty written on this subject if you care to research it.

BTW, are we not part of nature?? Who is to say that we are not part of that balance???

Duh..yes and yes we are. Do you maintain that man has done nothing to adversely affect that balance?

..

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by Joeaksa

I live in Phoenix and wood burning fireplaces are not allowed on new homes.

you mean San Francisco allows fireplaces in new homes and Phoenix doesn't?!?!?

omg, I think Byron has a new city to hate!

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by nostatic

you mean San Francisco allows fireplaces in new homes and Phoenix doesn't?!?!?

omg, I think Byron has a new city to hate!

I don't hate the city
I can't help it if many of the most stupid laws come from that area.

[tabs]

They first came for my Assualt Rifle, and I said that it did not matter to me in that I don't own Assualt Rifles, Then they came for my Handgun and that did not matter to me, then they came for my cigarettes and that didn't matter to me, then they came for my transfats and that did not matter to me, now they are coming for my fireplace...