Wood Smoke: The fallacy of "burning clean"

Most cities across the country are choked with wood smoke. Residential wood burning for food, fuel and "fun" is blanketing entire neighborhoods with caustic smoke close to where children are living and struggling to breathe.  Asthma is the number one reason for school absenteeism in metro areas, and the smoke from just one bonfire can send a small child to the emergency room.  The US Surgeon General says there is no safe level of wood smoke; isn't it time to address wood smoke as the terrific health hazard it is, and to explode the myth that "burning clean" is safe and environmentally friendly?

The EPA and state air agencies are well aware of the hazards of wood smoke. Yet instead of regulating it, as tobacco smoke is regulated, they are aggressively promoting  EPA certified wood burning equipment and recommend "burning clean", as though that renders wood smoke safe and harmless.  "Burn clean" initiatives are comparable to the promotion of Camel Lite cigarettes, which were later proven to be as toxic as regular cigarettes. And indeed, both tobacco smoke and wood smoke contain cancer-causing and hormone-disrupting chemicals, including lead, mercury, formaldehyde, sulfur dioxide, PAHs, arsenic and dioxins, some of the most insidious chemicals known to man.

EPA comparisons show that for every pound of wood burned, compared to an equivalent measure (1 cubic foot) of natural gas, wood burning emits over 9,700 percent more lead than natural gas!  It's no wonder that many informed citizens are protesting wood smoke when our children are suffering from asthma at unprecedented rates.

In our opinion, "Moms Clean Air Force", a Washington DC-based organization focused on cleaning up air to benefit children's health, exemplifies "green-washing", as does the EPA.  Their promotion of "burning clean" encourages people to burn wood and diverts them from understanding its perils to children.  Ronnie Citron-Fink of "Moms" has published, "Clearing the air; burn wood for heat", even though the science is clear that wood smoke contains legions of the same harmful chemicals that are in tobacco smoke.  It is disappointing that "Moms" has turned a blind eye on what could really help children---wood smoke reduction.  In addition, the "Moms" California chapter, where wood burning bonfires on the beaches are now being challenged, has been unwilling to support wood smoke reduction efforts there, at the expense of children's health. 

We are all stakeholders in the health and welfare of future generations.  We must hold our governments and organizations accountable.  In short, we must reconsider burning wood.

 

Julie Mellum