Smoke in your Gabriola air
Gabriola, is smoke drifting through your air? In our part of the island lots of people are burning up yard waste (and heaven knows what else) in back yard fires. After days of smoke, I began to wonder about the health effects. Is this bad for us?
It’s seriously bad for us, it turns out. HealthLink BC explains that wood fires create Particulate Matter Air Pollution:
Any form of burning can lead to particle pollution. One of the largest sources of particulate matter in B.C. is residential wood burning. Wood smoke may come from sources such as a fireplace or woodstove within a home, slash burning, or beehive burners. (…)
Particulate matter is considered to be the air pollutant of greatest concern to human health within B.C. Research has shown that even low levels of particulate matter can lead to increased deaths, emergency room visits, hospital stays, and days lost from work or school.
Children and older adults are most likely to be affected by this type of air pollution. As well, premature death can occur in those with heart or lung diseases. [continue]
Alarming, isn’t it?
The Backyard Burning and Air Quality page at Greenmuze notes:
Burning slash and backyard debris in open burn fires contributes to the reduction in air quality. Wood burning, in general, releases carbon and a number of toxic chemicals into our air and the atmosphere. All of these contribute to poor air quality for those who have compromised respiratory systems, especially children’s developing lungs, and for those who consider themselves healthy, there is diminished air quality, and a reduction in the quality of life and health.
The issue seems quite straightforward. If we don’t want to continue to jeopardize the health of ourselves, the planet, and future generations, we will have to bring an end to burning slash and backyard debris. Many jurisdictions across Canada have already legislated such burning out of existence. [continue]
OK, so. If wood smoke is such a serious health problem, why do we allow all this burning to go on?
Related:
- Wood Smoke and the Atmospheric Commons: Protecting and Preserving the Right to Breathe Clean Air – article by Michael Mehta, published in the Flying Shingle
Filed in environment,Gabriola Island 11 Comments so far
11 Responses to “Smoke in your Gabriola air”
rick on 05 May 2010 at 6:08 pm #
Here is an issue that will demonstrate how well the current review of the Official Community Plan will reflect the changing environmental (and respiratory) sensitivities of the 21st century islanders. Banning wood heat for all but emergency use would have been political suicide for any politician brave enough to even suggest it (and none have). Many jurisdictions have done it already – it just takes political will. If it is a concern to you, NOW is the time to make your wishes known, while the OCP is under review. Despite jurisdictional objections that may arise, a strong statement in that official plan is an important step towards encouraging the changes that could improve your air quality.
John Hudson on 05 May 2010 at 7:26 pm #
While wood burning stoves also produce particulate matter, it’s worth noting that burning yard waste is worse in this regard because of the lower, less efficient temperature of the fire. Even if a community were unable or unwilling to ban wood heat except for emergencies, as Rick describes, an independent argument can be made for banning backyard burning.
To my mind, it would be much easier for a community to embrace such a ban if some convenient and inexpensive alternative method of disposing of fallen branches, cut-back brambles, etc. were available. Chipping and mulching is the obvious solution, with benefits to compost, soil and garden, but perhaps for cost reasons the existing rent-a-chipper solution isn’t appealing enough to enough people.
Rick on 06 May 2010 at 8:46 am #
I agree that smoke can be more than just a nuisance. The problem is that on Gabriola a lot of ‘debris’ is being constantly generated, and we don’t have a ‘fire smart’ alternative. Leaving it in place creates a build up that increases the hazard. When it’s burned, it’s gone.
For a number of years now, I have suggested that a community composting site be established. I feel a small section of our 707 park could be set aside for this. It wouldn’t necessarily be free, as the debris needs to be managed. The reaction from the RDN (who manages this regional park) , has been less than enthusiastic. Composting is not without it’s own set of problems either.
Our fire bylaws are strongly worded and supported re smoke generation, and we forward info to the Min. of Environment to deal with repeat offenders. ( A few years ago I was called to a site where someone was burning a 36ft. fibreglass boat, full of styrofoam blocks. As I approached I watched this woman with a smoke hanging from her lips, levering another sailboat hull onto the pile with a 2×4! These people got an $800 fine, which was much cheaper than it would have cost them to correctly dispose of the hulls). Unfortunately, the Prov. Gov’t has gutted the M of E, I was told by someone in the office, to the point that they don’t always have gas money, let alone political clout.
While I don’t see restrictions on household heating with wood coming in the near future, the potential for further restrictions for outdoor burning is a possibility once a suitable composting sight is established. That would be an excellent thing to lobby local gov’t for.
PS- if the fire shown in your picture was taken since April 1, (the start of fire season) then their is a good chance it was an illegal burn, as nothing over 1 cu. meter is allowed without a permit between April and Oct., and I don’t recall issuing any Class B permits, which the one in the pic appears to be. This is an example of where the FD need to be kept informed. Unfortunately many people would rather put up with it than be seen as ‘ratting out’ on their neighbours, which I can understand.
rick on 06 May 2010 at 3:56 pm #
I agree John, that getting a ban – or at least serious restrictions – on backyard burning is far more likely to get support – and so it should if we are interested in a healthy environment. Many jurisdictions have done it already.
My alternative to burning brush has been to create berms around my property, using all the fallen branches, yard waste, and chipped branches occaisionally.
By arranging the longer branches longitudinally and weaving them together over time, it makes a fine hedgerow – with time. Over the last 25 years I have piled every rock, branch, and stick in a berm. It has grown in with the surrounding greenery nicely and is an effective barrier in some places, and the birds seem to like it. It certainly looks rustic, and may not be appealing to someone with more civilized landscaping in mind. It is more suited to acreages, where space is not an issue, brush accumulates at an alarming rate, and fencing is expensive.
cheryl on 07 May 2010 at 5:24 am #
Rick- I have a couple of questions for you, you say one needs a permit to burn waste over 1 cubic meter. Please don’t think I’m trying to be a smart a– when asking my questions because I just was wondering and not trying to start a quarrel.
I believe the first post of the Gabriolan’s was commenting on the effects of smoke on the environment and human health so I ask, What difference is a permit going to make? If someone applies for a permit and you issue it the problem of the smoke has not been solved.
Another question, What is the purpose of a permit? Is it so you can determine the safety of the fire condition before they burn? Do you go to the site to inspect the pile that is to be burned before issuing or do you just take their word for the size of the burn? Are permits just a money maker or are they going to control a situation? After a permit is issued are there conditions attached to the permit that the user has to follow?
The smoke still exists with or without a permit. The size of the fire isn’t going to change that. Comments and questions made without prejudice.
Gabriolan on 07 May 2010 at 8:41 am #
Rick – thanks so much for your detailed response. The fire shown in the photograph above is this one, which burned on April 8th, 2009. It was a large fire, so I assume they had a permit.
I have seen some pretty large fires in my neighbourhood lately, as well as some day-after-day burning. Maybe the way to get around the fire size limitation is just to have a separate fire on each of five days.
Rick on 07 May 2010 at 9:18 pm #
Hi Cheryl
Never any problem with asking questions. :)
You are right, it isn’t magic, but a very small fire burned correctly puts out comparably little smoke. The main reason for permits is to ensure that only smaller fires are burned in areas with 1/2 acre lots, etc. Years ago, someone could clear a lot and burn a very large multi-day fire very closed to your house. Now they have to be no closer than 100 meters, and have an acceptable venting designation. Therefore huge amounts of debris have been trucked away instead of being burned on the original site. Not perfect but an improvement.
The only fire that doesn’t require any permit is a burn barrel and less than 1 cu meter. No plastic, etc is supposed to be burned in these only smaller debris. If a fire this size causes any grief, it’s easy to extinguish. As I said above, they do need to be reported before they can be acted on. The ideal situation is for neighbours to be aware of each other and solved at that level.
The conditions of each fire permit are listed in the Gabriola directory. They are now free, as the idea is to track the locations and try to ensure smoke problems are minimized.
Permits are no longer issued as it drys out to ‘High’, and all outdoor burning stops at ‘High- Early Shift’
There are conditions attached to the permit that is signed. The size of the pile does make a huge difference to the amount of smoke generated.
I don’t have a vested interest in allowing burning, but, as I’ve said, before more restrictions on burning can realistically be put in place, a composting sight needs to be established to dispose of the continuously regenerating fuel. For years I’ve been suggesting a piece of the 707 acre park.
John Hudson on 07 May 2010 at 11:44 pm #
Rick, how much land do you think would be required for a composting site? I presume such a site would involve a chipper/mulcher. What else? Staff? How about getting debris to the site?
Rick on 08 May 2010 at 12:26 am #
Off the top of my head , I imagine at least 5 acres would be needed. 10 would give some room to grow.
People could deliver their own smaller amounts, and contractors with truck loads.
No real idea on the cost at this point, but I guess it’s like many alternatives to existing situations- how much do we want to do away with the status quo?
A tipping fee would have to be charged, IMO. People currently pay very significant charges to have debris chipped on site or trucked off island to someone else’s dump. There used to be 2 MoE approved burn sites on Gabriola, but both stopped operating, one I know was due to legal worries.
It would need chipping, piling, turning the piles periodically. Leachate (sp?) would be a consideration. M of E has a lot to say on this point as well. Larger stumps (which are not considered a fire hazard) could be used as fencing on larger properties to reduce some of the total amounts. I always liked the idea of a large stump fence covered with blackberries for my property.
cheryl on 08 May 2010 at 8:19 pm #
Thank-you Rick for answering my questions. Am I to understand that a campfire or outdoor cook fire are allowed without a permit as long as it is under 1 cu meter, what in feet or inches (because I’m mathematically disabled) is that? It would be easier for me to envision in feet and inches, once again thank-you.
Rick on 09 May 2010 at 9:13 pm #
1 meter is 39′”, so a cubic yard is pretty close.