The Nonsense is starting in Canada...........

Yes it will. All it will take is someone with a 'smoke dragon'

As saskwoodburner correctly points out all it takes is one person with a home made smoke dragon in a city situation with neighbors close by and the by laws will follow. The Montreal situation may be a result of just such lack of consideration for neighbors and a bit of common sense. I noticed in the city (where we lived for 30 years) that storing wood was a limiting factor for some and for the most part people were likely using EPA stoves and there was only a bit of smoke here and there. That was quite a while ago and it is bound to become more and more critical to burn clean, efficient stoves and fireplaces.

 

I can see where in a urban area of a city, especially like Montreal, any smoke at all is an issue. I'm in a rural area so it isn't a problem that surfaces here. Let's hope it stays that way. I see a lot of mentions of " smoke dragons", although I have an older stove, I don't seem to be releasing a unreasonable amount of smoke. Well seasoned wood, burning hot fires goes along way to eliminating problems.

 

I'd say if everyone with older style stoves burnt like you do, it wouldn't be near as big an issue. It's the guys who load them up and damper right down that wreck it for everyone.

 

Absolutely correct. I have a neighbor who was a welder/millwright who made a stove out of plate steel like 20+ years ago and burned mostly green wood scrounged and gathered in summer and fall each year. It just smoldered away and created smoke like an old steam engine. His wife was always cold but he was happy with the set up. Finally he had an epiphany (or she threatened to leave him) not sure which, (lol) but he bought a Vermont Castings cat stove this past summer. He now has about 2 seasons worth of wood supply and his wife is warm. I asked why VC cat stove and he said "I got a great deal on it" ... and the rest is history. Sometimes that's all it takes to get us into something new and clean burning. His wife is hard working and commutes to her job in town at the hospital an hour away. I am truly happy that she is now warm on her days off. Some mornings I wander out to greet the day and water the long gone daisies and I look at both neighbors and our chimney and all there is is shimmering heat going into the morning sky. Beautiful! "God is good ... All the time!"

 

That common sense approach is unfortunately not always common.

 

This has been in the works for a few years. Smoke trolls want all wood burning banned. They don't care if it's used for heating or cooking. They also don't care how efficient your wood burning appliance is. Just look at all their comments on the article.

 

Is the glass half empty ... or is the glass half full? If we comment on these articles also and point out that wood heat is carbon neutral and does not require electricity to function as a heat source (whereas even geothermal requires electricity) then we can begin to change the perception. This will only work if 'smoke pollution' is not an issue. Truth be known the ball is really in our court. Railing at people whose opinions differ at this point is a lost cause and waste of our energy. Let us all tackle these false perceptions head on in a thoughtful and positive way.

 

I think you missed my point. What I was getting at is that not everyone who owns an old stove, or any stove for that matter, has the understanding and respect for their neighbors to burn well seasoned wood and burn a hot fire. Many actually TRY to smolder their green wood in the hopes that it burns longer.

I agree with you on the carbon neutral part, thats 50% of why i heat with wood the other 50% is the almighty $. As to making smoke polution a non issue i will disagree, it is an issue. Look at the health issues associated with the inversion weather of the PNW region. Wood smoke, containing particulate matter, contains many known carcinogens. The best path IMNSHO is to educate, provide an accessible place for people to learn how to do wood heat right. Not everyone is so exited about it as us FHC peeps, many are just trying to save a $. When they learn how much less money theyll spend when the burn seasoned wood in a high efficiency stove THAT will have people making good decisions to replace stoves and have good burning practices. I will say good for everyone here that has the old airtight stoves and running them well, it takes time and planning to do it well.

 

If you comment on their comments that wood heat is carbon neutral, they will just blast you and supply links to studies that they believe disprove your beliefs. It's one of those, I hate wood burning, so I'm going to pay for studies to say wood burning is bad type things.

 

Lung Association seeks bylaw to regulate wood stoves

 

Saving $ motivates a lot of people in the wrong way and wrong direction. Cheap smoke dragon fanboys who boast of all the $ they save. Not to mention their disdain for officials who set new and stiffer standards. You hit the nail on the head. Health of the planet and health of people who breathe in whatever is in the air are the two critical aspects of wood burning. We must understand all the issues and then lead by example and sometimes with our words. The lowest particulate effluent possible is the proper way to treat our neighbors. If we want perfectly pure air, its too late now. There is none anywhere on planet earth. The Inuit elders speak of as children being able to see 70 or 80 miles across wide expanses of water and see the high peaks in the distance. Now they can barely see 10 to 15 miles on a good day. Maybe I was not very lucid but air quality and our actions that affect it was my point. We can heat with wood, tell the story and encourage responsible behavior. Forgive me if I was less than clear.

 

Sure, but others who are objective and rational also read the comments and arrive at their own conclusions. If we are reticent they will only hear the false allegations. If we just rail at those who differ we may as well accept the fact that poor regulations and policies will be the ultimate result. We must offer valid and accurate counter arguments.

 

You are correct. I fully agree that in some situations 'any smoke' is too much. In all other situations here is no doubt <2g/hr particulate is where we want to be if not now, soon. If it were the case today there would be no issues for us to deal with.

 

Good luck!