We discussed wood burning recently and I found this today

https://www.thecooldown.com/green-home/wood-burning-campaign-hertfordshire-county-council/

Wood fireplaces and stoves may have a beloved place in our culture, but
they also play an unfortunate role in pollution. In the United Kingdom,
the BBC reported that they're responsible for 27% of PM2.5 pollution
(meaning fine particle pollution with pieces less than 2.5 microns across).

That's a problem because PM2.5 pollution is strongly linked to cancer
and premature death. Too much smoke — even from a simple wood fire — is
as bad as smoking cigarettes.

Tessa Bartholomew-Good, head of campaigns for clean air at Global Action
Plan, told the BBC: "The uncomfortable truth is lighting fires in our
homes is the largest source of small particle air pollution in the UK,
causing serious harm to our lung, heart and brain health. On top of
this, burning wood produces more carbon dioxide than coal or gas."

Ed P wrote:

> We discussed wood burning recently and I found this today

> https://www.thecooldown.com/green-home/wood-burning-campaign-hertfordshire-county-council/

> Wood fireplaces and stoves may have a beloved place in our culture, but
> they also play an unfortunate role in pollution. In the United Kingdom,
> the BBC reported that they're responsible for 27% of PM2.5 pollution
> (meaning fine particle pollution with pieces less than 2.5 microns across).

> That's a problem because PM2.5 pollution is strongly linked to cancer
> and premature death. Too much smoke — even from a simple wood fire — is
> as bad as smoking cigarettes.

> Tessa Bartholomew-Good, head of campaigns for clean air at Global Action
> Plan, told the BBC: "The uncomfortable truth is lighting fires in our
> homes is the largest source of small particle air pollution in the UK,
> causing serious harm to our lung, heart and brain health. On top of
> this, burning wood produces more carbon dioxide than coal or gas."

"Global Action Plan" = still another one of the useless dopey "The sky is FALLING...!!!" climate "scare" groups...

I'd love to see her in person - I'd tie to her a chair and smoke a pack of Camel straights RIGHT into the stupid bint's face, lol...!!!

<laffin'>

--
GM

On 3/22/2024 1:25 PM, GM wrote:
> Ed P wrote:
>
>> We discussed wood burning recently and I found this today
>
>
>> https://www.thecooldown.com/green-home/wood-burning-campaign-hertfordshire-county-council/
>
>> Wood fireplaces and stoves may have a beloved place in our culture,
>> but they also play an unfortunate role in pollution. In the United
>> Kingdom, the BBC reported that they're responsible for 27% of PM2.5
>> pollution (meaning fine particle pollution with pieces less than 2.5
>> microns across).
>
>> That's a problem because PM2.5 pollution is strongly linked to cancer
>> and premature death. Too much smoke — even from a simple wood fire —
>> is as bad as smoking cigarettes.
>
>> Tessa Bartholomew-Good, head of campaigns for clean air at Global
>> Action Plan, told the BBC: "The uncomfortable truth is lighting fires
>> in our homes is the largest source of small particle air pollution in
>> the UK, causing serious harm to our lung, heart and brain health. On
>> top of this, burning wood produces more carbon dioxide than coal or gas."
>
>
> "Global Action Plan" = still another one of the useless dopey "The sky
> is FALLING...!!!" climate "scare" groups...
>
> I'd love to see her in person - I'd tie to her a chair and smoke a pack
> of Camel straights RIGHT into the stupid bint's face, lol...!!!
>
> <laffin'>
>

Don't you just hate it when actual science does not agree with your fantasy?

On 3/22/2024 12:09 PM, Ed P wrote:
> We discussed wood burning recently and I found this today
>
>
> https://www.thecooldown.com/green-home/wood-burning-campaign-hertfordshire-county-council/
>
>
> Wood fireplaces and stoves may have a beloved place in our culture, but
> they also play an unfortunate role in pollution. In the United Kingdom,
> the BBC reported that they're responsible for 27% of PM2.5 pollution
> (meaning fine particle pollution with pieces less than 2.5 microns across).
>
> That's a problem because PM2.5 pollution is strongly linked to cancer
> and premature death. Too much smoke — even from a simple wood fire — is
> as bad as smoking cigarettes.
>
> Tessa Bartholomew-Good, head of campaigns for clean air at Global Action
> Plan, told the BBC: "The uncomfortable truth is lighting fires in our
> homes is the largest source of small particle air pollution in the UK,
> causing serious harm to our lung, heart and brain health. On top of
> this, burning wood produces more carbon dioxide than coal or gas."

Yes , and global warming is real . The real reason they want to get
rid of wood burners is because they can't turn off your heat like they
can electric .
(INCOMING!)
--
Snag
"They may take our lives but
they'll never take our freedom."
William Wallace

Snag wrote:

> On 3/22/2024 12:09 PM, Ed P wrote:
>> We discussed wood burning recently and I found this today
>>
>>
>> https://www.thecooldown.com/green-home/wood-burning-campaign-hertfordshire-county-council/
>>
>>
>> Wood fireplaces and stoves may have a beloved place in our culture, but
>> they also play an unfortunate role in pollution. In the United Kingdom,
>> the BBC reported that they're responsible for 27% of PM2.5 pollution
>> (meaning fine particle pollution with pieces less than 2.5 microns across).
>>
>> That's a problem because PM2.5 pollution is strongly linked to cancer
>> and premature death. Too much smoke — even from a simple wood fire — is
>> as bad as smoking cigarettes.
>>
>> Tessa Bartholomew-Good, head of campaigns for clean air at Global Action
>> Plan, told the BBC: "The uncomfortable truth is lighting fires in our
>> homes is the largest source of small particle air pollution in the UK,
>> causing serious harm to our lung, heart and brain health. On top of
>> this, burning wood produces more carbon dioxide than coal or gas."

> Yes , and global warming is real . The real reason they want to get
> rid of wood burners is because they can't turn off your heat like they
> can electric .
> (INCOMING!)

Yup...

Wood is *still* a major fuel in many poor Third World places, e.g. sub - Saharan Africa, Haiti, etc....

BUT the Climate Change Buffoons want to deny these poor places the use of fossil fuels, which would jump - start their economies and change their standards of living for the better...

In the future, the whole present "Climate Change" schtick will be laughed at as quackery, same as we laugh at medieval alchemy, those who claimed the Earth was "flat", and that Earth was the "center" of the universe...

--
GM

On 3/22/2024 3:57 PM, Ed P wrote:
> On 3/22/2024 1:25 PM, GM wrote:
>> Ed P wrote:
>>
>>> We discussed wood burning recently and I found this today
>>
>>
>>> https://www.thecooldown.com/green-home/wood-burning-campaign-hertfordshire-county-council/
>>
>>> Wood fireplaces and stoves may have a beloved place in our culture,
>>> but they also play an unfortunate role in pollution. In the United
>>> Kingdom, the BBC reported that they're responsible for 27% of PM2.5
>>> pollution (meaning fine particle pollution with pieces less than 2.5
>>> microns across).
>>
>>> That's a problem because PM2.5 pollution is strongly linked to cancer
>>> and premature death. Too much smoke — even from a simple wood fire —
>>> is as bad as smoking cigarettes.
>>
>>> Tessa Bartholomew-Good, head of campaigns for clean air at Global
>>> Action Plan, told the BBC: "The uncomfortable truth is lighting fires
>>> in our homes is the largest source of small particle air pollution in
>>> the UK, causing serious harm to our lung, heart and brain health. On
>>> top of this, burning wood produces more carbon dioxide than coal or
>>> gas."
>>
>>
>> "Global Action Plan" = still another one of the useless dopey "The sky
>> is FALLING...!!!" climate "scare" groups...
>>
>> I'd love to see her in person - I'd tie to her a chair and smoke a
>> pack of Camel straights RIGHT into the stupid bint's face, lol...!!!
>>
>> <laffin'>
>>
>
>
> Don't you just hate it when actual science does not agree with your
> fantasy?

Typical GM trolling bullshit. "I'd love to see her in person - I'd tie
to her a chair and smoke a pack of Camel straights RIGHT into the stupid
bint's face, lol...!!!"

Jill

Ed P wrote:

> On 3/22/2024 1:25 PM, GM wrote:
>> Ed P wrote:
>>
>>> We discussed wood burning recently and I found this today
>>
>>
>>> https://www.thecooldown.com/green-home/wood-burning-campaign-hertfordshire-county-council/
>>
>>> Wood fireplaces and stoves may have a beloved place in our culture,
>>> but they also play an unfortunate role in pollution. In the United
>>> Kingdom, the BBC reported that they're responsible for 27% of PM2.5
>>> pollution (meaning fine particle pollution with pieces less than 2.5
>>> microns across).
>>
>>> That's a problem because PM2.5 pollution is strongly linked to cancer
>>> and premature death. Too much smoke — even from a simple wood fire —
>>> is as bad as smoking cigarettes.
>>
>>> Tessa Bartholomew-Good, head of campaigns for clean air at Global
>>> Action Plan, told the BBC: "The uncomfortable truth is lighting fires
>>> in our homes is the largest source of small particle air pollution in
>>> the UK, causing serious harm to our lung, heart and brain health. On
>>> top of this, burning wood produces more carbon dioxide than coal or gas."
>>
>>
>> "Global Action Plan" = still another one of the useless dopey "The sky
>> is FALLING...!!!" climate "scare" groups...
>>
>> I'd love to see her in person - I'd tie to her a chair and smoke a pack
>> of Camel straights RIGHT into the stupid bint's face, lol...!!!
>>
>> <laffin'>
>>

> Don't you just hate it when actual science does not agree with your fantasy?

Depends on who is *paying* for the "actual science", Ed...

--
GM

jmcquown wrote:

> On 3/22/2024 3:57 PM, Ed P wrote:
>> On 3/22/2024 1:25 PM, GM wrote:
>>> Ed P wrote:
>>>
>>>> We discussed wood burning recently and I found this today
>>>
>>>
>>>> https://www.thecooldown.com/green-home/wood-burning-campaign-hertfordshire-county-council/
>>>
>>>> Wood fireplaces and stoves may have a beloved place in our culture,
>>>> but they also play an unfortunate role in pollution. In the United
>>>> Kingdom, the BBC reported that they're responsible for 27% of PM2.5
>>>> pollution (meaning fine particle pollution with pieces less than 2.5
>>>> microns across).
>>>
>>>> That's a problem because PM2.5 pollution is strongly linked to cancer
>>>> and premature death. Too much smoke — even from a simple wood fire —
>>>> is as bad as smoking cigarettes.
>>>
>>>> Tessa Bartholomew-Good, head of campaigns for clean air at Global
>>>> Action Plan, told the BBC: "The uncomfortable truth is lighting fires
>>>> in our homes is the largest source of small particle air pollution in
>>>> the UK, causing serious harm to our lung, heart and brain health. On
>>>> top of this, burning wood produces more carbon dioxide than coal or
>>>> gas."
>>>
>>>
>>> "Global Action Plan" = still another one of the useless dopey "The sky
>>> is FALLING...!!!" climate "scare" groups...
>>>
>>> I'd love to see her in person - I'd tie to her a chair and smoke a
>>> pack of Camel straights RIGHT into the stupid bint's face, lol...!!!
>>>
>>> <laffin'>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Don't you just hate it when actual science does not agree with your
>> fantasy?

> Typical GM trolling bullshit. "I'd love to see her in person - I'd tie
> to her a chair and smoke a pack of Camel straights RIGHT into the stupid
> bint's face, lol...!!!"

> Jill

Princess Jill is just deeply disappointed that it would be *Tessa Bartholomew-Good* in that chair, and not *her*, lol...

--
GM

On 3/22/2024 4:26 PM, GM wrote:
> Ed P wrote:
>
>> On 3/22/2024 1:25 PM, GM wrote:
>>> Ed P wrote:
>>>
>>>> We discussed wood burning recently and I found this today
>>>
>>>
>>>> https://www.thecooldown.com/green-home/wood-burning-campaign-hertfordshire-county-council/
>>>
>>>> Wood fireplaces and stoves may have a beloved place in our culture,
>>>> but they also play an unfortunate role in pollution. In the United
>>>> Kingdom, the BBC reported that they're responsible for 27% of PM2.5
>>>> pollution (meaning fine particle pollution with pieces less than 2.5
>>>> microns across).
>>>
>>>> That's a problem because PM2.5 pollution is strongly linked to
>>>> cancer and premature death. Too much smoke — even from a simple wood
>>>> fire — is as bad as smoking cigarettes.
>>>
>>>> Tessa Bartholomew-Good, head of campaigns for clean air at Global
>>>> Action Plan, told the BBC: "The uncomfortable truth is lighting
>>>> fires in our homes is the largest source of small particle air
>>>> pollution in the UK, causing serious harm to our lung, heart and
>>>> brain health. On top of this, burning wood produces more carbon
>>>> dioxide than coal or gas."
>>>
>>>
>>> "Global Action Plan" = still another one of the useless dopey "The
>>> sky is FALLING...!!!" climate "scare" groups...
>>>
>>> I'd love to see her in person - I'd tie to her a chair and smoke a
>>> pack of Camel straights RIGHT into the stupid bint's face, lol...!!!
>>>
>>> <laffin'>
>>>
>
>
>> Don't you just hate it when actual science does not agree with your
>> fantasy?
>
>
> Depends on who is *paying* for the "actual science", Ed...
>

Plenty of good science. How about some common sense? Globally, we burn
100 million tons of fossil fuel every day. You don't think that has
some effect after a hundred years?

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:08:12 -0500, Snag <Snag_one@msn.com> wrote:

>On 3/22/2024 12:09 PM, Ed P wrote:
>
> Yes , and global warming is real . The real reason they want to get
>rid of wood burners is because they can't turn off your heat like they
>can electric .

"They" is the socialists? You need help, man.

Ed P wrote:

> On 3/22/2024 4:26 PM, GM wrote:
>> Ed P wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/22/2024 1:25 PM, GM wrote:
>>>> Ed P wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We discussed wood burning recently and I found this today
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.thecooldown.com/green-home/wood-burning-campaign-hertfordshire-county-council/
>>>>
>>>>> Wood fireplaces and stoves may have a beloved place in our culture,
>>>>> but they also play an unfortunate role in pollution. In the United
>>>>> Kingdom, the BBC reported that they're responsible for 27% of PM2.5
>>>>> pollution (meaning fine particle pollution with pieces less than 2.5
>>>>> microns across).
>>>>
>>>>> That's a problem because PM2.5 pollution is strongly linked to
>>>>> cancer and premature death. Too much smoke — even from a simple wood
>>>>> fire — is as bad as smoking cigarettes.
>>>>
>>>>> Tessa Bartholomew-Good, head of campaigns for clean air at Global
>>>>> Action Plan, told the BBC: "The uncomfortable truth is lighting
>>>>> fires in our homes is the largest source of small particle air
>>>>> pollution in the UK, causing serious harm to our lung, heart and
>>>>> brain health. On top of this, burning wood produces more carbon
>>>>> dioxide than coal or gas."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Global Action Plan" = still another one of the useless dopey "The
>>>> sky is FALLING...!!!" climate "scare" groups...
>>>>
>>>> I'd love to see her in person - I'd tie to her a chair and smoke a
>>>> pack of Camel straights RIGHT into the stupid bint's face, lol...!!!
>>>>
>>>> <laffin'>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>> Don't you just hate it when actual science does not agree with your
>>> fantasy?
>>
>>
>> Depends on who is *paying* for the "actual science", Ed...
>>

> Plenty of good science. How about some common sense? Globally, we burn
> 100 million tons of fossil fuel every day. You don't think that has
> some effect after a hundred years?

What do you mean by "effect"...???

IMNSHO the "effect" is quite excellent - the world is a *far* richer place than 100 years ago... and that is 100% due do the use of fossil fuels...

Because of fossil fuels, hundreds of millions have better and longer and healthier lives... every advance in modern science and technology has been made possible *only* with the use of fossil fuels...

These five "cornerstones" of our modern era, which started to be used around 1900 and then really accelerated by the 1920's are:

- the internal combustion engine

- modern chemistry

- modern telecommunications

- modern sanitation (clean water, sewage...)

- cheap and abundant electrical power

Many thousands of people around the world just ****today**** grew out of dire poverty (whicn is defined by the UN as an income of less than $2.00 per day), and they grew out of that poverty via the use of fossil fuels to obtain fertizer for their crops, electricity and clean water, modern transportation and communication, etcetera...

But Ed, we *all* know you consume *no* fossil fuels - ***right***...???

<chuckle>

Seriously, Ed, I'd suggest you do some background reading on how modern technology came to be...

--
GM

Snag wrote:
> On 3/22/2024 12:09 PM, Ed P wrote:
>> We discussed wood burning recently and I found this today
>>
>>
>> https://www.thecooldown.com/green-home/wood-burning-campaign-hertfordshire-county-council/
>>
>>
>> Wood fireplaces and stoves may have a beloved place in our culture, but
>> they also play an unfortunate role in pollution. In the United Kingdom,
>> the BBC reported that they're responsible for 27% of PM2.5 pollution
>> (meaning fine particle pollution with pieces less than 2.5 microns across).
>>
>> That's a problem because PM2.5 pollution is strongly linked to cancer and
>> premature death. Too much smoke — even from a simple wood fire — is
>> as bad as smoking cigarettes.
>>
>> Tessa Bartholomew-Good, head of campaigns for clean air at Global Action
>> Plan, told the BBC: "The uncomfortable truth is lighting fires in our
>> homes is the largest source of small particle air pollution in the UK,
>> causing serious harm to our lung, heart and brain health. On top of this,
>> burning wood produces more carbon dioxide than coal or gas."
>
>   Yes , and global warming is real . The real reason they want to get rid
> of wood burners is because they can't turn off your heat like they can
> electric .
> (INCOMING!)

"They" are out to get us!

On 2024-03-22, Snag <Snag_one@msn.com> wrote:
> On 3/22/2024 12:09 PM, Ed P wrote:
>> We discussed wood burning recently and I found this today
>>
>>
>> https://www.thecooldown.com/green-home/wood-burning-campaign-hertfordshire-county-council/
>>
>>
>> Wood fireplaces and stoves may have a beloved place in our culture, but
>> they also play an unfortunate role in pollution. In the United Kingdom,
>> the BBC reported that they're responsible for 27% of PM2.5 pollution
>> (meaning fine particle pollution with pieces less than 2.5 microns across).
>>
>> That's a problem because PM2.5 pollution is strongly linked to cancer
>> and premature death. Too much smoke — even from a simple wood fire — is
>> as bad as smoking cigarettes.
>>
>> Tessa Bartholomew-Good, head of campaigns for clean air at Global Action
>> Plan, told the BBC: "The uncomfortable truth is lighting fires in our
>> homes is the largest source of small particle air pollution in the UK,
>> causing serious harm to our lung, heart and brain health. On top of
>> this, burning wood produces more carbon dioxide than coal or gas."
>
> Yes , and global warming is real . The real reason they want to get
> rid of wood burners is because they can't turn off your heat like they
> can electric .
> (INCOMING!)

Who is "they" ?

--
Cindy Hamilton

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On 2024-03-22, Snag <Snag_one@msn.com> wrote:
>> On 3/22/2024 12:09 PM, Ed P wrote:
>>> We discussed wood burning recently and I found this today
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.thecooldown.com/green-home/wood-burning-campaign-hertfordshire-county-council/
>>>
>>>
>>> Wood fireplaces and stoves may have a beloved place in our culture, but
>>> they also play an unfortunate role in pollution. In the United Kingdom,
>>> the BBC reported that they're responsible for 27% of PM2.5 pollution
>>> (meaning fine particle pollution with pieces less than 2.5 microns across).
>>>
>>> That's a problem because PM2.5 pollution is strongly linked to cancer
>>> and premature death. Too much smoke — even from a simple wood fire — is
>>> as bad as smoking cigarettes.
>>>
>>> Tessa Bartholomew-Good, head of campaigns for clean air at Global Action
>>> Plan, told the BBC: "The uncomfortable truth is lighting fires in our
>>> homes is the largest source of small particle air pollution in the UK,
>>> causing serious harm to our lung, heart and brain health. On top of
>>> this, burning wood produces more carbon dioxide than coal or gas."
>>
>> Yes , and global warming is real . The real reason they want to get
>> rid of wood burners is because they can't turn off your heat like they
>> can electric .
>> (INCOMING!)
>
> Who is "they" ?
>

The same people that command those jewish space laser weapons, silly.

On 22 Mar 2024 21:52:32 GMT, Cindy Hamilton <hamilton@invalid.com>
wrote:

>On 2024-03-22, Snag <Snag_one@msn.com> wrote:
>> On 3/22/2024 12:09 PM, Ed P wrote:
>>> We discussed wood burning recently and I found this today
>>>
>>> https://www.thecooldown.com/green-home/wood-burning-campaign-hertfordshire-county-council/
>>>
>>> Wood fireplaces and stoves may have a beloved place in our culture, but
>>> they also play an unfortunate role in pollution. In the United Kingdom,
>>> the BBC reported that they're responsible for 27% of PM2.5 pollution
>>> (meaning fine particle pollution with pieces less than 2.5 microns across).
>>>
>>> That's a problem because PM2.5 pollution is strongly linked to cancer
>>> and premature death. Too much smoke — even from a simple wood fire — is
>>> as bad as smoking cigarettes.
>>>
>>> Tessa Bartholomew-Good, head of campaigns for clean air at Global Action
>>> Plan, told the BBC: "The uncomfortable truth is lighting fires in our
>>> homes is the largest source of small particle air pollution in the UK,
>>> causing serious harm to our lung, heart and brain health. On top of
>>> this, burning wood produces more carbon dioxide than coal or gas."
>>
>> Yes , and global warming is real . The real reason they want to get
>> rid of wood burners is because they can't turn off your heat like they
>> can electric .
>> (INCOMING!)
>
>Who is "they" ?

The voices in his head, probably.

On 3/22/2024 5:21 PM, GM wrote:
> Ed P wrote:
>
>> On 3/22/2024 4:26 PM, GM wrote:
>>> Ed P wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/22/2024 1:25 PM, GM wrote:
>>>>> Ed P wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We discussed wood burning recently and I found this today
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.thecooldown.com/green-home/wood-burning-campaign-hertfordshire-county-council/
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wood fireplaces and stoves may have a beloved place in our
>>>>>> culture, but they also play an unfortunate role in pollution. In
>>>>>> the United Kingdom, the BBC reported that they're responsible for
>>>>>> 27% of PM2.5 pollution (meaning fine particle pollution with
>>>>>> pieces less than 2.5 microns across).
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a problem because PM2.5 pollution is strongly linked to
>>>>>> cancer and premature death. Too much smoke — even from a simple
>>>>>> wood fire — is as bad as smoking cigarettes.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tessa Bartholomew-Good, head of campaigns for clean air at Global
>>>>>> Action Plan, told the BBC: "The uncomfortable truth is lighting
>>>>>> fires in our homes is the largest source of small particle air
>>>>>> pollution in the UK, causing serious harm to our lung, heart and
>>>>>> brain health. On top of this, burning wood produces more carbon
>>>>>> dioxide than coal or gas."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Global Action Plan" = still another one of the useless dopey "The
>>>>> sky is FALLING...!!!" climate "scare" groups...
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd love to see her in person - I'd tie to her a chair and smoke a
>>>>> pack of Camel straights RIGHT into the stupid bint's face, lol...!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> <laffin'>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Don't you just hate it when actual science does not agree with your
>>>> fantasy?
>>>
>>>
>>> Depends on who is *paying* for the "actual science", Ed...
>>>
>
>> Plenty of good science.  How about some common sense?  Globally, we
>> burn 100 million tons of fossil fuel every day.  You don't think that
>> has some effect after a hundred years?
>
> What do you mean by "effect"...???
>
> IMNSHO the "effect" is quite excellent - the world is a *far* richer
> place than 100 years ago... and that is 100% due do the use of fossil
> fuels...
>
> Because of fossil fuels, hundreds of millions have better and longer and
> healthier lives... every advance in modern science and technology has
> been made possible *only* with the use of fossil fuels...
>
> These five "cornerstones" of our modern era, which started to be used
> around 1900 and then really accelerated by the 1920's are:
>
> - the internal combustion engine
>
> - modern chemistry
>
> - modern telecommunications
>
> - modern sanitation (clean water, sewage...)
>
> - cheap and abundant electrical power
>
> Many thousands of people around the world just ****today**** grew out of
> dire poverty (whicn is defined by the UN as an income of less than $2.00
> per day), and they grew out of that poverty via the use of fossil fuels
> to obtain fertizer for their crops, electricity and clean water, modern
> transportation and communication, etcetera...
> But Ed, we *all* know you consume *no* fossil fuels - ***right***...???
>
> <chuckle>
>
> Seriously, Ed, I'd suggest you do some background reading on how modern
> technology came to be...
>

I know how technology came to be, but I also know the consequences of
it. Cause and effect. Has been that way since the beginning of time.

It has been a great ride, now it is time to look at better ways,
healthier ways. Way to extend the life of finite materials. Can you
imagine a work with no oil? No plastics? No jet planes?

Now is the time to figure it out.

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, GM wrote:

> Ed P wrote:
>
>> We discussed wood burning recently and I found this today
>
>
>> https://www.thecooldown.com/green-home/wood-burning-campaign-hertfordshire-county-council/
>
>> Wood fireplaces and stoves may have a beloved place in our culture, but
>> they also play an unfortunate role in pollution. In the United Kingdom, the
>> BBC reported that they're responsible for 27% of PM2.5 pollution (meaning
>> fine particle pollution with pieces less than 2.5 microns across).
>
>> That's a problem because PM2.5 pollution is strongly linked to cancer and
>> premature death. Too much smoke — even from a simple wood fire — is as bad
>> as smoking cigarettes.
>
>> Tessa Bartholomew-Good, head of campaigns for clean air at Global Action
>> Plan, told the BBC: "The uncomfortable truth is lighting fires in our homes
>> is the largest source of small particle air pollution in the UK, causing
>> serious harm to our lung, heart and brain health. On top of this, burning
>> wood produces more carbon dioxide than coal or gas."
>
>
> "Global Action Plan" = still another one of the useless dopey "The sky is
> FALLING...!!!" climate "scare" groups...
>
> I'd love to see her in person - I'd tie to her a chair and smoke a pack of
> Camel straights RIGHT into the stupid bint's face, lol...!!!
>
> <laffin'>
>
>

I can also add the anecdotal evidence that despite cars and fireplaces in
our homes the average life span on the planet has been increasing steadily
over the last 200 years.

I usually tell all people who are afraid of particles to move to Alaska,
and that particles is the price we pay for the convenience of living in a
modern city with modern technology.

I'll take my fire place and car any day over the tiny amount of particles
they might emit. =)

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, GM wrote:

> Snag wrote:
>
>> On 3/22/2024 12:09 PM, Ed P wrote:
>>> We discussed wood burning recently and I found this today
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.thecooldown.com/green-home/wood-burning-campaign-hertfordshire-county-council/
>>>
>>> Wood fireplaces and stoves may have a beloved place in our culture, but
>>> they also play an unfortunate role in pollution. In the United Kingdom,
>>> the BBC reported that they're responsible for 27% of PM2.5 pollution
>>> (meaning fine particle pollution with pieces less than 2.5 microns
>>> across).
>>>
>>> That's a problem because PM2.5 pollution is strongly linked to cancer and
>>> premature death. Too much smoke — even from a simple wood fire — is as bad
>>> as smoking cigarettes.
>>>
>>> Tessa Bartholomew-Good, head of campaigns for clean air at Global Action
>>> Plan, told the BBC: "The uncomfortable truth is lighting fires in our
>>> homes is the largest source of small particle air pollution in the UK,
>>> causing serious harm to our lung, heart and brain health. On top of this,
>>> burning wood produces more carbon dioxide than coal or gas."
>
>> Yes , and global warming is real . The real reason they want to get rid
>> of wood burners is because they can't turn off your heat like they can
>> electric .
>> (INCOMING!)
>
>
> Yup...
>
> Wood is *still* a major fuel in many poor Third World places, e.g. sub -
> Saharan Africa, Haiti, etc....
>
> BUT the Climate Change Buffoons want to deny these poor places the use of
> fossil fuels, which would jump - start their economies and change their
> standards of living for the better...
>
> In the future, the whole present "Climate Change" schtick will be laughed at
> as quackery, same as we laugh at medieval alchemy, those who claimed the
> Earth was "flat", and that Earth was the "center" of the universe...
>

True. Sadly the politicians will just change their opinion over night and
never admit to the quckery and power grabs, and just find another hysteria
to whip up.

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, Ed P wrote:

> On 3/22/2024 4:26 PM, GM wrote:
>> Ed P wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/22/2024 1:25 PM, GM wrote:
>>>> Ed P wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We discussed wood burning recently and I found this today
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.thecooldown.com/green-home/wood-burning-campaign-hertfordshire-county-council/
>>>>
>>>>> Wood fireplaces and stoves may have a beloved place in our culture, but
>>>>> they also play an unfortunate role in pollution. In the United Kingdom,
>>>>> the BBC reported that they're responsible for 27% of PM2.5 pollution
>>>>> (meaning fine particle pollution with pieces less than 2.5 microns
>>>>> across).
>>>>
>>>>> That's a problem because PM2.5 pollution is strongly linked to cancer
>>>>> and premature death. Too much smoke — even from a simple wood fire — is
>>>>> as bad as smoking cigarettes.
>>>>
>>>>> Tessa Bartholomew-Good, head of campaigns for clean air at Global Action
>>>>> Plan, told the BBC: "The uncomfortable truth is lighting fires in our
>>>>> homes is the largest source of small particle air pollution in the UK,
>>>>> causing serious harm to our lung, heart and brain health. On top of
>>>>> this, burning wood produces more carbon dioxide than coal or gas."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Global Action Plan" = still another one of the useless dopey "The sky is
>>>> FALLING...!!!" climate "scare" groups...
>>>>
>>>> I'd love to see her in person - I'd tie to her a chair and smoke a pack
>>>> of Camel straights RIGHT into the stupid bint's face, lol...!!!
>>>>
>>>> <laffin'>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>> Don't you just hate it when actual science does not agree with your
>>> fantasy?
>>
>>
>> Depends on who is *paying* for the "actual science", Ed...
>>
>
> Plenty of good science. How about some common sense? Globally, we burn 100
> million tons of fossil fuel every day. You don't think that has some effect
> after a hundred years?
>

And please remember that it is estimated that the Earth receives 430
exajoules of energy from the Sun every hour.

Add to that that gasoline has an energy content of 43.5 to 47 gigajoules
per ton (LHV) or 47.3 gigajoules per ton (HHV). Therefore, 100 million tons
of gasoline would contain between 4.35 and 4.7 exajoules of energy.

So the amount of energy from the sun that hits us is about 100x more than
the energy content of the fossil fuel we burn.

Would that have any effect at all on the climate?

On Sat, 23 Mar 2024, Bruce wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:08:12 -0500, Snag <Snag_one@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/22/2024 12:09 PM, Ed P wrote:
>>
>> Yes , and global warming is real . The real reason they want to get
>> rid of wood burners is because they can't turn off your heat like they
>> can electric .
>
> "They" is the socialists? You need help, man.
>

Thank you Bruce and welcome to the team! ;)

On 3/22/2024 3:57 PM, Ed P wrote:
> On 3/22/2024 4:26 PM, GM wrote:
>> Ed P wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/22/2024 1:25 PM, GM wrote:
>>>> Ed P wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We discussed wood burning recently and I found this today
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.thecooldown.com/green-home/wood-burning-campaign-hertfordshire-county-council/
>>>>
>>>>> Wood fireplaces and stoves may have a beloved place in our culture,
>>>>> but they also play an unfortunate role in pollution. In the United
>>>>> Kingdom, the BBC reported that they're responsible for 27% of PM2.5
>>>>> pollution (meaning fine particle pollution with pieces less than
>>>>> 2.5 microns across).
>>>>
>>>>> That's a problem because PM2.5 pollution is strongly linked to
>>>>> cancer and premature death. Too much smoke — even from a simple
>>>>> wood fire — is as bad as smoking cigarettes.
>
This concerns me because I grill over wood fires quite a bit, and am
exposed to wood smoke by campfires, but I already knew it, and try to
avoid the smoke when I can.
>>>>
>>>>> Tessa Bartholomew-Good, head of campaigns for clean air at Global
>>>>> Action Plan, told the BBC: "The uncomfortable truth is lighting
>>>>> fires in our homes is the largest source of small particle air
>>>>> pollution in the UK, causing serious harm to our lung, heart and
>>>>> brain health. On top of this, burning wood produces more carbon
>>>>> dioxide than coal or gas."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Global Action Plan" = still another one of the useless dopey "The
>>>> sky is FALLING...!!!" climate "scare" groups...
>>>>
>>>> I'd love to see her in person - I'd tie to her a chair and smoke a
>>>> pack of Camel straights RIGHT into the stupid bint's face, lol...!!!
>>>>
>>>> <laffin'>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>> Don't you just hate it when actual science does not agree with your
>>> fantasy?
>>
GM only cares about fascism (he's in favor of it). The fascists (they
call themselves conservatives) deny climate change.
>>
>> Depends on who is *paying* for the "actual science", Ed...
>>
>
> Plenty of good science.  How about some common sense?  Globally, we burn
> 100 million tons of fossil fuel every day.  You don't think that has
> some effect after a hundred years?
>
BUT, wood is not a fossil fuel. If heating one's home with wood instead
of fossil fuel, one is reducing fossil fuel use. When the wood breaks
down over years by the action of fungi and bacteria, the carbon dioxide
mostly ends up in the atmosphere. Speaking of fungi breaking down wood,
this week I put in a mushroom bed with wood mulch and wheat straw,
inoculated with wine cap spawn. Now I wait, and water as needed.

--
--Bryan
For your safety and protection, this sig. has been thoroughly
tested on laboratory animals.

"Most of the food described here is nauseating.
We're just too courteous to say so."
-- Cindy Hamilton

On 2024-03-23, D wrote:

> This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
> while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
> --8323328-223592479-1711192229=:7701
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT

Is there any way you can get rid of this text that shows in ALL your posts?

> True. Sadly the politicians will just [...]
> and just find another hysteria to whip up.

The 'Greys'. All the politicos are waiting for them
to do something easy for us to misinterpret.

On 2024-03-23, D wrote:

> So the amount of energy from the sun that hits us is about
> 100x more than the energy content of the fossil fuel we burn.

> Would that have any effect at all on the climate?

Your climate 'model' ignores that the sun does not put
methane & carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Also, heat from tidal friction is about 10 * insolation,
and heat from radionucleide decay about 10 * tidal friction.

On 2024-03-23, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
> I usually tell all people who are afraid of particles to move to Alaska,

There are plenty of particles in Alaska.

https://dec.alaska.gov/air/anpms/communities/fbks-pm2-5-background

We had some horrific particulate counts last summer from the Canadian
wildfires. I think I'd rather do without particles.

--
Cindy Hamilton

On 3/23/2024 7:00 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, GM wrote:
>
>> Ed P wrote:
>>
>>> We discussed wood burning recently and I found this today
>>
>>
>>> https://www.thecooldown.com/green-home/wood-burning-campaign-hertfordshire-county-council/
>>
>>> Wood fireplaces and stoves may have a beloved place in our culture,
>>> but they also play an unfortunate role in pollution. In the United
>>> Kingdom, the BBC reported that they're responsible for 27% of PM2.5
>>> pollution (meaning fine particle pollution with pieces less than 2.5
>>> microns across).
>>
>>> That's a problem because PM2.5 pollution is strongly linked to cancer
>>> and premature death. Too much smoke — even from a simple wood fire —
>>> is as bad as smoking cigarettes.
>>
>>> Tessa Bartholomew-Good, head of campaigns for clean air at Global
>>> Action Plan, told the BBC: "The uncomfortable truth is lighting fires
>>> in our homes is the largest source of small particle air pollution in
>>> the UK, causing serious harm to our lung, heart and brain health. On
>>> top of this, burning wood produces more carbon dioxide than coal or
>>> gas."
>>
>>
>> "Global Action Plan" = still another one of the useless dopey "The sky
>> is FALLING...!!!" climate "scare" groups...
>>
>> I'd love to see her in person - I'd tie to her a chair and smoke a
>> pack of Camel straights RIGHT into the stupid bint's face, lol...!!!
>>
>> <laffin'>
>>
>>
>
> I can also add the anecdotal evidence that despite cars and fireplaces
> in our homes the average life span on the planet has been increasing
> steadily over the last 200 years.
>
> I usually tell all people who are afraid of particles to move to Alaska,
> and that particles is the price we pay for the convenience of living in
> a modern city with modern technology.
>
> I'll take my fire place and car any day over the tiny amount of
> particles they might emit. =)

Sure, not everyone gets lung cancer and you can live with asthma using
an inhaler