Forum Home  |  What's Going On  |  In The News

we have met the enemy, and he is us

by tacoma1
on 3/3/2011 @ 8:44am
btw, the above quote is from the great american philosopher, Pogo.

Once again, our air quality comes up short. We apparently only have ourselves to blame.

by NineInchNachos on 3/3/2011 @ 9:07am
the enemy of my enemy is my friend... but if the enemy is us... uh.. we're so sewed

by fredo on 3/3/2011 @ 9:18am
Yes the air is bad, too many people.

Yet we keep giving free food, free utilities, free medical care, free rent, subsidized transportation, driver's licenses and other benefits to illegals and others and then express surprise when problems associated with overpopulation occur. As tacoma1 noted: we have met the enemy and he is us.

by Mofo from the Hood on 3/3/2011 @ 9:23am
We have met the enemy and it is Dumbacrats.

They know better than us how to spend our money taken through taxation.

by tacoma1 on 3/3/2011 @ 9:27am
fredo and mofo have points, not very good points................but they do have points. Some how I think its just the wood smoke.

If it was overpopulation or dumbacrats, Seattle's air quality would be worse than ours. They've got more of both.

by tacoma1 on 3/3/2011 @ 9:28am
It's kinda odd that any discussion about air quality instantly becomes political. Don't teabaggers breathe air too?

by fredo on 3/3/2011 @ 9:31am
Obviously, there's only one way to address our smokey air. We need to pass a new tax so that we will have funds to install new furnaces in the homes of all the poor people and pay their utility bills. And this new policy will not attract more poor people to our area.

by Jesse on 3/3/2011 @ 9:35am
Poor people + old drafty houses + real fireplaces + cheap or free wood on the Peninsula + higher and higher energy costs = Lots of wood stoves.

Go chop wood and use the wood stove to heat the house instead of paying a big electric bill. Use savings to feed family.


Be socially responsible and use electricity to heat the house but we will be spending a lot less on necessities each month.


by Mofo from the Hood on 3/3/2011 @ 9:41am
More taxes = More overpaid public sector employees = More entitlement programs.

by NineInchNachos on 3/3/2011 @ 9:42am
Mofo and Fredo are you guys smokers right?

by tacoma1 on 3/3/2011 @ 9:45am
Where I live, I have lots of well off neighbors...........their chimneys are constantly smoking like,,,,,well like chimneys. It's not just the poor people's fault. The shaved ape in the morning mirror putting on a suit and tie has some explaining to do too.

by fredo on 3/3/2011 @ 9:49am
"Where I live, I have lots of well off neighbors...........their chimneys are constantly smoking like,,,,,well like chimneys"

Could you post pictures of these homes which apparently show upper income scofflaws? Please use a resolution high enough that we can make out the addresses.

by Mofo from the Hood on 3/3/2011 @ 9:51am
Little known Tacoma ordinance:

Wood burning stoves are not allowed in public parks.

by tacoma1 on 3/3/2011 @ 9:53am
fredo, my guess is that if I did, we would see your house.

btw, Jesse, I consider clean air to breathe one of my basic necessities.

by fredo on 3/3/2011 @ 9:57am
Just giving you an opportunity tacoma1 to back up your assertion that the air pollution problem is linked to the rich people in your neighborhood.

by tacoma1 on 3/3/2011 @ 10:01am
Ok fredo, you win. Its the brown peoples fault. Lets round em all up at night and put them on a train to Portland. That'll solve the problem.

Or then of course, maybe the problem is just the wood smoke.

by Jesse on 3/3/2011 @ 10:03am
I'm sure there are rich people using their fireplaces too. Anytime you make general blanket statements, there are going to be exceptions.

"btw, Jesse, I consider clean air to breathe one of my basic necessities." tacoma1

More than heat or feeding your family? Because that is the real world decision these poor people are making.

Don't eat for the next two days and get back to me on that one.

by Jesse on 3/3/2011 @ 10:05am
What would you like to see happen tacoma1? A law passed? Utilities paying for conversion out of wood burning devices? What do you believe is the solution?

by tacoma1 on 3/3/2011 @ 10:08am
I think the solution is pretty simple. Stop burning wood. The wood smoke will stop shortly thereafter.

And I said one of, not the.

Wood smoke is a carcinogen. Wood smoke is not harmless. It causes asthma, breathing problems, and cancer. Cancer causes death. Death is not compatible with a high quality of life, imho.

by Mofo from the Hood on 3/3/2011 @ 10:12am
I think the real problem relates to the property where the wood burning is happening. The owners or users of the property may not have been satisfactorily taxed for the use of the air space.

by fredo on 3/3/2011 @ 10:16am
OK I'll make some recommendations.

1. The Mayor uses her bully pulpit to call out the people who are sending dirty smoke up their chimneys.

2, The city utilities announce a program where they will install new furnaces that can be paid off over a 12 month term. The new furnace program requires that chimney flues be permanently disabled so there will be no more fires.

3. Every utility bill includes some condoms so that cold winter nights don't result in a population explosion.

4. Welfare benefits are reduced for families with more than 2 children.

by NineInchNachos on 3/3/2011 @ 10:23am
look. Tacoma is the most romantic city. That means getting busy on a bear skin rug in front of a REAL fire.

don't be a mood killer.

by tacoma1 on 3/3/2011 @ 10:25am
Just for the record, I'm ok with a real fire as long as some one is getting laid.

by fredo on 3/3/2011 @ 10:26am
If the woman is sufficiently attractive a digital fireplace will be adequate.

by Jesse on 3/3/2011 @ 10:30am
How about this:

The city use a few guys from TPU to offer free drilling for vertical geothermal rods to be installed in your back yard and installation of geothermal pump. That's the big cost of geothermal. TPU seals up the fireplace and takes the wood stove.

The home owner pay for the furnace and parts over a period of time in their electric bill.

Geothermal uses 70% less energy than electric.

by Mofo from the Hood on 3/3/2011 @ 10:30am
Dang, how did the descendants of pioneer Tacoman's make it to 2011 if not for the right to burn wood?

Good thing them EPA scientists wadn't born before 1991.

by Jesse on 3/3/2011 @ 10:31am
"If the woman is sufficiently attractive a digital fireplace will be adequate." -- fredo

Don't you mean this:

"If the woman is sufficiently cheap and easy a digital fireplace will be adequate."

by jenyum on 3/3/2011 @ 10:36am
There actually is a law already. When there is an air quality burn ban, you are not supposed to burn wood unless it is your only source of heat. I know that there are a lot of poor people in the area who rely on wood for heat, but there are also a whole lot of relatively more comfortable people who don't know anything about burn bans, or if they do they know there is never really any enforcement. I smell woodsmoke all the time in my neighborhood and I'm pretty sure it's not related to anyone's political affiliation or immigration status.

Is there enforcement? I've never heard of any.

by fredo on 3/3/2011 @ 10:47am
tacoma1 made a good point about the effects of air pollution. I want to breathe clean air myself! I don't want people burning smokey fires even if it's there only source of heat.

For the people in a cold house however, there is a tradeoff. Would they rather be warm today than cold, even if it means they might have their lives shortened by one day in 40 or 50 years? Sort of a no brainer.

by cisserosmiley on 3/3/2011 @ 11:17am
2007 data that caused tacoma to have 4 monitoring stations and seatle 2 is flawed now because it was a brief monitiring period during a cold snap when electricity went out. also, wood stove particulates are comparable to rural areas and diesel emmissions are much lower than urban comparisons...
maybe tacoma is less than urban ... sub? urban?
but then again...multiple data collections always show tacoma at higher low quality measurements, what will it take to prove this place deserves all of our attention. it smells, it looks light lots of discharge, and data on emmissions backs that up.

by tacoma1 on 3/3/2011 @ 12:20pm
I'm pretty sure that the epa offices are in Lacey. The Seattle bias argument is pretty weak. We have been consistent in the level of wood smoke particulates in our air for years. This is not a new problem. These people that burn wood didn't just get their fireplaces and stoves installed this winter. The number of monitoring stations may give scientists a better representation of what the source is, but they don't take the readings and add them all together.

It's really pretty simple. Our wood smoke problem comes from us burning wood. IMHO.

by cisserosmiley on 3/3/2011 @ 12:25pm
yes tacoma 1, it is NOT a seattle bias argument. it is an answer to the question why? does tacoma have 4 monitiring stations and seattle 2...that is from the 2007 results showing tacomas wood stove particulates as high. that test in 2007 was done during a local power outage and is well known to everyone in elected positions. please do not reduce my arguments to your gutter seattle/tacoma squabble. just asnwer the question...what sense does it make to have 4 in t town and 2 in seattle?

by tacoma1 on 3/3/2011 @ 12:35pm
I'm ok with it. Since I live in Tacoma, I would rather have cleaner air here than in Seattle. Just sayin.

And I'm still pretty sure that the wood smoke problem we have is coming from the burning of wood, not the number of monitoring stations.

by cisserosmiley on 3/3/2011 @ 12:41pm
that is too oct. 2008 i personally witnessed rep. jeanie darneille, frm. rep. dennis flannigan, senator debbie regala, county council tim ferrel, barbara gellman, terry lee, dale washam, jan shabro...julie anderson, pat mccarthey, lonergan, norm dicks' staff ... they all acknowledged the data had been collected at an extremely predjudical time for tacoma. without facts tacoma1 being OK with something kind of makes you ignorant

by cisserosmiley on 3/3/2011 @ 12:42pm
it is from wood, but we have less deiesel emmissions so tacoma is cleaner than seattle???????? lets good good test data before policy is made. thank you

by tacoma1 on 3/3/2011 @ 12:47pm

"In the study, air quality data was collected ...................between Nov. 1, 2008, and Oct. 31, 2009"

I don't think that the power was out for a year and a half. If that makes me ignorant, I be unedumacated.

And I'm pretty sure that the politicians opinions all had more to do with the fact that they don't want the epa to levy a huge ass fine on Tacoma and or Pierce County for being stinky i.e. non compliant.

by cisserosmiley on 3/3/2011 @ 12:55pm
you must be educated, because a person without that advantage in life would never make such light of it...having myself been to gradumawit scoolz i think you are the scourge of psuedo-intellectualismz. why build on flawed data? why not give tacoma an award for being the city with lowest iesel emmissions?

by cisserosmiley on 3/3/2011 @ 12:57pm
you are mis-informed about local elected officials-they all wanted better data and want to work hard for cleaner air...fines were not discussed, only desire for clean air

by tacoma1 on 3/3/2011 @ 1:02pm
So I take it that you like your wood stove then.

If we have 4 monitoring stations, wouldn't that actually get us a better range of samples? And therefore better data?

I was taught in college that small samples sizes were worse (i.e.more variable, and less reliable) than large sample sizes. Maybe things are different now.

by Mofo from the Hood on 3/3/2011 @ 1:37pm

Burning wooden utility poles and railroad ties soaked with creosote may be harmful to your health.

To view this message in Spanish or Chinese please visit the City of Tacoma Councilmen website and type in the key word sKReWRy.

by cisserosmiley on 3/3/2011 @ 1:41pm
im so glad you brought up statistical quality...see sampling is not only size it is quality...quality in statistics is about inference...ex, the large sample made my inference closer to the factual mean than a small sample would have. read carefully, WE in tacoma have been rated as POOR quality air in COMPARISON to a place 8 times larger with only half the sample taken there...the validity of every measurement is in question now-especially seattle's. thanks tacoma 1

by tacoma1 on 3/3/2011 @ 2:11pm
Well, the sample size in Seattle may be in question, but the samples taken in Tacoma are still valid, and show that we have a substantial wood smoke pollution problem. A problem that is "significantly higher than elsewhere in the state" A problem that regardless of who you compare us to, we are above the National Ambient Air Quality Standard. So in comparison to the standard, we don't cut it. We stink. We are making ourselves and our neighbors sick.

I take no comfort in thinking that Seattle air quality may or may not be worse than it appears. Knowing that our air quality is as bad as it is, is my concern.

The actual report is here for anyone that want to read it.

"The Tacoma area is currently nonattainment for the 24-hour National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate (PM2.5). Adverse health effects from breathing air with a
high PM2.5 concentration include: premature death, increased respiratory symptoms and disease,
chronic bronchitis, and decreased lung function particularly for individuals with asthma and
increased cardiovascular disease.5,6 Recent work7 has confirmed that the most significant source
contribution of PM2.5 in Tacoma is from wood smoke."

"While there are many similarities between Seattle and Tacoma, one air quality difference is the
higher concentrations of fine particles (PM2.5) observed in some residential areas of Tacoma during
winter. Fine particle levels in South Tacoma are the highest in Washington State, leading EPA to
designate the Tacoma/Pierce County area as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 daily standard.10
Monitoring has shown that elevated PM2.5 levels mainly occur during the heating months, when a
main source of fine particulate is wood smoke."

by cisserosmiley on 3/3/2011 @ 3:42pm
in the first para of this report it says it is a comparison between seattle and tacoma...2 stations in seattle, 4 in tacoma...
"Fine particle levels in South Tacoma are the highest in Washington State" out of 6 stations, south tacoma reported the highest (yes all 6 stations were in fact in wa. so this is technically true but an example of colorful language that is misleading) if tacoma 1's argument is valid it makes tacoma the LEAST polluted of the 2 cities because less fomaldehyde and diesel as well as the overall cancer risk being lower.
tacoma 1 just took out the parts that support their argument and forgot to tell averyone that tacoma scored a 250 and seattle was 350 and 450 (high being bad) i want a clean environment, but when epa, puget sound clean air, and the uw team up and score tacoma as the least polluted area and you blog about how bad it is here it feels less thorough than the facts reveal. i guess we are our own enemy when the truth is in a report yet becomes evidence of the contrary...

by tacoma1 on 3/3/2011 @ 4:50pm
Well, actually my point is that our wood smoke is specifically a Tacoma air pollution problem. Being a Tacoma problem, only Tacoman's can fix it, but only if we want to. I'm happy that the other levels of air pollution are relatively low. But those ratings don't cancel out our high levels of wood smoke pollution. What part of it's the wood smoke don't you understand. Once (if) we fix this little air quality problem, then we can brag to the world that Tacoma has cleaner air than Seattle. That has to be worth something.