Hey anti smoking bullies....I told you so!!

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
reply to post by graceunderpressure

 

no, I dont hate California. I love all of my country. You guys are just a real pain in the ass and passively endorse leftist fascism.

Plus your music tends to really suck and you have many crazies. Also you guys are very out there as far as what you think you believe. I would venture to say that Californians are more socially "cultish" than other people.

BUT,

you have some really beautiful weather, people, the pride of American wine, the worlds best movie industry, and some really funny and kick ass people....ect.

I would visit, its nice there, just not for more than a month at a time. Home is better....LOL

Wow, so now I'm not only retarded, I'm a leftist, passive, fascism endorsing, "cultish," pain in the arse whose beliefs are really "out there," just because of where I live? If your "home" is a place where people are this judgmental, you're better off skipping the visit and just staying there.

After reading this post and some of the other ones, I don't understand -- how did this thread become so inflammatory (pardon the pun)? I thought ATS was a place to discuss the issues, not to hurl insults at each other.

And for dig at our music, you've won yourself a beautiful Bay City Rollers earworm. Enjoy.

Liberals are responsible for almost all liberty-denying laws--they don't seem to think we can take care of ourselves so they force us to accept their behavior...libs really want to dictate all our behavior--what we eat, smoke, drive...and how we heat our houses...

Liberal = Big government

Conservative = Small government

reply to post by Zoyd23


>implying there is a difference between the left and the right

Originally posted by Dispo

Originally posted by HomerinNC
Seriously, someone's gotta be cold just so the libs get their way?

You are exempt from the ban if a wood fire is your only source of heat or cooking.

Which further reinforces the BS nature of this ban. It is about CONTROL - nothing more. Thanks you for proving the point!

reply to post by kozmo


No. The reason for the ban is that there are nearby unusual weather conditions which, if wood burning persisted at the usual rate would cause an unusual buildup of harmful chemicals in said area. I.e. the reason for the ban is to stop loads of people dying.

The reason for the exemption is to stop people who have no source other than wood from being cold. I.e. the reason for the exemption is to stop people dying.

Analogy:
You're an air traffic controller. You have 3 planes circling an airfield. A has 100 people, B has 10 and C has 1.

You can either:
- land B (doing nothing)
- land A (enacting the ban)
- land A and C (enacting the ban and allowing exemptions as stated above)

Which do you do?

Edit: terrible analogy, doesn't work out exactly right but it gets the general message across.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by AnnKoontz
California is the worse. How can the call themselves Liberals, when all they do is take away people's rights? You can get drugged up and have all the orgies you want, but don't light a fire to keep yourselves warm.

Well it's why San Francisco doesn't look like Mexico City. It's not as if there are not other ways to produce heat.



If Cali looked like that you would be claiming "liberals" are evil polluters.

Reality check, Cali is not all that liberal mate. Gay Marriage banned, repeal of death penalty failed, second largest prison population, etc.

In fact four east coast states are more liberal according to this...

fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com...

Sorry but I just hate stupid stereotypes that people seem to love to spread around.

Yeah we get it, you troll around new threads and bash people in order to make up for your small peeper...

California may have some very conservative policies in place. However if you've ever spent any real time in California or San Fran specifically, you would know that it is a VERY liberal state.

Just cause liberals are the majority there does not mean there going to have all liberal policies, we live in a republic, not a democracy. it's not "majority rules" here..

reply to post by Dispo

This unusually high concentration would be harmful to the residents of the area.

All the pollutants are concentrated in an inversion layer, not just wood smoke. And people burn wood for limited reasons. The autos, refineries, whatever run 24/7. Overall, wood contributes less to daily pollution. Remember I used the word overall. Charts will tell you that is the primary contributor. Yah, on cold days. When people want to save a buck on their heating bill.

They check the weather and say, "Oh no, its going to be cold so we have to ban wood fires. Crank up the power plants!"

Originally posted by AnnKoontz
California is the worse. How can the call themselves Liberals, when all they do is take away people's rights? You can get drugged up and have all the orgies you want, but don't light a fire to keep yourselves warm.

edit on 1-1-2013 by AnnKoontz because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-1-2013 by AnnKoontz because: (no reason given)

[/quote

Last summer I couldn't make a camp fire due to drought in Illinois. I didn"t think "Illinois is the worse." That would be ignorant of me. You really have a distorted image of Cali people.

reply to post by intrptr


I made you a picture:


Black is the wood burning city.
Blue is the area affected by the wood burning, which this ban is meant to help.
Red is the power plant.
Green is the air flow.

Edit: N.B. The reason for the ban is the big air flow on the left which is pushing smoke over the blue area. When the green lines go away in a day or so, the ban will be lifted.

Originally posted by Dispo
reply to post by kozmo

 

No. The reason for the ban is that there are nearby unusual weather conditions which, if wood burning persisted at the usual rate would cause an unusual buildup of harmful chemicals in said area. I.e. the reason for the ban is to stop loads of people dying.

The reason for the exemption is to stop people who have no source other than wood from being cold. I.e. the reason for the exemption is to stop people dying.

Analogy:
You're an air traffic controller. You have 3 planes circling an airfield. A has 100 people, B has 10 and C has 1.

You can either:
- land B (doing nothing)
- land A (enacting the ban)
- land A and C (enacting the ban and allowing exemptions as stated above)

Which do you do?

Edit: terrible analogy, doesn't work out exactly right but it gets the general message across.

edit on 2-1-2013 by Dispo because: (no reason given)

And "NO", I have no interest in buying whatever bridge you're trying to sell!

Since when does building a wood fire cause people to die? What in the hell propaganda are you buying into? I mean, dude, you're beer-bonging the Koolaid!

I have yet to see one shred of scientific evidence from ANYONE supporting this nonsense to back up this absurd claim. This is an Agenda 21 boondoggle - plain and simple!

If you have evidence to the contrary, I'll look forward to reviewing it.

reply to post by kozmo


For information on why all smoke is bad, please see my earlier post in this thread by clicking my name at the bottom of this post.

I would also advise you to read through the rest of the thread, as there are many intelligent posts on both sides as well as an informative link re: the composition of wood smoke.

reply to post by Dispo


P.S. I am not selling a bridge.

reply to post by Dispo

Furnace "burn thru" kills more people each year than wood smoke.That post of yours was long winded and took the issue of pollutants out the parking lot down the street and around the corner.

When the Auto industry paid the politicians of L.A. to remove the public transportation system, it was to sell more cars. They cited the nuisance and "inconvenience". Now they choke on the smog of all the automobiles. The same principle is at play here, IMHO.

reply to post by Dispo

Nebulous diagram. Labeling the cities would help me to better understand the locality of your "colored spots". I do live here all my life and am familiar with the smog and weather patterns.

reply to post by intrptr


I was explaining how the pollutants in smoke affect your body. It was not aimed at addressing any of your questions.

I will restate my position on why I think your complaints about the auto industry and whatnot are irrelevant:
This is not a ban enacted to save the environment, this is a ban enacted to prevent the buildup of chemicals in a specific area due to unusual weather patterns in the area.

Analogy:
It is not a ban on driving cars, it is a ban on driving cars in an airtight warehouse, until the warehouse is unsealed in a day or so.

reply to post by intrptr


It's not a scale model. It's a general example of what is happening.

Analogy:
Smoking a cigarette (burning wood) in the black area results in smoke being directed at and accumulating in the blue area (walking up to somebody, holding them down and giving them deliciously smokey CPR).

Smoking a menthol cigarette (burning coal) in the red area (factory) results in the smoke blowing harmlessly away from habitation (you not doing the CPR thing)

reply to post by Dispo

Anology:
It is not a ban on driving cars, it is a ban on driving cars in an airtight warehouse, until the warehouse is unsealed in a day or so.

Banning the cars is not what they are doing. Maybe they should. For a day? Could you imagine? The day after 911, the skies over the bay area were the bluest blue I had seen in a looong time.

Sorry, I don't buy into their, "Its the wood smoke" claims. We can agree to disagree on that? You might tell me what the current Radionuclide particle count in the bay area is today. If you can find that information, I would be glad to hear it.

reply to post by intrptr


It was an analogy I devised to aid your understanding of my point. They should not ban cars. I addressed that issue earlier in the thread.

I could not tell you that information. I don't understand how radionuclides are relevant to this discussion.

You're wrong, it is wood smoke. It's not just wood smoke, it's all smoke from the area, the cars and whatever else. The point of the wood burning ban is to prevent the wood smoke adding to the other smoke though.

If you take 100% of smoke in the area affected by the weather as coming from the wood burn ban area, and 10% of that smoke is produced by wood burning, banning the wood burning reduces smoke accumulation by 10%. The use of electricity to cover the wood burning does not add to the smoke accumulation as the factory is not in the banned area. Banning wood burning is an inconvenience to most, and those who depend on it for survival are exempt from the ban.

Click here for more information.