Seems many RV parks have fire pits and many just like to sit by the drifting smoke and "enjoy” the wild outdoors. We hate this and have a particle air filter in our motorcoach to keep the indoor air free of particles. It is not uncommon to see people tossing paper plates and plastic silverware into the fires as well adding to the toxic smoke.
I've never known there to be a smokeless fire pit, and I've done a lot of camping in my 50+ years on the planet. Yes, it IS fun to sit around and enjoy it, but one of the reasons why campgrounds prefer campers to use dried wood and not green is because of the smoke that the latter produces. Paper plates can be combusted equally as well as composted or trashed, and if you have to haul out your own trash, paper plates are just another form of modified wood. Ditto for plastic utensils; it's oil in solid form.
I've never understood the need to regulate outside air insomuch as feeling that one's backyard BBQ is offensive to that of a vegan neighbor. Air is a huge dilution body and even thick smoke quickly dissipates. I also don't understand why anyone would want to be chain smoking whilst camping but if it relaxes them, I guess that'd be understandable.
Well, governments seem to disagree with you. The US could have made tobacco smoking illegal years ago but the Feds and States are too addicted to the tax revenues from it. And if they were REALLY serious, they'd never have let weed become legal as well for the same reason.
Politicians of almost all stripes are greedy for other peoples' money to spend and the Power it gives them over others.
From a logical standpoint, yes. From a practical standpoint, NO government ever willingly gives up an established revenue source because they'll "pander that money" to one or more voting blocs.
"OH LOOK, that tobacco sales tax would be taken away from funding schools and daycares!!!".
That's because the government tries to encourage commerce through all venues, including healthcare (or as might be said, 'sick care') and we all have the right to personal freedom.
I didn't get the clot shot in 2020 and never will, because of bodily autonomy—same as all the women screaming in the streets for their right to THEIR own body and freedom to kill a baby.
To the larger philosophical point, if YOU don't care about yourself and your health, why should someone else? #fattok
If the govt. tries to encourage commerce, instead of health, why then are they banning gas appliances and things that are powered by fossil fuels? If the gov. really wants to encourage commerce, then instead of making something illegal, they should just let the market decide the winners and losers rather than stacking the deck.
>>"then we have to vote in different governments."
There isn't a sovereign government on the planet that has outlawed smoking, or ever will. Even the worst draconian communist governments have always allowed smoking, same with vehicles for transportation.
>>"Make smoking anything illegal with fines and a punishment up to a 5yrs in prison."
Bit ridiculous, don't you think? I mean, who are you going to fine and imprison when it comes to wildfires that emit much more particulate matter than ICE vehicles do? Will you fine the state, or the federal government (depending on what forested/grassland areas burn?)
As far as tobacco, I find it ironic that the same people who want to ban tobacco are wanting to fully legalize marijuana—which is most commonly inhaled after being combusted. The ONLY reason it's being legalized is to generate tax revenue for state coffers, and that should tell you everything you need to know about the benefits of legalizing pot.
For the record, I do not want marijuana legalized either.
As for people who start wildfires intentionally, they should face the maximum (including the death) penalty.
But to bring my argument full circle: Why ban anything that emits particulates when the politicos allow smoking tobacco except for taxes? But tobacco isn't the only thing taxed. They can (and do) tax the other emitters of particulates as well as the fuel that is used by them.
I answered your question above re: why governments are trying to ban gas stoves and anything else fossil-fueled, but will add to that here.
What else could you foresee necessitating a ban because it does some kind of harm, real or perceived, on either human health or the environment? The short answer is "pretty much everything."
The reason the government **hasn't** yet tried to do so is because then there would be NO commerce of ANY kind, which is really bad news when you're more than $34 trillion in debt.
The reason why people are allowed to use gas stoves, drive ICE vehicles, enjoy open fireplaces, drink alcohol, and smoke (tobacco OR a big ol' fat joint) is because we're adults, and adults are expected to be mature enough to assume a ROI cost-benefit analysis for everything they do or don't do. When the government says it doesn't trust its citizens to be either intelligent enough or mature enough to decide for themselves what they ought to be able to do, you get an onerous power-hungry nanny state that would rather see you in jail (or dead) for speaking out against it.
And that's why we don't want to emulate China, Russia, or North Korea here, because all of those places suck donkey ass with their communist failings.
Take a look at Beth Gardiner's 2019 book "Choked - the age of air pollution and the fight for a cleaner future" - Granta - eISBN 978 1 78378 412 7.
My father was a chest physician in West Cumberland, England from the 1950s to retirement in the late 1970s. Many of his patients were current or former coal and iron ore miners, where air-driven drills and machinery produced copious amounts of dust. Later, drilling was water cooled and lubricated. The result was lungs obstructed by coal and iron ore particles, probably larger than 2.5 microns, and diseases like pneumoconiosis and TB. With permission and the help of a pathologist colleague, he was able to obtain postmortem tissue slides and photographed them for presentation to the medical profession. Gruesome, informative, and ahead of his time.
Are fireplaces really that bad for PM2.5, or are most of the ones we build doing a terrible job at clean combustion? I'd like to see a comparison between the typical short, deep, curved back fireplace and a tall, shallow, straight backed Rumford fireplace, which almost no one seems to build these days because...they look dangerous or something?
Seems many RV parks have fire pits and many just like to sit by the drifting smoke and "enjoy” the wild outdoors. We hate this and have a particle air filter in our motorcoach to keep the indoor air free of particles. It is not uncommon to see people tossing paper plates and plastic silverware into the fires as well adding to the toxic smoke.
I've never known there to be a smokeless fire pit, and I've done a lot of camping in my 50+ years on the planet. Yes, it IS fun to sit around and enjoy it, but one of the reasons why campgrounds prefer campers to use dried wood and not green is because of the smoke that the latter produces. Paper plates can be combusted equally as well as composted or trashed, and if you have to haul out your own trash, paper plates are just another form of modified wood. Ditto for plastic utensils; it's oil in solid form.
Do such RV parks have "no smoking" areas?
I've never understood the need to regulate outside air insomuch as feeling that one's backyard BBQ is offensive to that of a vegan neighbor. Air is a huge dilution body and even thick smoke quickly dissipates. I also don't understand why anyone would want to be chain smoking whilst camping but if it relaxes them, I guess that'd be understandable.
Let's have proof that people are serious about this.
Make smoking anything illegal with fines and a punishment up to a 5yrs in prison.
Without an anti-smoking ban with stiff penalties, anything said and discussed is just hot air.
Well, governments seem to disagree with you. The US could have made tobacco smoking illegal years ago but the Feds and States are too addicted to the tax revenues from it. And if they were REALLY serious, they'd never have let weed become legal as well for the same reason.
Politicians of almost all stripes are greedy for other peoples' money to spend and the Power it gives them over others.
then we have to vote in different governments.
From a logical standpoint, yes. From a practical standpoint, NO government ever willingly gives up an established revenue source because they'll "pander that money" to one or more voting blocs.
"OH LOOK, that tobacco sales tax would be taken away from funding schools and daycares!!!".
My point exactly. The politcos care more about money then people's health.
That's because the government tries to encourage commerce through all venues, including healthcare (or as might be said, 'sick care') and we all have the right to personal freedom.
I didn't get the clot shot in 2020 and never will, because of bodily autonomy—same as all the women screaming in the streets for their right to THEIR own body and freedom to kill a baby.
To the larger philosophical point, if YOU don't care about yourself and your health, why should someone else? #fattok
If the govt. tries to encourage commerce, instead of health, why then are they banning gas appliances and things that are powered by fossil fuels? If the gov. really wants to encourage commerce, then instead of making something illegal, they should just let the market decide the winners and losers rather than stacking the deck.
>>"then we have to vote in different governments."
There isn't a sovereign government on the planet that has outlawed smoking, or ever will. Even the worst draconian communist governments have always allowed smoking, same with vehicles for transportation.
>>"Make smoking anything illegal with fines and a punishment up to a 5yrs in prison."
Bit ridiculous, don't you think? I mean, who are you going to fine and imprison when it comes to wildfires that emit much more particulate matter than ICE vehicles do? Will you fine the state, or the federal government (depending on what forested/grassland areas burn?)
As far as tobacco, I find it ironic that the same people who want to ban tobacco are wanting to fully legalize marijuana—which is most commonly inhaled after being combusted. The ONLY reason it's being legalized is to generate tax revenue for state coffers, and that should tell you everything you need to know about the benefits of legalizing pot.
For the record, I do not want marijuana legalized either.
As for people who start wildfires intentionally, they should face the maximum (including the death) penalty.
But to bring my argument full circle: Why ban anything that emits particulates when the politicos allow smoking tobacco except for taxes? But tobacco isn't the only thing taxed. They can (and do) tax the other emitters of particulates as well as the fuel that is used by them.
I answered your question above re: why governments are trying to ban gas stoves and anything else fossil-fueled, but will add to that here.
What else could you foresee necessitating a ban because it does some kind of harm, real or perceived, on either human health or the environment? The short answer is "pretty much everything."
The reason the government **hasn't** yet tried to do so is because then there would be NO commerce of ANY kind, which is really bad news when you're more than $34 trillion in debt.
The reason why people are allowed to use gas stoves, drive ICE vehicles, enjoy open fireplaces, drink alcohol, and smoke (tobacco OR a big ol' fat joint) is because we're adults, and adults are expected to be mature enough to assume a ROI cost-benefit analysis for everything they do or don't do. When the government says it doesn't trust its citizens to be either intelligent enough or mature enough to decide for themselves what they ought to be able to do, you get an onerous power-hungry nanny state that would rather see you in jail (or dead) for speaking out against it.
And that's why we don't want to emulate China, Russia, or North Korea here, because all of those places suck donkey ass with their communist failings.
Take a look at Beth Gardiner's 2019 book "Choked - the age of air pollution and the fight for a cleaner future" - Granta - eISBN 978 1 78378 412 7.
My father was a chest physician in West Cumberland, England from the 1950s to retirement in the late 1970s. Many of his patients were current or former coal and iron ore miners, where air-driven drills and machinery produced copious amounts of dust. Later, drilling was water cooled and lubricated. The result was lungs obstructed by coal and iron ore particles, probably larger than 2.5 microns, and diseases like pneumoconiosis and TB. With permission and the help of a pathologist colleague, he was able to obtain postmortem tissue slides and photographed them for presentation to the medical profession. Gruesome, informative, and ahead of his time.
Are fireplaces really that bad for PM2.5, or are most of the ones we build doing a terrible job at clean combustion? I'd like to see a comparison between the typical short, deep, curved back fireplace and a tall, shallow, straight backed Rumford fireplace, which almost no one seems to build these days because...they look dangerous or something?
https://www.treehugger.com/study-links-fireplaces-cognitive-decline-5087921