Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

PLEASE NOTE: A download link for Volume 1 will be sent to you by email and Volume 2 will be sent to you by post as a book.

Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


powered by Surfing Waves




Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.




  1.  
    I've bought a fair bit of wood recently, and found only a small difference in price between treated and "raw". I was under the impression that in the UK if it's structural, or in a roof it's got to be treated.

    I have burned a few off-cuts of treated timber, but won't be doing it again. There's a nasty smell, and the combustion products coat the stove.

    I believe treated timber used to be extremely nasty, but that stuff hasn't been allowed in the EU for years! The treated timber you get now is just unpleasant.
    • CommentAuthorsimeon
    • CommentTimeFeb 12th 2009
     
    CWatters and all you guys might like to know that not only is the EU considering action over the UK present air quality record, the UK is applying for an extension as it cannot meet the new EU standards now coming into force.

    See

    http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2009/090127a.htm
    • CommentAuthordave45
    • CommentTimeFeb 12th 2009
     
    How long do these PM10 particles stay in the atmosphere? - do they get washed out with the first rainfall?
    • CommentAuthorsimeon
    • CommentTimeFeb 12th 2009
     
    I think the time they stay in the air is variable but averages a few weeks. The concentration in the local air is increased by production of PM10 but decreased by weather and wind dispersion and break up. The world health organisation wants us to have no more than 10 microgram in each m3 of PM2.5. That is a good standard. Why PM2.5? Below that size the little buggers give us heart disease but above that size the particles just get stuck in the throat maybe the lungs if you are unlucky. Our present standard for PM2.5 is 25 microg per m3. The difference between that and the WHO standards is a death rate of 50 000 in the UK.

    Funny though. You tell people that and they don't believe you.
    • CommentAuthoradwindrum
    • CommentTimeFeb 13th 2009
     
    It is very difficult to measure death rates as so many variables are in force which is why people dont believe it. It is also a little scaremongering to come up with figures for the same reason - its guessing. There has been some poor theories on this forum based on things like "I did a search on google and found xyz", or my favorite argument was with someone whose theory was based on the fact that Jeremy Clarkson has demonstrated it on top gear - now that is rocket science.

    This discussion has been interesting as it has made it clear that we really need to think about some sort of legislation on woodfires, but it has to be clear, fair and enforceable which is impossible. Energy and money needs to be spent on other options for cheap and comforting heating. Its the comfort and cost of an open fire that is causing the most pollution. People burning tons of the stuff are burning properly seasoned wood on efficient fires...trust me if you rely on the stuff and are chopping tons of it you are using the best kit. You are also in rural areas where the effect is minimal. The arguments against wood fires here are based on towns where people are burning scraps inefficently and the problems in Canada are being used to reinforce arguments.

    On the energy source debate I was at a party held by the guy in charge of the Hydrogen/fusion project in UK and off guard he was quite realistic that we were a way off and needed a lot more funding in it. The project has been worked on for 50 years....I think that there are going to be some big decisions made about nuclear in the near future and that this will be a major player thus putting pressure on the development of alternatives. Boohoo
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeFeb 13th 2009
     
    The project plan for ITER (the main fusion project) is online here...

    http://www.iter.org/a/n1/downloads/construction_schedule.pdf

    That predicts "first plasma" in 2016. After that who knows..

    http://www.iter.org/Future-beyond.htm

    Predicts the future and says that "Such a plan shows why it will be very difficult to commission the first commercial-sized tokamak before 2050". Probably another 30 years before there are many of them up and working ?

    Financial and many tech problems still exist...

    "USA suspends financial participation in ITER project for 2008"

    http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2008/01/17/afx4544145.html

    "Flaw in the Ă‚ÂŁ7bn Iter fusion power plan"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3335738/Flaw-in-the-andpound7bn-Iter-fusion-power-plan.html
    • CommentAuthoradwindrum
    • CommentTimeFeb 13th 2009
     
    Its a mini plant that is being built with lots to still sort out. If it works, you can imagine the timescale before we are building one a day to fuel the planet.

    The US pulling out is Georgie Porgy, :devil: things may get back on track now.:smile:
    • CommentAuthoradwindrum
    • CommentTimeFeb 13th 2009
     
    Damn all this talk of PM10s has taken the sheen off the mackerel I smoked last night sat at home waiting for me and the bacon sides due to go in tonight!:cry:
  2.  
    I heard somewhere that the British taypayer spends as much on Jonathan Ross as it does on nuclear fusion research.

    I seem to recall that the Americans pulled out for political reasons. They have their own fusion projects anyway, which take a different approach.

    I don't believe ITER is a mini plant. I think it's about the scale a commercial reactor would be (if it ever happens).
    • CommentAuthoradwindrum
    • CommentTimeFeb 13th 2009
     
    I cant remember how he described his output in terms of number of houses it would provide for....it was commercial scale, but I had the impression that it wasnt full scale.
    • CommentAuthorsaxony
    • CommentTimeFeb 13th 2009
     
    "tom.harrigan 21 hours ago
    I believe treated timber used to be extremely nasty, but that stuff hasn't been allowed in the EU for years! The treated timber you get now is just unpleasant."

    (Um, how do you do those blue quotes?)

    Anyway, the stuff with arsenic in it was banned from use in domestic housing and gardens and children's play equipment in 2007 in the UK. Not so long ago.

    Simeon - I tried the Environment Agency and they refused to comment and just said go to Citizens Advice or the Local Authority!
    • CommentAuthorsaxony
    • CommentTimeFeb 13th 2009
     
    How about some education, rather than legislation? It seems people are coming back to wood burning without the knowledge and skills their grandparents had (maybe).

    Woodheat.org has an 82 page PDF booklet full of useful stuff about wood stoves and fires, but it is aimed at the Canadian market. Something relevant to the UK, would be really helpful. As yet I haven't found anything anywhere near as comprehensive.

    Based on what I've witnessed locally I wouldn't go near wood for heat, but reading posts on this site I see it can be done well, and can even be something of an art form.
    • CommentAuthorsimeon
    • CommentTimeFeb 13th 2009
     
    Saxony, what did you say to the Environment Agency? They are the regulators but not necessarily the enforcers. The local authority pollution control officer or environment health officer are meant to be the enforcers. They have a tendency to worm their way out of doing anything. They have the fall back of demanding strong evidence and they might not even accept your evidence saying they have to collect it themselves which they then might not actually try very hard doing. Try writing to your MP, explain your problem and ask the best way of getting redress.

    Adwindrum, the six percent increase in death rate for a 10 microgramme increase in PM2.5 over a whole year is a solid result.

    See:

    http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/comeap/expertreview.htm

    http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/287/9/1132?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=arden+pope+III&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
    • CommentAuthorsaxony
    • CommentTimeFeb 13th 2009
     
    Just found news of a debate.

    Can We Combat Climate Change and Protect Local Environmental Quality? Local Environmental Quality in a Low Carbon Age 18th February, Institute of Physics, London
    http://www.environmental-protection.org.uk/news/detail/?id=1814

    Simeon - I've tried my MP, he sent me back to the council. I'm going round in circles. I asked the Environment Agency what the law says on the matter and they quoted the 1990 Environmental Protection Act and Statutory Nuisance legislation. As you say, it's hard to do much with that unless you get an Environment Officer on site at just the right moment.
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeFeb 13th 2009
     
    Jesus, on this basis I've wiped out a significant proportion of the UK population and several people on the Continent.

    All I want is a simple life. Having tried to halt the destruction of the planet in the early 60's and throughout the 70's and into the early 80's and been labelled a marxist because of it and having to work for myself because no one wanted a 'trouble maker' on their books, and having seen mankind rush towards the cliff with its head down and ears and eyes closed to all reason, have I not deserved to sit and have my glass of beer with my feet up in front of a roaring log fire?
    • CommentAuthorsimeon
    • CommentTimeFeb 13th 2009
     
    I don't think so, joiner. The ballpark figure for causing one death is burning 100tonne of wood in a built up area. The threat your fire is causing may be a lot more subtle than that as it depends on your type of firewood, your fireplace design and your specific locality. A truck driver's exhaust used to cause about one death every twenty years. Truck exhausts are a lot cleaner now so much so that domestic fires will soon overtake them in the pollution stakes.
    • CommentAuthorsimeon
    • CommentTimeFeb 13th 2009
     
    Saxony,

    I have often found that if you ask for information, it often helps. For example, if you ask the environment agency, health protection agency, MP, Minister of Public Health (I think it is Dawn Primarolo although I am not sure) this:

    At my property, I am often subject to air pollution caused by certain waste material being burnt (specify). Could you advise me what pollutants there might possibly be emitted from the burning of this material? Could you also advise me whether any of these pollutants are harmful to health and whether there are any regulations governing such pollutants?
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeFeb 13th 2009
     
    Can I, perhaps, suggest a visit to...

    http://www.unitedmind.co.uk/intro.html
    • CommentAuthorDan McNeil
    • CommentTimeFeb 13th 2009 edited
     
    " A truck driver's exhaust used to cause about one death every twenty years."

    (simeon)

    Used to cause? When? How long ago? During what timeframe did this statistic apply to? How was this one death every twenty years measured? What was the cause of mortality, and how were they related? What kind of truck? Big trucks, small trucks, new trucks, nearly new trucks, old trucks? What sampling process was used to derive this statistic? Was it replicated?

    How does this statistic compare to truck-involved fatal RTAs per year?

    "Truck exhausts are a lot cleaner now so much so that domestic fires will soon overtake them in the pollution stakes."

    (simeon)

    Unsubstantiated opinion. How are you defining "cleaner"? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "less dirty (per miles travelled)"? And how will domestic fires overtake truck pollution soon (define soon - 1 day, 1 week, 1 year, 1 decade?). How are you defining "domestic"? Urban domestic, rural domestic? What type of fire? Open fire, stove, cheap stove, expensive stove? What type of wood? Seasoned or unseasoned? Species? Burnt slowly or fast? How often are chimneys swept?

    I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your comments, but, if you make vague claims, you have to expect to be challenged to verify them.
    • CommentAuthorsimeon
    • CommentTimeFeb 13th 2009
     
    No problem. Hopefully over the weekend.
    • CommentAuthorsaxony
    • CommentTimeFeb 14th 2009
     
    "Can I, perhaps, suggest a visit to...http://www.unitedmind.co.uk/intro.html" (Joiner)

    Good idea - I enjoyed the witty vitriol of your previous post.
    • CommentAuthorDan McNeil
    • CommentTimeFeb 21st 2009
     
    simeon Feb 13th 2009
    "No problem. Hopefully over the weekend."


    Hi simeon,

    How about you have a go at answering some of the questions I put to your unsubstantiated opinions?

    Regards,
    Dan.
    • CommentAuthorsimeon
    • CommentTimeFeb 22nd 2009
     
    Hi Dan.

    Thanks for the reminder. I will post on this. My spare time has been occupied by upgrading my loft insulation which has proved a lot more difficult than I anticipated. An old house with lots of fiddly bits in the general loft area making access difficult but I am determined that I will get up to 300mm up from the present 150. After 4 sessions I am about 1/3 there.

    Not sure why you say my claims are unsubstantiated though.

    We can take it as read that a 10ug/m3 of PM2.5 is associated with a six percent increase in the general population as of present.

    Evidence:

    http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/comeap/expertreview.htm

    (pdf) http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/287/9/1132

    http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/360/4/376

    (pdf) http://www.euro.who.int/Document/E87950.pdf

    Wood smoke, coal smoke from domestic sources and traffic exhaust contribute to the ambient air concentration of PM 2.5. Now we have to decide by how much. Once we have done that we can then attribute a figure for number of deaths caused per tonne of coal or smoke burnt and number of km driven by truck. Is that fair?
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeFeb 22nd 2009
     
    Wood smoke is carcinogenic -- so why do we even talk about how much?
    • CommentAuthorbayard
    • CommentTimeFeb 22nd 2009
     
    The death rate is always 100%. Everybody dies eventually, of something. Not dying through atmospheric pollution means dying of something else, not living for ever. Personally I'd rather die of heart disease than live until I'm senile and require 24 hr nursing. Expressions like "15% higher long term mortality" (from the WHO report referenced above) are completely meaningless. Long term mortality is always 100% and so can't be 15 % higher. Why don't they use a meaningful quality of life indicator like "life expectancy" (as in the increase or decrease of)?
    Just because it's been published, on the web or not, doesn't make it either true or mean anything.
    • CommentAuthorDan McNeil
    • CommentTimeFeb 22nd 2009
     
    "Wood smoke, coal smoke from domestic sources and traffic exhaust contribute to the ambient air concentration of PM 2.5. Now we have to decide by how much. Once we have done that we can then attribute a figure for number of deaths caused per tonne of coal or smoke burnt and number of km driven by truck. Is that fair?" (simeon).

    -------------

    Well, no, not really.

    You made a lot of claims in your previous post - the one I responded to with lots of questions. You haven't answered any of them. Are you able to?
    • CommentAuthorDan McNeil
    • CommentTimeFeb 22nd 2009 edited
     
    "Wood smoke is carcinogenic -- so why do we even talk about how much?" (tony)

    -----------

    Tony, your post reminds me of the response Bill Hicks gave to the extreme wing pro-lifers in the US. When medical staff at abortion clinics were being shot, and the pro-lifers were applauding, Hicks' response was:

    “If you’re so pro-life, do me a favor. Don’t lock arms and block medical clinics. If you’re so pro-life, lock arms and block cemeteries.”

    As bayard implies, we all die of something in the end.
    • CommentAuthorsimeon
    • CommentTimeFeb 22nd 2009
     
    The annual death rate is roundabout 1% not 100%. Health impacts from air pollution include an increase in infant mortality and I am not sure anyone would approve of that. I find it strange that anyone would question the quality of a WHO report.

    Well! You can you believe if you can't believe experts!

    Try some real death numbers:
    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(02)11281-5/fulltext#article_upsell
  3.  
    OK so wood fires creates toxic pollution (for humans) even though its a very natural process. So can we eliminate the fumes with a filter process atop chimneys?
    • CommentAuthorDan McNeil
    • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2009
     
    "The annual death rate is roundabout 1% not 100%." (simeon)

    -----------------

    The annual death rate of what? Death?

    Everybody dies - now that's an unarguable statistic.

    Meanwhile, all you're doing is posting hyperlinks that don't answer any of my questions.
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press