Heating and cooling: Smoke Nuisance – is wood wood?

61 to 90 of 340

- CommentAuthorMikeee5
- CommentTimeJul 19th 2012 edited
Sorry for the late reply folks, I have been busy installing an early warning system on my chimney so I can lockdown the windows and doors before the fumes enter my property!!!

I would like to say a big thank you to Joiner for kindly forwarding legal documentation to help me bring a stop to the smoke nuisance I have been experiencing. I sincerely hope that the sun has been shining on your flowerbed today my friend : ) I mentioned in an earlier post that I have spoken to numerous people for advice and it has been very difficult to get anyone to offer an helping hand. I will have a good read through the docs at the weekend Joiner and hopefully start the ball rolling early next week. Thank you very much once again.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: windy lamb</cite>Mikeee5 - going from your posts it would seem the EH Dept. could have served an abatement notice a while ago, it's immaterial what fuel is being burnt as to whether it's a nuisance or not. A Notice could have been fairly open and just stated "undertake such measures as to abate the nuisance" -

I have been reading through the correspondence from my Environmental Health Department and does appear they have been concentrating their efforts on advising my neighbour on what he should have been doing in terms of operating his stove instead of monitoring the smoke nuisance. The EH Officer`s last letter is headed RE: Complaint regarding smoke nuisance emanating from a chimney at ************. Clean Air Act 1993 Section 20 Smoke Control Area **** Operative From ****1976 the officer goes on to say he satisfied that the appliance is on the DEFRA approved list and is exempt from the above legislation when burning certain fuels. He said he has written to my neighbour advising him of the type of woods he can burn and the specified size. He has also advised him that to keep the smoke emissions to a minimum he should add fuel little and often, rather than in large pieces and to keep the fire hot. He concludes his letter “In summary while I note your concern regarding emissions from the said chimney, if Mr ****** continues to operate the wood burner using the fuel that I have inspected and advised him to burn, then I cannot substantiate any contravention of any Environmental Health Legislation” and goes on to say he has now concluded his investigation to my complaint. This letter was received approximately 1 week after I had reported nose bleeds and a burning sensation to the back of my throat after being subject to the smoke in one afternoon while working in my garage!!!

Mikeee
- CommentAuthorJoiner
- CommentTimeJul 19th 2012
I have a large pair of safety boots with steel toe caps. Perhaps I should have included them in the package. No need to tell you where on the EHO's anatomy you aim the toe!
- CommentAuthorMikeee5
- CommentTimeJul 20th 2012 edited
Get your boots in the post J, two fruit and veg springs to mind !!

I contacted Diced Equine Fruit & Real Anchovies to query one of the woods that the EH officer had listed in his letter. The nice man from Diced Equine Fruit & Real Anchovies said that under no circumstances should he be burning these woods. The nice man from Diced Equine Fruit & Real Anchovies then contacted the EH officer to inform him of this, the EH officer then had to write to my neighbour to tell him that he couldn’t burn these wood and backtrack on what he had originally told him! Incidentally the EH officer has told me that he is normally responsible for noise pollution and not smoke!

There`s no wonder my asthma is on its knees!!

Mikeee
- CommentAuthorBrianwilson
- CommentTimeJul 20th 2012
Mikeee5- There are fundamental considerations that it is hoped would be checked by EHO. That the flue dimensions comply with the requirements of the stove, both flue ID and distance between stove and emissions exit plus satisfactory airflow guranteed. Any structure within a radius of 5 times the emissions exit height and more than 50% of the exit height is known to create downwash . Wood combustion emissions are known to suffer inversion problems with low thermal buoyancy and local weather conditions adding to the problems. Moisture content, contamination and stove operation obviously influence impact of emissions but are sadly wide open to abuse/ignorance. I note some forums recommend scavenging from skips, use of pallets ignores possible contamination.
As you are possibly aware the health concerns are caused by the high percentage of sub PM 2.5 particles, not visible so sadly the smoke obscures the most hazardous pollution but indicates the route of the emissions.
We have experienced this situation but it was our stove causing the problem . Took great care to follow all the instructions except at the time were unaware of impact from adjacent trees. Our stove was clean burn etc. Only burning virgin wood split and stored under cover for at least 12 months. During the first heating season we became aware emissions were grounding locally and felt morally obliged to remove the stove and it went to a happy home in the fens.
Sadly we now experience the pollution from a nearby woodstove in a 3 storey property, adjacent trees again causing downwash. I suffer respiratory problems so tend to spend as much time as possible by the sea. With the “glossies” continually pushing the “wow” factor of wood burners your problem sadly indicates the future.
Hoping you can achieve a satisfactory outcome.
Brian
- CommentAuthorJSHarris
- CommentTimeJul 20th 2012
The issue here is nuisance, though, not compliance with any rules or regulations, isn't it?

I think the whole issue of whether the stove and flue is compliant with whatever sets of rules apply is a complete red herring, as is the type of wood being burnt. None of that stuff has any bearing whatsoever on the issue, which seems to be a clear cut case of causing a nuisance.

Even if the stove, flue, type of fuel, operation method etc are all 100% compliant with whatever rules apply, there can still be a strong case for the smoke and emissions causing nuisance.

I would strongly suggest that you play down the regulatory aspects, type of wood being burned etc, as I don't think they have more than a very peripheral bearing on your case. Your case is, in principle, one of your neighbour causing a nuisance. The legislation you need to use is that outlined, which relates to causing a nuisance, (not the regulatory stuff surrounding the stove and fuel).

It pays to be clear and as simple as possible when making a case like this; if you get derailed into a lengthy and complex legal debate about the type of wood, legality of the stove etc, then I am near-certain that your case will flounder and maybe fail.

Stick to the hard evidence you can gather as to the IMPACT of the nuisance being caused by your neighbour. This could be evidence of visible smoke on your property, smoke alarms going off, measurements of flue gas constituents in your home or garden, evidence of the detrimental impact on your health etc. The evidence needs to show the prolonged nature of the nuisance, as the law really only works for cases where the nuisance is seen as likely to be continuing for an indefinite period unless prevented..
- CommentAuthorSteamyTea
- CommentTimeJul 20th 2012
Would go along with that.
An analogy could be a neighbour with a VW Van (maybe green with a red door and a spoiler on top). The van is road legal and the stereo in it is nothing unusual. It is the way and time he uses it that I consider a nuisance.
- CommentAuthorwindy lamb
- CommentTimeJul 21st 2012
JSHarris is again correct! This is NOTHING to do with the fuel nor the appliance; it is a statutory nuisance by way of smoke. If the appliance was compliant and the correct wood was used it could STILL cause a nuisance. Bit like a Pub having planning permission and a public entertainment licence- it can have live music but not if that causes a noise nuisance.
The EHO is making excuses when he/she says they usually deal with noise, not smoke. So what? They are both statutory nuisances under the same EPA, investigated and enforced in the same way, usually I may say, by the same EHO. If they only investigated the Clean Air Act side of things and not nuisance then yes, it is time to write to the ombudsman! Or perhaps a formal letter of complaint to the Chief Officer then OB.
- CommentAuthorJoiner
- CommentTimeJul 21st 2012
Makes you wonder why you bother posting on here sometimes.

Does anyone ever read earlier posts?
- CommentAuthorJSHarris
- CommentTimeJul 21st 2012
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Joiner</cite>Makes you wonder why you bother posting on here sometimes.

Does anyone ever read earlier posts?</blockquote>

All I was trying to do was bring the focus back on the key point you'd made earlier, about nuisance being the issue.

The thread seems to get constantly pulled towards the legality of the stove/fuel etc, which is just a red herring.
- CommentAuthorSteamyTea
- CommentTimeJul 21st 2012
Umm, Smoked Red Herring.
Get Richard or Dorothy on the case
- CommentAuthorJoiner
- CommentTimeJul 21st 2012
Wasn't having a real dig. It just makes me smile, that's all. That having established the real issue to be the nuisance and got agreement on that point, as you say the thread was still being pulled towards the legality of the stove, as if nothing had been established to the contrary.
- CommentAuthorCWatters
- CommentTimeJul 21st 2012
Very interesting post here. It suggests the EHO may not be able to take action if you live in a smoke control zone !!!

http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=769

Rustychain wrote:

I'm an environmental health officer (currently deciding which wood burning stove to install) and have experience of the issues you raise.

Justin - the local authority are the only body you have to 'consider' in this case. Before taking formal action, they would have to satisfy themselves that your WBS is causing a statutory nuisance (either prejudicial to health or a nuisance - I won't go into the lengthy legal definitions which are generally derived from case law).

They can't take action for stat nuisance if you live in a smoke control area (in that scenario you would have to satisfy them that your appliance was approved for use in a smoke control area or you were using approved smokeless fuel).

If the LA were inclined to serve an abatement notice on you for a stat nuisance, then you would have the defence of using best practicable means to prevent, or counteract the effects of the nuisance. In my opinion, if you have a modern, clean burn stove, with an insulated flue and burn fully seasoned wood, then you don't have a case to answer.

I also agree with the other comments that if there was a large shift in the number of people burning wood, clean stoves or not, we can expect air quality problems in the future.

Good luck!
- CommentAuthorJoiner
- CommentTimeJul 21st 2012
I wonder what he bases that opinion on because he doesn't cite any authority and the section I read defining statutury nuisance are quite specific in the categories of exceptions (see earlier post) and smoke controlled zones aren't included.

'Rustychain' says: "I won't go into the lengthy legal definitions which are generally derived from case law."

Pity, because that's what's needed here to confirm the introduction of that element of doubt.

Late, but I'll have a furtle around about it tomorrow morning.
- CommentAuthorCWatters
- CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
Found this which suggests that if you burn "authorised smokeless fuel" and it still emits smoke you might be ok. Perhaps that's what Rustychain was referring to above...

http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/ccm/content/environment-and-recycling/pollution-noise-and-nuisance/air-pollution/smoke-pollution.en;jsessionid=04AF3130623B0D3586583BCB5702F408

Smoke control areas
---------------------

These are areas where the emission of smoke from chimneys of dwellings is prohibited and smoke from other premises is controlled by orders under the Clean Air Act.

It is an offence for an occupier of premises to allow smoke to be emitted from a chimney, unless the smoke is being caused by an authorised fuel or the fireplace which the chimney serves is exempt from the order.

If you live in a smoke control area
-----------------------------------

Living in a smoke control area does not necessarily mean that you must give up an open fire, but it may mean installing a more modern heating appliance capable of burning solid smokeless fuel, or adaptation of your fire or boiler, to meet the requirements of the order.

Details of authorised smokeless fuels and their proper use should be available from all reputable coal merchants and from the Solid Fuel Association website.

Coal and wood are not authorised smokeless fuels and should not be burnt on fires.

However, any coal, wood or other fuel, which is not an authorised smokeless fuel, used in a smoke control area must be burnt on an exempt heating appliance.

These appliances are designed to burn off their own smoke.

If you are thinking of buying an appliance to burn a fuel that is not an authorised smokeless fuel always check the appliance is exempt for use in a smoke control area.
- CommentAuthorJSHarris
- CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
This doesn't get away from the fact that a nuisance is a nuisance, whether caused by something that's outwardly legal or not.

The issue, as has been stated several times now, isn't the stove, it's the nuisance the use of it causes. It doesn't matter if the stove is the right type, correctly installed and burning the correct type of fuel, if it causes a nuisance in operation then it causes a nuisance.

It's like the example ST gave of the perfectly legal car fitted with a legal stereo that is then used in such a way as to cause a nuisance. It is the use of the item, not the legality of the item itself, that causes a nuisance.

The definition of causing a nuisance in law is not related to the legality of the cause, but based on the impact it has on the complainant. In this case I suspect there are some local conditions (orientation of the flue, roof shape, prevailing wind conditions) that cause flue gasses and smoke to go where they shouldn't. It may well be that this cannot be alleviated, in which case the only means of relieving the nuisance would be to order that the stove not be used.

The principle is similar in many ways to that surrounding wind farm noise complaints. We already have at least one example where a wind energy company has settled out of court with a complainant, even though their installation allegedly complied with the regulations. They clearly believed that, despite the legality of their installation, the complainant had a case for them causing a nuisance.
- CommentAuthorJoiner
- CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012 edited
(Ha ha. You posted just before me JS, so it would have looked like my being guilty of what I said above!)

Still a statutory nuisance then and the owner of the stove has singularly failed to mitigate the nuisance on the basis of the evidence adduced by Mikeee5 and corroborated by any number of medical professionals.

It's tiresome to have to return to the efficiency of the stove, but important to get it cleared up because you can be sure that someone in the opposite camp will push it for all they're worth. So thanks, Colin, another good find. Forewarned is forearmed.

There is mention of the Ringelmann smoke chart to assess 'black smoke', there's an excellent paper on it (and how to use it) here...

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/pubs/pdfs/ic8333.pdf (US, but globally applicable.)

I think an assessment needs to be made of the smoke being produced, using the smoke chart, and a video made of the actual assessment(s) being made. I, personally, wouldn't hand the results over to the EHO, even if they prove conclusively that the smoke emitted IS 'black smoke', but would keep it for use as SUPPORTING evidence in the Section 82 case, when anything you rely on to support your prosecution will have to be declared to the defence anyway so that they can prepare their case. With the video evidence showing the Ringelmann smoke chart results I can't see how they can simply call on the stove's being compliant to refute the charge of nuisance.

Anyone see any crack in that argument?

Handing the Ringelmann smoke chart "evidence" over to the EHO will probably just prolong the agony.
- CommentAuthorMikeee5
- CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012 edited
I think it's time to forget the EHD and proceed with the section 82. I had a fourth letter from my respiratory consultant drop through the door yesterday confirming the effect the smoke and fumes are having on my breathing! Regarding the colour of the smoke I would say recently it has been light grey to light blue and like I said in an earlier post it smells more like a freshly lit bonfire of leaves and branches. I have took numerous videos again over the past week and you can clearly see the smoke coming downwards onto my property (and this is in the middle of summer!). I have installed a night vision security cam in close proximity of the chimney to get some footage as the nights start drawing in, as this is when the smoke and fumes are at their worst!

Mikeee
- CommentAuthorJoiner
- CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
Just worth bearing mind that if they do choose to concentrate on their stove's being compliant and the EHD's failure/refusal to follow-through as a result of that, then you'll need to have at least prepared a come-back to "prove" that the issue really is to do with the nuisance caused by that otherwise 'compliant' stove.

If the smoke does indeed now appear to be compliant according to the Ringelmann smoke chart, you could be making their case for them UNLESS you argue that the accepted standard offers no protection from the statutory nuisance which you're about to prove...

In my case, the defence tried to argue that the reason I was taking the Section 82 route was BECAUSE the LA thought there was no case to answer. Easy enough to disprove in my case, in yours you're going to have to argue against the LA's arguments that their failure to stop the nuisance was because no offence was being committed (compliant stove), not that they couldn't prove it (absence of proof of nuisance to the complainant).

Jeremy?
- CommentAuthorBrianwilson
- CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
A basic question, why are the emissions inverting and causing a nuisance for neighbouring properties? Surely we should be investigating cause of inversion when aware even a clean burn stove will create hazardous pollution hundreds of times higher than equivalent gas and many times higher than oil.
- CommentAuthorJSHarris
- CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Brianwilson</cite>A basic question, why are the emissions inverting and causing a nuisance for neighbouring properties? Surely we should be investigating cause of inversion when aware even a clean burn stove will create hazardous pollution hundreds of times higher than equivalent gas and many times higher than oil.</blockquote>

Not something for the complainant to be bothered with - it's entirely up to the person causing the nuisance to take whatever measures are needed to stop the the cause.

It may well have been the case in the first instance that the person causing the nuisance was unaware of the local air flow issues that exacerbate the smoke and fume nuisance he's causing, but by now (change of stove, repeated complaints etc) he must be very well aware of them and so it's entirely his responsibility to investigate and alleviate the nuisance.

What's more, if the complainant (Mikeee5 in this case) decides to try and do the neighbours job for him, find the cause and come up with ways of alleviating the nuisance, then it will weaken his case considerably if those measures aren't effective.

Best steer very well clear of doing the neighbours job for them and stick to the nuisance complaint.
- CommentAuthorPeter_in_Hungary
- CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
Wot JSH said

As was said above its not the stove that is causing the problem, - not even the type of fuel, although an illegal fuel would be a different issue.

The chimney is deficient!!!

If the chimney worked properly the emission would go up (OK to land somewhere else, much diluted) but would not be causing Mikeee5 problems. It is the down drafts that are causing the trouble, both pushing the smoke down Mikeee5's chimney, into his garden and through any window that happens to be open.

Whilst I am no chimney expert, chimneys have to work in their location and a chimney built to building regs is not guaranteed to work in every location. I have a chimney that, with the wind in the wrong direction (luckily an infrequent occurrence) the smoke can be seen rolling down the roof, but a chimney on the same roof but 4m further along is unaffected. A rule of thumb was given above about the distance and height of objects close to chimneys but each chimney and effect will be different.

If I could make another analogy It would not matter how modern or clean / low emission a car exhaust was - if you connect it to the inside of the car you will have problems. I drove an estate car once with the tail gate down and over about 30 mph the car filled with exhaust - until I opened the front window. There was not much smell but I felt dizzy and quickly got a headache. Its all to do with air flows and how they react to obstacles.

If you are going for a section 82 then any discussion about the stove, how it is used or type of fuel is irrelevant. The nuisance is the emission from the chimney (be it within the standard for smoke or not) landing on and in your property and causing you distress. How the nuisance is stopped is also not your concern - just that it is stopped!!
- CommentAuthorwindy lamb
- CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
Well - not sure about some of the last few posts. Can't get done for smoke nuisance in a smoke control area - since when? OK, so you might try and argue a "best practical means" defence but that's a bit thin, especially if one can demonstrate there is still smoke arising. Bit like saying is OK for you to release asbestos all over the place because you use an approved enclosure - what rubbish; doesn't matter if it's approved, it matters whether it actually works or not.
Stick to smoke nuisance from a premises - don't have to say why it is being caused just that it IS and it's being emitted from that address. Entirely up to the owner of the appliance to "take necessary steps to abate the nuisance" - that could be not lighting it, increasing chimney height etc etc. Stick to the basic facts of smoke, when, where, from where, for how long. All the other stuff will just confuse the issue, trip you up and you'll end up nowhere.
Don't start getting confused with whether it's dark smoke or white smoke (that's Clean Air Act stuff - "an offence to emit dark smoke from a trade premises") it's not relevant what colour the smoke is (but still describe it in your diary), the point is whether the smoke "materially affects the enjoyment of you property". If your smoke alarms go off because of the neighbour's smoke drifting into your house (whether from an approved appliance or bonfire ) then that is a clear illustration of affecting your enjoyment. _ it's a Statutory Nuisace end of.
- CommentAuthorowlman
- CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
Posted By: Brianwilson .......A basic question, why are the emissions inverting................. Surely we should be investigating cause of inversion

As PiH said. and It may sound obvious but is the flue exit high enough and compliant ,- there are rules.
- CommentAuthorJoiner
- CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
As earlier...

Just worth bearing mind that if they do choose to concentrate on their stove's being compliant and the EHD's failure/refusal to follow-through as a result of that, then you'll need to have at least prepared a come-back to "prove" that the issue really is to do with the nuisance caused by that otherwise 'compliant' stove.

If the smoke does indeed now appear to be compliant according to the Ringelmann smoke chart, you could be making their case for them UNLESS you argue that the accepted standard offers no protection from the statutory nuisance which you're about to prove...

In my case, the defence tried to argue that the reason I was taking the Section 82 route was BECAUSE the LA thought there was no case to answer. Easy enough to disprove in my case, in yours you're going to have to argue against the LA's arguments that their failure to stop the nuisance was because no offence was being committed (compliant stove), not that they couldn't prove it (absence of proof of nuisance to the complainant).

It's a back-up argument only. A contingency. It's called Devil's Advocacy and I indulged in it every waking moment pre-trial because I was buggered if I was going to allow a delaying tactic to come skimming in low, unseen and unprepared for.

If I was defending I'd push the smoke issue until I'd planted a seed of doubt in the minds of the magistrates, enough to make them call for expert testimony. The issue could be headed off if a prepared argument was ready.

It wasn't me who mentioned the Ringelmann smoke chart, prior to reading the Clean Air stuff and going into the 'black smoke' section for a definition, I had never heard of the chart. I mentioned it because it's the official standard used to assess smoke, it isn't something that just took my fancy because it had an impressive-sounding name and was invented by an exotic-sounding foreigner.

The whole point is to head off the opposition IF they raise the issue of compliance, which they surely will.

Now, given the EHD's stated position and previous rulings, is anyone still insisting that covering one's ass is such a bad idea?
- CommentAuthormarktime
- CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
I think that if I were in Mikeee's position I would pay Joiner to assist me in the prep. Just saying....
- CommentAuthorJoiner
- CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
Difficult to speak someone else's words with conviction. Unless you've spent time in AmDram.

I did give Mike my courtroom "speech", and as long as he changes the names...
- CommentAuthorSteamyTea
- CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
Posted By: Joinerand as long as he changes the names

To protect the innocent, like in the movies
- CommentAuthorCWatters
- CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
Sorry to bring up wind farms in this thread but this document is about nuisance and has some good stuff in it..

http://docs.wind-watch.org/Wind-farm-noise-and-private-nuisance-a-return-to-common-sense.pdf
- CommentAuthorJoiner
- CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
Colin, you're an effing genius. There is a sentence in there that I've been searching for amongst all my papers since Mike started the thread... "Liability in nuisance is strict in the sense that one has no right to carry on an activity which unreasonably interferes with a neighbour's use of land merely because one is doing it with reasonable care. If it cannot be done without causing unreasonable interference, it cannot be done at all.”

I also repeat what I said about having the smoke chart results as a back-up only, in order to counter its use as a delaying tactic if Mike is challenged and found ignorant of the test, when an adjournment will be requested by the defence in order to 'establish the extent of the nuisance', not as the main plank of the argument which, as I think we all agree, should be wholly about the nuisance. It's purely a defence against Exocets.

It happens, as highlighted in Cwatters' link, where a certain Mr Norris is playing dirty...

"Sadly this does not meet with the purposes of the law of nuisance and Mr Norris is doing what many others have tried to do before him, which is to add so many elements for consideration by the courts that the key consideration is side-lined. If the law of private nuisance is to meet its aims of protecting the amenity of individuals' property, it must focus on the effect on the amenity of those individuals, not the activities that lead up to that."

Even judges get it wrong and have to be pulled up:

"Coulson J., in the High Court in Barr v Biffa appeared to offer support for Mr Norris's contentions. However, this was resoundingly put aside in the Court of Appeal. Having helpfully set out the history of the development of reasonable user arguments, including reference to arguments such as those proposed by Mr Norris which stem from extracting select phrases from previous judgments,"
[...]
‘Reasonableness is a relevant consideration here, but the question is neither what is reasonable in the eyes of the defendant or even the claimant (for one cannot by being unduly sensitive, constrain one's neighbour's freedoms), but what objectively a normal person would find it reasonable to have to put up with”

"...Lord Hoffmann said of common law nuisance in Transco at [ 26] : * J.P.L. 8 9 5 “ Liability in nuisance is strict in the sense that one has no right to carry on an activity which unreasonably interferes with a neighbour's use of land merely because one is doing it with reasonable care. If it cannot be done without causing unreasonable interference, it cannot be done at all.”

Hear, hear.
- CommentAuthorowlman
- CommentTimeJul 23rd 2012
Posted By: Joiner...................... There is a sentence in there that I've been searching for amongst all my papers since Mike started the thread... "Liability in nuisance is strict in the sense that one has no right to carry on an activity which unreasonably interferes with a neighbour's use of land merely because one is doing it with reasonable care. If it cannot be done without causing unreasonable interference, it cannot be done at all.”

Very interesting Joiner.........I wonder if that would apply to a neighbour's frequent Summer BBQ's whose smell of roasting mammal is offensive,- to a vegetarian.

61 to 90 of 340



	Site Map \| Home \| View Cart \| Pressroom \| Business \| Links	Contact Us
Logout
© Green Building Press

Green Building Forum

Categories

Feeds

Heating and cooling: Smoke Nuisance – is wood wood?