Getting rid of bonfires in California a good idea?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by tshrimp, Jul 11, 2013.

  1. tshrimp macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #1
  2. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
  3. MegamanX macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 13, 2013
    #3
    The global warming argument is crap because it is not adding any new carbon. It comes from wood.

    Now the health side they have a case as those fires throw a lot of soot into the air and that can cause a lot of heath problems and lung damage.
     
  4. P-Worm macrumors 68020

    P-Worm

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #4
    You sound like a prominent scientist. May I have links to papers you have written on the subject?

    P-Worm
     
  5. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #5
    What a bunch of crap.

    The vast majority of pollution in LA comes from it's ridiculous car and traffic congestion problems. Why don't they spend their time and resources researching how to fix that instead of trying to ruin people's fun? Typical moron politicians.
     
  6. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #6
    Maybe they should work on ridding the Kardashians first.
     
  7. MegamanX macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 13, 2013
    #7
    You are confusing the issue. Burning oil and gas add to global warming.
    Bone fires not so much. That was a crap argument to begin with.
    Their other one about air pollution threw partials in the air is by far a valid one and a much better reason to argue to ban it.
     
  8. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #8

    Plenty of people have ridden the Kardashians.
     
  9. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #9
    Well most of the NBA.
     
  10. Zaap macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #10
    WTF do bonfires on the beach have to do with Global Warming?

    If ever you needed evidence of how looney the MMGW crowd is, California will certainly step up to illustrate it.
     
  11. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #11
    Burning oil or gas doesn't "add" any new carbon either.

    The carbon in the bonfire wood has been sequestered in the wood for 100 years or so.

    The carbon in gas/oil has been sequestered for there for millions of years.

    But either way, you're releasing carbon into the atmosphere that was tied up/not active in wood/oil/gasoline.
     
  12. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #12
    This argument makes no sense. Carbon is sequestered inside of coal, wood, and natural gas, but when those are burned the carbon is released into the atmosphere, which is the fundamental problem since CO2 is a major greenhouse gas.

    So, yes, the burning of wood puts more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Moreover, a recent study suggested that wildfires (and really any wood-based fire) produce 'tar balls' or particulates that may actually accelerate warming—previously, scientists believed that wildfire effects tended to cancel each other out.

    That said, I think California would be better served by mitigating other emissions and leaving beach bonfires alone.

    Right, which is more important in my view, but I would argue that there are other pollution emitters that would be better to regulate than this one.
     
  13. TedM macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Location:
    California
    #13
    I think they mostly do it to prevent wild fire. Before we went on a multiple day hike, my buddy and I stopped by the ranger station and we had to have a fire permit to make a fire.
     
  14. Zaap macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #14
    Yeah, sand and water are just waiting to go up in flame.
     
  15. TedM macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Location:
    California
    #15
    I think you'd be surprised at the amount of wild fires started from people not properly putting out their fires.
     
  16. Zaap, Jul 11, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 14, 2013

    Zaap macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #16
    We're talking about fires on the beach in concrete fire pits, not random fires out in the woods somewhere. Sand and the ocean do not catch fire.

    Even the politicians trying to enact this nonsense aren't even citing some 'wildfires' argument, they're citing global warming (even more ridiculous) and pollution (which is at least rationally arguable, but still nanny-state-like).
     
  17. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #17
    This is as dumb as people walking up to me while I'm idle in my car and asking "Can you please shut the engine off, your polluting the earth". My reply is always "NO biotch, I need my freaking AC" :D
     
  18. hulugu, Jul 11, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 14, 2013

    hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #18
    I think this is the last event in the pyromaniac's olympics.

    From the New York Times' article on the subject (dated May 30):

    With 500 pits, that starts to become a significant amount of pollution. That said:

     
  19. Zaap macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #19
    Sorry, but I still think the pollution argument is a BS one.

    First off, I live not that far from where fires are allowed at Dockweiler Beach near Playa Del Rey. Just because the population of the city has gone up doesn't mean the number of beach firepits has gone up in proportion- that's just someone's ********* they're hoping people won't catch. It simply means more people crowd around the existing firepits, and people have to wait longer to get one in the first place.

    People who live near the beach know the score, that fires are allowed.

    This sentence is more what's really going on:


    So basically you have something that people have enjoyed for 100 years, a few *******s move in and build their beach house right up on the sand, and then suddenly they own the whole world around them. "Hey! What are all these OTHER people doing on MY beach!? And what's with these fires in MY new beach backyard? Oh boo hoo! Let me use my money, power, and extreme whineyness to wreck this **** for everyone else!"


    Next up, you'll have these same type of twits build their summer getaways right next to campsites in the wilderness that people have used for centuries and start whining, "Hey! What's up with all these tents and campfires right next to MY new backyard? What are all these other people doing enjoying MY view, MY mountain, MY lake, MY forest, MY ocean...! Let me bitch about this to my political hack buddies until I ruin this **** for everyone else!"

    And on and on and on.

    If you moved somewhere where people have been building fires and enjoying nature, then ***** LIVE with your choice, not try to wreck everything for everyone else. I for one, and sick of all the ninnies who ruin life and fun for everyone else.
     
  20. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #20
    For anyone who cares, data is certainly available on the sources of particulate pollution. For example, here is a report on the San Francisco Bay Area:

    http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Research%20and%20Modeling/Source_apportionment_2010_Update.ashx

    http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Research%20and%20Modeling/Source_apportionment_2010_Update.ashx

    Wood burning is still a significant source of fine particulates, although it is smaller than it used to be. I can't say how much the bonfires by themselves produce, but, overall, smoke particulates are a big deal. The difference between low and high exposure can be two years in life expectancy, and, an even bigger difference in quality of life.


    http://www.nejm.org/action/showImage?doi=10.1056%2FNEJMsa0805646&iid=f02

    [​IMG]
     
  21. Merkava_4 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #21
    The California Government wants to ban everything. They want to ban black cars too.

    LINK
     
  22. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #22
    Some of your quotes are priceless.
     
  23. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #23
    That link is from 2009. What happened?


    Back OT, fine particulate air pollution is a big factor in asthma and many other illnesses. Reductions in particulates in the U.S. have led directly to significant, measurable increases in life expectancy.

    The problem with the bonfires is the same as always with distributed pollution sources. No one small source is a killer. If you look at the tables on the BAAQMD site, you can see there are a large number of sources. Everyone benefits if everyone reduces their relatively small source of pollution. Overall, the effect is very large.
     
  24. prostuff1 macrumors 65816

    prostuff1

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Location:
    Don't step into the kawoosh...
    #24
    This is a big "face palm" moment in my mind.

    If so much pollution comes from this then I guess the camp fires I sit around at least once a week in the summer are killing me also.
     
  25. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #25
    One small camp fire means nothing, pollution-wise (except to someone with asthma downwind). Many thousands of fires and other sources of fine particulates polluting the air constantly over many years may shorten your life by years. "The solution to pollution is dilution" only works for one source; it doesn't work for many thousands of sources, from bonfires on the beach, burning leaves, forest fires, woodstoves, backyard barbecues, etc.
     

Share This Page