David Hendley on fri 21 jan 00
John, I'm having a hard time with YOUR post and, as
a wood-firing potter, I can't help but take it somewhat
personally.
The EPA is nothing but a politically directed government
agency. What they do is based on politics, not science.
There is, indeed, "pollution" everywhere, but what the EPA
decides to "go after" and regulate is influenced by dozens
of things, including the latest "science du jour", which often
turns out to really be junk speculation, but mostly politics.
And, yes, in this instance, this is going after a "minnow" wood
kiln when the ocean is teaming with whales. Shutting down
a wood kiln that is used probably a total of 15 or 20 days a
year is downright poor prioritizing, if the one and only goal
of the agency is to stop pollution. Of course, that's not
the goal; the goal is to restrict politically incorrect, unpopular,
or non-powerful-lobbyist-connected activities.
I won't argue so-called "scientific facts" because the track
record of "scientific studies" is so full of misrepresented
conclusions, retractions, and reversals as to make them
practically meaningless. In your trash burning example, for
instance, even if the results are accepted as true (which I
am not willing to concede), plenty of related information
is not mentioned. How, for example, does the trash from
tens of thousands of homes get to the state-of-the-art
municipal incinerator? Well, I assume that hundreds of
garbage trucks, burning thousands of gallons of fuel, using
up oil, tires, anti-freeze, etc., etc., and sending pounds
of particulate matter into the air, carry the garbage to the
incinerator. How much pollution was caused by, and non-
renewable resources used by, building the incinerator facility
and the hundreds of garbage trucks? Lots. The guy burning his
trash out back uses up no resources.
I have a hard time with using the "Each person is the problem"
mentality as an excuse to tell others what to do. You and
the EPA may think I am a problem because I fire a wood kiln;
I think, on the other hand, think you and EPA bureaucrats
are a problem because you drive automobiles to work each day.
I'm sure I cause far less pollution by firing my kiln 12 days a
year than the bureaucrat causes driving from Maryland to his
D. C. office 200 times a year.
On top of that, I am burning waste wood, a renewable fuel
that would simply rot away (and rotting wood causes air pollution)
or be burned at the mill if I didn't retrieve it. All the non-carpooling,
SUV driving, suburban-dwelling bureaucrat commuters are burning
a non-renewable fuel that is located, retrieved, and processed at
great (and more pollution-causing) expense.
Potters, by and large, are some of the most frugal, simple-
living, ecologically-minded folks you will ever meet. It is absurd
to try to regulate a fringe activity like firing a wood-fired kiln
when there are hundreds of causes of more widespread pollution
everywhere you look.
For those of you who feel strongly about this topic, and think
that wood kilns and all pollution should be stopped, well, you
are probably not doing much about it, if you are reading this.
If you are truly committed and passionate about ending pollution,
I suggest you move from the industrialized world. In one day
you are responsible for more pollution than a farmer living in a
manure and mud hut in Mali for an entire lifetime.
--
David Hendley
Maydelle, Texas
hendley@tyler.net
http://www.farmpots.com/
----- Original Message -----
From: John Britt
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: Wood kiln in danger of being shut down by EPA; Help! (7)
| ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
| Tom,
|
| With all due respect, I am really having a hard time with this post.
| It is very hard to believe that firing a kiln would "clean" air. In
| fact this is unbelievable. Does this mean that if we all start firing
| kilns we could actually eliminate the pollution problem?
|
| The point is that the EPA has proven the problem. Regardless of the
| invisible pollutants (which I am sure exist in wood kilns too) the
| problem is particulates. Wood kilns exceed the limits. Art is no
| excuse.
|
| Does the EPA have bigger fish to fry? That is irrelevant. Every person
| matters. Take for instance a recent report in TIME magazine, Jan 17,
| 2000. They report that a study showed burning trash in your backyard
| from just one household dumps the same amount of dioxins, furans and
| other chlorine-containing pollutants into the air as the burning of
| trash by a state-of-the-art municipal waste incinerator serving tens of
| thousands of homes. Does one person burning trash in their backyard
| matter? How about 100,000 of them? How about 1,000,000. You see one
| person adds up when you have a lot of them.
|
| Each person is the problem. Should we excuse one artist from the
| regulation? One school? One company? How about DuPont? Maybe if they
| donate to some campaign? You see, then where do you draw the line.
| Schools and artists are no different from anyone else in their need to
| comply with health and safety regulations. It is for the greater good.
|
| (If the EPA ever came in and tested the drains at any university, they
| would shut them down. People seem to think that washing toxic glaze
| materials down the drain is any different that dumping it out your back
| door. The only difference is YOU can't see it anymore. But I assure
| you that the fish and wildlife don't differentiate between DuPont and an
| artist when they ingest it. )
|
| The ever expanding pollution and waste of 260,000,000 people is a very
| difficult problem!
|
| Sorry for the rant. Nothing personal. I just feel stongly about this
| topic.
| _________________________________________________________________
|
| Tom Wirt wrote:
|
| Martin,
| I'll relate a story told to me by Richard Bresnahan who fires wood at
| St.
| John's University in Collegeville MN. While he was apprenticing in
| Japan,
| supposedly the Japanese governement was trying to shut down a wood kiln
| near
| where he was. As part of the testing, a team of engineers from a nearby
|
| Toyota factory were hired to test for pollution emitted by the kiln.
| They
| measured the air going in for all pollutants including heavy metals,
| sulfides, carbon, etc. They measured the effluent for the same.
|
| The net was that the air was cleaner going out of the kiln, even with
| the
| smoke, than the air going in. Apparently the charcoal scrubbed some of
| the
| pollutants and the rest were trapped on the surfaces of the pots as
| colorants. The visible smoke was the smallest part and least damaging
| of
| the whole process.
|
| Don't know how true or accurate the detail of my telling, but you could
| contact Richard by calling him at 320-363-2930. The point of the story,
| I
| would think the EPA would/should have to prove its allegations of
| pollution
| by some thorough testing over the span of a firing. And while the smoke
|
| seems to be the pollutant, the most important part may be invisible.
|
| I remember living in Denver for 6 years where the claim was that the
| "brown
| cloud" caused heavily by the high carbon emissions from planes and
| trucks
| was not the dangerous part of the pollution. That the danger was from
| the
| nitrous oxides from the automobiles. 'course the truckers had a strong
| lobby and the individual motorist did not.
|
| And when all is said and done, is the amount of pollution coming from
| this
| kiln a significant percent of the state's pollution? Don't they have
| bigger fish to fry? And involve the local press.....it's a good story
| and
| government agenicies don't like to operate in public.
|
| Tom Wirt
|
| Embroiled in my own version of government involvement here in McLeod
| County
| MN.
|
| --
|
Dannon Rhudy on sat 22 jan 00
David, yours is a well-reasoned (if a bit steaming) response
regarding the use of wood kilns. It is absolutely true that the
EPA is a political organization, run by and for politicians,
whose priorities, unfortunately,
have little to do with statesmanship and reasonable policies,
and much to do with getting
1) re-elected; 2) a really good job with a big lobby firm;
3) power. In any order.
It is, as you say, ridiculous to spend time and money on such things
as a wood-fired kiln, when factory A and Manufacturer B and C
are dumping god-knows-what into the atmosphere and
water table. But, as they have money and/or provide jobs,
they get overlooked or - and this is really terrific - they can
"buy" what amounts to dispensations to pollute, in the form of
permits. So can cities,
by various means, including fines, which are merely "payments"
to continue pollution. Cheaper than fixing it, and they do it all
the time.
This is not to say that we shouldn't all do all we can to limit pollution.
Most of us, as you point out, do our very best to do so. But the
scrap or trash wood that goes into a kiln (and I know of no potters
who cut living trees for this) is going to burn anyway. It produces
just as much pollution decomposing as it does being burnt in the kiln.
It may take longer - 20 years, or more- but in geologic time that is
nothing, a matter of complete indifference.
When I was in B.C. for a workshop a year or so ago, they were
very troubled about, and trying to fix, emissions from the Tozan kiln
there. And being buffeted on all sides by the Canadian equivalent
to the EPA. For firing the kiln 6 or so times a year. Meanwhile,
across the bay, in full view, was a pulp mill, spewing tons and tons
of stuff into the air 24 hours a day. I'd like to say I could hardly
believe it. But - it is actually easy to understand.
regards,
Dannon Rhudy
potter@koyote.com
At 01:23 PM 01/21/2000 EST, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>John, I'm having a hard time with YOUR post and, as
>a wood-firing potter, I can't help but take it somewhat
>personally.
>
>The EPA is nothing but a politically directed government
>agency. What they do is based on politics, not science.
How, for example, does the trash from
>tens of thousands of homes get to the state-of-the-art
>municipal incinerator? Well, I assume that hundreds of
>garbage trucks, burning thousands of gallons of fuel, using
>up oil, tires, anti-freeze, etc., etc., and sending pounds
>of particulate matter into the air, carry the garbage to the
>incinerator. How much pollution was caused by, and non-
>renewable resources used by, building the incinerator facility
>and the hundreds of garbage trucks? Lots. The guy burning his
>trash out back uses up no resources.
>
>I have a hard time with using the "Each person is the problem"
>mentality as an excuse to tell others what to do. You and
>the EPA may think I am a problem because I fire a wood kiln;
>I think, on the other hand, think you and EPA bureaucrats
>are a problem because you drive automobiles to work each day.
>I'm sure I cause far less pollution by firing my kiln 12 days a
>year than the bureaucrat causes driving from Maryland to his
>D. C. office 200 times a year.
>On top of that, I am burning waste wood, a renewable fuel
>that would simply rot away (and rotting wood causes air pollution)
>or be burned at the mill if I didn't retrieve it. All the non-carpooling,
>SUV driving, suburban-dwelling bureaucrat commuters are burning
>a non-renewable fuel that is located, retrieved, and processed at
>great (and more pollution-causing) expense.
>
>Potters, by and large, are some of the most frugal, simple-
>living, ecologically-minded folks you will ever meet. It is absurd
>to try to regulate a fringe activity like firing a wood-fired kiln
>when there are hundreds of causes of more widespread pollution
>everywhere you look.
>For those of you who feel strongly about this topic, and think
>that wood kilns and all pollution should be stopped, well, you
>are probably not doing much about it, if you are reading this.
>If you are truly committed and passionate about ending pollution,
>I suggest you move from the industrialized world. In one day
>you are responsible for more pollution than a farmer living in a
>manure and mud hut in Mali for an entire lifetime.
>
>--
>David Hendley
>Maydelle, Texas
>hendley@tyler.net
>http://www.farmpots.com/
>
ferenc jakab on sat 22 jan 00
I personally have no problems with one wood kiln fired occasionally, but
personally I chose gas because it is less polluting than wood. Notice I said
less polluting not no pollution. I also chose gas because it is less
polluting than electricity, which here in my corner of Australia is produced
by burning Brown coal. I forget the exact figures but it takes several
hundred kilograms of coal to produce one kilowatt of electricity at the
power point.
Feri.
Pamala Browne on sun 23 jan 00
Alright , you go guys !! Both of you have excellent points ( calm down
David )
I want to say however ,that this is not an urban dwelling area . NOT
alot of commuters . Rural area.There is alot of manure and mud out there .
I have yet to read if the reasoning behind the attempt to shut down the kiln
has anything to do with the no-burn days.
If it has anything to do with that -- please remember that these days are
strictly enforced -- it has been a concerted effort amid controversies and
tons of cussing and even some racial bigotry to try to clean up this area's
air .No burn days have made a HUGE difference in the appearance of the air
around Albuquerque.I do not know about emissions or measuring pollution ,
but I do know that New Mexico has the most incredible, breathable air-- only
during a thunder storm is the color of the sky different than the color of
your e-mail address color here. How could anyone justify the firing of a
kiln on a no-burn day when others with no money but huge wood piles can't
stoke up their wood stove to keep warm and save money ?
This situation could be more difficult than it seems. pamalab
From: David Hendley
To:
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: Wood kiln in danger of being shut down by EPA
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> John, I'm having a hard time with YOUR post and, as
> a wood-firing potter, I can't help but take it somewhat
> personally.
>
> The EPA is nothing but a politically directed government
> agency. What they do is based on politics, not science.
> There is, indeed, "pollution" everywhere, but what the EPA
> decides to "go after" and regulate is influenced by dozens
> of things, including the latest "science du jour", which often
> turns out to really be junk speculation, but mostly politics.
>
> And, yes, in this instance, this is going after a "minnow" wood
> kiln when the ocean is teaming with whales. Shutting down
> a wood kiln that is used probably a total of 15 or 20 days a
> year is downright poor prioritizing, if the one and only goal
> of the agency is to stop pollution. Of course, that's not
> the goal; the goal is to restrict politically incorrect, unpopular,
> or non-powerful-lobbyist-connected activities.
>
> I won't argue so-called "scientific facts" because the track
> record of "scientific studies" is so full of misrepresented
> conclusions, retractions, and reversals as to make them
> practically meaningless. In your trash burning example, for
> instance, even if the results are accepted as true (which I
> am not willing to concede), plenty of related information
> is not mentioned. How, for example, does the trash from
> tens of thousands of homes get to the state-of-the-art
> municipal incinerator? Well, I assume that hundreds of
> garbage trucks, burning thousands of gallons of fuel, using
> up oil, tires, anti-freeze, etc., etc., and sending pounds
> of particulate matter into the air, carry the garbage to the
> incinerator. How much pollution was caused by, and non-
> renewable resources used by, building the incinerator facility
> and the hundreds of garbage trucks? Lots. The guy burning his
> trash out back uses up no resources.
>
> I have a hard time with using the "Each person is the problem"
> mentality as an excuse to tell others what to do. You and
> the EPA may think I am a problem because I fire a wood kiln;
> I think, on the other hand, think you and EPA bureaucrats
> are a problem because you drive automobiles to work each day.
> I'm sure I cause far less pollution by firing my kiln 12 days a
> year than the bureaucrat causes driving from Maryland to his
> D. C. office 200 times a year.
> On top of that, I am burning waste wood, a renewable fuel
> that would simply rot away (and rotting wood causes air pollution)
> or be burned at the mill if I didn't retrieve it. All the non-carpooling,
> SUV driving, suburban-dwelling bureaucrat commuters are burning
> a non-renewable fuel that is located, retrieved, and processed at
> great (and more pollution-causing) expense.
>
> Potters, by and large, are some of the most frugal, simple-
> living, ecologically-minded folks you will ever meet. It is absurd
> to try to regulate a fringe activity like firing a wood-fired kiln
> when there are hundreds of causes of more widespread pollution
> everywhere you look.
> For those of you who feel strongly about this topic, and think
> that wood kilns and all pollution should be stopped, well, you
> are probably not doing much about it, if you are reading this.
> If you are truly committed and passionate about ending pollution,
> I suggest you move from the industrialized world. In one day
> you are responsible for more pollution than a farmer living in a
> manure and mud hut in Mali for an entire lifetime.
>
> --
> David Hendley
> Maydelle, Texas
> hendley@tyler.net
> http://www.farmpots.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Britt
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 12:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Wood kiln in danger of being shut down by EPA; Help! (7)
>
>
> | ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> | Tom,
> |
> | With all due respect, I am really having a hard time with this post.
> | It is very hard to believe that firing a kiln would "clean" air. In
> | fact this is unbelievable. Does this mean that if we all start firing
> | kilns we could actually eliminate the pollution problem?
> |
> | The point is that the EPA has proven the problem. Regardless of the
> | invisible pollutants (which I am sure exist in wood kilns too) the
> | problem is particulates. Wood kilns exceed the limits. Art is no
> | excuse.
> |
> | Does the EPA have bigger fish to fry? That is irrelevant. Every person
> | matters. Take for instance a recent report in TIME magazine, Jan 17,
> | 2000. They report that a study showed burning trash in your backyard
> | from just one household dumps the same amount of dioxins, furans and
> | other chlorine-containing pollutants into the air as the burning of
> | trash by a state-of-the-art municipal waste incinerator serving tens of
> | thousands of homes. Does one person burning trash in their backyard
> | matter? How about 100,000 of them? How about 1,000,000. You see one
> | person adds up when you have a lot of them.
> |
> | Each person is the problem. Should we excuse one artist from the
> | regulation? One school? One company? How about DuPont? Maybe if they
> | donate to some campaign? You see, then where do you draw the line.
> | Schools and artists are no different from anyone else in their need to
> | comply with health and safety regulations. It is for the greater good.
> |
> | (If the EPA ever came in and tested the drains at any university, they
> | would shut them down. People seem to think that washing toxic glaze
> | materials down the drain is any different that dumping it out your back
> | door. The only difference is YOU can't see it anymore. But I assure
> | you that the fish and wildlife don't differentiate between DuPont and an
> | artist when they ingest it. )
> |
> | The ever expanding pollution and waste of 260,000,000 people is a very
> | difficult problem!
> |
> | Sorry for the rant. Nothing personal. I just feel stongly about this
> | topic.
> | _________________________________________________________________
> |
> | Tom Wirt wrote:
> |
> | Martin,
> | I'll relate a story told to me by Richard Bresnahan who fires wood at
> | St.
> | John's University in Collegeville MN. While he was apprenticing in
> | Japan,
> | supposedly the Japanese governement was trying to shut down a wood kiln
> | near
> | where he was. As part of the testing, a team of engineers from a nearby
> |
> | Toyota factory were hired to test for pollution emitted by the kiln.
> | They
> | measured the air going in for all pollutants including heavy metals,
> | sulfides, carbon, etc. They measured the effluent for the same.
> |
> | The net was that the air was cleaner going out of the kiln, even with
> | the
> | smoke, than the air going in. Apparently the charcoal scrubbed some of
> | the
> | pollutants and the rest were trapped on the surfaces of the pots as
> | colorants. The visible smoke was the smallest part and least damaging
> | of
> | the whole process.
> |
> | Don't know how true or accurate the detail of my telling, but you could
> | contact Richard by calling him at 320-363-2930. The point of the story,
> | I
> | would think the EPA would/should have to prove its allegations of
> | pollution
> | by some thorough testing over the span of a firing. And while the smoke
> |
> | seems to be the pollutant, the most important part may be invisible.
> |
> | I remember living in Denver for 6 years where the claim was that the
> | "brown
> | cloud" caused heavily by the high carbon emissions from planes and
> | trucks
> | was not the dangerous part of the pollution. That the danger was from
> | the
> | nitrous oxides from the automobiles. 'course the truckers had a strong
> | lobby and the individual motorist did not.
> |
> | And when all is said and done, is the amount of pollution coming from
> | this
> | kiln a significant percent of the state's pollution? Don't they have
> | bigger fish to fry? And involve the local press.....it's a good story
> | and
> | government agenicies don't like to operate in public.
> |
> | Tom Wirt
> |
> | Embroiled in my own version of government involvement here in McLeod
> | County
> | MN.
> |
> | --
> |
Cindy Strnad on mon 24 jan 00
David,
Dannon's mention of buying 'pollution credits' or whatever they're called
brought an idea to mind. For anyone who missed Dannon's post, large
polluters (factories, power plants, etc.) purchase pollution credits (I'm
sure I've got the name wrong) which allow them to release a specified
quantity of pollutants into the atmosphere.
I remember seeing an advertisement in some magazine (maybe it was The Mother
Earth News) encouraging readers to buy these credits for their family
members as Christmas presents, thus preventing the credits from being sold
to polluters. There are a finite number of credits available and anyone can
legally purchase them. I don't remember the cost, but it was less than I
expected. Maybe you should look into the possibility of buying a credit or
two for your kiln?
Just a thought.
Cindy Strnad
Earthen Vessels Pottery
Custer, SD
Les Crimp on mon 24 jan 00
Dannon - Agreed!! I don't know if I am correct in this but it seems to me
that a wood-burning kiln is even more environmentally safe than a gas or oil
fired kiln.
Gas and oil are releasing these pollutants into the air that would not
otherwise be there if we left them in the ground. Wood on the other hand
releases pollutants (YES) but it is also sustainable on an on-going basis.
Once the oil is gone ...WHAT THEN????
Les Crimp In Nanoose Bay, B.C. ( a member of the tozan Society)
lcrimp@home.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Dannon Rhudy
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2000 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: Wood kiln in danger of being shut down by EPA
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
> David, yours is a well-reasoned (if a bit steaming) response
> regarding the use of wood kilns. It is absolutely true that the
> EPA is a political organization, run by and for politicians,
> whose priorities, unfortunately,
> have little to do with statesmanship and reasonable policies,
> and much to do with getting
> 1) re-elected; 2) a really good job with a big lobby firm;
> 3) power. In any order.
>
> It is, as you say, ridiculous to spend time and money on such things
> as a wood-fired kiln, when factory A and Manufacturer B and C
> are dumping god-knows-what into the atmosphere and
> water table. But, as they have money and/or provide jobs,
> they get overlooked or - and this is really terrific - they can
> "buy" what amounts to dispensations to pollute, in the form of
> permits. So can cities,
> by various means, including fines, which are merely "payments"
> to continue pollution. Cheaper than fixing it, and they do it all
> the time.
>
> This is not to say that we shouldn't all do all we can to limit pollution.
> Most of us, as you point out, do our very best to do so. But the
> scrap or trash wood that goes into a kiln (and I know of no potters
> who cut living trees for this) is going to burn anyway. It produces
> just as much pollution decomposing as it does being burnt in the kiln.
> It may take longer - 20 years, or more- but in geologic time that is
> nothing, a matter of complete indifference.
>
> When I was in B.C. for a workshop a year or so ago, they were
> very troubled about, and trying to fix, emissions from the Tozan kiln
> there. And being buffeted on all sides by the Canadian equivalent
> to the EPA. For firing the kiln 6 or so times a year. Meanwhile,
> across the bay, in full view, was a pulp mill, spewing tons and tons
> of stuff into the air 24 hours a day. I'd like to say I could hardly
> believe it. But - it is actually easy to understand.
>
> regards,
>
> Dannon Rhudy
> potter@koyote.com
>
>
>
>
>
> At 01:23 PM 01/21/2000 EST, you wrote:
> >----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> >John, I'm having a hard time with YOUR post and, as
> >a wood-firing potter, I can't help but take it somewhat
> >personally.
> >
> >The EPA is nothing but a politically directed government
> >agency. What they do is based on politics, not science.
> How, for example, does the trash from
> >tens of thousands of homes get to the state-of-the-art
> >municipal incinerator? Well, I assume that hundreds of
> >garbage trucks, burning thousands of gallons of fuel, using
> >up oil, tires, anti-freeze, etc., etc., and sending pounds
> >of particulate matter into the air, carry the garbage to the
> >incinerator. How much pollution was caused by, and non-
> >renewable resources used by, building the incinerator facility
> >and the hundreds of garbage trucks? Lots. The guy burning his
> >trash out back uses up no resources.
> >
> >I have a hard time with using the "Each person is the problem"
> >mentality as an excuse to tell others what to do. You and
> >the EPA may think I am a problem because I fire a wood kiln;
> >I think, on the other hand, think you and EPA bureaucrats
> >are a problem because you drive automobiles to work each day.
> >I'm sure I cause far less pollution by firing my kiln 12 days a
> >year than the bureaucrat causes driving from Maryland to his
> >D. C. office 200 times a year.
> >On top of that, I am burning waste wood, a renewable fuel
> >that would simply rot away (and rotting wood causes air pollution)
> >or be burned at the mill if I didn't retrieve it. All the non-carpooling,
> >SUV driving, suburban-dwelling bureaucrat commuters are burning
> >a non-renewable fuel that is located, retrieved, and processed at
> >great (and more pollution-causing) expense.
> >
> >Potters, by and large, are some of the most frugal, simple-
> >living, ecologically-minded folks you will ever meet. It is absurd
> >to try to regulate a fringe activity like firing a wood-fired kiln
> >when there are hundreds of causes of more widespread pollution
> >everywhere you look.
> >For those of you who feel strongly about this topic, and think
> >that wood kilns and all pollution should be stopped, well, you
> >are probably not doing much about it, if you are reading this.
> >If you are truly committed and passionate about ending pollution,
> >I suggest you move from the industrialized world. In one day
> >you are responsible for more pollution than a farmer living in a
> >manure and mud hut in Mali for an entire lifetime.
> >
> >--
> >David Hendley
> >Maydelle, Texas
> >hendley@tyler.net
> >http://www.farmpots.com/
> >
>
Troy Judd on mon 24 jan 00
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>I personally have no problems with one wood kiln fired occasionally, but
>personally I chose gas because it is less polluting than wood. Notice I
said
>less polluting not no pollution. I also chose gas because it is less
>polluting than electricity, which here in my corner of Australia is
produced
>by burning Brown coal. I forget the exact figures but it takes several
>hundred kilograms of coal to produce one kilowatt of electricity at the
>power point.
Gas produces less particulate than wood when burning, at least at the lower
temperatures. However, wood is a renewable resource whereas coal is not.
Also, with gas you are removing Carbon from long term storage and releasing
it into the atmosphere as Carbon dioxide, which is not the case with wood.
Carbon dioxide certainly has effect on the atmosphere and mean global
temperature, whether for good or ill is hard to say. I have heard very good
arguments to the effect that the air pollution of the industrial revolution
is responsible for holding off the resumption of the ice age we currently
were in the middle of. Air pollution is a complicated issue. They have
considered large scale burns in the Los Angeles area to pull the pollution
into the upper atmosphere. It's a very complex issue. I never trust
simplistic solutions and government regulatory bodies in particular have a
very poor history.
Troy Judd
Gari Whelon on mon 24 jan 00
Well said David:
Were I able to fire wood full time I would and I believe it would be the
best overall option even aside from the obvious bias I have to the feel of
wood fired work.
As others have said, gas, oil and coal are non renewable resources, are
owned and controlled by the wealthy and by those who fund those who make the
laws. They often devastate the environment in their rape and pillage of
these non renewable resources. The same can be said for the devastation
caused by the mega projects that bring us our so called clean hydro electric
power, Ask the Cree in James Bay how friendly the James Bay projects,
designed to ensure power for all of North America have been, Ask the First
Nations people of Northern Manitoba who's homes and ancestral territories
and burial grounds were flooded by power projects 30 years ago and who still
have no redress, Ask those on the west coast of our continent who have seen
the devastation power projects have had on fish stocks made a million times
worse by the timber industry who have until recently been able to do as they
please on land that is supposed to belong to us all.
Compared to that, I think that little anagama, or our 4 chamber noborigama
which is fired 2 or 3 times a year and which holds up to 2000 or more pots
will have much less of an environmental impact than firing even a fraction
of those pots in a "clean kiln"
I agree we all have to do our bit and we have to strive to do what we do in
an environmentally friendly way, but lets be realistic. As Dhanon says, we
are burning wood that will be burned in an incinerator as waste without
producing any benefit or which will go into landfill which we are already
running out off.
Big industry and big energy have the bucks and will get around it as much as
they can or will move to the third world, or will try and divert attention
by pointing to potters or home fireplaces,
epa may accept that diversion but it doesn't stand up to common sense.
Gari Whelon
Proletariat Pots
Nanaimo, B.C.
whelon@island.net
John Britt on mon 24 jan 00
David,
Don't take it personally.
If you will re-read my post, you will see that I am not advocating
shutting down wood kilns. I am not telling anyone what to do. I am not
voting for the elimination of all ceramic artists. I am saying we must
accept responsibility for our actions and realize we are just like
everyone else.
First, as you will note from my post, I took issue with the assertion
that wood firing "cleans air". Do you agree with this assertion?? Even
you cannot try to defend this. It is blantantly absurd.
Secondly I am a beliver in arithmetic. One plus one is two,etc. That
is not a very difficult assertion either. The arguement that it is just
one person is spurious. And that is because of arithimetic. It is not
that difficult. Everyone makes a difference.
What I am saying, since you entirely missed it, is that potters, artists
etc are the same as everyone else in this country. They must abide by
the laws. Now if the EPA has set limits on particulate emissions then
artists' are not immune from them. No rationalizations will change
that. (The fact that the EPA is a political group is self-evident.
Opinions about it do not change the fact that it is the law.)
So all your rationalizations and name calling do not change the fact
that the kiln in question exceeds the limits and must come into
compliance.
Art is no excuse. Whether it is wigits or art we all must obey the
laws. That is not difficult either. Artists would like to believe that
they are 'different' from industry. They are not. A child with ashma
doesn't care whether the pollution was created by DuPont or an artist .
I am not saying that all woodkilns should be shut down. I am not saying
that woodfiring is better or worse that industry. But if you are
caught, then you must comply. Saying the EPA has bigger fish to fry,
aside from being obvious, only deflects the blame. It does not change
the fact that you are still exceeding the limits.
Does that mean we should shut down all kilns?? No, but maybe we will
find a way to get more wood kilns into an acceptable compliance area. A
way that is not too expensive but reduces the emmissions.
If we admit that we are part of the problem, instead of denying,
rationalizing, and deflecting blame, then maybe we can help find
solutions that benefit everyone.
--
Thanks,
John Britt claydude@unicomp.net
Dys-Functional Pottery
Dallas, Texas
http://www.dysfunctionalpottery.com/claydude
http://www.silverhawk.com/ex99/britt/welcome.html
Vince Pitelka on mon 24 jan 00
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Alright , you go guys !! Both of you have excellent points ( calm down
>David )
On the contrary please do not calm down David. You were completely
justified in posting a message which showed exactly how you feel, and no one
should hesitate to do the same when they feel passionate about something. I
am appalled when I see posts which imply that we should always be nice to
each other on this discussion list. What a load of bullshit.
Otherwise, best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Home - vpitelka@DeKalb.net
615/597-5376
Work - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 ext. 111, fax 615/597-6803
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
John Britt on mon 24 jan 00
Dannon,
Actually, David's post is not a well reasoned response.
Using the reasoning that burning wood in a wood kiln is better than
letting it rot because pollution is produced in the rotting wood anyway,
albeit 20 years later, and stating that over geologic time it is
insignificant, is merely a rationalization.
Do you think that the nuclear regulatory commission would even bother
spending millions on storage facilities if they could appeal to the
"geologic time" solution. It is all insignificant in geologic terms but
do you want to have it in your backyard? Does that mean that we can put
the smoke stack into the air duct system? It is just like wood rotting
in the forest.
This is poor at best.
Now before I get too far let me reiterate that I do not advocate
shutting down wood kilns! (I wood fire and use toxic chemicals too you
know.) I think we need to face the fact that wood kilns often exceed
the limits of particulates proposed by the EPA. ( I believe that at the
Wood firing Conference in Iowa this year they would not allow them to
fire all their kilns simultaneously as they had wanted. And for good
reason, they would have smoked out the town!) I think we need to be
honest about what we are doing. Twisting and denying the facts does no
one any good. Potters maybe good people but they are no better or worse
than people in other professions. Intimating that pottery is a more
virtuous profession than any other is ridiculous. Or trying to say that
since David stays at home and does not commute he is producing less
pollutants. This is absurd.
His reasoning is good by ommission only. He leaves out the fact that he
has a car and drives to art
shows in Gruene, Dallas, etc., on roads paved by the government from the
oil mined in the Middle East/Iraq, where hundreds of thousands were
killed keep the oil flowing to make the roads he drives on, so he can
get to the workshops in Paris or Tyler. (You could argue that he is
using more resources since fewer people use rural roads than the ones in
Washington thus to build them is causing more pollution per capita.)
Nor does he mention the computer he used to type these messages, the
government military created internet that allows this discussion, the
trees cut down to build the government created phone lines, the plastics
used to build his computer, the trees cut down to print the magazines he
writes articles for (Ceramics Monthly), the kaolin used to coat the
paper for his photos spread printed in CM, the USPS trucks to distribute
them, the mines that provide him with clay, zinc, barium,.etc. for his
articles, the fuel used to dig blackjack clay and transport it to his
studio, the customers who have to drive to his studio to buy his work
and haul it away, etc.....
I think you can see how ridiculous this exercise is when it is
thoroughly run through. To think you can say who is better or worse is
impossible. It may make David feel better but it is not true.
The point is that we are all in this together. We all are guilty. We
are all interdependent. That is why we must all work together to reduce
the problem. We cannot say that I am only one potter so it is ok. I am
only a student so it is ok to wash anything I want down the drain. No,
all the individuals add up to make the whole of humanity. We must all
try to see what we are doing, admit it and then try to reduce the
pollutants. If we misrepresent and deny the facts we will never have to
address the problem or seek solutions.
--
Thanks,
John Britt claydude@unicomp.net
Dys-Functional Pottery
Dallas, Texas
http://www.dysfunctionalpottery.com/claydude
http://www.silverhawk.com/ex99/britt/welcome.html
RoseHawke on tue 25 jan 00
> As others have said, gas, oil and coal are non renewable resources,
Er, just to set the record straight, there is some speculation that oil may not
be the "non-renewable" resource it was once thought. An interesting idea in any
case.
http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/energy/pd041699a.html
***********************************************************
Cindy T. Riley (RoseHawke)
hawke@rosehawke.com
http://www.rosehawke.com
***********************************************************
Ray Aldridge on tue 25 jan 00
At 02:38 PM 1/24/00 EST, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
>Dannon,
>
>Actually, David's post is not a well reasoned response.
I thought it was pretty well-reasoned.
>
>Using the reasoning that burning wood in a wood kiln is better than
>letting it rot because pollution is produced in the rotting wood anyway,
>albeit 20 years later, and stating that over geologic time it is
>insignificant, is merely a rationalization.
No, it's an observation of fact, which your argument must deal with, if you
wish it to be taken seriously.
>
>Do you think that the nuclear regulatory commission would even bother
>spending millions on storage facilities if they could appeal to the
>"geologic time" solution. It is all insignificant in geologic terms but
>do you want to have it in your backyard? Does that mean that we can put
>the smoke stack into the air duct system? It is just like wood rotting
>in the forest.
>
>This is poor at best.
The metaphor is absurd. You are attempting to equate CO2 and carbon
particulates with ionizing radiation, and what's worse, you are comparing
radioactive materials with a half-life of thousands of years to compost.
This disdain for factuality does not strengthen your argument at all. You
may say that it's all a matter of degree, but that degree is crucial to
making realworld decisions, as opposed to inflammatory (but pointlessly
vague) calls for action.
>
>Now before I get too far let me reiterate that I do not advocate
>shutting down wood kilns! (I wood fire and use toxic chemicals too you
>know.) I think we need to face the fact that wood kilns often exceed
>the limits of particulates proposed by the EPA. ( I believe that at the
>Wood firing Conference in Iowa this year they would not allow them to
>fire all their kilns simultaneously as they had wanted. And for good
>reason, they would have smoked out the town!) I think we need to be
>honest about what we are doing. Twisting and denying the facts does no
>one any good. Potters maybe good people but they are no better or worse
>than people in other professions. Intimating that pottery is a more
>virtuous profession than any other is ridiculous. Or trying to say that
>since David stays at home and does not commute he is producing less
>pollutants. This is absurd.
I'm not following you. Are you claiming that everyone produces the same
amount of pollution, regardless of how they live their lives? Then what is
the point of your diatribe?
>
>His reasoning is good by ommission only. He leaves out the fact that he
>has a car and drives to art
>shows in Gruene, Dallas, etc., on roads paved by the government from the
>oil mined in the Middle East/Iraq, where hundreds of thousands were
>killed keep the oil flowing to make the roads he drives on, so he can
>get to the workshops in Paris or Tyler. (You could argue that he is
>using more resources since fewer people use rural roads than the ones in
>Washington thus to build them is causing more pollution per capita.)
>Nor does he mention the computer he used to type these messages, the
>government military created internet that allows this discussion, the
>trees cut down to build the government created phone lines, the plastics
>used to build his computer, the trees cut down to print the magazines he
>writes articles for (Ceramics Monthly), the kaolin used to coat the
>paper for his photos spread printed in CM, the USPS trucks to distribute
>them, the mines that provide him with clay, zinc, barium,.etc. for his
>articles, the fuel used to dig blackjack clay and transport it to his
>studio, the customers who have to drive to his studio to buy his work
>and haul it away, etc.....
>
>I think you can see how ridiculous this exercise is when it is
>thoroughly run through. To think you can say who is better or worse is
>impossible. It may make David feel better but it is not true.
I don't mean to be unkind, but you have a very curious argumentative style.
If to "say who is better or worse is impossible" then why are you
claiming that the EPA has any valid reason to shut down the wood kiln? Are
you here admitting that their actions are entirely arbitrary and
capricious? It would seem so.
I find it particularly odd that you admit to firing with wood. How can you
justify this, in light of your other remarks here? Are you in some way
more deserving than the potters in New Mexico?
Ray
Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com
David Hendley on tue 25 jan 00
You haven't convinced me, John.
Your very detailed rendition of all the things I do to
cause pollution just reiterates my point: we all, especially
in the U.S., use up lots of resources and cause pollution.
I admit it, never denied it. I'm no better or worse: that's
the point. It's ridiculous to single out one small activity
for drastic regulation while ignoring bigger problems.
I would certainly get my hackles up if told my pollution is not
OK by a government agent about whom I can make similar
and even more charges.
Meanwhile, the agency lets Exxon, General Motors, and Texas
Utilities buy pollution credits to cause more pollution than I
would with my kiln.
The point is, a wood kiln is way, way, far down on the list of
things that cause pollution.
I also believe in arithmetic.
A potter firing a kiln 15 days a year does not "add up" to a factory
with 300 employees working 24 hours a day. In more than a few
areas of life, size does matter (stop snickering, Tony). Implying that
every one is the same is absurd. This would be like the new Police
Chief in Dallas saying that he is going to rid the city of crime and
directing his officers to arrest jay-walkers all day while ignoring all
gang activity. According to your logic this would be great, because
jay-walking is illegal, and "opinions do not change the fact that it
is law." Remember, "we are all part of the problem", "everyone
makes a difference", and "we are all guilty".
Does this make sense:
Hmm...Let's shut down a kiln that uses as fuel scrap wood
that would otherwise be set on fire in big piles at the sawmill.
That way we will still get the pollution effect of burning wood,
except, since it's burning at a lower temperature, we can figure
on it sending more particulate matter and gases into the air.
Then the potter can start using an electric kiln. The electricity
will be made by burning gas, a non-renewable resource that
causes pollution when burned. The electricity will loose much
of its energy being transported over miles of lines and then
it will be used for electric resistance heating, the least efficient
method of heating with electricity, in a poorly insulated periodic
kiln.
So, I guess, since I'm not an anarchist, I agree with you that we,
as potters, must abide by laws. We do it all the time, by paying
our taxes, obeying traffic laws, and not shoplifting at Wal-mart.
What I'm saying is that the EPA trying to shut down a wood fired
pottery kiln is DUMB. It is poor prioritizing, a big effort for minuscule
result, and will simply shift the pollution to another place where
it is not so noticeable, unless the penalty is death to the potter.
This has nothing to do with potters or artists being "special" or
better than folks in other professions; its purely practical.
I think the difference between my thinking and John's is that
he is willing to accept whatever the EPA says, agree that potters
are dirty rotten polluters, and do as they say.
I say that, unless we volunteer for the death penalty, we all
cause pollution, but potters are way down below average. I say
that bothering with regulating a seldom used wood kiln is poor
use of my tax dollars, and politics, not genuine caring for the
environment is the motivating factor.
Just another example of monied powers-that-be getting what
they want. Exxon and New Mexico Gas will be delighted to have
the new customers when the wood kiln is shut down, and might
even make a special contribution for the good work accomplished.
Meanwhile, I'll continue to do all I can to cause the least harm
and do the most good for the environment, which includes choosing
to fire my pottery with scrap wood rather than petroleum. I take full
responsibility for my actions. I hope someone can come up with
a low-cost practical means to reduce kiln emissions to make wood
kilns an even better firing choice.
Finally, although I am passionate about this matter, I am pretty
sure that I did not resort to any name calling in my previous post,
as asserted below.
--
David Hendley
Maydelle, Texas
hendley@tyler.net
http://www.farmpots.com/
----- Original Message -----
From: John Britt
To:
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: Wood kiln in danger of being shut down by EPA
| ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
|
| David,
|
| Don't take it personally.
|
| If you will re-read my post, you will see that I am not advocating
| shutting down wood kilns. I am not telling anyone what to do. I am not
| voting for the elimination of all ceramic artists. I am saying we must
| accept responsibility for our actions and realize we are just like
| everyone else.
|
| First, as you will note from my post, I took issue with the assertion
| that wood firing "cleans air". Do you agree with this assertion?? Even
| you cannot try to defend this. It is blantantly absurd.
|
| Secondly I am a beliver in arithmetic. One plus one is two,etc. That
| is not a very difficult assertion either. The arguement that it is just
| one person is spurious. And that is because of arithimetic. It is not
| that difficult. Everyone makes a difference.
|
| What I am saying, since you entirely missed it, is that potters, artists
| etc are the same as everyone else in this country. They must abide by
| the laws. Now if the EPA has set limits on particulate emissions then
| artists' are not immune from them. No rationalizations will change
| that. (The fact that the EPA is a political group is self-evident.
| Opinions about it do not change the fact that it is the law.)
|
| So all your rationalizations and name calling do not change the fact
| that the kiln in question exceeds the limits and must come into
| compliance.
|
| Art is no excuse. Whether it is wigits or art we all must obey the
| laws. That is not difficult either. Artists would like to believe that
| they are 'different' from industry. They are not. A child with ashma
| doesn't care whether the pollution was created by DuPont or an artist .
|
| I am not saying that all woodkilns should be shut down. I am not saying
| that woodfiring is better or worse that industry. But if you are
| caught, then you must comply. Saying the EPA has bigger fish to fry,
| aside from being obvious, only deflects the blame. It does not change
| the fact that you are still exceeding the limits.
|
| Does that mean we should shut down all kilns?? No, but maybe we will
| find a way to get more wood kilns into an acceptable compliance area. A
| way that is not too expensive but reduces the emmissions.
|
| If we admit that we are part of the problem, instead of denying,
| rationalizing, and deflecting blame, then maybe we can help find
| solutions that benefit everyone.
|
| --
| Thanks,
|
| John Britt claydude@unicomp.net
| Dys-Functional Pottery
| Dallas, Texas
| http://www.dysfunctionalpottery.com/claydude
| http://www.silverhawk.com/ex99/britt/welcome.html
----- Original Message -----
From: John Britt
To:
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: Wood kiln in danger of being shut down by EPA
| ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
|
| Dannon,
|
| Actually, David's post is not a well reasoned response.
|
| Using the reasoning that burning wood in a wood kiln is better than
| letting it rot because pollution is produced in the rotting wood anyway,
| albeit 20 years later, and stating that over geologic time it is
| insignificant, is merely a rationalization.
|
| Do you think that the nuclear regulatory commission would even bother
| spending millions on storage facilities if they could appeal to the
| "geologic time" solution. It is all insignificant in geologic terms but
| do you want to have it in your backyard? Does that mean that we can put
| the smoke stack into the air duct system? It is just like wood rotting
| in the forest.
|
| This is poor at best.
|
| Now before I get too far let me reiterate that I do not advocate
| shutting down wood kilns! (I wood fire and use toxic chemicals too you
| know.) I think we need to face the fact that wood kilns often exceed
| the limits of particulates proposed by the EPA. ( I believe that at the
| Wood firing Conference in Iowa this year they would not allow them to
| fire all their kilns simultaneously as they had wanted. And for good
| reason, they would have smoked out the town!) I think we need to be
| honest about what we are doing. Twisting and denying the facts does no
| one any good. Potters maybe good people but they are no better or worse
| than people in other professions. Intimating that pottery is a more
| virtuous profession than any other is ridiculous. Or trying to say that
| since David stays at home and does not commute he is producing less
| pollutants. This is absurd.
|
| His reasoning is good by ommission only. He leaves out the fact that he
| has a car and drives to art
| shows in Gruene, Dallas, etc., on roads paved by the government from the
| oil mined in the Middle East/Iraq, where hundreds of thousands were
| killed keep the oil flowing to make the roads he drives on, so he can
| get to the workshops in Paris or Tyler. (You could argue that he is
| using more resources since fewer people use rural roads than the ones in
| Washington thus to build them is causing more pollution per capita.)
| Nor does he mention the computer he used to type these messages, the
| government military created internet that allows this discussion, the
| trees cut down to build the government created phone lines, the plastics
| used to build his computer, the trees cut down to print the magazines he
| writes articles for (Ceramics Monthly), the kaolin used to coat the
| paper for his photos spread printed in CM, the USPS trucks to distribute
| them, the mines that provide him with clay, zinc, barium,.etc. for his
| articles, the fuel used to dig blackjack clay and transport it to his
| studio, the customers who have to drive to his studio to buy his work
| and haul it away, etc.....
|
| I think you can see how ridiculous this exercise is when it is
| thoroughly run through. To think you can say who is better or worse is
| impossible. It may make David feel better but it is not true.
|
| The point is that we are all in this together. We all are guilty. We
| are all interdependent. That is why we must all work together to reduce
| the problem. We cannot say that I am only one potter so it is ok. I am
| only a student so it is ok to wash anything I want down the drain. No,
| all the individuals add up to make the whole of humanity. We must all
| try to see what we are doing, admit it and then try to reduce the
| pollutants. If we misrepresent and deny the facts we will never have to
| address the problem or seek solutions.
|
| --
| Thanks,
|
| John Britt claydude@unicomp.net
| Dys-Functional Pottery
| Dallas, Texas
| http://www.dysfunctionalpottery.com/claydude
| http://www.silverhawk.com/ex99/britt/welcome.html
Dannon Rhudy on thu 27 jan 00
At 02:38 PM 01/24/2000 EST, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Actually, David's post is not a well reasoned response...>
Could'a fooled me. Did, in fact. I'm pretty sure that David
said that the wood he uses in his kiln would otherwise be burned
at the landfill. His use strikes me as better. Dallas may have
landfills with state-of-the-art equipment, but most rural ones
just pile up the trash, set it on fire. And at much lower temperatures
than his kiln reaches.
..... merely a rationalization.Do you think that the nuclear regulatory
commission would even bother spending millions on storage facilities if
they could appeal to the "geologic time" solution. .....
I think that the storage of nuclear waste and the burning of scrap wood in
a kiln rather than the landfill, or leaving it to decompose in the woods,
are not related in any way.
........Does that mean that we can put
>the smoke stack into the air duct system? It is just like wood rotting
>in the forest.......
Reductio ad absurdum? No, John, no smoke stacks in the air ducts.
......I do not advocate shutting down wood kilns! .....
I know, John.
........ Twisting and denying the facts does no one any good. ......
I could not agree more.
......Potters maybe good people but they are no better or worse
>than people in other professions. Intimating that pottery is a more
>virtuous profession than any other is ridiculous..........
Probably, about the same. I didn't intimate that pottery is a more
virtuous profession.
....>since David stays at home and does not commute he is producing less
>pollutants. This is absurd........
I rather expect that David DOES produce less pollutants, since I know
how little he travels and how frugal and thoughtful he is, but David,
personally, was not my point, anyway.
My point was, in the main, that the EPA has skewed priorities, and is
wasting my money, such as it is, if it is running around putting out
the occasional kiln fire. Both time and money/resources could be,
and should be, much better spent. I'm pretty much immovable on
that issue. And out of time.
regards
Dannon Rhudy
potter@koyote.com
Bill Downs on sun 30 jan 00
My recommendation would be to plant more trees than you burn therefore
replacing the carbon bank you have exploited.
Bill on the Big Island
Where I do cut live trees to feed my kiln!
| |
|
