You are on page 1of 14

TO: MICHEL GOULET AND MINISTERE

BEAUCHAMP, QUEBEC MDDEP

MDDEP WOOD STOVE PROJET DE CHAUFFAGE
2008

POSITION OF CITIZENS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH
From Stella Haley, Founder of Citizens for Environmental Health

61 Hillside Pointe Claire

Quebec, H9S 5E4

June 18, 2008 web host www.citizensfeh.com

MDDEP WOOD STOVE Projet de Chauffage 2008
The position of Stella Haley representing Citizensforenvironmentalhealth.com is clear. I
as well as the enclosed members as witnessed in the attached petition with more to be
forwarded state that we reject the proposal of the Projet de Chauffage and base our
position and informed judgment on important valid facts.:

1.There exists no scientifically based evidence that EPA stoves are better than
conventional wood heating appliances used at present.

2. Reviews condemn EPA woodstove testing and claims of reducing emissions.

3. CONCERNS - Legal Consequences : If the Impact assessment has failed to take into account
the concentrations increased in areas where the density of populations is adversely affected by wood smoke
exposure. This Project prevents citizens in all areas however especially in urban densely populated areas
from their rightful enjoyment of life. Smoke concentrations in relation to potential contradicts the reality of
what populations endure and suffer. Epidemiological studies, data sufficient assessment exists to establish
the loss of health in exposure risks to populations in urban areas and densely populated rural areas where
populations are affected by wood smoke.. This Project fails to adequately protect citizens and fails to
ensure that vulnerable populations are not placed at critical risk. Smoke contaminated areas are proven to
produce severe increase in death and disease. Avoiding life-threatening issues causing death suggests legal
negligence. Failure to ensure air does constitute a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and

we maintain that. Failure to ensure air that is safe is failure to provide essential to life. Quebec and Canada will lose an opportunity to address its GHG emissions targets and reduce environmentally caused health issues. In its industry based vision.1996 Comments on Actual-to-future- actual Emissions released. 6. MDDEP and does constitute breech of trust in policy makers. is not amended and implemented as is.will be a cause of immensely increasing exposure to emissions and impact increasing above the national standard for which provinces and utilities have indicated their support. These are fatal consequences that could be otherwise avoided. We stand to lose our children and our health and we will not passively endure nor lose sight of the impact that this Projet would cause to our well being and the well being of future generations.Freedoms. would as a result negatively impact the environment and hinder the Government of Canada's objectives of reducing CO2 emissions and avoid achieving cost savings for energy users and above all place Quebec citizens. As such. As such. wood burning. 5. We demand action be taken immediately to reduce emissions especially critical in urban environments. the Minister Beauchamp. . through misguided leadership will experience a grave reversal of environmental progress. Lyne Beauchamp. Legislation as proposed in Le Projet de Chauffage. We maintain that other much more efficient initiatives and safer alternatives such as gas and electricity must be taken to ensure sustainability. Effectively. if we adopt this Projet de Chauffage. We as citizens will seek legal compensation for loss of health and legal liability for injury caused as a result from exposure to the harmful dioxins and other carcinogenic toxic emissions resulting from this smoke and potentials in the adoption of emissions resulting in the approval of this project. will be challenged in a court of law. We expect and hold the Ministry responsible for adopting effective informed long and short term policy that would serve to actually decrease emissions.We acknowledge that emissions are presently endangering our lives and the lives of infants and the yet unborn. we as citizens stand to suffer and to be made vulnerable to this toxic air. the policy appears blind sighted and fails to protect the health of citizens. Recognizing the thousands of epidemiological studies that prove the smoke causes death and disease. especially children in harms way.MDDEP. In adoption of this project as is. We believe that neglect to adequately promote better choices is a violation of the mandate of the Minister of Environment. as Quebec citizens. as is proposed by Minister of Environment. compensation will be pursued. we. If we adopt this MDDEP Projet de Chauffage. This Projet de Chauffage. which fails to protect citizens. The Projet. which is in Public Consultation until June 23. the eve of Quebec National Holiday. Clearly. The project in its present form is evidence of failure to provide citizen’s access to smoke free air and encouraging carcinogenic dioxin and smoke life threatening air entails life threatening pollution smoke fumes EPA Source 4 . MDDEP. in view of the tragic loss of life and loss of quality of life consequent to otherwise avoidable exposure to known carcinogens in smoke will be sought. will prove failure to ensure public safety and as well fail to respect her mandate to ensure environmental sustainability and create positive change. 4. as proposed . we will regretfully lose what could be a critical opportunity to implement a much more safe and progressive policy. Projet de Chauffage. which we are forced to suffer and endure even inside our own homes. we maintain that the Project is illegal and clearly involves negating the obligatory conditions of the Ministry.

(Not comprehensible). 10. in view of Breast Cancer and dioxin epidemiological studies.Violations of Mandatory Hazardous Waste. blind faith policy denies what reasonable minimum inspection of industry based publications and studies should be. The Projet in its entirety is a proposal that supports industry profits. as is will provide a benefit to outdated economics of pollution. Defecting facts and scientific evidence has served to enforce false claims and fraudulent emission statements in publications made available to the public.Amendments must be made on all wood stove appliances to reflect truthful facts on emissions and comparisonws with other alternatives. and the evidence of well-established information industry driven misguided message from the wood stove remains to be legally challenged. With all research based on no-scientific testimony. the lack of efficiency and the pollution caused by wood stoves and facts about the equally polluting EPA Certified stoves and inserts.7. within the established spokes people for the MDDEP.Given the real state of no scientific proof of reduction emissions from EPA stoves. The project entirely avoids the issue of smoke risks to which children are the most vulnerable. we ask what could justify the harmful effects of such irresponsible legislation? [ Reference to be forwarded -Research to be tabled on web site www. The lack of verification and the jointly established conceptual will to adopt industry a consensus.com] 8. The implementation of the proposed so called regulation. the market will gradually shift in favour of more efficient alternative products such as gas or electricity.It is our obligation to ensure public protection from emissions that result from long term and short term exposure( Se report Dr. In view of the independent research on EPA stoves emitting 400% more dioxin and deadly furans along with millions of dangerous chemicals and carcinogens into the air. We cannot afford to wait for the cultural awareness .Vincent Health Canada. Consultations on the data and manner in which efficiency rating information was tested and confirmed should have been more effectively given due .Point of Sale Labelling Natural Resources Canada as well as Minister of Industry and Environment in Quebec and within the Government of Canada as well as regional governments have established extensive support of industry goals and have entertained representatives with outstanding benefits of the privilege of being tax exempt as licensed charities. we maintain that if consumers are adequately informed of the health effects . In view of the thousands of studies on health risks to children.The Projet de Chauffage does nothing to assist citizens suffering from health consequences of smoke exposure.. After decades of reporting false data and claims of reducing emissions the industry and agencies are notorious for not examining independent research. The implementation of the proposed amendment will prove to adversely impact global warming and will contribute adversely to the health of all citizens. Industry driven material and conclusions are contradicted by scientific independent studies and official reviews [ Intertec and others Attached].citizensfeh. 2005) 9. we ask what responsible leadership would propose policy that would condemn children to steadily breathing smoke? This policy places children and all citizens in harms way and at critical unjustifiable risk.

The lack of facts about the true total of emissions.Various internal and external studies have verified that EPA Stoves result in increased carcinogens or emissions and no benefits of energy-efficiency can be attributed to the change out or adoption of EPA Certified stoves. the federal consumer protection bureau. The matter should be subject to the Competition Bureau. Above all. failure to reflect risks in labelling requirements for major household appliances as prescribed by Consumer Protection Laws proves that appropriate obligatory standards were ignored by the Government of Canada. 12. Lobbyists dictating Policy Allowing lobbyists or their own government employees to hold conflict of interest positions within the Quebec Government. Given that there exists a lack of assessment of any impact.diligence. by Minister Beauchamp. . the non disclosure of danger to the consumer in interior and exterior exposure of emissions and the lack of science based evidence of standardized performance information that is included product brochures and at the point of sale material is an adoption of misleading information that will only serve the economic interests and the determination and desirability of the stove industry and political imaging. it a failure to ensure safe air requirements for citizens today and as well fails our responsibility to protect present or future generations and especially crucial to note this Projet de Chauffage is negligent and .self regulating administered policy. Adoption of this regulation is a reversal of proposals accepted in Quebec Atmosphere 2008 Regulations. not facts. (Cantin ) and the Federal Government (Gulland)and industry and using the emblem of the flag of Canada in distribution brochures and sales materials which stoves or fireplaces are displayed and sold even at carbon free community eco fairs is evidence of Government acting as to knowingly and intentionally deceive Canadians. 11. The conflict of interest. no proof of benefits nor economic costs can be made. promoting not health or safe environments but Government acting and performing unethically distributing millions of Canadian tax Payer dollars voluntarily to the stove industry. Adopted as is Project result will be establishing minimum energy performance and maximum pollution. 14. 13. the policy is based on what would be nice. MDDEP climate change progress objectives. without doubt. bias and lack of integrity seen in independent reviews attached in Index is established proof the Government has betrayed Canadians and serves to support unprincipled motives in addressing the industry's concerns by allowing a non-science flexible approach to how the information is presented and confirmed as credible. Lack of any guarantees. wishes. with no quantitative analysis of impact of the Projet . In view of the existing problem with wood stoves and the life durability of thirty years. myths. consequently the Regulation de Chauffage is explicitly eliminating no old equally polluting stoves or products nor any toxic carbon pollution. Programs. Inappropriately neglecting to ensure adequate oversight and failing to ensure quality in Certification and as well failing to provide to consumers factual knowledge at the point of sale.( INTERTEC AND FEDERAL REGISTERED DOCUMENTS) Will Forward Appendix.

constitutes a series of violations specifically endangering and causing harm to citizens. CONSUMERS WILL CONTINUE TO LACK CONSISTENT. LOSS OF QUALITY . in harms way. placing children in critical danger. IS A FACTOR IN LOSS OF LIFE.irresponsible. CREDIBLE INFORMATION ON THE EMISSIONS AND EFFICIENCY OF WOOD HEATING WHEN MAKING PURCHASING DECISIONS. AS WELL AS THE MESSAGE OF “CLEAN SMOKE” BEING PROMOTED BY ESTABLISHED AGENCIES. MDDEP WOOD STOVE PROJET DE CHAUFFAGE 2008 WITHOUT AN AMENDMENT AND WITHOUT SCIENCE-BASED UNBIASED RATINGS FOR EPA CERTIFIED WOOD STOVES. THE FALSE INFORMATION SANCTIONED BY GOVERNMENT OF CANADA ON EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ATTRIBUTED TO EPA STOVES.

MDDEP and does constitute . data sufficient assessment exists to establish the loss of health in exposure risks to populations in urban areas and densely populated rural areas where populations are affected by wood smoke. Their increasing popularity and use as a source of Primary or supplementary heating has given rise to questions concerning the Emissions released and heating efficiency of the products being offered for sale in Canada. Failure to ensure air does constitute a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. EPA Certified stoves prove in publications to be guilty of nondisclosure of truth and constitutes a denial of citizens to the truth about emissions. Unless amended this Projet clearly fails to reduce or address life threatening pollutants at source and in its content the Projet increasingly forces all citizens to be subject to an increase in actual emissions that will unnecessarily put all citizens and our children in harms way. we maintain that the Project is illegal and clearly involves negating the obligatory conditions of the Ministry. Smoke contaminated areas are proven to produce severe increase in death and disease. This Project prevents citizens in all areas however especially in urban densely populated areas from their rightful enjoyment of life. Epidemiological studies. The false promotion of “Up to 90% in emissions is misleading and constitutes a violation of consumers need to know and right to know. hexacholorobenzene. dioxin and place citizens at risk in a manner in which the appliance is the least energy efficient with efficiency rating far below standards and with information denied citizens we maintain that true scientific facts about total emissions should be provided to consumers at the point of sale of any wood stove. Avoiding life-threatening issues causing death suggests legal negligence. promoting eight year financial incentives to increase carbon. As such.. Adoption of the proposed Projet de Chauffage au Bois will result in an avoidable increase in pollution and a failure to address the issue of the present problematic toxins in the atmosphere. therefore are denied their right to make informed choices about purchasing a product and its life threatening facts. POINT 1: Impact assessment has failed to take into account the concentrations increased in areas where the density of populations is adversely affected by wood smoke exposure. The issue of in lab testing in assessing emissions without scientifically based formulas performance based on potential takes advantage of words that mislead and falsely promote using non disclosure of facts to consumers and wrongfully establishes public confidence and false unaware trust in government and belief in claims or reducing emissions and as such place people at risk in exposure to emitted EPA Stove carcinogens and With text of the Projet apparently composed and designed by unsafe air. industry representatives in form and content. Sales of wood stoves in Canada have grown over the last decade. This Project fails to adequately protect citizens and fails to ensure that vulnerable populations are not placed at critical risk.OF LIFE AND THE DETERORIATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH. Smoke concentrations in relation to potential contradicts the reality of what populations endure and suffer. EPA or otherwise.

the Agency’s proposal to further limit the long-standing exclusion for such activities is unjustified and unreasonable. 160) opposed the actual-to-potential test because it does not exempt emission increases due to demand growth or increased utilization. One commenter (IV-D-160) stated that in many cases. 143.2 Does not allow utilization increases Several commenters (IV-D-38.] Index 4. and prior court decisions. One commenter (IV-D- 146) stated that EPA’s analysis of the current requirements is inconsistent with both the current regulatory language.3.1996 Comments on Actual-to-future-actual Methodology POTENTIAL Vs REALITY EPA I-4-4 [1. Failure to ensure air that is safe is failure to provide essential to life. merely because a source has experienced a decline in its productivity or hours of operation due to accident. Reference……………. aging and/or deterioration of its production equipment. In the view of the commenter. the overly broad applicability described in the preamble would allow for confiscation of existing production capacity without any increase in the rate of total amount of allowable emissions. the application of the actual- to-potential . which they viewed as unfair and contrary to the statute and case law.2. 146. and provides none of the relief sought by State program officials and industry representatives from this reform effort.breech of trust in policy makers. The project in its present form is evidence of failure to provide citizen’s access to smoke free air and encouraging carcinogenic dioxin and smoke life threatening air entails life threatening pollution smoke fumes EPA Source 4 . 140. According to the commenter.

These were cordwood stoves. 20460. the efficacy of. Other unresolved issues include how fuel moisture and fuel wood effect emissions. These study objectives were accomplished by reviewing the published literature and by interviewing nationally recognized RWC experts.test is inconsistent with the CAA. and (2) that in home emission control performance for some stoves becomes poorer over time. as well as the existing NSR regulations. pellet stoves.S.(See CAN as research proves in labs only NOT in home heating conditions. (4) New technology appliances and fuel can reduce emissions significantly…. RESIDENTIAL WOOD COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY REVIEW VOLUME 1. (3) Nationally the overwhelming majority of RWC air emissions are from non-certified devices (primarily from older non-certified woodstoves).FULL DOCUMENT IS ATTACHED. Two key issues that continue to be of concern are (1) that the emission control performance of wood stoves operated in homes does not match laboratory certification results. THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED IN DECEMBER 1998 FOR THE U. Advances in technology achieved since the mid-1980's were the primary focus. (2) Wood stove durability varies with model and a method to assess the durability problem is controversial. The key environmental parameter of concern was the air emission of particles. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT. D.C. The statute requires that a source be subject to NSR if a particular PC-CMO results in an increase in actual emissions. [ ANY INSERT BY CITIZENSFEH IS UNDERLINED AND APPEARS IN GREEN . masonry heaters. SEE LINK] A review of the current states-of-the-art of residential wood combustion (RWC) was conducted. The key findings of the review included: (1) The NSPS certification procedure only qualitatively predicts the level of emissions from wood heaters under actual use in homes. NOTE: THE FOLLOWING TEXT IS EXTRACTED FROM AN EPA DOCUMENT ENTITLED. l [ INSERT . and wood-fired central heating furnaces. WASHINGTON. and relationships between test methodologies. The technological status of all major RWC categories was reviewed. fireplaces. TECHNICAL REPORT.

Method 5G and Method 5H. the general perception is that stoves that show low emissions in the certification testing will also do well in homes. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) test methods for wood stoves. The EPA certification procedure has been described as an art. long-term durability and emission performance of certified wood stoves. Achieving a successful low burn rate condition and coal bed preparation are particularly challenging and they are quite unlike how a stove is usually used in a home. In addition to RWC technology. Adoption of the proposed Projet de Chauffage au Bois will result .S. Advances in technology achieved since the mid-1980's were the primary focus. The data available to develop the conversion equation were limited. pellet stoves. emission results obtained from certification tests are only roughly predictive of how a wood stove will perform under actual in-home use.FROM HOST “ CAN not DO (NOTE IN LABS ONLY. (6) The effect of wood moisture and wood type on particulate emission appears to be real but to be less than an order of magnitude. The current status of stove efficiencies is difficult to assess since. To make the results obtained from these two methods comparable a conversion equation was developed. (2) The evaluation of in-home. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A review of the current states-of-the-art of residential wood combustion (RWC) was conducted. and. while there is an efficiency test method published in the Federal Register. There are two particulate test methods that can be used as part of the certification procedure. and wood-fired central heating furnaces. The technological status of all major RWC categories was reviewed. (3) The assessment of the effects of fuel wood types (tree species) and moisture on particulate emission factors. These study objectives were accomplished by reviewing the published literature and by interviewing nationally recognized RWC experts. fireplaces. Method 5G is more precise and less difficult (and less costly) than 5H.” Consequently. (5) The ISO and EPA NSPS test procedures are quite dissimilar and data generated by the two procedures would not be comparable. These topics included: (1) The evaluation of the U. The key environmental parameter of concern was the air emission of particles. Wood stoves are designed out of necessity to pass the EPA certification test. These were cordwood stoves. The equation has been widely criticized and it is generally believed that after the conversion the 5G method will produce higher emission values than the 5H method. several other related topics were reviewed. masonry heaters. and. It is generally recognized the these tests do not simulate the way that a stove is used in the “real world. efficiency testing is not required during the certification process. However. Not in Home Resedential Burning SEE DOC---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ).

. and (2) that inhome emission control performance for some stoves becomes poorer over time. and appliances weighing more than 800 kilograms. These were cordwood stoves. household altitude is variable. The difficulty in resolving or quantifying cause-and-effect relationships for these issues as well as for other RWC questions is due to the large number of interrelated variables associated with RWC. The perceived need to reduce air emissions was the impetus behind the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS)1 certification requirement for wood heaters and for the considerable RWC design and emissions research conducted in that decade.e. Emissions and appliance design research has also been conducted on other RWC appliance types currently exempt from the NSPS certification requirements: i. burn duration. Of most concern were particulate (PM). wood moisture) and there are wide variations in the operation of wood burning devices (e.in an avoidable increase in pollution and a failure to address the issue of the present problematic toxins in the atmosphere. many dozens of tree species are commonly used for wood fuel. There are many hundreds of types and models of wood burning devices in use. polycyclic organic matter (POM) and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions.. masonry heaters. and the effectiveness and feasibility of routine appliance maintenance for reducing emissions. A review of the current states- of-the-art of residential wood combustion (RWC) was conducted. 1. draft characteristics vary (e. burn rate. furnaces. the efficacy of. Advances in technology achieved since the mid- .g. pellet stoves. cookstoves. INTRODUCTION Air emissions from residential wood combustion (RWC) became a topical issue in the 1980's. Two key issues that continue to be of concern are (1) that the emission control performance of wood stoves operated in homes does not match laboratory certification results. 1990 NSPS deadline that required all heaters manufactured after that date to be certified to Phase II emission limits. The key environmental parameter of concern was the air emission of particles. and relationships between test methodologies. Other unresolved issues include how fuel moisture and fuel wood effect emissions. damper setting. kindling approach). Unless amended this Projet clearly fails to reduce or address life threatening pollutants at source and in its content the Projet increasingly forces all citizens to be subject to an increase in actual emissions that will unnecessarily put all citizens and our children in harms way. appliances with air to fuel ratios greater than 35:1. The technological status of all major RWC categories was reviewed. fireplaces. Manufacturers of wood heaters made major product changes in the late 1980's to meet the July 1.g.e. chimney and temperature conditions). there are variations in fuel wood seasoning and storage practices (i. and wood-fired central heating furnaces...

(6) The effect of wood moisture and wood type on particulate emission appears to be real but to be less than an order of magnitude QUOTATION “In most cases the repair of a catalyst bypass system needs to be performed at the manufacturer’s facility. December 1998 May 31. Wood smoke emissions affect the air we all have to breathe. Quebec. there is grave danger to our health and our life. visitors. 675 Boulevard Rene Levesque Est 6e etage. Another minor problem common to both catalytic and non-catalytic stoves. and. Any burning of wood is harmful and deadly to all us. and indoor wood burning fireplaces caused residents. (NOTE IN LABS ONLY. neighbors. . (3) Nationally the overwhelming majority of RWC air emissions are from non-certified devices (primarily from older non-certified woodstoves). EPA –600/R-98-174a. Outdoor wood boilers (OWB). (4) New technology appliances and fuels can reduce emissions significantly. our quality of life. The key findings of the review included: (1) The NSPS certification procedure only qualitatively predicts the level of emissions from wood heaters under actual use in homes. (5) The ISO and EPA NSPS test procedures are quite dissimilar and data generated by the two procedures would not be comparable. and our constitutional right to be able to enjoy our property without the noxious and deadly emissions from a neighbor's wood smoke. 2008 Michael Goulet Chef de L'Environnement et des Parcs Edifice Marie-Guyart. our health. and families to involuntarily breathe wood smoke emissions.” National Risk Management . Not in Home Resedential Burning SEE DOC---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ). Boite 30 Quebec. chimneys. G1R 5V7 RE: Attached Communique Agreement of StatementRE: Proposed Quebec law-Projet de Chauffage Where there is wood smoke. is the deterioration of the fuel loading door gasket material causing leaks and commensurate excess combustion air. outdoor wood burning fire pits and fireplaces.1980's were the primary focus. These study objectives were accomplished by reviewing the published literature and by interviewing nationally recognized RWC experts. (2) Wood stove durability varies with model and a method to assess the durability problem is controversial.

children/people will suffer because they will be involuntarily breathing wood smoke emissions. over 30. Quebec and Canadian residents-just like Americans-want their air to be free of the unneeded and unnecessary wood smoke emissions. coughing. Canadian deaths are probably even more. and the elderly. coughing. chronic bronchitis. and cancer. children. . unpolluted air in their yard and home. land. Symptoms include eye and nose irritation. wheezing." The Breathe Healthy Air Coalition is against the proposed Quebec law-Projet de Chauffage-because it will: pollute the air. violate private and public nuisance laws. and other respiratory diseases are vulnerable. Wood smoke emissions are a worldwide health issue. breathing difficulty. Exposure to wood smoke emissions cause short-term health problems such as eye. People shouldn't have to pray for a breath of air-unpolluted by wood smoke. The proposed Quebec law-Projet de Chauffage-will gravely harm and cause premature death to thousands of Quebec residents due to the wood smoke emissions. but understood "good neighbor policy" where one does no harm to another neighbor by their actions. Wood smoke emissions are definitely a public and private nuisance by preventing people from breathing fresh. shortness of breath. babies. In the United States of America. The ordinance/local law is typically something to the effect that: “Any business or premises which emits or causes the emission of offensive odors which taint the air. Chronic exposure to wood smoke can cause long- term health effects such as asthma. Long-term effects from chronic exposure can include the development of asthma. throat and lung irritation. In addition to the devastating air and environmental negative effects. and headaches. heart and lung disease and cancer. heart and lung disease. and wood smoke breaks the unwritten. and may trigger asthma attacks. nose. Communities probably already have existing ordinances that should stop/prevent the use of all wood burning. and water. Residents will be assaulted with tons of wood smoke emissions.If Quebec formally adopts Projet de Chauffage. Exposure to wood smoke emission particulates can trigger or aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular problems. Wood smoke is especially harmful to pregnant women.000 Americans die each year from wood smoke. emphysema. People with asthma. render it unwholesome or make the air unsafe to the surrounding environment is hereby declared to be a nuisance and shall be unlawful for any person to permit any such nuisance to remain or exist upon the property under his control". negatively affect the quality of life and health of those who involuntarily breathe the deadly wood smoke emissions. it will greatly expand the deadly effects of wood smoke emissions in all Quebec communities and throughout Canada.

Recently. Lyne Beauchamp. No one should be forced to inhale smoke. IL. “…the stench of (wood) smoke fills my home.air@gmail. Founder Breathe Healthy Air Coalition PO Box 861 Elk Grove Village.A. Kenneth D. breathe. We demand that the MDDEP pass a law that bans ALL wood burning in urban areas immediately.com refuse to accept the Projet de Chauffage au Bois as is proposed by the Minister of Environment of Quebec. Sincerely. and my family suffers from respiratory symptoms due to the constant exposure to airborne particles emanating from the burning wood. Provisions against smoke exposure are provided for public areas and workplaces. It seeps through windows and vents. No government regulations seem to protect urban citizens from the smoke pollution caused by a neighbour.. { See Petitions: Attached} state that we at Citizens for Environmental Health www. We demand that the MDDEP establish a program with incentives to adopt better more efficient and less harmful than wood heating. Dubinski."NO” to the proposed Quebec law-Projet de Chauffage. It is a matter of Breath or Death. I read a “letter to the editor” that appeared in a Canadian newspaper written by a resident who said.S. Ministere de L’Environnement de Quebec. We sincerely hope that this proposed project would be rejected. This will save the environment and especially serve to promote healthy smoke free environments and above all to protect the lives of thousand of Quebec residents..healthy. 60009 U.citizens foreEnvironmental Health. so why not residential areas?” It is our sincere hope that the people and elected officials of Quebec will stand up and say. The Breathe Healthy Air Coalition cares about the lives of Quebec residents that will be gravely affected by this proposed law—Projet de Chauffage. MDDEP. as was referred to in the document here in Projet de Chauffage. alternative heating throughout the province of Quebec.Stella Haley and in support of the citizens who have signed these two petitions. .com I .

com tel: 514-699 SAVE (7283) June 18. We deserve the right to breathe smoke free air! We Say NO! We say No to MORE SMOKE! No SMOKE! We cannot accept children breathing smoke. Air is essential to life. We deserve the right to truth and the right to life. HPBAC APC WETT Big Wood Stove.We must do better! We must stand up and say NO to the Projet de Chauffage. Sincerely. H9S5E4 Quebec.citizensfeh.com www. Stella Haley.gagne@mddep. carol. C.gouv. for the sake of our well being. 2008 61 Hillside. Founder Citizensforenvironmentalhealth. Pointe Claire.ca . a Licensed Charity Industry. especially for Quebec children.qc.com info@citizensfeh. Say No to the false claims of the HEARTH. Reject this proposal.