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
Freedoms. As such, we maintain that the Project is illegal and clearly involves negating the obligatory
conditions of the Ministry, MDDEP and does constitute breech of trust in policy makers. Failure to ensure air
that is safe is failure to provide essential to life. 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 - 1996 Comments on Actual-to-future-
actual Emissions released.

4. Projet de Chauffage, as is proposed by Minister of Environment, MDDEP, Lyne

Beauchamp, is not amended and implemented as is, Quebec and Canada will lose an
opportunity to address its GHG emissions targets and reduce environmentally caused
health issues. In adoption of this project as is, we, as Quebec citizens, through misguided
leadership will experience a grave reversal of environmental progress. If we adopt this
MDDEP Projet de Chauffage, wood burning, we will regretfully lose what could be a
critical opportunity to implement a much more safe and progressive policy. We maintain
that other much more efficient initiatives and safer alternatives such as gas and electricity
must be taken to ensure sustainability. We believe that neglect to adequately promote
better choices is a violation of the mandate of the Minister of Environment. We demand
action be taken immediately to reduce emissions especially critical in urban
environments, We expect and hold the Ministry responsible for adopting effective
informed long and short term policy that would serve to actually decrease emissions.
Effectively, we maintain that, if we adopt this Projet de Chauffage, the Minister
Beauchamp,MDDEP, will prove failure to ensure public safety and as well fail to respect
her mandate to ensure environmental sustainability and create positive change. In its
industry based vision, the policy appears blind sighted and fails to protect the health of
citizens. As such, 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.
Recognizing the thousands of epidemiological studies that prove the smoke causes death
and disease, compensation will be pursued.

5. Legislation as proposed in Le Projet de Chauffage, which fails to protect citizens,

will be challenged in a court of law. 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.
Clearly, we as citizens stand to suffer and to be made vulnerable to this toxic air,
which we are forced to suffer and endure even inside our own homes. 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.

6.We acknowledge that emissions are presently endangering our lives and the lives of
infants and the yet unborn. The Projet, as proposed ,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. This Projet de Chauffage,
which is in Public Consultation until June 23, the eve of Quebec National Holiday, 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, especially children in harms way.
7.The Projet de Chauffage does nothing to assist citizens suffering from health
consequences of smoke exposure. The Projet in its entirety is a proposal that supports
industry profits. With all research based on no-scientific testimony, and the evidence of
well-established information industry driven misguided message from the wood stove
remains to be legally challenged. The implementation of the proposed amendment will
prove to adversely impact global warming and will contribute adversely to the health of
all citizens. The project entirely avoids the issue of smoke risks to which children are the
most vulnerable. In view of the thousands of studies on health risks to children, 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. 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, in view of Breast Cancer and dioxin epidemiological studies, we
ask what could justify the harmful effects of such irresponsible legislation? [ Reference to
be forwarded -Research to be tabled on web site www.citizensfeh.com]

8.Given the real state of no scientific proof of reduction emissions from EPA stoves,
we maintain that if consumers are adequately informed of the health effects , the lack
of efficiency and the pollution caused by wood stoves and facts about the equally
polluting EPA Certified stoves and inserts, the market will gradually shift in favour of
more efficient alternative products such as gas or electricity. We cannot afford to wait
for the cultural awareness .It is our obligation to ensure public protection from
emissions that result from long term and short term exposure( Se report Dr.Vincent
Health Canada, 2005)

9.Amendments must be made on all wood stove appliances to reflect truthful facts
on emissions and comparisonws with other alternatives.. Industry driven material and
conclusions are contradicted by scientific independent studies and official reviews
[ Intertec and others Attached]. The lack of verification and the jointly established
conceptual will to adopt industry a consensus, within the established spokes people for
the MDDEP, blind faith policy denies what reasonable minimum inspection of industry
based publications and studies should be. The implementation of the proposed so called
regulation, as is will provide a benefit to outdated economics of pollution.(Not
comprehensible).

10.Violations of Mandatory Hazardous Waste- 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. After decades of
reporting false data and claims of reducing emissions the industry and agencies are
notorious for not examining independent research. Defecting facts and scientific evidence
has served to enforce false claims and fraudulent emission statements in publications
made available to the public. Consultations on the data and manner in which efficiency
rating information was tested and confirmed should have been more effectively given due
diligence. 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, 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.

11. Lobbyists dictating Policy Allowing lobbyists or their own government

employees to hold conflict of interest positions within the Quebec Government, (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, promoting not health or safe
environments but Government acting and performing unethically distributing millions of
Canadian tax Payer dollars voluntarily to the stove industry- self regulating administered
policy. Programs. The conflict of interest, 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.

12. The lack of facts about the true total of emissions, 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. The matter should be subject to the Competition Bureau,
the federal consumer protection bureau. In view of the existing problem with wood stoves
and the life durability of thirty years, consequently the Regulation de Chauffage is
explicitly eliminating no old equally polluting stoves or products nor any toxic carbon
pollution. Given that there exists a lack of assessment of any impact, with no quantitative
analysis of impact of the Projet , without doubt, no proof of benefits nor economic costs
can be made. Lack of any guarantees, the policy is based on what would be nice, wishes,
myths, not facts.

13.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.( INTERTEC AND
FEDERAL REGISTERED DOCUMENTS) Will Forward Appendix.

14. Adoption of this regulation is a reversal of proposals accepted in Quebec

Atmosphere 2008 Regulations, by Minister Beauchamp, MDDEP climate change
progress objectives. . Adopted as is Project result will be establishing minimum energy
performance and maximum pollution. Above all, 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
irresponsible, constitutes a series of violations specifically endangering and causing harm
to citizens, placing children in critical danger, in harms way.

MDDEP WOOD STOVE PROJET DE CHAUFFAGE

2008

WITHOUT AN AMENDMENT AND WITHOUT

SCIENCE-BASED UNBIASED RATINGS FOR EPA
CERTIFIED WOOD STOVES, CONSUMERS WILL
CONTINUE TO LACK CONSISTENT, CREDIBLE
INFORMATION ON THE EMISSIONS AND
EFFICIENCY OF WOOD HEATING WHEN
MAKING PURCHASING DECISIONS. THE FALSE
INFORMATION SANCTIONED BY GOVERNMENT
OF CANADA ON EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS
ATTRIBUTED TO EPA STOVES, AS WELL AS
THE MESSAGE OF “CLEAN SMOKE” BEING
PROMOTED BY ESTABLISHED AGENCIES, IS A
FACTOR IN LOSS OF LIFE, LOSS OF QUALITY
OF LIFE AND THE DETERORIATION OF PUBLIC
HEALTH.
Sales of wood stoves in Canada have grown over the last decade. 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. 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, promoting eight year financial
incentives to increase carbon, 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, EPA or otherwise. The false
promotion of “Up to 90% in emissions is misleading and constitutes a
violation of consumers need to know and right to know. EPA Certified stoves
prove in publications to be guilty of nondisclosure of truth and constitutes a
denial of citizens to the truth about emissions, therefore are denied their right
to make informed choices about purchasing a product and its life threatening
facts.

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. 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.

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. 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 Freedoms. As such, we maintain that the Project
is illegal and clearly involves negating the obligatory conditions of the Ministry, MDDEP and does constitute
breech of trust in policy makers. Failure to ensure air that is safe is failure to provide essential to life. 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 - 1996 Comments on Actual-to-future-actual Methodology

POTENTIAL Vs REALITY EPA I-4-4 [1. Reference…………….] Index

4.2.3.2 Does not allow utilization increases

Several commenters (IV-D-38, 140, 143, 146, 160) opposed the actual-to-potential
test

because it does not exempt emission increases due to demand growth or increased
utilization,

which they viewed as unfair and contrary to the statute and case law. One
commenter (IV-D-

146) stated that EPA’s analysis of the current requirements is inconsistent with both
the current

regulatory language, and prior court decisions. According to 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,
merely because

a source has experienced a decline in its productivity or hours of operation due to

accident, aging

and/or deterioration of its production equipment. In the view of the commenter, the
Agency’s

proposal to further limit the long-standing exclusion for such activities is unjustified
and

unreasonable, and provides none of the relief sought by State program officials and
industry

representatives from this reform effort.

One commenter (IV-D-160) stated that in many cases, the application of the actual-
to-potential
test is inconsistent with the CAA, as well as the existing NSR regulations. The
statute

requires that a source be subject to NSR if a particular PC-CMO results in an

increase in actual

emissions.

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING TEXT IS EXTRACTED FROM AN EPA

DOCUMENT ENTITLED, RESIDENTIAL WOOD COMBUSTION
TECHNOLOGY REVIEW VOLUME 1. TECHNICAL REPORT. THIS
DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED IN DECEMBER 1998 FOR THE U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) OFFICE OF
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460.
[ ANY INSERT BY CITIZENSFEH IS UNDERLINED AND APPEARS IN
GREEN .FULL DOCUMENT IS ATTACHED. SEE LINK]

A review of the current states-of-the-art of residential wood combustion

(RWC) was conducted. The key environmental parameter of concern was the
air emission of particles. The technological status of all major RWC categories
was reviewed. These were cordwood stoves, fireplaces, masonry heaters,
pellet stoves, and wood-fired central heating furnaces. Advances in
technology achieved since the mid-1980's were the primary focus. These
study objectives were accomplished by reviewing the published literature
and by interviewing nationally recognized RWC experts. 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, and (2) that in home emission
control performance for some stoves becomes poorer over time.
Other unresolved issues include how fuel moisture and fuel wood
effect emissions, the efficacy of, and relationships between test
methodologies,

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, (2) Wood stove durability varies with model and a
method to assess the durability problem is controversial, (3) Nationally the
overwhelming majority of RWC air emissions are from non-certified devices
(primarily from older non-certified woodstoves), (4) New technology
appliances and fuel can reduce emissions significantly….(See CAN as
research proves in labs only NOT in home heating conditions. l [ INSERT
FROM HOST “ CAN not DO (NOTE IN LABS ONLY, Not in Home Resedential
Burning SEE DOC----------------------------------------------------------------------------

), (5) The ISO and EPA NSPS test procedures are quite dissimilar and data
generated by the two procedures would not be comparable, and, (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.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A review of the current states-of-the-art of residential wood combustion

(RWC) was conducted. The key environmental parameter of concern was the
air emission of particles. The technological status of all major RWC categories
was reviewed. These were cordwood stoves, fireplaces, masonry heaters,
pellet stoves, and wood-fired central heating furnaces. Advances in
technology achieved since the mid-1980's were the primary focus. In addition
to RWC technology, several other related topics were reviewed. These topics
included: (1) The evaluation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) test
methods for wood stoves, (2) The evaluation of in-home, long-term durability
and emission performance of certified wood stoves, and, (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.

Wood stoves are designed out of necessity to pass the EPA certification test.
It is generally recognized the these tests do not simulate the way that a stove is used
in the “real world.” Consequently, emission results obtained from certification tests are
only roughly predictive of how a wood stove will perform under actual in-home use.
However, the general perception is that stoves that show low emissions in the
certification testing will also do well in homes. The current status of stove efficiencies is
difficult to assess since, while there is an efficiency test method published in the Federal
Register, efficiency testing is not required during the certification process.

The EPA certification procedure has been described as an art. 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.
There are two particulate test methods that can be used as part of the
certification procedure, Method 5G and Method 5H. To make the results
obtained from these two methods comparable a conversion equation was
developed. The data available to develop the conversion equation were
limited. 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. Method 5G is more precise and less difficult (and less
costly) than 5H. 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. 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.

1. INTRODUCTION

Air emissions from residential wood combustion (RWC) became a topical

issue in the 1980's. Of most concern were particulate (PM), polycyclic organic
matter (POM) and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. 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.
Manufacturers of wood heaters made major product changes in the late
1980's to meet the July 1, 1990 NSPS deadline that required all heaters
manufactured after that date to be certified to Phase II emission limits.
Emissions and appliance design research has also been conducted on other
RWC appliance types currently exempt from the NSPS certification
requirements: i.e., cookstoves, furnaces, appliances with air to fuel ratios
greater than 35:1, and appliances weighing more than 800 kilograms.

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, and (2) that inhome
emission control performance for some stoves becomes poorer over
time. Other unresolved issues include how fuel moisture and fuel
wood effect emissions, the efficacy of, and relationships between
test methodologies, and the effectiveness and feasibility of routine
appliance maintenance for reducing emissions. 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. There are many hundreds of types and models of wood
burning devices in use, many dozens of tree species are commonly used for
wood fuel, draft characteristics vary (e.g., chimney and temperature
conditions), household altitude is variable, there are variations in fuel wood
seasoning and storage practices (i.e., wood moisture) and there are wide
variations in the operation of wood burning devices (e.g., burn rate, burn
duration, damper setting, kindling approach). A review of the current states-
of-the-art of residential wood combustion (RWC) was conducted. The key
environmental parameter of concern was the air emission of particles. The
technological status of all major RWC categories was reviewed. These were
cordwood stoves, fireplaces, masonry heaters, pellet stoves, and wood-fired
central heating furnaces. Advances in technology achieved since the mid-
1980's were the primary focus. These study objectives were accomplished by
reviewing the published literature and by interviewing nationally recognized
RWC experts.

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, (2) Wood stove durability varies with model and a
method to assess the durability problem is controversial, (3) Nationally the
overwhelming majority of RWC air emissions are from non-certified devices
(primarily from older non-certified woodstoves), (4) New technology
appliances and fuels can reduce emissions significantly.

(NOTE IN LABS ONLY, Not in Home Resedential Burning SEE

DOC----------------------------------------------------------------------------

), (5) The ISO and EPA NSPS test procedures are quite dissimilar and data
generated by the two procedures would not be comparable, and, (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. Another minor problem common to both
catalytic and non-catalytic stoves, is the deterioration of the fuel loading door
gasket material causing leaks and commensurate excess combustion air.”

National Risk Management , EPA –600/R-98-174a, December 1998 May 31, 2008

Michael Goulet
Chef de L'Environnement et des Parcs
Edifice Marie-Guyart, 675 Boulevard Rene Levesque Est
6e etage, Boite 30
Quebec, Quebec, G1R 5V7

RE: Attached Communique

Agreement of StatementRE: Proposed Quebec law-Projet de Chauffage

Where there is wood smoke, there is grave danger to our health and our life.
Wood smoke emissions affect the air we all have to breathe, our quality of
life, our health, and our constitutional right to be able to enjoy our property
without the noxious and deadly emissions from a neighbor's wood smoke.
Outdoor wood boilers (OWB), chimneys, outdoor wood burning fire pits and
fireplaces, and indoor wood burning fireplaces caused residents, neighbors,
visitors, and families to involuntarily breathe wood smoke emissions. Any
burning of wood is harmful and deadly to all us.
If Quebec formally adopts Projet de Chauffage, it will greatly expand the
deadly effects of wood smoke emissions in all Quebec communities and
throughout Canada. Residents will be assaulted with tons of wood smoke
emissions. In addition to the devastating air and environmental negative
effects, children/people will suffer because they will be involuntarily breathing
wood smoke emissions.

Communities probably already have existing ordinances that should

stop/prevent the use of all wood burning. 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, 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". Wood smoke emissions are definitely a public and private nuisance
by preventing people from breathing fresh, unpolluted air in their yard and
home.

Exposure to wood smoke emission particulates can trigger or aggravate

respiratory and cardiovascular problems. Symptoms include eye and nose
irritation, breathing difficulty, wheezing, coughing, and headaches. People
with asthma, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and other respiratory diseases
are vulnerable. Wood smoke is especially harmful to pregnant women, babies,
children, and the elderly. Chronic exposure to wood smoke can cause long-
term health effects such as asthma, heart and lung disease, and cancer. In
the United States of America, over 30,000 Americans die each year from
wood smoke. Canadian deaths are probably even more.

Wood smoke emissions are a worldwide health issue. Quebec and Canadian
residents-just like Americans-want their air to be free of the unneeded and
unnecessary wood smoke emissions. 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.

Exposure to wood smoke emissions cause short-term health problems such as

eye, nose, throat and lung irritation, coughing, shortness of breath, and may
trigger asthma attacks. Long-term effects from chronic exposure can include
the development of asthma, heart and lung disease and cancer."

The Breathe Healthy Air Coalition is against the proposed Quebec law-Projet
de Chauffage-because it will: pollute the air, land, and water, negatively
affect the quality of life and health of those who involuntarily breathe the
deadly wood smoke emissions, violate private and public nuisance laws, and
wood smoke breaks the unwritten, but understood "good neighbor policy"
where one does no harm to another neighbor by their actions.
Recently, I read a “letter to the editor” that appeared in a Canadian
newspaper written by a resident who said, “…the stench of (wood) smoke fills
my home. It seeps through windows and vents, and my family suffers from
respiratory symptoms due to the constant exposure to airborne particles
emanating from the burning wood. No government regulations seem to
protect urban citizens from the smoke pollution caused by a neighbour. No
one should be forced to inhale smoke. Provisions against smoke exposure are
provided for public areas and workplaces, so why not residential areas?”

It is our sincere hope that the people and elected officials of Quebec will
stand up and say..."NO” to the proposed Quebec law-Projet de Chauffage.

The Breathe Healthy Air Coalition cares about the lives of Quebec residents
that will be gravely affected by this proposed law—Projet de Chauffage.
Sincerely,

Kenneth D. Dubinski, Founder

Breathe Healthy Air Coalition
PO Box 861
Elk Grove Village, IL. 60009
U.S.A.
breathe.healthy.air@gmail.com

I ,Stella Haley and in support of the citizens who have signed these
two petitions, { See Petitions: Attached} state that we at Citizens
for Environmental Health

www.citizens foreEnvironmental Health.com refuse to accept the

Projet de Chauffage au Bois as is proposed by the Minister of
Environment of Quebec, Lyne Beauchamp, Ministere de
L’Environnement de Quebec, MDDEP, as was referred to in the
document here in Projet de Chauffage. We sincerely hope that this
proposed project would be rejected. We demand that the MDDEP
pass a law that bans ALL wood burning in urban areas immediately.
We demand that the MDDEP establish a program with incentives to
adopt better more efficient and less harmful than wood heating,
alternative heating throughout the province of Quebec.

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. It is a matter of Breath or Death.
We must do better! We must stand up and say NO to
the Projet de Chauffage, Say No to the false claims of
the HEARTH, HPBAC APC WETT Big Wood Stove, a
Licensed Charity Industry. We deserve the right to
truth and the right to life.

Air is essential to life. 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.

Reject this proposal, for the sake of our well being,

especially for Quebec children.

Sincerely,

Stella Haley, Founder

Citizensforenvironmentalhealth.com
www.citizensfeh.com
info@citizensfeh.com
tel: 514-699 SAVE (7283)
June 18, 2008
61 Hillside, Pointe Claire, H9S5E4
Quebec,

C. carol.gagne@mddep.gouv.qc.ca