• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

EPA Tells Alaskans to Freeze Rather than Burn Wood

AGENT J said:
?????? Saw that the first time you posted it, it has zero impact to what I said and the facts i pointed out about the OP being crap and not being accurate, honest, inclusive of all the facts or reflective of reality. LMAO
Click to expand...

Deniers gonna deny.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'm actually mixed on this. Wood stoves produce soot, and soot is the major player at melting ice.
Click to expand...

Can we get a mod to issue a warning for this unprovoked personal attack.

Thanks.
 
AGENT J said:
I agree 100% FACTS and your Op prove that.LMAO :laughat:
:popcorn2:
Click to expand...

I do not intend to descend to your childish level. If you don't believe me perhaps you'll believe the NY Times.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/25/us/alaskans-cost-of-staying-warm-a-thick-coat-of-dirty-air.html

. . . . “It’s all one thing — when you most need the heat is when you’re most apt to create a serious air pollution problem for yourself and the people in your community,” said Tim Hamlin, the director of the office of air and waste at the E.P.A.’s Region 10, which includes Alaska.
And forces are now converging to heighten the tension in this seemingly unlikely pollution story. Civil fines by Fairbanks North Star Borough — which includes the cities of Fairbanks and North Pole, with a total population of about 100,000 — could be assessed in coming days against residential polluters. The E.P.A. could declare the entire area to be in “serious” noncompliance of the Clean Air Act early next year, with potentially huge economic implications, including a cutoff of federal transportation funds.
Some residents said they feared that an overreaching government, locally and in Washington, was out to take away their stoves. Others, like Dr. Olson, who works with racing sled dogs in her veterinary practice and volunteers with Citizens for Clean Air, a local group that has sued the E.P.A. to force a decision on Fairbanks pollution, said the exact opposite.
The government, Dr. Olson said, has been endangering public health by dragging its feet. For six consecutive days in mid-December, the air here was declared “unhealthy,” for high particulate content — the longest streak since the current monitoring system began in late 2015, according to the borough’s air quality division. . . . . .
 
Jack Hays said:
1.) I do not intend to descend to your childish level.
2.) If you don't believe me perhaps you'll believe the NY Times.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/25/us/alaskans-cost-of-staying-warm-a-thick-coat-of-dirty-air.html

. . . . “It’s all one thing — when you most need the heat is when you’re most apt to create a serious air pollution problem for yourself and the people in your community,” said Tim Hamlin, the director of the office of air and waste at the E.P.A.’s Region 10, which includes Alaska.
And forces are now converging to heighten the tension in this seemingly unlikely pollution story. Civil fines by Fairbanks North Star Borough — which includes the cities of Fairbanks and North Pole, with a total population of about 100,000 — could be assessed in coming days against residential polluters. The E.P.A. could declare the entire area to be in “serious” noncompliance of the Clean Air Act early next year, with potentially huge economic implications, including a cutoff of federal transportation funds.
Some residents said they feared that an overreaching government, locally and in Washington, was out to take away their stoves. Others, like Dr. Olson, who works with racing sled dogs in her veterinary practice and volunteers with Citizens for Clean Air, a local group that has sued the E.P.A. to force a decision on Fairbanks pollution, said the exact opposite.
The government, Dr. Olson said, has been endangering public health by dragging its feet. For six consecutive days in mid-December, the air here was declared “unhealthy,” for high particulate content — the longest streak since the current monitoring system began in late 2015, according to the borough’s air quality division. . . . . .
Click to expand...

1.) you mean going by facts and ignoring your failed and proven dishonest exaggerated op? ooops
2.) thanks for posting ANOTHER link that proves your op to be retarded and false like most posters are pointing out LMAO

can you show where the EPA says "tells alaskans to freeze rather than burn wood" we are waiting :)
:popcorn2:
 
Mithrae said:
...the Fairbanks reimbursement program offers up to $4,000 back for replacing an old wood or coal burner...
Click to expand...

My buddy in New Hampshire just spent $5000 on a new wood stove, blower, installation, the new duct work, and removal of the old stove.

Hearth and sidewall protection didn't need replaced.

I don't know how much more or less expensive having a stove shipped to and installed in AK may or may not be.

I also suppose that price is relative depending upon the space you need to heat and the resultant size of the stove you need to buy.

There are also ongoing costs with these stoves - periodic maintenance generally performed by the manufacturer or a certified manufacturer's representative, replacement of seals, replacement costs for the catalytic cells, etc...

Depending upon one's needs $4000 may be totally sufficient or entirely insufficient.

Much as with Obamacare, or frankly anything the government seems to involve itself in, there are some people who are going to benefit, and a whole lot of other people who are going to "fall between the cracks" and end up getting economically screwed over at a time in this nation's history when the large majority of Americans can hardly afford another economic screwing.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) you mean going by facts and ignoring your failed and proven dishonest exaggerated op? ooops
2.) thanks for posting ANOTHER link that proves your op to be retarded and false like most posters are pointing out LMAO

can you show where the EPA says "tells alaskans to freeze rather than burn wood" we are waiting :)
:popcorn2:
Click to expand...

The danger will pass on 20 January.
 
Jack Hays said:
The danger will pass on 20 January.
Click to expand...

Translation: you can't show us because it never happened, thats what we thought!! The retarded and dishonest OP = exposed :laughat:
 
Jack Hays said:
1.)We disagree.
2.) The OP is accurate IMHO.
Click to expand...

1.) Hey you are free to disagree with facts, thats your choice and right.
2.) and your opinion has been proven factually wrong but again, you are free to have a wrong opinion all you want, I have no interest in changing your wrong decesions.
Thats the great thing about facts, my opinion or yours doesn't change them. Facts remain whether we believe them or not and the fact remains your OP (and its link)has been proven to be factually inaccurate and dishonest.
Whether you choose to acknowledge that fact is up to you but it will remains a fact :shrug:
 
AGENT J said:
1.) Hey you are free to disagree with facts, thats your choice and right.
2.) and your opinion has been proven factually wrong but again, you are free to have a wrong opinion all you want, I have no interest in changing your wrong decesions.
Thats the great thing about facts, my opinion or yours doesn't change them. Facts remain whether we believe them or not and the fact remains your OP (and its link)has been proven to be factually inaccurate and dishonest.
Whether you choose to acknowledge that fact is up to you but it will remains a fact :shrug:
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you haven't proven anything. The OP presents a fair picture of the situation, IMHO, and no amount of insults from you will change that.
 
Jack Hays said:
1.)Sorry, but you haven't proven anything.
2.) The OP presents a fair picture of the situation, IMHO
3.) and no amount of insults from you will change that.
Click to expand...

1.) dont apologize for being factually wrong, everybody makes mistakes. Also who said "I" did LMAO. You like to make stuff up don't you?
You are right "I" didn't, what proved the OP to be dishonest hack material were ,the FACTS and LINKS other posters, provided, the additional LINKS you provided and your inability to show where the EPA "told alaskans freeze rather than burn wood". Facts and links completely destroyed the retarded dishonest claims in the OP/LINK you posted as many pointed out.

So how it works is YOU posted the failed dishonest OP so now its YOUR job to prove it is true, so far you cant and keep running from that request.
Here Ill ask you AGAIN and you'll run from it again:
Please show us where the EPA "told alaskans to freeze instead of burn wood" thanks!

2.) FACTS > your opinion
3.) havent insulted YOU one time nor do I care to change your meaningless, factually proven wrong OPINION. That's called a deflection and it won;t work on us :)

so we are waiting, please post where the EPA "told alaskans to freeze instead of burn wood" thanks!
Anything else than that will continue to show how your OP failed and why its dishonest.
:popcorn2:
 
AGENT J said:
1.) dont apologize for being factually wrong, everybody makes mistakes. Also who said "I" did LMAO. You like to make stuff up don't you?
You are right "I" didn't, what proved the OP to be dishonest hack material were ,the FACTS and LINKS other posters, provided, the additional LINKS you provided and your inability to show where the EPA "told alaskans freeze rather than burn wood". Facts and links completely destroyed the retarded dishonest claims in the OP/LINK you posted as many pointed out.

So how it works is YOU posted the failed dishonest OP so now its YOUR job to prove it is true, so far you cant and keep running from that request.
Here Ill ask you AGAIN and you'll run from it again:
Please show us where the EPA "told alaskans to freeze instead of burn wood" thanks!

2.) FACTS > your opinion
3.) havent insulted YOU one time nor do I care to change your meaningless, factually proven wrong OPINION. That's called a deflection and it won;t work on us :)

so we are waiting, please post where the EPA "told alaskans to freeze instead of burn wood" thanks!
Anything else than that will continue to show how your OP failed and why its dishonest.
:popcorn2:
Click to expand...

If you don't think your posts are insulting then we have different understandings of the word. An EPA admonition to freeze rather than burn wood is clearly the conclusion to be drawn from the EPA's rules and findings. You seem to be among the small minority who did not grasp this.
 
soot said:
My buddy in New Hampshire just spent $5000 on a new wood stove, blower, installation, the new duct work, and removal of the old stove.

Hearth and sidewall protection didn't need replaced.

I don't know how much more or less expensive having a stove shipped to and installed in AK may or may not be.

I also suppose that price is relative depending upon the space you need to heat and the resultant size of the stove you need to buy.

There are also ongoing costs with these stoves - periodic maintenance generally performed by the manufacturer or a certified manufacturer's representative, replacement of seals, replacement costs for the catalytic cells, etc...

Depending upon one's needs $4000 may be totally sufficient or entirely insufficient.

Much as with Obamacare, or frankly anything the government seems to involve itself in, there are some people who are going to benefit, and a whole lot of other people who are going to "fall between the cracks" and end up getting economically screwed over at a time in this nation's history when the large majority of Americans can hardly afford another economic screwing.
Click to expand...

Catalytic cells, for a wood burner?
 
Jack Hays said:
1.)If you don't think your posts are insulting then we have different understandings of the word.
2.) An EPA admonition to freeze rather than burn wood is clearly the conclusion to be drawn from the EPA's rules and findings. You seem to be among the small minority who did not grasp this.
Click to expand...
Hey look MORE deflections instead of proving one fact that makes the OP title true

1.) Again THATS not what I said. I said "I" didnt insult "you". You maybe insulted by facts or the letter A for all we know but thats your issue to deal with not mine. And again deflections like this wont work or wont change the fact the retarded thread title is not true nor the OP and its links accurate and honest. If facts like that offend you :shrug:
2.) Oh so you admit you are drawing your own subjective BS conclusion based on your OPINIONS? We already knew that LMAO but facts prove your "opinion" wrong.

Now I will aks you again and you will dodge and run from it again further espousing your failed OP and its retarded false claims.
Please qoute where the EPA "told Alaskans to freeze instead of burn wood" thanks!" or show honesty and integrity and admit they didn't tell anybody that.
:popcorn2:
 
AGENT J said:
Hey look MORE deflections instead of proving one fact that makes the OP title true

1.) Again THATS not what I said. I said "I" didnt insult "you". You maybe insulted by facts or the letter A for all we know but thats your issue to deal with not mine. And again deflections like this wont work or wont change the fact the retarded thread title is not true nor the OP and its links accurate and honest. If facts like that offend you :shrug:
2.) Oh so you admit you are drawing your own subjective BS conclusion based on your OPINIONS? We already knew that LMAO but facts prove your "opinion" wrong.

Now I will aks you again and you will dodge and run from it again further espousing your failed OP and its retarded false claims.
Please qoute where the EPA "told Alaskans to freeze instead of burn wood" thanks!" or show honesty and integrity and admit they didn't tell anybody that.
:popcorn2:
Click to expand...

Already answered. If you don't like the answer that's fine. Few seem to share your view.
 
Jack Hays said:
Already answered. If you don't like the answer that's fine. Few seem to share your view.
Click to expand...

LMAO another posted lie? Why do you post so many lies?
I didn't ask you a question to answer, I asked for a qoute. I asked you to qoute where the EPA said what the thread title claimed. You have not :lamo
Ill aks you again, Please qoute where the EPA "told Alaskans to freeze instead of burn wood" thanks!" You can do it or you can't.
:popcorn2:
 
AGENT J said:
LMAO another posted lie? Why do you post so many lies?
I didn't ask you a question to answer, I asked for a qoute. I asked you to qoute where the EPA said what the thread title claimed. You have not :lamo
Ill aks you again, Please qoute where the EPA "told Alaskans to freeze instead of burn wood" thanks!" You can do it or you can't.
:popcorn2:
Click to expand...

The OP title rests on a conclusion drawn from EPA rules, regulations and regulatory findings. I'm sorry if you find that too complicated. Others seem to understand, as I have noted already.
 
Jack Hays said:
The OP title rests on a conclusion drawn from EPA rules, regulations and regulatory findings. I'm sorry if you find that too complicated. Others seem to understand, as I have noted already.
Click to expand...

Translation: there's no qoute of them saying the dishonest and retarded claim the title makes, That's what I thought!!! LMAO
Thread title and biased opinion piece fails, gets destroyed and facts win again!
 
AGENT J said:
Translation: there's no qoute of them saying the dishonest and retarded claim the title makes, That's what I thought!!! LMAO
Thread title and biased opinion piece fails, gets destroyed and facts win again!
Click to expand...

No quote was or is required. I'm sorry the presentation was too sophisticated for you.
 
Neomalthusian said:
I live in Alaska, my woodshed is stocked, and my woodstove is currently full of glowing embers and putting out a slow, high heat.

However I also have a very energy-efficient electric heat pump as our primary heat source that keeps the whole house comfortable 8-10 months out of the year, plus electric baseboards as our "secondary" heat source, so if any regulator wants to know, the wood stove is ornamental, ya know, just to add character to our ocean-view master bedroom.

This issue is pretty localized to the Fairbanks area. Their air does not move much in the winter compared to elsewhere in the state, so they invariably have more air pollution in the winter. But so does everywhere in else north of 35 degrees latitude.



Cite your source of information that it was "Fairbanks locals." What I have heard was that it was environmental activist groups. And those people are ****ing sociopaths, by the way, who for some reason seem want nothing more than to absolutely crush the state economically, using any inane excuse they can think up to do so.
Click to expand...

Earth coupled heat pump?
 
Jack Hays said:
No quote was or is required. I'm sorry the presentation was too sophisticated for you.
Click to expand...

LMAO hey look ANOTHER posted lie.
No qoute supporting the retarded claim of the title = thread title is false
Your post fails and facts in again!
 
AGENT J said:
LMAO hey look ANOTHER posted lie.
No qoute supporting the retarded claim of the title = thread title is false
Your post fails and facts in again!
Click to expand...

A quote is not required to establish a fact. You are embarrassing yourself.
 
Jack Hays said:
A quote is not required to establish a fact. You are embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...

Another dodge LMAO
your post fails and facts win again

FACTS:
thread title and op are factually wrong
:popcorn2:


Can ANYBODY provide a qoute of the EPA actually saying the retarded lie the thread title claims? ANYBODY? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom