pinkladybird

Sue- the pollution that I was complaining about is an open fire but is woodsmoke - can smell the wood. It is from a house on Crystal Palace road a few houses before the junction of North Cross road. I think there is another house actually on North Cross road that burns too. There are quite a few houses that do it and so hard to tell where it comes from. Horrid burning smell in my garden this eve that didn't smell of wood.. But I was also talking about wood stoves because although you can't smell them they do give off a lot of pollution as well.

Sally Eva Fabhat Thanks for the links So not much will be done about wood burning except for 2022 stove legislation banning all but the cleanest (Ecodesign) stoves, which is not a government initiative despite Defra presenting it as such. It is EU legislation, which we will have to adopt as stove manufacturers are not going to make stoves just for the UK. But these 'clean-er' Ecodesign stoves are not new and have been sold in some EU countries for years and have not solved emission problems. The 'er' is very important. These are not clean stoves. As ianr pointed out they are '...equivalent to driving about six of the most > modern heavy goods vehicles up and down your > road." I don't think there is any justification for wood stoves in cities - especially London where we have gas. New York has had a ban since 2014 and had cleaner air than us to start with.

James Barber - That is really useful info. Thanks.

I addition to my last post - should just add that using seasonal and time related data Kings college pollution researchers concluded that wood burning is for aesthetic reasons! I've seen people have central heating AND a burner. And note that just 4% of London households burning wood legally or illegally produce 23 -31% of particulate emissions in London (not sure if annual or winter). I don't blame anyone who has bought a wood burner - they are not to know. The Stove companies advertising is like the wild west - such blatent distortions I don't know how they get away with it. The info that people should know - the science - is hidden away in dusty 'papers' that noone sees. Stove companies are doing all the education here.

Frenchy and bobbsy - There appear to be 2 issues here,CO2 emissions and particulate localised emissions. Of course they both need taking into account. Wood burning doesn't stand up to either. 1. CO2 - Wood burning was advertised as being 'green'and carbon neutral.Stove companies propogated this with vigour and still do. It's now thought that although technically renewable it is NOT carbon neutral. That is taking into account life cycle, chain etc... 200 scientist wrote to the EU to change policy ?bioenergy [from forest biomass] is not carbon-neutral? this was for drax wood pellets, but applies to all wood burning. No space for details but check out: https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/woody-biomass-power-and-heat-impacts-global-climate https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/congress-says-biomass-is-carbon-neutral-but-scientists-disagree/ Comparison - Gas vs Wood - 'biomass generated around 18TWh of renewable energy in the UK between April and June this year, second only to onshore wind as a renewable energy source, which delivered around 23TWh. However, the NRDC argues recent science, including from the former Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), shows many forms of biomass, and in particular feedstock from forest wood, results in higher carbon emissions than even coal and natural gas.' https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/2474217/is-biomass-really-more-polluting-than-coal - looks like gas is be emerging as somewhat better. Comparison Electricity vs Wood - Wood would win here. Localised Emissions - You can't just look at CO2 emissions - Local ones are incredibly important. Especially in a city! At the point of use, gas is the cleanest fuel we have. Negligible particulates -the most toxic form of pollution. N2 (nox formed after emission) - Both wood and gas. Not sure which produces more. Wood contains particulates AND PAHs - the same toxic compounds in cigarettes. When you burn biomatter whether tobacco or wood you get similar stuff. Wood smoke has effects that are IN ADDTION to those from particulates (PM). I.e more potent lung cancer risk and alzheimers risk. On top of that from car fumes. Lets pretend that wood burning is co2 neutral. That does not change anything. I object for my health to be sacrificed, and that of hundreds of people for miles around, suffering increased risk of so many diseases just so a few people can make crazily insignificant reductions to their CO2 impact. I'm afraid the logic is just not there. British Medical Journal: woodsmoke causes '..increased exposure of just 1 ug/m3 PM2.5 increases the risk of Alzheimer's by 15%..' https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k167/rr-3 They go on to list loads more depressing statistics... 1ug/m3 is really not much.

'What I don?t quite understand is how the OP?s house is smelling of smoke. Presumably she has a flat in a house and people using the communal entrance would allow smoke into the hallway etc but for it to permeate all the flats appears to be extraordinary unless her windows need attention.' Keano77 - I don't think you've thought this though. How do you think houses have air in them! Would you suffocate if nooone opened a door and you had breathed on all the oxygen? Smoke particles - which include particulates - black carbon and polycyclic aromatic compounds are around 1/1000 of a mm. Imagine that there were 500 people lined up - at 3 people a metre that would be 166m - that is the space a particulate would experience in just a 0.5mm crack. Thousands would float in no problem. And ALL houses have far more than a 0.5mm crack. I have double glazing. Double glazed windows have ventilation grills! They have to. All houses have to have air flow or you will get damp. They have air bricks for example. This is why particulate levels in houses with all the windows closed are 75-80% that of outside. 'The smoke from neighbouring chimneys enters houses through windows, systems of ventilation and fine cracks in the outer walls. In the night people can not air the bedrooms without getting the rooms filled with wood smoke.' http://www.forskningsdatabasen.dk/en/catalog/2389107281

'It has instant appeal but statements such as ?one stove = x numbers of cars? is a facile and scientifically unsatisfactory comparison, unless of course you?ve already made your mind up. You might as well compare a football with a lemon - on account of both being capable of breaking a window.' Can you be more precise? Why is it unscientifically unsatisfactory? Are you a scientist? The EFFECT of a lemon and a football on a window CAN be compared. You would be looking at the actual impact on the glass under the same conditions. You would need the right lab. Note that in the car/stove comparisons the car and the stoves themselves are not being compared - it is the RATE OF EMISSIONS. Emission factors and rates are used frequently to make comparisons. If you have a problem with this please expand! I didn't make up the values - they are from Leceister University. The British Medical Journal also compares emissions to cars. Both wood smoke and vehicle fuel contains particulates, and emission rates (g/h) can be determined for both vehicles and wood burning stoves. It is quite valid to compare the two. In a previous post I stated that they are from modern diesel vehicles.That is from cars produced since 2009 and lorries since 2015. I guess they just used the average emission factors at a specific speed and converted them to rates. The emission rates for wood burning stoves are easily available and were determined from lab testing. They are for 5kW stoves at 80% efficiency using seasoned wood. What you might be getting at is that it is difficult to control the variables, but as I said the data for the stoves are from lab testing as are cars. It is difficult for open fires (wood type, moisture...). That is why a range is given. Fuel emission factors are compared all the time! If you have a problem with this, I would like to see your reasoning.

Nigello, seasoned wood STILL causes crap air. Less crap then moist wood but still crap! The figures below are for burning SEASONED wood in ideal laboratory conditions. Defra Exempt Wood burning Stove: 6.7 g/h = 30 cars worth New Ecoready Wood burning Stove: 3 g/h = 15 cars worth Those figures are shocking! Wood burning shouldn't be allowed in London. 1 house burning 1 defra stove for 1 hour = 30 cars driving up and down the road.

mrwb the specific incident described takes place near North Cross road. However, I think I can deal with that now. I am more concerned about the extent of wood burning that occurs generally throughout Dulwich. Legally in a burner or illegally in an open fire, dry and seasoned or moist, it is all so polluting.

kford, I didn't say you couldn't burn wood. I said 'you can't legally burn anything on an open fire other than smokeless coal.' I was referring to an open fire. As has been pointed out, you can burn seasoned wood but it should be in a (Defra-approved) wood burner.

Just putting a link to where I got the data from for the amount of particulate emissions per hour - It is (grams per hour with equivalent given in number of modern diesel cars): Open fires with wood (varies so hard to get figure): 5g/h (lab conditions)-25g/h (moist). Average 10g/h = 50 cars Defra Exempt Wood burning Stove: 6.7 g/h = 30 cars New Ecoready Wood burning Stove: 3 g/h = 15 cars Modern Lorry: 0.5 g/h Diesel car (2009 or later: 0.2g/h Air quality expert group, University of Leciester http://www.iapsc.org.uk/assets/document/0618_P_Monks_Jun2018.pdf Note that insanely high as the stove values are, they could well be even worse: 'Even modern stoves described as ?low emission? are highly polluting. And in an echo of the diesel car emissions scandal, measurements during actual use in homes show that the stoves produce more pollution than lab tests suggest.' https://www.newscientist.com/article/2119595-wood-burners-london-air-pollution-is-just-tip-of-the-iceberg/

gabys1st you can't legally burn anything on an open fire other than smokeless coal. No type of wood no matter how dry. But please consider that smokeless coal gives off 5g of particulates an hour. A modern diesel car gives off (on average) 0.2. You are adding the equivalent of around 25 cars worth of pollution every hour! 'Smokeless' is not pollutionless. So even if it is legal it is not really moral. Plenty of really realistic gas 'open fires'. I was surprised to find the one in the EDT is gas.

Yes, it's really concerning me. In the winter, wood burning contributes 25-30% of london's Particulate matter. It's probably an even higher proportion of peoples intake if they live in high wood-burning areas like Dulwich. It's hard to know what to do to change anything - but I just think that if only people knew how much pollution they were producing they would stop. Unfortunately the data isn't really out there - you have to look for it. I've just learnt that even the cleanest latest wood burning stoves (Ecodesign) give off the same amount of particulates as 15 cars or 6 lorries (minute for minute)! Open fires give off significantly more. So my quiet street might as well be a very busy main one just because of a few people. 'Few people who install wood stoves are likely to understand that a single log-burning stove permitted in smokeless zones emits more PM2.5 per year than 1,000 petrol cars and has estimated health costs in urban areas of thousands of pounds per year.' https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2757/rr-1

Unfortunately I have had another neighbour with an open fire and contacted the Noise and nuisance team. They appeared to confuse the Clean Air Act with Statutory Nuisance laws - these are two different things and require different evidence. I spoke to two officers on the phone and both said they had not dealt with a clean air act case before. One was surprised I was complaining about a fire in a fireplace - and not outside (as they usually deal with). I just gave up. Of the 7 cases last year none were found to be substantiated. I am guessing it is because they were dealt with under statutory nuisance law. This time I will try the environmental protection team and hope they are better informed.

Yes i will try them

Sick of my house smelling of woodsmoke and my chest geting tight. The poor lady above me has early stage lung disease. I couldn't work out where the smoke was coming from and then found it was a house across the road. I politely asked her to stop and told her about my chest and my neighbours lung disease. I let her know it is a smoke control area. She got angry and said (shouted) 'It is not illegal and never will be' and told me to call the council. She has been burning regularly ever since - dark smoke coming from her chimney making the whole area stink. She is a wealthy lady (can see a plush house through the window) - not exactly burning out of need of heat. How can anyone possibly be so incredibly selfish! I'm so fed up I'm putting in a complaint to Southwark Council asking them to do their duty and raise awareness of and enforce the clean air act. I asked them before and they said that there does not seem to be a problem as they only received 7 complaints of breaching of the clean air act last year! If anyone feels the same as me please let Southwark Council know as otherwise they will never do anything and it will only get worse.

Calsug Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Get a montion activated sprinkler, tried all the > powders and gels they didn't work but the > sprinkler works wonders Yes I like the sound of that. Needs an outdoor tap - but might be worth getting one.

singalto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Foxes also poo in gardens but, unlike cats, they > don't bury it. It is very rare that I see fox poo in my garden, I don't remember the last time. The foxes are so thin that I don't think that they produce much waste. Not like the huge overweight cats. Also fox poo does not contain toxo gondii parasites which is the main reason I'm concerned about cat poo. And they are not someonelses responsibility. I prefer it when the cats don't bury it. At least I can see it and remove it immediately. When it's buried is the worst - especially on my veg patch. I don't see it, and then one day a nasty handful... It is contaminating my soil. It takes months and months to break down, and introduces parasites and roundworms.

Thanks for all the suggestions, I've tried a few, but think I will try the pee idea next. I thought of an electric fence but don't want to shock the squirrels. I also like the idea of a cat scarer water spray that has a motion detector but need an outdoor tap. It's really annoying as I planned to make a veg patch and spent ages growing all my seedlings etc... but now it's so full of shit that I'm not sure it is even safe to eat any veg from there. The Toxoplasmo gondii parasite can survive in soil up to 18 months...

To all those people insulting Uncleglen,he clearly did not codone the cat killing - he called it 'horrible'. Turtle - he did not condone animal cruelty - obviously he dislikes animal suffering hence his concern for the animal suffering (carnage) caused by the cats. Deainie - 'just picture a child who found their cat slashed open, is that still a good feeling for you?' Picture me - so excited that robins built a nest facing my window so I could see in, only to find the baby birds' headless bodies scattered around the garden - killed by a neighbours pet. Noone I know who owns a cat puts out a litter tray! When I ask them where their cats shit - they go all vague or make light-hearted trivial comments. These are nice people in every other way. Yet when it comes to their cats they choose not to think. They hide behind the fact that it is 'normal'. They hide behind anonymity. So many people are sick to death of sacrificing their gardens and risking their health by being forced to provide a free cat shit collection service. Few people complain - hard to know where cats are coming from and involves confrontation. People just silently seeth. It is no wonder there are so many cat poisonings. The blame lies with lazy cat owners driving others to such measures. Cat shit can contain the parasite toxoplasma gondii. I know of two people who have had damage to their sight because of this. In addition, when someone in the city gets a cat they should also accept that they are responsible for introducing yet another predator to the few remaining wildlife species confined to narrow garden strips. It is not just that wildlife is killed, but even cats that don't kill still cause stress. Just the existence of a cat causes constant vigilance and alarm in birds for example. Personally, if all the surrounding cats disappeared overnight I would open a bottle - for me and the wildlife.

I know quite a lot of cat owners do no bother to put litter trays out for their cats. Well please think that if you're not picking up your cat's crap, then someone else is - and may well be cursing you and your animal as they do so. It is just plain antisocial especially in a city. Cats spread toxoplasmosis, round worm and god knows what else. I never chose to have a pet so why do I have to spend my evenings picking shit? Bags sometimes. Can't grow veg, kids can't play, Seedlings get dug up, birds get killed. I'm particularly annoyed right now as I've just got it all over my hands :( My fantasies of what I want to do to the cats are scaring me... Has anyone tried anything that works?

I've started getting a tight chest this winter. It's the first time in my life I've had any sensation like it. I'm hope I'm not getting asthma. I've been following the air pollution readings this winter and they have been terrible. Also I bought an air pollution monitor, and it has just confirmed how bad things are. I used to think the air in leafy Dulwich wouldn't be too bad.... I was so wrong. We are surrounded by pollution hotspots from where it blows over. For example, New Cross seems to have one of the worst particulate (pm2.5) levels in London (even higher than Marylebone Rd!). But it really doesn't help matters at all that in an already badly polluted area so many people burn wood on open fires or stoves. My road has been smelling of woodsmoke all winter.

I live near North Cross Road and have a pollution particulate monitor - (particles so small they can directly enter the blood system found in diesel fumes and dust. You can get Foobot/Egg particle monitors on Amazon). On Wednesday morning the particulate level was 16 (it was this level all night. Lowish for Dulwich but not great), but at 9am the level shot up rapidly. By 9.15 it was 95! This is really high. It stayed around this level until around midday then went down to the 30s where it has been ever since (double what it was before). I am guessing a some grinding was going on on a building site and they didn't bother to follow regulations. I don't think the air will clear fully until it rains.

I have no reason to have complete faith in wood-stove manufacturers especially as they know it's not easy to test their products so how will anyone know any better - as the article says : 'And in an echo of the diesel car emissions scandal, measurements during actual use in homes show that the stoves produce more pollution than lab tests suggest.' This is really common in manufacturing when they do tests. There are so many workarounds to get the numbers they want that don't stand up in real-world conditions. The manufacturers have every reason to be creative in their tests. Not sure why the researchers would want to be?? But yes of course, replication is always good - errors can happen. But as things stand, I'd be more inclined to go with the researchers. And as things stand I would take the precautionary principle and eschew the stoves - especially as they are not exactly necessary! With regards to evidence concerning the contribution to overall air pollution:'Last week, air pollution in London soared to heights not seen since 2011...?We think about half of the peak was from wood smoke,? says Timothy Baker, part of a team at King?s College London that monitors air pollution.'..'Wood burning is becoming a big problem in London, too. In 2010, when Fuller analysed particulate pollution to discover its source, he found that 10 per cent of all the city?s wintertime pollution was from wood.There are many reasons to think that figure is higher now. A 2015 government survey found that domestic wood consumption in the UK was three higher than previous estimates, with 7 per cent of respondents reporting that they burned logs. ?Wood consumption is increasing substantially,? says Eddy Mitchell at the University of Leeds, UK...When he, Forster and others fed the data on wood consumption into a computer model of air pollution, their conclusion was disturbing: PM2.5 pollution from residential stoves is soaring in the UK' If you want something more academic, then the BMJ article linked below is pretty interesting and fact filled! http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2757/rr-1 I know about the cars running for no reason - saw a couple today!

Not sure what percentage of London's air pollution construction is responsible for - but I'm sure it's significant. Except I don't think there is much one can do about that. I went to an air pollution event and the researchers from Kings were there and they were mainly concerned with diesel and then wood burning. Wood burning contributed 50% of the particulates to the last pollution episode - whereour particulate level was higher than Beijing. The other thing is there is no way round construction if one wants to build/renovate. However, burning wood is completely unnecessary - what's wrong with a gas/electric boiler!