This article first appeared in the National Times in October 2010.
Western Australia has just introduced some of the toughest anti-smoking laws in the world, banning the practice within 10 metres of playgrounds, between the flags at beaches and in al fresco dining areas.
In response to the precedent set in the west, the Australian Medical Association Victoria has started pushing the Brumby government for a similar ban. In Tasmania, the Burnie City Council has gone one step further, passing a resolution supporting a complete ban on the sale and use of tobacco in Tasmania.
But while the passive smoking debate continues to fill newspaper columns around the country, another similar issue is smouldering away in the background and, although the health risks are every bit as compelling, no one seems to be paying it very much attention at all.
While many people rate a cosy fire, along with slippers and hot chocolate, as one of the silver linings of the cold winter clouds, the residential burning of firewood is recognised as a significant source of pollution in the urban environment.
Wood smoke has been shown to be the main cause of cold weather smog and PM2.5 pollution, the pollutant most commonly associated with increased hospital admissions. PM2.5 pollution is defined as particles that are less than 2.5 micrometres in diameter — small enough to penetrate deeply into the lungs and heart. Just to give you an idea of the scale of the problem, the most recent NSW Air Emissions Inventory (2003) showed that wood heaters in Sydney produce almost 6000 tonnes of PM2.5 per year, while all the petrol-fuelled passenger cars in the city put together produce (a mere) 972 tonnes. In addition to particle pollution, even an efficient, correctly-operated wood heater releases smoke that contains carcinogens in much greater concentrations than found in cigarette smoke, and emits more greenhouse gases than any other form of heating.
A discussion paper recently released by the Environment Protection and Heritage Council, an organisation representing the Australian, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea governments, describes an association between hospital admissions and the type of particle pollution produced by wood heaters and open fires. According to Dr James Markos, from the Australian Lung Foundation, ''There is no safe level of exposure . . . [it] has similar long-term consequences to environmental tobacco smoke, including the risk of lung cancer and heart disease.''
Indeed, many people who experience chronic lung conditions, such as my five-year-old niece who suffers from asthma, know that the effects are so acute that it is safer and easier to limit outdoor activities on cool weather days rather than risk another trip to the emergency department.
Aside from their nostalgic, romantic connotations, wood heaters, of course, serve a practical purpose. Many who live in houses with a slow combustion heater or open fire simply cannot afford to install a cleaner heating system, and point to their relatively low operating costs (although it could be argued that we all bear a far greater cost).
It would seem appropriate that governments not only begin educating people about the effects of their wood smoke on the community more generally, but also step in to financially assist people to replace this form of heating. Perhaps they could follow the lead of Canberra, where the topography of the city causes particularly high concentrations of particle pollution to settle over the city, and introduce a rebate to replace wood heaters with gas heating.
Such a push will undoubtedly have some people crying ''nanny state'' and bemoaning a loss of personal freedom. Many people, it seems, feel it is a fundamental human right to burn things when and where they choose, no matter how other people are affected. However, just as the health effects of passive smoking are unequivocal, so too are those caused by inhaling the smoke produced by burning wood. There must come a point where community health and safety overrides the ''right'' of an individual to act in a manner that harms others.
Talking about wood smoke might not be as sexy as talking about cigarette smoking, but it is as important a health issue. If we are going to get serious about protecting the immediate well-being of those with lung conditions and the long-term health of everyone else by limiting passive smoking, we need to similarly recognise and restrict other forms of dangerous air pollution – and that includes what comes out of our chimneys.
The original text is available at: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/chimneys-the-forgotten-health-risk-20101011-16fam.html
