well in my small part of California there are some days that you can not burn wood. to me it seems like the days you cant burn wood coincide with the coldest days of winter.

many people still rely on burning wood for heat but if you cant burn wood then electric heaters or gas heaters are the ways most people turn to keep warm.

if it is not a conspiracy then it sucks. usually people who cant afford running a heater day and night are the ones who burn wood because its cheaper.

on a related note there are people who drive around looking for houses with smoke coming out the chimney on "no burning" days to send them a fine through the mail.

now tell me how can they fine the poor for trying to use a cheap way of heating? yes I know its bad for the environment but if heating cost were low then everybody would use heaters.

well my point is that maybe just maybe pg&e and smud lobbyied who ever they needed to so they can force people to use up more of their services.

what do you guys think?

maybe, use dry wood?

hard woods are best as there is less oil/water in them

what about the carcinogens from generating electricity? that has to be as bad as wood smoke. The officials don't even know we are alive and could care less...so, I would take it up with the person who is sending you fines. when vigilantes were around ...it was a more lawful and fair place.

The coldest days are also often the driest. When you burn wood for heat, even indoors, there's a possibility that embers will float up and out of the chimney and spark a blaze. California has a bad habit of catching on fire a lot, and those big fires you hear about on the news place a huge strain on state and local firefighting and environmental control programs, which are already strapped for cash considering the state's on the verge of declaring bankruptcy.

When you look at it that way, why wouldn't they assess a fine for people burning wood? It discourages people from risky behavior and provides money for the programs designed to protect people from their idiocy.

well in my small part of California there are some days that you can not burn wood. to me it seems like the days you cant burn wood coincide with the coldest days of winter.

many people still rely on burning wood for heat but if you cant burn wood then electric heaters or gas heaters are the ways most people turn to keep warm.

if it is not a conspiracy then it sucks. usually people who cant afford running a heater day and night are the ones who burn wood because its cheaper.

on a related note there are people who drive around looking for houses with smoke coming out the chimney on "no burning" days to send them a fine through the mail.

now tell me how can they fine the poor for trying to use a cheap way of heating? yes I know its bad for the environment but if heating cost were low then everybody would use heaters.

well my point is that maybe just maybe pg&e and smud lobbyied who ever they needed to so they can force people to use up more of their services.

what do you guys think?

It is because of the liberal pussies in our state.

superslacker The coldest days are also often the driest. When you burn wood for heat, even indoors, there's a possibility that embers will float up and out of the chimney and spark a blaze. California has a bad habit of catching on fire a lot, and those big fires you hear about on the news

ok, in short. fuck everybody who has a house in areas that catch fire every single fire season. they should build cement/block/brick houses. why do i as a tax payer have to pay to fight the fire that threathen their house and not mine? i live in the city we dont have wild fires here.

in mexico when something is on fire they cook tacos over it and no one gives a shit. why? because they have houses made out of stone cement brick or block. if i lived in a area where every single season it burns

1 i would not live there in the first place
2 i would build it out of fire proof meterials
3 i would lay cement around it for 100 feet and a wall
4 get insurance that pays for the house in case of fire

who gives a shit if my house burns down? it is not the governments problem


place a huge strain on state and local firefighting and environmental control programs, which are already strapped for cash considering the state's on the verge of declaring bankruptcy.

so you are saying its ok to make more taxes fines fees just because they cant manage their spending? there is a brand new school where i live that isnt even bieng used one hundred percent. why the fuck did they build it if other schools are bieng shut down because of funding problems?



When you look at it that way, why wouldn't they assess a fine for people burning wood? It discourages people from risky behavior and provides money for the programs designed to protect people from their idiocy.


the idiocy is people living in burn zones.

if you want to live on a raft in the middle of the ocean and it has a tendency to sink every year or so is the government responsible for fixing the water leaks on it? and do you have to get a fine for going fishing on days when the water is too wild?

Not saying it's right, just telling it like it is.

Interesting how your original post seemed to defend the poor people living in burn zones from exploitation by the power companies, whereas your latest post is essentially calling them idiots who deserve it.

The problem with your house burning down is that it's not just your house. It's the houses within several miles if left unchecked, leaving people homeless, which means they probably lose their jobs, which totally fucks the state.

Please pick a side of the discussion.

Not saying it's right, just telling it like it is.

Interesting how your original post seemed to defend the poor people living in burn zones from exploitation by the power companies, whereas your latest post is essentially calling them idiots who deserve it.

The problem with your house burning down is that it's not just your house. It's the houses within several miles if left unchecked, leaving people homeless, which means they probably lose their jobs, which totally fucks the state.

Please pick a side of the discussion.

when i diss the people living in the hills that catch fire i diss the mostly rich. when i defend the poor i defend the poor living in the city that are not affected by wild fires.