I would also add to Dan's comment above to please tell RCEA you don't want your electric money to support Humboldt Redwood Company. Everyone who is in RCEA's community choice energy program is supporting the Fisher family. Humboldt Redwood/Sawmill Company has RCEA's largest biomass power purchase agreement. The biomass is the tail that wags the dog.
Air quality has certainly not been "good to moderate" on the coast, as the sensors on the PurpleAir network are currently demonstrating. We have been having levels of pollution that numerous studies have linked to serious health effects and even to an increase in the death rate for vulnerable populations. We need an air district that actually stands up for public health! Anywhere else, people would be advised to avoid polluting activities including using wood stoves. Its outrageous.
Actually, Stoner, you are wrong. Far more pollution, especially in Humboldt, comes from wood burning than from cars or industry. According to the California Air Resources Board, electric generation is responsible for .10 tons/day of fine particle pollution in the county. The vast majority of that comes from biomass -- .09 tons/day -- because wood burning in any form is hugely polluting. The exhaust emissions from all of the vehicles on the road combined in the county -- semi trucks, buses, passenger cars, diesels, etc -- emit, all together, .14 tons/day of fine particle pollution in Humboldt County. Residential wood burning, however, is responsible for approximately one whole ton/day of fine particle pollution in the county. This doesn't include backyard burns -- just wood stoves and fireplaces.
Wood burning is hugely polluting, and many studies have shown that the pollution from residential wood burning is responsible for a range of chronic illnesses and a higher risk of premature death, especially from cardiovascular and pulmonary causes. It's not a coincidence that our county's lung health and cardiovascular death rates are dismal. The particles from wood burning are in the smallest size range -- small enough to pass through the lungs and into the bloodstream, where they carry toxins throughout the body and raise inflammation levels. This is a large and growing research field -- fine particle pollution kills, especially fine particle pollution from wood burning.
Also, the closer you are to a source of pollution, the more of it you inhale. If someone is burning wood or using a smoker right next to your house, you will breathe in way more of that than you would from something some cars are putting out further away.
Wood smoke is secondhand smoke -- it has most of the same toxic chemicals as tobacco smoke, and is just as unhealthy (actually, it's worse -- wood smoke particulates have been found in toxicology studies to be as much as 30 times more carcinogenic than those from tobacco, and more mutagenic than those from diesel).
Attitudes haven't caught up with the science yet, but they will. The peer-reviewed research on this is too vast and comprehensive to be ignored much longer, even by people who think their smoked ribs are more important than a sick or elderly neighbor next door.
Thanks for that, Gisela. From what I've been able to find out about the Herricks, I'm not surprised. They had a long history with the Indians, beginning, it seems, when Mr. Herrick worked for the government "collecting" some of them for relocation (http://www.onlinebiographies.info/ca/humb/herrick-rf.htm). One can imagine.
I wrote the letter to the Times-Standard. I'd like to point out that they printed it with a few things missing. They didn't know, apparently, how to typeset some of the phonetic characters in the Wiyot phrases and so they just left those letters out. The correct versions are in William Bright's dictionary. William Bright also edited a newer version of Gudde's dictionary, and that was the version I was citing (something also left out of my letter).
Re: “'A Must'”
I really wish people would stop uncritically posting links to climate-denying front groups and websites that ultimately link back to the Koch brothers and their circle of influence. These anti-wind sites are not run by grassroots environmentally concerned people; they are run by climate deniers and people who benefit from the fossil fuel status quo.
For example, http://wiseenergy.org is run by climate deniers with links to Master Resource: https://www.desmogblog.com/alliance-wise-e…
And what is the Master Resource blog, which Adam Canter cited several times in his argument on LCO against the wind farm? This will give you an idea: https://www.energyandpolicy.org/trump-anti…
Lisa Linowes and the Wind Action site: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Indu…
https://www.energyandpolicy.org/tom-stacy-…
And who is behind "Watts Up With That"? https://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts
Etc, etc, etc...