Vancouver fire pits ignite controversy

Comments

Back in the day, Ambleside Park in West Vancouver was the place for a good time. The broad beach, facing west for dazzling sunsets, allowed for campfires in a few designated pits. For nature-deprived city dwellers, an evening of sausage, s’mores, and song was just a jump across the inlet from downtown.

No more. About 10 years ago, the West Vancouver Fire Department—which had built the pits in the first place—destroyed them, according to Martin Ernst, a division chief with the fire department.

“They were too popular,” he told the Georgia Straight in a phone interview. “Too much of the community came down to the beach,” and the noise, garbage, and a few out-of-control fires convinced the officers to extinguish the fun. Ernst recalls that, after the pits were destroyed, some citizens accused the department of “sterilizing” the beach.

But changing the rules didn’t douse the flames. Every summer night, Ernst said, the fire department is called out to illegal campfires along the beaches and in back yards, with an average of more than 200 calls per season.

West Vancouverites aren’t the only criminally flame-happy folk. In fact, across Metro Vancouver’s myriad open-fire regulations, it seems no strategy has been able to dampen urbanites’ desire for fire. In Vancouver, where there’s an outright prohibition on open fires, there were 230 calls to light-ups in back yards, parks, and beaches last year, according to Gabe Roder, a Vancouver Fire Department captain.

Still, the situation is no worse in fire-friendly Delta, which offers community fire pits on Centennial Beach. Those pits, Delta deputy fire chief Paul Scholfield told the Straight, tend to attract responsible folks, and the department hasn’t had any problems with them.

In the summer, Scholfield said, there are still illegal fires daily. But those are largely set by teens who want to drink along isolated stretches of the shore, he noted. If the fire pits were removed, he added, it probably wouldn’t stop community members from lighting up. It would just turn them into criminals.

Clearly there’s a region-wide desire for fires. So should other municipalities follow Delta’s flames?

In Vancouver, park board commissioner Loretta Woodcock thinks urban campfires might help solve a problem: nature deficit. This fall, the park board is creating a new strategic plan that may focus on helping urban kids connect with wilderness, she explained. Beyond looking at bugs and trees, Woodcock said, open fires could be a key to that connection.

“Through nature, children learn empathy, they learn who they are,” the COPE commissioner told the Straight. “There’s not enough of that in an urban environment [such as Yaletown]”¦.Maybe we should have a fire pit somewhere in the city where kids can go and roast marshmallows.”

But Vision Vancouver board vice-chair Sarah Blyth said urban fires are likely a no-go. So far, she said, no one has asked for it. And the cigarette-smoking ban in parks, she said, got “overwhelming support”. Vancouverites don’t want air pollution, additional noise, and garbage on beaches, she told the Straight.

West Vancouver’s Ernst, too, said the risks from urban fires outweigh the benefits.

“If you’ve ever had to look into the eyes of a homeowner whose house is threatened by a bushfire gone wrong, you wouldn’t be too worried about sterilization”¦.or, a child walking on the beach the next morning who walks over still-hot coals from the night before.”

Indeed, Vancouver deputy fire chief Les Sziklai believes that if open fires become legal, we’ll see more runaway fires in the city. But he also pointed out that the department offers fire permits for charitable events ($20) and other organizations ($100). A private party, though, he said, probably wouldn’t get a permit to burn in this city. Unpermitted burns will get you a fine of between $50 and $2,000, according to Vancouver fire bylaws.

Here’s what you can legally do in Vancouver. You can make a wood fire in an enclosed grill that’s specifically designed for cooking, and you can enjoy that fire for as long as it takes to cook your food. Then, the fire needs to go out. Roasting marshmallows on sticks, according to Sziklai, does not count as cooking food. Or, you can bring a contained barbecue—briquette or propane—with you to the beach.

You can also build a barbecue in your back yard, or an oven such as a tandoor, and use wood to cook. Sziklai said that this arrangement is open to abuse, as the only real difference between a contained-but-illegal fire and a legal cooking fire is whether there’s a grill over the flames.

“We can’t regulate every single thing,” he said. ”We can’t police every single person.”

Alas, municipal governments can certainly try.

Urbanites who are willing to travel can ignite in fire pits at Centennial Beach (Boundary Bay), Deas Island (Richmond), Tynehead Park (Surrey), Belcarra, Derby Reach and Brae Island (Langley), Matsqui Trail (Abbotsford), Aldergrove Lake, and Campbell Valley (South Langley, near the border).

Comments (47) Add New Comment
smokelessinvancouver
I can't believe what I just read. There is not 1 mention of the fact that wood burning of any type from a fireplace, fire pit or forest fire all produce toxic emissions and is a severe health hazard.

What’s in Wood Smoke?Like cigarette smoke, wood smoke contains hundreds of dangerous air pollutants & gases such as:Particulate Matter 2.5, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons),VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds) dioxins, furans, benzene, lead, cadmium,arsenic, and many other harmful substances.

Particulate Matter 2.5 is extremely harmful because it can not be filtered by the nose and
gets into the lungs of people making people sick and killing some.

Why would anyone encourage such a nasty form of Air Pollution?
2
4
Rating: -2
smokelessinvancouver
How healthy is wood smoke?
The health hazards of wood smoke are:

-lung and other cancers
-other serious health problems
such as: blood clots, heart attacks,
and strokes.
-lung disease like asthma,
emphysema, pneumonia, and
bronchitis;
-irritation of the lungs, throat, sinuses
and eyes;
-allergic reactions;
-headaches;
-increased hospital admissions and
even premature death.
2
5
Rating: -3
smokelessinvancouver
Deputy Fire Chief Les Sziklai is wrong with on his interpretation of Vancouver Fire By-law 2000 * Wood burning appliances are not allowed. (Example: chimneas, fire pits).

A person must not light or maintain a fire using any combustible material in the open air or in any outdoor area without first obtaining a permit from the Fire Chief.

Wood falls into that category. From my experience with dealing with the Vancouver Fire Department, most of the firefighters are not aware of what the Open Air Fires Bylaw really states.

I have had this clarified by the Vancouver Fire Chief and Fire Inspectors.
2
3
Rating: -1
Vic Steblin
Who needs a fire anymore, except for the leftover cavepeoples? Is it the winter woodburners getting a smoke fix? Let the friggin wood rot already, and go for a hike in clean air if there's any left!
2
2
Rating: 0
Nathalie Doiron
I cannot believe that this article does not mention the toxicity of burning wood. Here in Montréal, it is illegal to have outdoor burning. Thankfully, as I have severe asthma. We need to put more in the forefront people’s health as opposed to a supposed « right to burn ».
2
4
Rating: -2
Shirley Brandie
It appears that there are some people fixated on burning. How sad that they either don't know or don't want to accept the fact that they are polluting the air we all breathe. People like this need to be regulated because they are never going to stop burning unless forced to.
Why allow those with a psychological issue to foul the air for everyone? Ban the stupid burning and give us all the right to breathe clean air.
2
3
Rating: -1
Wow
I guess the above comments are a testament to another general thing that adds to this city's no-fun vibe.

Small fires on a beach used to be a pastime, and the community policed itself. In many well-to-do communities, they still are, but here it's one of those things that must be stamped out before real or imaginary property values decline due to real or imagined threats.

Really starting to think that this city is beyond hope.
7
1
Rating: +6
Vicki Morell
Ever since our early ancestors gathered around their first fire,
humans have been responsible for releasing fine particulates into the air.
Only recently have scientists discovered the bad news: fine
particulates are so small that they can easily be inhaled into the deepest reaches of our lungs, causing serious lung
and heart disease throughout the world. We just didn't know it.
But times have changed. What was once considered a
harmless practice now is recognized as a major source of air pollution.

All wood burning is a grave health hazard and major contributor to global warming. Bans and nuisance bylaws need to be put in place to protect the residents of Metro Vancouver from the health hazards, pollution, nuisance and interruption to normal daily life from all residential wood burning smoke and odour both indoor and outdoor from all wood burning appliances.

Please see www.canadiancleanairalliance.ca
2
4
Rating: -2
Brie - Wood Smoke Victim
I pray that Vancouver park board commissioner Loretta Woodcock will have a change of heart and of mind; and let the kids connect with nature (wilderness) without an open fire. Burning wood! Roasting marshmallows can be done, quite successfully, over a gas-fire. No need to build fire-pits all over the Metro area and add to air pollution.

Municipalities who, at present, are allowing any type of outdoor burning may soon refrain from doing so. Much attention is directed to the harm wood-smoke is doing to our environment and human health. The UBC has conducted extensive studies on the health hazards of wood smoke. And many communities are focusing on ”˜going green’ and are aiming to reduce toxins in the atmosphere. Encouraging the use of wood fueled fire-pits, will be counterproductive!
2
5
Rating: -3
Giulia D'Alesio
Reference to:
Through nature, children learn empathy, they learn who they are,” the COPE commissioner told the Straight. “There’s not enough of that in an urban environment [such as Yaletown]”¦.Maybe we should have a fire pit somewhere in the city where kids can go and roast marshmallows.


Why does children need to build a fire to gather or go to, and roast marshmallows?...maybe they are cave children?

How about a park where kids can go for activities without the toxic wood smoke?

Kids playing with matches or fire does not make me feel all so safe nor having a fire pit in the the city or else where.

Children can enjoy nature and/by looking at the stars with a blanket around them to keep warm without a fire, and they still can enjoy their marshmallows. Most important the children will learn to protect, and respect lives, and our environment by not burning wood.

P.S. We do not live in the cave days!
3
7
Rating: -4
P Woolley
This is what UBC prof Hadi Dowlatabadi had to say in an email, regarding wood fires and emmissions.

He is the associate director at UBC's Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability. He is also the Canada Research Chair for Applied Mathematics and Integrated Assessment of Global Change, and teaches through the Liu Institute for Study of Global Issues.

"Campfires are usually from local biomass. Their burning creates CO2 and smoke. The CO2 being emitted can be considered of no impact -- if the wood is from forest litter or otherwise sustainable source. The smoke has an estimated equivalent climate forcing.

"So a typical small campfire may burn 15kg of wood per night.
The total forcing from a sustainable forest would be: 22kg CO2
The total forcing from a non-sustainable forest would be: 44 kg CO2

"This is equivalent to the tailpipe emissions of a 10l/km car return trip to a camp site 45 and 90 km away from the campers' home."


3
1
Rating: +2
P Woolley
Some interesting info from the B.C. Lung Association's State of the Air 2009 report:

"A growing number of studies indicate that exposure to residential wood smoke is linked to adverse respiratory health impacts such as an increase in emergency room visits and respiratory symptoms in children as well as decreased lung function.
When people are exposed to wood smoke, it is usually along with other pollutants from diverse sources; hence, in assessing risk, it is important to identify the extent to which responses are specific to wood smoke.
Recent studies have concluded that there is not sufficient evidence suggesting that wood smoke particulate matter—despite its “natural” origin—is any less harmful than other types of particulate matter.
Unlike the large body of evidence linking urban particulate matter to cardiovascular disease, presently there is limited evidence of such wood smoke effects.
Moreover, a new set of measurements also suggests that particles from wood smoke may be less “sticky” than those from motor vehicle exhaust, and thus less efficient at being deposited in the respiratory tract.
Still, a series of controlled exposure studies in Sweden show that relatively short wood smoke exposures (4 hours) result in systemic inflammation and oxidative stress similar to effects seen after exposure to particles in polluted urban air. While there seems to be clear evidence of respiratory health effects related to wood smoke, it remains unclear to what extent wood smoke might elicit cardiovascular effects.
Given these health impacts, the fact that wood combustion is being promoted as a renewable and carbon-neutral energy source, and the fact that wood use may increase as prices of fossil fuels rise, it is important to reduce the potential for wood smoke exposure.
A recent analysis for Vancouver indicated a high wood smoke exposure potential, i.e. a large fraction of wood smoke emissions produces exposure comparable to the “intake fraction” coming from motor vehicle exhaust. This is due to the conditions under which wood is burned—in neighborhoods where people reside and often when air is stagnant.
This research suggests that efforts to decrease wood smoke emissions by fuel-switching or by using lower-emission appliances will be very effective in reducing population exposure. While much can be done to reduce wood smoke emissions at the source, evidence from northern B.C. shows that portable HEPA filter air cleaners can effectively reduce indoor concentrations and exposures for those living in areas with high levels of outdoor wood smoke."
2
4
Rating: -2
Vicki Morell
This is in response to Vancouver having a no-fun vibe. What is a no-fun vibe is lung cancer, lung disease, watching a child or for that matter anyone with asthma having their breath taken away because of wood smoke.

"Burning wood for fun should not be an option but... breathing clean air should be"

Metro Vancouver and all levels of government have done a very poor job educating the public about the truth and facts about the health hazards from all wood smoke pollution.
1
4
Rating: -3
Birdy
Dear trolling nanny-state control freak progressives, is anyone forcing you to stand next to the fire pits?

If you're so concerned about micro-particles and whatever else Al Gore told you to fear this week, you should seriously consider purchasing an air filtered bubble to live in. Stop living in fear and stop trying to control everyone and everything.

If you want to live in an ecosocialist no-fun commune GO BUILD ONE instead of hijacking Vancouver.
10
1
Rating: +9
Ima Caveman
Seriously, people.
Think you're going to live a significantly longer life or have healthier children because of less smoke and toxin inhalation during your / their lifetime? PICK YOUR POISON. Everything is bad for the planet. You being alive is probably worse for your children than burning wood. If it makes you happier to not burn wood, that's awesome.

That being said, I empathize with those of us who have smoke-related health concerns. It sucks not being able to breath (or enjoy outdoor fire). In addition being human, I pay taxes. And as a taxpayer I have a responsibility to myself and others to produce a fire that will not require the presence of the fire / police department or infringe on other peoples right to a quiet evening without the smell of smoke. I'm still going to have fires though, even if they are illegal. Ill just try to keep out of people's way.

Let's say we're having a fire on the beach where we burn roughly an 80 litre garbage can full of dried drift wood (no garbage) for 3 hours. Obviously this isn't the most healthy activity but the amount of emissions produced and inhaled here is a drop in a very large bucket of the garbage we dump into our bodies / environment during our lives. I do this infrequently throughout the year for cooking and general caveman-like good times. Perhaps when I'm 90 I will reminisce on my younger years and count the ways I could have been more eco-friendly. I doubt the beach fires will come very high on that list, maybe they will. I don't know.

This goes out to all you quack-new-age-concerned-parent-cum-scientist-neighbourhood-heroes who buy "green" take out containers from Capers and have cool feelings about the supply chain and find time to take family vacations to Hawaii. Grow some balls and move out to the sticks. I can't wait to get out.

Sincerely,

Ima Caveman.

unplanet@gmail.com
6
1
Rating: +5
buddy
Most of you aren't even from Vancouver! lol
3
1
Rating: +2
spuzzmn

Outdoor Fire Pits –
Public Health perspective
Denis Allard m.d., MSc, FRCPC
Regional Medical Officer of Health,
East Region, NB Health department
presented July 31 2007

Summary of Presentation
Risk Assessment
Adverse Health Effects
Population Groups at Higher Risk
A Question of Exposure

Assessing Risk/Impact
Risk = Toxicity x Exposure
Impact = Severity x Incidence

Risk Assessment
Hazard identification
Review key research to identify any potential health problems that contaminant can cause
Exposure assessment
Determine amount, duration, and pattern of exposure to the contaminant
Dose-response assessment (hazard characterization)
Estimate how much of contaminant needed to cause various degrees of health effects that could lead to illness
Risk characterization
Assess risk for contaminant to cause cancer or other illnesses in general population and sub-populations

Hazardous Compounds
in Wood Fire Smoke
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2,5)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Nitrous/Nitric Oxydes (NOx)
Acrolein and Formaldehyde
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Dioxins et Furans
Others ”¦

Effets nocifs sur la santé

Irritation of respiratory tract (all)
cough, sore throat, pain on inspiration
Mucosal irritation (acrolein and formaldehyde)
Headache, nausea, dizziness (CO)
Worsening of pulmonary diseases (PM2,5;CO)
bronchitis, emphysema, asthma
Worsening of coronary disease (CO)
Pulmonary edema (NOx)
Reduced pulmonary function (PM2,5)
Mutagenic; Carcinogenic (VOCs; PAHs; dioxins)
Premature death (PM2,5; CO; others)
Immunosuppression ”¦?

Population Groups at Higher Risk
Foetus; newborns; toddlers
Elderly
Individuals with chronic cardio-pulmonary diseases
Individuals with hypersensitivities

All for just a marshmallow or a weinnie?

2
4
Rating: -2
WhoOwnsTheAir
You are correct, buddy, not all of us are from B.C. But the wood smoke problem is everywhere in cities across the continent. If folks wish to burn wood, please do so as far out of town as you can get. Why not make friends with someone in a rural area, miles away from innocent victims of this "nice-smelling" airborne toxic waste (aka woodsmoke)
2
2
Rating: 0
Shirley Brandie
What is the difference if some are not from Vancouver? Do you think the pollution in Vancouver stays in Vancouver or that we never visit Vancouver?
Pollution from wood smoke is not just in Vancouver either... just in case you think you have the all the cavemen squared away there.
2
1
Rating: +1
Shirley Brandie
Birdy is not worth responding to, but, Ima Caveman, I can see that you at least realize that wood smoke is a problem. I sense a bit of guilt there. Get over it. We've all done it. But now we know and have seen how wood smoke destroys health and the environment.
I am not overly green. Not everyone who objects to wood smoke is. What is objectionable is that we simply do not want to be forced to breathe wood smoke in our homes and properties or while trying to have a day at the beach, etc.
PS.. I wouldn't do the 'illegal' thing as you say you will. Save that money !
1
2
Rating: -1

Pages

Add new comment
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.