2012 Jan. 22: NY: Anti-smoking ads against tobacco similar to anti-smoking messages against OWBs
Could we perhaps sum up the situation as being that –
1) wood smoke is as dangerous as tobacco smoke but is not well known.
2) How much wood smoke is OK to breathe? According to who?
3) The rules and regs regarding the use of OWBS could be restated as:
Decisions made, on the government level, of where to blow smoke and into whose home, life and lungs.
Attached is a pdf of an article from a recent Advertising Age item.
It is something slightly off topic here but for a good reason.
The Marketing onslaught that was done on the dangers of smoking tobacco, I believe, is what is missing in the OWB story. I realize that is not a break-through thought but I send this on for contemplation purposes.
And in this economy we will not see monies readily spent on this as they were in the past for tobacco.
From the article there is this paragraph:
Media spending is not the only factor in smoking prevention, and probably not even the most
important. That distinction goes to taxes. There are other factors, especially smoke-free-air laws that effect
bans in workplaces and other public places.
Smoke-Free-Air Laws seems to be a big one for tobacco.
We need the CDC and others to make public, and often, the idea that wood smoke is AS dangerous or worse than tobacco smoke.
So how to get the message across? Not easy but there will be a way.
On Jan 16, 2012, at 2:21 PM, John and Bonnie Lichak wrote:
fyi — just found this Washington State presentation on line from Lane, Oregon Regional Air Protection Agency. Don’t see a date on presentation, but it has some of the best simple slides I’ve seen for communicating w/officials about the issue of wood boilers. Be sure to highlight though that same holds true for indoor boilers as well.
Here is link to LRAPA page w/link to presentation within the text.