Smoke hasn’t cleared over outdoor wood-fired boiler furnace debate

Apr 30, 2008

To the Editor:

About a year ago I approached the Almaguin News team to write an article on the 'smoke problem' my family and I are having to tolerate from the neighbour’s outdoor wood-fired boiler furnace.

I stated that the smoke from this furnace has forced my family and I to lose the outdoor enjoyment of our property, as well as (our) not being able to have our windows open anymore.

Once again with the temperatures having people opening their windows for fresh air we have to keep ours sealed to keep out the thick choking smoke.

Our neighbour has approached myself and my father and has told us that they get the smoke 10 times worse than we do. That is truly unfortunate, because they have three very young children (who are) subjected to air quality that has my family and I struggling to breathe in our home at times.

The Village of South River enacted a bylaw which the mayor assured (us) would take care of our problem for us. The bylaw states that anyone who causes their neighbour harm from the smoke from this type of furnace can be charged under the Environmental Protecton Act.

The Ministry of the Environment (MoE) has washed their hands of the matter after their own North Bay officer who investigated our case had told me I should keep any and all photos I had to add with those he had taken in support of our claim. We've even had it suggested to us that we should move to get away from the smoke. Not the Minister of Health, our MPP, the MoE or the village will stand behind their bylaws and Protection Acts to help us. Instead we're advised to lawyer up.

My reason for writing to your paper today is that we've been made aware of a court ruling by Justice F. Graham on March 7, 2008. The article is published on globeandmail.com under "Stove stokes smouldering rift between neighbouring families."

In the judgement the plantiffs proved that the smoke from this type of unit was harmful to their health and that they had lost the enjoyment of the use of their property. The court granted an interlocutory injunction which has stopped the neighbour from using their outdoor wood-fired boiler furnace.

The plaintiffs submitted reports recently authored by two agencies providing evidence that the emissions from just one outdoor wood-fired furnace are equivalent to emssions from four non-certified wood-stoves or 10 to 22 EPA-certified wood-stoves or 205 oil furnaces or 3,000 to 8,000 natural gas furnaces, and that one outdoor wood-fired furnace can emit as much fine particulate matter as four heavy duty diesel trucks. The report indicates that the gases emitted from outdoor wood-fired boiler furnaces are associated with serious health effects. This should then classify these units to fall under the new government’s law dealing with products that are dangerous to consumers.

So I would hope that the minister responsible for Health will have this product (stopped) from being sold and from being used anywhere in Canada.

My family and I are not going to sit indoors another summer with our windows sealed. After 60 years of living at this same address one should be able to sit outside, dry our clothes on the laundry line, plant our garden, sit indoors, sleep and even use our clothes dryer without having to tolerate the thick choking smoke from any neighbours’ outdoor wood-fired boiler furnace.

I think we've paid enough taxes to enjoy our home.

Imagine sitting with the doors and windows closed tight in the middle of July when the temperature reaches 95 degrees in the shade just so that the neighbour can heat their water tank.

Why should my mother, who relies on oxygen 24/7, have to make frequent trips to the doctor because she/we can't breathe the air inside or outside our house?

For anyone who is going through the same problem as we are, please read the Globe’s article I've mentioned. Let's make our government work for us. Their laws are being violated and our rights are being made fun of by them.

Lynn Loney
South River