Air quality rule amendments

The SF Chronicle reports that a District staffer, a Mr. Nudd, claims that 85 persons, yes 85, would live longer if these gas appliances are banned. As if there are no other health concerns in the Bay Area. I will be stocking up on a gas water heater and pray that my furnace will last another 20 years.

Thank you for bringing much needed facts to this debate, Dr. Fine.

Actually, Dr. Fine, your letter appears to support the March 10 column more than refuting it. You say the amendments aren’t based on health concerns for indoor air quality, yet the proposed amendments aim to reduce outdoor NOx and air pollution from the burning of natural gas by, guess what, indoor water heaters and furnaces. You say the proposed amendments do not mandate, yet when current models need replacing, there won’t be any other options outside of electrical models. Sounds like a mandate to me. And the best way you have of “blunting” Mr. Mays’ assertions of cost is by saying there is funding available to offset the costs? Meaning there will be out-of-pocket costs. Which many folks not able to afford, or are unwilling to afford based on questionable global warming assertions.

BTW, natural gas heaters and furnaces, in addition to gas stoves have been in operation for many years, yet all of a sudden, these appliances are thought to cause premature mortality and other health problems? With the government setting more and more regulations on installation and gas specifications? How many household injuries/deaths are caused by electricity vs. natural gas? And where is your magic electricity coming from? From natural gas-fired power plants.

Nice refute by BAAQMD which should have been done by staff. You’re always going to have the racist white patriarchy saying it ok for the poor to have 43% of asthma cases because receiving dividends and bribes from the toxic gas industry needs to continue.