Dear Editor:



A recent column in The Spectator (Oct. 19) referred to all outdoor furnaces as "polluters." It is true that "junk" fires produce a lot of smoke, and furnaces should not be used as incinerators. There are many different types of furnaces operating in the Western Valley. Quite a few are homemade, with pressurized boilers. Meanwhile, the single greatest source of air pollution remains the internal combustion engine -- gas or diesel. I have not yet seen an article complaining about motor vehicles polluting Bridgetown.

High heat wood furnaces are a good environmental alternative to oil furnaces. Many of them burn cleaner than oil furnaces once they are up to optimum temperature, because they burn off the gases emitted by the fire. A variety of wood furnaces are available for indoor installation, where they are “out of sight, out of mind� to the general public; yet most insurance agents insist that they be placed "a minimum of 50 feet from the nearest combustible structure" when they are located outdoors. The logic of this is hard to grasp.

Many people, including some insurance agents, do not want to know the technical details of wood furnaces. That's too bad, because oil prices can only escalate as this non-renewable resource becomes depleted and is eventually eliminated -- probably within the next 25 years, but not before the massive, global effects of oil and coal pollution will have to be dealt with. To put things in perspective, oil furnaces have been popular only since the 1960s -- less than 50 years ago. In contrast, people have been burning wood for hundreds of thousands of years.



John Colville

Bridgetown