Recent Changes for "Banning leaf-blowers" - Davis Wikihttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowersRecent Changes of the page "Banning leaf-blowers" on Davis Wiki.en-us Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2013-09-23 14:55:01ConstantiaOomen <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 478: </td> <td> Line 478: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2013-04-30 10:05:47'' [[nbsp]] With the wind gaining prominence in Davis, all leaf blowers should get the day off on windy days (and still be paid). --["Users/ConstantiaOomen"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2013-04-30 10:05:47'' [[nbsp]] With the wind gaining prominence in Davis, all leaf blowers should get the day off on windy days (and still be paid). <span>☁☁☁</span> --["Users/ConstantiaOomen"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2013-09-23 14:53:54ConstantiaOomen:-) ☁☁☁ <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 478: </td> <td> Line 478: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2013-04-30 10:05:47'' [[nbsp]] With the wind gaining<span>&nbsp;in</span> prominence in Davis, all leaf blowers should get the day off on windy days. --["Users/ConstantiaOomen"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2013-04-30 10:05:47'' [[nbsp]] With the wind gaining prominence in Davis, all leaf blowers should get the day off on windy days<span>&nbsp;(and still be paid)</span>. --["Users/ConstantiaOomen"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2013-09-23 14:45:49SteveDavisonAdded note on charging time <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 12: </td> <td> Line 12: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> By far the most common type, and that used by almost all grounds maintenance workers, is the 2-cycle gasoline/oil engine. This type is inexpensive, very loud, and because heavy oil must be mixed directly with the gasoline (typically 32:1 ratio), highly polluting. Blowers with 4-cycle engines (like cars use) are available from Craftsman, Makita, Ryobi, Shindaiwa, Troy-Bilt, and others. Electric motors are far quieter since fuel is not exploded in pulses, and there is no exhaust whatsoever. They can be even more powerful than gasoline engine types. The corded electric types require an extension cord to be continuously plugged in. The cordless types have a portable battery. For this reason, the cordless types are often less powerful (to prolong battery life), and more expensive due to the battery cost. </td> <td> <span>+</span> By far the most common type, and that used by almost all grounds maintenance workers, is the 2-cycle gasoline/oil engine. This type is inexpensive, very loud, and because heavy oil must be mixed directly with the gasoline (typically 32:1 ratio), highly polluting. Blowers with 4-cycle engines (like cars use) are available from Craftsman, Makita, Ryobi, Shindaiwa, Troy-Bilt, and others. Electric motors are far quieter since fuel is not exploded in pulses, and there is no exhaust whatsoever. They can be even more powerful than gasoline engine types. The corded electric types require an extension cord to be continuously plugged in. The cordless types have a portable battery. For this reason, the cordless types are often less powerful (to prolong battery life), and more expensive due to the battery cost.<span>&nbsp;They also require recharging after some period of use which may make them unsuitable for professional (all-day) use.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2013-09-23 14:43:11SteveDavisonAdded info on types <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 2: </td> <td> Line 2: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> A movement exists in Davis to '''["bans" ban] leaf-blowers''' (or at least gas powered ones) due to their effects on the local surroundings, in terms of ["noise ordinance" noise], ["air quality"] and the ["pollution" environmental impact] of the engines. One of the groups that wishes to ban them is the Davisites for Less Noise and Particle Pollution, or DLNPP. They have a facebook group, and are trying to rally enough people to their cause to persuade the ["Davis City Council"] to recognize their concerns and take action.<span><br> - <br> -</span> Banning leaf-blowers is not an idea unique to Davis. <span>&nbsp;</span>Several other cities have considered the matter, with some choosing to adopt bans with varying levels of enforcement. </td> <td> <span>+</span> A movement exists in Davis to '''["bans" ban] leaf-blowers''' (or at least gas powered ones) due to their effects on the local surroundings, in terms of ["noise ordinance" noise], ["air quality"] and the ["pollution" environmental impact] of the engines. One of the groups that wishes to ban them is the Davisites for Less Noise and Particle Pollution, or DLNPP. They have a facebook group, and are trying to rally enough people to their cause to persuade the ["Davis City Council"] to recognize their concerns and take action. Banning leaf-blowers is not an idea unique to Davis. Several other cities have considered the matter, with some choosing to adopt bans with varying levels of enforcement. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 7: </td> <td> Line 5: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ = Types =<br> + There are several types of portable leaf blowers:<br> + * 2-cycle gasoline/oil engine<br> + * 4-cycle gasoline engine<br> + * Corded electric<br> + * Cordless electric<br> + <br> + By far the most common type, and that used by almost all grounds maintenance workers, is the 2-cycle gasoline/oil engine. This type is inexpensive, very loud, and because heavy oil must be mixed directly with the gasoline (typically 32:1 ratio), highly polluting. Blowers with 4-cycle engines (like cars use) are available from Craftsman, Makita, Ryobi, Shindaiwa, Troy-Bilt, and others. Electric motors are far quieter since fuel is not exploded in pulses, and there is no exhaust whatsoever. They can be even more powerful than gasoline engine types. The corded electric types require an extension cord to be continuously plugged in. The cordless types have a portable battery. For this reason, the cordless types are often less powerful (to prolong battery life), and more expensive due to the battery cost.<br> + <br> + Any ban should address the issue at hand (noise, air pollution, dust, etc.) rather than be technology-specific. For example, if noise is the issue the ban should be written "blowers louder than XXXdBA" are banned rather than "all blowers are banned because they are loud". This way, if a 2-cycle engine were fitted with a muffler it could pass.<br> + </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2013-04-30 10:05:47ConstantiaOomenComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 468: </td> <td> Line 468: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2013-04-30 10:05:47'' [[nbsp]] With the wind gaining in prominence in Davis, all leaf blowers should get the day off on windy days. --["Users/ConstantiaOomen"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2013-03-22 08:07:21CovertProfessorfixing SteveDavies attributions <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 13: </td> <td> Line 13: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Links ["Users/SteveDavies"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> Links<span>&nbsp;(from</span> ["Users/SteveDavies"]<span>)</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 19: </td> <td> Line 19: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ==Health Effects== ["Users/SteveDavies"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ==Health Effects==<span><br> + <br> + (from</span> ["Users/SteveDavies"]<span>)</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 45: </td> <td> Line 47: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> More links ["Users/SteveDavies"]: </td> <td> <span>+</span> More links<span>&nbsp;(from</span> ["Users/SteveDavies"]<span>)</span>: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 191: </td> <td> Line 193: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- * Do we really want the elderly using gas-powered leaf blowers? That class of citizens is more vulnerable to the pollution caused by leaf blowers and other lawn and garden equipment. As for the physically challenged, the notion of people in wheelchairs traversing their lawns with leaf blowers, or people struggling with canes or other physical supports, while also wielding a leaf blower, would be laughable if it weren't so ridiculous ["Users/SteveDavies"]</span> </td> <td> <span>+ * Do we really want the elderly using gas-powered leaf blowers? That class of citizens is more vulnerable to the pollution caused by leaf blowers and other lawn and garden equipment. As for the physically challenged, the notion of people in wheelchairs traversing their lawns with leaf blowers, or people struggling with canes or other physical supports, while also wielding a leaf blower, would be laughable if it weren't so ridiculous --["Users/SteveDavies"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2013-03-22 08:06:06CovertProfessorfixing arrows <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 461: </td> <td> Line 461: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ^^^^^^^^</span> BOOM my man, how is a brother supposed to run a route if they can't mowblowgo???? ["Daubert"]<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>- ^^^^^^^^^</span>"Landscaped" is past-tense...That's good. "Even bringing this kinda stuff up is why everyone in the world hates Davis so much." Hyperbole much? "We should strive to be more normal instead of this BS" Ah yes. More pollution means more normal. Got it. "just deal with the leaf blowing reality of modern day life..." Or the mercury poisoning of modern day life, or lead gasoline, or lead paint, or...oh wait...we figured out that stuff isn't good for us so we banned it. Boo hoo. I want my lead back!!!!!! There's no way the above comment is serious. </td> <td> <span>+ {{{^^^^^^^^}}}</span> BOOM my man, how is a brother supposed to run a route if they can't mowblowgo???? ["Daubert"]<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+ {{{^^^^^^^^^}}}</span>"Landscaped" is past-tense...That's good. "Even bringing this kinda stuff up is why everyone in the world hates Davis so much." Hyperbole much? "We should strive to be more normal instead of this BS" Ah yes. More pollution means more normal. Got it. "just deal with the leaf blowing reality of modern day life..." Or the mercury poisoning of modern day life, or lead gasoline, or lead paint, or...oh wait...we figured out that stuff isn't good for us so we banned it. Boo hoo. I want my lead back!!!!!! There's no way the above comment is serious. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2012-08-10 14:49:27JJasonGraff <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 462: </td> <td> Line 462: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + ^^^^^^^^^"Landscaped" is past-tense...That's good. "Even bringing this kinda stuff up is why everyone in the world hates Davis so much." Hyperbole much? "We should strive to be more normal instead of this BS" Ah yes. More pollution means more normal. Got it. "just deal with the leaf blowing reality of modern day life..." Or the mercury poisoning of modern day life, or lead gasoline, or lead paint, or...oh wait...we figured out that stuff isn't good for us so we banned it. Boo hoo. I want my lead back!!!!!! There's no way the above comment is serious.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2012-07-16 21:04:42JJasonGraff <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 237: </td> <td> Line 237: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> <span>*</span> Godwin's Law but with a North Korean slant. Please explain how banning leaf blowers is the same as being like North Korea. (false equivalency, and quite ridiculous to boot) </td> <td> <span>+</span> <span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> Godwin's Law but with a North Korean slant. Please explain how banning leaf blowers is the same as being like North Korea. (false equivalency, and quite ridiculous to boot) </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2012-07-16 21:00:48JJasonGraff <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 158: </td> <td> Line 158: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ *How's regulating gas powered leaf blowers the same as taking them away from you? You're allowed to possess firearms in Davis city limits, however you're not allowed to discharge them within city limits and yet, no one has taken them away from you. Please reconsider the above claim as the tenuous logical leap is not justified.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 184: </td> <td> Line 185: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ *Please cite research backing the above claim that leaf matter harms exposed root systems. Otherwise, remove the claim.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 235: </td> <td> Line 237: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Godwin's Law but with a North Korean slant. Please explain how banning leaf blowers is the same as being like North Korea. (false equivalency, and quite ridiculous to boot)</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2012-07-02 13:45:56TomGarbersonRequest for more info on O3 issue <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 42: </td> <td> Line 42: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + * Steve, you've provided a lot of documentation about the health effects of O3 which I don't think anyone disputes. Have you provided any quantitative information on the relationship between leaf blowers (in Davis or in general) and O3? All I noticed was the conclusory statement, "Fact: Leaf blowers emit nitrogen oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds." I don't think anyone would dispute that. What you didn't address is the significance of their contribution to the O3 problem which seems to be the basis of your argument. So, how significant is that contribution? Do leaf-blowers contribute 10% of the anthropogenic nitrogen oxides and VOCs with which we have to contend? If so, a ban would presumably have a major impact. On the other hand, if they contribute 0.0001%, the ban would presumably have a de minimis effect on the ground-level O3 problem, rendering the entire issue irrelevant. --["Users/TomGarberson"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2012-07-02 13:36:58TomGarbersonRestoring my deleted comment <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 186: </td> <td> Line 186: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Most leaf-blowers weigh between 2.7 and 5.5kg ([http://www.targetwoman.com/articles/leaf-blower.html source]), and many have a shoulder strap or something of the sort. They don't require bending or pulling. They have a minimal effect on balance, unlike raking. They can be used from wheel chairs or walkers. The same cannot be said of a rake.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2012-07-02 11:26:29StevenDaubert(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 292: </td> <td> Line 292: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ I know people who would pay good money for the bottom 6 inches of that slop ["Daubert"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2012-07-02 11:18:08StevenDaubert(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 181: </td> <td> Line 181: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ hmmm I think that specific point was aimed at parts of the arbo where we are talking about exposed root systems, in that case I don't think wet decaying biologically active stuff on top of them is necessarily the best thing for them...</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2012-07-02 11:13:18StevenDaubert(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 138: </td> <td> Line 138: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Response: Harmless? Leaf blowers emit large amounts of nitrogen oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds. Neither of these, which react with sunlight to create harmful ground-level ozone, is harmless. In addition, leaf blowers stir up particulates -- dust containing who-knows-what, for example -- that make breathing difficult for people with asthma and other respiratory problems. </td> <td> <span>+</span> Response: Harmless? Leaf blowers emit large amounts of nitrogen oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds. Neither of these, which react with sunlight to create harmful ground-level ozone, is harmless. In addition, leaf blowers stir up particulates -- dust containing who-knows-what, for example -- that make breathing difficult for people with asthma and other respiratory problems.<span>&nbsp;response to the response: I believe you go astray when you overlook the fact that harmless is used in the context of it doesn't cause damage where physical agitation (such as raking) would. Also No one doubts running a gas motor creates vocs, but does a modern blower create sketchly large amounts of vocs with nominal use?</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2012-07-02 11:08:47StevenDaubert(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 124: </td> <td> Line 124: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + One more thing: we are also near (on all sides) farmland, which is tilled (sending up huge plumes of dust etc) and also there are occasional burn days, which I'm sure trounce the air far worse than all the leafblowers combined and doubled...</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2012-07-02 08:23:56SteveDavies <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 19: </td> <td> Line 19: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ==Health Effects== [Users/SteveDavies] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ==Health Effects== [<span>"</span>Users/SteveDavies<span>"</span>] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2012-07-02 08:23:33SteveDavies <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 13: </td> <td> Line 13: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ==Health Effects==<br> - There are plenty of studies. Fact: Leaf blowers emit nitrogen oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds, which react with sunlight to create tropospheric, or ground-level, ozone. The serious, negative health effects of ozone are well documented.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ Links ["Users/SteveDavies"]<br> + <br> + * [http://www.eswr.com/docs/tfea/goc_vegeffects.pdf] Ozone's effects on vegetation (excerpts from EPA ozone rule; Abt Associates technical paper; and comments by Dr. Ellis Cowling of NC State)<br> + * [http://isebindia.com/05_08/07-04-5.html] "Effect and Risk Assessment of Ozone Air Pollution on Forest Vegetation in Switzerland"<br> + * Also see EPA final rule on ozone and final rule on nonroad spark-ignition engines (linked below).<br> + <br> + ==Health Effects== [Users/SteveDavies]<br> + <br> + There are plenty of studies. Fact: Leaf blowers emit nitrogen oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds, which react with sunlight to create tropospheric, or ground-level, ozone. The serious, negative health effects of ozone are well documented. NOx also are harmful to human health. See the link below to an EPA study about the human health effects from exposure to NOx.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 34: </td> <td> Line 41: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> "Newly available large multi-city studies and related analyses (Bell et al., 2004; Huang et al., 2005; and Schwartz, 2005) designed specifically to examine the effect of O3 and other pollutants on mortality have provided much more robust and credible information. Together these studies have reported significant associations between O3 and mortality that were robust to adjustment for PM and different adjustment methods for temperature and suggest that the effect of O3 on mortality may be immediate but may also persist for several days. Further analysis of one of these multi-city studies (Bell et al., 2006) examined the shape of the concentration-response function for the O3-mortality relationship in 98 U.S. urban communities for the period 1987 to 2000 specifically to evaluate whether a threshold level exists. Results from<span><br> -</span> various analytic methods all indicated that any threshold, if it exists, would likely occur at very low concentrations, far below the level of the current O3 NAAQS and nearing background levels."<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> More links [Users/SteveDavies]: </td> <td> <span>+</span> "Newly available large multi-city studies and related analyses (Bell et al., 2004; Huang et al., 2005; and Schwartz, 2005) designed specifically to examine the effect of O3 and other pollutants on mortality have provided much more robust and credible information. Together these studies have reported significant associations between O3 and mortality that were robust to adjustment for PM and different adjustment methods for temperature and suggest that the effect of O3 on mortality may be immediate but may also persist for several days. Further analysis of one of these multi-city studies (Bell et al., 2006) examined the shape of the concentration-response function for the O3-mortality relationship in 98 U.S. urban communities for the period 1987 to 2000 specifically to evaluate whether a threshold level exists. Results from various analytic methods all indicated that any threshold, if it exists, would likely occur at very low concentrations, far below the level of the current O3 NAAQS and nearing background levels."<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> More links [<span>"</span>Users/SteveDavies<span>"</span>]: </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2012-07-02 08:16:52SteveDaviesI added excerpts and my own brief summaries for key points <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 14: </td> <td> Line 14: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ''Have you seen any studies on the health effects of leaf blowers? Edit this page to add links and information!''<br> - </span> </td> <td> <span>+ There are plenty of studies. Fact: Leaf blowers emit nitrogen oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds, which react with sunlight to create tropospheric, or ground-level, ozone. The serious, negative health effects of ozone are well documented.<br> + <br> + One of the best sources for information about the health effects of ozone is the National Research Council's report from 2008: [http://www.eswr.com/docs/tfea/goc_nrcozone_summary.pdf] (link to summary). Press release: [http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12198].<br> + <br> + "Short-term exposure to current levels of ozone in many areas is likely to contribute to premature deaths, says a new National Research Council report, which adds that the evidence is strong enough that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should include ozone-related mortality in health-benefit analyses related to future ozone standards. The committee that wrote the report was not asked to consider how evidence has been used by EPA to set ozone standards, including the new public health standard set by the agency last month.<br> + <br> + "Ozone, a key component of smog, can cause respiratory problems and other health effects. In addition, evidence of a relationship between short-term -- less than 24 hours -- exposure to ozone and mortality has been mounting, but interpretations of the evidence have differed, prompting EPA to request the Research Council report. In particular, the agency asked the committee to analyze the ozone-mortality link and assess methods for assigning a monetary value to lives saved for the health-benefits assessments.<br> + <br> + "Based on a review of recent research, the committee found that deaths related to ozone exposure are more likely among individuals with pre-existing diseases and other factors that could increase their susceptibility. However, premature deaths are not limited to people who are already within a few days of dying."<br> + <br> + The report itself notes that "There are myriad major outdoor sources of VOCs, including vegetation, solvent use, and mobile sources. Ambient sources of NOx include fuel combustion (for example, in cars, trucks, construction equipment, factories, and power plants) and to a lesser extent biogenic activity."<br> + <br> + Link to full report: [http://download.nap.edu/cart/download.cgi?&amp;record_id=12198&amp;free=1]<br> + <br> + More links can be found in a piece I wrote to try to convince members of my city's environmental action task force to support a ban on gas-powered leaf blowers. [http://www.eswr.com/docs/tfea/blowersagin.htm] ["Users/SteveDavies"]<br> + <br> + In its 2008 final rule lowering the acceptable level of ozone for metropolitan areas, EPA said, "The Staff Paper concluded that the overall body of evidence clearly calls into question the adequacy of the current standard in protecting at-risk groups against an array of adverse health effects that range from decreased lung function and respiratory symptoms to serious indicators of respiratory morbidity including emergency department visits and hospital admissions for respiratory causes, nonaccidental mortality, and possibly cardiovascular effects. These at-risk groups notably include asthmatic children and other people with lung disease, as well as all children and older adults, especially those active outdoors, and outdoor workers.\16\ The available information provides strong support for consideration of an O3 standard that would provide increased health protection for these at-risk groups. The Staff Paper also concluded that risks projected to remain upon meeting the current standard are indicative of risks to at-risk groups that can be judged to be important from a public health perspective. This information reinforced the Staff Paper conclusion that consideration should be given to revising the level of the standard so as to provide increased public health protection."<br> + <br> + Here's another excerpt:<br> + <br> + "Newly available large multi-city studies and related analyses (Bell et al., 2004; Huang et al., 2005; and Schwartz, 2005) designed specifically to examine the effect of O3 and other pollutants on mortality have provided much more robust and credible information. Together these studies have reported significant associations between O3 and mortality that were robust to adjustment for PM and different adjustment methods for temperature and suggest that the effect of O3 on mortality may be immediate but may also persist for several days. Further analysis of one of these multi-city studies (Bell et al., 2006) examined the shape of the concentration-response function for the O3-mortality relationship in 98 U.S. urban communities for the period 1987 to 2000 specifically to evaluate whether a threshold level exists. Results from<br> + various analytic methods all indicated that any threshold, if it exists, would likely occur at very low concentrations, far below the level of the current O3 NAAQS and nearing background levels."<br> + <br> + More links [Users/SteveDavies]:<br> + <br> + * [http://www.eswr.com/docs/tfea] My page of links for Takoma Park (Md.) Task Force on Environmental Action report<br> + * [http://www.eswr.com/docs/tfea/aqweb.htm] Air quality chapter from Takoma Park (Md.) Task Force on Environmental Action rerport, 2010<br> + * [http://www.eswr.com/docs/tfea/ozone_lungassnfacts.pdf]<br> + * [http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-03-27/html/E8-5645.htm] EPA final rule on ozone<br> + * [http://www.eswr.com/docs/tfea/goc_cog_noxvoctables.pdf] Top Ten Sources of NOx and VOCs in Washington, DC, metropolitan area. Lawn-care equipment is #2 for VOCs, #4 for NOx<br> + * [http://www.erj.ersjournals.com/cgi/content/full/19/4/699] "The effect of air pollution on inner-city children with asthma" (Mortimer, et al., European Respiratory Journal 2002)<br> + * [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1440792] "How Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke, Outdoor Air Pollutants, and Increased Pollen Burdens Influences the Incidence of Asthma" (Gilmour, et al., Environmental Health Perspectives 2006 April; 114(4): 627–633.)<br> + * [http://www.eswr.com/docs/tfea/goc_noxhealtheffects.pdf] Health Effects of NOx (EPA report, 2008)<br> + * [http://www.eswr.com/docs/tfea/nonroad_finalrule.pdf] "Control of Emissions From Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and Equipment; Final Rule" (10/8/2008). Excerpt: "The standards would reduce exposure to hydrocarbon, CO and NOX emissions and help avoid a range of adverse health effects associated with ambient ozone and PM2.5 levels. In addition, the proposed standards would help reduce exposure to CO, air toxics, and PM2.5 for persons who operate or who work with or are otherwise active in close proximity to these engines. As described below, the reductions in PM and ozone from the standards are expected to result in significant reductions in premature deaths and other serious human health effects, as well as other important public health and welfare effects."</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 98: </td> <td> Line 130: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ Response: Harmless? Leaf blowers emit large amounts of nitrogen oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds. Neither of these, which react with sunlight to create harmful ground-level ozone, is harmless. In addition, leaf blowers stir up particulates -- dust containing who-knows-what, for example -- that make breathing difficult for people with asthma and other respiratory problems.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 99: </td> <td> Line 132: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- 1. Electric blowers are often also vacuuming mulchers. Mulch and ["compost"] are good, and it's hard to get more local than using your own yard's products in the yard.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ Response: Do we really want the elderly using gas-powered leaf blowers? That class of citizens is more vulnerable to the pollution caused by leaf blowers and other lawn and garden equipment. As for the physically challenged, the notion of people in wheelchairs traversing their lawns with leaf blowers, or people struggling with canes or other physical supports, while also wielding a leaf blower, is<br> + 1. Electric blowers are often also vacuuming mulchers. Mulch and ["compost"] are good, and it's hard to get more local than using your own yard's products in the yard.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 115: </td> <td> Line 149: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> "RE: here is no non-anecdotal proof that they contribute to asthma " </td> <td> <span>+</span> "RE: <span>T</span>here is no non-anecdotal proof that they contribute to asthma " </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 131: </td> <td> Line 165: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> "RE: A Ban on leaf blowers could <span>e</span>ffect electric blowers" </td> <td> <span>+</span> "RE: A Ban on leaf blowers could <span>a</span>ffect electric blowers" </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 143: </td> <td> Line 177: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- * Most leaf-blowers weigh between 2.7 and 5.5kg ([http://www.targetwoman.com/articles/leaf-blower.html source]), and many have a shoulder strap or something of the sort. They don't require bending or pulling. They have a minimal effect on balance, unlike raking. They can be used from wheel chairs or walkers. The same cannot be said of a rake. --["Users/TomGarberson"]</span> </td> <td> <span>+ * Do we really want the elderly using gas-powered leaf blowers? That class of citizens is more vulnerable to the pollution caused by leaf blowers and other lawn and garden equipment. As for the physically challenged, the notion of people in wheelchairs traversing their lawns with leaf blowers, or people struggling with canes or other physical supports, while also wielding a leaf blower, would be laughable if it weren't so ridiculous ["Users/SteveDavies"]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 151: </td> <td> Line 185: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ "Re: "Leaf blowers allow for a quick, harmless way of maintaining such areas."<br> + <br> + * Harmless? Leaf blowers emit large amounts of nitrogen oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds. Neither of these, which react with sunlight to create harmful ground-level ozone, is harmless. In addition, leaf blowers stir up particulates -- dust containing who-knows-what, for example -- that make breathing difficult for people with asthma and other respiratory problems.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2012-04-30 17:48:49KevinWeedonInsert link to history of lb <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 26: </td> <td> Line 26: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * [http://www.everything2.com/user/wertperch/writeups/Leaf+blower A little history of leafblowers]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2012-01-07 20:03:20EdWinsRevert to version 252 (-spam). <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 410: </td> <td> Line 410: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ------<br> - ''2012-01-07 11:39:16'' [[nbsp]] Check out The Barefoot Gardener website (see brochure and the article entitled "Environmental Damage by the Common Lawn")<br> - http://www.thebarefootgardener.com/philosophy.html --["Users/JulieKiermaier"]</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2012-01-07 12:39:16JulieKiermaierComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 410: </td> <td> Line 410: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2012-01-07 11:39:16'' [[nbsp]] Check out The Barefoot Gardener website (see brochure and the article entitled "Environmental Damage by the Common Lawn")<br> + http://www.thebarefootgardener.com/philosophy.html --["Users/JulieKiermaier"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2011-05-30 18:28:40JabberWokky <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 2: </td> <td> Line 2: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> A movement exists in Davis to '''ban leaf-blowers''' (or at least gas powered ones) due to their effects on the local surroundings, in terms of ["noise ordinance" noise], ["air quality"] and the ["pollution" environmental impact] of the engines. One of the groups that wishes to ban them is the Davisites for Less Noise and Particle Pollution, or DLNPP. They have a facebook group, and are trying to rally enough people to their cause to persuade the ["Davis City Council"] to recognize their concerns and take action. </td> <td> <span>+</span> A movement exists in Davis to '''<span>["</span>ban<span>s" ban]</span> leaf-blowers''' (or at least gas powered ones) due to their effects on the local surroundings, in terms of ["noise ordinance" noise], ["air quality"] and the ["pollution" environmental impact] of the engines. One of the groups that wishes to ban them is the Davisites for Less Noise and Particle Pollution, or DLNPP. They have a facebook group, and are trying to rally enough people to their cause to persuade the ["Davis City Council"] to recognize their concerns and take action. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 193: </td> <td> Line 193: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ -----<br> + * ''This is just one of the many proposed ["bans"] in Davis''<br> + <br> + </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2011-05-02 17:30:23amesguichComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 404: </td> <td> Line 404: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2011-05-02 17:30:23'' [[nbsp]] For those involved in favor of a partial ban, visit the Davisites for Less Noise and Particulate Pollution facebook site: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Davisites-LNPP/122631437795225 we just posted a potential plan to tackle this issue through compromise. --["Users/amesguich"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2011-03-27 02:19:42StevenDaubertWHOLEHEARTED CONCURMENT WITH JOSH LAWLSON <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p>No differences found!</div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2011-03-27 02:18:06StevenDaubertWHOLEHEARTED CONCURMENT WITH JOSH LAWLSON <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 403: </td> <td> Line 403: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ^^^^^^^^ BOOM my man, how is a brother supposed to run a route if they can't mowblowgo???? ["Daubert"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2011-03-24 22:58:40JoshLawson <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 402: </td> <td> Line 402: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2011-03-24 16:36:52'' [[nbsp]] I landscaped for 9 years in this town...Even bringing this kinda stuff up is why everyone in the world hates Davis so much. We should strive to be more normal instead of this BS, freaky-deaky c<span>rap we always seem to be entren</span>c<span>hed in. What a pantload of c</span>rap...deal with you uptight losers...j<span>su</span>t deal with the leaf blowing reality of modern day life... --["Users/JoshLawson"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2011-03-24 16:36:52'' [[nbsp]] I landscaped for 9 years in this town...Even bringing this kinda stuff up is why everyone in the world hates Davis so much. We should strive to be more normal instead of this BS, freaky-deaky <span>BS we always seem to be entren</span>c<span>hed in. What a pantload of </span>crap...deal with you uptight losers...j<span>us</span>t deal with the leaf blowing reality of modern day life... --["Users/JoshLawson"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2011-03-24 16:36:52JoshLawsonComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 401: </td> <td> Line 401: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2011-03-24 16:36:52'' [[nbsp]] I landscaped for 9 years in this town...Even bringing this kinda stuff up is why everyone in the world hates Davis so much. We should strive to be more normal instead of this BS, freaky-deaky crap we always seem to be entrenched in. What a pantload of crap...deal with you uptight losers...jsut deal with the leaf blowing reality of modern day life... --["Users/JoshLawson"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2011-02-23 09:40:49sjoe <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p>No differences found!</div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2011-02-23 07:51:18sjoe <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 399: </td> <td> Line 399: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + [[nbsp]] So where is the actual leadership here? I see nothing on the FB page on petitions, talking to city council etc. (I myself haven't had much luck with talking to/contacting the city council, I guess they are busy) Getting more and more tired of my 7AM alarm clock now that I work full time night shifts. --["Users/Sjoe"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2011-02-14 16:04:59OliviaY <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 388: </td> <td> Line 388: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Yup they would however I would like to point out MY experiences raking. I lived in a house where I was subletting for a few months with my dog. The tree in the backyard was a nuisance in that the leaves were obscenely STICKY. Raking was a god-awful pain because half the time the leaves were stuck to the rake and I would have to remove them. Cutting down the tree was not an option. Know what did get the leaves up in 1/10th of the time? The gardening service that used a leaf blower that came once a week. Oh and people who are bitching might also be folk who really don't have even half an hour to spare in their weeks because they are working two jobs or people have already spent a great deal of money to buy their leaf blower. I would imagine considering the investment, the latter would very much "Care" if they can use a leaf blower. --["OliviaY"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2011-02-14 08:34:05sjoe <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 387: </td> <td> Line 387: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * You do realize that loud cars are banned, right? (And for good reason - read the municipal code) --["Sjoe"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2011-01-24 13:38:33tneeleyComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 395: </td> <td> Line 395: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2011-01-24 12:38:33'' [[nbsp]] go rakes! --["Users/tneeley"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2011-01-21 10:36:13KimCornwellComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 393: </td> <td> Line 393: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2011-01-21 09:36:13'' [[nbsp]] I so am for banning them. I have to deal with a gas powered one at work which stinks up the office, with the doors and windows closed. My landlord is also a leaf blower which it seems he comes every single day to use. If we can't outlaw them can we at least make them be electric and only used during certain hours and days of the week. --["Users/KimCornwell"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2011-01-06 16:08:23OliviaY(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 184: </td> <td> Line 184: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Yeah let's follow the way of North Korea and do it all by hand :) http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=YZAp7gWWANI&amp;feature=related</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-12-14 19:42:21PeteB+ comment on comic <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 389: </td> <td> Line 389: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> http://zombiekim.com/2010/09/leaf-blower/ </td> <td> <span>+</span> http://zombiekim.com/2010/09/leaf-blower/<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;('''Note:''' Due to language, the comic might not be work safe--["PeteB"])</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-12-14 19:38:47srbarbComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 386: </td> <td> Line 386: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-12-14 18:38:47'' [[nbsp]] I think this comic is suddenly relevant.<br> + <br> + http://zombiekim.com/2010/09/leaf-blower/<br> + <br> + Obviously I agree with the anti-leaf-blower crowd (and I agree with the author of the comic). I would support banning. --["Users/srbarb"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-12-08 15:56:25ScottMeehleibdeleted sentence because i think i misinterpreted the estimate <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 11: </td> <td> Line 11: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Since 2000, the US EPA has enacted a series of regulations mandating substantial improvements in emissions. The CEPA report, using data from 1998, includes a relatively small number of blowers produced after a 1995 USEPA regulation which mandated a 33% reduction in emissions. In 2000, a second phase of emissions reduction was adopted in stages over the next several years, beginning in 2002 with the last stage in 2006. At the time of its adoption, the second phase was projected to result in an additional 70% reduction in hydrocarbon and NOx emissions by the year 2010 over the initial 1995 regulation ([http://www.cleanaircounts.org/documents/Leaf%20Blowing%20Emissions%20Modeling%20Report.pdf source--p. 3]). In 2007, the EPA passed a third emissions regulation mandating an additional 35% reduction in hydrocarbon evaporative emissions, to go into effect by 2011 or 2012 depending on the size of the motor ([http://www.epa.gov/otaq/equip-ld.htm source]). In all, there have been dramatic reductions in the emissions of gas blowers in recent years, especially in regards to hydrocarbons, NOx, and evaporative emissions. CO and overall particulate matter air pollution have probably also improved at least somewhat over the course of the decade, but it is difficult to determine exactly how much so. The least change, if any, would likely be found in the amount of fugitive dust emissions over the years, especially when one considers that the whole point of a leaf-blower is to blow about scattered foliage and debris. It should also be noted that many of the older leaf blowers are still in use as of 2010, owing to the fact that phase two was only completed as late as 2006.<span>&nbsp;It is estimated that it will be approximately 2025 before the vast majority of leaf blowers, in terms of actual usage, conform to the newest, more ideal standards.</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> Since 2000, the US EPA has enacted a series of regulations mandating substantial improvements in emissions. The CEPA report, using data from 1998, includes a relatively small number of blowers produced after a 1995 USEPA regulation which mandated a 33% reduction in emissions. In 2000, a second phase of emissions reduction was adopted in stages over the next several years, beginning in 2002 with the last stage in 2006. At the time of its adoption, the second phase was projected to result in an additional 70% reduction in hydrocarbon and NOx emissions by the year 2010 over the initial 1995 regulation ([http://www.cleanaircounts.org/documents/Leaf%20Blowing%20Emissions%20Modeling%20Report.pdf source--p. 3]). In 2007, the EPA passed a third emissions regulation mandating an additional 35% reduction in hydrocarbon evaporative emissions, to go into effect by 2011 or 2012 depending on the size of the motor ([http://www.epa.gov/otaq/equip-ld.htm source]). In all, there have been dramatic reductions in the emissions of gas blowers in recent years, especially in regards to hydrocarbons, NOx, and evaporative emissions. CO and overall particulate matter air pollution have probably also improved at least somewhat over the course of the decade, but it is difficult to determine exactly how much so. The least change, if any, would likely be found in the amount of fugitive dust emissions over the years, especially when one considers that the whole point of a leaf-blower is to blow about scattered foliage and debris. It should also be noted that many of the older leaf blowers are still in use as of 2010, owing to the fact that phase two was only completed as late as 2006. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-12-08 13:53:19PeteB+ reply to jennifer <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 385: </td> <td> Line 385: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * BRAVO!!! Well written!!! --["PeteB"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-12-08 13:46:35JenniferCookComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p>No differences found!</div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-12-08 13:46:35JenniferCookComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 377: </td> <td> Line 377: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-12-08 12:46:35'' [[nbsp]] Okay I have 2 points to make:<br> + <br> + 1) Are we going to ban vacuum cleaners too? They can get pretty annoying if your neighbors are using them at annoying hours. Can we ban loud cars too? I live on a corner next to a 4 way stop sign intersection and we get people driving past at all hours of the day and night blasting loud music, and also driving loud cars just to prove that they can drive loud cars (i.e. being douchebags).<br> + <br> + 2) I raked my entire lawn in like half an hour the other night, and I made 4 HUGE piles of leaves on the curb. I took breaks to play with my rubber band airplane between raking and I still got it done pretty fast. It was not difficult. Also, I did it at midnight. Could you do that with a leaf blower? No, your neighbors would kill you.<br> + <br> + In summary: Quit yer bitchin'. Who cares if you can use a leaf blower or not? --["Users/JenniferCook"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-12-07 15:47:15amandamurphyComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 375: </td> <td> Line 375: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-12-07 14:47:15'' [[nbsp]] I don't live in Davis, but I just wondered if CSO's (combined sewer overflows)are a problem there. Leaves blocking storm-drains are problematic and might present points for both sides of this issue to consider. --["Users/amandamurphy"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-12-06 00:05:25RichardL <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 183: </td> <td> Line 183: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Banning gas-powered lawnmowers because they pollute and are noisy </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Banning gas-powered lawnmowers because they pollute and are noisy<span>.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 187: </td> <td> Line 187: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Banning dogs in Davis that bark and crap on my lawn because they are annoying too. (<span>Actually t</span>here a<span>re</span> law<span>s</span> requiring people to clean up after ther<span>e</span> dogs an<span>d th</span>e<span>y</span> are g<span>ood</span>.<span>)</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Banning dogs in Davis that bark and crap on my lawn because they are annoying too. (<span>T</span>here <span>is </span>a law requiring people to clean up after the<span>i</span>r dogs<span>,</span> <span>but inconsider</span>a<span>te ow</span>ne<span>rs</span> are <span>not followin</span>g<span>&nbsp;it)</span>. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 189: </td> <td> Line 189: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Banning trains from coming through because they are loud. (Well <span>actually </span>trains serve a very different purpose than leaf blowers<span>&nbsp;so this comparison is faulty</span>.) </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Banning trains from coming through because they are loud. (Well trains serve a very different purpose than leaf blowers.) </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-12-02 05:30:01DozerComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 373: </td> <td> Line 373: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-12-02 04:30:01'' [[nbsp]] Why does Davis folk always like to stick it to the working man? So all these landscaping companies will have to purchase more equipment. Not to mention worse equipment at that. Electric is rarely as good as gas powered when it comes to landscaping equipment. So you are now going to be costing these guys more money in a horrible economy, then it will take them longer to work. Then when it takes them longer to work it will cost us the consumer more. So in a bad economy we all now have to fork over more money. Morons... --["Users/Dozer"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 18:03:24ScottMeehleib <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 11: </td> <td> Line 11: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Since 2000, the US EPA has enacted a series of regulations mandating substantial improvements in emissions. The CEPA report, using data from 1998, includes a relatively small number of blowers produced after a 1995 USEPA regulation which mandated a 33% reduction in emissions. In 2000, a second phase of emissions reduction was adopted in stages over the next several years, beginning in 2002 with the last stage in 2006. At the time of its adoption, the second phase was projected to result in an additional 70% reduction in hydrocarbon and NOx emissions by the year 2010 over the initial 1995 regulation ([http://www.cleanaircounts.org/documents/Leaf%20Blowing%20Emissions%20Modeling%20Report.pdf source--p. 3]). In 2007, the EPA passed a third emissions regulation mandating an additional 35% reduction in hydrocarbon evaporative emissions, to go into effect by 2011 or 2012 depending on the size of the motor ([http://www.epa.gov/otaq/equip-ld.htm source]). In all, there have been dramatic reductions in the emissions of gas blowers in recent years, especially in regards to hydrocarbons, NOx, and evaporative emissions. CO and overall particulate matter air pollution have probably also improved at least somewhat over the course of the decade, but it is difficult to determine exactly how much so. The least change, if any, would likely <span>have been</span> found in the amount of fugitive dust emissions over the years, especially when one considers that the whole point of a leaf-blower is to blow about scattered foliage and debris. It should also be noted that many of the older leaf blowers are still in use as of 2010, owing to the fact that phase two was only completed as late as 2006. It is estimated that it will be approximately 2025 before the vast majority of leaf blowers, in terms of actual usage, conform to the newest, more ideal standards. </td> <td> <span>+</span> Since 2000, the US EPA has enacted a series of regulations mandating substantial improvements in emissions. The CEPA report, using data from 1998, includes a relatively small number of blowers produced after a 1995 USEPA regulation which mandated a 33% reduction in emissions. In 2000, a second phase of emissions reduction was adopted in stages over the next several years, beginning in 2002 with the last stage in 2006. At the time of its adoption, the second phase was projected to result in an additional 70% reduction in hydrocarbon and NOx emissions by the year 2010 over the initial 1995 regulation ([http://www.cleanaircounts.org/documents/Leaf%20Blowing%20Emissions%20Modeling%20Report.pdf source--p. 3]). In 2007, the EPA passed a third emissions regulation mandating an additional 35% reduction in hydrocarbon evaporative emissions, to go into effect by 2011 or 2012 depending on the size of the motor ([http://www.epa.gov/otaq/equip-ld.htm source]). In all, there have been dramatic reductions in the emissions of gas blowers in recent years, especially in regards to hydrocarbons, NOx, and evaporative emissions. CO and overall particulate matter air pollution have probably also improved at least somewhat over the course of the decade, but it is difficult to determine exactly how much so. The least change, if any, would likely <span>be</span> found in the amount of fugitive dust emissions over the years, especially when one considers that the whole point of a leaf-blower is to blow about scattered foliage and debris. It should also be noted that many of the older leaf blowers are still in use as of 2010, owing to the fact that phase two was only completed as late as 2006. It is estimated that it will be approximately 2025 before the vast majority of leaf blowers, in terms of actual usage, conform to the newest, more ideal standards. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 18:00:25ScottMeehleib <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 11: </td> <td> Line 11: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Since 2000, the US EPA has enacted a series of regulations mandating substantial improvements in emissions. The CEPA report, using data from 1998, includes a relatively small number of blowers produced after a 1995 USEPA regulation which mandated a 33% reduction in emissions. In 2000, a second phase of emissions reduction was adopted in stages over the next several years, beginning in 2002 with the last stage in 2006. At the time of its adoption, the second phase was projected to result in an additional 70% reduction in hydrocarbon and NOx emissions by the year 2010 over the initial 1995 regulation ([http://www.cleanaircounts.org/documents/Leaf%20Blowing%20Emissions%20Modeling%20Report.pdf source--p. 3]). In 2007, the EPA passed a third emissions regulation mandating an additional 35% reduction in hydrocarbon evaporative emissions, to go into effect by 2011 or 2012 depending on the size of the motor ([http://www.epa.gov/otaq/equip-ld.htm source]). <span>The net effect is approximately an 87% reduction in emissions for gas blowers; howe</span>ve<span>r, this percentage likely only takes hydrocarbon and</span> NOx<span>&nbsp;emissions into account</span>. CO and overall particulate matter air pollution <span>probably also impro</span>ve<span>d at least somewhat </span>over the course of the decade, but it is difficult to determine exactly how much so. <span>Furthermore, fugiti</span>ve <span>dust emissions would ha</span>ve <span>likely impr</span>ove<span>d very little if at all</span>. It should also be noted that many of the older leaf blowers are still in use as of 2010, owing to the fact that phase two was only completed as late as 2006. It is estimated that it will be approximately 2025 before the vast majority of leaf blowers, in terms of actual usage, conform to the newest, more ideal standards. </td> <td> <span>+</span> Since 2000, the US EPA has enacted a series of regulations mandating substantial improvements in emissions. The CEPA report, using data from 1998, includes a relatively small number of blowers produced after a 1995 USEPA regulation which mandated a 33% reduction in emissions. In 2000, a second phase of emissions reduction was adopted in stages over the next several years, beginning in 2002 with the last stage in 2006. At the time of its adoption, the second phase was projected to result in an additional 70% reduction in hydrocarbon and NOx emissions by the year 2010 over the initial 1995 regulation ([http://www.cleanaircounts.org/documents/Leaf%20Blowing%20Emissions%20Modeling%20Report.pdf source--p. 3]). In 2007, the EPA passed a third emissions regulation mandating an additional 35% reduction in hydrocarbon evaporative emissions, to go into effect by 2011 or 2012 depending on the size of the motor ([http://www.epa.gov/otaq/equip-ld.htm source]). <span>In all, there ha</span>ve<span>&nbsp;been dramatic reductions in the emissions of gas blowers in recent years, especially in regards to hydrocarbons,</span> NOx<span>, and evaporative emissions</span>. CO and overall particulate matter air pollution <span>ha</span>ve<span>&nbsp;probably also impr</span>ove<span>d at least somewhat ove</span>r the course of the decade, but it is difficult to determine exactly how much so. <span>The least change, if any, would likely ha</span>ve <span>been found in the amount of fugiti</span>ve <span>dust emissions </span>ove<span>r the years, especially when one considers that the whole point of a leaf-blower is to blow about scattered foliage and debris</span>. It should also be noted that many of the older leaf blowers are still in use as of 2010, owing to the fact that phase two was only completed as late as 2006. It is estimated that it will be approximately 2025 before the vast majority of leaf blowers, in terms of actual usage, conform to the newest, more ideal standards. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 17:36:22TomGarberson+wsj article re: pollution and noise improvements <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 25: </td> <td> Line 25: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123128859885159113.html 2009 WSJ article about, in part, advancements in leaf-blower noise and pollution standards]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 17:26:47ScottMeehleib <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 11: </td> <td> Line 11: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Since 2000, the US EPA has enacted a series of regulations mandating substantial improvements in emissions. The CEPA report, using data from 1998, includes a relatively small number of blowers produced after a 1995 USEPA regulation which mandated a 33% reduction in emissions. In 2000, a second phase of emissions reduction was adopted in stages over the next several years, beginning in 2002 with the last stage in 2006. At the time of its adoption, the second phase was projected to result in an additional 70% reduction in hydrocarbon and NOx emissions by the year 2010 over the initial 1995 regulation ([http://www.cleanaircounts.org/documents/Leaf%20Blowing%20Emissions%20Modeling%20Report.pdf source--p. 3]). In 2007, the EPA passed a third emissions regulation mandating an additional 35% reduction in hydrocarbon evaporative emissions, to go into effect by 2011 or 2012 depending on the size of the motor ([http://www.epa.gov/otaq/equip-ld.htm source]). The net effect is approximately an 87% reduction in emissions for gas blowers; however, this percentage likely only takes hydrocarbon and NOx emissions into account. CO and overall particulate matter air pollution probably also improved at least somewhat over the course of the decade, but it is difficult to determine exactly how much so. Furthermore, fugitive dust emissions would have likely improved very little if at all. It should also be noted that many of the older leaf blowers are still in use as of 2010, owing to the fact that phase two was only completed as late as 2006. It estimated that it will be a<span>bout</span> 2025 before the vast majority of leaf blowers, in terms of actual usage, conform to the newest, more ideal standards. </td> <td> <span>+</span> Since 2000, the US EPA has enacted a series of regulations mandating substantial improvements in emissions. The CEPA report, using data from 1998, includes a relatively small number of blowers produced after a 1995 USEPA regulation which mandated a 33% reduction in emissions. In 2000, a second phase of emissions reduction was adopted in stages over the next several years, beginning in 2002 with the last stage in 2006. At the time of its adoption, the second phase was projected to result in an additional 70% reduction in hydrocarbon and NOx emissions by the year 2010 over the initial 1995 regulation ([http://www.cleanaircounts.org/documents/Leaf%20Blowing%20Emissions%20Modeling%20Report.pdf source--p. 3]). In 2007, the EPA passed a third emissions regulation mandating an additional 35% reduction in hydrocarbon evaporative emissions, to go into effect by 2011 or 2012 depending on the size of the motor ([http://www.epa.gov/otaq/equip-ld.htm source]). The net effect is approximately an 87% reduction in emissions for gas blowers; however, this percentage likely only takes hydrocarbon and NOx emissions into account. CO and overall particulate matter air pollution probably also improved at least somewhat over the course of the decade, but it is difficult to determine exactly how much so. Furthermore, fugitive dust emissions would have likely improved very little if at all. It should also be noted that many of the older leaf blowers are still in use as of 2010, owing to the fact that phase two was only completed as late as 2006. It <span>is </span>estimated that it will be a<span>pproximately</span> 2025 before the vast majority of leaf blowers, in terms of actual usage, conform to the newest, more ideal standards. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 16:05:40ScottMeehleibcouldn't find source for 87 percent figure so making an assumption; sorry <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 11: </td> <td> Line 11: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Since 2000, the US EPA has enacted a series of regulations mandating substantial improvements in emissions. The CEPA report, using data from 1998, includes a relatively small number of blowers produced after a 1995 USEPA regulation which mandated a 33% reduction in emissions. In 2000, a second phase of emissions reduction was adopted in stages over the next several years, beginning in 2002 with the last stage in 2006. At the time of its adoption, the second phase was projected to result in an additional 70% reduction in hydrocarbon and NOx emissions by the year 2010 over the initial 1995 regulation ([http://www.cleanaircounts.org/documents/Leaf%20Blowing%20Emissions%20Modeling%20Report.pdf source--p. 3]). In 2007, the EPA passed a third emissions regulation mandating an additional 35% reduction in hydrocarbon evaporative emissions, to go into effect by 2011 or 2012 depending on the size of the motor ([http://www.epa.gov/otaq/equip-ld.htm source]). The net effect is approximately an 87% reduction in emissions for gas blowers. </td> <td> <span>+</span> Since 2000, the US EPA has enacted a series of regulations mandating substantial improvements in emissions. The CEPA report, using data from 1998, includes a relatively small number of blowers produced after a 1995 USEPA regulation which mandated a 33% reduction in emissions. In 2000, a second phase of emissions reduction was adopted in stages over the next several years, beginning in 2002 with the last stage in 2006. At the time of its adoption, the second phase was projected to result in an additional 70% reduction in hydrocarbon and NOx emissions by the year 2010 over the initial 1995 regulation ([http://www.cleanaircounts.org/documents/Leaf%20Blowing%20Emissions%20Modeling%20Report.pdf source--p. 3]). In 2007, the EPA passed a third emissions regulation mandating an additional 35% reduction in hydrocarbon evaporative emissions, to go into effect by 2011 or 2012 depending on the size of the motor ([http://www.epa.gov/otaq/equip-ld.htm source]). The net effect is approximately an 87% reduction in emissions for gas blowers<span>; however, this percentage likely only takes hydrocarbon and NOx emissions into account</span>.<span>&nbsp;CO and overall particulate matter air pollution probably also improved at least somewhat over the course of the decade, but it is difficult to determine exactly how much so. Furthermore, fugitive dust emissions would have likely improved very little if at all. It should also be noted that many of the older leaf blowers are still in use as of 2010, owing to the fact that phase two was only completed as late as 2006. It estimated that it will be about 2025 before the vast majority of leaf blowers, in terms of actual usage, conform to the newest, more ideal standards.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 15:46:30ScottMeehleibclarifying parts of the data section <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 11: </td> <td> Line 11: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Since 2000, the US EPA has enacted a series of regulations mandating substantial improvements in emissions. The CEPA report, using data from 1998, includes a relatively small number of blowers produced after a 1995 USEPA regulation which mandated a 33% reduction in emissions. In 2000, a second phase of emissions reduction w<span>ent into effect</span>, <span>resulting</span> in an additional 70% reduction in hydrocarbon and NOx emissions over the initial 1995 regulation ([http://www.cleanaircounts.org/documents/Leaf%20Blowing%20Emissions%20Modeling%20Report.pdf source--p. 3]). In 2007, the EPA passed a third emissions regulation mandating an additional 35% reduction in hydrocarbon emissions, to go into effect by 2011 or 2012 depending on the size of the motor ([http://www.epa.gov/otaq/equip-ld.htm source]). The net effect is approximately an 87% reduction in emissions for gas blowers. </td> <td> <span>+</span> Since 2000, the US EPA has enacted a series of regulations mandating substantial improvements in emissions. The CEPA report, using data from 1998, includes a relatively small number of blowers produced after a 1995 USEPA regulation which mandated a 33% reduction in emissions. In 2000, a second phase of emissions reduction w<span>as adopted in stages over the next several years</span>, <span>beginning in 2002 with the last stage in 2006. At the time of its adoption, the second phase was projected to result</span> in an additional 70% reduction in hydrocarbon and NOx emissions<span>&nbsp;by the year 2010</span> over the initial 1995 regulation ([http://www.cleanaircounts.org/documents/Leaf%20Blowing%20Emissions%20Modeling%20Report.pdf source--p. 3]). In 2007, the EPA passed a third emissions regulation mandating an additional 35% reduction in hydrocarbon e<span>vaporative e</span>missions, to go into effect by 2011 or 2012 depending on the size of the motor ([http://www.epa.gov/otaq/equip-ld.htm source]). The net effect is approximately an 87% reduction in emissions for gas blowers. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 12:25:57TomGarbersontouch-ups <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 70: </td> <td> Line 70: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The problem many people have with this movement to ban leaf-blowers is that it hasn't established the harm that makes it wrong to keep on swinging. The issues seem to be three: 1) Noise; 2) Pollution; and 3) Health. </td> <td> <span>+</span> The problem many people have with this movement to ban leaf-blowers is that it hasn't established the harm that makes it wrong to keep on swinging. The issues <span>concerning proponents of the ban </span>seem to be three: 1) Noise; 2) Pollution; and 3) Health. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 73: </td> <td> Line 73: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> - Davis already has a ["noise ordinance"] which puts limits both on hours and on volume. If the ordinance is inadequate, it can be adjusted to achieve the noise-related ends of the desired ban. If it is not enforced, that is something that should be raised with the city and with the police department. Talk to your elected representatives and public servants about ["Davis Municipal Code/24.02.020"] and ["Davis Municipal Code/24.02.040"] if you don't think they're doing the trick. </td> <td> <span>+ Some leaf</span>-<span>blowers are quite noisy, but</span> Davis already has a ["noise ordinance"] which puts limits both on hours and on volume. If the ordinance is inadequate, it can be adjusted to achieve the noise-related ends of the desired ban. If it is not enforced, that is something that should be raised with the city and with the police department. Talk to your elected representatives and public servants about ["Davis Municipal Code/24.02.020"] and ["Davis Municipal Code/24.02.040"] if you don't think they're doing the trick. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 76: </td> <td> Line 76: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> - Th<span>ere</span>'<span>s a lot of </span>ve<span>ry damning and </span>v<span>ery outdated information out there about the pollution emitted by leaf-blowers. This is primarily because there doesn't seem to have been much study of the issue since the series of increasingly strict regulations put in place by the United States E</span>PA. Through a series of three regulations in 1995, 2000, and 2007, gas-powered leaf-blowers are required to produce 80% less pollution than they typically were prior to 1995. The 2007 regulation, by the time it goes fully into effect in 2011-2012 (dates vary depending on the size of the motor), will require an additional 35% reduction over the existing standards. Electric blowers are cleaner still. If we start with the assumption that a certain amount of emission, when minimized and regulated, is an inevitable and acceptable consequence of modern living, it's hard to argue that the pollution emitted by leaf-blowers isn't being addressed.<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> Concerned citizens might reasonably advocate a requirement that landscapers update their equipment to post-2000 standards and, within some reasonable period of time after the new regulations go into effect, to post-2007 regulation standards. Doing so would be far less intrusive and costly than an outright ban, and would substantially achieve the same results as to the pollution concern. </td> <td> <span>+ There's a lot of very damning and very outdated information out there about the pollution emitted by leaf</span>-<span>blowers. </span> Th<span>is is primarily because there doesn</span>'<span>t seem to ha</span>ve<span>&nbsp;been much study of the issue since the series of increasingly strict regulations put in place by the US En</span>v<span>ironmental </span>P<span>rotection </span>A<span>gency</span>. Through a series of three regulations in 1995, 2000, and 2007, gas-powered leaf-blowers are required to produce 80% less pollution than they typically were prior to 1995. The 2007 regulation, by the time it goes fully into effect in 2011-2012 (dates vary depending on the size of the motor), will require an additional 35% reduction over the existing standards. Electric blowers are cleaner still. <span>See the [http://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers#head-3f8b3dbfb5e3945110495580beab7e30a108cc1b Data section] above for sources. </span>If we start with the assumption that a certain amount of emission, when minimized and regulated, is an inevitable and acceptable consequence of modern living, it's hard to argue that the pollution emitted by leaf-blowers isn't being addressed.<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> Concerned citizens might reasonably advocate<span>&nbsp;for</span> a requirement that landscapers update their equipment to post-2000 standards and, within some reasonable period of time after the new regulations go into effect, to post-2007 regulation standards. Doing so would be far less intrusive and <span>ultimately less </span>costly than an outright ban, and <span>it </span>would substantially achieve the same results as to the pollution concern. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 86: </td> <td> Line 86: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Banning private activity is an intrusive and potentially expensive proposition. It's appropriate when it is necessary to prevent some sort of harm. The greater the harm, the greater the intrusion and cost that may be justified. In this case, proponents of the ban have failed to present any real harm that can't be addressed by other, less intrusive and costly methods. If there is real harm--particularly to our health, as some have claimed--a ban may well be appropriate. Until such harm is demonstrated, though, the logical conclusion remains the one stated by several people in the comments below: proponents want to ban leaf-blowers <span>''</span>because they don't like them''. And that's just not good enough. </td> <td> <span>+</span> Banning private activity is an intrusive and potentially expensive proposition. It's appropriate when it is necessary to prevent some sort of harm. The greater the harm, the greater the intrusion and cost that may be justified. In this case, proponents of the ban have failed to present any real harm that can't be addressed by other, less intrusive and costly methods. If there is real harm--particularly to our health, as some have claimed--a ban may well be appropriate. Until such harm is demonstrated, though, the logical conclusion remains the one stated by several people in the comments below: <span>''</span>proponents want to ban leaf-blowers because they don't like them''. And that's just not good enough. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 12:15:50TomGarbersonFormatting for readability. Feel free to proof argument against, I didn't. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 72: </td> <td> Line 72: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ===Noise=== </td> <td> <span>+ </span> ===Noise=== </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 75: </td> <td> Line 75: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ===Pollution=== </td> <td> <span>+ </span> ===Pollution=== </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 80: </td> <td> Line 80: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ===Health=== </td> <td> <span>+ </span> ===Health=== </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 85: </td> <td> Line 85: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ===Conclusion=== </td> <td> <span>+ </span> ===Conclusion=== </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 12:14:04TomGarbersonWriting a real argument against the ban <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 66: </td> <td> Line 66: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- </span> </td> <td> <span>+ Leaf-blowers can be annoying. We all agree on that point. Inconsiderate users who crank them up too high, use them too early/late, or blow stuff at passersby. The thing is, there are already regulations in place to address these issues. If those regulations are insufficient, they can be adjusted. If they aren't enforced, A) that's a problem with enforcement, not with the laws themselves, and B) there's nothing to indicate that a ban would be enforced any more effectively.<br> + <br> + As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously stated, and as several people have paraphrased in this discussion, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." When removed from its original context, however, that quote can lose the basis for its obvious truth: when I continue to swing my fist past where the other man's nose begins, a very obvious and significant harm results.<br> + <br> + The problem many people have with this movement to ban leaf-blowers is that it hasn't established the harm that makes it wrong to keep on swinging. The issues seem to be three: 1) Noise; 2) Pollution; and 3) Health.<br> + <br> + ===Noise===<br> + Davis already has a ["noise ordinance"] which puts limits both on hours and on volume. If the ordinance is inadequate, it can be adjusted to achieve the noise-related ends of the desired ban. If it is not enforced, that is something that should be raised with the city and with the police department. Talk to your elected representatives and public servants about ["Davis Municipal Code/24.02.020"] and ["Davis Municipal Code/24.02.040"] if you don't think they're doing the trick.<br> + <br> + ===Pollution===<br> + There's a lot of very damning and very outdated information out there about the pollution emitted by leaf-blowers. This is primarily because there doesn't seem to have been much study of the issue since the series of increasingly strict regulations put in place by the United States EPA. Through a series of three regulations in 1995, 2000, and 2007, gas-powered leaf-blowers are required to produce 80% less pollution than they typically were prior to 1995. The 2007 regulation, by the time it goes fully into effect in 2011-2012 (dates vary depending on the size of the motor), will require an additional 35% reduction over the existing standards. Electric blowers are cleaner still. If we start with the assumption that a certain amount of emission, when minimized and regulated, is an inevitable and acceptable consequence of modern living, it's hard to argue that the pollution emitted by leaf-blowers isn't being addressed.<br> + <br> + Concerned citizens might reasonably advocate a requirement that landscapers update their equipment to post-2000 standards and, within some reasonable period of time after the new regulations go into effect, to post-2007 regulation standards. Doing so would be far less intrusive and costly than an outright ban, and would substantially achieve the same results as to the pollution concern.<br> + <br> + ===Health===<br> + If leaf-blowers cause significant health issues, that's a very good argument for banning them. Everyone agrees on that point! Thus far, however, no one has offered anything resembling data on that point. Consider this an open invitation: find real information--say, a study by a reputable source--that supports the claim that leaf-blowers are causing real health problems and post it here. None of us want to be exposed to dangerous particulates.<br> + <br> + However, the fact that a number of intelligent, outspoken, and interested people have argued the issue at some length here--and elsewhere--without pointing to a single tidbit of scientific information on the issue raises the question: is the problem real?<br> + <br> + ===Conclusion===<br> + Banning private activity is an intrusive and potentially expensive proposition. It's appropriate when it is necessary to prevent some sort of harm. The greater the harm, the greater the intrusion and cost that may be justified. In this case, proponents of the ban have failed to present any real harm that can't be addressed by other, less intrusive and costly methods. If there is real harm--particularly to our health, as some have claimed--a ban may well be appropriate. Until such harm is demonstrated, though, the logical conclusion remains the one stated by several people in the comments below: proponents want to ban leaf-blowers ''because they don't like them''. And that's just not good enough.<br> + <br> + ===Previously Discussed Points===</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 10:53:22TomGarbersonAdding attributions and fleshing out a couple of replies <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 47: </td> <td> Line 47: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * RE Well anecdotes shouldn't be used when trying to argue points since they are notoriously unreliable. You should consider instead doing research. Doing a quick google search I was able to find several people claiming there was a Lung Association study on the subject. So instead of take what they say as the truth I did the foot work and looked it up for everyone ( http://www.lungusa.org/associations/states/new-york/pressroom/assets/op-eds-and-letters-to-newspaper-editors/leaf-blower-bans-aid-air.pdf ) and they have concluded that it is a source of air pollution. Just consider how the piece of machinery operations, of course it is kicking up pollutants into our air which could be damaging to our health - its not rocket science. This does not discount that fact that Davis already does have a lot of allergens due to wind pollinated trees such as Walnut - but that doesn't mean that the blowers do not contribute. ~~~ </td> <td> <span>+</span> * RE Well anecdotes shouldn't be used when trying to argue points since they are notoriously unreliable. You should consider instead doing research. Doing a quick google search I was able to find several people claiming there was a Lung Association study on the subject. So instead of take what they say as the truth I did the foot work and looked it up for everyone ( http://www.lungusa.org/associations/states/new-york/pressroom/assets/op-eds-and-letters-to-newspaper-editors/leaf-blower-bans-aid-air.pdf ) and they have concluded that it is a source of air pollution. Just consider how the piece of machinery operations, of course it is kicking up pollutants into our air which could be damaging to our health - its not rocket science. This does not discount that fact that Davis already does have a lot of allergens due to wind pollinated trees such as Walnut - but that doesn't mean that the blowers do not contribute. ~~~<span>["Users/upisdown"]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 50: </td> <td> Line 50: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I didn't say the piece wasn't relevant, I said it doesn't offer information on a relevant Lung Association study. Because, again, there's no study on health effects cited there, there's detailed information on health effects, and there are certainly no causal claims. --tg</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 53: </td> <td> Line 54: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * RE It is not always wise to let businesses make their own decisions when it comes to the environment because we all share it. We should be careful when we allow businesses to cut corners to increase profits at the cost of all of our health. It is completely rational and shows foresight to use our local politics to make wise decisions to protect our environment. ~~~ </td> <td> <span>+</span> * RE It is not always wise to let businesses make their own decisions when it comes to the environment because we all share it. We should be careful when we allow businesses to cut corners to increase profits at the cost of all of our health. It is completely rational and shows foresight to use our local politics to make wise decisions to protect our environment. ~~~<span>["Users/upisdown"]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 58: </td> <td> Line 59: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * RE You seem to be making a few logical fallacies here, you seem to be suggesting that because Sunnyvale and has no blowers and that it is expensive, so having no blowers means an area is expensive. Therefore if Davis has no blowers it will be expensive. First of all Davis is expensive, and second it is incredibly misleading to suggest that having no blowers is the only factor in the price of housing. The fact that Davis is in the middle of nowhere and the area you mentioned is near the Bay would probably be a bigger factor than leaf blowing. ~~~ </td> <td> <span>+</span> * RE You seem to be making a few logical fallacies here, you seem to be suggesting that because Sunnyvale and has no blowers and that it is expensive, so having no blowers means an area is expensive. Therefore if Davis has no blowers it will be expensive. First of all Davis is expensive, and second it is incredibly misleading to suggest that having no blowers is the only factor in the price of housing. The fact that Davis is in the middle of nowhere and the area you mentioned is near the Bay would probably be a bigger factor than leaf blowing. ~~~<span>["Users/upisdown"]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 80: </td> <td> Line 81: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- <br> - *</span> There have been many necessary regulations put in place to protect the environment because business are not obligated to protect the environment, they are simply obligated to increase profits for share holders. So in our system it is completely rational for them to disregard long term environmental damage for short term profit. That is why we have the checks of regulation against business, so that we can use our foresight to determine long term problems and try to prevent them from happening. Because the profit corporations make on the environment effects everyone. ~~~ </td> <td> <span>+ </span> There have been many necessary regulations put in place to protect the environment because business are not obligated to protect the environment, they are simply obligated to increase profits for share holders. So in our system it is completely rational for them to disregard long term environmental damage for short term profit. That is why we have the checks of regulation against business, so that we can use our foresight to determine long term problems and try to prevent them from happening. Because the profit corporations make on the environment effects everyone. ~~~<span>["Users/upisdown"]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 93: </td> <td> Line 93: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * This is either an out right lie or a lack of research because there is and the research was done by the Lung Association. It seems there is only anecdotal evidence saying there is no problem. You should consider doing research before typing with such certainty. Doing a quick google search I was able to find several people claiming there was a Lung Association study on the subject. So instead of take what they say as the truth I did the foot work and looked it up for everyone ( http://www.lungusa.org/associations/states/new-york/pressroom/assets/op-eds-and-letters-to-newspaper-editors/leaf-blower-bans-aid-air.pdf ) and they have concluded that it is a source of air pollution. Just consider how the piece of machinery operations, of course it is kicking up pollutants into our air which could be damaging to our health - its not rocket science. </td> <td> <span>+</span> * This is either an out right lie or a lack of research because there is and the research was done by the Lung Association. It seems there is only anecdotal evidence saying there is no problem. You should consider doing research before typing with such certainty. Doing a quick google search I was able to find several people claiming there was a Lung Association study on the subject. So instead of take what they say as the truth I did the foot work and looked it up for everyone ( http://www.lungusa.org/associations/states/new-york/pressroom/assets/op-eds-and-letters-to-newspaper-editors/leaf-blower-bans-aid-air.pdf ) and they have concluded that it is a source of air pollution. Just consider how the piece of machinery operations, of course it is kicking up pollutants into our air which could be damaging to our health - its not rocket science.<span>&nbsp;--["Users/upisdown"]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 98: </td> <td> Line 98: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * First of all you are assuming that there would have to be additional costs. Instead of paying landscapers apartments could use the grass areas to plant community gardens - apartment complexes have MANY options. You are suggesting that we have two options: expensive apartments with no blowers or cheap apartments with blowers. That clearly is a false assessment of the possible situations. In fact the legislators could add provisions to protect landowners from doing that. This is local politics, your say has more of an effect on this than any other form of governmental politics. You could always voice your concern and try to help shape the law. </td> <td> <span>+</span> * First of all you are assuming that there would have to be additional costs. Instead of paying landscapers apartments could use the grass areas to plant community gardens - apartment complexes have MANY options. You are suggesting that we have two options: expensive apartments with no blowers or cheap apartments with blowers. That clearly is a false assessment of the possible situations. In fact the legislators could add provisions to protect landowners from doing that. This is local politics, your say has more of an effect on this than any other form of governmental politics. You could always voice your concern and try to help shape the law.<span>&nbsp;--["Users/upisdown"]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 105: </td> <td> Line 105: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- * What "health concerns"? There hasn't been any information provided on this page which suggests they're anything more than ''concerns''.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ * What "health concerns"? There hasn't been any information provided on this page which suggests they're anything more than ''concerns''. If there were serious data supporting a causal link between leaf-blowers and significant health problems, opponents of a ban would be approaching this very differently. Many people's negative reaction is due to the fact that the principal reason for banning blowers appears to be dislike. No one has added any actual information on health effects, making that point seem suspiciously like pretense. --["Users/TomGarberson"]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 109: </td> <td> Line 109: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- * This is local politics. Your voice is more significant here than on any other level of government. If you are afraid to ban gas blowers because electric blowers are good you could voice this and affect the policy. However using this as a way to protect gas blowers is disingenuous.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ * This is local politics. Your voice is more significant here than on any other level of government. If you are afraid to ban gas blowers because electric blowers are good you could voice this and affect the policy. However using this as a way to protect gas blowers is disingenuous. --["Users/upisdown"]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 114: </td> <td> Line 114: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Well removing leaf litter in general is bad for plants (Unless it is blocking light). This material would normally be broken down and then reused by the plant. Using incredible amounts of energy to move this leaf litter to a different area to be decomposed so it can be wrapped up in plastic and shipped back to be used as soil amendment is wasteful. Leaf blowers also have negative impacts of plants by removing potentially beneficial insects or pollinators. </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Well removing leaf litter in general is bad for plants (Unless it is blocking light). This material would normally be broken down and then reused by the plant. Using incredible amounts of energy to move this leaf litter to a different area to be decomposed so it can be wrapped up in plastic and shipped back to be used as soil amendment is wasteful. Leaf blowers also have negative impacts of plants by removing potentially beneficial insects or pollinators.<span>&nbsp;--["Users/upisdown"]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 118: </td> <td> Line 118: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- * So wait you are saying old people can carry heavy engines on their backs and blow leaves around but they cant lift a rake? This is just absurd. You are really grasping. Maybe they should keep landscaping they are capable of taking care of, or talk to neighbors to get help or pay people. We shouldn't continence trump our collective space.<br> - * Most leaf-blowers weigh between 2.7 and 5.5kg ([http://www.targetwoman.com/articles/leaf-blower.html source]), and many have a shoulder strap or something of the sort. They don't require bending or pulling. They have a minimal effect on balance, unlike raking. They can be used from wheel chairs or walkers. The same cannot be said of a rake.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ * So wait you are saying old people can carry heavy engines on their backs and blow leaves around but they cant lift a rake? This is just absurd. You are really grasping. Maybe they should keep landscaping they are capable of taking care of, or talk to neighbors to get help or pay people. We shouldn't continence trump our collective space. --["Users/upisdown"]<br> + * Most leaf-blowers weigh between 2.7 and 5.5kg ([http://www.targetwoman.com/articles/leaf-blower.html source]), and many have a shoulder strap or something of the sort. They don't require bending or pulling. They have a minimal effect on balance, unlike raking. They can be used from wheel chairs or walkers. The same cannot be said of a rake. --["Users/TomGarberson"]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 123: </td> <td> Line 123: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Using incredible amounts of energy to move this leaf litter to a different area to be decomposed so it can be wrapped up in plastic and shipped back to be used as soil amendment is wasteful. There are much better alternatives. Reading through your reasoning I question if you are able to see more than two possibilities for any given problem. </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Using incredible amounts of energy to move this leaf litter to a different area to be decomposed so it can be wrapped up in plastic and shipped back to be used as soil amendment is wasteful. There are much better alternatives. Reading through your reasoning I question if you are able to see more than two possibilities for any given problem.<span>["Users/upisdown"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 10:46:11TomGarbersonMaking Data header; moving emissions data <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 7: </td> <td> Line 7: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- </span> </td> <td> <span>+ = Data =<br> + ==Environmental Effects==<br> + Based on 1998 data, a report from the California Environmental Protection Agency back in 2000 found that a leaf blower may produce much more pollution than a modern car in several categories excepting CO2. "For CO (Table 9), the estimated 423 g emitted by one hour of leaf blower use is approximately 26 times the amount emitted by a new vehicle, but approximately one-third of the CO emissions of an older vehicle. While not implying that the operator will inhale this amount of CO, these data do suggest concern about the relatively large amount of CO emitted directly into the air space surrounding the operator. For particulate matter exhaust emissions, the leaf blower emits eight to 49 times the particulates of a light duty vehicle, primarily because of the large amount of unburned fuel directly released by the two-stroke engine ... [and] for the average 1999 leaf blower and car data presented in Table 9, we calculate that hydrocarbon emissions from one-half hour of leaf blower operation equal about 7,700 miles of driving, at 30 miles per hour average speed. The carbon monoxide emission benchmark is signficantly different. For carbon monoxide, one-half hour of leaf blower useage (Table 9) would be equivalent to about 440 miles of automobile travel at 30 miles per hour average speed ([http://www.noiseoff.org/document/cepa.report.pdf] pages 50-51)."<br> + <br> + Since 2000, the US EPA has enacted a series of regulations mandating substantial improvements in emissions. The CEPA report, using data from 1998, includes a relatively small number of blowers produced after a 1995 USEPA regulation which mandated a 33% reduction in emissions. In 2000, a second phase of emissions reduction went into effect, resulting in an additional 70% reduction in hydrocarbon and NOx emissions over the initial 1995 regulation ([http://www.cleanaircounts.org/documents/Leaf%20Blowing%20Emissions%20Modeling%20Report.pdf source--p. 3]). In 2007, the EPA passed a third emissions regulation mandating an additional 35% reduction in hydrocarbon emissions, to go into effect by 2011 or 2012 depending on the size of the motor ([http://www.epa.gov/otaq/equip-ld.htm source]). The net effect is approximately an 87% reduction in emissions for gas blowers.<br> + <br> + ==Health Effects==<br> + ''Have you seen any studies on the health effects of leaf blowers? Edit this page to add links and information!''<br> + <br> + ==Cost==<br> + * [http://www.thefreelibrary.com/GROUND%20ZERO%20IN%20LEAF%20BLOWER%20BATTLE%20:%20RAKE%20AND%20BROOM%20VS.%20GAS-POWERED...-a084037667 Article about L.A. Ban] - found an increase of approximately 50% in the time it took landscapers to care for a yard by hand, vs. with a blower.<br> + <br> + ==Additional Links==</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 21: </td> <td> Line 33: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- <br> - Based on 1998 data, a report from the California Environmental Protection Agency back in 2000 found that a leaf blower may produce much more pollution than a modern car in several categories excepting CO2. "For CO (Table 9), the estimated 423 g emitted by one hour of leaf blower use is approximately 26 times the amount emitted by a new vehicle, but approximately one-third of the CO emissions of an older vehicle. While not implying that the operator will inhale this amount of CO, these data do suggest concern about the relatively large amount of CO emitted directly into the air space surrounding the operator. For particulate matter exhaust emissions, the leaf blower emits eight to 49 times the particulates of a light duty vehicle, primarily because of the large amount of unburned fuel directly released by the two-stroke engine ... [and] for the average 1999 leaf blower and car data presented in Table 9, we calculate that hydrocarbon emissions from one-half hour of leaf blower operation equal about 7,700 miles of driving, at 30 miles per hour average speed. The carbon monoxide emission benchmark is signficantly different. For carbon monoxide, one-half hour of leaf blower useage (Table 9) would be equivalent to about 440 miles of automobile travel at 30 miles per hour average speed ([http://www.noiseoff.org/document/cepa.report.pdf] pages 50-51)."<br> - <br> - Since 2000, the US EPA has enacted a series of regulations mandating substantial improvements in emissions. The CEPA report, using data from 1998, includes a relatively small number of blowers produced after a 1995 USEPA regulation which mandated a 33% reduction in emissions. In 2000, a second phase of emissions reduction went into effect, resulting in an additional 70% reduction in hydrocarbon and NOx emissions over the initial 1995 regulation ([http://www.cleanaircounts.org/documents/Leaf%20Blowing%20Emissions%20Modeling%20Report.pdf source--p. 3]). In 2007, the EPA passed a third emissions regulation mandating an additional 35% reduction in hydrocarbon emissions, to go into effect by 2011 or 2012 depending on the size of the motor ([http://www.epa.gov/otaq/equip-ld.htm source]). The net effect is approximately an 87% reduction in emissions for gas blowers.</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 10:39:32TomGarbersonReplies to upisdown's very broad claims <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 76: </td> <td> Line 76: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * First, let's differentiate between "regulation" as a generalization and ''this'' regulation. The point to which you responded was criticizing ''this'' proposal for regulation, specifically because of the perception that the true underlying motivation is that some people find leaf-blowers annoying. Second, you're getting pretty far off base here. If you want to ban non-native plants in landscaping, you're welcome to argue for it, but it has nothing to do with leaf-blowers. And third, the global warming argument is pretty darned broad, and ignores the fact that in the past 15 years, the EPA has put regulations in place mandating an 87% reduction in hydrocarbon emissions and an 80% reduction in NOx emissions in leaf-blowers and other gas-powered gardening equipment. There's serious mitigation being done. If you want to argue that it's not enough, that's fine. But broad, sweeping claims that you don't even tie to this specific issue in a meaningful way don't add anything to the page. --["Users/TomGarberson"]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 80: </td> <td> Line 81: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * A ban on leaf blowers is not a market effect. Many people in Davis have invested in lawful, practical equipment for home improvement which you are saying should no longer be lawful to use. It's taking away a right and, in a practical sense, it's taking away property.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 84: </td> <td> Line 86: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * You're citing to an op-ed (translation: opinion/editorial) piece that makes no health claims, much less causal claims, much less causal claims that in any way invoke a scientific study. --["Users/TomGarberson"]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 88: </td> <td> Line 91: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- </span> </td> <td> <span>+ * This is a practical discussion. There are dozens of apartment complexes in Davis with grass areas, trees, etc. The cost of replacing all of that would be substantial. There's also the fact that some people ''like'' having grass areas. What you're suggesting again has little to do with the proposal to ban leaf-blowers and its effects on real-world Davis. It's a side issue.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 94: </td> <td> Line 97: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * What "health concerns"? There hasn't been any information provided on this page which suggests they're anything more than ''concerns''.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 98: </td> <td> Line 102: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * This is a straw man. No one made a claim that "a ban on leaf blowers could effect electric blowers."</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 106: </td> <td> Line 111: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Most leaf-blowers weigh between 2.7 and 5.5kg ([http://www.targetwoman.com/articles/leaf-blower.html source]), and many have a shoulder strap or something of the sort. They don't require bending or pulling. They have a minimal effect on balance, unlike raking. They can be used from wheel chairs or walkers. The same cannot be said of a rake.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 110: </td> <td> Line 116: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Another straw man. The point on the list to which you're responding refers to leaf vacuuming for composting/mulching in your own yard. Additionally, you're mistaken in assuming that the arguments against a ban are the reasoning of any one person.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 10:36:24JoePomidor <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 110: </td> <td> Line 110: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * There's no indication that the leaves are even leaving the property, why would you make that assumption? There are plenty of people who work on their own yards with their own equipment. Beyond that, why do you feel a need to revert to ad hom attacks? You can respond to an argument without insulting the person making it.<br> + <br> + <br> + Don't know where to put this data, but here is a list of cities that have leaf blower bans (found [http://www.nonoise.org/quietnet/cqs/other.htm here]) and the associated median household incomes (from Wikipedia): Belvedere ($130k), Berkeley ($57k), Beverly Hills (N/A), Carmel ($58), Claremont ($113k), Del Mar ($81k), Indian Wells ($94k), Laguna Beach ($90k), Los Altos ($158k), Malibu ($102k), Mill Valley ($90k), Piedmont ($134k), Santa Monica ($71k), Hermosa Beach ($81k), West Hollywood ($39k), Palo Alto ($119k), Portola Valley ($244k), and Sunnyvale($88k).<br> + </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 10:27:57upisdown <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p>No differences found!</div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 10:26:29upisdown <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 55: </td> <td> Line 55: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- </span> </td> <td> <span>+ * Exactly how is any of this relevant? It all still assumes that only rich people can afford a ban on using gas powered blowers to move leaves around. It implies there is only one solution and it is costly. That assumption is wrong - there are not only two possible outcomes.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 10:13:44CovertProfessor <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 54: </td> <td> Line 54: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Right -- so you are proving the point. A high median can include a lot of variance. The existence of mobile home parks was just one way of showing that. I was just responding to the claim that Sunnyvale is affluent; the truth is that parts are and parts aren't.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 10:09:17TomGarbersonAdding data: regulations mandating 87% reduction in emissions since CEPA study <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 22: </td> <td> Line 22: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> A<span>ccording to a report from the California Environmental Protection A</span>gency back in 2000<span>,</span> a leaf blower may produce much more pollution than a modern car in several categories excepting CO2. "For CO (Table 9), the estimated 423 g emitted by one hour of leaf blower use is approximately 26 times the amount emitted by a new vehicle, but approximately one-third of the CO emissions of an older vehicle. While not implying that the operator will inhale this amount of CO, these data do suggest concern about the relatively large amount of CO emitted directly into the air space surrounding the operator. For particulate matter exhaust emissions, the leaf blower emits eight to 49 times the particulates of a light duty vehicle, primarily because of the large amount of unburned fuel directly released by the two-stroke engine ... [and] for the average 1999 leaf blower and car data presented in Table 9, we calculate that hydrocarbon emissions from one-half hour of leaf blower operation equal about 7,700 miles of driving, at 30 miles per hour average speed. The carbon monoxide emission benchmark is signficantly different. For carbon monoxide, one-half hour of leaf blower useage (Table 9) would be equivalent to about 440 miles of automobile travel at 30 miles per hour average speed ([http://www.noiseoff.org/document/cepa.report.pdf] pages 50-51)." </td> <td> <span>+ Based on 1998 data, a report from the California Environmental Protection</span> Agency back in 2000<span>&nbsp;found that</span> a leaf blower may produce much more pollution than a modern car in several categories excepting CO2. "For CO (Table 9), the estimated 423 g emitted by one hour of leaf blower use is approximately 26 times the amount emitted by a new vehicle, but approximately one-third of the CO emissions of an older vehicle. While not implying that the operator will inhale this amount of CO, these data do suggest concern about the relatively large amount of CO emitted directly into the air space surrounding the operator. For particulate matter exhaust emissions, the leaf blower emits eight to 49 times the particulates of a light duty vehicle, primarily because of the large amount of unburned fuel directly released by the two-stroke engine ... [and] for the average 1999 leaf blower and car data presented in Table 9, we calculate that hydrocarbon emissions from one-half hour of leaf blower operation equal about 7,700 miles of driving, at 30 miles per hour average speed. The carbon monoxide emission benchmark is signficantly different. For carbon monoxide, one-half hour of leaf blower useage (Table 9) would be equivalent to about 440 miles of automobile travel at 30 miles per hour average speed ([http://www.noiseoff.org/document/cepa.report.pdf] pages 50-51)."<span><br> + <br> + Since 2000, the US EPA has enacted a series of regulations mandating substantial improvements in emissions. The CEPA report, using data from 1998, includes a relatively small number of blowers produced after a 1995 USEPA regulation which mandated a 33% reduction in emissions. In 2000, a second phase of emissions reduction went into effect, resulting in an additional 70% reduction in hydrocarbon and NOx emissions over the initial 1995 regulation ([http://www.cleanaircounts.org/documents/Leaf%20Blowing%20Emissions%20Modeling%20Report.pdf source--p. 3]). In 2007, the EPA passed a third emissions regulation mandating an additional 35% reduction in hydrocarbon emissions, to go into effect by 2011 or 2012 depending on the size of the motor ([http://www.epa.gov/otaq/equip-ld.htm source]). The net effect is approximately an 87% reduction in emissions for gas blowers.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 10:08:47JoePomidor <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 51: </td> <td> Line 51: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I don't think people in mobile home parks will be overly affected by a leaf blower ban. Beyond that, the median income is still very high, which means for every person making, say, $42,000/yr in a mobile home park, there is some other household in the city making $134,000. Popular approval does not mean that everyone agreed, just enough to make it happen.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 09:43:14CovertProfessor <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 50: </td> <td> Line 50: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Many are not affluent in Sunnyvale. Sunnyvale has a number of mobile home parks (Google it).</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 04:27:49ScottMeehleib <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 30: </td> <td> Line 30: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> As a matter of fact, through reasonable regulations of similar sizes and characteristics across Northern California, including but not limited to Palo Alto, Sunnyvale and Los Altos have made the issue of leaf-blowers into a benefit to the community with less noise and air pollution by starting programs like collecting the leaves for composting. In fact, at least 20 cities in California already have leaf blower bans in place. </td> <td> <span>+</span> As a matter of fact, through reasonable regulation<span>s, many citie</span>s of similar sizes and characteristics across Northern California, including but not limited to Palo Alto, Sunnyvale and Los Altos have made the issue of leaf-blowers into a benefit to the community with less noise and air pollution by starting programs like collecting the leaves for composting. In fact, at least 20 cities in California already have leaf blower bans in place. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 04:23:00ScottMeehleibat least 20 cities have enacted leaf blower bans in Cali <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 30: </td> <td> Line 30: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> As a matter of fact, through reasonable regulation<span>s, many citie</span>s of similar sizes and characteristics across Northern California, including but not limited to Palo Alto, Sunnyvale and Los Altos have made the issue of leaf-blowers into a benefit to the community with less noise and air pollution by starting programs like collecting the leaves for composting.. </td> <td> <span>+</span> As a matter of fact, through reasonable regulations of similar sizes and characteristics across Northern California, including but not limited to Palo Alto, Sunnyvale and Los Altos have made the issue of leaf-blowers into a benefit to the community with less noise and air pollution by starting programs like collecting the leaves for composting.<span>&nbsp;In fact, at least 20 cities in California already have leaf blower bans in place</span>. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 03:39:47ScottMeehleibclarifying <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 22: </td> <td> Line 22: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> According to a report from the California Environmental Protection Agency back in 2000, a leaf blower may produce much more pollution than a modern car in several <span>respects</span>. "For CO (Table 9), the estimated 423 g emitted by one hour of leaf blower use is approximately 26 times the amount emitted by a new vehicle, but approximately one-third of the CO emissions of an older vehicle. While not implying that the operator will inhale this amount of CO, these data do suggest concern about the relatively large amount of CO emitted directly into the air space surrounding the operator. For particulate matter exhaust emissions, the leaf blower emits eight to 49 times the particulates of a light duty vehicle, primarily because of the large amount of unburned fuel directly released by the two-stroke engine ... [and] for the average 1999 leaf blower and car data presented in Table 9, we calculate that hydrocarbon emissions from one-half hour of leaf blower operation equal about 7,700 miles of driving, at 30 miles per hour average speed. The carbon monoxide emission benchmark is signficantly different. For carbon monoxide, one-half hour of leaf blower useage (Table 9) would be equivalent to about 440 miles of automobile travel at 30 miles per hour average speed ([http://www.noiseoff.org/document/cepa.report.pdf] pages 50-51)." </td> <td> <span>+</span> According to a report from the California Environmental Protection Agency back in 2000, a leaf blower may produce much more pollution than a modern car in several <span>categories excepting CO2</span>. "For CO (Table 9), the estimated 423 g emitted by one hour of leaf blower use is approximately 26 times the amount emitted by a new vehicle, but approximately one-third of the CO emissions of an older vehicle. While not implying that the operator will inhale this amount of CO, these data do suggest concern about the relatively large amount of CO emitted directly into the air space surrounding the operator. For particulate matter exhaust emissions, the leaf blower emits eight to 49 times the particulates of a light duty vehicle, primarily because of the large amount of unburned fuel directly released by the two-stroke engine ... [and] for the average 1999 leaf blower and car data presented in Table 9, we calculate that hydrocarbon emissions from one-half hour of leaf blower operation equal about 7,700 miles of driving, at 30 miles per hour average speed. The carbon monoxide emission benchmark is signficantly different. For carbon monoxide, one-half hour of leaf blower useage (Table 9) would be equivalent to about 440 miles of automobile travel at 30 miles per hour average speed ([http://www.noiseoff.org/document/cepa.report.pdf] pages 50-51)." </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 03:32:17ScottMeehleibadded quotes from California EPA report regarding leaf blowers <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 21: </td> <td> Line 21: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + According to a report from the California Environmental Protection Agency back in 2000, a leaf blower may produce much more pollution than a modern car in several respects. "For CO (Table 9), the estimated 423 g emitted by one hour of leaf blower use is approximately 26 times the amount emitted by a new vehicle, but approximately one-third of the CO emissions of an older vehicle. While not implying that the operator will inhale this amount of CO, these data do suggest concern about the relatively large amount of CO emitted directly into the air space surrounding the operator. For particulate matter exhaust emissions, the leaf blower emits eight to 49 times the particulates of a light duty vehicle, primarily because of the large amount of unburned fuel directly released by the two-stroke engine ... [and] for the average 1999 leaf blower and car data presented in Table 9, we calculate that hydrocarbon emissions from one-half hour of leaf blower operation equal about 7,700 miles of driving, at 30 miles per hour average speed. The carbon monoxide emission benchmark is signficantly different. For carbon monoxide, one-half hour of leaf blower useage (Table 9) would be equivalent to about 440 miles of automobile travel at 30 miles per hour average speed ([http://www.noiseoff.org/document/cepa.report.pdf] pages 50-51)."</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 01:19:48upisdown <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 218: </td> <td> Line 218: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Since we don't live in a utopia every person we deal with is not a rational person capable of reason. Or what if they are a business and they have to weight making money or not annoying you - sorry but they are going to choose make a profit every time because you don't pay them and that is completely rational for them to do so. That is the whole point of having local government is so that we can come together and discuss things and try to make policies with foresight that benefit the most people possible.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 01:15:33upisdown <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 303: </td> <td> Line 303: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Well trains are not really comparable to gas powered blowers considering they have entirely different purposes. There seems like quite a bit of circle jerking going on in a few of these comment threads.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 01:05:26upisdown <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 90: </td> <td> Line 90: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- * THIS IS LOCAL POLITICS! Your voice is more significant here than on any other level of government. If you are afraid to ban gas blowers because electric blowers are good you could voice this and affect the policy. However using this as a way to protect gas blowers is disingenuous.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ * This is local politics. Your voice is more significant here than on any other level of government. If you are afraid to ban gas blowers because electric blowers are good you could voice this and affect the policy. However using this as a way to protect gas blowers is disingenuous.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 01:04:53upisdown <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 98: </td> <td> Line 98: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * So wait you are saying old people can carry heavy engines on their backs and blow leaves around but they cant lift a rake? This is just absurd. You are really grasping. </td> <td> <span>+</span> * So wait you are saying old people can carry heavy engines on their backs and blow leaves around but they cant lift a rake? This is just absurd. You are really grasping.<span>&nbsp;Maybe they should keep landscaping they are capable of taking care of, or talk to neighbors to get help or pay people. We shouldn't continence trump our collective space.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 00:28:16JoePomidor(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 47: </td> <td> Line 47: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I think that the implication is that it is a preexisting expensive neighborhood, so the people who live there might be more inclined to pay a premium for the same service. I can guarantee that Davis is not populated by as affluent of people as Sunnyvale (median household income in Sunnyvale is ~$88,000, as opposed to $42,000 in Davis). --["Users/JoePomidor"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-29 00:09:30TomGarbersonComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 318: </td> <td> Line 318: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-11-28 23:09:30'' [[nbsp]] If anyone wants to take the time to summarize the findings, the EPA did a study on leaf-blowers and vacuums' effect on particulates: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ei15/session5/fitz.pdf --["Users/TomGarberson"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-28 23:43:57upisdown <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 318: </td> <td> Line 318: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ------<br> - ''2010-11-28 22:37:56'' [[nbsp]] I sympathize with the workers who receive the yard work - even though I don't think lawns are practical and people should find better uses for the land. But if people were required to rake they would get more hours and be better off while lazy white people with obsessions about European standards have to pay more. I would like it. --["Users/upisdown"]</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-28 23:43:53upisdown <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 320: </td> <td> Line 320: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ------<br> - ''2010-11-28 22:39:04'' [[nbsp]] I sympathize with the workers who receive the yard work - even though I don't think lawns are practical and people should find better uses for the land. But if people were required to rake they would get more hours and be better off while lazy white people with obsessions about European standards have to pay more. I would like it. --["Users/upisdown"]</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-28 23:39:04upisdownComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 320: </td> <td> Line 320: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-11-28 22:39:04'' [[nbsp]] I sympathize with the workers who receive the yard work - even though I don't think lawns are practical and people should find better uses for the land. But if people were required to rake they would get more hours and be better off while lazy white people with obsessions about European standards have to pay more. I would like it. --["Users/upisdown"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-28 23:37:56upisdownComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 318: </td> <td> Line 318: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-11-28 22:37:56'' [[nbsp]] I sympathize with the workers who receive the yard work - even though I don't think lawns are practical and people should find better uses for the land. But if people were required to rake they would get more hours and be better off while lazy white people with obsessions about European standards have to pay more. I would like it. --["Users/upisdown"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-28 23:34:33upisdown <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 81: </td> <td> Line 81: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Why are we still maintaining lawns anyways? What is the obsession with old European standards of landscape beauty which are clearly unsustainable in our environment since we don't have the same climate these rules were developed. </td> <td> <span>+ *</span> Why are we still maintaining lawns anyways? What is the obsession with old European standards of landscape beauty which are clearly unsustainable in our environment since we don't have the same climate these rules were developed. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 171: </td> <td> Line 171: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * So in your view of the universe we all live on these separate islands where our actions don't affect each other? You don't believe you share the environment with everyone else and everyone yet to be born?</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-28 23:31:35upisdown <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 67: </td> <td> Line 67: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- * So you are saying using fossil fuel powered equipment to break up natural ecological processes of recapturing nutrients does not have an effect on the environment? Are you kidding me? Maintaining lawns is incredibly energy costly - and any steps to making this practice more expensive will encourage people to adopt lawns which better reflect the climate they live in - such as drought resistant lawns in deserts. Can I assume you believe in global warming? Also your claim of putting the cart before the horse is wrong, because I was making a rebuttal to the suggestion that regulation is the act of an authoritarian government. I had to only prove that there are rational reasons for regulation - I had no obligation to argue that leaf blowers was one of them - but I did earlier in this paragraph for your sake. Cheers.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ * So you are saying using fossil fuel powered equipment to break up natural ecological processes of recapturing nutrients does not have an effect on the environment? Are you kidding me? Maintaining lawns is incredibly energy costly - and any steps to making this practice more expensive will encourage people to adopt lawns which better reflect the climate they live in - such as drought resistant lawns in deserts. Can I assume you believe in global warming? Also your claim of putting the cart before the horse is wrong, because I was making a rebuttal to the suggestion that regulation is an act monopolized by authoritarian governments (Which was trying to clearly draw negative associations with from authoritarian governments in history; nice use of emotion) . I had to only prove that there are rational reasons for regulation - I had no obligation to argue that leaf blowers was one of them - but I did earlier in this paragraph for your sake. Cheers.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-28 23:29:19upisdown <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 41: </td> <td> Line 41: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * RE It is not always wise to let businesses make their own decisions when it comes to the environment because we all share it. We should be careful when we allow businesses to cut corners to increase profits at the cost of all of our health. It is completely rational and shows foresight to use our local politics to make wise decisions to protect our environment. ~~~ </td> <td> <span>+ </span> * RE It is not always wise to let businesses make their own decisions when it comes to the environment because we all share it. We should be careful when we allow businesses to cut corners to increase profits at the cost of all of our health. It is completely rational and shows foresight to use our local politics to make wise decisions to protect our environment. ~~~ </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 46: </td> <td> Line 46: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * RE You seem to be making a few logical fallacies here, you seem to be suggesting that because Sunnyvale and has no blowers and that it is expensive, so having no blowers means an area is expensive. Therefore if Davis has no blowers it will be expensive. First of all Davis is expensive, and second it is incredibly misleading to suggest that having no blowers is the only factor in the price of housing. The fact that Davis is in the middle of nowhere and the area you mentioned is near the Bay would probably be a bigger factor than leaf blowing. ~~~ </td> <td> <span>+ </span> * RE You seem to be making a few logical fallacies here, you seem to be suggesting that because Sunnyvale and has no blowers and that it is expensive, so having no blowers means an area is expensive. Therefore if Davis has no blowers it will be expensive. First of all Davis is expensive, and second it is incredibly misleading to suggest that having no blowers is the only factor in the price of housing. The fact that Davis is in the middle of nowhere and the area you mentioned is near the Bay would probably be a bigger factor than leaf blowing. ~~~ </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-28 23:28:06upisdown <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 136: </td> <td> Line 136: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Banning dogs in Davis that bark and crap on my lawn because they are annoying too. </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Banning dogs in Davis that bark and crap on my lawn because they are annoying too.<span>&nbsp;(Actually there are laws requiring people to clean up after there dogs and they are good.)</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 138: </td> <td> Line 138: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Banning trains from coming through because they are loud. </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Banning trains from coming through because they are loud.<span>&nbsp;(Well actually trains serve a very different purpose than leaf blowers so this comparison is faulty.)</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-28 23:25:30upisdown <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 66: </td> <td> Line 66: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * You're putting the cart before the horse. If you want to sell people on the idea, you're going to want to make a case for the notion that leaf blowers are doing some sort of harm before suggesting that they need to be regulated. People disagreeing with the ban are doing so, for the most part, because no one advocating the ban has offered any evidence that it causes any sort of harm beyond mild annoyance. "Necessary regulations" to "protect the environment" are one thing. But if you want to use those lines in this context, you first need to establish 1) harm to the environment; 2) that banning leaf-blowers (particularly just gas ones, as advocated here) would prevent that harm; and 3) there's not another, less restrictive way to prevent the harm. Otherwise, the regulation is neither necessary, nor is it protecting the environment. --["Users/TomGarberson"] </td> <td> <span>+ </span> * You're putting the cart before the horse. If you want to sell people on the idea, you're going to want to make a case for the notion that leaf blowers are doing some sort of harm before suggesting that they need to be regulated. People disagreeing with the ban are doing so, for the most part, because no one advocating the ban has offered any evidence that it causes any sort of harm beyond mild annoyance. "Necessary regulations" to "protect the environment" are one thing. But if you want to use those lines in this context, you first need to establish 1) harm to the environment; 2) that banning leaf-blowers (particularly just gas ones, as advocated here) would prevent that harm; and 3) there's not another, less restrictive way to prevent the harm. Otherwise, the regulation is neither necessary, nor is it protecting the environment. --["Users/TomGarberson"]<span><br> + * So you are saying using fossil fuel powered equipment to break up natural ecological processes of recapturing nutrients does not have an effect on the environment? Are you kidding me? Maintaining lawns is incredibly energy costly - and any steps to making this practice more expensive will encourage people to adopt lawns which better reflect the climate they live in - such as drought resistant lawns in deserts. Can I assume you believe in global warming? Also your claim of putting the cart before the horse is wrong, because I was making a rebuttal to the suggestion that regulation is the act of an authoritarian government. I had to only prove that there are rational reasons for regulation - I had no obligation to argue that leaf blowers was one of them - but I did earlier in this paragraph for your sake. Cheers.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-28 23:19:03upisdown <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 37: </td> <td> Line 37: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * How is it not relevant? It is a superior of the Lung Association confirming their organization has drawn connections between leaf blowers contribute to air pollution. Here is an article on the specifics: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10132/1057366-109.stm written by two people in related fields describing the results of the Lung Assocation report.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-28 23:12:20upisdown <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 64: </td> <td> Line 64: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> There have been many necessary regulations put in place to protect the environment because business are not obligated to protect the environment, they are simply obligated to increase profits for share holders. So in our system it is completely rational for them to disregard long term environmental damage for short term profit. That is why we have the checks of regulation against business, so that we can use our foresight to determine long term problems and try to prevent them from happening. Because the profit corporations make on the environment effects everyone. ~~~ </td> <td> <span>+ *</span> There have been many necessary regulations put in place to protect the environment because business are not obligated to protect the environment, they are simply obligated to increase profits for share holders. So in our system it is completely rational for them to disregard long term environmental damage for short term profit. That is why we have the checks of regulation against business, so that we can use our foresight to determine long term problems and try to prevent them from happening. Because the profit corporations make on the environment effects everyone. ~~~ </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-28 23:07:26TomGarbersonReplies re: allergies "study" and "necessary regulations" <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 35: </td> <td> Line 35: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * RE Well anecdotes shouldn't be used when trying to argue points since they are notoriously unreliable. You should consider instead doing research. Doing a quick google search I was able to find several people claiming there was a Lung Association study on the subject. So instead of take what they say as the truth I did the foot work and looked it up for everyone ( http://www.lungusa.org/associations/states/new-york/pressroom/assets/op-eds-and-letters-to-newspaper-editors/leaf-blower-bans-aid-air.pdf ) and they have concluded that it is a source of air pollution. Just consider how the piece of machinery operations, of course it is kicking up pollutants into our air which could be damaging to our health - its not rocket science. This does not discount that fact that Davis already does have a lot of allergens due to wind pollinated trees such as Walnut - but that doesn't mean that the blowers do not contribute. ~~~ </td> <td> <span>+ </span> * RE Well anecdotes shouldn't be used when trying to argue points since they are notoriously unreliable. You should consider instead doing research. Doing a quick google search I was able to find several people claiming there was a Lung Association study on the subject. So instead of take what they say as the truth I did the foot work and looked it up for everyone ( http://www.lungusa.org/associations/states/new-york/pressroom/assets/op-eds-and-letters-to-newspaper-editors/leaf-blower-bans-aid-air.pdf ) and they have concluded that it is a source of air pollution. Just consider how the piece of machinery operations, of course it is kicking up pollutants into our air which could be damaging to our health - its not rocket science. This does not discount that fact that Davis already does have a lot of allergens due to wind pollinated trees such as Walnut - but that doesn't mean that the blowers do not contribute. ~~~<span><br> + * Did you include the wrong link here? That pdf doesn't offer any information on any remotely relevant Lung Association study (I don't think a "State of the Air" report for Westchester County finding that it's smoggy fits the bill). It's an opinion piece that doesn't even make any real causal claims. --["Users/TomGarberson"]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 64: </td> <td> Line 65: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * You're putting the cart before the horse. If you want to sell people on the idea, you're going to want to make a case for the notion that leaf blowers are doing some sort of harm before suggesting that they need to be regulated. People disagreeing with the ban are doing so, for the most part, because no one advocating the ban has offered any evidence that it causes any sort of harm beyond mild annoyance. "Necessary regulations" to "protect the environment" are one thing. But if you want to use those lines in this context, you first need to establish 1) harm to the environment; 2) that banning leaf-blowers (particularly just gas ones, as advocated here) would prevent that harm; and 3) there's not another, less restrictive way to prevent the harm. Otherwise, the regulation is neither necessary, nor is it protecting the environment. --["Users/TomGarberson"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-28 23:05:41upisdown <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 44: </td> <td> Line 44: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * RE You seem to be making a few logical fallacies here, you seem to be suggesting that because Sunnyvale and has no blowers that it is expensive, so having no blowers means an area is expensive. Therefore if Davis has no blowers it will be expensive. First of all Davis is expensive, and second it is incredibly misleading to suggest that having no blowers is the only factor in the price of housing. The fact that Davis is in the middle of nowhere and the area you mentioned is near the Bay would probably be a bigger factor than leaf blowing. ~~~ </td> <td> <span>+</span> * RE You seem to be making a few logical fallacies here, you seem to be suggesting that because Sunnyvale and has no blowers<span>&nbsp;and</span> that it is expensive, so having no blowers means an area is expensive. Therefore if Davis has no blowers it will be expensive. First of all Davis is expensive, and second it is incredibly misleading to suggest that having no blowers is the only factor in the price of housing. The fact that Davis is in the middle of nowhere and the area you mentioned is near the Bay would probably be a bigger factor than leaf blowing. ~~~ </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-28 23:04:19upisdown <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p>No differences found!</div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-28 23:00:14upisdown <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 16: </td> <td> Line 16: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * ''There is a [http://www.facebook.com/pages/Davisites-LNPP/122631437795225 Facebook page] concerning this issue. They plan to use "Likes" on the Facebook page to push the city council to regulate leaf blowers more. Do your part to help ["Keep Davis Boring"]!'' </td> <td> <span>+</span> * ''There is a [http://www.facebook.com/pages/Davisites-LNPP/122631437795225 Facebook page] concerning this issue. They plan to use "Likes" on the Facebook page to push the city council to regulate leaf blowers more. Do your part to help ["Keep Davis Boring"]!''<span>&nbsp;(WTF? How are leafblowers associated with fun? What is boring about not having a leaf blower wake you up after a night of drinking?)</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 64: </td> <td> Line 64: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + "RE: Is the city going to buy the leaf blowers?"<br> + <br> + * No. Why should they? I don't see how this is an argument against to be honest, it just seems like a poorly thought out question. If you believe in capitalism you should look at this as the market punishing companies for making investments which the citizens think are poor. They should not have invested in to unsustainable technologies and they most certainly should not be compensated for it.<br> + <br> + "RE: here is no non-anecdotal proof that they contribute to asthma "<br> + <br> + * This is either an out right lie or a lack of research because there is and the research was done by the Lung Association. It seems there is only anecdotal evidence saying there is no problem. You should consider doing research before typing with such certainty. Doing a quick google search I was able to find several people claiming there was a Lung Association study on the subject. So instead of take what they say as the truth I did the foot work and looked it up for everyone ( http://www.lungusa.org/associations/states/new-york/pressroom/assets/op-eds-and-letters-to-newspaper-editors/leaf-blower-bans-aid-air.pdf ) and they have concluded that it is a source of air pollution. Just consider how the piece of machinery operations, of course it is kicking up pollutants into our air which could be damaging to our health - its not rocket science.<br> + <br> + "RE: Apartments will pass along the costs"<br> + <br> + * First of all you are assuming that there would have to be additional costs. Instead of paying landscapers apartments could use the grass areas to plant community gardens - apartment complexes have MANY options. You are suggesting that we have two options: expensive apartments with no blowers or cheap apartments with blowers. That clearly is a false assessment of the possible situations. In fact the legislators could add provisions to protect landowners from doing that. This is local politics, your say has more of an effect on this than any other form of governmental politics. You could always voice your concern and try to help shape the law.<br> + <br> + Why are we still maintaining lawns anyways? What is the obsession with old European standards of landscape beauty which are clearly unsustainable in our environment since we don't have the same climate these rules were developed.<br> + <br> + "RE: We already have noise violation laws"<br> + <br> + * That still does not address the health concerns. Or environmental concerns from use of oil.<br> + <br> + "RE: A Ban on leaf blowers could effect electric blowers"<br> + <br> + * THIS IS LOCAL POLITICS! Your voice is more significant here than on any other level of government. If you are afraid to ban gas blowers because electric blowers are good you could voice this and affect the policy. However using this as a way to protect gas blowers is disingenuous.<br> + <br> + "RE: Raking can be bad for certain plants"<br> + <br> + * Well removing leaf litter in general is bad for plants (Unless it is blocking light). This material would normally be broken down and then reused by the plant. Using incredible amounts of energy to move this leaf litter to a different area to be decomposed so it can be wrapped up in plastic and shipped back to be used as soil amendment is wasteful. Leaf blowers also have negative impacts of plants by removing potentially beneficial insects or pollinators.<br> + <br> + "RE: Bans would prevent the elderly from working on their own landscapes"<br> + <br> + * So wait you are saying old people can carry heavy engines on their backs and blow leaves around but they cant lift a rake? This is just absurd. You are really grasping.<br> + <br> + "RE: But leaves make mulch and compost"<br> + <br> + * Using incredible amounts of energy to move this leaf litter to a different area to be decomposed so it can be wrapped up in plastic and shipped back to be used as soil amendment is wasteful. There are much better alternatives. Reading through your reasoning I question if you are able to see more than two possibilities for any given problem.<br> + </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-28 22:47:17ScottMeehleiblinks to noise ordinance and pollution entries <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 2: </td> <td> Line 2: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> A movement exists in Davis to '''ban leaf-blowers''' (or at least gas powered ones) due to their effects on the local surroundings, in terms of <span>noise</span>, ["air quality"] and the environmental impact of the engines. One of the groups that wishes to ban them is the Davisites for Less Noise and Particle Pollution, or DLNPP. They have a facebook group, and are trying to rally enough people to their cause to persuade the ["Davis City Council"] to recognize their concerns and take action. </td> <td> <span>+</span> A movement exists in Davis to '''ban leaf-blowers''' (or at least gas powered ones) due to their effects on the local surroundings, in terms of <span>["noise ordinance" noise]</span>, ["air quality"] and the <span>["pollution" </span>environmental impact<span>]</span> of the engines. One of the groups that wishes to ban them is the Davisites for Less Noise and Particle Pollution, or DLNPP. They have a facebook group, and are trying to rally enough people to their cause to persuade the ["Davis City Council"] to recognize their concerns and take action. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-28 22:37:28ScottMeehleiblink to air quality entry <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 2: </td> <td> Line 2: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> A movement exists in Davis to '''ban leaf-blowers''' (or at least gas powered ones) due to their effects on the local surroundings, in terms of noise, air quality and the environmental impact of the engines. One of the groups that wishes to ban them is the Davisites for Less Noise and Particle Pollution, or DLNPP. They have a facebook group, and are trying to rally enough people to their cause to persuade the ["Davis City Council"] to recognize their concerns and take action. </td> <td> <span>+</span> A movement exists in Davis to '''ban leaf-blowers''' (or at least gas powered ones) due to their effects on the local surroundings, in terms of noise, <span>["</span>air quality<span>"]</span> and the environmental impact of the engines. One of the groups that wishes to ban them is the Davisites for Less Noise and Particle Pollution, or DLNPP. They have a facebook group, and are trying to rally enough people to their cause to persuade the ["Davis City Council"] to recognize their concerns and take action. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-28 22:36:22upisdown <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 35: </td> <td> Line 35: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * RE Well anecdotes shouldn't be used when trying to argue points since they are notoriously unreliable. You should consider instead doing research. Doing a quick google search I was able to find several people claiming there was a Lung Association study on the subject. So instead of take what they say as the truth I did the foot work and looked it up for everyone ( http://www.lungusa.org/associations/states/new-york/pressroom/assets/op-eds-and-letters-to-newspaper-editors/leaf-blower-bans-aid-air.pdf ) and they have concluded that it is a source of air pollution. Just consider how the piece of machinery operations, of course it is kicking up pollutants into our air which could be damaging to our health - its not rocket science. This does not discount that fact that Davis already does have a lot of allergens due to wind pollinated trees such as Walnut - but that doesn't mean that the blowers do not contribute. ~~~ </td> <td> <span>+ </span> * RE Well anecdotes shouldn't be used when trying to argue points since they are notoriously unreliable. You should consider instead doing research. Doing a quick google search I was able to find several people claiming there was a Lung Association study on the subject. So instead of take what they say as the truth I did the foot work and looked it up for everyone ( http://www.lungusa.org/associations/states/new-york/pressroom/assets/op-eds-and-letters-to-newspaper-editors/leaf-blower-bans-aid-air.pdf ) and they have concluded that it is a source of air pollution. Just consider how the piece of machinery operations, of course it is kicking up pollutants into our air which could be damaging to our health - its not rocket science. This does not discount that fact that Davis already does have a lot of allergens due to wind pollinated trees such as Walnut - but that doesn't mean that the blowers do not contribute. ~~~ </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 39: </td> <td> Line 39: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * RE It is not always wise to let businesses make their own decisions when it comes to the environment because we all share it. We should be careful when we allow businesses to cut corners to increase profits at the cost of all of our health. It is completely rational and shows foresight to use our local politics to make wise decisions to protect our environment. ~~~ </td> <td> <span>+ </span> * RE It is not always wise to let businesses make their own decisions when it comes to the environment because we all share it. We should be careful when we allow businesses to cut corners to increase profits at the cost of all of our health. It is completely rational and shows foresight to use our local politics to make wise decisions to protect our environment. ~~~ </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 44: </td> <td> Line 44: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * RE You seem to be making a few logical fallacies here, you seem to be suggesting that because Sunnyvale and has no blowers that it is expensive, so having no blowers means an area is expensive. Therefore if Davis has no blowers it will be expensive. First of all Davis is expensive, and second it is incredibly misleading to suggest that having no blowers is the only factor in the price of housing. The fact that Davis is in the middle of nowhere and the area you mentioned is near the Bay would probably be a bigger factor than leaf blowing. ~~~ </td> <td> <span>+ </span> * RE You seem to be making a few logical fallacies here, you seem to be suggesting that because Sunnyvale and has no blowers that it is expensive, so having no blowers means an area is expensive. Therefore if Davis has no blowers it will be expensive. First of all Davis is expensive, and second it is incredibly misleading to suggest that having no blowers is the only factor in the price of housing. The fact that Davis is in the middle of nowhere and the area you mentioned is near the Bay would probably be a bigger factor than leaf blowing. ~~~ </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 61: </td> <td> Line 61: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Ignoring that this is a poorly disguised ad hom, we do not live in a libertarian paradise without any regulation. Regulation exist and with good cause, because we do not all live on our own private islands where our actions only effect ourselves. We live in a community where the actions of one on the environment effect everyone around them. This is the entire reason humans decided on creating a civilization and government, so that we can create rules and regulations which we believe are fair, protect the community and benefit the most people at a time. Local government is a rare thing in the sense that you have more power because the number of voters is so much smaller than national elections - so rules created by this system are a result of the closest you will ever get to real democracy and to suggest that is authoritarian is ignorant.<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> There have been many necessary regulations put in place to protect the environment because business are not obligated to protect the environment, they are simply obligated to increase profits for share holders. So in our system it is completely rational for them to disregard long term environmental damage for short term profit. That is why we have the checks of regulation against business, so that we can use our foresight to determine long term problems and try to prevent them from happening. Because the profit corporations make on the environment effects everyone. </td> <td> <span>+ </span> * Ignoring that this is a poorly disguised ad hom, we do not live in a libertarian paradise without any regulation. Regulation exist and with good cause, because we do not all live on our own private islands where our actions only effect ourselves. We live in a community where the actions of one on the environment effect everyone around them. This is the entire reason humans decided on creating a civilization and government, so that we can create rules and regulations which we believe are fair, protect the community and benefit the most people at a time. Local government is a rare thing in the sense that you have more power because the number of voters is so much smaller than national elections - so rules created by this system are a result of the closest you will ever get to real democracy and to suggest that is authoritarian is ignorant.<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> There have been many necessary regulations put in place to protect the environment because business are not obligated to protect the environment, they are simply obligated to increase profits for share holders. So in our system it is completely rational for them to disregard long term environmental damage for short term profit. That is why we have the checks of regulation against business, so that we can use our foresight to determine long term problems and try to prevent them from happening. Because the profit corporations make on the environment effects everyone.<span>&nbsp;~~~</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-28 22:34:39upisdown <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 35: </td> <td> Line 35: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * RE Well anecdotes shouldn't be used when trying to argue points since they are notoriously unreliable. You should consider instead doing research. Doing a quick google search I was able to find several people claiming there was a Lung Association study on the subject. So instead of take what they say as the truth I did the foot work and looked it up for everyone ( http://www.lungusa.org/associations/states/new-york/pressroom/assets/op-eds-and-letters-to-newspaper-editors/leaf-blower-bans-aid-air.pdf ) and they have concluded that it is a source of air pollution. Just consider how the piece of machinery operations, of course it is kicking up pollutants into our air which could be damaging to our health - its not rocket science. This does not discount that fact that Davis already does have a lot of allergens due to wind pollinated trees such as Walnut - but that doesn't mean that the blowers do not contribute. ~~ </td> <td> <span>+</span> * RE Well anecdotes shouldn't be used when trying to argue points since they are notoriously unreliable. You should consider instead doing research. Doing a quick google search I was able to find several people claiming there was a Lung Association study on the subject. So instead of take what they say as the truth I did the foot work and looked it up for everyone ( http://www.lungusa.org/associations/states/new-york/pressroom/assets/op-eds-and-letters-to-newspaper-editors/leaf-blower-bans-aid-air.pdf ) and they have concluded that it is a source of air pollution. Just consider how the piece of machinery operations, of course it is kicking up pollutants into our air which could be damaging to our health - its not rocket science. This does not discount that fact that Davis already does have a lot of allergens due to wind pollinated trees such as Walnut - but that doesn't mean that the blowers do not contribute. ~~<span>~</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 39: </td> <td> Line 39: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * RE It is not always wise to let businesses make their own decisions when it comes to the environment because we all share it. We should be careful when we allow businesses to cut corners to increase profits at the cost of all of our health. It is completely rational and shows foresight to use our local politics to make wise decisions to protect our environment. ~~ </td> <td> <span>+</span> * RE It is not always wise to let businesses make their own decisions when it comes to the environment because we all share it. We should be careful when we allow businesses to cut corners to increase profits at the cost of all of our health. It is completely rational and shows foresight to use our local politics to make wise decisions to protect our environment. ~~<span>~</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 44: </td> <td> Line 44: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * RE You seem to be making a few logical fallacies here, you seem to be suggesting that because Sunnyvale and has no blowers that it is expensive, so having no blowers means an area is expensive. Therefore if Davis has no blowers it will be expensive. First of all Davis is expensive, and second it is incredibly misleading to suggest that having no blowers is the only factor in the price of housing. The fact that Davis is in the middle of nowhere and the area you mentioned is near the Bay would probably be a bigger factor than leaf blowing. ~~ </td> <td> <span>+</span> * RE You seem to be making a few logical fallacies here, you seem to be suggesting that because Sunnyvale and has no blowers that it is expensive, so having no blowers means an area is expensive. Therefore if Davis has no blowers it will be expensive. First of all Davis is expensive, and second it is incredibly misleading to suggest that having no blowers is the only factor in the price of housing. The fact that Davis is in the middle of nowhere and the area you mentioned is near the Bay would probably be a bigger factor than leaf blowing. ~~<span>~</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-28 22:34:01upisdown <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 35: </td> <td> Line 35: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * <span>*</span> Well anecdotes shouldn't be used when trying to argue points since they are notoriously unreliable. You should consider instead doing research. Doing a quick google search I was able to find several people claiming there was a Lung Association study on the subject. So instead of take what they say as the truth I did the foot work and looked it up for everyone ( http://www.lungusa.org/associations/states/new-york/pressroom/assets/op-eds-and-letters-to-newspaper-editors/leaf-blower-bans-aid-air.pdf ) and they have concluded that it is a source of air pollution. Just consider how the piece of machinery operations, of course it is kicking up pollutants into our air which could be damaging to our health - its not rocket science. This does not discount that fact that Davis already does have a lot of allergens due to wind pollinated trees such as Walnut - but that doesn't mean that the blowers do not contribute. ~~ </td> <td> <span>+</span> * <span>RE</span> Well anecdotes shouldn't be used when trying to argue points since they are notoriously unreliable. You should consider instead doing research. Doing a quick google search I was able to find several people claiming there was a Lung Association study on the subject. So instead of take what they say as the truth I did the foot work and looked it up for everyone ( http://www.lungusa.org/associations/states/new-york/pressroom/assets/op-eds-and-letters-to-newspaper-editors/leaf-blower-bans-aid-air.pdf ) and they have concluded that it is a source of air pollution. Just consider how the piece of machinery operations, of course it is kicking up pollutants into our air which could be damaging to our health - its not rocket science. This does not discount that fact that Davis already does have a lot of allergens due to wind pollinated trees such as Walnut - but that doesn't mean that the blowers do not contribute. ~~ </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 39: </td> <td> Line 39: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * <span>*</span> It is not always wise to let businesses make their own decisions when it comes to the environment because we all share it. We should be careful when we allow businesses to cut corners to increase profits at the cost of all of our health. It is completely rational and shows foresight to use our local politics to make wise decisions to protect our environment. ~~ </td> <td> <span>+</span> * <span>RE</span> It is not always wise to let businesses make their own decisions when it comes to the environment because we all share it. We should be careful when we allow businesses to cut corners to increase profits at the cost of all of our health. It is completely rational and shows foresight to use our local politics to make wise decisions to protect our environment. ~~ </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 44: </td> <td> Line 44: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * <span>*</span> You seem to be making a few logical fallacies here, you seem to be suggesting that because Sunnyvale and has no blowers that it is expensive, so having no blowers means an area is expensive. Therefore if Davis has no blowers it will be expensive. First of all Davis is expensive, and second it is incredibly misleading to suggest that having no blowers is the only factor in the price of housing. The fact that Davis is in the middle of nowhere and the area you mentioned is near the Bay would probably be a bigger factor than leaf blowing. ~~ </td> <td> <span>+</span> * <span>RE</span> You seem to be making a few logical fallacies here, you seem to be suggesting that because Sunnyvale and has no blowers that it is expensive, so having no blowers means an area is expensive. Therefore if Davis has no blowers it will be expensive. First of all Davis is expensive, and second it is incredibly misleading to suggest that having no blowers is the only factor in the price of housing. The fact that Davis is in the middle of nowhere and the area you mentioned is near the Bay would probably be a bigger factor than leaf blowing. ~~ </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-28 22:32:29upisdown <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 35: </td> <td> Line 35: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ** Well anecdotes shouldn't be used when trying to argue points since they are notoriously unreliable. You should consider instead doing research. Doing a quick google search I was able to find several people claiming there was a Lung Association study on the subject. So instead of take what they say as the truth I did the foot work and looked it up for everyone ( http://www.lungusa.org/associations/states/new-york/pressroom/assets/op-eds-and-letters-to-newspaper-editors/leaf-blower-bans-aid-air.pdf ) and they have concluded that it is a source of air pollution. Just consider how the piece of machinery operations, of course it is kicking up pollutants into our air which could be damaging to our health - its not rocket science. This does not discount that fact that Davis already does have a lot of allergens due to wind pollinated trees such as Walnut - but that doesn't mean that the blowers do not contribute. ~~ </td> <td> <span>+</span> *<span>&nbsp;</span>* Well anecdotes shouldn't be used when trying to argue points since they are notoriously unreliable. You should consider instead doing research. Doing a quick google search I was able to find several people claiming there was a Lung Association study on the subject. So instead of take what they say as the truth I did the foot work and looked it up for everyone ( http://www.lungusa.org/associations/states/new-york/pressroom/assets/op-eds-and-letters-to-newspaper-editors/leaf-blower-bans-aid-air.pdf ) and they have concluded that it is a source of air pollution. Just consider how the piece of machinery operations, of course it is kicking up pollutants into our air which could be damaging to our health - its not rocket science. This does not discount that fact that Davis already does have a lot of allergens due to wind pollinated trees such as Walnut - but that doesn't mean that the blowers do not contribute. ~~ </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 39: </td> <td> Line 39: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ** It is not always wise to let businesses make their own decisions when it comes to the environment because we all share it. We should be careful when we allow businesses to cut corners to increase profits at the cost of all of our health. It is completely rational and shows foresight to use our local politics to make wise decisions to protect our environment. ~~ </td> <td> <span>+</span> *<span>&nbsp;</span>* It is not always wise to let businesses make their own decisions when it comes to the environment because we all share it. We should be careful when we allow businesses to cut corners to increase profits at the cost of all of our health. It is completely rational and shows foresight to use our local politics to make wise decisions to protect our environment. ~~ </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 43: </td> <td> Line 43: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + * * You seem to be making a few logical fallacies here, you seem to be suggesting that because Sunnyvale and has no blowers that it is expensive, so having no blowers means an area is expensive. Therefore if Davis has no blowers it will be expensive. First of all Davis is expensive, and second it is incredibly misleading to suggest that having no blowers is the only factor in the price of housing. The fact that Davis is in the middle of nowhere and the area you mentioned is near the Bay would probably be a bigger factor than leaf blowing. ~~<br> + </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 44: </td> <td> Line 47: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- <br> - ** You seem to be making a few logical fallacies here, you seem to be suggesting that because Sunnyvale and has no blowers that it is expensive, so having no blowers means an area is expensive. Therefore if Davis has no blowers it will be expensive. First of all Davis is expensive, and second it is incredibly misleading to suggest that having no blowers is the only factor in the price of housing. The fact that Davis is in the middle of nowhere and the area you mentioned is near the Bay would probably be a bigger factor than leaf blowing. ~~</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-28 22:31:18upisdown <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 35: </td> <td> Line 35: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ** Well anecdotes shouldn't be used when trying to argue points since they are notoriously unreliable. You should consider instead doing research. Doing a quick google search I was able to find several people claiming there was a Lung Association study on the subject. So instead of take what they say as the truth I did the foot work and looked it up for everyone ( http://www.lungusa.org/associations/states/new-york/pressroom/assets/op-eds-and-letters-to-newspaper-editors/leaf-blower-bans-aid-air.pdf ) and they have concluded that it is a source of air pollution. Just consider how the piece of machinery operations, of course it is kicking up pollutants into our air which could be damaging to our health - its not rocket science. This does not discount that fact that Davis already does have a lot of allergens due to wind pollinated trees such as Walnut - but that doesn't mean that the blowers do not contribute. ~~<br> + </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 37: </td> <td> Line 39: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ** It is not always wise to let businesses make their own decisions when it comes to the environment because we all share it. We should be careful when we allow businesses to cut corners to increase profits at the cost of all of our health. It is completely rational and shows foresight to use our local politics to make wise decisions to protect our environment. ~~<br> + </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 40: </td> <td> Line 44: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + ** You seem to be making a few logical fallacies here, you seem to be suggesting that because Sunnyvale and has no blowers that it is expensive, so having no blowers means an area is expensive. Therefore if Davis has no blowers it will be expensive. First of all Davis is expensive, and second it is incredibly misleading to suggest that having no blowers is the only factor in the price of housing. The fact that Davis is in the middle of nowhere and the area you mentioned is near the Bay would probably be a bigger factor than leaf blowing. ~~</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 52: </td> <td> Line 58: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + "Re: As fun as it is to be Authoritarian..."<br> + * Ignoring that this is a poorly disguised ad hom, we do not live in a libertarian paradise without any regulation. Regulation exist and with good cause, because we do not all live on our own private islands where our actions only effect ourselves. We live in a community where the actions of one on the environment effect everyone around them. This is the entire reason humans decided on creating a civilization and government, so that we can create rules and regulations which we believe are fair, protect the community and benefit the most people at a time. Local government is a rare thing in the sense that you have more power because the number of voters is so much smaller than national elections - so rules created by this system are a result of the closest you will ever get to real democracy and to suggest that is authoritarian is ignorant.<br> + <br> + There have been many necessary regulations put in place to protect the environment because business are not obligated to protect the environment, they are simply obligated to increase profits for share holders. So in our system it is completely rational for them to disregard long term environmental damage for short term profit. That is why we have the checks of regulation against business, so that we can use our foresight to determine long term problems and try to prevent them from happening. Because the profit corporations make on the environment effects everyone.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-28 15:07:35gynomightComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 264: </td> <td> Line 264: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-11-28 14:07:35'' [[nbsp]] I support this because my apartment complex landscapers think it's necessary to blow leaves around most weekday mornings (and occasionally on weekends). Seriously guys, if you can't stand the leaves that much you should remove the trees and replace them with plastic ones.... --["Users/gynomight"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-23 09:53:05sjoeComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 262: </td> <td> Line 262: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-11-23 08:53:05'' [[nbsp]] Dreadful things. I live downtown and hear at least one of them from 7AM-9PM daily. I've lived in West Hollywood previously, which is a vibrant and generally noisy place. It's quieter than Davis. --["Users/sjoe"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-18 18:02:55FlokkenfischComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 260: </td> <td> Line 260: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-11-18 17:02:55'' [[nbsp]] Leaf blowers are another manifestation of the Meta-system. We're doomed. --["Users/Flokkenfisch"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-14 21:22:29EdWins <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 259: </td> <td> Line 259: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ''Get a pet goat to eat the grass, and you can milk it for your antibiotic-free dairy! 2 for 1.''</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Banning leaf-blowershttp://daviswiki.org/Banning_leaf-blowers2010-11-14 00:08:51SimonFungComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Banning leaf-blowers<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 257: </td> <td> Line 257: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-11-13 23:08:51'' [[nbsp]] Lets also ban lawn mowers too. They are noisy and polluting too. May as well ban all gardening equipment. Lets go back to pulling grass by hand or cutting them with a pair of scissors. Whos with me. --["Users/SimonFung"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div>