Submit your question for the experts attending our September 2013 Air Pollution and Health Forum. Vote for the best questions (you get 5 votes).
Emissions inventories and air pollution monitoring data indicate that smoke from woodheaters is a major source of fine particles and other air toxics in many parts of Australia including the Hunter. The recent Senate enquiry noted that tackling woodsmoke would achieve 66% of the benefits for just 1% of the costs of meeting air quality standards. Shouldn't addressing this preventable health issue be a No 1 priority?
Given the health damage caused by PM10 and PM 2.5s, is it satisfactory for our leaders to aim for only a small reduction to exposure, such as 10% or 20%? Should some sources of particles such as the burning of wood for heating/BBQs, be phased out altogether?
I would like to hear the experts describe the health importance of particle exposure in the range from pm2.5 to pm 10. Is it justified for a health impact assessment to examine only PM2.5 while ignoring PM10?
I would like to hear the expert's opinion on the health importance of particles in the 2.5 to 10 micron range. Is it justified for a health impact assessment to consider only PM 2.5 and ignore PM10 as was done for the Wallarah 2 mine proposal?
Customer support service by UserEcho