Medical Statements

Medical and Health Associations Opposed to Biomass

Sec­ond Opin­ion: The Med­ical Pro­fes­sion Diag­noses Bio­mass Incin­er­a­tion (Sept 2011)

Bio­mass Incin­er­a­tion has “Unac­cept­able Health Risks” and Dri­ves Up Health Care Costs (Com­pi­la­tion of Anti-Bio­mass State­ments from Med­ical and Health Associations)

Amer­i­can Lung Asso­ci­a­tion Pub­lic Pol­i­cy Posi­tion on Ener­gy (June 11, 2011)
“The Amer­i­can Lung Asso­ci­a­tion does not sup­port bio­mass com­bus­tion for elec­tric­i­ty pro­duc­tion, a cat­e­go­ry that includes wood, wood prod­ucts, agri­cul­tur­al residues or for­est wastes, and poten­tial­ly high­ly tox­ic feed­stocks, such as con­struc­tion and demo­li­tion waste. If bio­mass is com­bust­ed, state-of-the-art pol­lu­tion con­trols must be required.”

State­ment from Amer­i­can Lung Asso­ci­a­tion in Flori­da (April 2011) oppos­ing bio­mass burn­ers and not­ing weak­er pol­lu­tion stan­dards in rur­al areas and the increased vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty of Flori­da’s old­er population.

Amer­i­can Lung Asso­ci­a­tion hails EPA report on “The Ben­e­fits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020” (March 2011)

Let­ter from the Amer­i­can Lung Asso­ci­a­tion in Geor­gia (Dec 2010) detail­ing harms of par­tic­u­late mat­ter and oth­er pol­lu­tion from bio­mass burners.

2015 Let­ter from Amer­i­can Lung Asso­ci­a­tion in the Dis­trict of Colum­bia oppos­ing the Dis­tric­t’s con­tract­ing to burn waste in a large trash incin­er­a­tor in Lor­ton, VA (a cam­paign that Ener­gy Jus­tice Net­work won in July 2015)

Wash­ing­ton State Med­ical Asso­ci­a­tion (Dec 2010)
”…urge state and local gov­ern­ment to adopt poli­cies to min­i­mize the pub­lic health impacts of new and exist­ing sources of air pollution.”

Mason Coun­ty Gen­er­al Hos­pi­tal active med­ical staff let­ter to Mason Thurston Med­ical Soci­ety in Wash­ing­ton (Aug 2010)
“We are in oppo­si­tion to the cur­rent­ly pro­posed bio­mass pow­er plants based on the grounds that these facil­i­ties pose unac­cept­able health risks.”

Amer­i­can Heart Asso­ci­a­tion — Par­tic­u­late Mat­ter Air Pol­lu­tion and Car­dio­vas­cu­lar Dis­ease (May 2010)
“Expo­sure to PM <2.5 μm in diam­e­ter (PM2.5) over a few hours to weeks can trig­ger car­dio­vas­cu­lar disease–related mor­tal­i­ty and non­fa­tal events; longer-term expo­sure (eg, a few years) increas­es the risk for car­dio­vas­cu­lar mor­tal­i­ty to an even greater extent than expo­sures over a few days and reduces life expectan­cy with­in more high­ly exposed seg­ments of the pop­u­la­tion by sev­er­al months to a few years; reduc­tions in PM lev­els are asso­ci­at­ed with decreas­es in car­dio­vas­cu­lar mor­tal­i­ty with­in a time frame as short as a few years; and many cred­i­ble patho­log­i­cal mech­a­nisms have been elu­ci­dat­ed that lend bio­log­i­cal plau­si­bil­i­ty to these find­ings. […] …over­all evi­dence is con­sis­tent with a causal rela­tion­ship between PM2.5 expo­sure and car­dio­vas­cu­lar mor­bid­i­ty and mor­tal­i­ty. […] PM2.5 expo­sure is deemed a mod­i­fi­able fac­tor that con­tributes to car­dio­vas­cu­lar mor­bid­i­ty and mortality.”

Amer­i­can Acad­e­my of Fam­i­ly Physi­cians (April 2010) let­ter express­ing con­cern about poul­try lit­ter incin­er­a­tors in North Carolina.

North Car­oli­na Acad­e­my of Fam­i­ly Physi­cians (April 2010) let­ter express­ing con­cern about pro­posed poul­try lit­ter incinerators.

Physi­cians for Social Respon­si­bil­i­ty / Pio­neer Val­ley (MA) (Feb 2010)
“the bio­mass pow­er plants being pro­posed for sev­er­al Pio­neer Val­ley loca­tions would con­tribute to par­tic­u­late air pol­lu­tion emis­sions in a region that already has pol­lu­tion prob­lems, and there­fore we oppose the con­struc­tion and oper­a­tion of such plants”

Mass­a­chu­setts Med­ical Soci­ety (Feb 2010)
“Mass­a­chu­setts Med­ical Soci­ety believes that bio­mass com­bus­tion elec­tric­i­ty gen­er­a­tion plants pose an unac­cept­able pub­lic health risk…”

Flori­da Med­ical Asso­ci­a­tion (Dec 2009)
“the Flori­da Med­ical Asso­ci­a­tion urges state gov­ern­ment to adopt poli­cies to min­i­mize the approval and con­struc­tion of new incin­er­a­tors includ­ing mass-burn, gasi­fi­ca­tion, plas­ma, pyrol­y­sis, bio­mass, refuse-derived fuel and oth­er incin­er­a­tor tech­nolo­gies, and to devel­op a plan to retire exist­ing out­dat­ed incinerators”

Amer­i­can Lung Asso­ci­a­tion of New Eng­land — Bio­mass Posi­tion State­ment (Dec 2009)

Mass­a­chu­setts Med­ical Soci­ety Adopts Pol­i­cy Oppos­ing Bio­mass Pow­er Plants (Dec 2009)
Read full text of the res­o­lu­tion: Reduc­ing Air Pol­lu­tion and Pro­mot­ing Pub­lic Health by Oppos­ing Bio­mass Pow­er Plants
Read how it came about: MMS Oppos­es Bio­mass Pow­er, Cites Health Concerns

Amer­i­can Lung Asso­ci­a­tion (MA) (Nov 2009)
Let­ter oppos­ing renew­able ener­gy cred­its or any oth­er pref­er­en­tial treat­ment for bio­mass in ener­gy or cli­mate legislation.

Mass­a­chu­setts Breast Can­cer Coali­tion (Nov 2009)
Tes­ti­mo­ny in Oppo­si­tion to the Build­ing of a Con­struc­tion and Demo­li­tion Wood Waste Incin­er­a­tor in Spring­field, MA

Amer­i­can Lung Asso­ci­a­tion (June 2009)
“The Lung Asso­ci­a­tion urges that the [cli­mate] leg­is­la­tion not pro­mote the com­bus­tion of biomass.”

Cap­i­tal Med­ical Soci­ety (Sep­tem­ber 2008) express­ing con­cern over par­tic­u­late mat­ter from Bio­mass Gas & Elec­tric proposal.

Flori­da Med­ical Asso­ci­a­tion pol­i­cy on Resource Con­ser­va­tion, Waste Recy­cling, Health Risks Caused by Incin­er­a­tors (August 2008)
”… urges state gov­ern­ment to adopt poli­cies to min­i­mize the approval and con­struc­tion of new incin­er­a­tors includ­ing mass­burn, gasi­fi­ca­tion, plas­ma, pyrol­y­sis, bio­mass, refuse-derived fuel and oth­er incin­er­a­tor tech­nolo­gies, and to devel­op a plan to retire exist­ing out­dat­ed incinerators”

Erie Coun­ty (PA) Med­ical Soci­ety (July 2008) State­ment on Pro­posed Tire Incinerator