Some people are claiming that wood-burning fireplaces are environmentally "incorrect," according to an article in today's edition of The New York Times by Christina N. Lewis.

"Hard as it may be to believe, the fireplace - long considered a trophy, particularly in a city like New York - is acquiring a social stigma. Among those who aspire to be environmentally responsible, it is joining the ranks of bottled water and big houses," the article stated.

"'The smoke from a fire smells very nice,' said Diane Bailey, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council in San Francisco. 'But it can cause a lot of harm.' The tiny particles, she said, 'can cause inflammation and illness, and can cross into the bloodstream, triggering heart attacks' as well as worsening other conditions," the article continued.

The article said that the American Lung Association "recommends that consumers avoid wood fires altogether, citing research that names wood stoves and fireplaces as major contributors to particulate-matter air pollution in much of the United States."

Wood smoke, the article continued, "contains some of the same particulates as cigarette smoke, said Dr. Norman H. Edelman, the chief medical officer for the American Lung Association, as well as known carcinogens like aldehydes; it has also been linked to respiratory problems in young children. 'We now know from lots of studies that wood smoke is very, very irritating,' Dr. Edelman said. 'It contains a lot of irritating gases and it also contains damaging particulate matter. It's probably not good for anybody, and it's especially bad for anybody who has a chronic respiratory problem.' So the association strongly advises people not to use the traditional fireplace, he said."

Concerns about the air pollution and health problems caused by smoke from wood fires are prompting some communities to pass "burn ban" laws regulating them, the article noted.

"When the weather is cold and the air is still, or pollution is high," the article said, "the Bay Area in California, Puget Sound, Wash., Denver and Albuquerque are among the places with restrictions on residential wood-burning. These measures can be mandatory or voluntary, and can become more restrictive as air quality declines. So far, most of the wood-burning regulations tend to be out West. A few examples: Idaho offers tax incentives to people who replace uncertified wood stoves with "greener" ones; San Joaquin County in California forbids selling a home unless its wood stove is replaced with an E.P.A.-certified one; and Palo Alto and other municipalities in California prohibit wood-burning fireplaces or stoves in new construction. Perhaps not coincidentally, sales of wood-burning appliances dropped to 235,000 in 2009 from 800,000 in 1999, according to the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association. And the Brick Industry Association, which promotes brick construction, reports that roughly 35,000 masonry fireplaces were installed in the United States in 2009, compared to 80,000 in 2005."

Stephen Sears, the vice president of marketing and member services for the Brick Industry Association, told The Times that most fireplaces are used far too infrequently to cause any real damage to the environment, and that in the East air pollution is at its worst in the summer.

Some New Yorkers consider a wood-burning fireplace more desirable than great views or nice addresses or great architecture and fans of movies like "Jeremiah Johnson" or "Shane" that celebrate the pioneer spirit of Americans may not want to cede their aesthetic priorities to politically correct environmentalists.