It's funny that the article is hidden behind a paywall, but when you get to it and read it you realize it doesn't support the author views at all:
"we conclude that although there is a large and growing body of evidence linking exposure to wood/biomass smoke itself with both acute and chronic illness, there is insufficient evidence at present to support regulating it separately from its individual components, especially fine particulate matter.
In addition, there is insufficient evidence at present to conclude that woodsmoke particles are significantly less or more damaging to health than general ambient fine particles."
That's a good lesson about science: just because an article has serious references doesn't mean it's not bullshit. Don't take the facts for granted if you don't actually read the references.
That's one thing I miss from most, if not all, journalism: Cited sources for the claims in the article. Mind you, academia produces a lot of crap, but at least you can usually verify whether it's crap or not by following the sources. Articles in newspapers and magazines usually don't tell where they got the data and in online publications they often don't even put up useful links.
"we conclude that although there is a large and growing body of evidence linking exposure to wood/biomass smoke itself with both acute and chronic illness, there is insufficient evidence at present to support regulating it separately from its individual components, especially fine particulate matter.
In addition, there is insufficient evidence at present to conclude that woodsmoke particles are significantly less or more damaging to health than general ambient fine particles."
That's a good lesson about science: just because an article has serious references doesn't mean it's not bullshit. Don't take the facts for granted if you don't actually read the references.