Read any of the many studies that have been published and reported in media (example, example) across the globe over the last few years. There are other threads on here with further links.No offense but I find that incredible. I'm in the market for a stove to replace an open fire & if this is true I need to see the source & perhaps reconsider.
Some studies show burning wood is way, way worse!IMO even an open fire is not going to be equivalent to smoking 50 cigarettes a day.
These comparisons seem meaningless and just make it harder to actually quantify the risk (the information I have found so far only states there are "increased" risks, that there are "concerns" from scientists etc.) It's clear that wood smoke is toxic, containing both carcinogenic chemicals and the PM2.5 particles that are so easily ingested. However, unlike cigarettes, you don't deliberately inhale large amounts of smoke from a fire (particularly when burning dry wood in an enclosed stove) and presumably most of the toxic chemicals also go up the chimney and yes particularly in an urban environment this in itself is not a good thing either.
To be precise I find the claim of equivalence to 30-50 cigarettes a day to be incredible. I don't doubt that burning fossil fuels creates air pollution.
o be precise I find the claim of equivalence to 30-50 cigarettes a day to be incredible.
Can you explain why you think V02 max is a valid measure in this context?My lifetime exposure to fires and stoves in this nanny state hasn't stopped my VO2 max being in the excellent range. Guess I'm just lucky not to have a soot cough.
Most of the smoke, and certainly practically all of what you can see with the naked eye is not the problem. More studies are underway, but the suggestion is that opening the door of a lighting stove dumps significantly more pollution into the air than you would be exposed to from smoking many cigarettes.It's clear that wood smoke is toxic, containing both carcinogenic chemicals and the PM2.5 particles that are so easily ingested. However, unlike cigarettes, you don't deliberately inhale large amounts of smoke from a fire (particularly when burning dry wood in an enclosed stove) and presumably most of the toxic chemicals also go up the chimney and yes particularly in an urban environment this in itself is not a good thing either.
Unfortunately traffic pollution is somewhat out of our control, all we can do is encourage a transition to zero tailpipe emissions vehicles ASAP or live/work outside urban areas if possible (not a luxury many have).What about sitting in tail backed traffic whilst in a car ? Or walking/running/cycling beside a road where heavy traffic is present. Living in an urban area nowadays has to be bad for health. Many appear oblivious. Surely opening the stove door twice an evening to refuel with logs is not comparable. I know what I think is safer.
What about sitting in tail backed traffic whilst in a car ? Or walking/running/cycling beside a road where heavy traffic is present. Living in an urban area nowadays has to be bad for health. Many appear oblivious.
You’re a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigmaI won’t be driving an electric car either. All just good marketing in my view.
What makes you think that is safer? If you are comparing one to the other, are you suggesting people make a choice between commuting in heavy traffic or lighting a stove? Regardless, while you may only open the door once or twice, the particles released into the room circulate for hours.What about sitting in tail backed traffic whilst in a car ? Or walking/running/cycling beside a road where heavy traffic is present. Living in an urban area nowadays has to be bad for health. Many appear oblivious. Surely opening the stove door twice an evening to refuel with logs is not comparable. I know what I think is safer.
What political agenda? Do you feel that those who voice concern about our health are somehow out to get us?No riddle or mystery about it. Just not bowing to powerful marketing or political/media agendas.
Isn't the proliferation of fast food outlets absolute proof that we don't have anything approaching a nanny state?Why struggle about these insignificant matters. What you buy this week will probably be banned by our nanny state in a month because its bad for us. Eating fast food is bad for us but they are being built everywhere and have never been as busy. If our government really cared about our health shouldn’t they insist that food outlets provide healthier options ?
Intuitively one might expect that if opening the door of a wood-burner is equivalent to smoking 20 cigarettes that this would be picked up in epidemiological studies and we would have had a pretty clear idea of these serious health risks for decades. I accept that there is a health risk from solid-fuel smoke but can it really be so severe?the suggestion is that opening the door of a lighting stove dumps significantly more pollution into the air than you would be exposed to from smoking many cigarettes.
It's only in the last few years as energy price rises has led to increased adoption of wood burning stoves that research has started looking at this area. That shouldn't be a surprise as research and science always lags changes such as this. 20 years after the invention of asbestos medical reports started to note unexplained lung issues. Even after proof of the link between exposure and cancer, it took 69 years for it to be completely banned in Ireland.Intuitively one might expect that if opening the door of a wood-burner is equivalent to smoking 20 cigarettes that this would be picked up in epidemiological studies and we would have had a pretty clear idea of these serious health risks for decades. I accept that there is a health risk from solid-fuel smoke but can it really be so severe?
This simply isn't true. Wood burning stoves were a highly commonplace option when we built our house over 20 years ago.It's only in the last few years as energy price rises has led to increased adoption of wood burning stoves that research has started looking at this area.
I would assume that the open fires of old and the use of coal, damp wood, turf etc were much more polluting than modern enclosed stoves with dry wood as fuel; it doesn't ring true that we are only just discovering such a massive health risk. That is not to say that it's impossible that this has been missed for generations but it just doesn't seem very likely given what we know about similar types of risk (smoking, asbestos etc). Perhaps it's more likely that the risk is exaggerated and the science is just not accurate (as yet).It's only in the last few years as energy price rises has led to increased adoption of wood burning stoves that research has started looking at this area. That shouldn't be a surprise as research and science always lags changes such as this. 20 years after the invention of asbestos medical reports started to note unexplained lung issues. Even after proof of the link between exposure and cancer, it took 69 years for it to be completely banned in Ireland.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?