Replacing Solid Fuel Open Fire
- Thread starter AnneMc
- Start date
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.
While any number of early deaths attributed to air pollution is a tragedy for those affected the numbers are so small as a percentage of population (and also have to be attributed to all possible air pollution causes) that it seems concerns about enclosed wood burners are exaggerated.
I would appreciate if anyone has any links to better studies that they think might shed some more light on the topic as I have not been able to find anything yet.
I had a quick look at the study - thanks @CuriousCork .
From my read the fire as a whole produces that amount of particulate matter, that is not to say that all this particulate matter is going into the home. I presume 80%+ of it is going up the chimney. So if I were to sit atop my chimney & breate in the exhaust it would be equivalent to 30-50 fags. Right?
From my read the fire as a whole produces that amount of particulate matter, that is not to say that all this particulate matter is going into the home. I presume 80%+ of it is going up the chimney. So if I were to sit atop my chimney & breate in the exhaust it would be equivalent to 30-50 fags. Right?
CuriousCork
Registered User
- Messages
- 60
The operative word is "equivalence". We can see the fine soot from the stoves on furniture etc. Whilst we are probably inhaling only a small amount of soot, it is more dangerous than smoking. Thus, one inhalation of dust is probably equivalent to 50 cigs.
I wouldn't be surprised if Eamon Ryan, who is fanatical about reducing our 0.1% contributions to world emissions, bans them before he ,hopefully, gets booted in to political oblivion after the next election along with his colleagues.
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.
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.
Can you explain why you think V02 max is a valid measure in this context?
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.
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.
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).
Using a solid fuel stove is much more in your control though, so if the same scientists that alerted us the dangers of transport emissions, smoking, leaded fuels, CFCs etc are saying solid fuel stoves are a serious concern perhaps it would make sense to heed that advice and not expose yourself to transport emissions and stove emissions on top of that unnecessarily?
Practically speaking for those of us that have fuel burning stoves installed changing to another option (?what) is not attractive. I enjoy my stove, can budget for it and it will see me out. I doubt very much it will contribute significantly to my demise. I consider myself lucky not to live in a city and enjoy plenty of fresh air outside. I won’t be driving an electric car either. All just good marketing in my view. As I’ve said on here before more coal will be mined on planet earth in 2023 than ever before. No matter what we all do. No point in fooling ourselves otherwise.
No riddle or mystery about it. Just not bowing to powerful marketing or political/media agendas. The world is a toxic place. Once you realise that the small matter of what stove or car we use is just a distraction on the way. Not worth getting ruffled over. 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 ?
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.
By the way, there are studies on the relative dangers of walking/ cycling versus driving in urban settings that make interesting reading.
What political agenda? Do you feel that those who voice concern about our health are somehow out to get us?
Isn't the proliferation of fast food outlets absolute proof that we don't have anything approaching a nanny state?
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?
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.
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,198
This simply isn't true. Wood burning stoves were a highly commonplace option when we built our house over 20 years ago.
And their effects have been researched for long before that.
Last edited:
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).
I have been reading all this with interest as I have an open fire and would like to change to stove, surely a better option! However if I don't do that what else is the alternative? All electric heating - surely not practical especially with present costs but even if lower it's an expensive form of heating if not going for the expensive retrofit and heat pump option which is not a runner. We installed fancy super duper electric radiators in a small extension for my father 15 yrs ago but had to end up turning them off as too expensive to run, instead used oil filled radiator on timer in his bedroom (brother is electrician so not a blind buy based on marketing).
If we are talking about indoor polution what about the radon? Nothing was ever done about bringing in a grant to retrofit existing houses for this despite it being discussed by politicians numerous times in the past. It used to really annoy me when I'd see campaigns saying it's only 50 quid or whatever the fee was to test so everyone should do it, it is cheap to test but it's not cheap to fix if you find a high level. I had mine done many years ago but luckily I was able to afford it at the time, I have yet to meet one neighbour who even tested their house not to mind did the work, it's unlikely mine is the only house in the estate over the recommended level. Now all the new ones have the barrier/sump installed but there is lot of houses pre that regulation!
Anyway I've just had a big slice of chocolate cake, guaranteed the sugar in it isn't good for me not to mention the thick layer of buttercream icing and my cholesterol but it's all about balance, I'm not going to have it every day same as I am not going to have a stove lighting all day every day either.
If we are talking about indoor polution what about the radon? Nothing was ever done about bringing in a grant to retrofit existing houses for this despite it being discussed by politicians numerous times in the past. It used to really annoy me when I'd see campaigns saying it's only 50 quid or whatever the fee was to test so everyone should do it, it is cheap to test but it's not cheap to fix if you find a high level. I had mine done many years ago but luckily I was able to afford it at the time, I have yet to meet one neighbour who even tested their house not to mind did the work, it's unlikely mine is the only house in the estate over the recommended level. Now all the new ones have the barrier/sump installed but there is lot of houses pre that regulation!
Anyway I've just had a big slice of chocolate cake, guaranteed the sugar in it isn't good for me not to mention the thick layer of buttercream icing and my cholesterol but it's all about balance, I'm not going to have it every day same as I am not going to have a stove lighting all day every day either.