To ask how you can justify using a woodburner in a city or town

[MojoMoon]

www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/09/eco-wood-stoves-emit-pollution-hgv-ecodesign?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

New wood burning stoves billed as more environmentally friendly still emit 750 times more tiny particle pollution than a modern HGV truck, a report has shown.

Only stoves that meet the ecodesign standard can be legally sold from the start of 2022 in the UK and EU, but experts said the regulation was shockingly weak.

The report used data on the emissions produced by stoves in perfect laboratory conditions and the pollution could be even higher in everyday use, the researchers said, with older stoves being much worse.

Tiny particle pollution – called PM2.5 – is especially harmful to health as it can pass through the lungs into the bloodstream and then be carried around the body and lodge in organs. At least 40 ,000 early deaths a year are attributed to wood burning in Europe.

Wood burners also triple the level of harmful pollution inside homes and should be sold with a health warning, said the scientist behind a study published in December. The researchers advised that the stoves should not be used around elderly people or children.

The government may have banned the burning of wet wood but has no plans to ban the sale of woodburners, despite the fact that the 8pc of homes that use them are almost entirely in cities and can use power or gas for heating. And are almost entirely fairly wealthy households.

(Those of you who live a "very rural" location, to use a common Mumsnet phrase and are entirely off grid may justifiably need one. But the question was cities and towns).

It worries me so few people know how dangerous PM2.5 emissions are, particularly for pregnant women and children.

YANBU: correct, woodburners should be banned in homes in cities and towns asap

YABU: no, they look pretty and who cares about science and health

@Shitfuckcommaetc why? It's referenced in the article

@toconclude. No - read the paper. They used all the best burning practices in an eco stove and this was the result. It says people using them in real life are likely to not follow best burning practices and so the results will be even worse.

People on favour of having woodburners - does it not concern you re your children's or fetus' health? It's bad for you in your own home - while I don't deny big business needs to be the ones doing most about climate change in general, this really is localised air pollution and so individual choices matter.

People on favour of having woodburners - does it not concern you re your children's or fetus' health?

Given how standard open fires were 30 or 40 odd years ago, I think we can safely say they're not that damaging at a population level. Certainly the 30- and 40-somethings I know are not crippled with asthma etc compared to their younger peers. My brother and I were born and raised in a house with an open fire and neither of us have any health issues or allergies.

I think people saying its a small part of the problem need to actually read some of the research. The scale and impact is utterly shocking. Even ddad who was the king of bonfires, open fires etc won't use the lovely woodburner in his new house because it is just unconscionable knowing now the harm it causes yourself and others.

@Lockheart
Actually wood burning stoves in London accounts for between 23 and 31pc of PM2.5 emissions. And given wood burning is entirely unnecessary in London, I would argue that it was worse than vehicles since a fair chunk of road traffic is vital.

www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/pollution-and-air-quality/guidance-wood-burning-stoves-london

@GoWalkabout

I think people saying its a small part of the problem need to actually read some of the research. The scale and impact is utterly shocking. Even ddad who was the king of bonfires, open fires etc won't use the lovely woodburner in his new house because it is just unconscionable knowing now the harm it causes yourself and others.

But you could also say the same about driving a car, or flying abroad on holiday.

Any suggestion that we should curb those is usually met with horror and outrage on MN

Is heating not vital too?

Almost two-fifths (38 per cent) of PM2.5 in the UK comes from domestic wood-burners and open fires, according to research from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Two fifths!!!! From the small number of people who enjoy their woodburners.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/futurelondon/theairwebreathe/wood-burners-health-impacts-a4345416.html%3famp

Agree with you OP. They'll all be banned eventually.

We have an existing one that we almost never use (it was here when we bought the house) but I'm gobsmacked when smart people actually install them in their houses.

Sure, it looks nice and cozy, but what we know about the health impacts now makes it jolly stupid. The eco woodburners are the equivalent of "low tar" cigarettes. A slightly better version of a very bad thing.

So if you want to put one in, don't go moaning when the controls on when they can be lit start to come in, followed by complete bans.

@Lockheart

People on favour of having woodburners - does it not concern you re your children's or fetus' health?

Given how standard open fires were 30 or 40 odd years ago, I think we can safely say they're not that damaging at a population level. Certainly the 30- and 40-somethings I know are not crippled with asthma etc compared to their younger peers. My brother and I were born and raised in a house with an open fire and neither of us have any health issues or allergies.

On this basis, we could easily conclude smoking cigarettes during pregnancy and around children is fine or drinking alcohol or using lead paint on furniture is fine since it happened a lot in the Olden Days and most of us lived to tell the tale.

On this basis, we could easily conclude smoking cigarettes during pregnancy and around children is fine or drinking alcohol or using lead paint on furniture is fine since it happened a lot in the Olden Days and most of us lived to tell the tale.

I didn't say it was fine, I'm questioning the level of risk which you suggest.

YABU for making such a silly choice option.

I would love an open fire or woodburner, but would never have one for these reasons, so I don't think you're being unreasonable.

That figure covers other sources of burning too, here's an explanation of how further studies have quantified the problem. www.hetas.co.uk/understanding-the-impact-of-domestic-wood-burning/

They are a bit naff now aren’t they? Right next to the sign saying ‘live love home’ and the twigs in the pot.

Very interesting that the data is considered flawed.

I live on the edge of a small town, and a neighbour across the road has one. He seems to be burning mostly creosote-soaked broken-up fence panels on his, judging by the blue smoke and appalling smell. I did report it to the council one year, and they came out to have a look. During the day of course, when nobody was at home so the fire wasn't on.

@Loveshelly considered flaw in a study paid for by the association of people who sell woodburning stoves.

Funny they've not put their research paper in for publication in a respected peer-reviewed scientific journal unlike the paper they are criticising

My green-party-supporting friend has an open wood fire hearth and tells me the logs they burn are “carbon neutral”. My tiny mind can’t even understand how that works. It seems counter intuitive. All I know is when I occasionally stay with her I go home with a dry sore throat and sometimes even lose my voice temporarily. In contrast, I’m in an insulated newish build and rarely even put the (gas fired) central heating on -so I think my lungs can’t handle onslaught of the wood fire.

So what is the alternative when the electricity goes off?
When we bought our new build in 1992 we were told that the village suffered from regular power cuts due to all the cabling being overhead wires. As the builders had put a chimney on the plans but weren't planning on lining it or putting a fireplace in, we insisted that they did (other heat source was storage heaters at the time due to there being no gas in the village). There were numerous occasions when we had to light the fire just to heat one room as the power had been off overnight so we were then left with no heating for 24 hrs.

We now have central heating (oil) but it still doesn't work if the power goes off so the fire is used on those occasions that either the power goes off or the boiler breaks (that's happened this year too!).

I'm considering swapping my open fire for a wood burner just for aesthetic reasons but wouldn't consider getting rid completely.

So I'm interested to know what those of you who have no gas or wood burner/open fire will do when the power goes out?

I also grew up in a house with a coal fire and a back boiler so the fire was lit every day. None of my family had/ have asthma and my parents both lived until their late 80s.

@MojoMoon
Like no one ever does any research with an agenda. And only people who are evil will want to prove the government haven’t done a good job…
Ok !

Mojo moon I think your choice of aibu and yanbu determiners are slanted to provoke a reaction.
Here's my reaction.
I'm not well off and we have a modern log burner that exceeds current environment requirements.
We use it as our sole source of heating in winter, we have a small house well insulated and leave our interior doors open so the heat spreads throughout our home.
I'm dreading the day we can't use it. We've never bought logs for it, we use free properly seasoned wood.

I have two log burning hygge bastards on my street. The street is thick with smoke on foggy days and it makes me wheeze and I can't open the windows. Cunts.

Carbon neutral normally means the damage is being offset somewhere else, so the company who sells them plants so many trees.

I do thing a lot of the scaremongering stats are a bit silly - as its not like gas/electricity is without its dangers. Should we put stats up about how many people die in gas fires, or electric shocks?

I think its great that wood burning stoves will become more eco friendly from next year, but I think life is pretty miserable if you aren't allowed a nice fire to cosy up with. Many elderly rely on fires as a cheap way to heat the whole house. The way a fire heats the bricks always seems to stay a lot longer than radiators.

I have a multi fuel stove in the sitting room. I have been planning to have it removed for environmental reasons. I'm semi rural so pollution is less of a concern here but it still bothers me
I've only ever used smokeless coal or coffee logs. Any thing else gives me asthma
I'm glad I still have it now due to the rise in gas prices. It means I can hear one room and it does warm the house up through the chimney

I don't have one and would never have one but people who do have paid a lot of money for them.

Human nature is a funny thing and when you have paid that much out (plus when it is a part of your home which means another level of emotional attachment) it's normal to find ways to justify it even in the face of massive evidence of harm.

I wonder if alongside stopping more people getting them if more advanced filtering systems can be developed and made compulsory until they fade out from use.