HIGHLIGHTING DANGER OF WOODBURNERS

[GlassHouseBlue]

Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) -
essentially tiny particles of soot - is one
of the most dangerous air pollutants.
Breathing it in is linked to lung cancer,
heart damage, strokes, impaired cognition
and mental health problems, and can
exacerbate conditions such as asthma,
COPD and pulmonary fibrosis. Children
and elderly people are most vulnerable

We don't have access to gas.

There is a snow storm.

Chances are the electric will go off and be off a day or two. That happens every couple of weeks.

I don't regret having a stove, it's our main source of heating and means of cooking.

I think some posters are being deliberately ignorant, tbh.

Many parts of the country don't have access to mains gas, and even if they do, you can't use it when you have no electricity to power the boiler.

We don't use our burner all that often as it's much more of a faff than just turning the heating on, but we always have a months' supply of wood/firelighters for winter - just in case.

You do realise that average life expectancy includes children dying in infancy? You know how mean average is calculated? It doesn't mean that people who reached adulthood tended to die aged 20!

Life expectancy is vastly skewed by the amount of children (and women) who died in childbirth or in the first few years of life. Adults didn't go round dropping dead in their thirties!

Thing is, if we all had a fixed amount of anti social, dangerous emission producing items, some would choose to use their allotment on gas guzzling cars, some on flying around the world ( and I'm looking at politicians here in particular, as well as those flying for holidays, family visits, work related things which could easily be done via video links etc), some would choose to buy lots of clothes and other stuff which are nice to have but not necessary (manufacturing uses up lots of energy) and some would choose to use their stoves. It's easy to point the finger at those who use stoves- but don't forget - while your one finger is pointing at others, 3 fingers are pointing right back at you!

Firstly where are these links from?

Secondly you have to understand life expectancy stats before bandying stuff like this around, they are usually based on infant mortality

And how and why people are choosing to ignore the huge impact that sanitation, drugs, medication, treatment, nutrition makes I do not know. Bias I think

And how and why people are choosing to ignore the huge impact that sanitation, drugs, medication, treatment, nutrition makes I do not know.

Because their arguments about how woodburners are killing millions of people wouldn't be nearly as effective otherwise...

@Tryonemoretime it's true that we all contribute to emissions in different ways, but this argument risks deflecting responsibility rather than addressing the issue. Just because other sources of pollution exist doesn’t excuse us from making better choices where we can. The key difference with wood burners is that their impact is local—affecting not just the user but also their neighbours and communities. Think about PPs who don't own woodburners but their neighbours do!

Fine particulate pollution (PM2.5) from wood burners doesn’t stay contained—it seeps into homes, schools, and public spaces, causing measurable harm to public health. In towns and cities, where air quality is already under strain, wood burning can make these problems significantly worse.

Moreover, unlike many other pollutants, wood burner emissions are often unnecessary. While it’s important to reflect on our broader habits (like flying less or consuming more mindfully), tackling wood burners is a relatively straightforward and impactful way to reduce air pollution.

Pointing fingers at others’ choices doesn’t negate the harm caused by this one. This isn’t about apportioning blame—it’s about recognising that, when the evidence is so clear, we have a duty to act, especially when cleaner, safer options are readily available.

There is abundant evidence from reliable sources that inefficient wood burners in the developing world kill millions of women, e.g. https://www.fao.org/4/a0789e/a0789e09.htm

That is not to say that new generation efficient wood burners in the UK do the same. The question is, is it the best, most efficient, least polluting reasonable option. For that you need to look at the entire supply chain on all fronts - including e.g. transporting and treating oil, piping gas (and taking account of the risk of political instability of getting it from Russia, since wars are terrible for the environment), making the woodburners, etc.

As pointed out upthread, one key question is what happens to the wood used otherwise. It might decay naturally if it is gathered, or it might be replaced by fast-growing coppiced woodland if bought, or it might be incinerated as industrial waste if it comes from a sawmill. In the latter case, turning it into pellets for district heating that recycles heat to e.g. heat municipal swimming pools is not the worst option out there.

@coffeesaveslives no one is suggesting that people should sit and freeze in extreme circumstances like power cuts during snowstorms. Emergencies like that are why some homes might keep a wood burner as a backup option. However, the issue isn't about occasional use in rare crises—it’s about the routine use of wood burners in everyday situations where alternatives exist.

The majority of wood burner users aren’t relying on them out of necessity but for aesthetic reasons or a perception of cosiness, often in homes that already have central heating. This everyday use contributes disproportionately to air pollution, which harms public health. If wood burners were reserved solely for emergencies like the one you described, their overall impact would be vastly reduced.

The problem lies not in having a wood burner for backup, but in normalising their regular use when cleaner, safer heating options are available. It’s about balance and recognising that our choices have wider consequences, especially when those consequences affect the health of others around us.

Au contraire, there are varying opinions on this topic, science hasn’t quite agreed on this.
And today I’m warm and toasty while outside Storm Bert is raging.
Lovely.

The majority of wood burner users aren’t relying on them out of necessity but for aesthetic reasons or a perception of cosiness, often in homes that already have central heating. This everyday use contributes disproportionately to air pollution, which harms public health. If wood burners were reserved solely for emergencies like the one you described, their overall impact would be vastly reduced.

How do you know that?

The problem lies not in having a wood burner for backup, but in normalising their regular use when cleaner, safer heating options are available. It’s about balance and recognising that our choices have wider consequences, especially when those consequences affect the health of others around us.

Just because other options are available, doesn't mean they're affordable or practical. Someone who needs a woodburner to heat their home isn't in a position to worry about the impact it has on a stranger.

But then, you know that, you just want to keep pushing your agenda.

But doesn't all that also hold true to emissions from cars? The little girl who died from asthma related to car emissions in London....the emissions seeped into her school and home environment. They were enveloping her wherever she was. I choose to drive less and not use gas to cook with, but I sometimes choose to use my modern woodburner in my cold 1930s house instead. And I don't feel any more guilty than someone who needs their car to get to work.

@GlassHouseBlue you seem to think that all of these middle class families that have purchased a log burner for the hygge, cosy, Instagram look (me) use them as their main source of heating. I doubt that very much. I would imagine they are lit for high days and holidays. That is certainly true for myself and my neighbours. I do not believe that anyone who has instant heat from gas central heating would choose to heat their house by log burner alone. Storing, stacking and cleaning a log burner is a faff. The only people who do use them every day, do so out of necessity and they shouldn’t be vilified.

Where I live (affluent town in the South East) everyone has mains gas and yet I can smell woodsmoke every day in the colder months.

@PopcornPoppingInAPan see, I don’t understand this. You can’t smell anything from our log burner and believe me, I do go out and check. People certainly need to be educated on what to burn and how to control a log burner - it’s not as easy as it looks.
As OP has already stated, people who have log burners are unlikely to give them up. So educate them on how to use them efficiently.

There is abundant evidence from reliable sources that inefficient wood burners in the developing world kill millions of women

People in these regions literally sit in structures with no chimney and burn everything from dung to wet wood to little paraffin stoves.
Of course this is horrendous, but it's nothing remotely like a modern wood burning stove used correctly.

What intrigues me is that it seems only the science you agree with gets to be considered. Which is, by the way, the opposite of a scientific approach. I realise it is a complex topic but the impact of log burners, especially modern ones using well seasoned wood and being properly maintained, can be significantly less than other forms of heating and definitely less than running a car. Interestingly there is some evidence that evolved tolerance to some of the more harmful effects of woodsmoke has helped Homo sapiens move, survive and thrive in more northern climes:

Professor Gary Perdew and his colleagues conducted a study examining the role of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR) in human evolution, particularly in relation to smoke exposure. Their research, titled “Divergent Ah Receptor Ligand Selectivity during Hominin Evolution,” was published in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution in 2016.

The study suggests that a genetic mutation in modern humans may have increased tolerance to toxic compounds produced by fires, such as dioxins and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This adaptation could have provided an evolutionary advantage over other hominins, including Neanderthals, by reducing the health risks associated with smoke inhalation from activities like cooking and heating.

For a detailed exploration of this research, you can access the full paper through the Molecular Biology and Evolution journal.
Obviously not all ill effects would be mitigated, however.

see also the ‘criminal waste’ BBC investigation for topics related to incineration of recycling on an industrial scale - arguably more deserving of immediate attention.

I think you’ll find that any anger (that isn’t actually humour) is due to the shouty directive nature of the original post. Life is full of complex decisions and one of the joys in living in a modern secular society with free speech and human rights is that we all get to make our own, as grown ups.

With respect, and referencing OP’s previous post, I’ll decide what my ‘duty’ is, thank you.

I've recently moved to a house with a wood-burner. I've only been able to light it once, as it set off my asthma.

Given how high the particle levels are when cooking, especially frying, why don't you also call for a ban on this. I live in a rural area without a MacDonalds for 40 plus miles anyway so, much like areas without gas don't bother you, I couldn't care less if they are all shut down.

And anyone who has worked in kitchens is stuffed if we follow the conclusions of this.

My area is famous for smoking fish. God help the people who have worked their entire lives in the smoke house. I don't say this is necessarily good for you, more that it is something many in this community have done and they seem to be living long lives.

Is the chimney newly swept and woodburner serviced with the rope etc replaced if necessary?

🤣🤣🤣

Although to give the other side, there are plenty of idiots who don't know how to season wood and fail to burn it at the correct temperature.

I'd rather any clamping down is on that and on appropriate density, chimney height etc.

If it's so bad...how come the SNP scrapped the ban on wood burning stoves in new build homes? Surely out of all homes, the new builds definitely wouldn't need a stove and yet the SNP are happy for them to be installed.

Yes, exactly what I said.