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

As lots of people have said, it's often much cheaper to bulk-buy wood than it is run the central heating.

Just because you have mains gas and live in an affluent area, doesn't necessarily follow that you can afford to run the heating.

We had a log burner and we gave it up (stopped using it when I learned of the risks).
The people we sold our house to last year have just replaced it with a bioethanol burner.
🤷‍♀️

Yeah, I’d be surprised if the people living in the £1m+ houses down our street, many with 2-3 expensive cars, can’t afford to use their central heating…

Well, as the saying goes, look after the pennies and the pounds take care of themselves.

The vast majority of people outside of MN are going to go with the cheaper option. Running a woodburner isn't expensive once it's installed and up and running - we pay £40 or so for a dumpy bag of wood which would last a month if we used it daily.

Technically we have the money for heating at the level I need it, but its much cheaper for me to sit in one room with the burner roaring to keep me warm. And people have the right to decide for themselves what they can 'afford'.

I have to have the heating at a really high level all over the house to replicate the heat I can get out of a nights logs worth. Its a no brainer.

I also dont believe, and never have, these tales of people being unable to breath in their own house becuase a house down the road has a wood burner, or that their washing hanging presumably in their house (given its winter?) smells of woodsmoke from 5 houses down.

That’s your choice. Great!

TBH, another reason I wouldn’t get rid of my log burner, and this is the elephant in the room, is because the state of the world. Our fuel sources are owned by other countries, as is our water. There is a pretty good chance that the northern gas lines will be disrupted if things get worse in the Balkans. The world is unstable.
I have a source of heat and cooking ( ok, reheating), here in my home. I won’t be getting rid of it.

Exactly.

Running the woodburner heats our entire downstairs very easily and cheaply. We generally just have it running "low" and it barely uses any wood once it's up to temperature.

Check that the rope seal is working properly by shutting a large piece of newspaper in the door. If, when the door is shut, you can pull the paper out, the rope seal isn't working well and needs to be replaced. Also, check the hinges.

Very good point. It's always good to have a way to heat your home (and feed yourself) that doesn't rely on the government or national grid. Remember all those planned power outages that sent everyone into a panic?

Such a random and sweeping statement. I have a wood burner. It has been set up properly and I only burn seasoned wood. I also own an electric car. So does my Dh, I do not idle a car.

OP is a classic ‘middle class with a cause’ poster. I imagine lots of mummy SUVs arriving at the “Mums for Lungs” meet ups describing how terribly awful it is in Highgate and someone even smelled smoke whilst out with a pram - the cause identified as being from a woodburner! Not in N10 surely where if we try hard enough we can live to 100+.

And a charity was born.

Meanwhile, they’re completely obviously to why some people have to have one and are very creative with the use of science data. Anyone who doesn’t have a binary view is a “denier”.

You haven’t hit a nerve. More so showed your ignorance of people who aren’t you.

We have an open fire and use smokeless coal - stays warm for days and heats the downstairs!

This x 1000!

@EnYar this isn’t about binary thinking or being dismissive of others’ needs. It’s about finding ways to balance comfort with responsibility, especially when the evidence shows that this choice harms others. We can have this conversation without resorting to personal attacks or assumptions about one another’s motivations. At the end of the day, we all want cleaner air and healthier communities, and this should be something we can work towards together.

@coffeesaveslives the affordability of wood burners doesn’t prevent or offset their broader impact. While running one might seem like a “cheap” option for the user, the hidden costs to society—particularly through the impact on public health—are significant. Air pollution from wood burners contributes to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, which strain the NHS and affect people’s quality of life, particularly for children, the elderly, and those with existing conditions like asthma. If you read PPs you've been given real life examples.

It’s worth reflecting on the broader picture: while wood burners might seem economical for one household, the collective impact of many homes choosing this option contributes to a larger public health challenge. Balancing personal choices with their societal consequences isn’t easy, but it’s a conversation we all need to have particularly when it comes to choices like woodburners.

The no. 1 public health challenge in the UK is obesity. Obesity is fuelled by cheap, ultra-processed food.

Whilst I understand, but don’t necessarily agree, your some of your concerns regarding log burners, the real baddies in this are the mega corporations. Be it, cheap, shit food, or unnecessary, high fuel costs. I think your time would be better spent fighting these companies and not attacking individuals trying to heat their homes.

The big problem with the anti-woodburning arguments is that no one is arguing pm2.5 particulates are potentially lethal. The biggest problem is in cities and urban areas where there are already high baseline levels of pm2.5 from industries, traffic, cooking, bonfires, barbecues and yes, wood burning stoves. The arguments about the rights and wrongs of banning woodburning stoves across the UK is like comparing apples and pears with respect to rural vs City living.
Additionally this paper suggests that

• 46% (21,951 tonnes) of PM2.5 originate from outdoor burning.
• Significant quantities of fuel were found to be burnt outdoors, many sources of which are unregulated and highly polluting, such as bonfires.
• The largest single contributor to domestic outdoor burning emissions is green waste. This accounts for 90% of all outdoor burning emissions when combined with waste wood and rubbish.
• The estimate for indoor wood fuel use is significantly lower than the estimate used in the NAEI.
• Modern Ecodesign stoves contribute just 2.7% of PM2.5 emissions from the burning of wood logs.

stoveindustryalliance.com/new-research-finds-almost-half-of-pm2-5-emissions-from-domestic-burning-come-from-outdoor-sources/

To have a ‘conversation’, OP, both parties have to listen and be prepared to take on or at least consider other views and evidence. Without that it’s more of a lecture….

And yet again we have people who think it is persuasive to quote “science” and “evidence” (non peer-reviewed, natch) from a body that represents the stove industry.

🤦🏼‍♀️

You have to be incredibly privileged to be able to prioritise societies/strangers needs over your own immediate ones.

The fact that you have repeatedly proven that you can't see that speaks volumes about you and your agenda.

“Balance comfort with responsibility” is the most privileged comment I’ve read yet.

The collective impact of oil, electricity and gas aren't brilliant either

Thank you so much for raising awareness of this important issue. Wood burners are so harmful. It's really not worth risking the health of your family & your neighbours.

@PopcornPoppingInAPan did you actually look at the link?

"And yet again we have people who think it is persuasive to quote “science” and “evidence” (non peer-reviewed, natch) from a body that represents the stove industry."
The weblink, abstract and report all give the names of the academic authors and the academics who peer reviewed the study.

I respect both sides of this argument but at the very least I would expect both sides to be Making informed decisions based on reasoned discussions of available data, not prejudiced assumptions.

And perhaps YOU could tell me what the cradle - grave pm2.5 emissions of a delivery of heating oil to my home are compared to me heating my home with wood? Because I have asked repeatedly and get no answer.

That is such BS. Having been to Mums for Lungs meetings there's not an SUV in sight. It's a lot of mums who's kids have asthma, mums who have asthma themselves, some mums who are doctors who know the health risks and are really worried, some mums who have disabled kids who are more vulnerable to air pollution and many more reasons. To paint mums worried about the health of their children - many far from the privileged yummy mummy types you describe - as hypocrites in such a disgusting manner is not only uninformed but also outrageous. A totally ridiculous, insulting and unnecessary comment. Have you ever looked at your own children when they are struggling to breathe?