To say don't use a wood burner if you have children in the house?

[MojoMoon]

AIBU to say anyone using a wood burning stove with children in the house when it is for cosy vibes and other forms of heating are available should be viewed the same way as someone smoking with children in the room or the car?

Particulate pollution has been linked to miscarriage, low birth weight, respiratory problems and a higher risk of developing dementia.

Why do wood burning defenders respond so vigorously to studies like this? Is it because they have spent money on a wood burning stove and don't want to accept that they should remove it? Is it because they have a feeling of guilt about having been using it with children for years and worry about the damage already done? Or do they simply not believe particulates to be dangerous despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary.

Study:

Children living in homes with wood burners could be exposed to over three times more particulate pollution than those in non-wood-burning homes. The results come from a study that looked at air pollution experienced by primary schoolchildren in Wales.

Fifty-three children from two primary schools in Anglesey (Ynys Môn) were given backpacks equipped with air pollution sensors. They took the packs home and carried them during their journeys to and from school.
Dr Hanbin Zhang, from the University of Exeter and part of the study team, said: “One thing that stood out was the home environment. This was the largest contributor to children’s daily particle pollution exposure – more than school or commuting. This was mainly due to indoor sources such as wood burning and indoor smoking.”

Short peaks in particle pollution were linked to home cooking and secondhand tobacco smoke. Home heating with a fire or stove was linked to longer exposures. In some cases, these persisted overnight in children’s bedrooms as fires remained lit or smouldering with poor ventilation.
Prof Zhiwen Luo from Cardiff University, who led the study said: “During home hours, the average particle pollution in non-smoking homes with wood burners was about 13 micrograms per cubic metre compared with 3.5 micrograms per cubic metre in non-smoking homes without wood burners.
“The study is small, but the contrast was consistent and supports the conclusion that wood burning can substantially increase indoor particle pollution.”
One school was in Holyhead, and the other was in a rural area. We often think of towns and cities are being the most polluted places, but on average, researchers found urban children experienced less particle pollution, compared with those at the rural school.
The study took place in winter, and researchers attributed these differences to contrasts in wood burning. This took place in 21% of homes for the urban schoolchildren and 53% in the rural school.

Cooking added to the measured air pollution, especially when the backpacks were left close to the kitchen in the children’s homes. Short pollution peaks were also measured when children walked past bakeries and restaurants on the high street.

Particle pollution inside the schools was much lower than during travel and at home.

Children who walked to and from school experienced less pollution compared with children who were driven. Parental smoking while driving produced the highest concentrations measured in the study.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/feb/06/children-living-homes-wood-burners-exposed-pollution?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479725042677?via%3Dihub

Could is the word in the study that makes you unreasonable, they differ in design, and crucially efficiency so some do not elevate particulate matter. Ventilation varies the exposure too. I do not have any form of fire so have no skin in this but saying that it is dangerous is an overstatement, especially on a study of 53 children - what controls were in place to ensure the data wasn’t affected by poor housing more generally?

We have a modern, approved wood burner with good ventilation in the room. We burn only wood that has been seasoned.

I recently tested the air quality when it had been running for hours and it remained excellent.

Comparing a woodburner to hot-boxing children in a car is just silly.

All wood burners even those sold as eco design elevate particulate matter. It's impossible to burn wood without the releasing particulates - a fire needs oxygen which requires ventilation and no filter removes all fine particulates which are the most dangerous type.

Indoor Air Pollution from Residential Stoves: Examining the Flooding of Particulate Matter into Homes during Real-World Use | MDPI
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/11/12/1326

Why do you think your measurement of air pollution in your house is fine and valid but a peer reviewed academic study measuring air pollution is silly?

Hope you’re also telling everyone to stop driving their kids about as that study also showed it raised the amount of pollution the kids were exposed to. 👍🏻

I have a wood burner. I burn kiln dried wood and the stove is regularly serviced. It means I can heat a room when I wfh and I can’t afford to heat the whole house.

chatgpt reckons if the house was regularly at 13mcg I’d have headaches and sore eyes and throat. I have none of those things. Chatgpt also says kiln dried wood and an efficient stove will lower amount of particles.

there’s too many confounding factors in that study. Living by main roads, living rurally, walking to school, driving to school. If they want an accurate study the monitor should have been left in the room with the stove. Not on the backpack of the kid going all over.

ultimately I live rurally. The stove replaced an open fire which is what I grew up with and would have been worse. I’ve no doubt there is some increase in particulate pollution, same as frying bacon increases particulate, driving, living near a main road. Having central heating on increases particulate matter globally, just not in your immediate vicinity. The problem is still there, just kicked the can down the road

So many studies about the horrendous air pollution these things cause but so long as you're nice and cosy who cares, right?

You can tell winter's started here because the first still, cold day the air reeks of the bloody things.

I haven't read the research and I don't have a wood burner, so I have no skin in the game but my response to this post is because research is often biased so its always worth knowing who funded it.

I have no idea who funded this research but it's worth keeping that in mind generally.

@MojoMoon

“should be viewed the same way as someone smoking with children in the room or the car?”

This is beyond ridiculous. You cannot possibly think that a modern, properly fitted and maintained, wood burner with a regularly swept chimney and using kiln dried wood on a handful of cold evenings a year is as bad smoking in a car with children.

I’d be more concerned about children living in busy cities with busy roads than I would about a child living in a house who has a wood burner lit a few nights a year. There aren’t many families who use stoves and open fires as their main source of heating, and those that do tend to be in very rural areas where they aren’t exposed to city pollution.

Absolutely, this is something you should always consider. And - as good academic journals should do - that is stated in the paper.

This work was supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council [grant number AH/Y003772/1]

Like pretty much everything it's fine in moderation. It hasn't been cold enough for 2 winters now to use ours which is disappointing. For the few occasions every few years it is cold enough I will co tongue to enjoy it.

People just will not accept that burning wood is pollution despite all the evidence. I think it's because it feels 'traditional' and 'natural'.

People also think of air pollution as something that is tangibly unpleasant - whereas most people like the smell of wood burning. I used to live somewhere that I was shocked to learn had absolutely appalling air quality, because it didn't feel smoggy or have visible fumes - but modern air pollution from cars doesn't. I had three miscarriages living there and only afterwards learned, to my great upset and guilt, that living somewhere with air that bad is as dangerous as smoking for pregnancy.

And yet this study showed the children living in rural areas were exposed to higher particulate levels than those in urban areas.

I agree that the widely held belief is that urban areas have higher particulate exposure which was largely due to diesel vehicles.

But the decline of diesel vehicles and measures like ULEZ appear to reducing urban particulate exposure.

The way I look at it is, we all probably do things that are “sub optimal” for our health or the health of our families. We can minimise risk but there’s a balance. For example, most health conscious parents will want to feed their children whole foods, reduce sugar and UPF, but that doesn’t mean that once in a while some UPF foods / sugar means that later in life they will be obese or develop diabetes. There is comfort and joy to be had from fires, some people don’t get this and that’s fine but that doesn’t mean parents who have fires or wood burners in the house don’t care for their children’s welfare.

By that token we should also close all restaurants and bakeries?

Every family makes its own risk assessments and tolerates its accepted level of risk.
We have a wood burner (with a catalytic converter) and think that the benefit we get from it outweighs the damage it might do.

Each to their own.

I didn’t read the entire OP but I think I got the gist. I’m sure that using wood burning open sources of heat all the time, every day, would be damaging to human health but surely a few logs on the fire from time to time can’t be too bad…

Thank you for sharing this. It's mad anyone uses a wood burner unless they have no other source of heating. It's the same as parking a car in your living room with the engine running. I wish the government would make home owners get a licence for a wood burner, and have to prove there's no alternative.

Why do wood burning defenders respond so vigorously to studies like this

Because they are fashionable & look nice.

I'm sorry for your losses.

I do think indoor wood burning is a sadly massively under appreciated risk for pregnant women and young children in particular and in most cases, is entirely avoidable as it is a life style choice rather than heating as a matter of life and death.

The risk has not had the attention it deserves so you shouldn't feel guilty about not knowing.

Source for “it’s like parking your care in the living room with the engine running”?

We have a wood burner - I love it, and thanks to a tree surgeon uncle it's a lot cheaper for us than heating, so we use it a fair amount in winter. But I did notice that when we had to use it continuously for a week or two this winter while we had our whole heating system replaced, the air inside the house felt not-nice on the lungs similar to when I'd visited a city with very bad air pollution. Kept having to open all windows and doors to refresh it, which defeated the object. We have it serviced, burn seasoned wood etc. So I can definitely - from my own anecdotal perspective - feel the pollution. We don't have kids, though!

Do you feel the same way about smoking with children in the house? Sub optimal but feels quite nice, provides comfort and joy so might as well just do it and enjoy it despite the health risk to you and the children?

I’d be more concerned about children living in busy cities with busy roads than I would about a child living in a house who has a wood burner lit a few nights a year

Plenty of city households have wood burners….

lol what’s your beef with wood burners? Why wood burners, specifically?

"According to a report released in 2021 by the European Environmental Bureau, one Ecodesign-compliant wood burning stove releases the same amount of particulate matter per hour as 18 newer diesel cars or six modern heavy goods vehicles."

https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/gas-and-electric-fires-and-stoves/article/stoves-and-pollution-aIPXC8g7lbu5

No because it’s not providing any comfort to the children or anyone else in the household hence is a selfish act so different imo.