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

So are you saying that it is unreasonable for children to be in a house that has a log burner, at any time, regardless of when it was lit or is alight?

It is the presence of or the recent use rather than the active use that is the issue?

My dc spend lots of time at home but that may not necessarily be when then stove is lit. I try to light it early so that they come home to a warm house, but none of us sleep well if too hot so we don't burn into the evening.

And our stoves have never been in use for 16-20 hours out of 24.

What are the comparative studies of risk of harm from cold and damp vs wood burners?

As a parent the thought of deliberately not heating the house despite the means to do so seems more immediately harmful but maybe I've been brainwashed by my caveman ancestors need for flame.

I have a wood burner. I use it every night when it’s cold. I only use well seasoned wood. I also use an air purifier when it’s on - and as another poster said it reads low pollution - but use the toaster or gas hob and it has high readings. I have an electric car and my child walks to school so I try and be everything in moderation when it comes to my pollution load.

Do you have other heating?

Also FYI: Great Britain has the highest percentage of people with respiratory problems in Europe.
Wood burners, badly insulated and ironically also badly ventilated houses ( causing mould), and a high percentage of smokers will do that.

There are still open fires in rural Wales including Anglesey.

Where we live, everyone around us has woodburners, including both our next door neighbours. One of the neighbours is a bungalow and we're a house, so the pipe from their recently installed burner delivers billows of smoke straight at 2 of our upstairs windows, including the bathroom. We have to use a dehumidifier now, as we can't open that window without the house filling with smoke. They use their woodburner for 18 hours a day. Even with all our windows shut, smoke gets in. The only way I can air the house is to get up at 4 in the morning. If you go outside, it's like standing in the middle of a bonfire. So because people enjoy woodburners, our standard of living and no doubt our health go down the drain. There should definitely be a law against these things. Why is it fine to do this to other people, and how is the NHS going to cope with the consequences (it isn't).
Woodburners seem to be like holidays abroad by plane - people like them, so fuck the consequences, including the consequences for their own children. Both our next door neighbours and my sister bought their woodburners quite recently, after there'd been masses of warnings in the papers. They just don't care.

IMO woodburners are the aluminium pans of the 1970's. Someone did research into what causes Alzheimers and the wondered if there was a connection to using aluminium cookware. It was bever proven in fact it was actually disproven, but hundreds of millions of people believe it to this day.

We are not able to access mains gas (along with hundreds and hundreds of households near us, we are rural but not isolated at all).

We have underfloor electric heating in a small extension - the heat doesn't transmit to anywhere else

We have oil fired ch in another part of the house/bedrooms. We have to pay upfront for a tank of oil and it is eye watering lying expensive. We use it sparingly. As I said up thread the emissions from that boiler stink and seem more concerning to me.

We have solar panels and a way of heating water from them but it is temperamental and no one really seems to understand how it is meant to work.

We have 2 fireplaces downstairs in the main living areas and these effectively heat most of the house very quickly and easily when lit

YABU for being so invested in what other people choose to do.

Think you should have said; could be in the house……fire out.??

There are also other fuels which people use in their homes which emit dangerous micro particles & noxious gasses, especially notable is Natural Gas.
Humans have been living close to smoky fires since time began!!, why spend money on scientists looking into natural wood smoke when we’re surrounded by huge quantities of unnatural present day particulates.
As the particulates weren’t identified in this study, I cannot understand why you have reached the conclusion of your post.

The thing is, once kiln dried logs have been stored outside and exposed to damp they are no longer dry when burned.

It affects the neighbours too.

Excellent post @Fantaorage . Attitudes will change but slowly. Smoking cigarettes was believed to be good for your health for a very long time. It was only when they looked for a cause for the rising number of people with lung cancer that the research showed how dangerous tobacco smoke was. Huge numbers of people claimed it never did them any harm for a long time. Thank goodness most people now accept the irrefutable evidence.

Why not research what causes health problems, irrespective of whether it's produced by wood (natural but of course not burned by non-humans) or man-made materials?

I'm not saying that my domestic air monitor is up to the quality of a professional air quality monitor but it would at least register a change in PM2.5 and VOC levels if the wood burner produced them - when the reality is that it doesn't.

That said it will register changes if I leave the door open on the wood burner or use cleaning products or put up a Christmas tree. So whilst the levels may not be accurate it would at least register any changes.

But due to the nature of burning things and creating smoke it does affect everyone else. It's like littering.

How about, people with children shouldn't live in big cities because their lungs will be subject to more pollution?

You could extend that form of argument in so many ways with equal validity it just isn't a tenable approach to life.

I've lived most of my adult life heating mainly with wood. It's fine, and it's fine to use it as a back up or secondary source. My kids spent a good bit of time outdoors as a result, ds spent half a day splitting wood and stacking it inside last weekend. I imagine the extra physical activity counts for something...

I don't doubt that there are particulates released from log burners and there are health implications which should be borne in mind.

I also don't doubt that there will be campaigns and studies backed by share holders in the energy firms. Can't be having their profits affected by all the peasants burning wood now can we?

Pre nineteenth century, the average human life span was stagnant. Unfortunately, amongst other pollutants, open fires caused many respiratory conditions. It wasn't until the latter half of the nineteenth century and the twentieth century that human life span increased significantly. The first half of the nineteenth century, only 50% made it past 50 years old. In contrast 97% of people born in the UK today will see 50. Healthy changes to our way of life makes a big difference.

Believe it or not lots of life-long smokers live to old age. Doesn't make it healthy. And doesn't make second hand smoke healthy either.

Not suggesting this study is government backed but I wouldn't trust any study that was. The government do not want people using log burners and that it is NOTHING to do with health 💰💰💰

I would also suggest that people who are concerned for their children's health need to stop using candles, air fresheners, fabric conditioner, wood polish, chemical cleaning sprays, hair spray, dry shampoo, plastic chopping boards, fire retardent infused clothing and bedding, plastic eating and drinking utensils and food prep items, non organic food, aluminium foil, deodorant, tap water.... I could go on and on.

I'm just dropping this quote from the paper here again:

"Lastly, while contextual data helped identify likely pollution sources, source-specific quantification (e.g. distinguishing between cooking, smoking, or wood burning) was not feasible."

They also did not distinguish between stoves and open fireplaces in the survey.

I'm not saying wood burning is safe. I am saying that this research does not show it is the cause of the poor air in the environments of the children studied. I wish people would actually read the article published by the scientists rather than the newspaper headlines.

Natural gas is nowhere near as bad as wood.

Smoky fires since time began, this is a really nonsensical rationale.

People have been smoking cigarettes since the 1600s ! Therefore it must be OK. Or maybe not.

Neanderthals using fire didn't really have to worry about the effect smoke had on their long term prospects. Because they were all mostly dead by the time they were 40. And even if 25% of them did keel over before then from respiratory issues due to smoke, there was no one around to record it !

Healthy changes to our lives that resulted in a longer lifespan are so broad that you can't attribute it to a single factor.

This has been a topic of conversation in our house lately as my Mother has a wood burner and someone went to the trouble of posting her anonymously (of course 🙄) an information leaflet about the damages of a wood burner to the environment and health.
I can only assume they had see her log store from the road and decided to give her the benefit of their wisdom…. She was really upset as it had been posted and not hand delivered so someone had gone to a fair bit of trouble and they had no idea who lived there.
Im a big believer in you do you and let someone else do what is best for them. I wouldn’t have one with alongside my children for multiple reasons but I don’t ask my family members who do have them (and only 2 of us don’t) not to light them when we’re there.