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

They're ugly monstrosities.

This. Unfortunately some people don’t appreciate the conditions others are living in. Many communities don’t have a choice but to use this type of heating. It’s all very well someone sitting in their modern, well insulated, house with a gas supply saying “don’t burn wood, you’re harming your children”, but some families have no choice.

Child mortality has gone down in every decade. The reasons are complex, but increased awareness of risk is a big part of it. Seat belts, car seats, soft surfaces in playgrounds, and less unsupervised play (which I know has its downsides) are part of that. So when people say, we survived - well, yes most of us did. But some didn't.

The children who had open fires in the 80s would not show any signs of damage now. Many of them may never show any signs of damage. But those children will have an elevated risk of lung cancer. The numbers may be small, and other risks may be worse - but that risk is real.

Yeah, that's conclusive then. Group think paradox would never occur under such scrutiny would it 🤔

Yes same here, Im not concerned about it.

Children are at far greater risk from traffic and obesity.

Completely missing the point but why would AHRC be funding science stuff? Which makes me think it’s not very robust cos humanities people tend to be humanities experts not science experts.

I have got a log burner and I am pregnant - am I concerned? No! if i had to list 100 things I am concerned about, having a log burner wouldn't make the list. I use kiln dried logs, my burner is serviced annually and the heat feels less harsh than central heating. In fact, every time I boost my heating I get 'cold type symptoms' and a coldsore on my nose.
Each to their own - we are adults and can make our own decisions about acceptable risks.

I have an air quality monitor in the same room as the modern wood burner for this very reason.

It doesn't show any increases in VOC or particulate matter when the wood burner is being used.

However it does pick up a spike in VOC and particulates when the gas central heating comes on at 6 am (dust on radiators + heat causing the air to circulate) plus a much bigger spike in VOC when cleaning products are being used and lastly a really big spike in VOC when a Christmas Tree is first put up.

So no I'm not worried about the wood burner.

How much does an air quality monitor cost?

See there's that word "may" again . . .

And quickly followed by "risk" . . .

Sir Richard Doll had similar backlash in the 1950s when he made the link between smoking and lung cancer. People absolutely did not want to hear - why? Because smoking was enjoyable and fashionable and relaxing. All the things a wood burner is.

People will wake up eventually but I appreciate it’s a tough thing to U turn on when you’ve just had one fitted or you’ve spent a load of money on one and enjoy using it. It takes time to step outside of those thoughts and think dispassionately and actually look at the evidence

My uncle is a sustainability researcher and has been saying this for years. I love wood burners and grew up with them but I think it is hard to justify, looking at the research. He calls it “recreational heating” when people are using it because we enjoy it over GCH or heat pumps. So I try to keep that phrase in mind when tempted!

It’s so ingrained in us to gather around a fire that I totally understand why the research around particulates is hard to accept.

I agree with this. Walking my dog in the winter over the last 15 years feels like stepping back in times to the Victorian era. The smog and fug in the air is awful. Half the houses on my road have log burners - I hate them. Hopefully they will go out of fashion in the next few years.

Great that you would welcome a good study, there are lots of them, this is just the latest. A quick Google will turn them up.

My guess would be wood burning is particularly focused on in the study because it's one of the easiest problems to solve and one of the areas of least public awareness, currently. Unless you are living very rurally and genuinely stuck for other options, wood burners are a 'nice to have' instead of a necessity. An easy switch for most people, that can instantly reduce harm quite significantly.

I agree that I would like to see more publicity around the risks of cooking with gas, and also the fact that unnecessarily large cars (eg driving a Range Rover in London) also contribute unnecessarily to harmful particulate pollution (they release more particulates from tyres and brakes than smaller, lighter vehicles). But that doesn't negate the importance of getting the message out about wood burning - we need to tackle this on multiple fronts, across all areas where it can be reduced.

There are good reasons why health and environmental organisations like Cancer Research UK, British Heart Foundation, Asthma and Lung UK, Alzheimer's UK, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace all back the reduction of wood burning and other sources of particulate matter.

Well yes, I mean if someone is willing to give me the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of pounds to run gas mains from the road through two fields to my house, or to install sufficient solar panels and battery systems and rewire the house to install underfloor heating / electric radiators and boilers and showers etc, and to pay for accommodation while this goes on (which will take weeks), then sure maybe I'll get rid of the fires.

Until then, however...

Agree! It's certainly a 'fashion' thing in certain parts of the country... no need at all.

We have a serious childhood obesity problem, which is linked to all sorts of issues, increasing mental health concerns amongst young people, and yet here we are with people concerned about children living in houses with wood burners. I’d say, as a society, we have bigger issues to be concentrating on.

Absolutely this.

I have an air filter and it spikes when my neighbour's put their (brand new, state-of-the-art apparently) log burner on. It's also the ONLY time I need to use my inhaler. I didn't realise the risks until they had it installed but when I read up on it, I was shocked.

I'm very grateful they got bored of it extremely quickly and only use it now when they have visitors around!

I think it's shocking when we've waged war on air pollution in cities - and made huge improvements - we allow unnecessary log burners to continue.

YABU

living in a 300 year old listed building, which has been heated by fire for the whole of time, who are you to tell me how to heat my home?

We live high up in the middle of the countryside, so our air is much cleaner than those who chose to live in the city, and I'm not suggesting that all these families move to areas with clean air, darkness and quiet.

Our stove is serviced regularly and during winter power cuts, it can keep as alive and warm rather than freezing to death.

Its also much cheaper to run than using the boiler to heat 22 radiators in our farm house (which we use in the morning and evening), the stove plus aga keep downstairs warm during the day.

Except literally every post on this subject says that if you need it for heating, fair enough. This is referring to the use of log burners in cities etc. where it is a cosy lifestyle choice.

Can we only focus on one thing at a time, then?! Since when? And why?

Both are important and both just as deadly. They both need to be tackled.

We are talking micrograms here and among pollutants are listed cooking, passing a bakery etc. So we should live on raw food, avoid shops that sell food cooked on the premises and not heat our homes if we cannot use electricity to do it?

That is really interesting, thank you!

One thing that stands out is that air pollution/particulate pollution is worse inside the car than outside. (Presumably the wind and airflow can disperse it a bit more) So driving is actually worse for the health of the person driving on top of increasing air pollution for those around them.

You have to wonder how humanity made it this far.

Yes this is interesting. What about if you put on the car filter to stop outside fumes? Is it better to keep this off and smell the fumes? It is all so confusing. Does anyone know the answer to this?