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

Absolutely.

But in a situation with limited energy, resources etc we generally focus on improving the health of the most.

Reading that article and the conclusions it is this finding that leaped out at me as the one we should be doing much more on more quickly.

The logistics and infrastructure investment needed in rural areas to combat the needs for wood fired heating is much longer term than tackling the stupidity of driving kids to school when they live in walking distance.

The health impacts from wood burning cannot be compared to tobacco harms. Smoking kills and maims at least 2 out of 3 of its users and the link is directly proven.

You know that stoves are connected to a chimney? It's not at all like parking your car indoors with the engine on and no exhaust extraction.

From this study I think that you are better off with the filter on - it says: 'using closed window and recirculating air condition [...] reduces particulate matter concentrations'. But it's from 2012 - and car designs have changed since then (but hopefully the filtration has only improved) and it took me quite a lot of digging to find that answer!

Correct, it is not unicorn farts. It's mostly gas in the UK, then wind and nuclear.

Burning gas for power is not ideal from a global climate change perspective albeit unavoidable currently but this isn't about carbon dioxide, it's about air pollution (particulates) in your home.

Burning gas at a power station does not increase particulate levels in your house.
Therefore using electricity regardless of what is generating it on the grid might have a carbon impact globally but it does not impact particulates in your home.

Burning wood does increase particulates in your house.

Better advice is to get a good quality air purifier and see what happens.

For instance, my purifier speeds up just from cooking dinner.

You'd soon know if you had a problem.

Do your neighbours sit on your roof around your chimney?

I don’t think it’s completely clear cut. I have a modern house with no fire at all, so no skin in this game really. But I think you are partly right. Yes we used to burn all sorts of gubbins in open fires when we were kids, but the house was single glazed, there were always draughts, I dare say that the issue of burning stuff in the house wasn’t that bad then. We now live in practically air tight boxes, often in built up environments.

On the flip side, all energy production is polluting our world, even “green” energy requires obtaining raw materials for manufacture/manufacture/transport/installation/disruption of the natural environment.

I think wood burners in practically air tight homes are a bad idea (esp in smallish rooms) but we need to consider this as a very small part of our exposure to pollutants especially micro plastics and airborne toxins.

Living by the coast I’m also very highly aware of water quality.

Humans need to change, we need less energy usage all round - the multitude of pollutants we create needs to be addressed, wood burners are prob the least of our worries

On a societal level no one is bothering really,s eriously to reduce obesity for children

At home people will make their own choices but dont seem too bothered

In terms of burning, as with others I use the best wood, have a well maintained and serviced burner and we have an air quality monitor which doesnt show any concern when the burner is on. Although it does flag when the gas hob is on for some reason.

During the winter months when I’m walking my dogs I have to take my asthma inhaler out with me now. This is due to so many people having log burners, I can smell it in my hair when I get home.

I don’t know what they’re burning, they’re supposed to use seasoned wood, but could be burning anything, it simply stinks and certainly triggers off breathing difficulties 🤷‍♀️

There is a huge, huge body of evidence on the dangers of open fires. So much so that there’s numerous micro finance initiatives to help poorer families purchase cleaner, smokeless cookstoves. Open fires are a recognised global health risk.

An hour’s exercise doesn’t negate the 10+ hours spent in bed overnight exposed to those particulates.

If you must use a wood burner then a modern DEFRA approved stove is really the minimum you should have in your home.

If we had mains gas available then I'd have it - but like many rural places in the country we don't.

Our house is too far from the road for us to be able to have oil, is accessed by a long narrow path that means ground source heat pump installation is not possible and our 1950's house would cost a bomb to heat with an air source heat pump.

So we have shitty storage heaters that are cold by the evening even if we set them to be much too hot in the morning. They are also hugely expensive. So we have a multi fuel burner and burn smokeless coal.

I don't know why more people don't burn smokeless coal, unless you get the wood for free (which is going to be ridiculously smoky if it's not seasoned) then smokeless is more efficient and healthier. It's a higher upfront cost but it burns much hotter - and wood burns 40% faster.

TBH the biggest cause of pollution where we like is the large farm estate that burns all it's green waste no matter how wet it is.

£69 on Amazon, usually half price on Prime Day:

https://amzn.eu/d/0ahqrbDT

I live rurally, and in Winter many people in the village burn wood. At times the air pollution both outside and in my house is so bad that it affects my chest and I need to run an air purifier machine indoors.
I have a wood burner that came with the house, but I only use it a few times a year maximum, it was useful once when the boiler packed up over Christmas.
I do think that the general pollution from burning wood is ignored, my village can get almost smoggy, when you can smell the smoke wherever you are outside.

Is the same thing as saying electric cars produce less fumes than diesel, therefore electric is better. Until you look at the battery environmental production issues not to mention the battery disposal environmental issues?

Anecdotally my dd suffered asthma in old house - by a main road and hot air heating (powered by gas). Moved, and despite having an evil wood burning stove she’s not had an attack since, and overall much much healthier,

I worry about anything where people argue black and white, with no nuance. It makes be concerned there is an agenda behind the argument.

Not differentiating between open fire, old log burners and newer ones. Not differentiating between the type of fuel used. Not stating other products used within those homes (cleaning products, air fresheners etc). Commenting on walking past a bakery or restaurant seems to also still be saying don’t worry about what’s in your house - bigger issues walking down high street. Probably true…

When we were poor our log burner was vital because we could bring logs home on walks so it was free heating. I understand that was an extreme case though. We never use ours nowadays unless the boiler breaks.

Obviously in London it's ridiculous. The study wasn't London though, it was a rural Welsh island

my area is not connected to the mains gas, oil is expensive to heat the whole house, using the wood stove is a lot cheaper.

The whole life environment impact of electric vehicles is less than that of petrol and diesel and that was true before battery recycling was sorted out

ah but everywhere here

As long as they look nice, innit?

YABVU

Wood burners have been around for centuries
Actually just as bad for the environment as central heating or gas/electric fires, only it's wood being burnt instead of fossil fuels

Thank you. Not that I have a wood runner but would be interested in testing our home.

Sure. Also should ban children being in the kitchen when cooking, candles, drying laundry indoors or living next to a busy road which are comparable in risk increase (which is basically zero in a child without asthma)

Or just make sure that your home is well ventilated and don't leave it burning overnight especially if next to a bedroom (which helps with everything above except when you live next to a busy road).

Oh, and also driving the kids to school - 1 child in 2-4 million with a 20 minute drive to school is killed by that drive. This absolutely dwarfs the danger from heating their home with a wood burner

People like to defend them because they cost them money to install and they are cheap to run - at least if you steal wood or burn any old crap in them. If you burn proper seasoned logs then they cost as much as gas, if not more and are a whole load more hassle.

It seems weird how in cities we have made huge strides in trying to remove vehicle pollution, only to wreck it all with fire pollution. It makes absolutely zero sense.

They should really be banned in any areas where there is mains gas available IMO.

In the country out of cities the outside pollution impact is less, and if you wish to risk your own lungs that is your business.

Yet another area where the government is refusing to do something to benefit the environment and air quality, probably because they are scared of the vocal minority.

This is silly. One of the worst things for indoor air quality is scented candles, and nobody makes a big fuss about that.

Lead and arsenic have been around since the dawn of time but that doesn't mean they are good for you.