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

OP it makes sense to say that, but as with a lot of things, people won't stop.
Family members almost live for the chance to light their fires, and there is no amount of scientific evidence that will stop them doing it. The fire is more important than anyone's health, including their own.

We have mains gas and are on the edge of a town. I wouldnt be without ours. The heating doesnt get the house hot enough for me and we've had a few incidents of boiler breaking down and needing a new part, part takes time to come in and no heating or hot water, the burner has been invaluable for that.

Haven’t read the full thread and this is a side thought…. We have a wood burner with a large air purifier right next to it. The purifier kicks into action when cooking happens in the kitchen next door, but doesn’t switch on when the fire door is opened to add more wood. Why is that…?

edit to add: genuine question, by the way. It has always baffled me assuming smoke would be more prevalent when doors are opened.

Probably because you can gas yourself out with scented candles if you want, but it won't affect your neighbours that much who choose not to.

Stove pollution affects everyone. Basically the idea is chuck the nasty stuff outside so you don't have to deal with it inside.

'Short pollution peaks were also measured when children walked past bakeries and restaurants on the high street.'

Will nobody think of the poor children exposed to dangerous patisserie?

'One young kiddie on cake cried all the water out of his body'

OMG this. There is also the issue of no recording of the type, age and maintenance of the wood burner and what is burned. No skin in the game here either and not likely to be as my house has no chimney.

I've just returned from living abroad in a rural community where a wood burner was most people's only source of heat over winter. And ohhhhhhhhh I am so grateful to step back into the 21st century, where generations have worked hard to make GCH possible so that we no longer have to slave chopping wood and carrying water and are freed to do more interesting things!

We had a high-end Stuv burner but my health has definitely improved since no longer dealing with wood and ash.

I think a key problem is that, as PP mentioned, it can be difficult to get hold of properly seasoned wood especially in a severe winter where stocks are running low. Then everyone burns whatever they can get their hands on. Suitably kiln-dried wood is also expensive, so I doubt everyone in the UK is forking out for it.

The other thing is that it is actually possible to filter the smoke. It costs money to install a filter though.

But nobody actually does it because they care more about their own bank balance than they do about their neighbours health.

I agree @MojoMoon but you won't get much support on here. Some people are obsessed with their woodburners, and won't hear a word against them!

I wouldn't have one in my house if you paid me. JMO.

.

What’s making you think it only stays around the chimney? Particulates have mass, and they fall to ground level, where they are breathed in.

So if you are burning wood, you are forcing your neighbours to breathe in particulates that are harmful to them. Their risk of heart disease, lung disease, cancer and dementia increase because of what you’re doing. And they don’t even get the benefit of the nice warm cosy fire like you do.

dont worry about that

My wooden window frames ensure we have a constant supply of fresh air.... even with the windows closed.... because my house is listed I cant change them for nice modern airtight ones.

The room with the stove is dual aspect so it has draughty windows at both ends of the room, so there is always air flow, no matter if the windows are open or closed!

(can tell you have NO clue what living in these beautiful old traditional (uninsulated, freezing and draughty) buildings is like!!!!!)

We had an open fire growing up, we used to throw crisp packets and plastic packaging on it to watch them melt 🫣 this wood burner must be better?

I'm going to weigh in here. House behind me has installed one. Their house is a significantly lower elevation to ours. Thanks to the prevailing winds, their chimney blows directly into my daughter's bedroom. We can't air out her room at all in the winter, which isn't ideal for ventilation etc.

There should be more rules about where these things can be installed.

Particulate increase outside your home measured in London, is less than 10% of the annual mean PM2.5. It's at its worst on winter evenings. When outside, road traffic dominates your exposure - the only way it wouldn't is if you stood on a quiet street right in a plume of smoke on a cold evening.

And as for all the "we only burn seasoned wood" people, there's 10 more burning absolute shit that they've scavenged or all their plastic, as they can't be asked to recycle it. You only have to wander about of an evening and look up at the shitty black chimneys and then smell the stench of unsuitable stuff being incinerated or worse, gently simmered as that's even worse for the environment and people.

Do the people defending recreational burning here know to run their fires at higher temps?

If you have CH, really, this is just a hobby.

It is a tiny study with a lot of caveats, missing data and slightly dodgy categorisation (confounding woodburners and open fires for example). It also doesn't take into account home conditions e.g. ventilation. Their lead in study that they quote in the introduction doesn't differentiate either but does make the link with poor ventilation (which this study does not):

A survey indicated that up to 75 % of households in rural Wales use firewood (Jennifer and James, 2013), raising concerns about indoor air quality, especially in poorly ventilated homes (Khalequzzaman et al., 2011). Socioeconomic and cultural factors such as fuel poverty and traditional hearth-centred gatherings can further elevate exposure risks (Ferguson et al., 2023; Roberts, 2020).

The pilot study involved 53 children from two primary schools, with 94 % providing valid data so only 50 children. It doesn't state how many of the children were from each school, so I am going to assume 25 at each - but if it was more at the urban school then the data will be even more skewed.

The number of children with fuel burning appliances are tiny 53% of students at school B = 13 children, 21% at school A = 5 children - 18 in total out of the 50 in the study.

It also looks like there was quite a lot of data excluded but it is not made clear how many hours of home environment data was actually lost:

However, some data loss occurred, mainly due to device battery depletion or power-offs during measurements, leading to incomplete profiles. Positional errors also happened when students did not carry their backpacks while moving between microenvironments.

While the study is keen to point out the impact of woodburners and uses EPC data for woodburners in their initial mapping, they don't actually differentiate between wood burners, open fires, Rayburns, ranges etc in the data from the study which a flaw because there is a big difference in the air pollution given off by a woodburner and an open fire.

Post-survey data as shown in Table 1 indicate that one key difference between the two schools lies in the prevalence of household fuel-burning appliances. Approximately 53 % of students at School B reported having a wood burner and/or fireplace at home, compared to 21 % at School A. This suggests that indoor biomass combustion is likely a significant contributor to higher PM2.5 exposure.

This is compounded by where the sensors were places at home as well:

Which room to place sensor within the home affects pollution measurement data. According to post-survey responses, backpack placement in the home environment varied: 20 % left in the bedroom as mentioned in the instruction, 26 % left them in the kitchen, 10 % in the living room, 36 % near doors or hallways, and 8 % in other locations.

In contrast, PM2.5 levels in bedrooms and living rooms were more moderate and consistent, showing narrower distributions and lower peaks. This suggests that these spaces may offer more stable air quality conditions, potentially due to less activity, better isolation from pollution sources, or more frequent changes in air flow to refresh polluted indoor air.

This does not distinguish between School A and School B but the violin graph shows that the highest pollution levels were when backpacks were placed in the hall (suggesting they were potentially effected by the outside environment) or the kitchen (where the cooker is and again, where potentially wood or coal burning rayburns are located).

Where backpacks were placed in the living room (where woodburners are more likely to be), pollution levels were not particularly high.

So yes - you are being Very Unreasonable to suggest that people should not use woodburners based an a very small study which does not take into account the different type of woodburning appliances, household condition and ventilation, had measurements based on where children chose to leave the sensors and has a significant amount of missing data, particularly from the home environment.

If you want a true view there would need to be a study of many more households with fixed sensors in the living rooms, a non-woodburner control group in the same environment (rural / urban).

With the amount of bonfires people have in my area all year round burning worse than kiln dried logs a woodburner is quite tame.

And before anyone asks, no, the council don't see it as problem just inconsiderate and those that have said bonfires argue in good old MN style, it's their garden and can do as they like.
Although whenever I've pointed out that's fine but please do keep your smoke in your garden it's met with a look as though I'm the inconsiderate one.

Seems these people think that smoke stays within their boundaries.

Hmm are the wood burners any worse than the wood/ coal fires that every bloody house used to have. I think people needing to rip out their heat source is a bit OTT.

It sounds like you’re new to the world of research into this, quite understandably.

This is just ONE study that is adding to a body of research that has already been published. It sounds like the researchers particularly wanted to understand how and where children are exposed to air pollution, rather than a more general study, which we already have and which overwhelmingly show wood burning is a major problem.

if you stood on a quiet street right in a plume of smoke on a cold evening.

Which is literally what happens when someone vents their smoke into the path of someone elses house as other people have described on here.

This is one study to complement the already fairly hefty body of research on this. There absolutely no point picking it apart in isolation, you need to read it in the wider research context. That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if this was followed up by larger studies to confirm the findings.

I’m 69, have lived for the last 46yr in a house with open fire. During that time I’ve been pregnant 3 times & the 3 children all grew up here. The fire (burning logs) was the principal & cheapest way we heated the house & water for many yrs.
None of us have suffered from “ miscarriage, low birth weight, respiratory problems or dementia.” as yet!!

I’ve only skimmed the “experiment” report, but cannot find exactly what the exact identity of the ‘offending’?? particulates actually are?
Possibly, the particulates were simply given off by synthetic carpets, cleaning sprays, or, the rucksack & its machinery used to measure them?
I’ve heard on bbc radio4 scientific reports that even at the south pole & in the guts of deep sea fish, plastic particulates are readily found.
(I have to admit that I’ve always avoided synthetic fabrics for clothing & furnishings.)
Scientists were obviously paid for this ‘experimental’ work?

But pretty much all of the other studies focus on how wood burners increase pollutants in the outside environment.

And there is a massive difference between the effect in rural areas where wood burners are often the only source of heating or a much needed supplementary source to expensive LPG and Oil heating.

You also need to take into account that the particles in rural areas are higher in winter due to wood burners but lower over the rest of the year due to less traffic - so for a study to be truly robust it would need to take place over 12 months to show true daily averages of PM25.

The OP started this thread by asking if she was unreasonable to say that people with children shouldn't have wood burners based on a very limited study with many flaws.

She then went onto change the goal posts by listing studies which were largely about environmental wood burning pollution.

If she'd started the thread by asking AIBU to suggest wood burners should be banned in urban areas, it would be a whole different conversation

I was responding to the OP who quoted this study in isolation.

Wood is not toxic ffs