I think you’re making a reasonable point about the importance of distinguishing relative risk from absolute risk, but you’re also overlooking something fundamental.
The scientific evidence that fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is harmful to human health is already substantial.
We know that wood burning produces significant quantities of these particles, along with other harmful pollutants. This isn’t simply a case of researchers speculating about possible health effects.
You’re also suggesting that researchers need to eliminate every other possible contributing factor before they can establish a risk. That’s not how epidemiology works. Researchers routinely account for factors such as smoking, age, existing health conditions and other pollution sources. Otherwise, we would struggle to establish the health effects of almost any environmental exposure.
But the biggest missing point in your argument is that wood burning doesn’t just affect the person choosing to light the stove.
The smoke goes up the chimney and into the surrounding environment, where it can affect neighbours, including children, elderly people and those with respiratory conditions. They haven’t chosen to expose themselves to that pollution, and they don’t benefit from the warmth of your home.
And while you’re absolutely right that a 60% increase in risk needs context, a relatively small increase in individual risk can still translate into thousands of additional cases of illness when an entire population is exposed.
I also think it’s incorret to frame this as a choice between having a wood burner and living in a cold, damp house. Of course cold homes are harmful, but that doesn’t mean wood burning is the only way to heat a home.
Nobody needs to claim that every wood burner will cause dementia or condemn children to lifelong lung disease to recognise that wood smoke is a genuine public health concern.
The relevant question isn’t whether you personally will notice a reduction in your life expectancy. It’s whether routinely releasing harmful pollutants into the air, particularly when cleaner alternatives are available, is justified when other people have to breathe them too.
Your personal willingness to accept a risk doesn’t automatically make that risk acceptable for everyone around you.