Another neigbour getting a wood burner

[JoSFry]

Come on …. When will people wake up to the pollution these things cause!

TBF where I live now and in a previous area a few years ago, bonfires are/were pretty much a weekly thing during the summer months. Now that the leaves are starting to fall it'll be a daily burn the area stenches of smoldering leaves/green wood burning.

Not a problem with either council as it's non toxic burns, so I can't get het up about people burning, in the main dry seasoned logs to keep warm.

I love our open fire, most people have one near me because they need one when the electricity goes out. I wouldn't have one in a city though.

Yes and huge numbers of people used to die of lung conditions, and prematurely, even when taking into account smoking.

And it's still going on now. The WHO estimates there are around 3 million premature deaths a year around the world die from household air pollution.

Oh dear, I’m having a woodstove installed today.

If it makes it any less evil, I live in the Maine woods. We burn well seasoned hardwoods that we’ve cut from our own 2.5 acres. It’s a clean-burning modern stove. It will supplement our heat pumps, which are powered by clean electricity. Between them we hope to avoid burning through the $1000 tank of oil we just had delivered.

It will be a godsend during our many power outages, although we’ll also need to use the generator to run things like the well pump.

We have a council incinerator near us, think I'd prefer a wood burner! But I do get what you mean OP

I loved my woodburner in my last house but now Ive moved to Somerset it never really gets cold enough as I live in a super insulated terrace so Id be boiling in 5 seconds. My last place was a semi in the middle of nowhere and very draughty. So I am without a woodburner.

Because there were no other options if you didn't want to die of starvation or exposure!

But there are much safer options now to avoid damaging your lungs and people stupidly choose to ignore that and live in complete denial.

Even now there are 3 million premature deaths worldwide from indoor air pollution. Think how many billions that will have been over history.

So no, people didn't just 'survive'!

Doesn't matter if you don't think so, it's recognised as a fact.

Obesity is a very serious problem but that doesn't mean everything else is automatically fine!

My mum is moving soon and buying a log burner for her new place. Love them!

I have a very sensitive air purifier as we have lung problems in our family.

It has a measure on it, which will usually be around 30 (low level). Then when you open the door of the wood burner even if it's off it would go up to over 500.

They're ugly as fuck and stink.

"I love my wood burner" = Epic beige flag.

Modern eco stoves use secondary and tertiary combustion systems to burn off gases and reduce particulate emissions by up to 80 to 94%compared to older stoves, and up to 90% compared to open fires.

I do. It doesn't register. Air purifier gets bent out of shape if I straighten my hair or fart though.

"I love my wood burner" = heat and warm food during winter power cuts, here.

Agree the environmental case is more complex than people think. Around 50% of harvested timber is lost in the logging process (bark, branches, odd bits etc). Those waste offcuts can be industrially incincinerated and the heat wasted, or they can be collected and turned into pellets for home or urban heating to capture and use that energy.

@JoSFry wait until you hear about the proposed 3rd runway at Heathrow.

I do. And only burn seasoned wood. And am off grid bar electricity, which is frequently cut off during the winter.

Plenty of people living rurally for whom wood burners are a lifeline, and they are tired of being told that they are irresponsible arseholes.

I do kind of get the point about wood burners in cities. But having a real fire is deeply compelling for people - it’s part of what makes us human. I would hope the new legislation mitigates the risks, because people won’t stop having fires.

YABU. Before long we will be back do the days of pea-soupers.

I love mine sorry !

Out of interest which figure goes up by the hundreds - particulates?

Ive just looked at my particulates history and there is no correlation between wood burner use and indoor particulates. For example I had a high reading of 500 in September when I wasn't using the wood burner at all whereas today it's been going since 8 am with an average reading of 7ug/m3.

That said it is a relatively new wood burner of three years old and I do keep the door closed. If the door is opened (ie it becomes an open fire) then the particulates do spike up.

We opted for solar panels instead. Keeps the whole house warm for cheaper and better for the environment.

we had a woodburner in the last house but a heat pump in the current one. Guess which house is cosier! Def the latter

The issue I have with the claims about the harms of woodburners is not because I believe burning wood is harmless but because I have not yet seen any conclusive evidence that it is as detrimental as some people like to make out.

In order to demonstrate in any real way what hazard woodburners cause you would first have to establish a base rate of a particular condition - dementia, lung disease, whatever it is you're concerned about - and then take into account ALL the other factors which contribute to those: smoking, how well ventilated your house is, how dry or damp your house is, how close you live to a main road, how much you drive, do you live in a high radon area, whether you use scented candles, whether you use pesticides or other harmful chemicals in your home or garden, your diet, your family history... And THEN, if you do manage to isolate the effects of woodburning from all of that, you have to adjust the data for what type of fuel is burnt in what kind of grate / stove, and how often it's used and cleaned.

People like to grab hold of headlines like "wood burners increase your risk of X by 60%!!!". 60% is a big number and sounds scary but it means nothing unless you know what base rate it's referring to.

An increase of 60% on a 1% base rate is 1.6% risk. I doubt many people would blink at that.

An increase of 60% on a 50% base rate brings us to 80% risk. That is an appreciable difference and would give lots of people pause.

In short, I accept that wood burners present a risk. I reject the notion that the risk is so great that they and they alone cause mass health issues to the population or will shorten my life noticeably (I am a non-smoker, living rurally, in a draughty house - others may vary) and that having one in the house is condemning your children to a lifetime of lung problems.

For me, as I'm sure for many, the slightly increased risk of some diseases is outweighed by the warm dry home (an argument could be made that a cold home would significantly limit life expectancy in any event).

I would love to have solar panels (I have a really suitable south facing roof) and also to have double glazing but neither are allowed as the house is Grade 2 listed. I have insulated everything thing else I can and keep interior doors closed as well.

So instead I have two log burners running pretty much permanently, getting through a lot of logs which fortunately are free. But only to have most of the heat disappear through single glazed windows.

Bit nuts really.

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.