Wood burners are potential killers scientists report.

[Ewan123]

I'm wondering how quickly they yanked the door open - done slowly, especially the first inch or two, the amount of smoke etc. drawn back into the room is markedly different (especially on a boat with short chimney / moderate draw).

[Norm55]

Well, am 65 now and every house have lived in has had either wood burner / open fire / solid fuel range and am still here.   If the flu is drawing I cannot see how any significant level of fumes should enter room or boat.  

 

 

[MartinC]

16 hours ago, Norm55 said:

Well, am 65 now and every house have lived in has had either wood burner / open fire / solid fuel range and am still here.   If the flu is drawing I cannot see how any significant level of fumes should enter room or boat.  

 

 

I recall that when we had a woodburner installed at home we were given clear advice to open the stove door slowly to minimise fumes.

I was born in London and lived my childhood there in the days of smog. A little bit more than a few particles coming from an open stove door!

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MartinC said:

I recall that when we had a woodburner installed at home we were given clear advice to open the stove door slowly to minimise fumes.

I was born in London and lived my childhood there in the days of smog. A little bit more than a few particles coming from an open stove door!

We had our multi fuel stove installed three and a half years ago and our installer told us pretty much the same thing. Or rather crack it open, pause then slowly open it.

 

And it works a treat.

 

On our boat we were not ever told this but sort of discovered by chance.

[phantom_iv]

On 18/12/2020 at 19:04, magpie patrick said:

You have no idea how many of my friend want an electric car and a wood burner... 

I have both of these. Would happily recommend it ? 

[IanD]

This is another case where something that people have been doing for years turns out to have unpleasant health implications -- the effect of particulates like this on health has only really started to emerge recently, it's certainly not as bad as smoking or countrywide coal fires used to be, but there's still a real risk, especially for people with breathing problems like asthma.

 

Don't forget that -- much to the government's annoyance -- it's only a few days since the first death with air pollution as an official cause on the death certificate, this isn't the first and I doubt that it'll be the last. Which means that right now any stories to do with air pollution -- like the one about stoves -- are particularly newsworthy. But this doesn't mean they're not true...

 

Saying "I've been using a stove like this for years and it hasn't done me any harm so these articles must be wrong" is about as valid as using the "my gran smoked like a chimney and drank like a fish and lived to 92" argument to prove that smoking and alcohol don't cause harm. Anecdotes (the technical term) are not evidence ?

 

Like any other environmental factor the added risk to any one person is small, if you want something to worry about there are much bigger personal risks to worry about like drinking or eating too much or crossing the road, air pollution generally is difficult to pin down as the cause of death in any particular case (but see above).

 

This doesn't change the fact that if enough people are exposed to it some will have negative effects from it, including some reduction in average lifetime -- meaning, some people will die earlier. It's part of the job of government to warn people when previously unidentified risks which can be detrimental to health are identified, especially when said government (meaning, us) is paying for the health service which has to pick up the tab.

 

Like any other relatively small lifestyle risk, it's up to people to decide whether they want to take it or not, but they shouldn't get their knickers in a twist about it -- either by panicking that their stove is going to kill them after reading a news article, or complaining loudly on this forum about how the nanny state is yet again trying to ban people from doing what they've always done ?

Edited December 21, 2020 by IanD

[Ronaldo47]

Did they check if the flue had been swept? There are several mentions in threads on this forum about  how much flues can become clogged up due to burning unsuitable wood.

 

Also was there  sufficient fresh air ventilation, given the widespread use of double glazing and draft-proof external doors these days? We don't have an enclosed wood burner, only an open fire with a conventional 1950's-type drop front all-night burner that only gets occasional use. Our original 1930's front door is far from draught proof and ensures a good supply into the house of the fresh air that the government is encouraging us to have these days. When I sweep our chimney I find that the draw is sufficiently strong, even with a stone cold chimney, that the soot that comes down, largely stays in the ash pan. The soot that does get thrown up on impact mostly gets sucked back up the chimney, very little ending up on the dust sheets that I lay in the room.

 

Echoing the comments above, the only time we get smoke in the room is if the drop front is accidentally dropped suddenly, when a brief puff comes into the room. Lowering it slowly using the proper tool is fine.

Edited December 22, 2020 by Ronaldo47
Typos

[Norm55]

My earlier reply was not intended to be flipant nor referring to a nanny state.   Maintenance is key, sweep flue regularly and use seasoned logs. Regulations are coming in, meaning all logs sold must be graded as kiln dried or equivilant with no moisture content.

 

One question, do you need a HETAS certified person to fit a stove on a boat?   You are required to in domestic applications. 

 

 

[Jerra]

2 minutes ago, Norm55 said:

 kiln dried or equivilant with no moisture content.

No moisture content?   Is that possible?   My mate in his kiln for the cabinet making business doesn't take wood anywhere near zero percent moisture.

[Laurie Booth]

G.Ps are more dangerous to health than wood burners. 

[Norm55]

Poss should be LOW moisture content ?

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Norm55 said:

 

 

One question, do you need a HETAS certified person to fit a stove on a boat?   You are required to in domestic applications. 

 

 

Not as far as I know. No.

 

Besides - it's virtually impossible to fit a stove in a (narrow) boat in a manner that meets the same specification as that required in a domestic installation. Particularly with regard to proximity to combustible materials such as wood. 

 

When I discussed our boat stove with the HETAS guy that installed our stove at home he was amazed at how much it would have breached the regs. if installed in the same way at home.

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, Norm55 said:

Poss should be LOW moisture content ?

The 'ready to burn' standard is less then 20% moisture content.

 

Anything between 10% and 20% is regarded as ideal.

[tree monkey]

3 hours ago, Jerra said:

No moisture content?   Is that possible?   My mate in his kiln for the cabinet making business doesn't take wood anywhere near zero percent moisture.

No it's a misinterpretation/misunderstanding, I think they need to be below 15% MC, of course they don't stay at that MC as soon  as they are out of the kiln they start to absorb moisture from the atmosphere 

[Jerra]

10 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

No it's a misinterpretation/misunderstanding, I think they need to be below 15% MC, of course they don't stay at that MC as soon  as they are out of the kiln they start to absorb moisture from the atmosphere 

I was trying to remember the MC he quoted and now you mention it 15% sounds like it might have been.

[mark99]

Ok risk assessed...  got moisture meter. Measure all 4 sides of thd evil log before taking 30 mins to slowly open the sealed door.... if less than 10% wc (mine is) pray all will be ok. 

 

If not less than 10%, wear aqualung whilst inside the house when fire is on.

 

Proportionate?   .... lol.

Edited December 22, 2020 by mark99

[Alan de Enfield]

More information released 

 

Campaigners and health experts are calling on people who have alternative heating not to use their wood burning stoves this winter amid growing concern about their impact on public health.

The Guardian recently reported that wood burners triple the level of harmful particulates inside the home as well as creating dangerous levels of pollution in the surrounding neighbourhood.

Wood burners triple harmful indoor air pollution, study finds

 

 

Read more

Now experts at the Asthma UK and British Lung Foundation Partnership are asking people with wood burners only to use them if they have no alternative source of heat.

“We know that burning wood and coal releases fine particulate matter (PM2.5) – the most worrying form of air pollution for human health,” said Sarah MacFadyen, head of policy at the charity. “It’s therefore important to consider less polluting fuel options to heat your home or cook with, especially if coal or wood is not your primary fuel source.”

 

Wood burners have become increasingly popular in recent years and, together with coal fires, are estimated to cause almost 40% of outdoor tiny particle pollution as well as creating toxic air inside the home. Almost 16% of people in the south-east of England use wood fuel, and 18% in Northern Ireland, according to 2016 government data, and about 175,000 wood burners are sold annually.

Advertisement

But a growing body of research reveals air pollution may be damaging every organ in the body, with effects including heart and lung disease, diabetes, dementia, reduced intelligence and increased depression. Children and the unborn may suffer the most.

 

Avoid using wood burning stoves if possible, warn health experts | Environment | The Guardian

[TheBiscuits]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

More information released 

 

I read that article earlier, so I put a bucketful of anthracite on instead of the bits of tree I was burning earlier...

 

Pleased to do my bit to help. 

 

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

More information released 

 

Campaigners and health experts are calling on people who have alternative heating not to use their wood burning stoves this winter amid growing concern about their impact on public health.

The Guardian recently reported that wood burners triple the level of harmful particulates inside the home as well as creating dangerous levels of pollution in the surrounding neighbourhood.

Wood burners triple harmful indoor air pollution, study finds

 

 

Read more

Now experts at the Asthma UK and British Lung Foundation Partnership are asking people with wood burners only to use them if they have no alternative source of heat.

“We know that burning wood and coal releases fine particulate matter (PM2.5) – the most worrying form of air pollution for human health,” said Sarah MacFadyen, head of policy at the charity. “It’s therefore important to consider less polluting fuel options to heat your home or cook with, especially if coal or wood is not your primary fuel source.”

 

Wood burners have become increasingly popular in recent years and, together with coal fires, are estimated to cause almost 40% of outdoor tiny particle pollution as well as creating toxic air inside the home. Almost 16% of people in the south-east of England use wood fuel, and 18% in Northern Ireland, according to 2016 government data, and about 175,000 wood burners are sold annually.

Advertisement

But a growing body of research reveals air pollution may be damaging every organ in the body, with effects including heart and lung disease, diabetes, dementia, reduced intelligence and increased depression. Children and the unborn may suffer the most.

 

Avoid using wood burning stoves if possible, warn health experts | Environment | The Guardian

Frankly Im getted a tad pi$$ed off with being demonised as a diesel vehicle driver and now wood burning stove owner.

 

I wonder how many of these 'experts' actually practice what they preach?

[Keeping Up]

15 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Frankly Im getted a tad pi$$ed off with being demonised as a diesel vehicle driver and now wood burning stove owner.

 

I wonder how many of these 'experts' actually practice what they preach?

Me too. We were encouraged to change from petrol to diesel because it emitted fewer fumes, then demonised for doing so because it emits more fumes. Then we were encouraged to shift from burning coal to burning wood because it was better for the environment, but are now demonized because it's worse for the environment. Now I hear that they are about to ban gas-fired central heating boilers. Whatever next?

[dor]

How does this account of stoves compare to burning logs on an open fire?

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, Keeping Up said:

Me too. We were encouraged to change from petrol to diesel because it emitted fewer fumes, then demonised for doing so because it emits more fumes. Then we were encouraged to shift from burning coal to burning wood because it was better for the environment, but are now demonized because it's worse for the environment. Now I hear that they are about to ban gas-fired central heating boilers. Whatever next?

What next is what has been happening  all along and to a certain extent we are seeing in the current pandemic.

 

A set of advice/instructions is given out on the best knowledge of the time, then something else is learned and the advice/instructions/demonising changes.

[Dr Bob]

We're all doomed!

[Guest]

Im waiting for the day that our external flue and car exhaust pipe has a sign fastened to them saying something ridiculous like 'Baby killers'

[Mike Todd]

13 hours ago, Jerra said:

What next is what has been happening  all along and to a certain extent we are seeing in the current pandemic.

 

A set of advice/instructions is given out on the best knowledge of the time, then something else is learned and the advice/instructions/demonising changes.

Yes indeed but alas 'advice' is too often issued on the basis of badly reviewed evidence which may well be partial. It reminds me of what I used to call the Inventor's Syndrome when I worked in an industry wide research centre.

 

Every so often we would be approached by an inventor with a marvellous solution to a well known problem "It will fix that problem for good" they would say. And, yes, at first sight that seemed true: focus on the problem and the new approach/solution did indeed remove the known problem, often quite effectively. But then you remember that the old method was pretty good at dealing with most of its requirements but just with one snag. You then looked at the proposed invention and would invariably find that it was rubbish at everything apart from the problem on which the inventor had focussed so intently.

 

The message is that one must do as system-wide an analysis as realistic before issuing advice based on focussed evidence. In the case of energy and environment, the current trend is to move towards invisible production so that the vast majority of the population do not see what is happening. Yes, the plumes of dark smoke and fumes may disappear but at what price? Nothing, but nothing, comes for free (vide the Laws of Thermodynamics). A bit like what happened when we replaced the local butcher with their own abattoir by centralised factory processing and still consumed clinically clean meat and it products, losing sight entirely of where they came from.

 

I am not saying that logs are good (however much we like them) but if we wish to ban them then we have to think about what is used in their place. At times I just wonder who is behind the push to make everything electric. Qui bono? is a good starting point in any such debate.