Wood burners are potential killers scientists report.

[Guest]

Just one example in today's news.

 

BBC News - Bird charity warns of harm from new wind farm
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-55509225

 

[Jen-in-Wellies]

Just wear one of these whenever you are on the boat and the fire is lit. Problem solved!

[David Mack]

17 hours 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

Yes I saw that article. Use alternative heating if you can. In my case at home that  would mean using the oil fired central heating instead of the wood stove. Does that produce any less particulate matter?

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Just one example in today's news.

 

BBC News - Bird charity warns of harm from new wind farm
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-55509225

 

In general if the sites have been surveyed for being in flyways etc they can be doing little harm.   This one is of course in the wrong place.

[Jerra]

55 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Yes I saw that article. Use alternative heating if you can. In my case at home that  would mean using the oil fired central heating instead of the wood stove. Does that produce any less particulate matter?

According to "highcountryconservation" in 2018:

 

 In terms of air pollution, your gas stove wins. Even considering efficiency improvements in wood stoves, they still produce up to 100 times more particulate matter than oil or gas furnaces.

[Arthur Marshall]

Apparently, gas CH boillers are being banned soon, as are gas cookers in new houses. Everything will be electric, including cars.

The thing about a woodburning stove is that you can pick the fuel up for free, and so keep warm. Which is nice for poor people.

Solar is obviously the real answer, at least till the sun goes out, which I gather is not expected to be soon.

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

......... at least till the sun goes out, which I gather is not expected to be soon.

 

I reckon it'll be gone in about another hour (or so)

[Mike Todd]

21 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Apparently, gas CH boillers are being banned soon, as are gas cookers in new houses. Everything will be electric, including cars.

The thing about a woodburning stove is that you can pick the fuel up for free, and so keep warm. Which is nice for poor people.

Solar is obviously the real answer, at least till the sun goes out, which I gather is not expected to be soon.

Yes, but then the visual urban landscape planners, let along the Countryside folk, will complain about the visual intrusion - already an issue over the distribution system for centrally generated electricity - aka plyons.

 

As I keep saying - there is no such things as a win-win situation - someone, somewhere, always loses.

[cuthound]

21 hours 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?

 

Don't worry I beleive @peterboat is working on a home brewed solar powered electric stove. ??

[IanD]

5 hours ago, Jerra said:

In general if the sites have been surveyed for being in flyways etc they can be doing little harm.   This one is of course in the wrong place.

Estimated annual number of bird deaths from wind turbine farm : 30,000 (IIRC)

 

Estimated annual number of bird deaths from pet cats in the UK : 50,000,000 (IIRC)

 

Perhaps the bird charity should worry about the second cause, not the first one?

[Tony Brooks]

A while ago figures were published about the number of pollutants building up in homes from the furnishings, carpets (mostly begin oil based nowadays unless you are rich), cooking, cleaning products, and so on. At that time the lack of ventilation caused by chimneys was sited as a cause of the increase. Now i wonder if the writers of that paper considered the effect of those pollutants in homes with no chimneys and compared those effects with the reduced level in homes with stoves and open fires. Seem to me the government is rapidly heading for a situation where adequate home (or boat0 ventilation will be a luxury only the well off can afford.

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

Estimated annual number of bird deaths from wind turbine farm : 30,000 (IIRC)

 

Estimated annual number of bird deaths from pet cats in the UK : 50,000,000 (IIRC)

 

Perhaps the bird charity should worry about the second cause, not the first one?

If I may say so you are looking at things a little too simplistically.

 

Cats take a variety of species spread over the country in many habitats, wind farms if badly sited take only a few species from restricted habitats.

 

To look at a few examples of cats likely bird prey House Sparrow 5,100,000 pairs Starling 1,800,000 pairs Blackbird 5,100,000 pairs.

 

Compare that to one of the species on Flamborough.  Gannets there have 35 breeding sites world wide with around 14 in the UK one of which is Flamborough.  Total UK population 295,000 pairs.  Badly sited the wind farm at Flamborough could decimated or even wipe out the colony.  With a world population of only 1,500,000 to 1,800,000 this could be disastrous.

 

Cats will not wipe out any common species which is their general prey or for that matter reduce an internationally important population.

 

As a conservation organisation which do you feel is most important a slight reduction in the population of a few fairly common species or the protection of a large part of the world population of a species.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

Estimated annual number of bird deaths from wind turbine farm : 30,000 (IIRC)

 

Estimated annual number of bird deaths from pet cats in the UK : 50,000,000 (IIRC)

 

Perhaps the bird charity should worry about the second cause, not the first one?

How the hell do you even start to estimate the number of birds killed by wind turbines and or cats?

 

 

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, The Happy Nomad said:

How the hell do you even start to estimate the number of birds killed by wind turbines and or cats?

 

 

I think it is called counting!

 

Wind farms are easy count the bodies found below and near checking for physical trauma.   Cats more difficult it will be extrapolation from  sample records of kills in studies.

[Guest]

Just now, Jerra said:

I think it is called counting!

 

Wind farms are easy count the bodies found below and near checking for physical trauma.   Cats more difficult it will be extrapolation from  sample records of kills in studies.

Someone counted 50 million birds?

 

Bollox

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Someone counted 50 million birds?

 

Bollox

Which part of extrapolated didn't you understand?

[mark99]

5 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I reckon it'll be gone in about another hour (or so)

Tends to go weak at the time it's most needed.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Which part of extrapolated didn't you understand?

Where do I say I dont understand it?

 

You said counting.

 

I was taking the pee out of the notion that somebody would count 50 million birds.

 

You need to lighten up.

[mark99]

Stats are great are they not?

 

Stat driven solution. Pitchfork babies into a district heating boiler. Good calorific value and less humans to heat in a few years time.

Edited January 2, 2021 by mark99

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Where do I say I dont understand it?

 

You said counting.

 

I was taking the pee out of the notion that somebody would count 50 million birds.

 

You need to lighten up.

The point is you were trying to take the pee out of something which nobody well apart from you had suggested might happen.   It is a bit daft to try to take the pee out of imaginary situations particularly in a discussion.

[Guest]

Just now, Jerra said:

The point is you were trying to take the pee out of something which nobody well apart from you had suggested might happen.   It is a bit daft to try to take the pee out of imaginary situations particularly in a discussion.

Grow up man and lighten up.

[Jerra]

6 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Grow up man and lighten up.

So you don't think its daft trying to take the pee out of imaginary situations.  What a strange attitude.

[Guest]

Just now, Jerra said:

So you don't think its daft trying to take the pee out of imaginary situations.  What a strange attitude.

I think its very very strange that you seem completely devoid of the remotest inkling of a sense of humour.

 

How the hell you managed as teacher god only knows.

[Jerra]

3 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

I think its very very strange that you seem completely devoid of the remotest inkling of a sense of humour.

 

How the hell you managed as teacher god only knows.

LOL.   I managed very well thank you as both my pupils and colleagues would agree and often did.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Jerra said:

LOL.   I managed very well thank you as both my pupils and colleagues would agree and often did.

Lol.