These new log burner rules.......

[peterboat]

I am currently looking at conversions for my Rayburn, a pressure jet system running on kerosene seems favourite, will keep the wood burning stove in the lounge as its compliant. The problem is that a 50s Rayburn isn't compliant also using compliant fuels is a waste of time, it just doesn't produce enough heat to cook with or heat the boat.

[Ronaldo47]

1 hour ago, LadyG said:

 

When I was doing an Open University degree, a long time ago, one way of dispersing pollution was to use very tall chimney stacks, and site the coal fired power stations on the east coast!

 

Wasn't it the UK's use of those efficient chimneys that was thought to be the source of the acid rain in Scandinavia that was killing their trees and the life in their  lakes?

Edited February 9, 2023 by Ronaldo47
typos

[IanD]

10 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

Wasn't it the UK's use of those efficient chimneys that was thought to be the source of the acid rain in Scandinavia that was killing their trees and the life in their  lakes?

And didn't the EU sue the UK as a result? Damn that overbearing supranational bunch of leftie lackies... 😉

[IanD]

And now, just in case you thought burning (dry) waste construction wood/pallets was better... 😞

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/09/arsenic-london-air-burning-waste-wood

 

Mind you, I suspect some people on here would say that's fine since it only affects Londoners and they deserve it... 😉

Edited February 10, 2023 by IanD

[Tonka]

19 minutes ago, IanD said:

And now, just in case you thought burning (dry) waste construction wood/pallets was better... 😞

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/09/arsenic-london-air-burning-waste-wood

 

Mind you, I suspect some people on here would say that's fine since it only affects Londoners and they deserve it... 😉

If you google pallet codes, you can find our which ones you can burn safely

[magnetman]

6 minutes ago, Tonka said:

If you google pallet codes, you can find our which ones you can burn safely

 

Most pallets are heat treated rather than using chemicals. 

 

Having said that there will be some bromide treated ones about so yes check the codes before burning. 

 

I think the most likely culprits for the arsenic are old fence panels and treated structural timber of various sorts. Possibly scaffold planks but I am not convinced they are all treated. 

 

 

 

 

I've put a fair bit of treated wood through my fires in the past. Mainly just to get it going. I think this is all a storm in a teacup.

If I die horribly of cancer I won't be running around complaining about it. 

 

 

It is interesting to see the Grauniad going on and on about this. How many arrrticles have they done do far about burning wood? Someone got a bee in their bonnet. 

 

[IanD]

31 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

Most pallets are heat treated rather than using chemicals. 

 

Having said that there will be some bromide treated ones about so yes check the codes before burning. 

 

I think the most likely culprits for the arsenic are old fence panels and treated structural timber of various sorts. Possibly scaffold planks but I am not convinced they are all treated. 

 

 

 

 

I've put a fair bit of treated wood through my fires in the past. Mainly just to get it going. I think this is all a storm in a teacup.

If I die horribly of cancer I won't be running around complaining about it. 

 

 

It is interesting to see the Grauniad going on and on about this. How many arrrticles have they done do far about burning wood? Someone got a bee in their bonnet. 

 

The Grauniad isn't the only paper publishing articles like this, but it does seem to publish more than most.

 

Might be because it's owned by a trust, not somebody with vested interests. 

 

Or might be because Grauniad readers are more interested in stories about global warming, pollution and climate change than readers of certain other papers, including one I was recently accused of reading which I found most offensive... 😞

 

Which isn't a bad thing for reasons that should be obvious, but it gives those who aren't bothered about these things or don't believe in them a handy stick to beat the paper and its readers with... 😉

Edited February 10, 2023 by IanD

[Momac]

[magnetman]

16 minutes ago, IanD said:

The Grauniad isn't the only paper publishing articles like this, but it does seem to publish more than most.

 

Might be because it's owned by a trust, not somebody with vested interests. 

 

Or might be because Grauniad readers are more interested in stories about global warming, pollution and climate change than readers of certain other papers, including one I was recently accused of reading which I found most offensive... 😞

 

Which isn't a bad thing for reasons that should be obvious, but it gives those who aren't bothered about these things or don't believe in them a handy stick to beat the paper and its readers with... 😉

Interesting. 

 

I have never read a newspaper in my life and don't intend to.

On balance I would come down on the side of those who do care but there are bigger fish to fry than the occasional boat with a little bit of smoke coming out the chimney. 

 

Problem with the big fish is nobody dares to try and fry them. 

[peterboat]

12 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Correct if they burn waste wood which is a given

[magnetman]

Yes but humans have been burning wood since we invented fire and we haven't died out. Why would we suddenly die out now from burning wood? 

 

It's a diversion from the real problems facing humans two of which are overpopulation and over consumption..

 

Wood burning just isn't there in relevance terms. 

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Yes but humans have been burning wood since we invented fire and we haven't died out. Why would we suddenly die out now from burning wood? 

 

It's a diversion from the real problems facing humans two of which are overpopulation and over consumption..

 

Wood burning just isn't there in relevance terms. 

So on that principle, anything that kills less than the hundreds of thousands that Covid did should be ignored -- pollution, ICE, and especially anything that means people should change their behaviour?

 

Or are you saying that since these reduce population they're a good thing?

 

Since it's been estimated that the PM2.5 from woodburners is responsible for around 10000 excess deaths per year in the UK (error margins 2000 to 20000), would you be happy for one of your family to be amongst them?

[Higgs]

57 minutes ago, IanD said:

So on that principle, anything that kills less than the hundreds of thousands that Covid did should be ignored -- pollution, ICE, and especially anything that means people should change their behaviour?

 

Or are you saying that since these reduce population they're a good thing?

 

Since it's been estimated that the PM2.5 from woodburners is responsible for around 10000 excess deaths per year in the UK (error margins 2000 to 20000), would you be happy for one of your family to be amongst them?

 

I could handle a drinking ban. 

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

29 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 . Possibly scaffold planks but I am not convinced they are all treated. 

 

 

 

Some are treated with fire retardant, they only smoulder when they get very hot thankfully

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, MartynG said:

Lighting a stove like that could be a very serious risk to your health, problem is some people today who don't have experiance of fires in houses think that is how you should store the wood.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, ditchcrawler said:

Lighting a stove like that could be a very serious risk to your health, problem is some people today who don't have experiance of fires in houses think that is how you should store the wood.

 

We had a close escape yesterday with ours. Mrs M_JG dropped a log on the bed of hot coals along with a few nuggets and opened to the vents to get the log to catch as it had died back a bit.

 

She then got cooking in the kitchen and forgot about the stove until I started to smell something overheating. Sure enough the stove was running away merrily with the temp. on the flue thermometer virtually on max. Quickly shut the vent and it started to die back immediately.

 

Had a good look over the stove this morning and it seems fine. The paint on the fireboard that the flue passes through had scorched slightly but everything seems fine.

 

First time we've done that in five years though we once did it on the boat too.

[Tonka]

Don't forget that you can only buy coal in England upto 1st May 2023

[ditchcrawler]

12 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

We had a close escape yesterday with ours. Mrs M_JG dropped a log on the bed of hot coals along with a few nuggets and opened to the vents to get the log to catch as it had died back a bit.

 

She then got cooking in the kitchen and forgot about the stove until I started to smell something overheating. Sure enough the stove was running away merrily with the temp. on the flue thermometer virtually on max. Quickly shut the vent and it started to die back immediately.

 

Had a good look over the stove this morning and it seems fine. The paint on the fireboard that the flue passes through had scorched slightly but everything seems fine.

 

First time we've done that in five years though we once did it on the boat too.

We have I think they are called Companion set near the fire actually hanging on the brick work to the side of the fireplace and Iwe have managed to get two brushes smouldering when hung at the wrong end

[Tony Brooks]

If one is not to burn old fence panels then how are they disposed of after they go into the "wood" skip at the tip, along with MDF, chipboard etc. Could they be chipped and burned at an "energy recovery centre"? If so, apart from a taller chimney, what is the difference.  Likewise, if the local tip won't accept them how are they dosposed off? Bonfire, leaving to rot? Both return the treatment to the environment.

[tree monkey]

26 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

If one is not to burn old fence panels then how are they disposed of after they go into the "wood" skip at the tip, along with MDF, chipboard etc. Could they be chipped and burned at an "energy recovery centre"? If so, apart from a taller chimney, what is the difference.  Likewise, if the local tip won't accept them how are they dosposed off? Bonfire, leaving to rot? Both return the treatment to the environment.

The energy recovery centers claim to burn at a very high temp and have filters which they claim deals with the nasty stuff

[magnetman]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

So on that principle, anything that kills less than the hundreds of thousands that Covid did should be ignored -- pollution, ICE, and especially anything that means people should change their behaviour?

 

Or are you saying that since these reduce population they're a good thing?

 

Since it's been estimated that the PM2.5 from woodburners is responsible for around 10000 excess deaths per year in the UK (error margins 2000 to 20000), would you be happy for one of your family to be amongst them?

 

I don't care if my family members die. They're only humans. There are plenty of these about some would say too many. My kids spent their early years living in my boats and we have wood fires and smoke in the boat yes they do cough. If they die so what ? Why would I care? 

 

 

Yes I do think population reduction is needed. I would rather it was by elimination of the weaker specimens naturally through environment than the other option which is conflict. 

 

We've done this one before. 

 

 

 

 

 

People stick cigarettes in their mouth and breath through them for decades and get no ill effects. Others die from it. 

 

Do you see smoking being banned? No. 

 

Smoking is a choice based habit. Keeping warm when it is cold outside is something you do have to do or you have a really shit time. It's not optional.

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

7 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

I don't care if my family members die. They're only humans. There are plenty of these about some would say too many. My kids spent their early years living in my boats and we have wood fires and smoke in the boat yes they do cough. If they die so what ? Why would I care? 

 

 

Yes I do think population reduction is needed. I would rather it was by elimination of the weaker specimens naturally through environment than the other option which is conflict. 

 

We've done this one before. 

 

 

 

 

 

People stick cigarettes in their mouth and breath through them for decades and get no ill effects. Others die from it. 

 

Do you see smoking being banned? No. 

 

Smoking is a choice based habit. Keeping warm when it is cold outside is something you do have to do or you have a really shit time. It's not optional.

 

 

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

I don't care if my family members die. They're only humans. There are plenty of these about some would say too many. My kids spent their early years living in my boats and we have wood fires and smoke in the boat yes they do cough. If they die so what ? Why would I care? 

 

 

Yes I do think population reduction is needed. I would rather it was by elimination of the weaker specimens naturally through environment than the other option which is conflict. 

 

We've done this one before. 

 

 

 

 

 

People stick cigarettes in their mouth and breath through them for decades and get no ill effects. Others die from it. 

 

Do you see smoking being banned? No. 

 

Smoking is a choice based habit. Keeping warm when it is cold outside is something you do have to do or you have a really shit time. It's not optional.

 

 

So you're ignoring the principle that even if you should be allowed to do things which are risky to yourself, you shouldn't be allowed to inflict risk on other people without their consent just to suit yourself?

 

This applies to smoking (secondary smoke), woodburning (most of the PM2.5 affect other people, not you), drink-driving, and many other aspects of life.

 

If you disagree and think that weaker specimens should be eliminated, surely that gives a stronger specimen -- a skilled hunter with a shotgun, say -- the right to shoot you for fun, which also removes you from the gene pool and reduces the population?

[Steilsteven]

4 hours ago, magnetman said:

Yes but humans have been burning wood since we invented fire and we haven't died out. Why would we suddenly die out now from burning wood? 

 

It's a diversion from the real problems facing humans two of which are overpopulation and over consumption..

 

Wood burning just isn't there in relevance terms. 

An ageing population is the problem that the World faces now, overpopulation is overplayed.

 

 

[Higgs]

22 minutes ago, IanD said:

So you're ignoring the principle that even if you should be allowed to do things which are risky to yourself, you shouldn't be allowed to inflict risk on other people without their consent just to suit yourself?

 

This applies to smoking (secondary smoke), woodburning (most of the PM2.5 affect other people, not you), drink-driving, and many other aspects of life.

 

If you disagree and think that weaker specimens should be eliminated, surely that gives a stronger specimen -- a skilled hunter with a shotgun, say -- the right to shoot you for fun, which also removes you from the gene pool and reduces the population?

 

Would you keep a cold and ill or elderly person alive or let your principle stop them from burning wood? No one is going to be rushing around with money and fitting the principled equipment. 

 

 

Edited February 10, 2023 by Higgs