Wood burning and health

[Jon57]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

So I guess you didn't read the original article I posted of the 86-page detailed analysis, then? PM2.5 are now recognised as one of the biggest pollution health hazards, and woodburners are the biggest source of these -- 3x bigger than road traffic (mostly diesel).

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/09/eco-wood-stoves-emit-pollution-hgv-ecodesign

 

No I don't drive a diesel car, and I mostly use public transport to get around.

How do you get to your boat.

[magnetman]

I am a wood person but if the fire needs keeping in Lignite is rather effective. Smells nicer than coal and the dust is heavier than the briquetted stuff.

 

 

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, Jon57 said:

How do you get to your boat.

On a magic carpet, of course... 😉

 

Attacking me isn't going to change the facts though, because I'm not claiming to be perfect, like most people there are undoubtedly more things I could do to reduce my CO2/pollution burden -- but at least I recognise that, and that pollution does have a negative impact on people's health. Which is exactly what the first post said... 😉

Edited December 15, 2023 by IanD

[rusty69]

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I am a wood person but if the fire needs keeping in Lignite is rather effective. Smells nicer than coal and the dust is heavier than the briquetted stuff.

 

 

It can't be much worse than the dusty crap they have been marketing as, smokeless over the last few winters. The price has, doubled along with the ash content, whilst at the same time it's heat output has significantly decreased and it's, corrosive abilities increased. 

 

I am seriously thinking of switching back to wood just so I know where I am with the damn stuff. 

[magnetman]

Having a look at Mole Valley Farmers they do the 20kg bags of Union Lignite briquettes for £13.50 which is alright. They also do Kammin briketts which are basically the same but in a longer format and in 'bales' of 18. These seem to be £6 ish for 10kg so a little cheaper.

 

Worth a go.

 

One good thing about Lignite is the briquettes are compressed without binder so it is all a fuel product. They also deal with being outdoors without any problems of falling apart.

 

Definitelty an interesting fuel although rather low energy content at about 5.3 kWh per Kilogramme.

 

Not much more than wood but more compact and easier to store.

 

 

3 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

It can't be much worse than the dusty crap they have been marketing as, smokeless over the last few winters. The price has, doubled along with the ash content, whilst at the same time it's heat output has significantly decreased and it's, corrosive abilities increased. 

 

I am seriously thinking of switching back to wood just so I know where I am with the damn stuff. 

When I say the dust is heavier this is an advantage. It doesn't fly up all around the cabin.

 

If you are paying for the fuel its worth looking at Lignite briquettes. Of course if it is free then wood is the only answer.

 

 

Heavier in the sense of weight not amount.

Edited December 15, 2023 by magnetman

[Arthur Marshall]

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

So I guess you didn't read the original article I posted or the 86-page detailed analysis, then? PM2.5 are now recognised as one of the biggest pollution health hazards, and woodburners are the biggest source of these -- 3x bigger than road traffic (almost entirely from diesel vehicles).

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/09/eco-wood-stoves-emit-pollution-hgv-ecodesign

 

No I don't drive a diesel car, and I mostly use public transport to get around.

Something else will be the biggest pollution hazard ever next year. So far, I think it's been asbestos, lead in petrol, plastic in the oceans, that stuff you spray on your sofa, diesel fumes, car tyre rubber, glitter, woodburners, those nitrius cylinders, one time vapes. And cow farts.

In the meantime, those who actually have the power to change things just make life a little harder for everyone except themselves, while indulging themselves as much as they like. None of these things will finish life on earth, most will kill a few people who through circumstances beyond their control, but by no means beyond the control of those who consider themselves their betters, are forced to live close to them. Poor people die early in slums. Always have, always will.

[magnetman]

Also be careful about driving people away from natural sources of heating.

 

Because of the way humans have evolved they need a form of heating to remain comfortable in certain environments. Fire is very important in fact without fire it is likely humans would have been taken out at an early stage by predators.

 

It is a building block of life on earth. Some people might be alright with electric heating and saving the planet but fire is fire and there will be people who will not take kindly to having their fire making disallowed by some self righteous ruling group.

 

Legislate against fire and unexpected problems will turn up.

 

 

 

[mrsmelly]

7 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Something else will be the biggest pollution hazard ever next year. So far, I think it's been asbestos, lead in petrol, plastic in the oceans, that stuff you spray on your sofa, diesel fumes, car tyre rubber, glitter, woodburners, those nitrius cylinders, one time vapes. And cow farts.

In the meantime, those who actually have the power to change things just make life a little harder for everyone except themselves, while indulging themselves as much as they like. None of these things will finish life on earth, most will kill a few people who through circumstances beyond their control, but by no means beyond the control of those who consider themselves their betters, are forced to live close to them. Poor people die early in slums. Always have, always will.

Arthur, dont forget Nitromors!! can you remember the days when it actualy contained an ingredient that enabled it to actualy strip paint!! 

[Alan de Enfield]

35 minutes ago, IanD said:

So I guess you didn't read the original article I posted or the 86-page detailed analysis,

 

There has been coup -  a new king of 'cut & paste has been self appointed.

 

And only yesterday you accused me of posting 'too much' information in support of a point of view - could you not just post a one line 'conclusion' as you said I should do ?

 

It appears ...............

 

‘All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.’

[Guest]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

You're missing the point -- I'm not demonising anybody for burning wood, just pointing out the facts -- you know, those horrible things that people don't like facing sometimes... 😉

 

What I was calling him out for was his crass insensitive comment which was basically "If they're sick, let 'em die, it'll improve the race".

 

I'm not missing any point at all.

 

But I have long learned that disagreeing with you and offering an alternate view to yours usually is pointless.

 

So I will leave you to it.

[magnetman]

4 hours ago, IanD said:

. Though I suspect many won't want to know, either because it's in the Grauniad, 

You mean those woke Grauniad dungarees wearing idiots with too much disposable income, stock brokers looking after their investments and relatively expensive lifestyles?

And DEFRA approved wood burners in the sitting room. 

 

Is this stereotyping? 

 

 

 

[IanD]

37 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

There has been coup -  a new king of 'cut & paste has been self appointed.

 

And only yesterday you accused me of posting 'too much' information in support of a point of view - could you not just post a one line 'conclusion' as you said I should do ?

 

It appears ...............

 

‘All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.’

 

Since what I posted was two links (for people to read if they wanted to) and half a dozen lines quoting the main findings (if they didn't), that's pretty much exactly what I did... 😉

 

14 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

I'm not missing any point at all.

 

But I have long learned that disagreeing with you and offering an alternate view to yours usually is pointless.

 

So I will leave you to it.

Oh I think you are -- or do you agree with his comment but don't want to admit it?

 

Alternative view to what? That pollution is bad for people? That woodburners emit a lot of PM2.5 particles? That the earth is round? That ain't my view, that's facts.

 

Unlike you seem to be doing, I didn't try to tell people what they should or shouldn't do as a result, that's entirely up to them... 😉

Edited December 15, 2023 by IanD

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, magnetman said:

You mean those woke Grauniad dungarees wearing idiots with too much disposable income, stock brokers looking after their investments and relatively expensive lifestyles?

And DEFRA approved wood burners in the sitting room. 

 

Is this stereotyping? 

 

 

 

 

Although you make the point in a semi whimsical way I would wager there is a huge amount of hypocrisy amongst folk who trumpet the health risks but they will actually have a stove and for all sorts of reasons are 'not in a position' to have an alternative.  

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

Although you make the point in a semi whimsical way I would wager there is a huge amount of hypocrisy amongst folk who trumpet the health risks but they will actually have a stove and for all sorts of reasons are 'not in a position' to have an alternative.  

If they genuinely haven't got an alternative -- say, some boaters -- then there's nothing hypocritical about having a stove and also being concerned about the climate and pollution.

 

If the stove is a "lifestyle choice" -- and that is the reason for the big increase in woodburners in recent years, having a "cosy wood fire" in a town house or flat -- then it is rather hypocritical for them to carry on using it while claiming to be concerned about pollution and the environment.

Edited December 15, 2023 by IanD

[phillarrow]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

If they genuinely haven't got an alternative -- say, some boaters -- then there's nothing hypocritical about having a stove and also being concerned about the climate and pollution.

 

If the stove is a "lifestyle choice" -- and that is the reason for the big increase in woodburners in recent years, having a "cosy wood fire" in a town house or flat -- then it is rather hypocritical for them to carry on using it while claiming to be concerned about pollution and the environment.

 

I care about pollution and the environment.

I've made loads of small changes to my lifestyle in recent years in order to reduce my impact on the planet.

I regularly make a conscious decision to do something that will take more time and/or buy something that will cost more, if I feel/know/believe that in doing so I am making a 'better' choice in terms of my environmental impact.

But...

 

• I choose to use a log fire at home because we live in a big old house and it is FAR cheaper to heat one room than to use central heating, even with thermostatic rads turned off in other rooms.
• I choose to drive a car, because my job makes it unreasonably difficult not to have one, and because my children need/expect me to be able to ferry them around to their various schools, clubs, teams, social occasions etc.
• I choose that car to be a diesel because the electric infrastructure is currently not there to allow be to drive an electric car for my needs, and because both petrol and hybrid would be more polluting based on my driving habits.

I don't believe any of those choices makes me a hypocrite. It makes me a rational person.

 

Edited December 15, 2023 by phillarrow

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

You mean those woke Grauniad dungarees wearing idiots with too much disposable income, stock brokers looking after their investments and relatively expensive lifestyles?

And DEFRA approved wood burners in the sitting room. 

 

Is this stereotyping? 

 

 

 

I've got buggerall disposable income (it all goes on licence and mooring fees), no investments and I haven't worn dungarees since 1952. But I do read the Grauniad (on the grounds all the other papers are trash) and I've got a nice log burner in the snug, where I am now. I think there's a sandal on the boat...

[GUMPY]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

So I guess you didn't read the original article I posted or the 86-page detailed analysis, then? PM2.5 are now recognised as one of the biggest pollution health hazards, and woodburners are the biggest source of these -- 3x bigger than road traffic (almost entirely from diesel vehicles).

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/09/eco-wood-stoves-emit-pollution-hgv-ecodesign

 

No I don't drive a diesel car, and I mostly use public transport to get around.

I didnt need to read that article as I already knew about PM2.5 from wood burning stoves.

One of the many reasons why we don't have one.

I was refering to the article about the little girl that was due to road traffic pollution.

 

[magnetman]

Yes but you are not moaning about people burning wood.

@Arthur Marshall

[dmr]

39 minutes ago, phillarrow said:

 

I care about pollution and the environment.

I've made loads of small changes to my lifestyle in recent years in order to reduce my impact on the planet.

I regularly make a conscious decision to do something that will take more time and/or buy something that will cost more, if I feel/know/believe that in doing so I am making a 'better' choice in terms of my environmental impact.

But...

 

• I choose to use a log fire at home because we live in a big old house and it is FAR cheaper to heat one room that use central heating, even with thermostatic rads turned off in other rooms.
• I choose to drive a car, because my job makes it unreasonably difficult not to have one, and because my children need/expect me to be able to ferry them around to their various schools, clubs, teams, social occasions etc.
• I choose that to be a diesel car because the electric infrastructure is currently not there to allow be to drive an electric car for my needs, and because both petrol and hybrid would be more polluting based on my driving habits.

I don't believe any of those choices makes me a hypocrite. It makes me a rational person.

 

drive your diesel and don't feel bad about it. Particulates will shorten the life of a few people (and yes its tough if its you or a friend or relative) but global warming will kill millions, maybe billions, and might even end humanity, and a good diesel makes less CO2 than a petrol.

[Tonka]

What about the pellet boilers people are still getting installed. 

There was someone on a Facebook group talking about having one fitted to a narrowboat 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Tonka said:

What about the pellet boilers people are still getting installed. 

There was someone on a Facebook group talking about having one fitted to a narrowboat 

 

If they burn wood pellets I would imagine there is very little difference in particulate output.

 

Unless someone knows different.

[GUMPY]

Here's an idea!

Couldn't DPFs be fitted to stoves to remove all those nasty particulates   😉

[Arthur Marshall]

40 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Yes but you are not moaning about people burning wood.

@Arthur Marshall

Does that mean I have to cancel my Grauniad subscription? It's the only paper with a decent crossword...

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, GUMPY said:

Here's an idea!

Couldn't DPFs be fitted to stoves to remove all those nasty particulates   😉

 

Yes.

 

https://woodstovefilter.co.uk/

[GUMPY]

I was taking the ,.,..,

Wonder if it works?

Maybe it should be compulsory