Wood burning and health

[MtB]

9 hours ago, magnetman said:

 

What freedom will be curtailed next one wonders. 

 

 

The freedom to CM, I predict. 

 

 

 

[Guest]

11 hours ago, frangar said:

Ohhh. You love that forum plod outfit don’t you. Are you a mod now? Did you have to register yet another name to get the job? 

 

 

Oh look who has rocked up for a fight....

 

Full of it Frangar rides again. Lol

 

Not quite a change of name but full marks for noticing the removal of an underscore..

 

You do know what an underscore is? Yes?

You'll be the first one to cry when the boating section of the forum is cluttered with politics and current affairs.

Edited December 19, 2023 by MJG

[frangar]

3 minutes ago, MJG said:

 

Oh look who has rocked up for a fight....

 

Full of it Frangar rides again. Lol

 

Not quite a change of name but full marks for noticing the removal of a hyphen.

 

You do know what a hyphen is? Yes?

Wonder what the reason was this time?? I actually hadn’t noticed so thanks for outing yourself….did you get yet another ban?  
 

So are you enjoying the new uniform? Did you get a new badge to match or are you just pretending as usual? 

Edited December 18, 2023 by frangar

[Guest]

Just now, frangar said:

Wonder what the reason was this time?? I actually hadn’t noticed so thanks for outing yourself….did you get yet another ban?  

 

So you didn't notice, but you noticed?

 

What a silly billy.

 

Oh and no. I didn't.

 

Next question.

 

No uniform 'full of it'.

 

What's your excuse for trying to moderate?

[frangar]

6 minutes ago, MJG said:

 

So you didn't notice, but you noticed?

 

What a silly billy.

 

Oh and no. I didn't.

 

Next question.

 

No uniform 'full of it'.

 

What's your excuse for trying to moderate?

I actually hadn’t noticed. I was being sarcastic…you might have to look that up as it’s a big word for you I know….But you have so many name changes and profiles it was a good assumption that something had changed…and it had…I did laugh….a lot. 
 

Nice deflection btw….anyone might think you’d been called out…..best run to the gang to get some help. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, frangar said:

I actually hadn’t noticed. I was being sarcastic…you might have to look that up as it’s a big word for you I know….But you have so many name changes and profiles it was a good assumption that something had changed…and it had…I did laugh….a lot. 
 

Nice deflection btw….anyone might think you’d been called out…..best run to the gang to get some help. 

 

Liar. Of course you noticed. Otherwise why mention it. You weren't being sarcastic, that requires a degree of intelligence.

 

No gang needed here silly boy.

Edited December 18, 2023 by MJG

[TheBiscuits]

15 minutes ago, MJG said:

You do know what a hyphen is? Yes?

 

M-JG uses a hyphen.

 

M_JG uses an underscore.

 

Do you know what a hyphen is?

[Guest]

Just now, TheBiscuits said:

 

M-JG uses a hyphen.

 

M_JG uses an underscore.

 

Do you know what a hyphen is?

 

Fair point. I shall amend immediately.

[frangar]

1 hour ago, MJG said:

 

Liar. Of course you noticed. Otherwise why mention it. You weren't being sarcastic, that requires a degree of intelligence.

 

No gang needed here silly boy.

I hadn’t noticed. Don’t think you are that important. You do rather sound desperate for attention….

 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, frangar said:

I hadn’t noticed. Don’t think you are that important. You do rather sound desperate for attention….

 

 

Oh I rather think you did. Otherwise why comment on what you thought was a change of User name.

 

 

Edited December 19, 2023 by MJG

[frangar]

1 minute ago, MJG said:

 

Oh I rather think you did. Otherwise comment on what you thought was a change of User name.

Think all you want. You really are craving attention aren’t you? It’s so pathetic. Now go and find some more old posts of mine and amuse yourself 

[Guest]

Just now, frangar said:

Think all you want. You really are craving attention aren’t you? It’s so pathetic. Now go and find some more old posts of mine and amuse yourself 

 

Well thinking is something you are clearly incapable of.

6 hours ago, frangar said:

Of course the real reason for banning stoves is that the general public can gather free fuel and governments hate things they can’t control and tax. 
 

I really do believe it’s more about control than pollution. 

 

Can you please link to any evidence there is an actual proposal to ban stoves.

 

My understanding is that there is the potential to restrict the burning of wood rather than an outright ban.

 

Do you have info. to the contrary?

[IanD]

15 hours ago, magnetman said:

It is a smoke problem according to laws which have been passeed because they refer to smoke.

 

Thats why it is called a 'smoke control order'.

 

[snip]

 

Yes, the existing laws refer to "smoke" because that's what they were designed to control.

 

Any new "no-woodburning" law would presumably refer to PM2.5 pollution, because that's what it would be designed to control -- not (visible) smoke, because PM2.5 particles are invisible, they're too small so affect light. Which is also why they're so damaging to health... 😞

 

Of course the law doesn't have to say *why* it's the law any more than any other law does, it just has to say what the law *is*. Any challenge to it from pro-woodburners would be very unlikely to succeed since the health risks are now scientifically established.

 

If you want to take the "I should be allowed to burn anything I want" view, then this is exactly the same reason smokers tried to use to fight the bans on smoking in public places and lost, because of the risks of secondary smoking which affects the health of other people other than the smoker.

 

And if you don't believe in science and are a libertarian who distrusts the nanny state and namby-pamby society -- tough, part of the job of a responsible government (and society) is to stop people doing things that harm other people without their consent... 😉

Edited December 19, 2023 by IanD

[Willonaboat]

7 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

And if you don't believe in science and are a libertarian who distrusts the nanny state and namby-pamby society -- tough, part of the job of a responsible government (and society) is to stop people doing things that harm other people without their consent... 😉

 

I deeply distrust the state/government but I do think being a responsible member of a civilised society requires one to not do things that harm other people without their consent. I hate breathing secondhand smoke expelled by nicotene (etc!) addicts congrugating outside entrances, and I can't say I'm a fan of breathing stove/chimney smoke on adjacent boats either. I don't think I'm being unreasonable. I think 'smokers' (of both types) are. So the sooner something is done about the irresponsible members of an otherwise mostly civilised society the better.

[magnetman]

20 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

And if you don't believe in science and are a libertarian who distrusts the nanny state and namby-pamby society -- tough, part of the job of a responsible government (and society) is to stop people doing things that harm other people without their consent... 😉

By this logic I could demand that people don't drive cars because they have a habit if killing people. 

 

I don't use a car nor do any of my family members yet my children are put at risk by Other People driving cars every day. 

 

When are we going to get a government who bans cars? 

 

 

 

 

 

It is pretty easy to point out that keeping warm in the winter is significantly more important than people driving cars. 

 

A ban on cars would not kill anyone. Banning fuel burning heating systems may well kill people. 

 

PM2.5 also comes from diesel fired heating systems. 

 

And rather unfortunately it also comes from car tyres. 

 

 

Like I said this is all rather covidesque. 

[IanD]

16 minutes ago, magnetman said:

A ban on cars would not kill anyone. Banning fuel burning heating systems may well kill people. 

 

PM2.5 also comes from diesel fired heating systems. 

 

And rather unfortunately it also comes from car tyres. 

 

Like I said this is all rather covidesque. 

 

Nobody's talking about banning fuel burning heating systems -- at least, not in this case -- just stopping the burning of wood. Smokeless fuel is widely available, most stoves can burn it, and it emits far lower levels of PM2.5 than wood.

 

I know you don't like reading numbers written by other people, but perhaps you should in this case, I posted a link in an earlier thread but a search should find it for you in a few seconds. Diesel fired heating emits fewer PM2.5 than smokeless fuel, and car tyres less than diesel engines in road vehicles -- and total PM2.5 emissions from UK transport (including from tyres) are 3x lower than from woodburners.

[magnetman]

Cars kill lots of people. 

Can we ban them please. 

 

 

If you argue in favour of banning things then one day something you think you need will be banned. 

 

Anyway how come after thousands of yars of evolution burning wood is suddenly incredibly dangerous ? 

 

 

from wikipedia

 

Evidence for the "microscopic traces of wood ash" as controlled use of fire by Homo erectus, beginning roughly 1 million years ago, has wide scholarly support. Some of the earliest known traces of controlled fire were found at the Daughters of Jacob Bridge, Israel, and dated to ~790,000 years ago.

 

 

 

--- 

 

 

So why is it suddenly seen as dangerous to do this? The humans are reproducing faster than they are dying so it clearly is not having an impact on overall population figures. 

 

 

 

 

I smell a rat. 

[Willonaboat]

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Cars kill lots of people. 

Can we ban them please. 

 

 

If you argue in favour of banning things then one day something you think you need will be banned. 

 

Anyway how come after thousands of yars of evolution burning wood is suddenly incredibly dangerous ? 

 

 

 

So the answer is, don't ban anything?  Bring back petrol with lead that causes brain damage?

 

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Cars kill lots of people. 

Can we ban them please. 

 

If you argue in favour of banning things then one day something you think you need will be banned. 

 

Anyway how come after thousands of yars of evolution burning wood is suddenly incredibly dangerous ? 

 

 

It's not *incredibly* dangerous, it doesn't kill anything like as many people as cars, or alcohol, or tobacco, or many other things.

 

But it is estimated to be responsible for a few hundred deaths per year in the UK and a lot more illness, as you'd know if you read the report. Most of the emissions are from "lifestyle" woodburners who can remove them as easily as they put them in, and those who need stoves (e.g. boaters) can burn smokeless fuel.

 

So just like asbestos and lead and arsenic which the Victorians accepted because the risks weren't known, or DDT or thalidomide more recently, it's likely to be banned.

Edited December 19, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

So it really has taken nearly a million yars for humans to work out burning wood is dangerous? 

 

The lead in petrol thing was a short term solution for engine parts lubrication (valves?) then it was found that it is dodgy so an alternative was introduced. 

 

I'm not willing to believe that something humans have been doing for millenia has suddenly become more dangerous. Surely people would have worked it out a long time ago. Its not exactly a new technology like petrol is. Petrol engines have only been around for a bit more than a century. Burning wood has been around for 7,500 centuries. 

 

There is something else going on here. 

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, IanD said:

 

 

So just like asbestos and lead and arsenic which the Victorians (and more recent people) accepted, or DDT or thalidomide, it's likely to be banned.

 

Its a totally different story. Asbestos, lead and thalidomide are modern phenomena. Burning wood isn't. 

 

There is no way it has taken the time between Homo Erectus burning things up until the early 21st century to work out that some people might die from wood smoke. This will have been established early on but sometimes this is just how things are. 

 

I am not willing to accept that by burning wood I am killing people. Thats the same as the covid BS where if you got near someone else you were killing their grannies. 

 

Something wrong here. 

 

 

 

 

Gas should be banned because occasionally it results in people's houses being destroyed in explosions. 

 

Coal should be banned because miners die. 

 

Electricity should be banned because people get electrocuted and it causes fires when there is a fault. 

 

Oil products should be banned because they are flammable and cause deaths. 

 

 

[IanD]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

So it really has taken nearly a million yars for humans to work out burning wood is dangerous? 

 

The lead in petrol thing was a short term solution for engine parts lubrication (valves?) then it was found that it is dodgy so an alternative was introduced. 

 

I'm not willing to believe that something humans have been doing for millenia has suddenly become more dangerous. Surely people would have worked it out a long time ago. Its not exactly a new technology like petrol is. Petrol engines have only been around for a bit more than a century. Burning wood has been around for 7,500 centuries. 

 

There is something else going on here. 

 

 

What's going on is that the contribution of PM2.5 to respiratory disease and death was not known until recently.

 

Yes it's always been there, but lots of other things contribute to such disease and deaths so the effects were hidden.

 

It's also the case that the steep rise in urban woodburners (the dominant cause of the problem) is a recent fashion, previously people in towns burned coal -- which was of course banned when the risks due to that became known.

 

On your principle anything risky that wasn't known about 100 years ago (or longer) should be allowed. Which is one reason why the Victorian life expectancy was lower than today and illness was much worse... 😞

[Tonka]

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

It's not *incredibly* dangerous, it doesn't kill anything like as many people as cars, or alcohol, or tobacco, or many other things.

 

But it is estimated to be responsible for a few hundred deaths per year in the UK and a lot more illness, as you'd know if you read the report. Most of the emissions are from "lifestyle" woodburners who can remove them as easily as they put them in, and those who need stoves (e.g. boaters) can burn smokeless fuel.

 

So just like asbestos and lead and arsenic which the Victorians accepted because the risks weren't known, or DDT or thalidomide more recently, it's likely to be banned.

But we still allow smoking and vaping and that kills 

[IanD]

Just now, Tonka said:

But we still allow smoking and vaping and that kills 

And your point is what?

[magnetman]

Yes I suppose if its only in urban areas it does make sense but what will actually happen in reality is that smoke control areas will spread like wildfire and eventually take over the whole country. 

 

It seems inevitable. 

 

 

I'm amazed that cars are tolerated given how many people are killed and injured. Its shocking. 

 

They should probably ban big dogs as well. 

 

Aggressive cats definitely need sending to the farm. 

 

 

 

I'm sure a few seconds on the google will find the figures for deaths caused by wheeled vehicles. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Yes I suppose if its only in urban areas it does make sense but what will actually happen in reality is that smoke control areas will spread like wildfire and eventually take over the whole country. 

 

It seems inevitable. 

 

 

I'm amazed that cars are tolerated given how many people are killed and injured. Its shocking. 

 

They should probably ban big dogs as well. 

 

Aggressive cats definitely need sending to the farm. 

 

 

 

Er..,

 

Certain big dog breeds are indeed banned.