New research shows gas stove emissions contribute to 19,000 deaths annually
New research shows gas stove emissions contribute to 19,000 deaths annually
California is considering a law that would require warning labels on gas stoves.
You're viewing a single thread.
bullshit
It's not bullshit, and this has been known for quite some time.
Edit: its been known that pollutants are emitted from gas stoves and ovens and those contribute to cancer and other things.
I'm surprised anyone would think there wasn't harmful pollutants emitted when combusted, it's burning things. I would have thought the exhaust fans above them though were enough to make it a non issue.
Too lazy to read the actual report, but hopefully they're able to properly account for the differences in deaths caused when using proper ventilation vs not using proper ventilation, and show the risk factor between the two.
The gentle breeze that a microwave venthood blows 6 inches above your head isn't exactly premium-grade ventilation. It's not even ventilation at all, really. The gas is just moved like a foot up before it fills the room.
They aren't all that bad though, those would fall into the bad ventilation side of things.
I don't even have a gas range but still hate the microwave mounted over top the stove. If I'm boiling water, it doesn't matter if the range fan is on, it's condensing on the microwave's surfaces. And I don't burn things on the stove often, but if I do it would be nice to vent that outside, like the whole point of a fucking range fan is you stupid fucking cheap developers.
Gas stoves are used in approximately 50 million U.S. homes (1) and millions more worldwide (2, 3). Gas and propane combustion in stoves emits hazardous air pollutants, including nitrogen dioxide (NO2), benzene (C6H6), carbon monoxide (CO), formaldehyde (H2CO), and ultrafine particles (4–12).
Which of those seem harmless to you? “Nuh uh” isn’t particularly compelling.
Why is everyone all of a sudden against gas stoves? Lol
Because, through science, we are constantly improving our understanding of the world, including our bodies. Sometimes, that means things we used to think were safe or acceptable no longer are. We used to shit in buckets and throw it out the window in the morning right next to where the butcher was carving up a carcass on the street. We used to have parties when a kid got sick, so all the kids in the neighborhood got sick at the same time. Recently, we learned more about the impact of the compounds released and their concentrations when we burn natural gas in a confined area.
My understanding is that, while we knew about the compounds released by gas stoves, we either didn't know how high the concentrations were or didn't know enough about the dangers those concentrations could present. Of course, the reactionaries blow it out of proportion and a statement like "Gas stoves might not be safe without adequate ventilation" becomes "THEY'RE GONNA TAKE YOUR STOVE BY FORCE" just like how "cattle produce a lot more greenhouse gases than we thought" became "THEY'RE MAKING BURGERS ILLEGAL!"
Lol. Good lecture, bro. Take a chill pill, geez, it was just an innocent question. Damn
Wasn't a lecture... I just assumed you were asking in good faith, so I explained why it's a "new" concern and why some people seem so angry about it. Of course we can all have our own opinions...an opinion would be "I'll keep my gas stove for now because I'm not concerned about the additional risk" or "I'm switching immediately because I AM concerned." Saying it's a conspiracy by green energy companies isn't an opinion, it's just misinformation.
Going by what I've heard, it's a growing movement to switch to green energy and the concern that burning any fossil fuels is damaging to the environment.
A lot of these articles, while using completely valid science, are also worded in such a way to help convince people of the health concerns (no matter how small) to make the change, which also helps the movement. Sort of the "any little bit helps," sort of thing.
Isn't electricity coming from burning fossil fuel in most of the country, if not all still, though? Also, thank you for the sane response.
Yes, but electricity has the potential to be replaced by non fossil fuel sources.
Because electricity in California is deregulated.
Could you elaborate?
I don't have much data(just a little involvement with Enron and their manipulation of electricity costs), but there is a lot of money to be made in electricity. I believe the California lobby is pretty strong and pushing the reduction of natural gas. I think they want an all electric state(not including power plants)
We also have a bunch of ESS startups (at least in the bay area) carving into the newer market of decentralized energy.
ESS is worthy of a separate post. I doubt they are involved in this anti-gas chicanery, but they would really help push us to a more sustainable future.
How dare you. You're going to get chased out of this fucking post with spears and swords like I did when I asked my question. 😂 People on the internet always have their fingers on the trigger. You can't even fucking breathe without getting attacked. How dare you say something they don't agree with.
Yeah. There is a lot of that. I tried to correct some factual errors about container homes and got downvoted and got replies of pigs butts. Eventually the mod deleted all my comments.
Lmao. No worries, downvotes don't really mean jack on Lemmy. Let them downvote as much as they want. Fucking speak your mind, who cares?
When I find people that knowingly lie or are unable to have reasoned discourse I check out their history. If I don't feel like they have anything to contribute to me I add them to my blocklist. It has gotten really big and grows everyday, but people on here now seem very nice.
Maybe that downvotes on this conversation is just because my limited knowledge and opinion doesn't add to the conversation. I don't fault them for that.
The downvotes you're getting are because you didn't say "science" and said electric had something do with making gas stoves look bad. Basically, you can't have an opinion, because it's always "science". I get it, science is good, but that doesn't mean we ostracize people when they say something different.
Theirthere has to be some discourse, right? Like the other person who commented on my question in a very snarky way like they're Einstein and I'm just Alex Jones or something. Lmfao.I didn't see that comment. I guess they are already on my block list.
It's not science, and I could be completely wrong. The article isn't science either. The study is and I haven't looked at it closely. To me it feels very questionable. Some things that make me question it are "contributed to 19,000" is very nebulous. I am sure the downvotes have contributed to my [future] death. I just don't think it is significant.