4 ms·
Smoke still is bad for humans though, see this essay: https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion/ https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-firepl
by Houshalter 10y ago
Smoke still is bad for humans though, see this essay: https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion/ https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion/
>There is no amount of wood smoke that is good to breathe. It is at least as bad for you as cigarette smoke, and probably much worse. (One study found it to be 30 times more potent a carcinogen.) The smoke from an ordinary wood fire contains hundreds of compounds known to be carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, and irritating to the respiratory system. Most of the particles generated by burning wood are smaller than one micron—a size believed to be most damaging to our lungs. In fact, these particles are so fine that they can evade our mucociliary defenses and travel directly into the bloodstream, posing a risk to the heart. Particles this size also resist gravitational settling, remaining airborne for weeks at a time.
>Once they have exited your chimney, the toxic gases (e.g. benzene) and particles that make up smoke freely pass back into your home and into the homes of others. (Research shows that nearly 70 percent of chimney smoke reenters nearby buildings.) Children who live in homes with active fireplaces or woodstoves, or in areas where wood burning is common, suffer a higher incidence of asthma, cough, bronchitis, nocturnal awakening, and compromised lung function. Among adults, wood burning is associated with more-frequent emergency room visits and hospital admissions for respiratory illness, along with increased mortality from heart attacks. The inhalation of wood smoke, even at relatively low levels, alters pulmonary immune function, leading to a greater susceptibility to colds, flus, and other respiratory infections. All these effects are borne disproportionately by children and the elderly.
>In the developing world, the burning of solid fuel in the home is a genuine scourge, second only to poor sanitation as an environmental health risk. In 2000, the World Health Organization estimated that it caused nearly 2 million premature deaths each year—considerably more than were caused by traffic accidents.
- raverbashing 10y agoOf course it's not good But if your options are, stay close to the fire or die, that's an important selective pressure
- hvidgaard 10y agoI'm sure there is some truth to the article, but it paints a very different picture than the referenced paper at the buttom. > Finally, returning to the questions posed at the start, we conclude that although there is a large and growing body of evidence linking exposure to wood/biomass smoke itself with both acute and chronic illness, there is insufficient evidence at present to support regulating it separately from its individual components, especially fine particulate matter. In addition, there is insufficient evidence at present to conclude that woodsmoke particles are significantly less or more damaging to health than general ambient fine particles. > Nevertheless, given the importance of woodsmoke as a contributor to particle concentrations in many locations, strategies to reduce woodsmoke emissions may be an effective means of lowering particle exposures. In addition, given the weight of toxicologic evidence, additional epidemiologic studies are needed to confirm our conclusions.
- Bartweiss 10y agoWow, thanks for following through there. As much as I complain that sloppy research oversells its conclusions, I tend to forget how often reporters will take a good paper and simply skip all the lines like "not significant" and "no causation" that stand in the way of an exciting article.
- schiffern 10y ago>In 2000, the World Health Organization estimated that it caused nearly 2 million premature deaths each year—considerably more than were caused by traffic accidents. Everyone is rallying around autonomous cars to decrease unnecessary deaths (and rightfully so), but relatively few folks are familiar with rocket stove technology. https://richsoil.com/rocket-stove-mass-heater.jsp https://richsoil.com/rocket-stove-mass-heater.jsp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_stove https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_stove Releasing smoke is energy inefficient, since it's literally unburnt fuel! Considering the fuel savings, the lifetime cost of switching can be negative in some cases. In terms of cost per statistical life saved, it's an extremely compelling technology.
- Retric 10y agoSolar hot water heaters are vastly more convenient and generally cheap. But, rocket stoves are great for rarely used structures, cooking, or the far north.
- schiffern 10y agoYeah, solar thermal is woefully underused. Even something like attached south-facing greenhouses and solar hot air panels can cheaply retrofit passive solar design onto the existing building stock. To that list of rocket stove applications & advantages would add backup heat for solar hot water, accessible to developing countries and the poor, and (when built from masonry) ease of construction in the charred afterscape. I'm kidding of course on that last one. Mostly. ;)
- blackguardx 10y agoThanks for sharing those links. It looks like it would be hard to start the rocket action correctly. You would have to preheat the circulator "chimney" somehow. Until then, smoke would pour into your house. This is a problem with normal wood-burning cooking stoves as well. Smoke doesn't go into the chimney until you establish a convection draft or the wind creates a venturi effect.
- schiffern 10y ago
- Neliquat 10y agoTry telling that to my idiot hippie neighbors who drive a prius and have weekly bonfires.
- sdfin 10y agoA bonfire's smoke moves in the wind's direction. If they sit towards the bonfire with the wind in their backs, what's wrong with that? Although if the smoke goes toward your home I understand you anger.
- tyabqkwjs 10y agoPrius (virtue signaling) vs. bonfire (actual behavior).
- mikeash 10y agoThe idea that Priuses are only about virtue signaling is silly. For people who don't much care about power and handling, they're good cars that can be bought for a reasonable price and are cheap to run.
- Bartweiss 10y agoYeah, this seems not-terrible - most of the serious health concerns with fires are with wood stoves, where smoke either enters a house directly or leaves a chimney and settles back into it. From the article up there I get the sense that wood fires inflict a lot of particulates even when you can't smell smoke, but open-air fires are still way safer (on this level) than in-home ones.
- autotypo 10y agoWhy not tell them yourself? Passive aggression on a news feed won't improve the situation. On the other hand, if the neighbors are burning wet wood, pine or otherwise Doing It Wrong maybe they would appreciate a friendly heads up.
- logfromblammo 10y agoWhy not help them build a Dakota fire pit? It's essentially just a big hole with an air intake tunnel, so that fires in the pit combust more completely, with a very significant reduction in smoke and particulates. You probably can't do anything about them being ideologically inconsistent with respect to burned fuels as an energy source, but you can reduce their impact on yourself and your mutual neighbors.
- wtbob 10y ago> There is no amount of wood smoke that is good to breathe. It is at least as bad for you as cigarette smoke, and probably much worse. And yet very few sane people wish to ban wood smoke. It smells good. There's nothing like the smell of fall and winter, with fragrant smoke blanketing the countryside. I'm perfectly aware that wood smoke is bad for me, that it pollutes my lungs and makes my food poisonous. But it's delicious.
- bougiefever 10y agoI don't smoke, but I am a beekeeper, so I am often breathing in smoke. I've always worried a little if that was bad for me. I guess I will try harder not to breathe it in. Without it, I would get many more stings, which I assume is also not good. There is a chemical replacement for smoke, but that is probably even worse.