4 ms·

As someone who cooks with gas, I have a hard time believing that any dormant emissions from the stove when not in use are more significant than emissions from s

by ummonk 5y ago

As someone who cooks with gas, I have a hard time believing that any dormant emissions from the stove when not in use are more significant than emissions from searing food itself… especially since natural gas has odors added to it to ensure we smell it.

throwaway09223 5y ago
Absolutely. My high heat cooking produces a good deal of particulate emissions and always sets off the kitchen air filter, but it's all from the food in the pan. It has nothing to do with the burner technology. I know this because it doesn't happen when I'm boiling.
- tomcam 5y ago
  If you’re boiling you have worse problems than particular emissions Sorry, couldn’t resist
pengaru 5y ago
The problem with this thinking is you're referring to a constant factor; you'd be cooking the same foods either way, searing all the same. These effects are cumulative, it's not some threshold you cross where the other negatives are no longer relevant because you do something far worse. It's like people who rationalize eating a pint of ice cream before bed because they had mcdonalds and a beer for lunch already. The appropriate action would be to skip dinner and dessert altogether, but they're doing the opposite due to such wrongheaded thinking. You should really be thinking "hey, my cooking produces a lot of particulates, I wonder if I can clean up the process elsewhere at least"
- throwaway09223 5y ago
  I think your analogy is missing the scale. In this case, I think it's likely that the equivalent scale would be worrying about eating a tic tac, when lunchtime is beer and burgers.
- neuralRiot 5y ago
  > "hey, my cooking produces a lot of particulates, I wonder if I can clean up the process elsewhere at least" How about not cooking animal products, i save more emmissions that way than spending $2k on an appliance that will be obsolete or irreparable in 5~6 years.
mfgs 5y ago
The odour you smell is unburnt gas (to make gas leaks less dangerous). Burning gas produces carbon monoxide (among other things), which has no odour.
- jws 5y ago
  You made me look it up. Methane has no smell, so they add an odorant. Usually these contain sulfur, so there will be some amount of sulfur dioxide in the combustion products. Sulfur levels as limited to 70ppb, and are typically around 7ppb. This compares to a natural atmospheric level of sulfur dioxide at 1ppb. So unless you are breathing something like 10% combustion product the contribution is negligible. The rest of the odor molecule is hyrdrogen, carbon, and oxygen, so likely goes to water and carbon dioxide or monoxide.
goodpoint 5y ago
https://www.logicalfallacies.org/personal-incredulity.html https://www.logicalfallacies.org/personal-incredulity.html
- ummonk 5y ago
  As with ad-hominem, this isn't actually a fallacy - it's just declared as such by people who don't understand Bayesian reasoning. Using informed judgement helps us separate fact from fiction.

by ummonk 5y ago

throwaway09223 5y ago

Absolutely. My high heat cooking produces a good deal of particulate emissions and always sets off the kitchen air filter, but it's all from the food in the pan. It has nothing to do with the burner technology. I know this because it doesn't happen when I'm boiling.

tomcam 5y ago
If you’re boiling you have worse problems than particular emissions Sorry, couldn’t resist

pengaru 5y ago

The problem with this thinking is you're referring to a constant factor; you'd be cooking the same foods either way, searing all the same. These effects are cumulative, it's not some threshold you cross where the other negatives are no longer relevant because you do something far worse. It's like people who rationalize eating a pint of ice cream before bed because they had mcdonalds and a beer for lunch already. The appropriate action would be to skip dinner and dessert altogether, but they're doing the opposite due to such wrongheaded thinking. You should really be thinking "hey, my cooking produces a lot of particulates, I wonder if I can clean up the process elsewhere at least"

throwaway09223 5y ago
I think your analogy is missing the scale. In this case, I think it's likely that the equivalent scale would be worrying about eating a tic tac, when lunchtime is beer and burgers.
neuralRiot 5y ago
> "hey, my cooking produces a lot of particulates, I wonder if I can clean up the process elsewhere at least" How about not cooking animal products, i save more emmissions that way than spending $2k on an appliance that will be obsolete or irreparable in 5~6 years.

mfgs 5y ago

The odour you smell is unburnt gas (to make gas leaks less dangerous). Burning gas produces carbon monoxide (among other things), which has no odour.

jws 5y ago
You made me look it up. Methane has no smell, so they add an odorant. Usually these contain sulfur, so there will be some amount of sulfur dioxide in the combustion products. Sulfur levels as limited to 70ppb, and are typically around 7ppb. This compares to a natural atmospheric level of sulfur dioxide at 1ppb. So unless you are breathing something like 10% combustion product the contribution is negligible. The rest of the odor molecule is hyrdrogen, carbon, and oxygen, so likely goes to water and carbon dioxide or monoxide.

goodpoint 5y ago

https://www.logicalfallacies.org/personal-incredulity.html https://www.logicalfallacies.org/personal-incredulity.html

ummonk 5y ago
As with ad-hominem, this isn't actually a fallacy - it's just declared as such by people who don't understand Bayesian reasoning. Using informed judgement helps us separate fact from fiction.