14 ms·

The CPSC is on a mission that has nothing to do with safety

92 points by barry-cotter 4y ago

AlanSE 4y ago
The corrected numbers still look like the 3%-5% range, which is still probably enough of a reason to switch stove types... if all the other reasons weren't enough already.
- jonhohle 4y ago
  And replace them with what? There are almost annual major electrical grid outages in the various US grids and California frequently does active rolling blackouts. At least in the US (and it seems most of Europe, too), there is barely enough capacity for current surges. Migrating more high energy consumers to that infrastructure without plans to improve it seems doomed to fail.
  - ulrashida 4y ago
    Two things: 1. The default recommendation may likely be "use gas stoves with a good ventilation solution" rather than "throw out all gas stoves" 2. A change does not need to occur immediately. It's not unreasonable to expect that a shift in usage over a 10-15 year horizon can be planned out as part of larger grid considerations. Might be an awkward energy demand to manage, however, as it's all focused on meal times and not spread throughout the day. For my household we've read the current material as a reminder to use our vent hood more often. We weren't doing so for a convenience (noise) reason, but of course burning things indoors can create all sorts of air quality issues that are remedied in part by the ventilation system so we now do.
    - droopyEyelids 4y ago
      I think this is the most sane reaction. As an aside, it's important to keep in mind that while stopping nat gas cooking will remove NOx and benzene from our air, we'll all still benefit from ventilation to remove the particulates and VOCs that are inherent to heating food.
      - jaggederest 4y ago
        > When I got back, bacon was smoldering on the range, filling the house with gas-phase polycyclic aromatics - my favorite carcinogen by a long shot. - Zodiac, An Ecothriller, by Neal Stephenson
    - jonhohle 4y ago
      Thanks for the calm, rational response. That is definitely a great reminder, and I’m guilty of the same. Maybe Noctua should jump into that market.
the_doctah 4y ago
Lies in the name of politics are increasingly irritating to me. Like when the Governor of Illinois goes on Twitter to lament all those lives we lost on January 6th. If only Karma were real.
- gumby 4y ago
  Almost a third of a percent of annual deaths occurred on that day! They deserve to be mourned.
Fricken 4y ago
[flagged]
- bilsbie 4y ago
  What did you believe about stoves 3 days ago? Lol.
  - dpkirchner 4y ago
    What happened 3 days ago?
  - britneybitch 4y ago
    To be fair the problems with gas stoves have been known for a while now. It's even made its way to HN a few times. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25332332 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25332332
  - Fricken 4y ago
    Possibly you were born yesterday,lol, but the research goes back decades. My sister has seen several specialists over her condition, they all regard the gas stove to be the prime suspect.
SamBam 4y ago
While it's probably a good idea for most people to eventually switch over to electric induction, not least because it's much more energy efficient, I do think that banning gas ranges nation-wide is a big step that would require significantly more evidence that it was necessary. Most of the problems with indoor pollution can almost certainly be more cheaply mediated by adding building codes requiring venting range hoods. The fact that (as far as I have understood, can't find the link) the vast majority of US homes do not have a hood that vents to the outside is crazy. This should be the default for all new construction.
- thanatos519 4y ago
  Nobody should be installing gas in new construction, period. We won't stop using fossil fuels if we don't stop making things that need it.
  - JimtheCoder 4y ago
    "Nobody should be installing gas in new construction, period." Couldn't you use that logic and say no one should be building cars with ICE, period?
    - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
      The difference here would be that the only infrastructure burden that is introduced by banning gas stoves can be solved by the new construction itself - forcing everyone to buy an electric car isn't going to cause all the required home and quick chargers to pop up at the same time.
    - CorrectHorseBat 4y ago
      EV cars still have some drawbacks, are in absolute terms significantly more expensive and cars don't last nearly as long as homes.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      Eventually, yes, we should probably do that (with minor exceptions). I'd probably preceed it with a requirement for charging infrastructure in new home construction (especially if you're putting in a garage), and there are already subsidies for existing construction.
helen___keller 4y ago
Not to say author is wrong but I don’t get the point of writing a blog that reads like a paper with some political commentary at the end. If you think the meta analysis was flawed then publish a paper showing why and skip the internet rant about politics. If you can’t get peer review, why should I waste my time reading your findings about something I personally have no expertise in? It’s not like I can or want to fact check the author on their meta meta analysis
- mbauman 4y ago
  Check their other blog post.
  - neilk 4y ago
    Without any reasonable way to check the author’s credentials or the soundness of their analysis, I did go looking into who they are. The pseudonym “Cremieux Receuil” and the avatar refer to Adolph Crémieux[1], a French lawyer and politician remembered for advancing the status of Jews in France. “Receuil” is just French for “collection”, and this person published a work by that name. Wikipedia notes that Crémieux’s decree did not extend French citizenship to Arabs. This may be significant when combined with what else we know about the Substack author. The Substack has one other post, another long and very dense posting which, if I understand correctly, attempts to show errors in others’ historical analyses of the economic effects of slavery on subsequent generations. The author argues it is not significant, and points to racial mixing with Europeans as a better explanation for disparate outcomes among the descendants of slaves. I admit I do not understand all the tropes this author is deploying, which seem common among online reactionaries. I speculate that I, the normie, am supposed to be dazzled by their erudition, triggered by the race science, and bewildered by their allusions to obscure figures. Perhaps, by attempting to decode them, I am giving the author what they want. But honestly, all I feel is tired. This person’s priorities are not my priorities. Perhaps it is true that our biggest problem today is excess zeal in fighting climate change or mitigating the effects of colonial slavery. Perhaps we are on the road to serfdom by trying to do anything about it. As a product of miscegenation myself, I look forward to lenient treatment from my future masters. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolphe_Cr%C3%A9mieux?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolphe_Cr%C3%A9mieux?wprov=sf...
jnovek 4y ago
How big is the climate impact of gas stoves, anyway? Subjectively it seems like excess emissions from a stove would be a rounding error compared to things like automobiles and manufacturing.
- agentultra 4y ago
  I don't know of anyone measuring it but the service lines and infrastructure providing gas leak GHG's in the process all over the place. The stoves themselves leak a little. Modern induction stoves are far superior anyway you would be doing yourself a favour upgrading. That gas is somehow "qualitatively better," is propaganda from the gas companies to keep people choosing gas. "Now you're cooking with gas," is from a gas propaganda short aired decades ago... to keep people choosing gas when people were starting to convert to electric. There's no good reason I can think of to keep using gas stoves.
  - csours 4y ago
    > There's no good reason I can think of to keep using gas stoves. Tortillas and marshmallows. Not enough of a reason to keep a gas stove really, but it's traditional to some people.
    - ask_b123 4y ago
      I eat tortillas daily, and use a gas stove, but why couldn't I use an electric stove?
      - csours 4y ago
        You can! I just happen to love the taste of slightly flame charred tortillas.
        ask_b123 4y ago
        Haha I see. I normally prefer non-charred tortillas because whenever they are charred it is because I forgot them in the stove so they get _very_ charred. Though I do like restaurant provided charred flour tortillas
vannevar 4y ago
The click-baity headline and overly confident (given the evidence) conclusion mar what could have been a good article.
- ulrashida 4y ago
  Indeed. Reached the same conclusion. It's ironic that the individual decries the journal editors and authors for corrupt motives while they, as a blog poster, get to shelter behind a shroud of anonymity. My first reaction after their conclusion was wondering what associations they have that may be biasing their own work. If they are that concerned about conflict of interest they should be more transparent in their own authorship.
- agentultra 4y ago
  You should see the other article they published.
- mbauman 4y ago
  The blog author also takes umbrage at the paper's authors' other work and biases. Since the blog author is anonymous it's not as clear what their biases may be, but the only other blog they have posted comes to the conclusion that "whatever travails American Blacks suffered during slavery no longer matter for their socioeconomic attainment today," citing an infamous eugenicist. Take that as you will.
rayiner 4y ago
How much longer can an average person expect to live if we ban gas stoves? 0.5 years? Not worth it for having to deal with a wimpy electric stove: https://www.epicurious.com/expert-advice/how-to-stir-fry-electric-stove https://www.epicurious.com/expert-advice/how-to-stir-fry-ele.... We don't have natural gas out here in the boonies of Maryland, so we have a high-end range converted to propane (which puts out twice as much heat as natural gas). That thing cranks. Frying things in ghee is a dream. The G-men can confiscate my gas range over my dead body.
- scohesc 4y ago
  Yeah - I've never understood the heavy-hand of government/society and urban-life people forcing ideologies onto people in rural areas - especially when urbanites have no idea what it's like to live rurally. Have fun using your electric cooktops after a storm when the power lines are all blown down and you're waiting for the electric company to repair the lines. Just let people use what they want to use. If it's more convenient for them to use gas, let them use gas. It just comes off as holier-than-thou and self centered - ideologically driven as opposed to practically driven.
  - inciampati 4y ago
    If gas lines were run above ground and electrical lines below ground, you might be saying exactly the opposite thing about which type of cooking system is better in an emergency. Somewhat arbitrary, culturally rooted infrastructure features are dominant here.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      I don't have a "gas line." I've got a propane tank outside my house that I only have to fill twice a year for both cooking and hot water. The fact that propane (or fuel oil) is energy dense, and easy to store and use with cheap infrastructure compared to electricity is a fact of physics, not "culture."
- peteradio 4y ago
  And my axe!
bilsbie 4y ago
I’m confused why the federal government has the authority to regulate indoor air pollution in every home in the country? Where does it end? Will they inspect every home for mold next? Force you to install CO detectors? Connect them to a national monitoring system?
- homero 4y ago
  It's similar to banning lead paint in your home tho. The gas is coming into your home.
  - roamerz 4y ago
    >> It's similar to banning lead paint in your home tho. Similar with the exception that lead paint is actually bad for you.
- mc32 4y ago
  Yeah, on the one hand there is public good, on the other hand, this is like regulating cigarette smoke in your own home. I suppose they can regulate manufacturers but they cannot go and inspect your home for violations that would violate the 4th amendment to the American constitution.
- c54 4y ago
  The Consumer Product Safety Commission tries to figure out which products have unnecessary risk for the consumer and apply regulation to the manufacturers. It’s very similar to what the NHTSA does for automobiles. Not accusing parent comment of this, but there’s a flawed attitude that consumers can and will do full research before making a buying decision, and that the “free market” will sort itself out that way. That expectation is unreasonable because forcing the individual citizen to undertake to avoid dangerous products both doesn’t work (because people don’t do that level of research for everything) and reduces individual freedom (because the requirement for work is being foisted onto the person). I’m not really sure of the validity of this stove essay because it’s a wall of statistics, and I’m not arguing that all product regulations are good, but regulations do have a really important role in fostering a healthy and free society.
martythemaniak 4y ago
Ironically, the post is also lying about climate change. Gas stoves have very very little to do with climate change, the use of fossil fuels for cooking is a rounding error and irrelevant. Gas stoves are worse for your health and an inferior product in every dimension except wok cooking.
- artificialLimbs 4y ago
  Propane stoves 1.)have superior temperature control (to electric, I don't know about induction) and 2.)don't stop working when the electricity goes out, which happens just about every week or when it rains out here in the sticks.
thinkingemote 4y ago
It is amazing that gas stoves as something to think about have entered into the public space so rapidily from nowhere. It's so deeply deeply bizarre. Am I the only one wondering not about the topic but about how these topics occur?
- JimtheCoder 4y ago
  Slow news week?
- mc32 4y ago
  Not taking sides on this, but this is a great case-study on effective propaganda (n.b. propaganda in a neutral context) It's pretty amazing how this can dovetail with ideology to ride coat-tails so effectively. This is how the CCP and others can so effectively mobilize their population to change course on a dime.
- coryrc 4y ago
  People coordinate. It's, like, what makes us people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList for example. Or all the climate activists meet at conferences and things.
- peteradio 4y ago
  Whats bizarre about it? There is apparently serious discussion about banning gas stoves and that is spawning discussion/debate among the rabble.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- conradev 4y ago
  This unfortunately won’t be the last you will hear about them, either The Inflation Reduction Act, passed last year in the US, has rebates to pay for 50% or 100% of the cost to convert a gas stove to an electric one That means that there are people who stand to make a lot of money by convincing you to go electric at no cost to you :)
obituary_latte 4y ago
If they think gas stoves are dangerous, I wonder what they think about ventless gas fireplaces?
crisdux 4y ago
This crusade against gas stoves is fascinating to watch. I believe we are observing the pattern for how "science" is used to manipulate populations. This effort has all the hallmarks of a disinformation campaign. Sudden emergence, weak or falsified evidence, an engineered emergency, using children to emotionally manipulate, politicians signally adherence, extreme calls to action, etc.
- DoneWithAllThat 4y ago
  I’ve felt this way too. Suddenly this massive propaganda campaign has sprung up on the left to demonize gas stoves. Comment threads including this one are packed with lies about how electric is more energy efficient (only if you don’t consider how the energy is created), work as well as gas (no they don’t, not even new induction ones, are as reliable as gas (not during a power outage, and not other times either), and so forth. They’re trotted out on every single thread, the same spiraling arguments as people try to combat the lies and distortions. It’s like this is the latest windmill that progressives are being encouraged to tilt at.
  - xyzzy_plugh 4y ago
    I love my gas stove but it really is inferior in most ways to electric or more specifically induction. I have extremely good ventilation which most people do not. > Suddenly this massive propaganda campaign has sprung up on the left to demonize gas stoves. I don't see it this way. Articles and scientific journals started highlighting health issues related gas ranges in homes years ago, and with greater frequency in the last 2-3 years. None of the discourse I've observed is remotely novel from a health and safety and environmental perspective. > only if you don’t consider how the energy is created Where I live most electricity is renewable (hydroelectric) supplemented by nuclear. There's no universe where gas is more efficient for me. It seems like it's also a good idea to move away from fossil fuels for electricity. With respect to this discussion, one does not necessarily preclude the other. > work as well as gas (no they don’t, not even new induction ones Induction ranges are very compelling. Have you used one? You can buy countertop one- or two-element ranges and they're delightful. If you want to fire something up at high heat quickly, it's hard to beat gas, but induction comes close enough in practice. In truth, I most often cook at the lowest possible heat setting on my range and I wish it could go lower still. I wouldn't have any issues with induction. > not during a power outage My gas range's starters won't work without electricity. I definitely don't stock matches in my home but I could get it going if I really wanted. But then there's no way to run the exhaust fan? It's neither practical nor safe. I don't think any of the demonization of gas stoves is unwarranted, but I'd struggle to call it that. It seems like mostly reasonable discourse, albeit with mostly unreasonable people.
exabrial 4y ago
> In other words, this is a work of blatant activism by people with an organizational interest in these extremely overwrought results Well said.
yk 4y ago
That blog doesn't read well I'm afraid. First of all, in the title it's something about climate, to then switch to Asthma. (And ctrl-F there is no mention of climate in the original paper.) Then there is some ranting about "activists" to which I will come back in a moment. Afterwards the post identifies flaws in several studies the meta-analysis did not use correctly. I would at that point expect some intuition what went wrong, instead of just namedropping some method without much further explanation. The style written here, including dropping some studies in the reanalysis smacks of cherry-picking. (Not saying that they did, I didn't do enough work. It is just I don't expect that doing that work is a wise use of my time.) And finally ranting about "activism." In general the expectation of a asthma research as an activist is, that the activism is motivated (or at least not in conflict) with a deep understanding of asthma.
- nostrebored 4y ago
  Ironically this reads as cherry picking. The author's criteria is explicit > only touching on those sources that have to do with asthma and gas stoves The tie in to climate happens at the end of the article -- where the authors have a conflict of interest (involvement with organizations seeking zero carbon buildings) and regulators near-immediately use this as a reason to move towards banning gas stoves for consumer safety. Which is absurd -- if the causal relationship between gas ranges and asthma were around 11% this would be apparent. The activism in this case is not about asthma, it's about weaponizing asthma.
  - Natsu 4y ago
    Fun thing is that one of the authors of the MDPI piece doen't seem to realize that there's a problem if you add up a bunch of PAFs and get something over 100%. How, exactly, does anything cause more asthma than actually exists without the stats being bogus? https://twitter.com/bradytoday/status/1610639235505336322 https://twitter.com/bradytoday/status/1610639235505336322
- abliefern 4y ago
  The blog post clearly states what the link to climate activism is according to the blog author. The conflict of interest of the meta study authors and suspected opposition to gas stoves on climate grounds by the regulator is clearly stated.
pupppet 4y ago
Of course it's on substack.
crackercrews 4y ago
I didn't read the mathematical analysis terribly closely, but this additional point is at least as important. It is also much easier to understand. > The results are very wrong, but there’s something even worse about this paper: an undeclared conflict of interest. The first two authors, Talor Gruenwald and Brady A. Seals are employees of RMI, Carbon-Free Buildings, which is, according to their website, “a non-partisan, non-profit organization that works to transform global energy systems across the real economy.” Their organization’s aims are to “Raise public awareness of health and climate costs of fossil fuels in buildings.”, “Design and advocate for carbon-free buildings policies in 20 key US states that represent 70% of direct gas use.”, “Retrofit large numbers of existing buildings to be all-electric, grid-interactive, and efficient.”, “Create buildings industry platforms to support dissemination of technology, supply chain development, and business-led interventions.”, “Leverage US successes to influence global supply chains and scale to China, India, Southeast Asia, and Africa.”.
- reedjosh 4y ago
  And I think this push for > Carbon-Free Buildings is just another push to remove alternative energy sources from the homes of individuals. Part of the growing smart meter control movement currently exemplified by Nest thermostats.
keltor 4y ago
Finding statistical "faults" without experts in the specific narrow area of research being consulted reeks of politics. On the subject of banning gas stoves specifically. I think 100% of everyone suspects that is going to happen at some point. Why not now? Are we implying that gas stoves are safe? Surely this is just a straw that broke the camel's back for the CPSC and likely they didn't need much if any reason to ban them for safety reason, they do in fact pretty regularly kill people.
- reedjosh 4y ago
  > they do in fact pretty regularly kill people. So do cars. And really how often? Can you point me to some evidence of this? Regardless of the numbers, what's your argument here? Why are you so happy to have a federal agency nanny away our choices of home energy supply?
- Natsu 4y ago
  > Finding statistical "faults" without experts in the specific narrow area of research being consulted reeks of politics. In this case, one of the authors of MDPI piece was doing this: https://twitter.com/bradytoday/status/1610639235505336322 https://twitter.com/bradytoday/status/1610639235505336322 I don't think it takes an expert to realize that there is a problem with stats that say that more asthma is being caused than exists.
pwinnski 4y ago
It is so bizarre to me that people are acting as if they've never heard that gas stoves are terrible for your health. I've known this for years! I've seen reports and anecdotes and buzzfeed-style articles a couple of times a year since at least before the pandemic. I assumed the things would be outlawed for new construction years ago, and phased out over time, except in the sense that some people still burn coal for heat in the northeastern US, so "phased out" clearly means little. It's just weird to me that people seem shocked, and weirder still that people reject the idea as preposterous. I mean, we live in a country which had lead in paint and gasoline making a notable dent in the population for decades. We lay pipes to deliver a flammable gas to houses to which a noxious smell has been added so that we might notice if we're being poisoned by it. What about this does not seem outlandish? I grew up with gas stoves off and on, but I don't have one now. When I want to cook with fire, I use the propane grill on the patio. I'll be the first to admit it's not as nice to warm up tortillas on a flat electric surface as it was on either a gas burner or even an electric coil, but that's a minor thing.
- chomp 4y ago
  There's journal articles going back 20 years that discuss indoor NO2, but from these comments you'd think that a cabal met last week to implement their new world order of a gas stove-less society. And no one is even talking about outdoor gas grills or natural gas heaters, because those are ventilated. CPSC is asking, why not natural gas stoves? Why don't we require these to be safe? This seems completely logical to me. There's even people who are asking if the feds are going to take their gas stoves by way of natural gas ban. Like, no one has busted down my grandparents' house to confiscate their lead paint walls in their basement. I feel like I'm going crazy.
  - pwinnski 4y ago
    Indeed, it's a bizarre over-politicization, and people don't seem to recognize how they're escalating rhetoric needlessly. Most of this seemingly because of a tweet by a member of the US Congress. Very strange.
  - crackercrews 4y ago
tptacek 4y ago
An important detail to have here is that the CPSC is not, in fact, considering an actual plan to ban gas stoves. https://twitter.com/Ben_Geman/status/1613188324491137031 https://twitter.com/Ben_Geman/status/1613188324491137031 What appears to have happened here is that a new CPSC commissioner --- the CPSC has 5 of them --- gave an interview to Bloomberg laying out his case against gas stoves. That's unsurprising: there has long been strong case against gas stoves! But the CPSC chair shot the whole thing down right away. Bloomberg ran an article that made it seem as if CPSC might put a ban proposal forward by the end of this year: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-09/us-safety-agency-to-consider-ban-on-gas-stoves-amid-health-fears?sref=qYiz2hd0&leadSource=uverify%20wall https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-09/us-safety... ... but that is not happening.
- mc32 4y ago
  Curiously... certain twitteratti and other influencers got right on that boat on cue to promulgate how bad gas ranges are. So one commish starts a snowball that grows into an avalanche... So you're right, if it were only one commish in the forest no one hears... but apparently many heard his signal and hit the gas --and that sudden lurch alerted people not on that wavelength that something weird was going on. That's the hubbub, not that one commish has some opinion.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    You write as if the CPSC just set off the movement against gas cooktops. Some municipalities have banned new gas hookups for years.
    - mc32 4y ago
      Let's just say, the sudden upswell in advocacy and promulgation just seems non-"organic" and seems more like coordinated memetics. For example as another kind of ordinance which is more organic is the adoption of bans or phasing out of gas-powered leaf blowers. Also, second-hand smoke from puffed weed is detrimental to non-smokers' health --can I expect the same virality?
incomingpain 4y ago
Its clear to everyone banning gas ranges isn't the plan. The CPSC is lying to encourage people to buy new appliances. As opposed to cutting a hole in the wall for ventilation. For the benefit of climate. Editorialized title: Lying for a Climate Crusade

92 points by barry-cotter 4y ago

The corrected numbers still look like the 3%-5% range, which is still probably enough of a reason to switch stove types... if all the other reasons weren't enough already.

jonhohle 4y ago
And replace them with what? There are almost annual major electrical grid outages in the various US grids and California frequently does active rolling blackouts. At least in the US (and it seems most of Europe, too), there is barely enough capacity for current surges. Migrating more high energy consumers to that infrastructure without plans to improve it seems doomed to fail.
- ulrashida 4y ago
  Two things: 1. The default recommendation may likely be "use gas stoves with a good ventilation solution" rather than "throw out all gas stoves" 2. A change does not need to occur immediately. It's not unreasonable to expect that a shift in usage over a 10-15 year horizon can be planned out as part of larger grid considerations. Might be an awkward energy demand to manage, however, as it's all focused on meal times and not spread throughout the day. For my household we've read the current material as a reminder to use our vent hood more often. We weren't doing so for a convenience (noise) reason, but of course burning things indoors can create all sorts of air quality issues that are remedied in part by the ventilation system so we now do.
  - droopyEyelids 4y ago
    I think this is the most sane reaction. As an aside, it's important to keep in mind that while stopping nat gas cooking will remove NOx and benzene from our air, we'll all still benefit from ventilation to remove the particulates and VOCs that are inherent to heating food.
    - jaggederest 4y ago
      > When I got back, bacon was smoldering on the range, filling the house with gas-phase polycyclic aromatics - my favorite carcinogen by a long shot. - Zodiac, An Ecothriller, by Neal Stephenson
  - jonhohle 4y ago
    Thanks for the calm, rational response. That is definitely a great reminder, and I’m guilty of the same. Maybe Noctua should jump into that market.

the_doctah 4y ago

Lies in the name of politics are increasingly irritating to me. Like when the Governor of Illinois goes on Twitter to lament all those lives we lost on January 6th. If only Karma were real.

gumby 4y ago
Almost a third of a percent of annual deaths occurred on that day! They deserve to be mourned.

Fricken 4y ago

[flagged]

bilsbie 4y ago
What did you believe about stoves 3 days ago? Lol.
- dpkirchner 4y ago
  What happened 3 days ago?
- britneybitch 4y ago
  To be fair the problems with gas stoves have been known for a while now. It's even made its way to HN a few times. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25332332 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25332332
- Fricken 4y ago
  Possibly you were born yesterday,lol, but the research goes back decades. My sister has seen several specialists over her condition, they all regard the gas stove to be the prime suspect.

SamBam 4y ago

While it's probably a good idea for most people to eventually switch over to electric induction, not least because it's much more energy efficient, I do think that banning gas ranges nation-wide is a big step that would require significantly more evidence that it was necessary. Most of the problems with indoor pollution can almost certainly be more cheaply mediated by adding building codes requiring venting range hoods. The fact that (as far as I have understood, can't find the link) the vast majority of US homes do not have a hood that vents to the outside is crazy. This should be the default for all new construction.

thanatos519 4y ago
Nobody should be installing gas in new construction, period. We won't stop using fossil fuels if we don't stop making things that need it.
- JimtheCoder 4y ago
  "Nobody should be installing gas in new construction, period." Couldn't you use that logic and say no one should be building cars with ICE, period?
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    The difference here would be that the only infrastructure burden that is introduced by banning gas stoves can be solved by the new construction itself - forcing everyone to buy an electric car isn't going to cause all the required home and quick chargers to pop up at the same time.
  - CorrectHorseBat 4y ago
    EV cars still have some drawbacks, are in absolute terms significantly more expensive and cars don't last nearly as long as homes.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Eventually, yes, we should probably do that (with minor exceptions). I'd probably preceed it with a requirement for charging infrastructure in new home construction (especially if you're putting in a garage), and there are already subsidies for existing construction.

helen___keller 4y ago

Not to say author is wrong but I don’t get the point of writing a blog that reads like a paper with some political commentary at the end. If you think the meta analysis was flawed then publish a paper showing why and skip the internet rant about politics. If you can’t get peer review, why should I waste my time reading your findings about something I personally have no expertise in? It’s not like I can or want to fact check the author on their meta meta analysis

mbauman 4y ago
Check their other blog post.
- neilk 4y ago
  Without any reasonable way to check the author’s credentials or the soundness of their analysis, I did go looking into who they are. The pseudonym “Cremieux Receuil” and the avatar refer to Adolph Crémieux[1], a French lawyer and politician remembered for advancing the status of Jews in France. “Receuil” is just French for “collection”, and this person published a work by that name. Wikipedia notes that Crémieux’s decree did not extend French citizenship to Arabs. This may be significant when combined with what else we know about the Substack author. The Substack has one other post, another long and very dense posting which, if I understand correctly, attempts to show errors in others’ historical analyses of the economic effects of slavery on subsequent generations. The author argues it is not significant, and points to racial mixing with Europeans as a better explanation for disparate outcomes among the descendants of slaves. I admit I do not understand all the tropes this author is deploying, which seem common among online reactionaries. I speculate that I, the normie, am supposed to be dazzled by their erudition, triggered by the race science, and bewildered by their allusions to obscure figures. Perhaps, by attempting to decode them, I am giving the author what they want. But honestly, all I feel is tired. This person’s priorities are not my priorities. Perhaps it is true that our biggest problem today is excess zeal in fighting climate change or mitigating the effects of colonial slavery. Perhaps we are on the road to serfdom by trying to do anything about it. As a product of miscegenation myself, I look forward to lenient treatment from my future masters. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolphe_Cr%C3%A9mieux?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolphe_Cr%C3%A9mieux?wprov=sf...

jnovek 4y ago

How big is the climate impact of gas stoves, anyway? Subjectively it seems like excess emissions from a stove would be a rounding error compared to things like automobiles and manufacturing.

agentultra 4y ago
I don't know of anyone measuring it but the service lines and infrastructure providing gas leak GHG's in the process all over the place. The stoves themselves leak a little. Modern induction stoves are far superior anyway you would be doing yourself a favour upgrading. That gas is somehow "qualitatively better," is propaganda from the gas companies to keep people choosing gas. "Now you're cooking with gas," is from a gas propaganda short aired decades ago... to keep people choosing gas when people were starting to convert to electric. There's no good reason I can think of to keep using gas stoves.
- csours 4y ago
  > There's no good reason I can think of to keep using gas stoves. Tortillas and marshmallows. Not enough of a reason to keep a gas stove really, but it's traditional to some people.
  - ask_b123 4y ago
    I eat tortillas daily, and use a gas stove, but why couldn't I use an electric stove?
    - csours 4y ago
      You can! I just happen to love the taste of slightly flame charred tortillas.
      - ask_b123 4y ago
        Haha I see. I normally prefer non-charred tortillas because whenever they are charred it is because I forgot them in the stove so they get _very_ charred. Though I do like restaurant provided charred flour tortillas

vannevar 4y ago

The click-baity headline and overly confident (given the evidence) conclusion mar what could have been a good article.

ulrashida 4y ago
Indeed. Reached the same conclusion. It's ironic that the individual decries the journal editors and authors for corrupt motives while they, as a blog poster, get to shelter behind a shroud of anonymity. My first reaction after their conclusion was wondering what associations they have that may be biasing their own work. If they are that concerned about conflict of interest they should be more transparent in their own authorship.
agentultra 4y ago
You should see the other article they published.
mbauman 4y ago
The blog author also takes umbrage at the paper's authors' other work and biases. Since the blog author is anonymous it's not as clear what their biases may be, but the only other blog they have posted comes to the conclusion that "whatever travails American Blacks suffered during slavery no longer matter for their socioeconomic attainment today," citing an infamous eugenicist. Take that as you will.

rayiner 4y ago

How much longer can an average person expect to live if we ban gas stoves? 0.5 years? Not worth it for having to deal with a wimpy electric stove: https://www.epicurious.com/expert-advice/how-to-stir-fry-electric-stove https://www.epicurious.com/expert-advice/how-to-stir-fry-ele.... We don't have natural gas out here in the boonies of Maryland, so we have a high-end range converted to propane (which puts out twice as much heat as natural gas). That thing cranks. Frying things in ghee is a dream. The G-men can confiscate my gas range over my dead body.

scohesc 4y ago
Yeah - I've never understood the heavy-hand of government/society and urban-life people forcing ideologies onto people in rural areas - especially when urbanites have no idea what it's like to live rurally. Have fun using your electric cooktops after a storm when the power lines are all blown down and you're waiting for the electric company to repair the lines. Just let people use what they want to use. If it's more convenient for them to use gas, let them use gas. It just comes off as holier-than-thou and self centered - ideologically driven as opposed to practically driven.
- inciampati 4y ago
  If gas lines were run above ground and electrical lines below ground, you might be saying exactly the opposite thing about which type of cooking system is better in an emergency. Somewhat arbitrary, culturally rooted infrastructure features are dominant here.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    I don't have a "gas line." I've got a propane tank outside my house that I only have to fill twice a year for both cooking and hot water. The fact that propane (or fuel oil) is energy dense, and easy to store and use with cheap infrastructure compared to electricity is a fact of physics, not "culture."
peteradio 4y ago
And my axe!

bilsbie 4y ago

I’m confused why the federal government has the authority to regulate indoor air pollution in every home in the country? Where does it end? Will they inspect every home for mold next? Force you to install CO detectors? Connect them to a national monitoring system?

homero 4y ago
It's similar to banning lead paint in your home tho. The gas is coming into your home.
- roamerz 4y ago
  >> It's similar to banning lead paint in your home tho. Similar with the exception that lead paint is actually bad for you.
mc32 4y ago
Yeah, on the one hand there is public good, on the other hand, this is like regulating cigarette smoke in your own home. I suppose they can regulate manufacturers but they cannot go and inspect your home for violations that would violate the 4th amendment to the American constitution.
c54 4y ago
The Consumer Product Safety Commission tries to figure out which products have unnecessary risk for the consumer and apply regulation to the manufacturers. It’s very similar to what the NHTSA does for automobiles. Not accusing parent comment of this, but there’s a flawed attitude that consumers can and will do full research before making a buying decision, and that the “free market” will sort itself out that way. That expectation is unreasonable because forcing the individual citizen to undertake to avoid dangerous products both doesn’t work (because people don’t do that level of research for everything) and reduces individual freedom (because the requirement for work is being foisted onto the person). I’m not really sure of the validity of this stove essay because it’s a wall of statistics, and I’m not arguing that all product regulations are good, but regulations do have a really important role in fostering a healthy and free society.

martythemaniak 4y ago

Ironically, the post is also lying about climate change. Gas stoves have very very little to do with climate change, the use of fossil fuels for cooking is a rounding error and irrelevant. Gas stoves are worse for your health and an inferior product in every dimension except wok cooking.

artificialLimbs 4y ago
Propane stoves 1.)have superior temperature control (to electric, I don't know about induction) and 2.)don't stop working when the electricity goes out, which happens just about every week or when it rains out here in the sticks.

thinkingemote 4y ago

It is amazing that gas stoves as something to think about have entered into the public space so rapidily from nowhere. It's so deeply deeply bizarre. Am I the only one wondering not about the topic but about how these topics occur?

JimtheCoder 4y ago
Slow news week?
mc32 4y ago
Not taking sides on this, but this is a great case-study on effective propaganda (n.b. propaganda in a neutral context) It's pretty amazing how this can dovetail with ideology to ride coat-tails so effectively. This is how the CCP and others can so effectively mobilize their population to change course on a dime.
coryrc 4y ago
People coordinate. It's, like, what makes us people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList for example. Or all the climate activists meet at conferences and things.
peteradio 4y ago
Whats bizarre about it? There is apparently serious discussion about banning gas stoves and that is spawning discussion/debate among the rabble.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
conradev 4y ago
This unfortunately won’t be the last you will hear about them, either The Inflation Reduction Act, passed last year in the US, has rebates to pay for 50% or 100% of the cost to convert a gas stove to an electric one That means that there are people who stand to make a lot of money by convincing you to go electric at no cost to you :)

obituary_latte 4y ago

If they think gas stoves are dangerous, I wonder what they think about ventless gas fireplaces?

crisdux 4y ago

This crusade against gas stoves is fascinating to watch. I believe we are observing the pattern for how "science" is used to manipulate populations. This effort has all the hallmarks of a disinformation campaign. Sudden emergence, weak or falsified evidence, an engineered emergency, using children to emotionally manipulate, politicians signally adherence, extreme calls to action, etc.

DoneWithAllThat 4y ago
I’ve felt this way too. Suddenly this massive propaganda campaign has sprung up on the left to demonize gas stoves. Comment threads including this one are packed with lies about how electric is more energy efficient (only if you don’t consider how the energy is created), work as well as gas (no they don’t, not even new induction ones, are as reliable as gas (not during a power outage, and not other times either), and so forth. They’re trotted out on every single thread, the same spiraling arguments as people try to combat the lies and distortions. It’s like this is the latest windmill that progressives are being encouraged to tilt at.
- xyzzy_plugh 4y ago
  I love my gas stove but it really is inferior in most ways to electric or more specifically induction. I have extremely good ventilation which most people do not. > Suddenly this massive propaganda campaign has sprung up on the left to demonize gas stoves. I don't see it this way. Articles and scientific journals started highlighting health issues related gas ranges in homes years ago, and with greater frequency in the last 2-3 years. None of the discourse I've observed is remotely novel from a health and safety and environmental perspective. > only if you don’t consider how the energy is created Where I live most electricity is renewable (hydroelectric) supplemented by nuclear. There's no universe where gas is more efficient for me. It seems like it's also a good idea to move away from fossil fuels for electricity. With respect to this discussion, one does not necessarily preclude the other. > work as well as gas (no they don’t, not even new induction ones Induction ranges are very compelling. Have you used one? You can buy countertop one- or two-element ranges and they're delightful. If you want to fire something up at high heat quickly, it's hard to beat gas, but induction comes close enough in practice. In truth, I most often cook at the lowest possible heat setting on my range and I wish it could go lower still. I wouldn't have any issues with induction. > not during a power outage My gas range's starters won't work without electricity. I definitely don't stock matches in my home but I could get it going if I really wanted. But then there's no way to run the exhaust fan? It's neither practical nor safe. I don't think any of the demonization of gas stoves is unwarranted, but I'd struggle to call it that. It seems like mostly reasonable discourse, albeit with mostly unreasonable people.

exabrial 4y ago

> In other words, this is a work of blatant activism by people with an organizational interest in these extremely overwrought results Well said.

yk 4y ago

That blog doesn't read well I'm afraid. First of all, in the title it's something about climate, to then switch to Asthma. (And ctrl-F there is no mention of climate in the original paper.) Then there is some ranting about "activists" to which I will come back in a moment. Afterwards the post identifies flaws in several studies the meta-analysis did not use correctly. I would at that point expect some intuition what went wrong, instead of just namedropping some method without much further explanation. The style written here, including dropping some studies in the reanalysis smacks of cherry-picking. (Not saying that they did, I didn't do enough work. It is just I don't expect that doing that work is a wise use of my time.) And finally ranting about "activism." In general the expectation of a asthma research as an activist is, that the activism is motivated (or at least not in conflict) with a deep understanding of asthma.

nostrebored 4y ago
Ironically this reads as cherry picking. The author's criteria is explicit > only touching on those sources that have to do with asthma and gas stoves The tie in to climate happens at the end of the article -- where the authors have a conflict of interest (involvement with organizations seeking zero carbon buildings) and regulators near-immediately use this as a reason to move towards banning gas stoves for consumer safety. Which is absurd -- if the causal relationship between gas ranges and asthma were around 11% this would be apparent. The activism in this case is not about asthma, it's about weaponizing asthma.
- Natsu 4y ago
  Fun thing is that one of the authors of the MDPI piece doen't seem to realize that there's a problem if you add up a bunch of PAFs and get something over 100%. How, exactly, does anything cause more asthma than actually exists without the stats being bogus? https://twitter.com/bradytoday/status/1610639235505336322 https://twitter.com/bradytoday/status/1610639235505336322
abliefern 4y ago
The blog post clearly states what the link to climate activism is according to the blog author. The conflict of interest of the meta study authors and suspected opposition to gas stoves on climate grounds by the regulator is clearly stated.

pupppet 4y ago

Of course it's on substack.

crackercrews 4y ago

I didn't read the mathematical analysis terribly closely, but this additional point is at least as important. It is also much easier to understand. > The results are very wrong, but there’s something even worse about this paper: an undeclared conflict of interest. The first two authors, Talor Gruenwald and Brady A. Seals are employees of RMI, Carbon-Free Buildings, which is, according to their website, “a non-partisan, non-profit organization that works to transform global energy systems across the real economy.” Their organization’s aims are to “Raise public awareness of health and climate costs of fossil fuels in buildings.”, “Design and advocate for carbon-free buildings policies in 20 key US states that represent 70% of direct gas use.”, “Retrofit large numbers of existing buildings to be all-electric, grid-interactive, and efficient.”, “Create buildings industry platforms to support dissemination of technology, supply chain development, and business-led interventions.”, “Leverage US successes to influence global supply chains and scale to China, India, Southeast Asia, and Africa.”.

reedjosh 4y ago
And I think this push for > Carbon-Free Buildings is just another push to remove alternative energy sources from the homes of individuals. Part of the growing smart meter control movement currently exemplified by Nest thermostats.

keltor 4y ago

Finding statistical "faults" without experts in the specific narrow area of research being consulted reeks of politics. On the subject of banning gas stoves specifically. I think 100% of everyone suspects that is going to happen at some point. Why not now? Are we implying that gas stoves are safe? Surely this is just a straw that broke the camel's back for the CPSC and likely they didn't need much if any reason to ban them for safety reason, they do in fact pretty regularly kill people.

reedjosh 4y ago
> they do in fact pretty regularly kill people. So do cars. And really how often? Can you point me to some evidence of this? Regardless of the numbers, what's your argument here? Why are you so happy to have a federal agency nanny away our choices of home energy supply?
Natsu 4y ago
> Finding statistical "faults" without experts in the specific narrow area of research being consulted reeks of politics. In this case, one of the authors of MDPI piece was doing this: https://twitter.com/bradytoday/status/1610639235505336322 https://twitter.com/bradytoday/status/1610639235505336322 I don't think it takes an expert to realize that there is a problem with stats that say that more asthma is being caused than exists.

pwinnski 4y ago

It is so bizarre to me that people are acting as if they've never heard that gas stoves are terrible for your health. I've known this for years! I've seen reports and anecdotes and buzzfeed-style articles a couple of times a year since at least before the pandemic. I assumed the things would be outlawed for new construction years ago, and phased out over time, except in the sense that some people still burn coal for heat in the northeastern US, so "phased out" clearly means little. It's just weird to me that people seem shocked, and weirder still that people reject the idea as preposterous. I mean, we live in a country which had lead in paint and gasoline making a notable dent in the population for decades. We lay pipes to deliver a flammable gas to houses to which a noxious smell has been added so that we might notice if we're being poisoned by it. What about this does not seem outlandish? I grew up with gas stoves off and on, but I don't have one now. When I want to cook with fire, I use the propane grill on the patio. I'll be the first to admit it's not as nice to warm up tortillas on a flat electric surface as it was on either a gas burner or even an electric coil, but that's a minor thing.

chomp 4y ago
There's journal articles going back 20 years that discuss indoor NO2, but from these comments you'd think that a cabal met last week to implement their new world order of a gas stove-less society. And no one is even talking about outdoor gas grills or natural gas heaters, because those are ventilated. CPSC is asking, why not natural gas stoves? Why don't we require these to be safe? This seems completely logical to me. There's even people who are asking if the feds are going to take their gas stoves by way of natural gas ban. Like, no one has busted down my grandparents' house to confiscate their lead paint walls in their basement. I feel like I'm going crazy.
- pwinnski 4y ago
  Indeed, it's a bizarre over-politicization, and people don't seem to recognize how they're escalating rhetoric needlessly. Most of this seemingly because of a tweet by a member of the US Congress. Very strange.
- crackercrews 4y ago

tptacek 4y ago

An important detail to have here is that the CPSC is not, in fact, considering an actual plan to ban gas stoves. https://twitter.com/Ben_Geman/status/1613188324491137031 https://twitter.com/Ben_Geman/status/1613188324491137031 What appears to have happened here is that a new CPSC commissioner --- the CPSC has 5 of them --- gave an interview to Bloomberg laying out his case against gas stoves. That's unsurprising: there has long been strong case against gas stoves! But the CPSC chair shot the whole thing down right away. Bloomberg ran an article that made it seem as if CPSC might put a ban proposal forward by the end of this year: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-09/us-safety-agency-to-consider-ban-on-gas-stoves-amid-health-fears?sref=qYiz2hd0&leadSource=uverify%20wall https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-09/us-safety... ... but that is not happening.

mc32 4y ago
Curiously... certain twitteratti and other influencers got right on that boat on cue to promulgate how bad gas ranges are. So one commish starts a snowball that grows into an avalanche... So you're right, if it were only one commish in the forest no one hears... but apparently many heard his signal and hit the gas --and that sudden lurch alerted people not on that wavelength that something weird was going on. That's the hubbub, not that one commish has some opinion.
- tptacek 4y ago
  You write as if the CPSC just set off the movement against gas cooktops. Some municipalities have banned new gas hookups for years.
  - mc32 4y ago
    Let's just say, the sudden upswell in advocacy and promulgation just seems non-"organic" and seems more like coordinated memetics. For example as another kind of ordinance which is more organic is the adoption of bans or phasing out of gas-powered leaf blowers. Also, second-hand smoke from puffed weed is detrimental to non-smokers' health --can I expect the same virality?

incomingpain 4y ago

Its clear to everyone banning gas ranges isn't the plan. The CPSC is lying to encourage people to buy new appliances. As opposed to cutting a hole in the wall for ventilation. For the benefit of climate. Editorialized title: Lying for a Climate Crusade