5 ms·

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 worl

by 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
> Why don't we require these to be safe? As the article makes clear, there is not evidence that they are unsafe. > no one has busted down my grandparents' house to confiscate their lead paint walls in their basement. Can you not see that it is much easier to seize a stove than to seize lead paint on walls? Cities have already begun outlawing gas appliances in new construction. People who are concerned about the CPSC rumblings are justifiably worried. If you don't like a city's rules, you can move. But if the CPSC takes action, you can't just move to another city.
- chomp 4y ago
  > As the article makes clear, there is not evidence that they are unsafe. I admit I did not read past the third or so paragraph, when it was clear the author didn’t understand PR vs OR, despite their lengthy explanation. I have little hope that the rest of the article becomes magically well informed. > Cities have already begun outlawing gas appliances in new construction. People who are concerned about the CPSC rumblings are justifiably worried. Okay but even you have to be able to see that outlawing in new construction is not the same as the feds confiscating your existing stove right? No one busted down my door to take by Bucky balls when they got banned. Lawn darts? Lead children’s toys? Because the CPSC only regulates what is sold in the US. Not what people own. This is a complete overreaction. The notion they’d ban new sales is a little more plausible, but still not realistic when there’s a thousand things we can do to make these things safe. There’s currently no emissions standards for gas stoves. Builders are allowed to build poor or no ventilation in new homes. There’s no warning labels. If we can make magnetic desk toys safer for sale after a direct DEATH and numerous injuries, we can definitely require ventilation of a stove.
- SamBam 4y ago
  It would also be "easier" to seize incandescent light bulbs, but no one has done that either, despite the Gestapo fantasies some people get off on peddling...
  - crackercrews 4y ago
    I don't think anyone fantasized about people seizing their lightbulbs. But given their finite life, it doesn't take long until you have to replace them. Stoves last much longer, but if parts are not available it has the same effect over time. I don't know why there are people here saying this would never happen. NY Gov Hochul literally just proposed legislation that will ban gas stoves in new construction. It will also eventually block putting it into existing buildings. If you can't see where this is going you have your eyes closed.
    - SamBam 4y ago
      Because "literally just proposed legislation that will ban gas stoves in new construction" is the standard way that laws phase out out-dated or dangerous commodities, like no cars sold without catalytic converters sold after 1975, or no new construction with ungrounded outlets since 1962. No feds are going into houses ripping out ungrounded wiring. To suggest that they'd do the same for gas stoves is just spreading stupid FUD.
      - crackercrews 4y ago
        And once there is a causal link between gas stoves and health outcomes, then it would make sense to take those steps. For now, it's all associational studies, which HNers usually see through.
        SamBam 4y ago
        It's not just an "associational study" because there is a clear proposed mechanism, in this case the known affect of nitrogen oxides on lungs. A correlation plus a well-understood mechanism isn't simply a correlation, it's evidence of a hypothesis.

by chomp 4y ago

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

> Why don't we require these to be safe? As the article makes clear, there is not evidence that they are unsafe. > no one has busted down my grandparents' house to confiscate their lead paint walls in their basement. Can you not see that it is much easier to seize a stove than to seize lead paint on walls? Cities have already begun outlawing gas appliances in new construction. People who are concerned about the CPSC rumblings are justifiably worried. If you don't like a city's rules, you can move. But if the CPSC takes action, you can't just move to another city.

chomp 4y ago
> As the article makes clear, there is not evidence that they are unsafe. I admit I did not read past the third or so paragraph, when it was clear the author didn’t understand PR vs OR, despite their lengthy explanation. I have little hope that the rest of the article becomes magically well informed. > Cities have already begun outlawing gas appliances in new construction. People who are concerned about the CPSC rumblings are justifiably worried. Okay but even you have to be able to see that outlawing in new construction is not the same as the feds confiscating your existing stove right? No one busted down my door to take by Bucky balls when they got banned. Lawn darts? Lead children’s toys? Because the CPSC only regulates what is sold in the US. Not what people own. This is a complete overreaction. The notion they’d ban new sales is a little more plausible, but still not realistic when there’s a thousand things we can do to make these things safe. There’s currently no emissions standards for gas stoves. Builders are allowed to build poor or no ventilation in new homes. There’s no warning labels. If we can make magnetic desk toys safer for sale after a direct DEATH and numerous injuries, we can definitely require ventilation of a stove.
SamBam 4y ago
It would also be "easier" to seize incandescent light bulbs, but no one has done that either, despite the Gestapo fantasies some people get off on peddling...
- crackercrews 4y ago
  I don't think anyone fantasized about people seizing their lightbulbs. But given their finite life, it doesn't take long until you have to replace them. Stoves last much longer, but if parts are not available it has the same effect over time. I don't know why there are people here saying this would never happen. NY Gov Hochul literally just proposed legislation that will ban gas stoves in new construction. It will also eventually block putting it into existing buildings. If you can't see where this is going you have your eyes closed.
  - SamBam 4y ago
    Because "literally just proposed legislation that will ban gas stoves in new construction" is the standard way that laws phase out out-dated or dangerous commodities, like no cars sold without catalytic converters sold after 1975, or no new construction with ungrounded outlets since 1962. No feds are going into houses ripping out ungrounded wiring. To suggest that they'd do the same for gas stoves is just spreading stupid FUD.
    - crackercrews 4y ago
      And once there is a causal link between gas stoves and health outcomes, then it would make sense to take those steps. For now, it's all associational studies, which HNers usually see through.
      - SamBam 4y ago
        It's not just an "associational study" because there is a clear proposed mechanism, in this case the known affect of nitrogen oxides on lungs. A correlation plus a well-understood mechanism isn't simply a correlation, it's evidence of a hypothesis.