6 ms·

The Fireplace Delusion (2012)

73 points by co_pl_te 13y ago

Killah911 13y ago
This is the umpteenth time I've seen this on HN. Is there a flaw in the HN algorithm that allows the exact same article of be recycled several times thru or is that a feature. Is it a way to get lots of Upvotes? Just resubmit an article that did well before?
- tokenadult 13y ago
  Have you seen this more than two times before? This shows up as the third submission by the HN Search I just did. https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=Fireplace+delusion https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=Fireplace+delu...
corresation 13y ago
"I am sorry to say that if you feel this way about a wood fire, you are not only wrong but dangerously misguided" This does not follow the preceding paragraph at all, making it painful to read the rest. If my opposition just demonstrates that I'm a romantic that loves my wood fires, then I suppose...
gamegoblin 13y ago
I don't know if is that I am a very skeptical person, that I am a Sam Harris fan, or that I grew up without a fireplace (I suspect it is this one), but I didn't find myself at all opposed to the information about fireplaces. Consider me an anti-fireplace convert!
- cecilpl 13y ago
  This is interesting to me - I had precisely the same reaction. In fact, I've noticed that throughout my life my initial reaction on reading something that contradicts my previous beliefs is not rejection but extreme interest at the possibility I may have been wrong. I don't know if that makes me very skeptical or very gullible. I think it's the former.
  - shurcooL 13y ago
    I think that's an excellent quality (if used with care), and it's probably related to whether you're the type that is happy to accept critique of your code, or get offended and upset when someone points out your mistakes. I'm happy if someone finds a way to make my code better, because I can now easily improve it and hopefully learn from my mistake. I don't place much self-worth in the code I write; I care more about the end result of what I'm trying to create.
- ucarion 13y ago
  It continues to amaze me how Sam Harris has managed to change my mind about nearly everything he talks about, be it gun control, scientific morality, or how we should talk about "faith".
  - selmnoo 13y ago
    Did he actually manage to change your mind about scientific morality though? That seems to be the one area where he's met with a lot of resistance from the secular types. Specifically that science can quatify the morality of various actions and doings. This is what his last book is all about, "The Moral Landscape". He talks about it here on a TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_... A lot of people are unconvinced, but he's definitely the guy to be making these arguments, considering he got his PhD in neuroscience.
    - ucarion 13y ago
      Just finished reading "The Moral Landscape" -- to me it's clear that morality is just as much a science as medecine or economics is.
  - sgt101 13y ago
    Read it carefully, think about extrapolations and polemic. "no safe level" (as in oxygen?) Think about the assertion that this is a Moral issue.... Sure, if you are going to live forever, or if you can identify the childhood cancer as being caused by the fire, rather than f*ing bad luck or simply "things we don't understand". This is not the work of somebody trying to find the truth, or help others come to it.
    - jodrellblank 13y ago
      "Burning wood smoke has more carcinogens and mutagens than cigarette smoke". "Oh but if we can't directly link this specific cancer with a specific fire, then burning wood isn't harmful, it's all luck, and we can carry on with it without guilt". Is how your reply reads.
- shurcooL 13y ago
  Yep, I grew up without a fireplace too. I have no problem giving it up. Now, if you made a similar case for computers, I would be in a different spot.
  - waps 13y ago
    Talk to your kids, if you have any. I bet they wouldn't have any problem giving up computers. All they use them for is homework. Or that's my kids' opinion. Very weird.
    - shurcooL 13y ago
      Once they realize (or you teach them) that they can use computers to create simple video games or similar things, they'll never look at computers the same way. Or maybe that's just me. :P
- raldi 13y ago
  I did grow up with a fireplace, but still did not feel the slightest inclination to clench my fists at this new information. Based on it, I wouldn't install a fireplace in a new home, but I think I'd still like to sit by one once or twice a year. I think my lungs can take it.
xarien 13y ago
Drinking a warm cup of coffee or hot chocolate next to a wood fire during a cold night is possibly one of the most enjoyable and stress reducing activities I can think of. Life isn't about evaluating every risk. Here's a small list of that has a high probability of harming my body: * Snowboard when I'm not at my prime * Use MSG in my cooking once in awhile * Smoke seldomly * Eat fatty meats such as lamb / duck * No sleep consistently * Have too much stress No one is going to refute these scientifically, but at the same time, just because we ignore the warnings, do not mean that we do not accept the warning as truthful. There is simply a more complex heuristic function we use to evaluate our decisions than a purely risk adverse one.
- lingben 13y ago
  > No one is going to refute these scientifically MSG has not been shown to have harmful effects after myriad studies - but people continue to believe it and repeat the myth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutamic_acid_%28flavor%29#Safety_as_a_flavor_enhancer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutamic_acid_%28flavor%29#Safe...
- ssivark 13y ago
  Power to thee if you actually acknowledge the risks and consciously choose to indulge yourself. Most people don't quite understand the risks involved, and with the specific example of fireplaces: how damaging it can be on the kids around. It is well-known that humans are poor judges in evaluating the chance of occurrence of black swan events.
- modeless 13y ago
  It's not about the harm you're doing to your own body, it's about the harm you're doing to other people and their property without their consent. Snowboarding or missing sleep doesn't harm anyone else. Burning wood does, and that's why it's different.
  - electronvolt 13y ago
    However, missing sleep and then driving (a rather common occurrence) is incredibly dangerous to the person doing it and others. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep-deprived_driving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep-deprived_driving) In fact, I think it's fair to argue that sleep deprivation plus daily activities (work or otherwise) likely puts more people at risk than burning wood, many of them without their consent (as they are not the sleep deprived ones).
adulau 13y ago
It seems that Mr. Harris is not aware of the various improved techniques to burn wood like rocket mass heater or heat-accumulating fireplaces (e.g. Tulikivi). By the way, I'm in Europe, burning woods to heat my house and not for a "recreational" objective using a heat-accumulating fireplace.
- lingben 13y ago
  None of these are new or improved and they all have the same consequences because we are talking about chemistry (what happens to wood when it is burned). This pseudo argument is akin to those who, after some initial evidence came to light about the harmful effects of smoking 50-60 years ago, argued that with a filter, smoking was safe (because the filter would 'catch' the bad stuff). No matter what kind of technique or equipment you use, nothing will 100% prevent the escape of the carcinogenic compounds produced by the chemical reaction of burning wood. So the question becomes, do you want a little bit of carcinogens in your air? a lot of them? or none (produced by you in your enclosed space/home)?
  - DanBC 13y ago
    > hey all have the same consequences because we are talking about chemistry (what happens to wood when it is burned). Inefficient fires don't get as hot and cause more smoke. efficient fires get much hotter, and have better airflow. These burn more "stuff", and it burns cleaner.
  - jdmichal 13y ago
    Now, I am not familiar with temperature's effects on the reactions found in burning wood. However, your invocation of chemistry is misguided at best. Chemical reactions CAN and DO vary based on energy input into the system. Reactions can happen one way at normal wood fireplace temperature, but another way in an efficient burner at higher temperature. Not to mention that higher temperatures can also simply burn away compounds that lower temperatures cannot. They can also vary based on outside inputs; for instance, wood burned without oxygen becomes charcoal.
  - InclinedPlane 13y ago
wamatt 13y ago
See also previous HN discussion, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5355248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5355248
- Apocryphon 13y ago
  I just hope no one brings up the dangers of owning guns vs. pools in this thread, please.
anonymous 13y ago
Isn't there something else we can burn that also gives off that nice wooden smell? I smell a market opportunity here - bio natural imitation fireplace wood - 100% carcinogen free smoke, asbestos free, cholesterol free, contains no hydrogenated fats.
- ssalenik 13y ago
  Well, I assume that burning pretty much anything that is solid will produce some sort of micro-particles... which even if they are not cancerogenic are probably not good to inhale...
cdjk 13y ago
We have a fireplace. It's our primary source of heat. It's efficient, however - an EPA approved catalytic model. The smoke from the chimney is very light, and once it's burning dissipates very quickly. Plenty of stoves/fireplaces produce a blue pall of smoke that hangs over the entire area for days, and it's not one of those. I'd be curious to know if studies included modern and correctly-installed stoves as well.
- revelation 13y ago
  This is the 21th century, but I'm afraid the message hasn't quite arrived yet: no, your generation of (heat|power|motion) through combustion or burning of things is not ever going to be healthy, efficient or sane.
  - cdjk 13y ago
    I think I disagree. For energy density, gasoline is hard to beat. And I'm not convinced that catalytic wood stoves are that bad, without doing more research.
- sgt101 13y ago
  Nahh - they can't, because there is no body of exposure, lack of study power and no control (due to the shortness of time of the technology use and the vast set of confounding factors). It's rubbish.
CamperBob2 13y ago
Research shows that nearly 70 percent of chimney smoke reenters nearby buildings Well, then the "research" is obviously wrong. What else in the article is wrong?
- Osmium 13y ago
  Why so obviously wrong? Seems reasonable to me that chimney smoke – defined as air with heavy particulates created from burning wood – might fall back down to the ground (and thus into surrounding buildings) once it has cooled. I'm not saying it's right, but it doesn't seem obviously wrong to me. Regardless, I'm sure whatever "research" there is must be based on something! A citation would have been appreciated so we could judge for ourselves...
  - vacri 13y ago
    If 70% of chimney smoke re-entered nearby buildings, then those times when most buildings were burning, the air inside them would be nearly as smoky as what come out of the chimney. It's also very hard to believe outside of a tenement arrangement. In a village where there's lots of space between houses, and assuming all particulate matter fell back within the bounds of the village (itself a big stretch), it's hard to see how two-thirds of smoke would find its way back into buildings.
    - ssalenik 13y ago
      It doesn't mention over what sort of volume/area it re-enters... 70% of smoke from one chimney distributed over the whole neighborhood/town would be more subtle. edit: "near-by" is a relative term
    - mangotree 13y ago
      No, since one persons smoke could enter a dozen peoples houses.
      - vacri 13y ago
        "those times when most buildings were burning" would not have one burner per twelve recipients.
spindritf 13y ago
He has a good, larger point but this article is plagued with those little, annoying inaccuracies and misprepresentations which, for me at least, completely ruin it. > Here is what we know from a scientific point of view: There is no amount of wood smoke that is good to breathe. There is no way to make a value judgement "from a scientific point of view." This is just the first from a collection of his moral convictions (we should live as long as possible, affecting our neighbours as little as possible). Nothing particularly wrong with having those but why dress them up in science? > many other things are just as natural—such as dying at the ripe old age of thirty. People may have on average had life expectancies in the 30 years range but that was because of child and infant mortality. Adults weren't dropping dead at 30. And then some silly js sticks this to every paste: > - See more at: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion#sthash.r9agKEEk.dpuf http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion#st... So sloppy.
- burntsushi 13y ago
  > There is no way to make a value judgement "from a scientific point of view." I'm not sure if your familiar with Sam Harris' other writing, but one of his shticks is applying a scientific approach to morality.[1] Not that I necessarily agree with him, but wanted to point out that there's a bit more substance there than some off-the-cuff remark. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)#The_Moral_Landscape http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)#The_Moral_L...
  - md224 13y ago
    I haven't read a lot of his stuff (although what I have read/heard I mostly respect), but I'm not super comfortable with how he just waltzes over the is/ought divide. But this brings up a larger issue: where do we draw the line between this kind of health-centric utilitarianism and the ability for humans to indulge in pleasurable but potentially self-destructive behaviors? When I was younger, I basically cheered whenever laws were passed to further restrict the sale / usage of cigarettes, because I knew they were harmful and that was all that mattered. But as I grew older, and I realized that the depth of the human experience goes beyond mere self-preservation, I became less sure of this monolithic approach to public policy. I guess my point is that I find that Mr. Harris's essay, while aimed at allowing us to see why religious beliefs are so hard to dislodge, kind of illuminates an opposite idea: that perhaps in our crusade to rid the world of "irrational" behavior, we risk compromising something fundamental to the human experience. The problem is agreeing on where we draw the line.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
vacri 13y ago
This argument seems to have 'recreational' as its cornerstone - as soon as it's not recreational, it falls apart, since death from potential cancer in the future is not as bad as poor health or death now from being cold or having poor-quality food. But even when it's not recreational, the author calls it a scourge in the developing world - apparently 'warmth' is just a nice-to-have, and food cooked for both taste (better subjective experience of life) and to ease digestion (better physical health) are significant issues that the author ignores. I would say that the 'intelligent' people that the author presents this argument to are not intelligent enough to see the gaping flaws in the argument as presented. There are problems with burning wood, and these can be quite significant in some areas. But balancing this against the argument "all a wood fire gives us is a sense of comfort" should be easily countered by any intelligent audience. What is described in the article is not 'scientific reality', but a very selective subset of it. It's a reasonable analogy for the some of the issues of discussing religion as an atheist, but I don't think it's anywhere near as clever as the author does, because it relies on intentionally withholding or glossing over a host of very pertinent information. A well-read atheist should be able to counter any point without withholding information. As an aside, the best thing I've seen on the problems of atheism versus (christian) religion was one guy who became an atheist over the course of years. He mentioned that the way many atheists go about arguing their case undermines themselves - screaming facts at people, then being abusive to some degree when they "can't understand reason". He points out that it doesn't matter what it is you think, if someone is demanding you think differently, and abusing you for not changing instantly, you're instinctively going to create barriers to what they're saying. Whether it's religion, sporting teams, personal politics, diet, anything that's not a trivial investment for the individual. Of course, the fly in the ointment is that politics at the national level can't really be run this way...
- d0mine 13y ago
  You might have missed the point that wood is not the only way to get 'warmth' e.g., you could use gas that is less harmful. It discards most of your comment. Though your last paragraph suggests that you might have some difficulty accepting that if you are not considering it a trivial investment. (I've tried to make the comment to sound less snarky without sacrificing accuracy). Personal data point: Maybe I'm too gullible but I love to find out something new that changes my mind (not too often), especially non-trivial stuff e.g., about weight/fitness as it relates to health. Not all people resist change all of the time.
pragmar 13y ago
The city I live in ran a campaign a number of years ago handing out $1000 vouchers to upgrade inefficient wood stoves. It can be a air quality issue, but the major issue is one of efficiency. Modern wood stoves are very efficient - where a fireplace may run at 15%, some of the new hearthstones exceed 80%. In any case, as someone from New Hampshire, I find it insulting that anyone would frame burning wood as "recreational."
- maxerickson 13y ago
  I think reacting to it as framing is wrong, it is simply an attempt to sidestep wood burning that is primary intended for heating. Recreational wood burning really is a thing that people do...
microcolonel 13y ago
After seeing some cops riding horses on my way home, this corroborated my awareness of silliness in my world.
- cdjk 13y ago
  Mounted police are surprisingly effective. They're highly visible (you noticed them on your way home, for example). They're useful for crowd control, as the officer is above the crowds. And being chased by an officer on horseback is a memorable experience, which may have a deterrent effect.
mkstowegnv 13y ago
While his essay is thought provoking and makes some valid points, he has oversimplified the moral equation in at least two ways. It is not clear that in many areas burning wood (especially using modern catalytic converter efficient wood stoves) would raise air pollutants above background levels due to car/ truck/ airplane exhaust, coal fired power plants, forest fires/ controlled burns, and the burning of sugar cane and other crops (not to mention indoor dust and other non combustion air pollutants). Also heating and cooking with wood using a modern wood stove can significantly lower one's carbon footprint compared to alternatives.

73 points by co_pl_te 13y ago

This is the umpteenth time I've seen this on HN. Is there a flaw in the HN algorithm that allows the exact same article of be recycled several times thru or is that a feature. Is it a way to get lots of Upvotes? Just resubmit an article that did well before?

tokenadult 13y ago
Have you seen this more than two times before? This shows up as the third submission by the HN Search I just did. https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=Fireplace+delusion https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=Fireplace+delu...

corresation 13y ago

"I am sorry to say that if you feel this way about a wood fire, you are not only wrong but dangerously misguided" This does not follow the preceding paragraph at all, making it painful to read the rest. If my opposition just demonstrates that I'm a romantic that loves my wood fires, then I suppose...

gamegoblin 13y ago

I don't know if is that I am a very skeptical person, that I am a Sam Harris fan, or that I grew up without a fireplace (I suspect it is this one), but I didn't find myself at all opposed to the information about fireplaces. Consider me an anti-fireplace convert!

cecilpl 13y ago
This is interesting to me - I had precisely the same reaction. In fact, I've noticed that throughout my life my initial reaction on reading something that contradicts my previous beliefs is not rejection but extreme interest at the possibility I may have been wrong. I don't know if that makes me very skeptical or very gullible. I think it's the former.
- shurcooL 13y ago
  I think that's an excellent quality (if used with care), and it's probably related to whether you're the type that is happy to accept critique of your code, or get offended and upset when someone points out your mistakes. I'm happy if someone finds a way to make my code better, because I can now easily improve it and hopefully learn from my mistake. I don't place much self-worth in the code I write; I care more about the end result of what I'm trying to create.
ucarion 13y ago
It continues to amaze me how Sam Harris has managed to change my mind about nearly everything he talks about, be it gun control, scientific morality, or how we should talk about "faith".
- selmnoo 13y ago
  Did he actually manage to change your mind about scientific morality though? That seems to be the one area where he's met with a lot of resistance from the secular types. Specifically that science can quatify the morality of various actions and doings. This is what his last book is all about, "The Moral Landscape". He talks about it here on a TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_... A lot of people are unconvinced, but he's definitely the guy to be making these arguments, considering he got his PhD in neuroscience.
  - ucarion 13y ago
    Just finished reading "The Moral Landscape" -- to me it's clear that morality is just as much a science as medecine or economics is.
- sgt101 13y ago
  Read it carefully, think about extrapolations and polemic. "no safe level" (as in oxygen?) Think about the assertion that this is a Moral issue.... Sure, if you are going to live forever, or if you can identify the childhood cancer as being caused by the fire, rather than f*ing bad luck or simply "things we don't understand". This is not the work of somebody trying to find the truth, or help others come to it.
  - jodrellblank 13y ago
    "Burning wood smoke has more carcinogens and mutagens than cigarette smoke". "Oh but if we can't directly link this specific cancer with a specific fire, then burning wood isn't harmful, it's all luck, and we can carry on with it without guilt". Is how your reply reads.
shurcooL 13y ago
Yep, I grew up without a fireplace too. I have no problem giving it up. Now, if you made a similar case for computers, I would be in a different spot.
- waps 13y ago
  Talk to your kids, if you have any. I bet they wouldn't have any problem giving up computers. All they use them for is homework. Or that's my kids' opinion. Very weird.
  - shurcooL 13y ago
    Once they realize (or you teach them) that they can use computers to create simple video games or similar things, they'll never look at computers the same way. Or maybe that's just me. :P
raldi 13y ago
I did grow up with a fireplace, but still did not feel the slightest inclination to clench my fists at this new information. Based on it, I wouldn't install a fireplace in a new home, but I think I'd still like to sit by one once or twice a year. I think my lungs can take it.

xarien 13y ago

Drinking a warm cup of coffee or hot chocolate next to a wood fire during a cold night is possibly one of the most enjoyable and stress reducing activities I can think of. Life isn't about evaluating every risk. Here's a small list of that has a high probability of harming my body: * Snowboard when I'm not at my prime * Use MSG in my cooking once in awhile * Smoke seldomly * Eat fatty meats such as lamb / duck * No sleep consistently * Have too much stress No one is going to refute these scientifically, but at the same time, just because we ignore the warnings, do not mean that we do not accept the warning as truthful. There is simply a more complex heuristic function we use to evaluate our decisions than a purely risk adverse one.

lingben 13y ago
> No one is going to refute these scientifically MSG has not been shown to have harmful effects after myriad studies - but people continue to believe it and repeat the myth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutamic_acid_%28flavor%29#Safety_as_a_flavor_enhancer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutamic_acid_%28flavor%29#Safe...
ssivark 13y ago
Power to thee if you actually acknowledge the risks and consciously choose to indulge yourself. Most people don't quite understand the risks involved, and with the specific example of fireplaces: how damaging it can be on the kids around. It is well-known that humans are poor judges in evaluating the chance of occurrence of black swan events.
modeless 13y ago
It's not about the harm you're doing to your own body, it's about the harm you're doing to other people and their property without their consent. Snowboarding or missing sleep doesn't harm anyone else. Burning wood does, and that's why it's different.
- electronvolt 13y ago
  However, missing sleep and then driving (a rather common occurrence) is incredibly dangerous to the person doing it and others. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep-deprived_driving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep-deprived_driving) In fact, I think it's fair to argue that sleep deprivation plus daily activities (work or otherwise) likely puts more people at risk than burning wood, many of them without their consent (as they are not the sleep deprived ones).

adulau 13y ago

It seems that Mr. Harris is not aware of the various improved techniques to burn wood like rocket mass heater or heat-accumulating fireplaces (e.g. Tulikivi). By the way, I'm in Europe, burning woods to heat my house and not for a "recreational" objective using a heat-accumulating fireplace.

lingben 13y ago
None of these are new or improved and they all have the same consequences because we are talking about chemistry (what happens to wood when it is burned). This pseudo argument is akin to those who, after some initial evidence came to light about the harmful effects of smoking 50-60 years ago, argued that with a filter, smoking was safe (because the filter would 'catch' the bad stuff). No matter what kind of technique or equipment you use, nothing will 100% prevent the escape of the carcinogenic compounds produced by the chemical reaction of burning wood. So the question becomes, do you want a little bit of carcinogens in your air? a lot of them? or none (produced by you in your enclosed space/home)?
- DanBC 13y ago
  > hey all have the same consequences because we are talking about chemistry (what happens to wood when it is burned). Inefficient fires don't get as hot and cause more smoke. efficient fires get much hotter, and have better airflow. These burn more "stuff", and it burns cleaner.
- jdmichal 13y ago
  Now, I am not familiar with temperature's effects on the reactions found in burning wood. However, your invocation of chemistry is misguided at best. Chemical reactions CAN and DO vary based on energy input into the system. Reactions can happen one way at normal wood fireplace temperature, but another way in an efficient burner at higher temperature. Not to mention that higher temperatures can also simply burn away compounds that lower temperatures cannot. They can also vary based on outside inputs; for instance, wood burned without oxygen becomes charcoal.
- InclinedPlane 13y ago

wamatt 13y ago

See also previous HN discussion, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5355248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5355248

Apocryphon 13y ago
I just hope no one brings up the dangers of owning guns vs. pools in this thread, please.

anonymous 13y ago

Isn't there something else we can burn that also gives off that nice wooden smell? I smell a market opportunity here - bio natural imitation fireplace wood - 100% carcinogen free smoke, asbestos free, cholesterol free, contains no hydrogenated fats.

ssalenik 13y ago
Well, I assume that burning pretty much anything that is solid will produce some sort of micro-particles... which even if they are not cancerogenic are probably not good to inhale...

cdjk 13y ago

We have a fireplace. It's our primary source of heat. It's efficient, however - an EPA approved catalytic model. The smoke from the chimney is very light, and once it's burning dissipates very quickly. Plenty of stoves/fireplaces produce a blue pall of smoke that hangs over the entire area for days, and it's not one of those. I'd be curious to know if studies included modern and correctly-installed stoves as well.

revelation 13y ago
This is the 21th century, but I'm afraid the message hasn't quite arrived yet: no, your generation of (heat|power|motion) through combustion or burning of things is not ever going to be healthy, efficient or sane.
- cdjk 13y ago
  I think I disagree. For energy density, gasoline is hard to beat. And I'm not convinced that catalytic wood stoves are that bad, without doing more research.
sgt101 13y ago
Nahh - they can't, because there is no body of exposure, lack of study power and no control (due to the shortness of time of the technology use and the vast set of confounding factors). It's rubbish.

CamperBob2 13y ago

Research shows that nearly 70 percent of chimney smoke reenters nearby buildings Well, then the "research" is obviously wrong. What else in the article is wrong?

Osmium 13y ago
Why so obviously wrong? Seems reasonable to me that chimney smoke – defined as air with heavy particulates created from burning wood – might fall back down to the ground (and thus into surrounding buildings) once it has cooled. I'm not saying it's right, but it doesn't seem obviously wrong to me. Regardless, I'm sure whatever "research" there is must be based on something! A citation would have been appreciated so we could judge for ourselves...
- vacri 13y ago
  If 70% of chimney smoke re-entered nearby buildings, then those times when most buildings were burning, the air inside them would be nearly as smoky as what come out of the chimney. It's also very hard to believe outside of a tenement arrangement. In a village where there's lots of space between houses, and assuming all particulate matter fell back within the bounds of the village (itself a big stretch), it's hard to see how two-thirds of smoke would find its way back into buildings.
  - ssalenik 13y ago
    It doesn't mention over what sort of volume/area it re-enters... 70% of smoke from one chimney distributed over the whole neighborhood/town would be more subtle. edit: "near-by" is a relative term
  - mangotree 13y ago
    No, since one persons smoke could enter a dozen peoples houses.
    - vacri 13y ago
      "those times when most buildings were burning" would not have one burner per twelve recipients.

spindritf 13y ago

He has a good, larger point but this article is plagued with those little, annoying inaccuracies and misprepresentations which, for me at least, completely ruin it. > Here is what we know from a scientific point of view: There is no amount of wood smoke that is good to breathe. There is no way to make a value judgement "from a scientific point of view." This is just the first from a collection of his moral convictions (we should live as long as possible, affecting our neighbours as little as possible). Nothing particularly wrong with having those but why dress them up in science? > many other things are just as natural—such as dying at the ripe old age of thirty. People may have on average had life expectancies in the 30 years range but that was because of child and infant mortality. Adults weren't dropping dead at 30. And then some silly js sticks this to every paste: > - See more at: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion#sthash.r9agKEEk.dpuf http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion#st... So sloppy.

burntsushi 13y ago
> There is no way to make a value judgement "from a scientific point of view." I'm not sure if your familiar with Sam Harris' other writing, but one of his shticks is applying a scientific approach to morality.[1] Not that I necessarily agree with him, but wanted to point out that there's a bit more substance there than some off-the-cuff remark. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)#The_Moral_Landscape http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)#The_Moral_L...
- md224 13y ago
  I haven't read a lot of his stuff (although what I have read/heard I mostly respect), but I'm not super comfortable with how he just waltzes over the is/ought divide. But this brings up a larger issue: where do we draw the line between this kind of health-centric utilitarianism and the ability for humans to indulge in pleasurable but potentially self-destructive behaviors? When I was younger, I basically cheered whenever laws were passed to further restrict the sale / usage of cigarettes, because I knew they were harmful and that was all that mattered. But as I grew older, and I realized that the depth of the human experience goes beyond mere self-preservation, I became less sure of this monolithic approach to public policy. I guess my point is that I find that Mr. Harris's essay, while aimed at allowing us to see why religious beliefs are so hard to dislodge, kind of illuminates an opposite idea: that perhaps in our crusade to rid the world of "irrational" behavior, we risk compromising something fundamental to the human experience. The problem is agreeing on where we draw the line.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

vacri 13y ago

This argument seems to have 'recreational' as its cornerstone - as soon as it's not recreational, it falls apart, since death from potential cancer in the future is not as bad as poor health or death now from being cold or having poor-quality food. But even when it's not recreational, the author calls it a scourge in the developing world - apparently 'warmth' is just a nice-to-have, and food cooked for both taste (better subjective experience of life) and to ease digestion (better physical health) are significant issues that the author ignores. I would say that the 'intelligent' people that the author presents this argument to are not intelligent enough to see the gaping flaws in the argument as presented. There are problems with burning wood, and these can be quite significant in some areas. But balancing this against the argument "all a wood fire gives us is a sense of comfort" should be easily countered by any intelligent audience. What is described in the article is not 'scientific reality', but a very selective subset of it. It's a reasonable analogy for the some of the issues of discussing religion as an atheist, but I don't think it's anywhere near as clever as the author does, because it relies on intentionally withholding or glossing over a host of very pertinent information. A well-read atheist should be able to counter any point without withholding information. As an aside, the best thing I've seen on the problems of atheism versus (christian) religion was one guy who became an atheist over the course of years. He mentioned that the way many atheists go about arguing their case undermines themselves - screaming facts at people, then being abusive to some degree when they "can't understand reason". He points out that it doesn't matter what it is you think, if someone is demanding you think differently, and abusing you for not changing instantly, you're instinctively going to create barriers to what they're saying. Whether it's religion, sporting teams, personal politics, diet, anything that's not a trivial investment for the individual. Of course, the fly in the ointment is that politics at the national level can't really be run this way...

d0mine 13y ago
You might have missed the point that wood is not the only way to get 'warmth' e.g., you could use gas that is less harmful. It discards most of your comment. Though your last paragraph suggests that you might have some difficulty accepting that if you are not considering it a trivial investment. (I've tried to make the comment to sound less snarky without sacrificing accuracy). Personal data point: Maybe I'm too gullible but I love to find out something new that changes my mind (not too often), especially non-trivial stuff e.g., about weight/fitness as it relates to health. Not all people resist change all of the time.

pragmar 13y ago

The city I live in ran a campaign a number of years ago handing out $1000 vouchers to upgrade inefficient wood stoves. It can be a air quality issue, but the major issue is one of efficiency. Modern wood stoves are very efficient - where a fireplace may run at 15%, some of the new hearthstones exceed 80%. In any case, as someone from New Hampshire, I find it insulting that anyone would frame burning wood as "recreational."

maxerickson 13y ago
I think reacting to it as framing is wrong, it is simply an attempt to sidestep wood burning that is primary intended for heating. Recreational wood burning really is a thing that people do...

microcolonel 13y ago

After seeing some cops riding horses on my way home, this corroborated my awareness of silliness in my world.

cdjk 13y ago
Mounted police are surprisingly effective. They're highly visible (you noticed them on your way home, for example). They're useful for crowd control, as the officer is above the crowds. And being chased by an officer on horseback is a memorable experience, which may have a deterrent effect.

mkstowegnv 13y ago

While his essay is thought provoking and makes some valid points, he has oversimplified the moral equation in at least two ways. It is not clear that in many areas burning wood (especially using modern catalytic converter efficient wood stoves) would raise air pollutants above background levels due to car/ truck/ airplane exhaust, coal fired power plants, forest fires/ controlled burns, and the burning of sugar cane and other crops (not to mention indoor dust and other non combustion air pollutants). Also heating and cooking with wood using a modern wood stove can significantly lower one's carbon footprint compared to alternatives.