Woodburners give you cancer?

[Simmo6108]

Hi All - Over the pond here in the UK, our tabloid (and broadsheet) press appear to have gotten hold of some info within a report written by the Royal College of Physicians regarding the health problems of poor air quality. There appears to be some linking of the increase in wood-burning to cancer and respiratory illness.

As I type this I am looking at my (DEFRA) smokeless zone approved stove burn away, giving us a lot of heat with little or no smoke either inside or outside. I cant help but feel this is the start of the government saying that an increase in wood-burning = decrease in use of taxable fuels, or is that just being a tinfoil hatter conspiracy theorist?

Do you face the same issues in the states, or is it just us "europeans" being soft?

 

[SteveKG]

I am in the states and have had numerous friends and co-workers over the years warn me that our wood stoves [which provide all our heat and have since 1974] are gonna give me lung cancer. Indeed, wood smoke does have a number of nasty chemicals which one's lungs do not appreciate. However, there is no smoke in our home. It does not worry me. If I had a stove that was not drafting properly and was emitting smoke into our home I would be quick to fix the situation. My sister has a son with asthma and her wood stove has caused him zero trouble. And he is quite sensitive to such pollutants.

I think it depends on the quality of the stove, its installation, and the job it's doing to get the combustion byproducts out of the home through the stove pipe and not into the room.

So far, in my area, there is no hassle from the governing bodies. There are, of course, reg's regarding the "quality" of the smoke emitted [leading to approval of catalytic combusters and air-tight fireboxes and the like. Here in Colorado, there are approval processes for which stoves one can install, and these concern particulate matter and so forth. Some cities, such as Denver, mostly do not allow wood-burning in any case. But this is more due to outdoor air-quality.

 

[Woody Stover]

I'd like to know how well that evidence is linked. Seems like an area with a lot of variables that would be hard to pin down. And apparently they are willing to cut some slack to a lot of other sources of pollution. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-35629034

cant help but feel this is the start of the government saying that an increase in wood-burning = decrease in use of taxable fuels, or is that just being a tinfoil hatter conspiracy theorist?

By all means, break out the tin-foil hats!
Or the government saying "increase in woodburning=decrease in the use of fuels provided by the nice men who gave us all that money so we could get re-elected." I don't know how it is over there, but here, the majority of a politician's time is spent raising money.

 

[branchburner]

[QUOTE="Simmo6108, post: 2062407, member: 48445"
Do you face the same issues in the states[/QUOTE]

In all states (from the EPA) to a degree, but in some states much more than others by local/state authorities (like California).

Where air conditions are bad, wood smoke is often the first contributor attacked. Not because it is the worst, but because it has no lobbying power and therefore there is little ability for it to not become a target.

That is not to say wood smoke isn't terribly harmful, because it is. But for the most part, those attacking and wishing to restrict it make no distinction between high-particulate sources (fireplaces, smoldering pre-EPA stoves) and low-particulate sources (properly run catalytic and other low-emission stoves). To them, a wood burner is a wood burner is a wood burner.

No problem linking an increase in direct exposure to wood smoke to cancer and respiratory illness. But that is different than linking the increase in CLEAN wood-burning to cancer and respiratory illness, where there surely is no link.

 

[webby3650]

Only in California. California is the origin of all types of cancer! Even cutting plywood causes cancer, but only in California. Sheww! I was worried for a moment..

 

[velvetfoot]

Ironic that UK imports a lot of North American pellets (I believe). It's probably taxed though, right?

 

[Seasoned Oak]

In a properly working wood stove ,air goes in but it dont come out other than up the flue. Even a breech in the flue at the seams will have additional air going into the flue rather than exhaust air coming out. Poor draft can change everything.

 

[begreen]

Water can give you cancer (and lead poisoning if you live in Flint).
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/lifestyle/health/is-some-bottled-water-acidic-

 

[jetsam]

Being alive gives lots of people cancer.

I would not be at all surprised if breathing in wood smoke regularly gave you a better chance at lung cancers. Charred meat officially entered the realm of Probably Bad not too long ago.

I also wouldn't say that my wood stove really puts out wood smoke, as the organics in it get reburned.

So yeah, I'd believe that it's technically true that it's a risk factor.

Life is all about risk management. If you go to the grocery store today, your chance of dying in a car accident goes way up. Your chances of dying of food poisoning spikes (though your chances of dying of starvation dip). Will you decide that the risk is worth the reward?

If I decided wood was too risky, I'd be burning oil instead, and I would breathe wood smoke all day before I would breathe coal or oil smoke for a minute.

(If anyone was wondering, no, I didn't give up grilling or motorcycles either!)

 

[brad wilton]

I heard that waking up in the morning gives you cancer. And bread and milk and smelling flowers and

 

[peakbagger]

PM 2.5 is generally the bad actor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates

Burning wood generates fine particulates (PM) . In areas with lots of wood stoves especially an area subject to inversions will have high particulate levels. Generally healthy folks can tolerate PM, but children, the elderly and those with preexisting lung conditions are not as capable. The state of Vermont was very active in subsidizing converting schools to biomass from oil. These local schools tend to be down in river valleys near town centers. After the fact they discovered that the school wood boilers had contributed enough PM that some towns are close to non attainment. They now require downstream particulate removal devices on new school systems. What normally happens with emissions is that EPA goes after the big producers with deep pockets and then once they have handle on that they start going after the small producers. I don't see a lot of options that would be practical or affordable for a home wood burner.

 

[iamlucky13]

My short thoughts: compare the smoke coming from your chimney to that coming from somebody who burns wet wood in an old stove or fireplace, then figure out which one of you is more likely to be the problem. Do a lot of people in your area burn wood? Then it's even more important for everyone to burn cleanly than if you're the only one.

My much longer thoughts:

Researchers have pretty well established that high enough exposure to fine particulates and partial combustion produces like benzene in wood smoke increases cancer risk and can exacerbate other health conditions.

It is not really known how low of an exposure is significant. It is generally assumed that the risk they see at levels high enough to cause clear problems declines proportionately with declining exposure, and risk assessments use this assumption.

In the US, regulators are reducing the allowable emissions of newly built wood stoves from 8.5 grams of particulate matter per hour to 2 grams per hour by 2020. I'm sure in the UK the push will be new regulations, as well.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claims the rule will reduce premature mortality by several hundred lives per year - this means deaths caused by wood-burning emissions exacerbating existing health issues such as those related to old age, poor lung function, and severe asthma, as well as increased long term cancer risk. But their analysis is based primarily on extrapolation of what is known about high levels of smoke exposure down to much lower levels, without being able to confirm that extrapolation is valid. It's not like when somebody dies from complications related to impaired lung function we can conclude, "if only farmer John next door had a 2 gram/hour wood stove instead of an 8.5 gram/hour stove, Mildred would have lived to be 87 instead of 86."

The EPA also tends to gloss over the fact that the currently in-production wood stoves aren't the main problem - it's the older stoves that predate any regulation, as well as users with bad burning practices in newer stoves. They're also enacting an achievable but very rigorous standard universally across the whole country. I think the better option would have been an intermediate standard, like 4.5 grams per hour, which would have 2/3 the benefits but a tiny fraction of the costs, and leave it up to states and cities to enact stricter standards when desired.

That way, residents would be minimally affected in a very rural area like Billings County, North Dakota where you wouldn't even be able to measure the difference if the entire county had old stoves and switched to new stoves, but a city like Tacoma, WA, which the EPA highlighted as one of the country's problem areas (5000 times the population density, high proportion of households with wood heat, and frequent temperature inversions that trap smoke near the ground) could take the extra step down to 2 g/hour if desired.

Likewise, I'd expect in the UK for there to be much more concern about burning in London than in the farmland around Guildford, and much more potential benefit from ensuring as many people as possible meet the current regulations than from enacting new regulations.

 

[iamlucky13]

I heard that waking up in the morning gives you cancer. And bread

No joke - bread is known to the state of California to cause cancer. A compound called acrylamide naturally forms during the cooking of starches. Acrylamide is on the list of substances that California requires products that contain it to be labeled.

However, you will never see that label on a loaf of bread because the state refuses to enforce the law on that product. A lawsuit about this was thrown out on a made-up technicality to avoid a court case that would have highlighted how absurdly sensationalist Proposition 65 is.

 

[BradleyW]

My main problem with so many of these "connections" that scientists find are how unbelievably small and trivial the connections are. Hypothetically, say you have a 1% chance of getting lung cancer. Then say that if you use a wood stove you have a 1.2% chance of getting lung cancer. So your chance of getting lung cancer HAS INCREASED BY 20% (reads the headline). But your actual risk is only .2% higher. I'm all for science, but so many studies are devoted to these sorts of risk assessment that ultimately aren't particularly meaningful.

 

[jetsam]

 

[firefighterjake]

I'm ready.

 

[log_cabin]

...Hypothetically, say you have a 1% chance of getting lung cancer. Then say that if you use a wood stove you have a 1.2% chance of getting lung cancer. So your chance of getting lung cancer HAS INCREASED BY 20% (reads the headline). But your actual risk is only .2% higher...

Sorry but your algebra is wrong.
1.2% DIVIDED BY 1.0% equals a 1:1.2 proportion (which is a 20% increase)

 

[branchburner]

The EPA also tends to gloss over the fact that the currently in-production wood stoves aren't the main problem - it's the older stoves that predate any regulation, as well as users with bad burning practices in newer stoves.

The argument has been made that requiring a very strict emissions standard might make stoves a bit more expensive, and thus prompt some of those of lesser means (or of a cheaper nature) to keep using older stoves.

And not that I'm advocating it, but if the EPA was serious they would require stove manufacturers and retailers to more prominently promote the necessity of burning dry wood, and regulate wood sellers such that "seasoned" had a legal definition regarding maximum MC. (The next step, of course, would be the "wood police" making raids and checking moisture content of the splits you are about to burn.)

 

[branchburner]

Sorry but your algebra is wrong.
1.2% DIVIDED BY 1.0% equals a 1:1.2 proportion (which is a 20% increase)

But that's exactly what he said... your actual risk is only .2% higher (1.2% instead of 1%), which is a 20% increase.

The point being, a 20% increase SOUNDS like a lot, until you realize that 1.2x a very small number is STILL a very small number.

 

[log_cabin]

But that's exactly what he said... your actual risk is only .2% higher (1.2% instead of 1%), which is a 20% increase.

The point being, a 20% increase SOUNDS like a lot, until you realize that 1.2x a very small number is STILL a very small number.

Not quite. It cannot be both 0.2% AND 20% as you have stated (these are completely different numbers!)
If it were actually 0.2% higher, it would be 1.002% (not 1.2 %) If he had said 0.2 FRACTION higher (not %) he would be correct.

A 20% increase is a significant number: in a sample of 10,000 people, that's 20 more people at risk of possible poisoning. (120 vs 100)

cheers

 

[branchburner]

Not quite. It cannot be both 0.2% AND 20% as you have stated (these are completely different numbers!)
If it were actually 0.2% higher, it would be 1.002% (not 1.2 %) If he had said 0.2 FRACTION higher (not %) he would be correct.

A 20% increase is a significant number: in a sample of 10,000 people, that's 20 more people at risk of possible poisoning. (120 vs 100)

cheers

Going from 1% to 1.2% is clearly an increase that is higher by 0.2% (since 1.2 - 1.0 = 0.2).
Going from 1% to 1.2% is also clearly a 20% increase (since 0.2 is 20% of 1.0).

So, being higher BY 0.2% indeed is a 20% increase. These are completely different numbers, but ones that mean exactly the same thing when the context of the wording is construed to mean an increase in YOUR individual odds of getting cancer. If out of of 10,000 people we see 120 vs 100 getting cancer, we are comparing 120/10000 vs. 100/10000.

The point is, a larger increase in risk becomes less important overall as the risk itself becomes smaller. Buying a second lottery ticket may increase my odds of winning by 100%, but going from 1 in a billion to 2 in a billion is not cause for much hope (or cause for much worry if my odds of getting hit by a meteorite likewise double).

 

[Poindexter]

We are all going to die of something. No one gets out alive.

 

[Simmo6108]

I must admit a lot of the replies have chimed with my thoughts on this. I drive a diesel car to work, where we make asphalt using gas oil to dry aggregate to about 230 degrees C. yet me burning wood is cited as a comparable risk factor. As some have said the risk factor in comparison is small, if not tiny. Last month bacon and olive oil were the big scare over here for cancer. It sells newspapers I suppose.

It feels like the opening gambit for the government to get a foothold in taxing this small but quickly growing method of heating your home. One of the major attractions for me was the independence of wood-heating. As long as I C/S/S my wood, season it for the correct length of time and keep my burner and chimney serviced I am not beholden to any large corporation for the right to keep my family warm. However our government struggles with the concept of people being independent.

 

[jetsam]

However our government struggles with the concept of people being independent.

I'd tell you to rise up against them, but we actually DID overthrow your government a while back, and we wound up with Donald Trump, so I am going to be forced to advise you not to rise up, I guess. :/

 

[blades]

"Welcome to the Hotel California- you can check out any time you want, but never leave" to quote the Eagles musical group. Besides we are all supposed to be frozen solid either by Mother Nature or Nuke winter by now according to the talking heads of the50's, 60's and early 70's my how times change. Everyone should leave LA, NY, Boston, Dallas, Chicago ans similar cities as the particulate emmisions from traffic, heating & lighting all those buildings are a far greater risk. Not to mention what gets relaunched into the air by traffic. Anything in excess isn't going to be good for you.
Some how you guys are twisting numbers up top pretty sure that should be .002 numerically for 2 tenths of 1 % which is 1 one hundredth to start with.