Woodburners give you cancer?

webby3650 said:

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..

Click to expand...

Too bad someone can't prove high taxes causes cancer. Then California would really be in trouble!

They did - cancer of the wallet - A Government created illness ( apx creation 1960) that there is no known cure for. Extremely contagious. Self replicating particularly in high political density areas.

branchburner said:

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.

Click to expand...

Thank you, this is exactly the point I was trying to make and how I would have replied if I had been following this more closely.
There is a big difference between a "significant difference" in statistics and actually being significant.

I would like to see much more effort in offering incentives to get rid of the dragons than to restrict and bash the current generation stoves. I keep waiting for this to come up around here.

branchburner said:

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).

Click to expand...

Yes exactly. That is correct.

branchburner said:

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).

Click to expand...

We are talking about things here that are environmental risks (cancer etc.) There are the things that are slow killers (tobacco, alcohol, obesity, etc)

But what can we say about when people die in a more rapid way?

For example assume there is a town of 10,000 people. There are a whopping 100 homicides/year in this tough town! Then some lunatic there shoots 20 people at once (rate climbs to 120) Are we going to say "oh well, the risk is still small" Of course not! In fact this tragedy would make national news! We are horrified and take notice when a mass murder is committed, but we shamefully shrug off the whole thing when deaths do not occur so immediately from their cause.

My point is that we should not be dismissing slightly higher illness/death rates simply because it may come from slow causes, (such as tobacco, alcohol, obesity) which is what you are essentially doing. A death is a death, whether slow or fast, and a preventable death is a life gained. We should try to do as much as humanly possible to save lives. Cutting risk from pollution, etc is a good way to accomplish that goal.

Log_cabin ,are you some kind of commie

log_cabin said:

My point is that we should not be dismissing slightly higher illness/death rates simply because it may come from slow causes, (such as tobacco, alcohol, obesity) which is what you are essentially doing.

Click to expand...

Not at all. I am simply observing the difference between slightly higher illness/death rates and greatly higher illness/death rates. To say "the risk is still small" does not necessarily mean to shrug off the whole thing. But it might mean to give it a lower priority, relative to other concerns.

In fact, what many of us are saying is that high-particulate emissions should be addressed in areas of concern, without including any significant bans or limitations on those burning extremely low-emission stoves (like the Absolute Steel I am beta testing, at 0.5 g/hr). To include those would kind of be like including starting pistols in a ban on guns.

To say we should try to do as much as humanly possible to save lives unfortunately has to be qualified by weighing costs and benefits, and that of course means actual realized benefits (as opposed to ones merely theorized). I am no judge of what those cost/benefit calculations should involve. But we will not, for example, reduce the speed limit to 20 mph even though that is humanly possible and would save lives. We will, however, spend many extra trillions on national security without ever being able to conclusively say if that extra spending saved more lives than it cost.

I agree that it is way too easy to ignore and fail to address deaths that may come from slow causes. About 15 people die every day while waiting for a kidney transplant, a number that could be quickly and greatly reduced with a well-structured incentive program for donors. Very humanly possible, yet not even on the radar.

begreen said:

cigarettes kept burning even when left unattended.

Click to expand...

oooo, really? Dried leaves and paper burn? Really? Now, that sounds like a doozy of a lawsuit generated, possibly, by some organization with an ax to grind, that caused unintended consequences for even non smokers.

brad wilton said:

Log_cabin ,are you some kind of commie

Click to expand...

Christian.

branchburner said:

In fact, what many of us are saying is that high-particulate emissions should be addressed in areas of concern, without including any significant bans or limitations on those burning extremely low-emission stoves (like the Absolute Steel I am beta testing, at 0.5 g/hr). To include those would kind of be like including starting pistols in a ban on guns.

Click to expand...

I agree, low emission is the goal.

Hmmm.... don't California my New Jersey? or is that the pot calling the kettle black?

Woodbuurners may or may not give you cancer. They do cause you to discuss issues even remotely related to wood buning... endlessly

jetsam said:

View attachment 175609

Click to expand...

Referring to jetsam's picture

Look carefully at the "start here Your Research" (p=0.56) means you get odds no better than flipping a coin (50/50)
This means probability of chance that the study is wrong or at least inaccurate (the null hypothesis is rejected)

A p-value of greater than 0.05 could be considered questionable in it's conclusion.
A reliable study has p-values of around 0.001 (the lower the number the better)

If the over-funded sensationalist media would bother to actually read some of this research, (and understand it!)
they could make better news reports, and not needlessly scare people into thinking that everything under the sun
is extremely dangerous (think of boy-who-cried-wolf)

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/what-a-pvalue-tells-you-about-statistical-data.html

Wood burned in a modern EPS approved wood stove or a wood gassifier boiler is probably the cleanest wood burned on the planet. Not a place to look for skeletons. Where in nature is the wood gas also burned and produce no smoke.

When that Royal College of Physicians begins advocating firing up some of those old German incinerators to eliminate wood burners you might invite the trumpster over to make Britain Great Again.

OMG.............my chimney has CANCER...............and its my fault

bob

Here's the study ... pdf download...
https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/file/2912/download?token=EAp84pJk

Two articles presumably based on the same study:
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-35629034 with the headline
UK air pollution 'linked to 40,000 early deaths a year'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...buting-deaths-40-000-people-year-Britain.html their headline
Could your wood burner KILL you? Air pollution caused by the popular stoves is linked to cancer, diabetes and asthma

What headline causes more of a stir? The study mentions increase in weekend burning in an urban environment ... wet wood? old stove? open fireplace?

The authors do concede that the old urban coal fired generating stations were more of a problem...

I used to work in a town that had a pulp mill ... 250+ exceedances in emission limits in a 365 days.

I am genuinely unable to explain the difference between correlation and causation to people in such a way that it sinks in. People say they grasp it, but it doesn't seem to be so.

I usually do my best to avoid these conversations unless someone pushes me to desperation.

Lake Girl said:

their headline
Could your wood burner KILL you? Air pollution caused by the popular stoves is linked to cancer, diabetes and asthma
.

Click to expand...

Could your wood burner kill you? Of course it could... either by CO poisoning or by house fire, if improperly used.

But from particulates? The article notes that only 10% of the particulates are from wood burning, and that is only in the winter, and that includes all sources of wood-burner smoke, not just modern stoves. There is no indication of the actual year-round percentage contributed by low-emission stoves, which is probably well under 1%. Yet that 1% source, rather than the 99%, is the focus of the headline and opening paragraph of the story?

Since emissions from factories, power plants and diesel are the primary forms of air pollution, it would seem a good recession or depression would go a long way in reducing particulate-related disease and death.

And since emissions from factories, power plants, diesel , and other non-wood sources contribute largely to levels of air pollution, 90% in winter and nearly 100% in non-winter months, and the bulk of the remaining 1-10% related to wood-burning is from open fires or inefficient stoves, a more accurate headline might be:
Air pollution caused by the newer, more efficient stoves is likely NOT linked to levels of cancer, diabetes and asthma

jetsam said:

I am genuinely unable to explain the difference between correlation and causation to people in such a way that it sinks in. People say they grasp it, but it doesn't seem to be so.

I usually do my best to avoid these conversations unless someone pushes me to desperation.

Click to expand...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaan...rates-is-causing-global-warming/#7058bb25a231

So you're saying the best way to prevent global warning isn't to become a pirate as a career choice?

There are several great charts out there ... one shows the "correlation" with the number of lemons imported in the United States and number of traffic fatalities.

branchburner said:

Since emissions from factories, power plants and diesel are the primary forms of air pollution, it would seem a good recession or depression would go a long way in reducing particulate-related disease and death.

Click to expand...

According to a NYS DEC summary document, wood burning (primarily OWB's) is the single biggest contributor to PM2.5 in rural NY. Different regions, different scenarios.

According to the US EPA, much of the health threat from wood smoke comes from fine particles. In rural New York State counties, residential wood combustion is responsible for 90 percent of carbonaceous, fine particles/aerosols.

The summary I have points the finger at conventional OWB's as being the worst offenders. For comparison the amount of PM2.5 from a poorly designed/run OWB is more than from 22 EPA stoves, about 200 oil burners and 8000 nat gas furnaces. In my area wood burning probably contributes relatively little compared to other sources but there's no sense living in denial. If you live in an area with a significant number of wood burners and/or are prone to inversions the problem is real.