Smoking is Bad for Your Health - how much smoke is too much?

[Mr. Kelly]

Hey everyone...

Thanks for all the recreational and informational posts on here. Quite a remarkable site. Kudos to the originators and those who contribute.

I'm contemplating my first stove. Wife says go pellet. Heart says go wood.

I have an Avalon Spokane 1750 in mind. Have not seen one post that mentions Avalon. Any concrete reasons?

Unfortunately, I am limited to having to put the stove along an outside wall and vent up the side of the house. Ughh... We have a small antique salt box house, with approx. 1500 sq.ft. space. Dealer says we should probably get about 1/3 of the house heated with the stove. Any thoughts?

However, the main thing I was hoping someone could comment on - the few stoves I've looked at have varying smoke emissions rates. For example, one that I like is rated at 1.7 grams per hour, the other at 3.9. Should that amount of difference be considered a true reflection of the quality of the build, or is that amount of difference of emissions really negligible? I am an asthmatic, so I am a little concerned about the amount of smoke I'd be putting into my lungs. Dealer said I should skip getting a stove. I'm NOT convinced!

So, would 1.7/hr. vs. 3.9/hr. be worth considering?

Whaddaya think?

Thanks for the indirect encouragement!

Cold in the N.E.!

 

[fossil]

Avalon appliances are made by Travis Industries (parent company), same as the Lopi brand stoves. Good stuff. The emmissions numbers you're talking about are the results of EPA testing of the appliances and refer to the exhaust to the atmosphere. No solid fuel-burning appliance (or any other appliance for that matter), properly installed, operated, and maintained will introduce any appreciable pollution, be it particulate or gaseous, into the living space of your home. Inside the house, you'd see no difference whatever between a stove producing 1.7 gm/hr and one producing 3.9 gm/hr...because whatever gm/hr it's producing are going straight up the stack and out the top of the chimney. Rick

 

[Corners]

That's the emissions of the smoke going out the chimney, which is diluted with the air outside your home. You'll have to ask someone else who has asthma problems (I have allergy induced asthma, meaning cats will close up my lung tubes pretty fast), but with a modern stove with an outside air kit (OAK)I can't see where smoke is going to enter your home aside from the occasional puff from opening the door if something isn't burning quite right.

 

[littlesmokey]

You get more smoke from your indoor grill, or a burnt steak. If you have breathing related problems, ask your doctor, not the stove guy. The most critical time for lung irritation might be when you reload the stove and when you empty the ash. you may want to get a good respirator mask as a stove accessory.

BTW, I had an asmatic working for me in my wood shop. He did a lot of sanding and even smoked a few cigarettes each day. Still kicking at 50. Another friend heats with wood and has gotten critical with attacks from restuarants, but never the stove.

 

[Slow1]

1500 sqft and only expecting to heat 1/3 of the house? Something doesn't add up here to me - do you have a lot of small rooms in there that are going to stop air from flowing around?

As to smoke - I agree with what others have said, the smoke emissions ratings on the stoves are important from an EPA standpoint, but I don't think I'd go making my decision on which to buy based on them. Certainly they have little to nothing to do with indoor pollution - mind you if you were to keep a window open somehow you could get the smoke in the house if the weather was just right, but even then those differences I don't think you could tell (once stove is in high efficient burn mode).

Speaking of indoor pollution/ asthma - I've seen others here post on this topic and some have said that even the smoke from loads bothered them. Others were bothered by the ashes, and then some by the molds etc in the wood brought in. Seems to be a bit of an individual YMMV sort of situation. If you think you may be at risk for these I would consider hanging out at a friends house who is burning and see if any of the above bother you. Sure would hate to pay the cost of a chimney system and stove only to discovery that it can't be used! Keep in mind that even a pellet stove will generate ash that you will have to deal with - so if that is something that you are going to react to then pellet or wood you will need to find solutions (masks, ash vacuum whatever) to deal with it either way.

 

[madrone]

I am an asthmatic, so I am a little concerned about the amount of smoke I'd be putting into my lungs. Dealer said I should skip getting a stove. I'm NOT convinced!

My Endeavor is made by Travis Ind., (same as Avalon), and has a bypass which lets the smoke directly up the flue when reloading. I never get smoke in the room. With the old cast-iron stove I grew up with we had to crack the door for a while before loading, and would still sometimes get a little smoke in the room.

 

[savageactor7]

I wouldn't advise getting a wood stove unless you had your own source of wood. As far as smoke getting in the house it never happens. But after loading reloading the chimney will smoke for about 5 minutes or so. If you're outside when that happens you'll inhale some smoke.


Another thing wood burning is considered a dirty operation...the wood is always shedding you have to deal with coals and ash. If you have a buddy that burns wood ask if you can polk around his stove for a morning or so reloading, cleaning, sweeping ash, bringing in wood. That should give you an idea what you have to put up with.

 

[Mr. Kelly]

Thank you everyone... This is reassuring...

Somehow, I was under the erroneous impression that the EPA emissions numbers referred to the amount of smoke that would remain INDOORS through seepage of some sort, and not up the chimney. After all, 1.7 grams/hr. seems like a very small amount. Some dealers have said that there will be increased "dust" around the room, so I put these two things together to mean that smoke remains in the room from normal operation. Certainly glad that this is not what the EPA is referring to.

As an asthmatic, I've never had a recognized problem with smoke causing asthmatic reactions. That's a good thing! I've sat around many campfires and been at other houses with fireplaces/stoves with no discernible reactions. That's pretty outstanding, considering that I'm allergic to everything else on the planet!

Our house is a small old saltbox, which has small rooms with typical-sized open doorways leading from one room to another. I'll have to figure out how to move air from one part of the house to the other.

Also, I hear conflicting reports about the effectiveness of on-board air blowers on these things. One guy said "forget about 'em" as they only throw the heat about 10 feet straight ahead, which doesn't accomplish much. Anyone have any experiences with on-board blowers worth sharing? Or any other methods for that matter...

Have a nice weekend! It's rainy and cool here in New England. Time to go buy a stove!

MK

 

[SolarAndWood]

When you are trying to crank some heat out of the stove, a blower combined with ceiling fan seems to distribute much more effectively than just the ceiling fan. At lower burns, I don't notice much of a difference and just use the ceiling fan so that I don't have to listen to the blower. I deal with asthma as well and haven't had a problem with the stove while an open fireplace tightens the lungs up pretty quick.

 

[Backwoods Savage]

Welcome to the forum Mr. Kelly and from all of us here, thank you for your kind comments about the site.

Looks like your questions are answered for the most part. There are 2 things I would like to touch on?

1. Pellet stoves. I recall just 3 years ago when we started looking at replacing our stove. I have a nephew who had installed a pellet stove and just could not say enough good about this thing. Fast forward to a month ago. He now is asking about wood stoves as he is ready to replace his pellet stove. This is a combination of factors. Some years pellets can be hard to find, which makes the price to way up. Price is the second thing too because he now pay so much more for pellets than he did when the stove was new (much like the corn burning stoves). Finally we get to the last points which is the constant maintenance of the stove, the increase in his electric bill and the fact that they just can not keep it warm enough in their house.

2. A 1500 sq. ft. home should heat pretty easy with a wood stove. Many on here are heating over 2000 sq. ft. even with the same stove we have which is a Woodstock Fireview (sold direct only). Take a look at their web site: Woodstock Stoves There are many, many stoves on the market that should heat your home and they come in different shapes, sizes and fit different budgets.

 

[branchburner]

What kind of heat do you have now? I do not have asthma, but some dust and pet allergies. Wood heat has been much better for that than my old forced hot air. But I imagine going from hot water to a stove with a blower might increase airborne dust.

 

[Mr. Kelly]

Happy Sunday,

So, if the EPA grams per hour smoke figure is 1.7 for one stove, the Avalon Spokane 1750 ($1300), and 3.9 grams/hr. for the Napolean 1400pl ($1000), what does that say about the difference b/w these two stoves?? They are both 2.2 cu/ft. boxes, so you'd think they'd perform fairly equivalently. What could make that difference? It's pretty much double the smoke. Even if this smoke emission happens under 'worse case' conditions, for those who would want to minimize environmental emissions, is this significant enough to pay $300.00 more for the Avalon?

What to do, what to do....???? What's a boy to do?

Any thoughts on either choice?

Have a nice Sunday. It's supposed to be WAY nice in New England (sorry to all you waiting to use your stoves!)

 

[Backwoods Savage]

I am very happy that our stove burns the smoke. That means less wood that we have to handle. Was it worth the dollars we paid ($2,000+) for our stove? Yes, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[fossil]

...So, if the EPA grams per hour smoke figure is 1.7 for one stove, the Avalon Spokane 1750 ($1300), and 3.9 grams/hr. for the Napolean 1400pl ($1000), what does that say about the difference b/w these two stoves?? They are both 2.2 cu/ft. boxes, so you'd think they'd perform fairly equivalently. What could make that difference?...

The internal design of the stove, in terms of how effectively the stove directs the combustion products through the secondary burn process. Firebox size has nothing to do with it...airflow through the stove has everything to do with it. A more complex or sophisticated (in terms of construction, not operation) stove will burn cleaner and cost more, generally speaking. Rick

 

[Slow1]

Keep in mind that those numbers are based on lab testing under specific test scenarios. I'm not certain (perhaps one of the stove designers who lurk here can comment) that they even reflect the best that the stoves can do. However, what I can say with some confidence is that the specific wood you use (how well seasoned etc) and how you operate the stove (level of burn etc) will likely affect the actual smoke output far more than that difference between those stoves. Keep in mind that about 50% of the emissions of the stove come from the startup phase of the stove which is only a very small amount of the time you are running it. Thus, if you are a frequent starter of the stove you will put out far more smoke than someone who really runs 24/7 (and by this I don't mean keeps barely enough coals to start up again - rather someone who spends minimal amounts of time building up to high efficiency mode - this would be having secondaries burning or the cat engaged and lit off depending on the type of stove you are running. The 'coaling' stage is generally not a high emissions period.

So - if you have a large firebox and thus have to burn more smaller fires you are almost certainly going to net higher emissions than if you go with a smaller box and keep a fire going more continuously. However the flip side of this is that if you can't keep the fire going between loads in the smaller box and thus have to restart constantly that can backfire. So - bigger is not always better, nor is it always less efficient. Have to get the 'right' size box to optimize what you are trying to do. If smoke/emissions is your primary concern then learn top-down starts and keep the fire going for longer periods rather than starting up frequently.

 

[branchburner]

Regardless of EPA ratings, I would assume a stove with catalytic combustion has the best potential for minimizing real-world emissions.

 

[fossil]

This summary from Intertek/Warnock Hersey, the independent lab which conducts all the testing:

http://www.intertek-etlsemko.com/po...G/HEARTH_PRODUCT_TESTING_PG/EPA_DATA_SHEET_PG

 

[Wood Duck]

In practice I think the quality of your wood supply (is it dry enough?) and the way you run the stove will have a lot more impact on the amount of particulates you discharge than the design of the stove will have, as long as you are comparing EPA-compliant stoves. Sure, an old stove without secondary burn, either catalytic or non-cat, will put out more particulates than EPA stoves, but you aren't considering one of those stoves. I would concentrate on finding a stove that minimizes the chance of smoke escaping into the house when you reload. Some stoves have a bypass to allow smoke to more easily travel up the chimney during reload, and this might be a good idea for you. Either 1.7 grams/hour or 3.9 grams per hour is a pretty clean burn.