Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Thanks Nigello




I had a quick look at the site, but does miscanthus produce lower levels of particulate matter when burned? or is it purely more eco from a growing perspective?


Nigello Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'll say it again -- try miscanthus.

> https://www.terravesta.com (I have no connection

> to this firm about from having bought its products

> and liked them.)

goldilocks and Nigello -



Miscanthus produces 3 TIMES more particulate emissions than soft wood!



https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02786826.2015.1121198



Burning plant matter = particulates and carcinogenic aromatic compounds - same as burning tobacco. No way round it.

Thanks for that - would seem its not a better solution.


I don't have a woodburner, so won't be burning anything, but I do think that its a hard sell to stop people once they have one - the views on this thread have backed that up, in a 'its actually very environmentally friendly' kind of way. Its understandable given the marketing around these burners that people would be under the misapprehension that they were not 'polluting'. 2030 is a long long way off and the damage to ours and our childrens lungs is happening now. I was just trying to see if there was a 'better' interim step for people given the likely reluctance to stop using something that's 'allowed'!

Rosetta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yesterday I noticed a very strong smell of

> woodsmoke on Oglander Road at the Grove Vale end.

>

> It was impossible to see where it was coming from

> though.

>

> It was very unpleasant.



Woodsmoke has a really nice smell.


Are you absolute sure that this unpleasant smell came from burning wood?

goldilocks - absolutely - once people have spent thousands on a stove it is unlikely that they will stop burning.


Unfortunately I just can't see an interim solution. Defra-approved stoves (the ones mainly used) give as much particulates as 33 modern cars!


But this is with dry wood and in lab conditions. I.e that is the best they can possibly be.


If I had bought a stove and then found out what I know now (my sister's in this boat) I would put it down to an expensive mistake and use it as an ornament. Stoves can fill the owners homes with particulates and it's like getting kids to passive smoke - and a few grand is not much in the scheme of things. But of course I don't expect most people would do this. I suppose they could use it less though. And try to avoid it in cold, still weather - when the pollution is held at ground level (although this beats the object).


The only answer is legislation. But like you said this could take years and meanwhile the damage is happening now. All I can think of is to put pressure on MPs/Councillors/ Mayors office - let them know that people actually care. So far the issue has been going under the radar. Expert groups have warned Defra and the Mayor but they appear to have been ignored and the public is really quiet on this. The problem is set to get worse as stove sales are growing and they last for decades and are often sold with the house...


British Medical Journal have an interesting (depressing) article and comment on the need for legislation https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k167/rr-3


For my own preservation, I'm just going to stay out of London next winter.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Time will tell if H&B are loved or loathed, the footfall they get and generate will determine if they stay or go. That's the nature of businesses, they come and go dependant on usage. Examples are M&S, Poundland Local, Co-op, Superdrug, Mons, the chain restaurant/takeaways, the chain Estate Agents, Toolstation, Screwfix to name a few.  As much as people would like to see Lordship Lane remain a high street of independents, it is becoming clear that due to Landlords hiking rents, some are unable to survive. This leaves empty units which some of the chain brands considering it to be worth a "punt". I'd have thought that businesses operating in shops is a better alternative than a high street with multiple empty units, but what do I know, they are just thoughts on the subject.   Take a look at Croydon and Bromley where what were once thriving high streets are in decline.  I have to say that some of the prices charged by the independents are eye watering, and incomes i'd have thought have to be substantial to afford their prices. Personally I'd love a Lidl to open on what was the site of the Harvester, but I guess that would get shouted down, oh the thought of Lidl in Dulwich. Whatever next. 
    • IMO, Sealy, the best nights sleep you'll ever have.  
    • I don’t know what the shop was originally next to the big St Christopher’s but if Holland and Barrett are taking it over then surely it’s good to have a choice on Lordship Lane? The Camberwell H&B is always empty but the Brixton branch busy.  I remember when the Marks & Spencer food shop was Iceland? Now the M&S is a very busy store and at the time regenerated the high street!
    • Nor would I have done, but it came up when I googled John Lewis reviews. Do you not trust TrustPilot reviews? Even allowing for the fact that many people only post reviews when they have had poor service, 27% one star reviews is indicative of something wrong, I would say. That's 27% of 76,392 reviews. That's an awful lot of people who don't  think the service they got from John Lewis was even worth two stars, let alone more. Screenshot attached.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...