Where can you smell Wood Burning stoves in East Dulwich

[Angell34]

Yes we spoke and got a mouth full of abuse. We emailed the local council, and the local MP and they did nothing. Even wash my house was full of smoke and it set off all my smoke alarms and I was rushed into hospital with asthma attack no one did anything.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

"An overwhelming majority [67%] of people in London support the banning of wood burners, which are the single biggest source of tiny air pollution particles in Britain...emissions of toxic pollution particles from wood-burning in UK homes [have] more than doubled in the past decade...Dirty air causes 26,000 to 38,000 early deaths a year in England, with the particles linked to many health problems, including heart and lung disease as well as dementia and depression... About only 8% of people in the UK burn solid fuels indoors, meaning a small minority are responsible for significant amounts of pollution. Two-thirds of these people live in urban areas, where the impact of air pollution is worst, and virtually all of them have other sources of heating."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/20/wood-burners-urban-air-pollution-londoners-support-ban

The whole thing is completely nuts. It's a tiny number of townies pumping out a stupid amount of the most lethal pollution.

[Earl Aelfheah]

"An overwhelming majority [67%] of people in London support the banning of wood burners, which are the single biggest source of tiny air pollution particles in Britain...emissions of toxic pollution particles from wood-burning in UK homes [have] more than doubled in the past decade...Dirty air causes 26,000 to 38,000 early deaths a year in England, with the particles linked to many health problems, including heart and lung disease as well as dementia and depression... About only 8% of people in the UK burn solid fuels indoors, meaning a small minority are responsible for significant amounts of pollution. Two-thirds of these people live in urban areas, where the impact of air pollution is worst, and virtually all of them have other sources of heating."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/20/wood-burners-urban-air-pollution-londoners-support-ban

The whole thing is completely nuts. It's a tiny number of townies pumping out a stupid amount of the most lethal pollution.

 

Couldn't agree more. Seems crazy

[Spartacus]

I love polls

The wood burner question was run over two days 15th and 16th Feb this year , online and involved 1259 people

Background and data results here

https://www.omnisis.co.uk/poll-results/vi-22-results-17-02-2023-environment/

Using algorithms to claim that 67% of Londoners support banning solid wood burners is akin to saying 9 our of 10 cats love ... *based on a survey of 20 cats*

Whilst I'm not doubting that a majority of people would like to see them banned, I am saying read the facts and not the headlines.

The other misleading one is the Mayors claim on 4000 annual early deaths due to pollution.

The data behind it estimates that if we remove all pollutants from the atmosphere then life expectancy will increase on average by 6 months therefore the claim of early deaths is realky based on an estimated average 6 months earlier then they would have lived rather then dying from pollution like they would have in the London smog.

Interesting fact that in the past 20 years, so far only one person has had pollution as a cause on their death certificate so there's no real data to confirm if the 4000 estimate is accurate or just based on assumptions.

Data is a funny thing, it can be used in so many good ways and on the surface when someone says it shows this, always look at how that conclusion was made.

http://allcatsrgrey.org.uk/wp/download/public_health/pollution/COMEAP_mortality_effects_of_long_term_exposure.pdf

[malumbu]

Suggest you don't go into excess deaths unless you are an epidemiologist. I worked with them for many years and I have to respect their expertise. Otherwise you are joining an unpleasant band of people who think they know the science better. Like those who question COVID and argue that people were going to die anyway. Or others who say, oh you got COPD from smoking, what's the issue with wood burner, it's your fault you are vulnerable

These are figures from, or derived from, an official committee. They come up with risk factors for nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter we are exposed to.

Spend a day looking through the reports of COMEAP

Whether it's one death or 1000 deaths from wood burners they are an unnecessary indulgence in metropolitan areas.

[Spartacus]

What I'm pointing out mal is that numbers can be manipulated to say what people want and you shouldn't take the headline quoted as gospel.

Not once did I go into excess deaths but I did explain what the number is based on.

Just as highlighted on the LTN thread you seem to want to try and portray what I was saying to spin me as a person who is a covid denier (I'm not) or a conspiracy nutter.

If you also read what I said, I'm not supporting wood burners, just highlighting that the survey that said 67% of londoners want to ban them was based on such a small number of people surveyed.

[malumbu]

You talk about misleading numbers. Therefore questioning the experts. Air pollution is a contributing factor to poor health. Short term episodes exacerbate respiratory conditions such as asthma. Long term exposure to ambient levels can harm cardiovascular systems. People do not die purely from poor air quality, it is a contributing factor.

The average size months life lost is exactly that,. Some it may be days of life lost, others years. Going back to COPD,. It will limit your life. But who's to say that with better air quality, or not catching COVID you may live a further 5 years

So really not sure why you question the science/data

[legalalien]

I see what you mean Spartacus, if I’m reading the table correctly only 156 Londoners were actually asked in that survey?

I’d favour a ban on wood burners in urban areas, it’s a simple message to get across to people.

(Speaking as someone who grew up burning most of our household rubbish - including plastic items - in a 44 gallon drum in the back garden - I remember lighting and keeping an eye on the incinerator being a childhood chore - different times! Makes me wonder what filters etc the council puts on the SELCHP incinerator - guess it’s in the climate strategy somewhere.)

[Penguin68]

So really not sure why you question the science/data

Any scientist (actual, real, scientist involved with scientific research) will tell you that both 'science' (that is to say scientific findings and conclusions) and data are both to be questioned, and constantly. Indeed science evolves through just such questioning.

Political conclusions drawn from data even more so.

I would not be prepared to even consider survey data which is published and which purports to have statistical significance (that is to say, have any meaning) without knowledge of the 'metadata' which surround it - when was it gathered, what was the sampling process, what is the likely range (at 95% Confidence levels, most frequently) - what questions were actually asked etc.

Anybody who refers to 'the' science, or indeed 'the' data shows a remarkable lack of understanding of either scientific or data gathering process. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that there is no such thing as 'the' science. Just our best understanding (which is about human interpretation) of the findings so far, including understanding how likely the findings ae to represent any sort of reality.

[malumbu]

Semantics my dear penguin. Scientific consensus would have been a better term. If you are an expert in this field then I'd love to hear your view on the impact of wood burners. I'm happy to be guided by expert committees and if you delve into the COMEAP reports you will there are different opinions for example on whether you can separate the impact of NO2 and PMs on the human body. Are we underestimating the impact or double counting

I've not seen anyone debunk any of this but if those contributing to this thread know better...

So probably 10000s of deaths a year are associated with poor air quality. And any reduction, proportionate to intervention should be justified. We need road transport to move our goods and services, for work and education, for leisure and have to accept some negative impacts on health and environment - road safety, air quality, and .... Climate change (which is the challenge as this will screw up the world)

There is no case for woodburners metropolitan areas beyond self indulgence.

[jazzer]

Maybe the logical question to ask is why do people have wood burners installed.

In light of the cost of living crisis I can sort of understand why they light them on a chilly evening, however when you open the front door you can smell the heavy smoke in the air. Burner goes off, smokey air dissipates.

At this time of year windows are closed so I don't know how you smell the smoke unless you are outdoors in the evening, but then I'd ask what are you doing out when it's cold, dark and damp?

[Penguin68]

I'm happy to be guided by expert committees

Then I'm sorry to say you're an idiot. It was an 'expert committee' that determined, at the height of BSE, that we should expect 500,00 BSE deaths in the UK by the year 2000, for instance. Almost any 'committee' is wielding a political axe of some sort. (Granted often small p politics).

You need to do your own validation - based on the amount and quality of data you are being given. You don't have to be an expert in any particular corner of science not to be able to look at data and determine whether you know enough about it to trust its interpretation - and data is interpreted - it's never self interpreting!

In the statistic you have quoted the survey length and size, the fact that you do not know what its recruitment criteria were etc. etc. all says to me that the findings, such as they are, may be interesting (or not) but are not a certain conclusion.

I'm not a scientist involved in the relevant niche science area, but I have taught at undergraduate and graduate levels social research methodology and research analysis and presentation of results techniques, and for a long time I was closely involved in forms of social research such that I can comment validly on what looks like 'good' and less good designed and reported research.

I happen to agree with you that most wood burning stoves are used in ways (and with fuels) that will contribute to poor air quality, and that usage in urban areas is probably unnecessary (though they often are efficient sources of heat) - particularly as local authorities have proved themselves useless when it comes to 'policing' such usage as regards, e.g. fuel types used.

[malumbu]

You've lost me. Scientific consensus is that small particles of soot, and the gas nitrogen dioxide, pass through the lungs and into the blood stream. These are toxic. Should I be doing my own research to challenge this. My understanding of physiology and toxicology is limited. I don't have a laboratory, or staff and. I can't afford to comission somebody else to do this.

If you look at COMEAP reports then you will see that the committee members do not agree on everything therefore findings and recommendations are appropriately caveated. The evidence they use will be published in peer reviewed journals so is open to scrutiny.

Prey tell me how this is wrong?

[Penguin68]

Should I be doing my own research to challenge this.

No, unless such research is within your skill and knowledge set; but you shouldn't be accepting 'consensus' as if it's 'truth'. In the 1950s Gastric Ulcers were 'known' to be caused by stomach acid, and treated as such, until it was demonstrated, by a very brave scientist who experimented on himself, that it was a bacterium (helicobacter) which was responsible. So elimination of helicobacter became the go-too treatment. Most recently it has been at least hypothesised that helicobacter has beneficial impact on the gut flora, and that eliminating it to treat ulcers may not be such a good idea.

What you should be doing is looking very closely at the research, and at consensus and drawing your own judgements as to how far you should go in buying into it. Who did the research? Why? You may recall that HMG research was quite clear that we should all be buying diesel and not petrol vehicles (and it was following that advice that left so many people the victims of ULEZ). Then consensus changed. So just because someone has published something and says it's scientific just isn't good enough. Even if it's being treated as such. As an asthmatic I'm quite happy to buy into hypotheses that say that breathing (some) stuff in may make me worse. What stuff, and how much, and what the long term effects on the general population are is a far mooter point. And I'm wary of the precautionary principle, which, in the end, suggests that doing anything may be harmful, so better do nothing (or, as a corollary, stop everything).

[Earl Aelfheah]

It is very clear that burning wood in a built up area is not good for air quality, which in turn is not good for health. It is an unnecessary and antisocial activity in most cases.

With regards assessing research - Quibbling over details or particular stats (whilst not irrelevant) can often be a case of not seeing the wood for the trees (pun intended). Picking holes in every stat, every bit of research (sometimes with good cause, sometimes not), whilst refusing to look at the clear picture which has emerged in aggregate, betrays a confirmation bias imo. The important thing is not any single piece of research per se, but an assessment of the direction of the total body of evidence.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Not once did I go into excess deaths but I did explain what the number is based on.

you brought up an entirely different number of your own recollection, and the sought to debunk it. The excess deaths number you are "discrediting" does not appear in the article.

[Spartacus]

Not once did I go into excess deaths but I did explain what the number is based on.

you brought up an entirely different number of your own recollection, and the sought to debunk it. The excess deaths number you are "discrediting" does not appear in the article.

Exactly Billy

Mal brought excess deaths into the conversation not I

I was discussing how the 4,000 annual deaths a year that the Mayor uses to promote things like the ULEZ expansion.

The origions of that number are based on potential reduced life expectancy of an estimated number of people by on average 6 months.

Absolutely nothing to do with excess deaths and I'm simply questioning the validity of the Mayors "fact" that air pollution causes 4,000 deaths a year as its an estimate not a fact. As Mal pointed out it could be higher or lower.

As an example, I once estimated I could drink 10 pints of Guinness in an hour

The fact is I managed 5 and wore most of those on the way home after.

Estimations are simply that based on belief and assumptions, facts are based on actual events

[malumbu]

Funny thing my friends is I do know lots of the subject working on and off it for the last decade. I'm more hands on nowadays so don't spent the time looking through all the data. I am not an epidemiologist or toxicologist but have enough of an understanding. I've had an even longer relationship in similar areas once upon a time being a health physicist - look it up if you don't know what that means.

So please don't go dissing the research.

Unless you know more than:

Professor Anna Hansell, Chair (Professor of Environmental Epidemiology, University of Leicester)

Professor Alan R Boobis (Professor of Toxicology, Imperial College London)

Professor Nicola Carslaw (Professor in Indoor Air Chemistry, University of York)

Professor Martin Clift (Associate Professor, Particle and Fibre Toxicology/In Vitro Systems, Swansea University)

Professor Roy Harrison (Queen Elizabeth II Birmingham Centenary Professor of Environmental Health, University of Birmingham)

Professor Mathew Heal (Chair of Atmospheric Chemistry, University of Edinburgh)

Dr Mike Holland (Freelance consultant in economic assessment of environmental policies)

Professor Klea Katsouyanni (Professor of Public Health, Imperial College London)

Professor Duncan Lee (Professor of Statistics, University of Glasgow)

Dr Mark Miller (Senior Research Fellow, University of Edinburgh)

Dr Ian Mudway (Senior Lecturer, School of Public Health, Imperial College London)

Professor Gavin Shaddick (Professor of Data Science and Statistics, University of Exeter)

Mr John Stedman (Air Quality Analysis and Policy Support Knowledge)

Sorry, as subtle as a sledgehammer. Conspiracy theorists will have their own views on why government would set up an independent committee but be calling all the shots.

[Lemmo]

It read something about fines increasing for this.

[heartblock]

Well - anyway. I personally like a wood-burning stove, if I had access to some money I probably would have had one, but knowing what I know now..... I wouldn't, purely from a thinking about others POV.

So - the particulates are huge, so we probably should not have them in London. They do produce toxins and particulates that cause cancer, heart disease and respiratory disease.

Science by committee is not great.

Meantime we allow burning of garden rubbish, BBQs and idling traffic.

We eat bacon, play rugby, drink alcohol and use micro-plastics. I think honesty is the key, maybe we do stuff that we know may cause harm, but we do it anyway. Having all our actions monitored maybe too much of an imposition on our lives.

LTNs are still cr*p though. :)

[heartblock]

Oh I know lots of very thick 'Drs' and 'Profs'... so don't be fooled by a Phd or a title.

[heartblock]

And that is not a right wing 'don't trust the scientists' but do research yourself... everyone has a bias. The only research I really have absolute (or near absolute faith in) - is double-blind, randomised, multi-centre, proof-of-principle, independent , primary medical research - expensive and rare. The LTN research is dismal compared to this 'gold-standard'.

[malumbu]

I assume that you are being ironic. Otherwise to quote your own terminology rather a thick sweeping statement.

On a broader scale a horrid outcome from populism, look down on education, diss the experts, sneer at liberal thinking people. Tories particularly good at exploiting this.

My late father used to wonderfully contradict himself - you may know what X and Y equals but you have no common sense. Yet he was from a generation who self improved themselves going to night school to study book keeping and the like so they could join the professional ranks. Similarly he'd say negative things about immigrants, but an immigrant with a degree and/or a profession, well that was somebody to look up to.

[heartblock]

Nope ..not at all. Just because someone has a doctorate or have been awarded a professorship doesn't mean they are without bias or in many cases not as bright as you may think. Yes - expertise is great - but one must question and review.

For many years 'experts' told us smoking was good for us, women were less intelligent than men and eggs were the cause of heart disease. Experts are influenced by society, bias and political regimes as much as anyone.

The issue now is the echo chamber - so having one's opinion echoed and reinforced by a focused group - rather than independent search for the most likely and most evidenced 'truth'. At undergraduate level we teach our future professionals to evidence statements and explore ambiguities and differing opinions. A list of people with titles is meaningless.

[letfordj]

Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.