Where can you smell Wood Burning stoves in East Dulwich

[heartblock]

🤣

[Spartacus]

Heartblock

Years ago "scientists" also told us that the earth was flat and we would fall off the edge if we sailed past a certain point but proof was discovered that changed their thinking.

Also that the sun and stars rotated around the earth which we now know isn't true.

Until bacteria was discovered Medieval doctors believed that illnesses, including the Black Death, were caused by an imbalance in the four humours . These were black bile, yellow bile, phlegm and blood.

Only by questioning the experts assumptions and beliefs will the truth be uncovered as they are only acting on their best guess and their interpretation of the available data at the time

[Penguin68]

Years ago "scientists" also told us that the earth was flat and we would fall off the edge if we sailed past a certain point but proof was discovered that changed their thinking.

Actually, no, they didn't. The Flat Earth society was a Victorian invention (there are still mad Americans arguing it) but the fact that the earth was a globe was well known in antiquity - indeed its diameter was initially estimated possibly by Aristotle!

It was post renaissance scholars who assumed that people in the middle ages thought the earth was flat - there is no contemporary record of that, and indeed you could look into the sky and sea both the moon and sun as orbs, so that shape was already clearly a viable one for the earth as well. From cliffs looking out to sea it is quite possible, in good visibility, to see the earth's curvature.

[malumbu]

There is a lot of bollox being spoken on this thread. You have a belief, eg that scientists are idiots, biased and the like and then you backfit some ancient belief and blame it on them.

Sir Richard Doll. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Doll

"In 1950, he undertook, with Austin Bradford Hill, a study of lung cancer patients in twenty London hospitals, at first under the belief that it was due to the new material tarmac, or motor car fumes, but rapidly discovering that tobacco smoking was the only factor they had in common.[10] Doll himself stopped smoking as a result of his findings, published in the British Medical Journal in 1950, which concluded:

The risk of developing the disease increases in proportion to the amount smoked. It may be 50 times as great among those who smoke 25 or more cigarettes a day as among non-smokers."

But rather than do ten seconds of research you just come up with some nonsense that scientists said that smoking was good for you. The tobacco companies did their damned hardest to convince us of this, You can always find some rogue scientists in the same way that the fossil fuel lobby in the States looked to the minority who did not believe in man-made climate change.

The biggest frustration in all of this - and it goes to scare stories on FB, Twitter, Whats app and the like is the wealth of information at our finger tips rather than just sharing the latest sensational story from the National Enquirer or Fox news.

[Penguin68]

Whilst suggestions as to causes of lung cancer were already positing smoking it was not until large epidemiological studies had been undertaken that the linkages were made, statistically, and it was some time after that that a convincing mechanism was discovered. During both the first and second world wars the calming effects of smoking were perceived as beneficial - such that advertising cigarettes as health giving were not seen then as the rubbish we now consider them.

Sometimes doctors turn out to be right, other times not. The problem with 'proving' smoking as a cause of cancer was that, until a mechanism was identified, it was always possible to dismiss it as a statistical anomaly (until the sample sizes were sufficient).

Science moves on by scientists challenging 'accepted' ideas. We remember the successful challenges, we tend not to the unsuccessful ones. For every new type of drug or treatment that proves itself effective, there are multiples which do not.

[heartblock]

‘Scientists’ ie me…. Are taught to question any research and any outcomes. In fact the standard of quantitative research is the null hypothesis. Trying to prove that a theory is incorrect.

Mal confuses questioning and understanding bias, with FB and Twitter types.

I’ve looked at the data about PMs and I believe the data and see no evidence of bias… but I have peer reviewed and asked for rewrites or review of data as bias or poor statistics have been evident.

‘Scientists’ are people.. and are as likely to be biased by society, belief and upbringing as anyone. Hopefully good academic integrity and supervision when learning how to research - as well as reflective practice remove or contain some of this bias.

[Earl Aelfheah]

...‘Scientists’ are people.. and are as likely to be biased by society, belief and upbringing as anyone.

 

I agree. For example, you (a scientist) accept air monitoring data in this case, but you reject data which demonstrates a drop in particulate concentrations when it suggests the positive impacts of an LTN on pollution.

[Peckham Park]

While we are at demonising wood burners, let’s get Southwark Council to enter every kitchen and cut off the gas hob. As recent media and research has indicated……

If you cook with a gas hob, Dr Mosley recommends taking action to prevent dangerous emissions from entering your body. He says: "Cooking with gas and gas boilers produces PM2.5s... the 2.5 relates to the particle size, so these have diameters 2.5 micrometres or smaller (a human hair is about 70 micrometres)."

[malumbu]

Yet another daft reply. Indoor air quality is your problem. Outside impacts on your community. You cannot defend wood burners in urban areas.

[Peckham Park]

I never post on this site, but find your contribution Malambu at most times annoying, and many times trolling. Here’s a link to research that show’s aspects of your ignorance…. https://ca1-eci.edcdn.com/reports/Gas-boilers-and-NOx-the-hidden-emitter.pdf?v=1633898830

[malumbu]

This report you attached is about nitrogen oxides. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are produced from the burning of natural gas, ie methane, Most of this is from burning methane for producing electricity and is spread around the country contributing to background levels. Some will be from domestic cooking ie contributing to poor indoor air quality (which is not controlled). Localised high levels of nitrogen dioxides are from motor vehicles, mainly diesel vehicles

Wood burners produce soot, PMs, that lead to high levels outside, ie poor local air quality. Wood burners are , in this area, typically a middle class indulgence.

So what is your issue? Please do not justify wood burners based on other sources of pollution. If nitrogen oxides need to be reduced from domestic cooking, heating and nationally from power generation then that is for national government to legislate. Happy for you to argue on the need to reduce NOx from natural gas, but this is not relevant to wood burners.

[heartblock]

Frying bacon emits 2.35 (2.22 ) μg/min of PM2.5.

[heartblock]

Calling people 'daft' and 'thick' is rather rude. Do better.

[malumbu]

Not sure why it's got so terse on this subject

The attached are useful background:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/air-quality-explaining-air-pollution/air-quality-explaining-air-pollution-at-a-glance

6.1 Wood burning

"Wood burning releases harmful pollutants straight into the home as well as into the air outside. Domestic burning is the UK’s largest source of particulate matter air pollution. Reducing how much you burn improves air quality for you and your neighbours.

If you use a wood burning stove, you can reduce emissions by:

using Ecodesign ready and Defra exempt stoves

using the right fuel (use dry wood which contains 20% or less moisture, or look for the Ready to Burn symbol)

having the stove installed properly

regularly maintaining the stove and chimney

using the stove correctly"

(Think the exemption is a cop-out by government)

And https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions-of-air-pollutants/emissions-of-air-pollutants-in-the-uk-background

This refers to emissions ceilings, ie controls at source rather than 'ambient' (local) air quality

For NOx

"Road transport accounted for 27 per cent of emissions of nitrogen oxides in the UK in 2021, and other forms of transport (aviation, rail, and shipping) accounted for 14 per cent. There is a downward trend in emissions from road transport due to the replacement of older vehicles in the vehicle fleet with newer vehicles that meet stricter emissions standards. Annual emissions from road transport have fallen by 69 per cent between 2005 and 2021, and other forms of transport have reduced annual emissions by 45 per cent over the same period.

Emissions from power stations and industrial combustion plants have reduced substantially, reflecting a long-term trend away from the use of coal and oil in favour of natural gas and renewable energy sources. Annual nitrogen oxide emissions from energy industries have reduced by 74 per cent between 2005 and 2021, largely due to the closure or conversion to biomass fuel of coal-fired power stations."

These are total emissions, local pollution hotspots will depend on local sources, as said for NOx this will be mainly diesel vehicles and for PMs wood burning will be a significant source

There was a drive towards low NOx domestic gas boilers certainly in Johnson's time as Mayor, but the world seems to be very quiet on this nowadays (and Johnson promised us London air as sweet as an Alpine valley in a Evening Standard article in the mid 10s!).

"Both PM and precursor pollutants that can form it can travel large distances in the atmosphere. A small proportion of the concentrations of PM that people in the UK are exposed to come from naturally occurring sources such as pollen and sea spray (approximately 15 per cent). Another third is transported to the UK from other European countries. However, around half of UK concentrations of PM comes from anthropogenic sources in the UK such as wood burning, and tyre and brake wear from vehicles. As such, it is in the interest of the UK to identify and reduce these anthropogenic emissions where possible."

Sadly there is not that much from government about indoor air pollution

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-matters-air-pollution/health-matters-air-pollution

"Air pollution isn’t just about the outdoor world. There are a number of sources of indoor air pollutants that can harm health including:

CO, NO2 and particulates from domestic appliances (boilers, heaters, fires, stoves and ovens), which burn carbon containing fuels (coal, coke, gas, kerosene and wood)"

This refers to a report on children and indoor pollution

https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/resources/inside-story-health-effects-indoor-air-quality-children-young-people

Anyway this post is trying to be helpful in getting a better understanding of pollution and air quality. I think government should be doing a better job both in explaining and acting.