It is so bizarre to me that people are acting as if they've never heard that gas stoves are terrible for your health. I've known this for years! I've seen reports and anecdotes and buzzfeed-style articles a couple of times a year since at least before the pandemic. I assumed the things would be outlawed for new construction years ago, and phased out over time, except in the sense that some people still burn coal for heat in the northeastern US, so "phased out" clearly means little.
It's just weird to me that people seem shocked, and weirder still that people reject the idea as preposterous. I mean, we live in a country which had lead in paint and gasoline making a notable dent in the population for decades. We lay pipes to deliver a flammable gas to houses to which a noxious smell has been added so that we might notice if we're being poisoned by it.
What about this does not seem outlandish?
I grew up with gas stoves off and on, but I don't have one now. When I want to cook with fire, I use the propane grill on the patio. I'll be the first to admit it's not as nice to warm up tortillas on a flat electric surface as it was on either a gas burner or even an electric coil, but that's a minor thing.
There's journal articles going back 20 years that discuss indoor NO2, but from these comments you'd think that a cabal met last week to implement their new world order of a gas stove-less society.
And no one is even talking about outdoor gas grills or natural gas heaters, because those are ventilated. CPSC is asking, why not natural gas stoves? Why don't we require these to be safe? This seems completely logical to me.
There's even people who are asking if the feds are going to take their gas stoves by way of natural gas ban. Like, no one has busted down my grandparents' house to confiscate their lead paint walls in their basement. I feel like I'm going crazy.
While it's probably a good idea for most people to eventually switch over to electric induction, not least because it's much more energy efficient, I do think that banning gas ranges nation-wide is a big step that would require significantly more evidence that it was necessary.
Most of the problems with indoor pollution can almost certainly be more cheaply mediated by adding building codes requiring venting range hoods.
The fact that (as far as I have understood, can't find the link) the vast majority of US homes do not have a hood that vents to the outside is crazy. This should be the default for all new construction.
> Most of the problems with indoor pollution can almost certainly be more cheaply mediated by adding building codes requiring venting range hoods.
I would guess that adding range hoods is more expensive than switching everyone to electric stoves. Existing structures often have no provisions for venting to the outside and would often require very expensive retrofits. It would require opening up the ceiling to add ductwork, potentially building soffits if there isn't enough room in the ceiling, placing a vent in the exterior, etc. Range hoods above a certain CFM also require provisions for make-up air. In new construction, obviously the costs are different, but the cost difference between a gas and electric stove is also minimal.
Venting hoods would solve a lot more problems, though. Cooking on an electric stove or in an electric oven still generates a lot of particulates that I'd rather not subject everyone in the house to. Not to mention making everything smell like whatever I'm cooking for the next day. Personally, I'd rather have induction and a venting range hood.
> The fact that (as far as I have understood, can't find the link) the vast majority of US homes do not have a hood that vents to the outside is crazy. This should be the default for all new construction.
I agree and I think we are starting to see some areas move in this direction. But even if it was mandated today, most people wouldn't have venting range hoods for decades to come because they live in older buildings. I think we need incentives to retrofit buildings with better ventilation.
I briefly lived in a place with a gas range and no venting range hood (just a fan that... exhausted inwards?) and I effectively never use the range.
Now I have a large gas range and a large exhaust range hood which is always on whenever the gas is, and for some time after the gas is off. I keep a CO2 monitor next to the stovetop to help indicate general air quality. The air quality is often better than normal (~100ppm above outdoor levels) when I'm cooking (outdoor levels) because the range hood is so efficient.
It would certainly be more effective to not use gas at all, but gas powers a lot of utilities in my home and here it's much cheaper. I'd consider induction if I were on the market for a new range and oven but I'm not. I'd also have to get new cookware and figure out how to keep my coffee warm.
There exists counter top induction ranges, with for example one or two elements, that are very good and everyone should probably own.
The problem with changing the building code is that the response would be much slower than banning the devices. Landlords notoriously don’t update their properties. But when the stove breaks, which it will, they would be forced to buying something that is healthier and more efficient.
That's crazy! Aren't most U.S. homes single family units? Adding a range vent is just a matter of making a 3x10 hole in an exterior wall and sticking a $40 external vent through it.
That seems reasonable and likely, but it is worth pointing out that there is very little evidence collected about this. And what study has been done of indoor air quality seems to indicate that there are problems, though eliminating natural gas fixtures may not be the best response. What might be a good option would be to study the issue in more detail then come up with possible responses and study those also in order to formulate a response that is effective.
Sorry, thermodynamics would not agree with you. There are very few losses when converting natural gas to high entropy heat. Many losses when converting natural gas to high entropy heat, then to low entropy electricity, transmitting it and finally converting back to high entropy heat.
Of course the carbon footprint of an electric stove could be lower if powered by nuclear, wind or solar.
> Most of the problems with indoor pollution can almost certainly be more cheaply mediated by adding building codes requiring venting range hoods.
As houses become increasingly more energy efficient, the cost of providing conditioned air only increases. Venting that air willy nilly to the outside has a real financial and climate cost.
All rangehoods in new construction should be mandated come with sensors that auto adjust the power based on detected particulate levels. With the old school dumb rangehoods, most people never bother constantly touching a bunch of oil smeared buttons to adjust the speed and just have it on full blast the entire time. You save a couple of hundred dollars going with the non-sensor version but its a false economy as it silently increases your HVAC bill and ERV filter replacement costs over time.
> cheaply mediated by adding building codes requiring venting range hoods.
Do you know how much it costs to add ventilation to a building that wasn't required to have it? It is anything but cheap. A $1000+ induction range is peanuts in comparison.
An induction cooker may be more efficient, but if you're burning gas (or coal) to generate electricity to then operate an electric stove, it's more efficient to burn the gas directly in the stove.
I didn't read the mathematical analysis terribly closely, but this additional point is at least as important. It is also much easier to understand.
> The results are very wrong, but there’s something even worse about this paper: an undeclared conflict of interest. The first two authors, Talor Gruenwald and Brady A. Seals are employees of RMI, Carbon-Free Buildings, which is, according to their website, “a non-partisan, non-profit organization that works to transform global energy systems across the real economy.” Their organization’s aims are to “Raise public awareness of health and climate costs of fossil fuels in buildings.”, “Design and advocate for carbon-free buildings policies in 20 key US states that represent 70% of direct gas use.”, “Retrofit large numbers of existing buildings to be all-electric, grid-interactive, and efficient.”, “Create buildings industry platforms to support dissemination of technology, supply chain development, and business-led interventions.”, “Leverage US successes to influence global supply chains and scale to China, India, Southeast Asia, and Africa.”.
What appears to have happened here is that a new CPSC commissioner --- the CPSC has 5 of them --- gave an interview to Bloomberg laying out his case against gas stoves. That's unsurprising: there has long been strong case against gas stoves! But the CPSC chair shot the whole thing down right away.
Bloomberg ran an article that made it seem as if CPSC might put a ban proposal forward by the end of this year:
How big is the climate impact of gas stoves, anyway? Subjectively it seems like excess emissions from a stove would be a rounding error compared to things like automobiles and manufacturing.
Natural gas leaks are responsible for way more greenhouse gas effects than stove CO2. That is, it's not the stoves, it's the transmission infrastructure.
I don't know of anyone measuring it but the service lines and infrastructure providing gas leak GHG's in the process all over the place. The stoves themselves leak a little.
Modern induction stoves are far superior anyway you would be doing yourself a favour upgrading. That gas is somehow "qualitatively better," is propaganda from the gas companies to keep people choosing gas. "Now you're cooking with gas," is from a gas propaganda short aired decades ago... to keep people choosing gas when people were starting to convert to electric.
There's no good reason I can think of to keep using gas stoves.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission tries to figure out which products have unnecessary risk for the consumer and apply regulation to the manufacturers. It’s very similar to what the NHTSA does for automobiles.
Not accusing parent comment of this, but there’s a flawed attitude that consumers can and will do full research before making a buying decision, and that the “free market” will sort itself out that way.
That expectation is unreasonable because forcing the individual citizen to undertake to avoid dangerous products both doesn’t work (because people don’t do that level of research for everything) and reduces individual freedom (because the requirement for work is being foisted onto the person).
I’m not really sure of the validity of this stove essay because it’s a wall of statistics, and I’m not arguing that all product regulations are good, but regulations do have a really important role in fostering a healthy and free society.
Yeah, on the one hand there is public good, on the other hand, this is like regulating cigarette smoke in your own home. I suppose they can regulate manufacturers but they cannot go and inspect your home for violations that would violate the 4th amendment to the American constitution.
That blog doesn't read well I'm afraid. First of all, in the title it's something about climate, to then switch to Asthma. (And ctrl-F there is no mention of climate in the original paper.) Then there is some ranting about "activists" to which I will come back in a moment.
Afterwards the post identifies flaws in several studies the meta-analysis did not use correctly. I would at that point expect some intuition what went wrong, instead of just namedropping some method without much further explanation. The style written here, including dropping some studies in the reanalysis smacks of cherry-picking. (Not saying that they did, I didn't do enough work. It is just I don't expect that doing that work is a wise use of my time.)
And finally ranting about "activism." In general the expectation of a asthma research as an activist is, that the activism is motivated (or at least not in conflict) with a deep understanding of asthma.
Lies in the name of politics are increasingly irritating to me. Like when the Governor of Illinois goes on Twitter to lament all those lives we lost on January 6th. If only Karma were real.
Finding statistical "faults" without experts in the specific narrow area of research being consulted reeks of politics.
On the subject of banning gas stoves specifically. I think 100% of everyone suspects that is going to happen at some point. Why not now?
Are we implying that gas stoves are safe? Surely this is just a straw that broke the camel's back for the CPSC and likely they didn't need much if any reason to ban them for safety reason, they do in fact pretty regularly kill people.
The corrected numbers still look like the 3%-5% range, which is still probably enough of a reason to switch stove types... if all the other reasons weren't enough already.
Ironically, the post is also lying about climate change. Gas stoves have very very little to do with climate change, the use of fossil fuels for cooking is a rounding error and irrelevant. Gas stoves are worse for your health and an inferior product in every dimension except wok cooking.
Propane stoves 1.)have superior temperature control (to electric, I don't know about induction) and 2.)don't stop working when the electricity goes out, which happens just about every week or when it rains out here in the sticks.
Its clear to everyone banning gas ranges isn't the plan. The CPSC is lying to encourage people to buy new appliances. As opposed to cutting a hole in the wall for ventilation. For the benefit of climate.
Not to say author is wrong but I don’t get the point of writing a blog that reads like a paper with some political commentary at the end.
If you think the meta analysis was flawed then publish a paper showing why and skip the internet rant about politics. If you can’t get peer review, why should I waste my time reading your findings about something I personally have no expertise in? It’s not like I can or want to fact check the author on their meta meta analysis
You raise a good question: if you're unwilling or unable to check the author's work, how should you evaluate articles like this?
I'd say the right answer is that you shouldn't evaluate it with any certainty, just file it away as something that might be true. Wrong answers would be "I disagree with the political commentary so the article wrong" or "I agree with the political commentary so the article is right". I think you're falling into the former category.
Yeah we’ve seen even recently that the gatekeeping for even getting an attempt at peer review hampers many papers. I understand the rationale though.
I had submitted a paper with some friends to an epub, and asked some people in the academic space what they thought of it.
I was an undergraduate, other members were in their grad courses.
We had brown men on twitter call us names and berate us because we asked what they thought. Yeah the formatting wasn’t perfect, but the math behind it was sound
The blog author also takes umbrage at the paper's authors' other work and biases. Since the blog author is anonymous it's not as clear what their biases may be, but the only other blog they have posted comes to the conclusion that "whatever travails American Blacks suffered during slavery no longer matter for their socioeconomic attainment today," citing an infamous eugenicist.
Indeed. Reached the same conclusion. It's ironic that the individual decries the journal editors and authors for corrupt motives while they, as a blog poster, get to shelter behind a shroud of anonymity.
My first reaction after their conclusion was wondering what associations they have that may be biasing their own work. If they are that concerned about conflict of interest they should be more transparent in their own authorship.
This crusade against gas stoves is fascinating to watch. I believe we are observing the pattern for how "science" is used to manipulate populations. This effort has all the hallmarks of a disinformation campaign. Sudden emergence, weak or falsified evidence, an engineered emergency, using children to emotionally manipulate, politicians signally adherence, extreme calls to action, etc.
[+] [-] pwinnski|3 years ago|reply
It's just weird to me that people seem shocked, and weirder still that people reject the idea as preposterous. I mean, we live in a country which had lead in paint and gasoline making a notable dent in the population for decades. We lay pipes to deliver a flammable gas to houses to which a noxious smell has been added so that we might notice if we're being poisoned by it.
What about this does not seem outlandish?
I grew up with gas stoves off and on, but I don't have one now. When I want to cook with fire, I use the propane grill on the patio. I'll be the first to admit it's not as nice to warm up tortillas on a flat electric surface as it was on either a gas burner or even an electric coil, but that's a minor thing.
[+] [-] chomp|3 years ago|reply
And no one is even talking about outdoor gas grills or natural gas heaters, because those are ventilated. CPSC is asking, why not natural gas stoves? Why don't we require these to be safe? This seems completely logical to me.
There's even people who are asking if the feds are going to take their gas stoves by way of natural gas ban. Like, no one has busted down my grandparents' house to confiscate their lead paint walls in their basement. I feel like I'm going crazy.
[+] [-] crackercrews|3 years ago|reply
Now do electricity.
[+] [-] SamBam|3 years ago|reply
Most of the problems with indoor pollution can almost certainly be more cheaply mediated by adding building codes requiring venting range hoods.
The fact that (as far as I have understood, can't find the link) the vast majority of US homes do not have a hood that vents to the outside is crazy. This should be the default for all new construction.
[+] [-] leguminous|3 years ago|reply
I would guess that adding range hoods is more expensive than switching everyone to electric stoves. Existing structures often have no provisions for venting to the outside and would often require very expensive retrofits. It would require opening up the ceiling to add ductwork, potentially building soffits if there isn't enough room in the ceiling, placing a vent in the exterior, etc. Range hoods above a certain CFM also require provisions for make-up air. In new construction, obviously the costs are different, but the cost difference between a gas and electric stove is also minimal.
Venting hoods would solve a lot more problems, though. Cooking on an electric stove or in an electric oven still generates a lot of particulates that I'd rather not subject everyone in the house to. Not to mention making everything smell like whatever I'm cooking for the next day. Personally, I'd rather have induction and a venting range hood.
> The fact that (as far as I have understood, can't find the link) the vast majority of US homes do not have a hood that vents to the outside is crazy. This should be the default for all new construction.
I agree and I think we are starting to see some areas move in this direction. But even if it was mandated today, most people wouldn't have venting range hoods for decades to come because they live in older buildings. I think we need incentives to retrofit buildings with better ventilation.
[+] [-] xyzzy_plugh|3 years ago|reply
Now I have a large gas range and a large exhaust range hood which is always on whenever the gas is, and for some time after the gas is off. I keep a CO2 monitor next to the stovetop to help indicate general air quality. The air quality is often better than normal (~100ppm above outdoor levels) when I'm cooking (outdoor levels) because the range hood is so efficient.
It would certainly be more effective to not use gas at all, but gas powers a lot of utilities in my home and here it's much cheaper. I'd consider induction if I were on the market for a new range and oven but I'm not. I'd also have to get new cookware and figure out how to keep my coffee warm.
There exists counter top induction ranges, with for example one or two elements, that are very good and everyone should probably own.
[+] [-] avidphantasm|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] actionfromafar|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m0llusk|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] osigurdson|3 years ago|reply
Sorry, thermodynamics would not agree with you. There are very few losses when converting natural gas to high entropy heat. Many losses when converting natural gas to high entropy heat, then to low entropy electricity, transmitting it and finally converting back to high entropy heat.
Of course the carbon footprint of an electric stove could be lower if powered by nuclear, wind or solar.
[+] [-] shalmanese|3 years ago|reply
As houses become increasingly more energy efficient, the cost of providing conditioned air only increases. Venting that air willy nilly to the outside has a real financial and climate cost.
All rangehoods in new construction should be mandated come with sensors that auto adjust the power based on detected particulate levels. With the old school dumb rangehoods, most people never bother constantly touching a bunch of oil smeared buttons to adjust the speed and just have it on full blast the entire time. You save a couple of hundred dollars going with the non-sensor version but its a false economy as it silently increases your HVAC bill and ERV filter replacement costs over time.
[+] [-] yardie|3 years ago|reply
Do you know how much it costs to add ventilation to a building that wasn't required to have it? It is anything but cheap. A $1000+ induction range is peanuts in comparison.
[+] [-] rob74|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tptacek|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thanatos519|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crackercrews|3 years ago|reply
> The results are very wrong, but there’s something even worse about this paper: an undeclared conflict of interest. The first two authors, Talor Gruenwald and Brady A. Seals are employees of RMI, Carbon-Free Buildings, which is, according to their website, “a non-partisan, non-profit organization that works to transform global energy systems across the real economy.” Their organization’s aims are to “Raise public awareness of health and climate costs of fossil fuels in buildings.”, “Design and advocate for carbon-free buildings policies in 20 key US states that represent 70% of direct gas use.”, “Retrofit large numbers of existing buildings to be all-electric, grid-interactive, and efficient.”, “Create buildings industry platforms to support dissemination of technology, supply chain development, and business-led interventions.”, “Leverage US successes to influence global supply chains and scale to China, India, Southeast Asia, and Africa.”.
[+] [-] reedjosh|3 years ago|reply
> Carbon-Free Buildings
is just another push to remove alternative energy sources from the homes of individuals.
Part of the growing smart meter control movement currently exemplified by Nest thermostats.
[+] [-] thinkingemote|3 years ago|reply
It's so deeply deeply bizarre. Am I the only one wondering not about the topic but about how these topics occur?
[+] [-] tptacek|3 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/Ben_Geman/status/1613188324491137031
What appears to have happened here is that a new CPSC commissioner --- the CPSC has 5 of them --- gave an interview to Bloomberg laying out his case against gas stoves. That's unsurprising: there has long been strong case against gas stoves! But the CPSC chair shot the whole thing down right away.
Bloomberg ran an article that made it seem as if CPSC might put a ban proposal forward by the end of this year:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-09/us-safety...
... but that is not happening.
[+] [-] jnovek|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] csours|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] philwelch|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] agentultra|3 years ago|reply
Modern induction stoves are far superior anyway you would be doing yourself a favour upgrading. That gas is somehow "qualitatively better," is propaganda from the gas companies to keep people choosing gas. "Now you're cooking with gas," is from a gas propaganda short aired decades ago... to keep people choosing gas when people were starting to convert to electric.
There's no good reason I can think of to keep using gas stoves.
[+] [-] bilsbie|3 years ago|reply
Where does it end?
Will they inspect every home for mold next? Force you to install CO detectors? Connect them to a national monitoring system?
[+] [-] c54|3 years ago|reply
Not accusing parent comment of this, but there’s a flawed attitude that consumers can and will do full research before making a buying decision, and that the “free market” will sort itself out that way.
That expectation is unreasonable because forcing the individual citizen to undertake to avoid dangerous products both doesn’t work (because people don’t do that level of research for everything) and reduces individual freedom (because the requirement for work is being foisted onto the person).
I’m not really sure of the validity of this stove essay because it’s a wall of statistics, and I’m not arguing that all product regulations are good, but regulations do have a really important role in fostering a healthy and free society.
[+] [-] mc32|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yk|3 years ago|reply
Afterwards the post identifies flaws in several studies the meta-analysis did not use correctly. I would at that point expect some intuition what went wrong, instead of just namedropping some method without much further explanation. The style written here, including dropping some studies in the reanalysis smacks of cherry-picking. (Not saying that they did, I didn't do enough work. It is just I don't expect that doing that work is a wise use of my time.)
And finally ranting about "activism." In general the expectation of a asthma research as an activist is, that the activism is motivated (or at least not in conflict) with a deep understanding of asthma.
[+] [-] the_doctah|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] keltor|3 years ago|reply
On the subject of banning gas stoves specifically. I think 100% of everyone suspects that is going to happen at some point. Why not now?
Are we implying that gas stoves are safe? Surely this is just a straw that broke the camel's back for the CPSC and likely they didn't need much if any reason to ban them for safety reason, they do in fact pretty regularly kill people.
[+] [-] reedjosh|3 years ago|reply
So do cars. And really how often? Can you point me to some evidence of this?
Regardless of the numbers, what's your argument here?
Why are you so happy to have a federal agency nanny away our choices of home energy supply?
[+] [-] Natsu|3 years ago|reply
In this case, one of the authors of MDPI piece was doing this: https://twitter.com/bradytoday/status/1610639235505336322
I don't think it takes an expert to realize that there is a problem with stats that say that more asthma is being caused than exists.
[+] [-] AlanSE|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] martythemaniak|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] artificialLimbs|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] incomingpain|3 years ago|reply
Editorialized title: Lying for a Climate Crusade
[+] [-] helen___keller|3 years ago|reply
If you think the meta analysis was flawed then publish a paper showing why and skip the internet rant about politics. If you can’t get peer review, why should I waste my time reading your findings about something I personally have no expertise in? It’s not like I can or want to fact check the author on their meta meta analysis
[+] [-] reedjosh|3 years ago|reply
Where would the author get published and receive peer review?
The gate keeping, bias, and influence peddling in today's journals make what you're saying nearly impossible.
[+] [-] slibhb|3 years ago|reply
I'd say the right answer is that you shouldn't evaluate it with any certainty, just file it away as something that might be true. Wrong answers would be "I disagree with the political commentary so the article wrong" or "I agree with the political commentary so the article is right". I think you're falling into the former category.
[+] [-] mbauman|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spacephysics|3 years ago|reply
I had submitted a paper with some friends to an epub, and asked some people in the academic space what they thought of it.
I was an undergraduate, other members were in their grad courses.
We had brown men on twitter call us names and berate us because we asked what they thought. Yeah the formatting wasn’t perfect, but the math behind it was sound
[+] [-] vannevar|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mbauman|3 years ago|reply
Take that as you will.
[+] [-] ulrashida|3 years ago|reply
My first reaction after their conclusion was wondering what associations they have that may be biasing their own work. If they are that concerned about conflict of interest they should be more transparent in their own authorship.
[+] [-] agentultra|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] obituary_latte|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] exabrial|3 years ago|reply
Well said.
[+] [-] pupppet|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crisdux|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fricken|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]