Christchurch NZ Finds That New Wood Stoves Actually Worse Than Old. Lung Cancer Rates From Woodsmoke

[NNadir]

...are rising.

http://www.3sc.net/airqual/mapping.html">Christchurch: deaths up to 16% higher in woodsmoke polluted areas

Average PM10 pollution in Christchurch, NZ, varies from <1 µg/m3 on the undeveloped fringes of the city to >20 µg/m3 in residential areas with lots of chimneys (see map). More than three quarters (76%) of pollution is from woodsmoke, with only 13% from industry, 11.7% from diesel vehicles and 0.3% from petrol vehicles<1>.
Up to 68% more respiratory deaths. New analyses published in 2007 show that (after adjusting for other factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, socio-economic status and tobacco smoking habits) death rates were related to smoke levels<2>. Estimates for each increase of 10µg/m3 of PM10 exposure were:
• 34% increase in respiratory deaths
• 11% increase in circulatory deaths
• 8% increase in all deaths

This implies that living in the most polluted areas (>20µg/m3 PM10) increases mortality by about 16% (respiratory deaths by about 68%) compared to living in unpolluted areas with <1 µg/m3. Chemical analysis shows that woodsmoke contains the same and similar compounds to tobacco smoke, so it is not surprising that we see the same health effects, including respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Other studies have linked woodsmoke to mouth, throat and lung cancers and PM10 pollution in general to cot deaths<3 4>. Woodsmoke contains significant quantities of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). PAH from air pollution have been linked to genetic damage in babies<5>.

Reducing pollution saves lives

When cities reduce their pollution, death rates fall. In 1990, Dublin reduced PM pollution by banning non-smokeless coal. There were 15.5% fewer respiratory and 10.3% fewer cardiovascular deaths in the 6 years after the ban, compared to the previous 6 years (116 fewer respiratory and 243 fewer cardiovascular deaths/year)<6>...

...Health costs in Christchurch > NZ$2,700 per heater per year
The estimated annual health costs of woodsmoke in Christchurch exceed NZ$127 million, i.e. more than NZ$2,700 per heater per year (see references below). Christchurch has banned the installation of all new woodheaters (except ultra-low-emission models < 1.0 g/kg replacing more polluting heaters). All heaters rated > 1.0 g/kg must be removed after 15 years use (starting 2008)<1>...

The World Health Organization suggests that more than one and a half million people die each year from burning biomass.

However this claim can easily be negated by having a light weight blogger with no science education post a link from a wood burning company that says that wood burning is safe.

[Go2Peace]

1. If these posts were more evenhanded I would trust them more

For someone who so often claims "superior intellect" you sure can misread and misrepresent information. Like this community

*blog post*

(which you represented like it is science), which while it has some good information, it has some misleading titles.

Nowhere does this state that the newer stoves emit *more* or more toxic fumes than older ones. They simply fail to adhere to the AS4013 (newer) emissions standards because they are not properly maintained and used. The fact that a single stove emitted more smoke than another that was 20 years, which is what it says if you read it closely, does not support your claim

The only thing this article really says is that high particulate pollution levels can cause disease, something we have known about for a long time.

Signed: Your favorite (as you like to call people) "Cretin"

[NNadir]

7. I hardly have any favorites among those to who I apply that proper form of address.

In fact, I have no idea who you are.

Sorry about that.

You say you have known about wood pollution for a long time.

Perhaps if you had written a blog post about the subject, we would all be aware of that fact.

The blog post in question might (or might not) include a reference to scientific work, but it would be something.

The little whiny brats who come here to curse me all the time, I contend, pretend that if they can cite any difficulty with nuclear energy than nuclear energy is bad.

They insist that only nuclear energy be perfect.

They get their stupid little heads in a snit if one raises any imperfection to the known toxic effects or drawbacks of any of the dunderhead schemes they propose, including of course, their agenda of making people complacent with the dangerous fossil fuel status quo.

Nuclear energy need not be perfect to be better than everything else, including all forms of combustion. It only needs to be better than everything else, which, happily it is.

[Go2Peace]

9. So you can't defend the argument you made in the OP?

Claiming intellectual superiority on this site will not generally impress many here. We see that kind of claim all the time with radio personalities and right wing sites and are wary of it and know how intelligent said personalities really are.

Your reply includes an emotional justification, some broadbrush statements, and again states that we should believe you because those who disagree with you are:

"whiney little brats"

and

"stupid little heads"

It's not that you believe what you believe, but how you state it. Because most of your information comes from the same type of information that others post, the distinguishing factor, you want us to believe, is that if we think otherwise we are cretins, and you are the intellectual master.

That is freaking hillarious :rofl:

Now, if instead you would prefer to counter my observations from the article you linked to: Primarily your ascertion that new woodstoves emit more smoke and are more cancerous than old woodstoves, I am waiting. Because that is not what it said.

Most here already know that wood smoke is not good for you. It's common knowledge for anyone who pays attention to environmental issues.

[Dead_Parrot]

2. Now you're just making stuff up

It's well known fact that cancer is caused by nuclear power, which is why nuclear-free countries like Italy and NZ have much lower cancer rates than nuke countries like France and Sweden.

See for yourself: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_dea_fro_can-health-death-from-cancer

It also a well known fact that there is no tritium in NZ groundwater. See http://www.gns.cri.nz/services/waterdating/resources.html

[sabbat hunter]

4. I hope your comment

about lower cancer rates in the nuclear free countries was a bit of sarcasm. That is sometimes hard to tell via the intertubes.

[Dead_Parrot]

10. Frightening, isn't it?

;)

[wtmusic]

5. And...wind power, smoking pot help prevent cancer (Netherlands) nt

[Fledermaus]

3. Same old recycled BS.

In inefficient furnaces,open fires,and fire places. Not quite the same thing as high efficiency furnaces.

The Rocket Stove
The Rocket Stove is a wood combusting stove for all kitchens that rely on biomass fuels - from family sized cooking to cooking for big institutions such as orphanages, prisons, tea estates and staff compounds. Due to its special design incorporating an insulated combustion chamber, it burns wood highly efficiently and guards the flame so the user cannot get burnt. The stove is also produced from high quality materials which also contributes to its efficiency - the stove uses far less wood and there is no smoke emission.

Rocket stoves have been rolled out succesfully in Malawi and have been found to use between 50% and 90% less wood than traditional technology. At Lauderdale tea esate in Mulanje, large amounts of nsima (maize porridge) are cooked for tea pickers every day. Oil drums that have been cut in half are used as pots. The switch to using the Rocket stove has reduced their usage of wood per pot of nsima from 170kg to 14kg of wood. Likewise, the introduction of the Rocket stove into Maula prison in Malawi at the end of 2004 minimised wood consumption - it used 12,5% of the wood consumption of the open fire that was used before.

Based on user surveys undertaken in Botswana, it was established that the main advantages of a Rocket stove are that it uses less wood, it is easy and cheap to use, cooking time is faster and therefore gives time to work on other duties. It was also praised for being able to be used as a heater and for being durable. From an environmental perspective, it minimised the usage of wood and hence cuts back on deforestation.

Since the stove emits less smoke, indoor air pollution is substantially cut down, as are its associated respiratory problems. (Indoor air pollution causes the deaths of 1,6 million people annually - thus killing more people than malaria does.)

http://www.probec.org/displaysection.php?czacc=&zSelectedSectionID=sec1203365406

[wtmusic]

6. From "there is no smoke emission" to "the stove emits less smoke""

in three paragraphs...what's next, "fewer billowing, suffocating clouds of smoke are emitted..."? :rofl:

[kelly1mm]

8. I heat with wood primarily. In fact, have a wood fire burning right now! nt