Banning a light bulb for efficiency is a different animal than banning a product that could be contributing to a chronic health condition in kids. I agree that more research would be helpful, and studying implications in other scenarios are needed too (what about restaurant workers who are in kitchen’s with gas stoves going 10+ hours a day). Do we really think commercial ventilation is all that is needed?
Any regulatory move or ban has big implications for businesses to pivot as well as consumers to look at replacement devices in the long term, so any action may look closer to that lightbulb ban than we think. While cost of gas vs electric may not be a huge factor, not everyone can just dump and replace a critical appliance that easily costs $1000 (and certainly not now with inflation and logistics nightmares). There are also utility companies and manufacturing and support industries to consider. In the long run, moving away from gas in any way is a good thing for our environment, so I would only hope that this can speed up making induction or any new tech more affordable for the consumer.
The fact that you want statistically significant data for one sliver of what is wrong with gas stoves means you won’t be convinced until the damage is greater and more damage is done.
My response is about reductionism (the only reason to ban stoves is one aspect, kid, and not all the damage they do. The movement of the data in the direction of causing damage calls for caution. We know the physical mechanisms for their wastefullness and dangers.
Reductionism is hugely dangerous and it comes up to stop us from actually solving problems until the harm is overwhelming.
The heart of good science is that studies should be repeatable with similar results, so I think it’s a good question. I didn’t review more details of the study; only saw the news snippets, so I am curious about some of the study design, who participated, how long was the study (if this was a long-range study).
I think news outlets have done themselves no favors by jumping on the click-baity headlines for every scientific study that affirms and disavows and then re-affirms the health benefits of certain foods or practices (coffee is terrible for you…oh wait if you take it black it’s good… oh no, but don’t drink more than 2 cups…oh wait, coffee drinkers still have less liver disease over all – or something of that ilk). It kind of muddies any potential valid health related scientific reporting the last few years.
A federal agency is considering a ban on gas stoves as concerns about indoor pollution linked to childhood asthma rise, Bloomberg first reported."
End quote
I’m querying this link (between astma and cooking on gas) & these results.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I can point out weaknesses in the assumptions made. However, I don’t think this is the place to spell them out as it is not a scientific forum.
As I said in a previous post, I think we should become less dependent on fossil fuel.
But gas still seems a lot better than cooking on wood and/or charcoal which would be my alternative as the area where I live is not connected to mains electricity.
I assume (which is dangerous) that most people on this forum take access to mains electricity for granted. There are large parts of the world where this is not the case!
Considering how many–and for how long–gas appliances have been in widespread use, how serious could this health problem be? On a par with walking down a busy street with automotive and truck traffic? Ingesting nut residue from ice cream?
It would be interesting if someone did a long-term comparative study of childhood respiratory illnesses in subjects raised in all-electric and gas range homes.
Well, asthma has never been a diseases where people keel over left and right, but that doesn’t mean I or want my loved ones suffering from asthma. At minimum it’s a pain in the butt and an added expense (if preventable), and at worst I don’t like the idea of feeling like I could be suffocating due to no air in my lungs, let alone seeing kids go through this. I don’t know if even a possibility of asthma should just be ignored; it certainly deserves more attention and research.
I stumbled upon this Time article that is actually linked through MSN (I might be blind, but I didn’t see the original link in Time - so mea culpa). There’s a bit more information here on the study and what’s leading to all this talk about bans and potential bans. The additional insight helps, but definitely can use more study too. It does in fact go into the very take I had about restaurant workers and I appreciate having a view point of both sides of the table here. An interesting follow up wherever you may land on the topic.
I doubt anyone wants anyone else to suffer from athsma. But are properly installed gas stoves causing anyone to suffer that? What’s a gas range’s contribution to anyone’s athsma suffering? If government will ban all sources of the same or like compounds as are generated by a gas stove, there will be bans of planes, trains, trucks, automobiles, too. Innumerable other things, as well. Will cigarette and blunt use be forbidden in all households? Farmers run their tractors and combines on what? How will the chemical fertilizers that feed the world be produced?
The country and its citizens have already incurred the costs of gas infrastructure. Absent compelling evidence showing gas cooking sickens and kills people, IMO this is actually a counterproductive step away from getting true consensus on global warming and climate change.
Thanks for the link! It describes all of the risk factors I am familiar with, and inludes a link to this article the original post was referring to.
Turns out the medical school where I met my husband and we treated kids with asthma is mentioned!
For what it’s worth, my daughter has asthma, much better than when she was a child, I have “reactive airways”, essentially the same thing, for which I use inhalers twice a day. I have an aunt who " keeled over dead" from asthma, shortly after I spoke to her on the phone, and told my cousin to get her to the emergency room. I have other relatives with asthma as well. I had a neighbor who “keeled over dead”, IIRC, after she came outside after someone mowed their grass. I’ve treated more kids than I care to remember with asthma. I worked at a camp for kids with asthma. Or maybe that was diabetes. Or maybe both. It was long ago, but both are chroinic and require psychosocial support in childhood.
We have made so much progress.
I can understand working to eliminate things that increase risk, especially in the homes of those at risk. I’m going to have to read that article a few more times before I stop cooking on my stove. If it said “you will be cured, no longer have to use an inhaler, nor worry about exposure to other risks, nor worry about your decendants”, I’d do it. Probably.
Okay, I’m done. This was supposed to be about cooking without gas.
I do have a mega exhaust to go with my mega cpu gas range.
But smoking is increasingly banned in work places and other public spaces, because of second hand smoke. I think the government does draw a line on personal habits. I’m neither for it against “banning” had stoves, but it sounds like there are a lot of assumptions as to what that might look like and it does sound like there is doubt about the validity of the research.
I don’t know if the research is solid, but I’m willing to listen and ask for more info. If we wanted to ban Monsanto chemicals from agriculture or ban the preservatives and other chemicals in US foods not allowed in food in Europe, would there be the same claims of overreach? What about those millions of water bottles?
and also @kobuta. Thanks. This is not to say I don’t believe the data or science. I am just not sure if there are enough data. It seems like it is based on one metadata analysis. Again, this is not say this study is wrong. It just seems like typically policies are not enacted unless there are pretty solid data.
As for the smoking example, I mean we are not banning parent smoking in their own home with their children, but we are banning parents from using gas stoves with their children, right?
If I were a child who developed lung-related illness because my parents had smoked in our (their) home, I would probably be very unhappy about that. But it’s really difficult (some would say borderline amoral) to dictate what parents are and aren’t allowed to do in their homes–even if their children have little to no say in the effect it has on their present and future health.
I am pretty sure that no amount of data will change the mind of many who love their gas stoves. And I am pretty sure that the data will be too complex and nuanced for everyone to agree on the best strategy from a public health perspective.
As for me, I’ve used methane and propane and resistive coils and pots in fires. It turns out that I really love induction and electric ovens for multiple reasons, and they work great for me. If I felt like the way I cooked was negatively affecting those around me, ideally I would switch things up. But I’m sure I’d also be thinking about the amount of work, the number of hours needed to learn new methods, and the potential cost and expense of new cooking gear related to any such changes.
We humans have limited time and resources, plus we’re emotional beings, so the ideal world and the real world often clash. And few of us can agree on what that ideal world would even look like.
Well, I don’t think we need to change the mind of everyone. There are probably still people who believe smoking tobacco is harmless. I do think we should have more data. It just seems a bit too quick to me. It took decades before the health community and health agency to go after tobacco and alcohol, and it even took decades for health agency like to finally state consuming red meat can increase chance of cancer.
Maybe I just haven’t been more updated on the gas stove situation, but is it just one study? I think this is surprising a national policy based on one study like this. Again, I am not one of those people in love of gas. I actually used electric stoves far more in my life than gas, and the one time I moved to an apartment with gas stoves… I hate it because it was a very weak gas stove (all my previous electric stoves were more powerful). Maybe I am wrong. Maybe there were many other studies and this most recent study is just the one which caught public attention.
My understanding is that it is an analysis of several studies over several years
“After including only manuscripts of human studies published in English since 4 January 2013, 357 studies remained for possible inclusion. The title review identified 27 manuscripts as potentially pertinent”
