If you’re thinking of replacing any gas appliances for electric (and live in the U.S.) it is a good time to buy. The Inflation Reduction Act includeed $4.5 billion in funding for states to provide rebates for the purchase of new electric appliances.
We’re talking serious savings here… like a rebate of up to $840 on a new electric cooking appliance and up to an additional $500 to help cover the costs of converting from natural gas or propane to electric. And if you need to upgrade your home’s electrical panel in order to accommodate an electric range (or any other electric appliance upgrade covered by the legislation, such as certain electric heat pumps or electric-heat-pump clothes dryers), you could get a tax credit of up to $4,000 for that expense as well.
So at least they’re putting their money where their mouth is. To qualify you’ll need to have a HHI that is 80-149% of the median in your area.
Turns out, this was tremendously overhyped. This story was spun up after Richard Trumka, a(n in)famous political appointee on the National Product Safety Commission, loosely answered an interviewer’s question about bans by saying everything’s on the table.
This has created such an uproar that the Biden Administration has since bent over backward to claim it is NOT considering ANY new rules governing gas stoves.
CCE
(Keyrock the unfrozen caveman lawyer; your world frightens & confuses me)
65
This broad analysis linked below, published in Lancet Respiratory Medicine, covered cooking fuels and asthma in nearly 50 countries. The authors wouldn’t seem to have any particular axe to grind (check the “Funding” statement). It included over 500,000 kids and determined in-home open fire wood burning stoves did seem to increase asthma prevalence, but that natural gas cooking did not.
Excerpts (other than headers, any emphases are mine):
Findings: Data were collected between 1999 and 2004. 512,707 primary and secondary school children from 108 centres in 47 countries were included in the analysis. The use of an open fire for cooking was associated with an increased risk of symptoms of asthma and reported asthma in both children aged 6-7 years (odds ratio [OR] for wheeze in the past year, 1·78, 95% CI 1·51-2·10) and those aged 13-14 years (OR 1·20, 95% CI 1·06-1·37). In the final multivariate analyses, ORs for wheeze in the past year and the use of solely an open fire for cooking were 2·17 (95% CI 1·64-2·87) for children aged 6-7 years and 1·35 (1·11-1·64) for children aged 13-14 years. Odds ratios for wheeze in the past year and the use of open fire in combination with other fuels for cooking were 1·51 (1·25-1·81 for children aged 6-7 years and 1·35 (1·15-1·58) for those aged 13-14 years. In both age groups, we detected no evidence of an association between the use of gas as a cooking fuel and either asthma symptoms or asthma diagnosis.
Interpretation: The use of open fires for cooking is associated with an increased risk of symptoms of asthma and of asthma diagnosis in children. Because a large percentage of the world population uses open fires for cooking, this method of cooking might be an important modifiable risk factor if the association is proven to be causal.
Funding: BUPA Foundation, the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, the Health Research Council of New Zealand, the Asthma and Respiratory Foundation of New Zealand, the Child Health Research Foundation, the Hawke’s Bay Medical Research Foundation, the Waikato Medical Research Foundation, Glaxo Wellcome New Zealand, the NZ Lottery Board, Astra Zeneca New Zealand, Hong Kong Research Grant Council, Glaxo Wellcome International Medical Affairs.
One question I’d ask of any media types citing to the original study[1] as support for prohibiting gas stoves[2] is, did you notice that the authors started with the a priori assumption that “gas stove use for cooking is associated with an increased risk of current asthma”, and then did their meta-analysis only to try to quantify “how much”?
Given other peer-reviewed studies in well-respected journals found no effect, I’d question the foundational assumption here, especially given there seems no recognition that a conflict in the peer-reviewed literature exists in this regard. And in particular, without noting that the foundational assumption is supported by a meta-analysis that specifically excluded studies of childhood asthma in populations with low incidence of gas stove use - what, no comparator needed?
[1] Which @shrinkwrapfound and linked, above.
[2] Disclaimer - I’ve had electric ranges and gas ranges, and prefer gas.
1 Like
CCE
(Keyrock the unfrozen caveman lawyer; your world frightens & confuses me)
66
Wish I’d done this when I installed the bamboo flooring in our master bath. In the winter, it’s the coldest room in the house by nearly 5°F, excepting down in the basement.
Good question. Did you notice the large variances in asthsma rates between states? Even states where one would expect the homes to be “tighter” in terms of insulation and air exchange? And what account was made of proper exhaust vents/hoods?
If parents want to avoid combustion products in and around their homes for the sakes of their childrens’ health, I’m all for that. Don’t smoke around them, and choose electric appliances and yard tools. Just leave me alone.
1 Like
CCE
(Keyrock the unfrozen caveman lawyer; your world frightens & confuses me)
68
The law Dubya signed (unless it was WJC?) (Edit - here’s a summary as it relates to bulbs, the law was passed in 2007) and permits low-wattage incandescents (like the 25-40W for ovens) and also permits higher wattages so long as they are using a newer tech that gives them a certain reduction of power drawn at a given brightness level. It’s a 25% reduction required.
For example, the 100-Watt (equivalent brightness) bulb must be 75W or less usage. I got these installed in my biltong/jerky box because they still give off lots of heat.
I am not either for or against gas stoves on a systemic basis – I have my own preferences, which I generally try not to impose on others unless asked.
But as to the “ban” – I would rather have market forces dictate it. If electric is superior to gas (either in terms of health, environment, or whatever), then hopefully electric appliances will be cheaper and consumers will decide based on their purchasing decisions.
Making people want to do something is always better than just making people do something.
2 Likes
CCE
(Keyrock the unfrozen caveman lawyer; your world frightens & confuses me)
70
Close enough in general terms for most non-doctor people, I would think. I had a discussion with a ward nurse yesterday about heparin and Plavix (my FIL is in hospital and currently on a drip for the one, but will transition to the other as he’s discharged).
She said heparin is a blood thinner but Plavix isn’t a blood thinner. Well, in fact neither of them are “thinners” of blood - it’s just that heparin works on fibrin and eventually reduces fibrinogen concentration (protein clotting factors) while Plavix reduces platelet’s ability to bind. But to the layman, who generally thinks of anti-clotting meds as “blood thinners”, they fall into the same bucket.
I stocked up on some of those lightbulbs for exactly that reason
Rest of the house has LED’s but that doesn’t work for biltong
CCE
(Keyrock the unfrozen caveman lawyer; your world frightens & confuses me)
75
Silly me - for some reason I didn’t think to check the funding statement of the original meta-analysis that sparked this question.
This research was supported in part by internal funds of RMI and in part by the National Cancer Institute.
Setting aside the question of why the NCI would be funding a meta analysis regarding asthma (maybe people on asthma meds develop lung cancer more?), one might want to note that RMI is the initials for The Rocky Mountain Institute which is a “zero carbon” hawk, and owns the Carbon War Room Corp.
RMI transforms the global energy system to secure a clean, prosperous, zero-carbon future for all.
The lead author on this meta-analysis is employed by the Rocky Mountain Institute.
Something something about nails and people with a hammer in hand.
it’s quite typical of pinhead extremists. they take the smallest thing they find and blow it up to existential proportions.
a while back they were harping about the molecules of gas that escaped thru the shut off valves of stove/cook tops. if you look at their “scientific analysis” they decided that the amount of escaped gas molecules from billions and billions of gas appliances was a hazard , , , ,wait for it . . . .when concentrated in a single home.
yes, they are that stupid.
the Delaney act provides for zero cancer causing agents in food. none, the limit is ZERO. written/passed when the mad scientists were doing color-metric “analysis” with tables full of test tubes, measuring “parts per thousand.”
we’re now detecting parts per trillion, and in the strictest sense of the Delaney Act, about 80% of all products on the supermarket shelf would disappear.
Even if you’ve had an electric stove from Day 1 where you live, your home probably has a gas line (capped) that still leaks a little bit of gas.
So, the whole thing is an effing non-starter.
Natural gas has Mercaptan added so you can smell it when there’s a leak. If your gas stove/oven has a leak (it probably does) and you can’t smell it, it is leaking an infinitesimally small amount of gas.
I wouldn’t say that at all. Much of my part of the world (and none of places I’ve lived) has no gas lines at all…there is no municipal gas line, so no, I dont have one, capped or no.
This is reminding me I have three grow light stands for seedlings that use florescent bulbs. I only use them a few weeks a year, but I’d forgotten that dilemma.
