Scientists chase after fads as much, and maybe even more, than anybody else. We have seen this numberless times, “climate change” and covid being the two most prominent examples. Every scientist, it seems, has something to say on both.
Gas stoves are a prime example of fad science. Part health scare—which always thrills the Cult of Safety First!—and part “climate change”—which excites granting agencies and activists. A winning combination.
According to wokepedia, “James Sharp patented a gas stove in Northampton, England in 1826 and opened a gas stove factory in 1836.” And, of course, untold numbers of people have been using them to good effect ever since.
There has been the occasional accident due to faulty installation. On the other hand, gas ovens serve as good places to stick reporters’ heads. They also serve as a nifty plot devices in murder movies.
Given the humongous numbers of uses of gas stoves over nearly two centuries, if there were systematic ill health effects wreaked using them to scramble your eggs, the world would surely have noticed by now. Since we haven’t seen them, we can conclude that any effects are buried in the noise, or non-existent. Or far outweighed by the many benefits gas stoves bring.
Obviously, stoves burn gas, and this leads to the byproducts of the burn. Which change due to the type of gas being burned. Nobody has ever recommended sniffing these fumes. Presumably, given the long history of friendly use, the ventilation in people’s homes must have been adequate to remove the fumes and various effluvia.
Woke city folk rarely have the experience of going outside on a summer’s day, the sunlight being just right, so that you can see the thousands of bugs and the huge cloud of God-knows-what that is constantly teeming and roiling in the air. Air which you breathe. And can have anything in it!
If they let themselves think about this cloud, they’d worry. It’s never been measured! “We need to research that air and measure it,” they would think, “to see what should be regulated. That air could be killing us. Safety First!”
And now they think indoor air hasn’t been thoroughly measured. There have been some investigations I’ve seen, but these were generally before global warming became “climate change.” Since then, there has been the odd paper showing how this or that malady is worse for people in homes with gas stoves. But these investigations suffer from the standard kinds of epidemiological flaws with which long-time readers are familiar.
Here’s the NY Post on the latest research: “Cooking on a gas stove can produce up to 100 times more dangerous particles than a car exhaust pipe, a terrifying new study has revealed.”
Are you terrified? Will you obediently shut off your gas stove and order from a corporate chain restaurant instead? Or do you need to know more?
The peer-reviewed paper is “Dynamics of nanocluster aerosol in the indoor atmosphere during gas cooking” by Satya S Patra and a collection of others, in PNAS: Nexus.
They set up suction to measure “nano-sized molecular clusters” (NCA) in this dinky “house”, which probably doesn’t match the domiciles of most readers (pic from NY Post):
They then married their air-sucker with an “aerosol general dynamic equation (GDE) to provide fundamental insights into the size-dependent (dp) behavior of NCA in indoor atmospheres”.
Ah, a model.
Which depended on whether the gas was used, and I promise this is what they did, to boil water, melt grilled cheese, or cook up some buttermilk (!) pancakes. Would ordinary milk-based pancakes have performed the same? Bacon was not mentioned.
Using the nifty equipment they discovered that burning gas indoors emitted combustion products.
Which is good. If they hadn’t, we would have worried. But of course we knew, with certainty, these products would be there before the measurements were taken.
Also this: “Indoor atmospheric NCA formation and transformation processes during propane gas cooking are highly transient, with NCA number size distributions and concentrations changing rapidly while the stove was in use”.
Meaning the stuff burned variously. Golly. And the concentrations abated after the cooking was over.
Why is any of this scary? Well, because of propaganda, like that found in the Post. And of sentences like this, from the paper: “For both children and adults, the largest NCA dose was received in the head airways”.
Dose.
That’s a medical word. If you hear you are getting a dose, it only sounds good if a quack prescribes it for you. It does’t sound appealing coming from an appliance.
A dose is “evidence suggesting that gas cooking may increase the risk of respiratory symptoms in European adults”. Why Europeans? Americans are robuster?
Yet for all this, there is nothing in this paper, just some equations and descriptions of the use of air suckers and the like. It doesn’t describe ordinary households. It only says what everybody knew it would say.
But it will still be used as ammunition in the “climate change” propaganda wars. Which means readers can look forward, though not with pleasure, to us reviewing those studies claiming gas stoves cause various maladies.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank.
Does this mean that those ubiquitous suction hoods, over kitchen stoves, are not effective? Are they not obligatory?
> “Cooking on a gas stove can produce up to 100 times more dangerous particles than a car exhaust pipe, a terrifying new study has revealed.”
Having read about the goods of the Methanol Economy and the ways methanol produces vastly less particulates in car exhausts than gasoline… I severely doubt the accuracy of NY Post. 🙂
Mr. Brigg, please don’t stretch your imagination about others too much. My life experience tells me that excessive imagination is not good for anyone and often leads to misinformation. After a while, your criticism about anything is no longer scholarly, but propaganda.
Now use your imagination, just a little. Why? Because the finding or evidence referenced is ascertained based on data from the multi-centre international European Community Respiratory Health Survey. Don’t believe me? Just read the paper, not NY post.
Any gas stove should be installed with external ventilation based on the
amount of water vapor they produce alone. That is if you don’t mind 1.5 gallons
of water emitted for every 100 thousand BTU’s which eventually winds up inside
your walls condensing. This combined with an unventilated bathroom will reduce the
longevity of a wooden house substantially; especially those with plywood sheathing.
It’s all part of the U.S. package of planned obsolescence chasing profits like the crap
asphalt shingles which are guaranteed to blow off sold in all the big box stores. The
people selling you this stuff won’t tell you nor have they actually thought about it
in most states it is not obligatory. Beware of the of the cat lady with vaporizers in
every room.
The para below is from the paper:
“The t tests indicate that there is no significant difference in the mean-size-integrated NCA number concentrations between the small/moderate and large coagulation sink experiments during the first 6?min of propane gas cooking (P = 0.0619). However, after 6?min and until the end of the cooking period, the t tests indicate that the mean-size-integrated NCA number concentrations are significantly higher in the small/moderate coagulation sink experiments compared with the large coagulation sink experiments (P = 10?5). Thus, Fig. S10 and the results of the t tests between the experiments with small/moderate and large coagulation sinks show that although there is variability in the experiments within the same category, as is inherent in full-scale realistic experiments, our PSMPS measurements demonstrate that propane-gas-combustion-emitted NCA during indoor cooking are inversely correlated with the coagulation potential of the indoor atmosphere.”
There are two things to note about this:
1 – the important one is that the analysis offered applies only to cooking with propane – not natural gas. In general propane is used for outdoor cooking and home heating, not indoor cooking where natgas predominates. So media reports based on this study are excitedly demanding that product A be banned because product B produces contaminants. Ain’t ignorance wonderful?
2 – the interesting one is that the para illustrates a deep error in their thinking as they say that t-test significance = real world significance.
Europe, eh. So the Gas-op is Empire wide. I thought maybe was side op by over eager beavers in the New York cell. But of course energy destruction is one of the Underdevils’ top goals, witness Nordstream pipeline. They already worked hard to destroy nuclear electric, assassinated with their typical fear porn lie campaign. The Devil’s playbook is old and obvious: destroy food, destroy energy, destroy peace, prosperity, health and happiness by tricking people with stupid stuff. And then play god of the rubble.
But the Devil needs our consent. He can’t just do it to us. Recall the Devil’s offer to Jesus in the desert; worship me and all this will be yours. That’s an offer, not a command. The Devil cannot compel anything. Jesus refused. We refuse, also. That may involve sacrifice. Apparent sacrifice, but blessings in disguise. This entire clown show is run on poor fools accepting the Devil’s stupid offers, and the Devil’s little helpers, the Underdevils, leading people astray for power, profit, and pride. Nothing new under the sun. Jesus taught us how to stay out of Clown World. A lesson that may be applied by one and all, Christian, Muslim, Jew, or whatever. So cheer up, niggers, life’s a gas, and “they” can’t shut it off.
Here’s the NY Post on the latest research: “Cooking on a gas stove can produce up to 100 times more dangerous particles than a car exhaust pipe, a terrifying new study has revealed.”
Stuff like this can only be believed by people who’ve never had any close contact with car exhaust.
JH,
The multi-centre international European Community Respiratory Health Survey, did you say? The actual multi-centre international European Community Respiratory Health Survey?
Well. That settles it.
……….well ! for petes sake , you should see the million “particles” my wood cook stove puts off……heavens !!
Here’s an idea that might work! The government lets us decide for ourselves. Rational people keep their gas stoves. Democrats and others who are susceptible to every pseudoscientific hysteria that comes along go electric. Everybody wins!
So they didn’t blow up Nordstream to hurt Russia, but to save Europe! How noble.
“A dose is “evidence suggesting that gas cooking may increase the risk of respiratory symptoms in European adults”. Why Europeans?”
Use your ‘imagination’ it’s that evil Russian gas of course they’re still buying it at thrice the price.
Oh, for peat’s sake!
The problem is not that gas stove operation gives off transient NCA’s. That’s fine.
The problem is that we breathe them.
This is true for pretty much any air-borne particle, good, bad, or indifferent.
The solution, obviously, is NOT to chase the elimination of all these zillions of NCA’s produced by God Knows What. That would take forever.
Rather the solution is to eliminate breathing.
Now we can eliminate breathing entire and trust that Scientists and Breathing Experts will devise a solution that will allow us continued life sans breathing (since studies have shown that breathing is essential for same) . OR, we can follow the excellent Covid example and only breathe canned, filtered, cleansed, perfect air.
Scuba divers do this regularly.
Why should they have all the benefits?
And surely those same Scientists and Breathing Experts can devise a technological solution that would allow effective canned-air breathing and still be minimally intrusive. Something, perhaps, that we could carry in our pockets or strapped to our back.
I would guess we could get them in whatever colors we liked!
The “scientists” this article refers to are not ACTUALLY scientists. They are agenda driven talking heads owned by the criminal left paid to spout bulls**t I. service to the lefts criminal goals.
I understood that natural gas or LNG, nuclear, hydro, wind and solar were considered environmentally friendly, low CO2, etc. I thought that LNG produced less than half the CO2 of coal. I thought that LNG expansion in the USA was the reason CO2 reduction was possible.
The Oligarchs are coming after our energy sources, one by one.
Without affordable, cheap energy there can be no modern civilization. Living standards will fall. Population will decline.
Buckminster Fuller used the term “Energy Slaves”. I believe he calculated 8 energy slaves per capita in the USA.
I wonder what he would say about this now?
Lions and tigers and gas stoves, oh my! Rush Limbaugh used to say that we have it so easy these days that we have to invent our traumas. Let me see if I can find a reference … this one’s not bad, although it focuses on millennials:
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2019/03/18/millennials-invent-their-own-traumas/
I have a gas stove (came with the house, very spendy high-end model, I hate it, for many reasons), and the burnt odorant they put in the gas supply (mercaptan compound?) plays havoc with my aging lungs. But even worse is the toaster when it burns the toast. I bet a study would show that a toaster is even worse than a gas stove for indoor air quality. Clearly toasters need to be heavily regulated; they should be self-contained within a hermetically sealed enclosure with air scrubbers required on their exhaust. Shouldn’t add more than $600 to the cost.
JH,
Use your sense of humor… just a little. Why? The reference to Europea… … … you know what? Never mind.
Just shut up, JH.
I am retired from the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta.
For 23 years, I was a medical writer and editor in medical research and publishing. In 1992, after my work had gained worldwide notice, I was invited to sit for a grueling exam, which I passed, for which I was appointed by a member of the National Academy of Sciences to lifetime membership on the worldwide Board of Editors in the Life Sciences (no dues or fees; you can’t buy this distinction). So I know what I am talking about.
The entire field of medical research and publishing is a rotten fraud. The dishonesty in research and publishing is shocking and pervasive. “Peer-reviewed” is a badge of corruption and shame; a lie; a scam; a total fraud.
This b******t “study”–pardon me–“terrifying” study is utter rubbish, as is nearly ALL such “research.”
In 23 years at the very apex of the allopathic medical establishment, I worked on exactly three (3) studies that were both honest and reliable. And all three of those were devoted to the same topic: the fraud of medical research and publishing.
The first two of the three shot down in flames the so-called “gold standard” randomized-controlled trials using “double blinding.”
Rubbish, all of it.
The Anglo-American team (Oxford Univ & CDC) found not a single honest study. Not one. They documented the methods used to cheat and lie. I prepared both of those for publication in the “scholarly” journals. No American journal would publish it. It was published by The Lancet in the UK.
The third honest and useful study that I prepared for publication was on the methods used by statisticians to cheat in presenting the (bogus) results of their “work.” That, too, had to be published outside “the land of the free.” That particular study documented the deliberate fraud in the method statistical analysis of the results of diagnostic tests for sexually transmitted diseases–but only of those that can be cured by pharmaceuticals. When the article that I prepared for publication was published, two CDC physicians were allowed to resign. They had been paid in cash by drug companies to devise the deliberately fraudulent method of analysis. A mathematician, realizing the fraud, came to me and asked me to work with him off site and on weekends so that he could blow the whistle.
But how many thousands of people–married people with families–were told that they had syphilis or chlamydia or gonorrhea when in fact they did not? And what of their marriages and homes and children? But who gives a damn? It was published by CDC!
Well, I won’t prattle on, but know this: The whole of the medical research and publishing world is as corrupt as it can be, and only idiots or fools or victims take any of it seriously. And the “terrifying” study that is the subject of this article is utter BS. And no, I don’t have to read it to know that, after 23 years in that corrupt, dishonest, and mostly worthless field.
Comment would be superfluous:
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1769793508854890750
There is a simple rule for all such emanations from our criminal elites and government…Assume the opposite is true, and you will be right 95% of the time…
TL;DR. didn’t to read. Took one look at itch face and the rest was “on sight”
Hey, grumpy Johnno, I see that you cannot take a joke when it’s at Briggs’s expense. What a wonderful reader you are. The government and scientists are here to make you miserable. Don’t take any medicine, you know, both the FDA and evil scientists are involved.
The Infant Phenomenon:
The Lancet. Would they publish your work now? I suspect that they wouldn’t.
That was a joke you made referring to the ackshual multi-scented international European Community Respiratory Health Survey, JH?
Not some attempt at a correction of perceived misinformation about our host, the great WM Briggs?
Explain!
Point out the sarcastic funny part you intended.
I would like to fully partake of the mirthiness in your subtlety!