Are Wood burning domestic stoves a greater death risk than diesel road vehicles ?

[mcowgill]

Remember the University of East Anglia as one of the world's leading centres of excellence on the subject of climate change, until of course they were exposed for fraudulently manipulating the data to ensure future funding to bolster academics' grotesquely obscene pension funds and benefits. Definitely not the research and real science.

 

 

The Climatic Research Centre was cleared of manipulating the data, all that it was guilty of was restricting access to the raw data for fear it would be misused by those with opposing views, and a terrible public relations mess that blew this up out of all proportion.

 

The manipulation was confirmed to be limited to necessary adjustments to different sets of data to allow them to be compared or used as larger series of data, a normal scientific process when dealing with old historical data.

[Nick C]

Not sure it helps. From memory the most polluted parts of London for particle emissions us the underground network.

 

Katy

 

It seems that you're right, according to this article - and that seems to come from a mixture of brake dust, air drawn in from outside, and skin particles! It does say they're switching to regenerative braking to reduce the first, and increasing their cleaning regimes to help with the others though...

[jjb1970]

The continued use of class 37s is the result of enviromental legislation.

Ideally these should now be gone and have been replaced by locos more efficient and less polluting.

However, finding / developing an appropriatly sized engine which will fit within a loco to UK loading gauge and meet current emission requirements is extremely difficult, any new builds / refits have to meet these and the market (UK) for them is limited. The class 37 predates these requirements and hence has no need to conform to them.

Yes better engines are available but these do not meet the new emission limits hence cannot be used even though they would be an improvement on the current ones.

 

Pete

There are plenty of compliant engines and I don't see that fitting a compliant engine would be an issue given that any of the available standard platforms would need to be significantly redesigned for UK loading gauge anyway. I remember a few years ago some of the magazines such as Rail were predicting doom based on recycling lobbying and PR spin derived from a corporate unwillingness to fund the necessary development.

[jjb1970]

Should a class 37 be belching out noticeable amounts when idling (if the engine isn't cold)? I know you know far more about engines than me but I tend to take the view that unless it's been worked hard "belching" usually indicates something wrong.

On a modern or even not so modern engine it is certainly not normal to smoke in the way Class 37's do when idling and usually that sort of smoke indicates a pretty serious problem. However I am assured that it is normal for Class 37 engines,which to me strengthens the argument that they should be phased out.

[Kickstart]

It seems that you're right, according to this article - and that seems to come from a mixture of brake dust, air drawn in from outside, and skin particles! It does say they're switching to regenerative braking to reduce the first, and increasing their cleaning regimes to help with the others though...

I suspect the big problem with the underground is that most of the particles are trapped (and some will come from above ground) . Regularly displaced by moving trains and without being washed away by regular rain. Doubt the tunnels between stations are cleaned thoroughly that often.

 

Regenerative braking will remove brake dust but not dust from track and wheels.

 

All the best

 

Katy

[tomparryharry]

Hello Folks, a quick dash back to our wood stove question.

 

First. Get it installed by a suitably qualified HETAS installer. He will sign off your stove, if it has been installed from new.

 

Second. In ideal conditions, you can fully expect a Sweep to 'do' your chimney twice a year. Unless you're an industrial chemist, you'll need to know such things as calorific content, tar yield, and important things like draught, primary air flow, secondary air flow, and that sort of thing. That's before you 'chuck' the wood on.....

 

Cold fire. A fire can be 'cold' Sure, it's burning, but it's putting out a lot of smoke. That is normally where the hydrocarbons do not have enough temperature to ignite.

 

Ask your Sweep to give you a flue survey, as well as the sweeping itself. He will basically put a camera up the flue, to check out any problems that might arise. It is worth every penny, especially for your personal safety. A Sweep will be a highly skilled guy, and he should have all of the necessary equipment. If he turns up like Fagin, with a small boy in tow, you might want to hire someone else.... Sweep twice a year, survey yearly.

 

Cold combustion is certainly not in your best interests. This happens when a fire, although burning, is 'cold'. Tar is a by-product of a cold fire, and it will layer up the flue, as the unburnt fuel gases cool down and adhere the inner flue walls. After a while, it will start burning, and that will be a chimney fire. To combat that, dry wood is the answer, as it will be a total consumption of the fuel itself. One of my friends would have a burn out once a week in the winter, where she would have a coal fire, with the intent of burning out any tar deposits before that got too much. Plus of course, the twice-annual sweep.

 

There are lots & lots of information sources out there. If you have any questions, ask your chimney Sweep. he's the man (or woman).

 

Cheers,

 

Dick Van Dyke. ( " I really loves you, Mary Poppins....").

Edited October 8, 2018 by tomparryharry

[APOLLO]

"Secretive" tests were carried out back around 1956 in Lees Moor tunnel (Halifax to keighley GN line).

 

After closure, the tunnel at Lees Moor was used by British Rail and staff from St Bartholomew's Hospital in London to test for smoke emissions from both diesel and steam locomotives. The tests were in relation to cancer and the inside of the tunnel and the lack of ventilation shafts helped to keep the smoke lingering for advanced measuring. Two BR Class 20 diesel locomotives and an A3 Pacific, 60081 'Shotover' were provided for the testing.

 

https://wikivisually.com/wiki/Lees_Moor_Tunnel

 

 

Before the track was lifted one of the single bores of Standedge tunnel was used for emision research for the then proposed channel tunnel, utilising a rake of Mk1 coaches. Again I remember seeing a photo somewhere.

 

I don't know / can't find any results etc of these tests. (hence secretive !!) - Anyone any info ?

 

Brit15

[brack]

And that is another subject in itself. Not my figures at all BUT (in great big letters) those of the Office for National Statistics show that the NHS with AVOIDABLE deaths in its hospitals alone (look up the definitions of avoidable death) is actually killing us in Wales for the 12 years 2001-2012 at three times the rate that the Nazis actually killed German citizens in their 12 years reign of terror. NHS England is not much better although I have not studied the actual figures for England , I did for Wales only the "manipulated" rates per hundred thousand head of population for England. And in one place in the United Kingdom the frightening end figure is 6.4 times the killing rate of Nazi Germany.

 

So yes there is every reason to be cynical about what is really going on.

regards

Ian

Completely missing the point here - nazi Germany was only trying to kill a very small section of it's population for a short portion of those 12 years (from 1941/2). Plus most of the millions they murdered weren't German citizens to start with but jews from other countries they'd occupied. A sizeable number of German Jews had decided to emigrate as the persecution grew in the 1930s.

 

The NHS was the first health service in the world to publish data on avoidable deaths, so comparisons are difficult. It's also important to understand that a terminally ill patient who dies a few weeks earlier than they might have is counted as an avoidable death (they're not all surgeons removing the wrong organ by mistake). The measure is not about whether the NHS is killing people, it's looking at if they are saving them as effectively as possible, which is a huge difference.

 

Sometimes it's better that data, statistics and facts are not analysed by journalists from the express/mail (or the guardian for that matter) who have no clue what they're talking about other than pushing an editorial agenda.

 

Removing lead from petrol is definitely a good thing, it has known effects on the nervous system. Dementia is increasing primarily because we're living longer. Undisturbed lead water pipes in homes are relatively low risk.

 

Carbon Monoxide is definitely very bad for you, carbon dioxide less acutely so. But we have released vast quantities of Carbon Dioxide in the last 250 years and it is believed that this is affecting our climate (indeed it'd be more surprising if it wasn't). Even if you choose to disregard that factor, switching to renewable or nuclear energy makes a lot more sense than putting our head in the sand and pretending that fossil fuels are going to be produced at the current rate forever - they won't run out for some time, but the reserves become harder to extract as we've taken the easily accessible high quality stuff already.

 

There are those like our former education secretary Mr Gove who are "sick of experts" but generally speaking I'd rather fly in a plane designed by people who knew what they were doing, I'd rather drive over a bridge designed by a well qualified, experienced engineer and I suspect that if I want to know about how we're affecting the climate and atmosphere then listening to the overwhelming consensus of those who have spent their entire lives and careers studying just that might be a good idea.

 

Being a little cynical is fine, wilfully ignoring vast amounts of evidence and research is a bit daft.

[Ozexpatriate]

Removing lead from petrol is definitely a good thing, it has known effects on the nervous system. Dementia is increasing primarily because we're living longer. Undisturbed lead water pipes in homes are relatively low risk.

Having seen the impact first hand of lead-free petrol in the Los Angeles area, it is truly amazing what an impact it has had. The incidence of serious petrochemical smog is vastly better there than it was in the 1980s when I lived there and lead-free petrol was widely available, and far better than documented smog as far back as the 1940s, despite vastly greater vehicle traffic.

 

The whole story of lead additives in gasoline is terrible as is the tale of one of it's chief instigators.

 

Lead pipes continue to be potentially dangerous. Undisturbed, (mechanically and chemically), they can be "OK". The water crisis in Flint, Michigan was due to lead pipes being chemically 'disturbed'.

Edited October 8, 2018 by Ozexpatriate

[tomparryharry]

No disrespects folks, but isn't there a theory out there about reaching the point of Nazi Germany?

 

I used to work for Levi Strauss, but I left when we reached the bottom of the jean pool....

 

Don't fart in the elevator: It's wrong on so many levels.....

 

They made a documentary about high octane petrol, but I don't know who played the lead role....

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

[PhilJ W]

Sorry to be pedantic but there's a world of difference between carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO₂).  CO₂ results from complete combustion of carbon and can asphyxiate, but not until it reaches a relatively high concentration.  CO results from combustion of carbon in relatively oxygen-poor environments and is picked up by haemoglobin in preference to oxygen so can cause death at much lower concentration.  Which are you referring to here? 

Oops, duly amended.

[Ozexpatriate]

No disrespects folks, but isn't there a theory out there about reaching the point of Nazi Germany?

Godwin's law - duly reached.

[Reorte]

As mentioned above, modern woodburners are very efficient, and if properly installed and using proprly seasoned, dry wood, will result in almost total combustion, and thus very little PM2.5 emissions - older ones and open fires aren't so good though!

When I hear people complaining about the effects of woodburning I do wonder how many people are burning unseasoned or not properly seasoned wood. I recall reading somewhere someone saying they prefer unseasoned wood because it takes longer to burn :facepalm: Still, even without that it's possible lots in urban areas isn't great. There's a reason Clean Air Acts were introduced in the first place (and this from someone with a generally very old fashioned view to living life), and whilst properly burned wood gives off rather less smoke than coal enough in one place may not be great.

 

The key one to worry about, however, is the "Road transport (non exhaust) category" - they're predicting that'll be the worst by 2020, and no-one seems to be considering it at all.

 

It's caused by tyre and brake wear, and the wear of the road surface from vehicles.

Brake wear (but not tyre and road surface) should hopefully reduce with electric cars that use regenerative braking as much as possible.

[Ozexpatriate]

When I hear people complaining about the effects of woodburning I do wonder how many people are burning unseasoned or not properly seasoned wood. I recall reading somewhere someone saying they prefer unseasoned wood because it takes longer to burn :facepalm: Still, even without that it's possible lots in urban areas isn't great. There's a reason Clean Air Acts were introduced in the first place (and this from someone with a generally very old fashioned view to living life), and whilst properly burned wood gives off rather less smoke than coal enough in one place may not be great.

Anecdotally, someone was burning something nasty near my home last Thursday night.

 

I arrived home late in the evening and the neighbourhood reeked. Overnight temperatures are now much cooler and I suspect someone decided to light a fireplace. This is a suburban neighbourhood so it wasn't a bonfire or leaf pile. I wanted to open my windows to let the cool air in but quickly decided that it was far better to have them closed for the night.

[Junctionmad]

There are those like our former education secretary Mr Gove who are "sick of experts" but generally speaking I'd rather fly in a plane designed by people who knew what they were doing, I'd rather drive over a bridge designed by a well qualified, experienced engineer and I suspect that if I want to know about how we're affecting the climate and atmosphere then listening to the overwhelming consensus of those who have spent their entire lives and careers studying just that might be a good idea.

 

Paradoxically and sadly , while we live in an age with more access to data and expert testimonials , we have corrupted all that by a combination of social media and idiot print and tv media. We have people reading nutcase blogs stuffed with half truths while ignoring expert testimonies . We have the most stupid of comments like “ we’ve no need for experts “

 

“ oily rag “ post is a classic case of conflation, pseudo science and the issues with “ skimming “ data and combining it with social media half truths and junk media speculation.

 

Peer reviewed acedemic papers are there for everyone to read , yes they are hard going

 

A case in point, the ozone hole , if you study the scientific papers you will see that ( a) scientists know a lot more about the annual growth and skrinage

 

Secondly (b) scientific study has proved that the Montreal protocol , which removed the vast majority of CFC manufacture , has lead directly to the overall shrinking of the hole and its eventual healing , in fact key scientists in this field have estimated that without the CFC ban , the hole would now be 40 tines larger

 

The center for climate change , is another populist conspiracy , yes the scientists used a method to try and visualize different data sets , but the whole “ controversy” was utterly the creation of climate change deniers supported by the usual “ fellow travelers “ that have vested interests and agendas . The center was cleared of any actual wrongdoing , which isn’t often cited by such deniers

 

I heard it on the radio , recently, a women mentioning the infamous “ straight banana. “ saga , yet to this day people fail to realize that the whole story was a spoof written by Johnson , when he was the Telegraphs Brussels correspondent.

 

You do really wonder where this will all end , we live in an era where people’s beliefs are actually stronger then actual hard facts and misinformation and populism has reached heights never seen before

 

Educated, informed and erudite skepticism has its place in any acedemic discussion, illinformed , data from hearsay sources , junk populist pseudo cience and the like , however when promulgated over social media are trurly this centuries curse

Edited October 9, 2018 by Junctionmad

[PatB]

Having seen the impact first hand of lead-free petrol in the Los Angeles area, it is truly amazing what an impact it has had. The incidence of serious petrochemical smog is vastly better there than it was in the 1980s when I lived there and lead-free petrol was widely available, and far better than documented smog as far back as the 1940s, despite vastly greater vehicle traffic.

 

The whole story of lead additives in gasoline is terrible as is the tale of one of it's chief instigators.

 

Lead pipes continue to be potentially dangerous. Undisturbed, (mechanically and chemically), they can be "OK". The water crisis in Flint, Michigan was due to lead pipes being chemically 'disturbed'.

Whilst I agree that the removal of lead from petrol has been a good move, is the smog reduction a result of this or a result of less unburned or partially burned hydrocarbons going into the air generally? Improvements in engine efficiency and better vapour entrapment before the petrol even gets to the engine have gone hand in hand with the withdrawal of lead.

[Junctionmad]

Whilst I agree that the removal of lead from petrol has been a good move, is the smog reduction a result of this or a result of less unburned or partially burned hydrocarbons going into the air generally? Improvements in engine efficiency and better vapour entrapment before the petrol even gets to the engine have gone hand in hand with the withdrawal of lead.

Lead was banned in many substances primarily fir the damage it caused in children and pregnant women , it wasn’t a function of smog production per se , but of course it made that smog so more dangerous , so removing it didn’t reduce smog , but it made it far less dangerous smog. !

 

Interestingly the same inventor Thomas Midgley, invented Tel ( lead in Petrol ) and CFC ! . He died as a result of a failure of a contraption he built to enable him to get out of a hospital bed. !

[Ozexpatriate]

Whilst I agree that the removal of lead from petrol has been a good move, is the smog reduction a result of this or a result of less unburned or partially burned hydrocarbons going into the air generally? Improvements in engine efficiency and better vapour entrapment before the petrol even gets to the engine have gone hand in hand with the withdrawal of lead.

I'm sure it's a combination of all of the above. Recent improvements in air quality are likely to be more related to better combustion and better emissions management (mandatory catalytic converters, introduced in 1975 with no exemptions in 2009) since the sale of leaded gasoline was banned in the US completely in 1995 - by which time, very little was being sold anyway. The dramatic improvements between the 1940s and the early 1990s were all about removing lead from petrol.

 

I encourage you to search for 'los angles smog 1940s'. It is really stunning how bad it was - given the relatively small (compared with today) number of cars on the road.

 

Given the geographic features of the LA basin smog still happens, but the frequency and intensity is far less than it was.

 

EDIT:

Lead was banned in many substances primarily fir the damage it caused in children and pregnant women , it wasn’t a function of smog production per se , but of course it made that smog so more dangerous , so removing it didn’t reduce smog , but it made it far less dangerous smog. !

Not just the danger, but the density and general unpleasantness too. Edited October 9, 2018 by Ozexpatriate

[AndyID]

Ah, but unless you want to set the clock back a few hundred years you have to pick your poison.

 

Where we live I'd be a lot more concerned about the two months of particulate inhalation from wild-fires this year than the effects of particulates from a few diesel engines and wood stoves, and wasn't particulate emission from diesel engines greatly diminished by the adoption of low-sulfur diesel fuel (not too popular with the trucking industry because sulfur acts as a lubricant in combustion chambers)?

 

The greater issue with diesels seems to be their ability to output smog-producing nitrides of oxygen (aka NOx). Paradoxically the more fuel-efficient a diesel engine (or any IC engine come to that) is, the hotter the combustion process and the more it combines nitrogen with oxygen, although there are ways to successfully mitigate that process in the exhaust system.

 

So, it tends to boil down to who's future you are willing to mortgage in the short-term versus the long-term. In the long-term fossil fuel efficiency is the objective because more efficiency means less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In the short-term fuel efficiency is less important than smog production, but that really only affects densely populated regions, e.g. London, Paris, LA, SLC,...)

[Edwin_m]

Lead was banned in many substances primarily fir the damage it caused in children and pregnant women , it wasn’t a function of smog production per se , but of course it made that smog so more dangerous , so removing it didn’t reduce smog , but it made it far less dangerous smog. !

I seem to recall that one of the reasons for banning lead in petrol was because it "poisoned" the catalytic converters that were being introduced to reduce the amount of NOx and other pollutants. 

[exet1095]

I do take a little exception to some of the comments above concerning my post. I worked in the plasma physics industry for most of my working life as a senior engineer so I am not one the "nutters" i have been made out to be plus I am a pst victim along with many others of the Stafford Hospital scandal, for me 1999 to 2002. All of our evidence was ruled outside the terms of reference for all inquiries, the cut off point being set at 2004 to ensure that no one could be brought to account.

 

First lets just squash one comment absolutely flat. The legal definition of AVOIDABLE death laid down by HMG and Statutory Regulation is and I quote from their own documentation:- "clinical failure or failure of public health interventions". End of.

 

Office for National Statistics published in May 2014 an analysis of avoidable (by definitition as above) deaths in NHS hospitals for the 12 year period 2001 to 2012. As I was living in Wales at the time and that is a self contained and a relatively easy unit to handle the figurres could be used as sample as to what is happening. In fact during that period 97,000 souls met untimely deaths defined as "avoidable" in Welsh Hospitals alone. Based on the last official census there were 3,063,000 people living within the confines of Wales and for whom NHS Wales was responsible. In the mathematics I was taught that amounts to 3.166% of the population in a twelve year period.

 

Moving to the statistical comparison with Nazi Germany, considered to be one of the most heinous crimes in human history, when the Nazis swung to power effectively in 1933 (and ruled until defeat in 1945) the German census of 1933 showed 67 million citizens (just under in fact). Based upon data analysed and researched by Professor R.J.Rummel, Professor Emeritus of Political Sciences at the University of Hawaii, multiple Nobel Peace Prize nominee and further verified by a professional historian, Scot Manning, working in the field, the Nazis killed by direct action 762,000 German citizens within the borders of Germany. This included forced labour, purges, executions, Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and the infamous T4 (Tiergartenstrasse 4) euthanasia project in which all death certificates were actually signed by medical professionals. This latter ran effectively from 1939 to 1943 when even they were getting worried. The exact figures for each category can be provided. The magnitude of these figures can also be reinforced by Allied population surveys etc after VE as we had to start feeding the nation and much documentation came to light because many Nazi functionaries had to be used to keep the place together in the aftermath.

 

I think the mathematics tells us that this amounted to 1.137% of the German population. (unless of course someone wishes to convince me that 1+1 does not make 2).

 

So no, the statements were not made lightly at all and were not made up. I am not sensationalist journalist as one insulting poster has tried to make out. All was careful researched against all the official figures and definitions available.

 

regards

Ian

I don’t think he was insulting, but your post was exactly the amalgam he described. That is to say, typical of the stuff that clutters Facebook, and makes social media such a dangerous source of disinformation.

 

I only looked at the thread because we don’t have a woodburner in our current house, but I miss the one in my old cottage. Otherwise, I tend to read stuff about railways, model and real, because I like them, and admire other people’s skills and enthusiasm.

[Nick C]

(mandatory catalytic converters, introduced in 1975 with no exemptions in 2009) 

 

I remember reading an article a few years ago that suggested that mandatory catalytic converters have had a significant negative effect - Apparently the Japanese carmakers (Honda and/or Toyota, I forget which) were well advanced with the design of a series of new engines which would have been much more efficient (and thus much less emissions), but were incompatible with cats - something to do with combustion/exhaust temperatures. Cats are great for reducing CO emissions, but have the side effect of increasing CO2...

[Kickstart]

I remember reading an article a few years ago that suggested that mandatory catalytic converters have had a significant negative effect - Apparently the Japanese carmakers (Honda and/or Toyota, I forget which) were well advanced with the design of a series of new engines which would have been much more efficient (and thus much less emissions), but were incompatible with cats

Rover were. The K series engine was designed to be a lean burn engine.

 

Whether it would have been accepted or not I don’t know. Originally cats were mainly there to clean up I burnt hydrocarbons and change CO to CO2. But now also deal with oxides of nitrogen.

 

A lean burn engine quite possibly has a very high combustion temperature, putting the generation of NOx through the roof. However whether they were getting round this I do not know

 

All the best

 

Katy

[mcowgill]

I was once asked by a local garage if I'd mind finding another garage for next year's MOT for my VVC K series engined MG.

 

Apparently a long time was spent checking their emission testing kit as it only registered CO2 output, NOX & CO were zero which wasn't possible...     They finally stuck another car on it and it worked fine.  Perhaps the fact I left it with them with the engine almost glowing might have contributed, always taught to warm up the car properly before taking it for a test!

 

Martin

[Nick C]

I was once asked by a local garage if I'd mind finding another garage for next year's MOT for my VVC K series engined MG.

 

Apparently a long time was spent checking their emission testing kit as it only registered CO2 output, NOX & CO were zero which wasn't possible...     They finally stuck another car on it and it worked fine.  Perhaps the fact I left it with them with the engine almost glowing might have contributed, always taught to warm up the car properly before taking it for a test!

 

Martin

 

Which MG? I used to have an F (without the VVC) - lovely car, but horrible to work on due to the engine location...