On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:14:09 +0000 (UTC), Ed Sirett
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:23:38 +0000, Edward W. Thompson wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:07:31 +0000 (UTC), Ed Sirett
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:53:58 +0000, The Simpsons wrote:

Friend of mine has bought a flueless gas fire from B&Q. His corgi
fitter however says he would be reluctant to install it, even if all
the critera for room size, ventilation and use etc is satisfied. Are
there any corgi people here? If so what's your opinion of these
fires. Thanks Fred

The report linked in one of the posts says that the maximum
concentration of CO was 22ppm. This was under extreme use that nobody
would normally put the fire to, and without the ventilation that the
fire requires. 22ppm would at most give you a headache after some hours
(but frankly you'd have turned the fire off and/or opened a window long
before then). Besides which these are not intended as a primary source
of heat. The rules require them to be put in relatively large rooms.

If the fires are installed in accordance with the instructions and the
regulations there should not be a problem. Many registered fitters who
feel the need to defend their careers and livings simply won't go near
open flued or flueless appliances. There is no requirement that they do
work that they do not wish to do, most have more than enough work
without taking on extra "risks" [1].

The + for flueless a
simple installation
inherent reliability
inherent high efficiency

The - a
possible odours
may aggravate condensation

[1] These risks, IMHO, are perceived rather than significant.

I assume for CO (carbon monoxide) read CO2 (carbon dioxide). I would be
surprised that a device that emitted any level of carbon monoxide in a
home would be judged as 'safe'.

No, I know the difference. Whilst I can and do make many typos I mean CO.
22ppm was the maximum recorded value. That's not going to give you more
than a head ache and that was the worst case.
No vents, left on 8 hours, etc.

The danger in these devices is that they are not inherently safe enough
to continue using if they are neglected and begin to burn badly.

I agree with you that the inherent safety of these devices is
questionable although I thought your position was the "risks are
perceived rather than actual".