On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:05:42 +0100, GB
wrote:

snip

I’m not going to worry too much about my woodburner.


Can you see PM2.5 particles? I thought they are far too small. Don't you
need some equipment to measure emissions?

;-)

It's funny, when something is obvious (like the smogs we used to have
in London), people 'understood' why things needed to change. Now you
can't generally 'see' the pollution, the thousands who die every year
from it aren't noticed. Maybe if they were left on the street ... ;-(

I'd go with the science on this, whilst not having a clue what the
science is. If the stove doesn't emit harmful particles, that's fine. If
it does to a significant extent, you shouldn't use it.

I think the telling bit with all these sorts of things is the '*I’m*
not going to worry too much about my woodburner ...' when
(potentially) the owner of the woodburner may be al less risk to any
of any negative consequences than all those around them.

It's the people with the things (woodburners, SUV's, dairys, family
members in the livestock industry) who are often the quickest / most
vocal to defend their 'side'.

They do so because they have some commitment in such and so something
to loose (personally) if they were to give them up ... not considering
all the other people / animals that may lose a lot if they don't.

So does 'thinking of others' or 'considering the bigger picture'
sometimes mean changing the (bad) habits of a lifetime or giving up
things that you assumed were victimless / ok?

Sometimes yes.

Is it the end of the world? Ironically, it's often the opposite. ;-)

Cheers, T i m