On 16/04/2021 13:35, Tim+ wrote:
David wrote:
Apologies for the place holder whilst I go away and do other things, this
is so I don't forget (which is regrettably common these days).

A while back the Extreme Green Arm of the Guardian had a go at people
installing clean burn stoves because of the feel good (mental health aid)
factor when they already had adequate heating.

IIRC it turned out that the statistics for particulate production they
were quoting included non-clean burn stoves, open fires, garden bonfires,
wild fires, agricultural burning of various sorts and loads of other
sources which were not related at all to clean burn stoves.

Private Eye green bit is this week calling out HETAS as being
(potentially) not impartial. Again calling out particulates.

I need time to research where the statistics are coming from.

In the mean time does anyone have a breakdown of how much particulate
emissions out of the quoted totals are down to clean burn stoves burning
dry wood?

Obvious confounding factors include the burning of peat (Ireland and the
Highlands and Islands for example), controlled burn of grouse moors,
burning of waste branches etc. during forestry work and general clearing
of trees for many purposes good and bad.

I assume that they don't include power stations burning coal or wood chip.

Do they include solid fuel central heating from other than clean burn wood
stoves?
Coal open fires?

Any estimate of home sourced wood which hasn't been adequately dried
before burning?

Must go and do meaningful things, but I am sure you get the doubt over
lies, damned lies, and statistics.

My enormously biased view is that this is fuelled (see what I did there)
mainly by anti-yuppie sentiment within London aimed at "lifestyle"
properties with wood burning stoves. However I could be over cynical.

TIA


Dave R



No figures but there are now quite a lot of wood burning stoves in my
neighbourhood. I never see any smoke from them but I do know that they are
used fairly regularly.

We have ONE household in the neighbourhood who burns coal sometimes. We
all know about it when it happens.

Im not going to worry too much about my woodburner.

Tim



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

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.

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

On 16/04/2021 15:14, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:05:42 +0100, GB
wrote:

snip

Im 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 '*Im*
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

that are the problem.