7 ms·

> Not once have I ever felt ill or victimized because I had to cook on gas. Your comment reads like someone swearing smoking has no health impact because they

> Not once have I ever felt ill or victimized because I had to cook on gas. Your comment reads like someone swearing smoking has no health impact because they never felt ill or victimized for smoking. Meanwhile, even the World Health Organization produces reports on health risks of household air pollution, where stoves are the primary pollution source. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/household-air-pollution-and-health https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/household-a...

Pigalowda 3y ago
That’s a false equivalence. You’ve either misunderstood or deliberately linked an article that doesn’t support your claim about using natural gas cooking. “Around 2.4 billion people worldwide (around a third of the global population) cook using open fires or inefficient stoves fuelled by kerosene, biomass (wood, animal dung and crop waste) and coal, which generates harmful household air pollution.” Open fire/stove cooking is the primary cause of COPD in the developing world, in the developed world its smoking. The WHO is not worried about US homes with gas stoves. This article is not about natural gas stoves. The article is about open fire/stove cooking. I hope others aren’t misled by you. What a shame.
- evandijk70 3y ago
  The above is correct. Additionally, they even mention natural gas as a viable alternative in the abstract: "It is essential to expand use of clean fuels and technologies to reduce household air pollution and protect health. These include solar, electricity, biogas, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), natural gas, alcohol fuels, as well as biomass stoves that meet the emission targets in the WHO Guidelines."
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - simplotek 3y ago
    > The above is correct. Additionally, they even mention natural gas as a viable alternative in the abstract: It isn't, and you clearly failed to read the paper because you're oblivious to its context. The "alternative" was open-flame coal and wood stoves, as well as querosene stoves, which cause extreme levels of indoor pollution and health hazard and are in widespread use in underdeveloped nations. Natural gas stoves pollute less than open-flame coal and wood stoves, yes, and are therefore a preferable alternative. However, unlike your clueless claim, this does not mean that gas stoves do not lose a health hazard, or that electrical stoves are not far preferable. The WHO report refutes the bullshit claim that gas stoves don't present a health hazard due to the type and levels of indoor air pollution they create.
osigurdson 3y ago
>> even the World Health Organization This article discusses people in developing nations cooking indoors with indoors burning wood and dung. It isn't clear that this also applies to the amateur chef using natural gas in a mini-mansion.

Pigalowda 3y ago

That’s a false equivalence. You’ve either misunderstood or deliberately linked an article that doesn’t support your claim about using natural gas cooking. “Around 2.4 billion people worldwide (around a third of the global population) cook using open fires or inefficient stoves fuelled by kerosene, biomass (wood, animal dung and crop waste) and coal, which generates harmful household air pollution.” Open fire/stove cooking is the primary cause of COPD in the developing world, in the developed world its smoking. The WHO is not worried about US homes with gas stoves. This article is not about natural gas stoves. The article is about open fire/stove cooking. I hope others aren’t misled by you. What a shame.

evandijk70 3y ago
The above is correct. Additionally, they even mention natural gas as a viable alternative in the abstract: "It is essential to expand use of clean fuels and technologies to reduce household air pollution and protect health. These include solar, electricity, biogas, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), natural gas, alcohol fuels, as well as biomass stoves that meet the emission targets in the WHO Guidelines."
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- simplotek 3y ago
  > The above is correct. Additionally, they even mention natural gas as a viable alternative in the abstract: It isn't, and you clearly failed to read the paper because you're oblivious to its context. The "alternative" was open-flame coal and wood stoves, as well as querosene stoves, which cause extreme levels of indoor pollution and health hazard and are in widespread use in underdeveloped nations. Natural gas stoves pollute less than open-flame coal and wood stoves, yes, and are therefore a preferable alternative. However, unlike your clueless claim, this does not mean that gas stoves do not lose a health hazard, or that electrical stoves are not far preferable. The WHO report refutes the bullshit claim that gas stoves don't present a health hazard due to the type and levels of indoor air pollution they create.

osigurdson 3y ago

>> even the World Health Organization This article discusses people in developing nations cooking indoors with indoors burning wood and dung. It isn't clear that this also applies to the amateur chef using natural gas in a mini-mansion.