Those stinky old slow-combustion wood stoves, still quite common in Tasmania, are as dangerous as they seem. But I wonder what accounts for the sex difference reported here. AFP takes up the story:

REDUCING the use of wood-burning stoves in Launceston led to a sharp fall in deaths from respiratory diseases and heart failure, a study published today says.
The paper, published by the British Medical Journal, highlights the pollution risks from inefficient biomass burning, used by billions of people for heating and cooking.

University of Tasmania researchers looked at what happened when the city implemented a scheme to reduce pollution from wood smoke.

It launched a campaign to educate residents about the risks of smoke from wood-burning stoves and offered help to replace these with electric ones.

From 2001 to 2004, the number of households that used wood-burning stoves fell from 66 to 30 per cent. Atmospheric pollution from air particulates during winter fell by 40 per cent.

Deaths among men fell by 11.4 per cent, particularly from cardiovascular causes, which saw a decline of 17.9 per cent, and from respiratory causes, which retreated by 22.8 per cent.

…There was no statistically significant fall among women, a question that was not addressed by the study. “It does tell us that improving the air quality improves death rates,’‘ said Fay Johnston, a GP and environmental epidemiologist at Menzies Research Institute Tasmania who led the study..

“Death through air pollution is the tip of the iceberg.’‘

The mortality figures derive from a 6 1/2 year comparison between Launceston with Hobart, the capital city, which did not have any air-quality interventions.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/switch-out-of-wood-burning-stoves-saves-lives/story-e6frg8y6-1226550224035

Bubblecar said:

Those stinky old slow-combustion wood stoves, still quite common in Tasmania, are as dangerous as they seem. But I wonder what accounts for the sex difference reported here. AFP takes up the story:

REDUCING the use of wood-burning stoves in Launceston led to a sharp fall in deaths from respiratory diseases and heart failure, a study published today says.
The paper, published by the British Medical Journal, highlights the pollution risks from inefficient biomass burning, used by billions of people for heating and cooking.

University of Tasmania researchers looked at what happened when the city implemented a scheme to reduce pollution from wood smoke.

It launched a campaign to educate residents about the risks of smoke from wood-burning stoves and offered help to replace these with electric ones.

From 2001 to 2004, the number of households that used wood-burning stoves fell from 66 to 30 per cent. Atmospheric pollution from air particulates during winter fell by 40 per cent.

Deaths among men fell by 11.4 per cent, particularly from cardiovascular causes, which saw a decline of 17.9 per cent, and from respiratory causes, which retreated by 22.8 per cent.

…There was no statistically significant fall among women, a question that was not addressed by the study. “It does tell us that improving the air quality improves death rates,’‘ said Fay Johnston, a GP and environmental epidemiologist at Menzies Research Institute Tasmania who led the study..

“Death through air pollution is the tip of the iceberg.’‘

The mortality figures derive from a 6 1/2 year comparison between Launceston with Hobart, the capital city, which did not have any air-quality interventions.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/switch-out-of-wood-burning-stoves-saves-lives/story-e6frg8y6-1226550224035

Some engineer should have imprinted the instructions for use on the foreheads of the users.

When used as intended, these stoves pump out toxic smoke. They’re designed to be economical with wood and to allow slow burning with the resulting fumes. All pumped outside for the neighbours to endure (although if your stove leaks, as many old ones do, you’ll get the same toxic stench in your own home).

Bubblecar said:

When used as intended, these stoves pump out toxic smoke. They’re designed to be economical with wood and to allow slow burning with the resulting fumes. All pumped outside for the neighbours to endure (although if your stove leaks, as many old ones do, you’ll get the same toxic stench in your own home).

better than a bushfire.

used as intended.. is a misnomer.

Whose intention?

we need real references here.

>Whose intention?

?

The manufacturers and the purchasers. These are woodstoves used for heating, cooking and (often) heating the hot water system. You feed them kindling and fast-burning small wood to get a good fire going, then shove in larger wood and close it up to maintain a slow-burning furnace that will provide maximum heat with minimal feeding.

My old cottage in South Mole Creek had one of these (a vintage Rayburn) for the cooking, general heating and water-heating. Eventually it started leaking so badly it was dangerous to use. My parents lived at the other end of the same property in a new house they designed and had built for them, but they too relied on a (much fancier & brand new) woodstove for the cooking and hot water, and theirs often belched out toxic smoke too.

Bubblecar said:

>Whose intention?

?

The manufacturers and the purchasers. These are woodstoves used for heating, cooking and (often) heating the hot water system. You feed them kindling and fast-burning small wood to get a good fire going, then shove in larger wood and close it up to maintain a slow-burning furnace that will provide maximum heat with minimal feeding.

My old cottage in South Mole Creek had one of these (a vintage Rayburn) for the cooking, general heating and water-heating. Eventually it started leaking so badly it was dangerous to use. My parents lived at the other end of the same property in a new house they designed and had built for them, but they too relied on a (much fancier & brand new) woodstove for the cooking and hot water, and theirs often belched out toxic smoke too.

I’m not arguing how badly Rayburns were designed.. I’m arguing that the users didn’t follow the instructions.

I could argue that Wellstood knew what they were on about.

>I’m arguing that the users didn’t follow the instructions.

Slow combustion of wood creates much toxic smoke. It’s unavoidable, instructions or no instrructions.

Bubblecar said:

>I’m arguing that the users didn’t follow the instructions.

Slow combustion of wood creates much toxic smoke. It’s unavoidable, instructions or no instrructions.

No.

you still aren’t reading the destructions properly.

bah

Bubblecar said:

bah

Wood from rainforests needs to be 50 years dead.. before slow combusting.

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

bah

Wood from rainforests needs to be 50 years dead.. before slow combusting.

It wasn’t such a problem while we were still using the woods ringbarked by the early settlers.

People were also unaware of what inversion layers do.

I found the press release:

http://www.bmj.com/press-releases/2013/01/07/reduction-air-pollution-wood-burning-stoves-associated-significantly-reduc

But I can’t find the actual paper.

natural attrition i’m afraid

if you are silly enough to have something that pumps out toxic fumes into your living space

well….

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

bah

Wood from rainforests needs to be 50 years dead.. before slow combusting.

Sourcing or storing wood for 50 years? That is some expensive wood.

Skunkworks said:

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

bah

Wood from rainforests needs to be 50 years dead.. before slow combusting.

Sourcing or storing wood for 50 years? That is some expensive wood.

considering that it takes around 1,000 years to make.. indeed so.