Total bans on products people use and can enjoy responsibility due to potential health risks is nearly always a bad idea in my opinion. Just look at smoking in the US, for example, which recently hit an all time low. We could have gone the prohibition route (and we can guess how that would turn out), but instead we clamped down on advertising, increased taxes, and helped usher in a societal change where smoking is largely seen as unacceptable behavior by huge swaths of people now.
They aren't going to force the gas to be removed from current kitchens and heaters any time soon.
There is a prohibition on smoking, kids aren't allowed to buy cigarettes
These are both rounding errors vs. a year of energy bills. If you want something even cheaper (for instance, because you hate your tenants, and they are paying the power bill), resistive ones are still available.
It was a long time ago though.
numbers are higher now. but nobody was counting e-cig before. some were even getting money to buy them as they were spined as a quiting smoke path.
also, opioid epidemic is not helping things. this is really reaching and not sourced but i wonder if less smoking means more people reach for pills?
• 40% of cancer deaths are related to smoking • 80% of lung cancer deaths are related to smoking • 33% of heart disease deaths are related to smoking
There's over half a million deaths a year from smoking and 10% are second hand smoking related.
I’m not quite sure we can call this a win yet.
the plain packaging stuff is moving past people taking informed risks (even if i think they're stupid ones) and towards overt control of behavior for technocratic reasons. which explains why there's way more uptake for it in europe and australia than here
This one doctor (whom I probably trust the most of online doctors) disagrees.
https://peterattiamd.com/putting-out-the-fire-on-the-gas-sto...
> For example, the analysis included multiple studies that found an association between gas cooking and respiratory disease in children but variously failed to evaluate parental smoking habits, indoor smoke, pet ownership, or outdoor pollution as other possible factors which might underlie the observed associations. In other words, we must interpret these conclusions with a high degree of caution.
Older construction leaks a lot more air than newer construction, primarily due to changes in code. More specifically, the air in an older home, from the 1980s, might change over every four hours or so. In a newer home built to modern building codes, it's eight or ten hours.
My apartment has a gas stove, which I was was induction. The gas stove plus the lack of a hood that vents to the outside means the indoor air quality gets pretty messed up. I usually have to open some windows when cooking, which is not great in winter.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.est.1c04707/suppl...
See the last page.
What you need is a real vent that vents outside. Or a stove that doesn’t emit NOx (and carbon monoxide, etc).
Frankly this whole thing is a bit absurd. Everyone ought to know that flue gas from a furnace or water heater is extremely dangerous when it ends up indoors. Why are gas stoves ever considered okay?
TLDR: it’s a function of ventilation
tho i admit it kinda sucks ass when it's 100 degrees
Ventilation depends partly on individual behaviour, eg I open windows in good weather and close them in winter.
Ventilation prevents it from reaching hazardous levels from a gas stove; induction does not produce it.
So you can simmer a stock for a couple hours without needing to run the fan (and cook most anything under 300 degrees or so), and with the fan off you don’t lose nice conditioned air from inside.
They should ban teflon. It leaches estrogen analogues into food, and is an endocrine disrupter. Also, teflon pans last 2-5% as long as cheaper cast iron / stainless steel equivalents (or most more expensive options).
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/climate-risks-natural-gas
Granted, much of that is due to power plants, but residential + commercial is over 10%.