When the natural gas industry used the playbook from Big Tobacco
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
A company called Impulse (https://www.impulselabs.com/) says it's building stoves with lithium-iron phosphate (LFP) batteries built into them, such that they can run on a standard US 120v ~15a circuit.
There was also a fair amount of opposition to these tactics at the time, see the creation of the Institute for Propaganda Analysis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Propaganda_Analy...
It was shut down in 1942, most seem to think this was because neutral analysis of propaganda was no longer tenable in the middle of wartime. It was unfortunately not resurrected during the post-war period.
We'd all be better off if propaganda analysis and critical analysis were being taught to children beginning at the grade school level - but that doesn't happen because an easily manipulated population is the desired goal of the US ruling class.
As far as gas vs. electric stoves, modern electrical induction stoves are IMO superior to gas for several reasons, indoor air quality improvements being just one factor - they're also easier to get diifferent consistent heat level outputs from.
This turns out to not, in fact, be the case.
> Natural gas (also called fossil gas, methane gas or simply gas) […]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas
A bit of etymology:
> It was linked to the arrival at the time of another energy innovation: manufactured gas, which was made by combusting coal, oil and other products. By the 1820s, manufactured gas was being made in gasworks near some urban centres, including London and Baltimore, Md., lighting city streets with gas lamps.
> That's also when a village on the shores of Lake Erie, Fredonia, N.Y., was first lit with what an 1828 article called "natural gas lights" from "burning springs" nearby.
> Two emerging technologies meant two different terms, said Stewart. "So there's this distinction between gas that you have to … make out of coal and this gas that comes straight from the ground."
> But "natural" has more than a dozen shades of meaning beyond "not manufactured," stretching back to middle English, said Stewart. Centuries before any eco-branding, many of these definitions already carried a positive sense of something innate, right or "free from affectation."
* https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/what-on-earth-natural-gas-me...
Also:
> In many countries, natural gas is perceived more favorably than other fossil fuels. Here, we experimentally test (N = 2931) how perceptions of natural gas vary depending on what it is called. We find that Americans have stronger positive feelings for the term “natural gas” than “natural methane gas” (d = 0.59), “fossil gas” (d = 0.80), “fracked gas” (d = 0.81), “methane” (d = 0.94), and “methane gas” (d = 0.96). […]
* https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02724...
> The oil and gas industry didn’t invent the name. But it invented the myth of a clean fuel.
Gas stove emissions are most harmful to people living in cheap rented homes where the stove was installed without a fume hood and the resident doesn't have the money or opportunity to address that. These people didn't choose gas in the first place; the kind of stove an apartment has is far below rent and location in their list of considerations when choosing where to live.
There is no need to foster actual safety when you can just put up warning and disclaimer signs everywhere.
I am reaching a bit to make a point, but hear me out: if you live in California, try to pay close attention and notice all of the Prop 65 warning signs you see as you go about your day.
Then ask yourself this: "if you really wanted to protect or insulate yourself from the dangers that Prop 65 warns about, how would you go about it? Would it even be possible in a practical sense?"
My opinion is that the answer is "No. That would be impossible."
So the Prop 65 warning signs (which is all Prop 65 amounts to in terms of laws) do literally nothing except provide cover/deniability/risk-displacement for businesses and maybe the State of California.
How would you compare the associated health risks with Prop 65 chemicals with the health risks of operating a Gas Stovetop?
Why are they not treated in like manner?
And how much of that heat actually gets transferred to the pan, versus just billowing off the side of it? More importantly: how much of it gets to the food?
With electricity, especially inductive, how much gets to the food?
* https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/what-on-earth-induction-stov...
* https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/worried-about-giving-up-...
* https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/highlights/the-vancouver-...
See also Michelin-starred chefs:
* https://robbreport.com/food-drink/dining/how-le-bernardins-m...
* https://www.idealhome.co.uk/news/induction-hob-255651
* https://guide.michelin.com/us/en/article/features/kitchen-de...
Professional kitchens also have giant, well-designed vent hoods to send the fumes and heat outside: most domestic/residential kitchens usually have shitty hoods (if they have them at all (not all rentals do), and some don't even vent outside) that people often don't bother even running.
The act of cooking produces various chemical regards of heat source, but gas stove also add chemicals from combustion (would you run a BBQ in your house? a car?) and may not be vented outside.
Having lived in relatively poor areas, this is surprisingly common. If you ever drive by the projects, take a look at some of the window screens; often they will be covered in soot because people use them to bbq.
Why am I bringing that up? Because a lot of the discussion is occurring in a bubble. (I mean...you link to to Robb report for goodness sake). I agree that induction is a good choice if you have the luxury of choosing your range design (to include installing adequate ventilation) and the money to do so (to include probably replacing all your cookware with those compatible with induction.) That isn't an option open to most people. Those same Michelin-starred chefs admit induction is fragile and "blow fuses like its a design feature." The majority of chefs still use gas and induction is more for those who have the luxury to change, like experimenting, and have the money to do so. I think it's an error to think there can be an immediate switch; these are the types of thought processes that turn policies into debacles.
> Despite this evidence, the gas industry’s campaign was largely successful. Industry-funded studies successfully muddied the waters, as I have seen over the course of my research career, and stalled further federal investigations or regulations addressing gas stove safety.
Consumer indifference to safety concerns and federal lethargy in regulating or investigating them are, to me, precisely the outcomes a misinformation campaign of this kind would aim for.
Nor is the impact small. It's just one study, but:
> This issue took on new life at the end of 2022, when researchers published a new study estimating that 12.7 percent of US cases of childhood asthma—about one case in eight—were attributable to gas stoves.
American consumers seem indifferent to the safety risks of all kinds of products, even when they don’t have a concerted campaign behind them. I’m just saying there may be other reasons besides safety consumers make this choice.