OT: Gas Stoves And Indoor Air Pollution

Canugghead

How long was the fight to ban indoor smoking in public places?

Langner91

RRP said:

Though our furnace is natural gas as well as our hot water heater our stove is an electric JENN AIR with a down draft fan centered in my kitchen island.

! can NEVER EVER have a gas stove here...SO I AM JEALOUS!!!...

And due to my age etc etc etc I will have to live here until I die and keep on cooking on my electric stove inside, but thankfully using lump charcoal cooking outside!

LONG LIVE outdoor grills!!!

@RRP, even if it takes all your money, never say never.  If you have natural gas in the place, you can have a gas stove.  You might need to install it in your bedroom or bathroom, but you can have a gas stove.

Some houses are just easier to install them where they are wanted.

Gulfcoastguy

So 20 out of 21 models that the DoE tested failed but they said that only 50% would fail? One of these things is not like the other. Not that it will matter to me since my house is all electric with no natural gas on my side of the street.
 I do wonder if outside gas grills are next though.

JohnInCarolina

Gulfcoastguy said:

So 20 out of 21 models that the DoE tested failed but they said that only 50% would fail? One of these things is not like the other. 

Because the 21 they tested aren't representative of the options that are out there.  I don't know how what criteria they used to select the 21, but it wasn't based on market availability.  

fishlessman

Gulfcoastguy said:

So 20 out of 21 models that the DoE tested failed but they said that only 50% would fail? One of these things is not like the other. Not that it will matter to me since my house is all electric with no natural gas on my side of the street.
 I do wonder if outside gas grills are next though.

They could start with the school zones. No bbq in a school zone

Legume

We had a charcoal grill built into the kitchen when I was a kid. All brick with one of those firemagic drop in boxes that would let you raise or lower the pan where the charcoal was.  The grill had its own flue and was on the opposite side of the fireplace which was in a different room.  House was built late 50s. I guess it seemed like a good idea then, but people got smarter.  Parents never removed it like a lot of the neighbors did, but they did replace their electric stove top with a Jenn-air so they could keep on grilling inside when they wanted to.  It was years later that I realized how batshit crazy that was, they had great weather.

Legume

And for anyone that's lived in a house 50 or so years old and one that's new - the older homes all have airflow whether you want it or not.  Newer homes are airtight by comparison.

Canugghead

Folks, please respect our forum elder's wish...

caliking

@CTMike if you have any reason to believe that a relatively minor thing, like changing out your stove, will impact SWMBO's health, then obviously you don't need validation from a bunch of yahoos on a bbq forum.

I know that wasn't the intent of the thread, but maybe some folks need to hear it.

HeavyG

Legume said:

And for anyone that's lived in a house 50 or so years old and one that's new - the older homes all have airflow whether you want it or not.  Newer homes are airtight by comparison.

And being more airtight is likely one of the reasons it seems there is an increase in the cases of asthma and some other maladies. Tight houses increase exposure to outgassing chemicals, stove combustion byproduct, etc., etc.
In the interests of energy efficiency every house should be tight but they should also have an air to air heat exchanger to ensure one is less likely to be exposed to "mala aria".

I bought a neat yakitori grill last year that I have used indoors a few times on our kitchen peninsula but I also have a carbon monoxide detector I place nearby and with a window cracked and the stove exhaust fan (which vents outside) running the CO detector barely moves. With my luck tho I wouldn't be surprised if my headstone says "He thought it would be safe".

RRP

JohnInCarolina said:

RRP said:

I'm NOT trying to start a political feud. This is from the Washington Examiner:

The legacy media and the Left attempted to brush off the initial gas stove controversy and outcry from the Right as nothing more than an unsubstantiated, irrational conspiracy theory. The White House even insisted that President Joe Biden does not support a ban on gas stoves after one of his federal consumer safety officials suggested that such a ban was on the table. 

But, as we are seeing in so many other instances, Republicans were right all along. President Joe Biden’s Department of Energy is, in fact, pushing an extreme regulation that would effectively eliminate nearly all gas stoves. 

The Department of Energy is conducting this gas stove grab through a rule that would impose extreme energy performance standards on residential cooktops. The department’s proposed rule sets requirements for gas cooktops at the maximum technologically feasible or "max-tech" level. Based on the Department of Energy's own analysis, gas cooktops at the max-tech level represent just 4% of current market share and exclude all conventional free-stand ranges. 

Any rule that causes 96% of the products available today to be eliminated from the market is an extreme regulation. In fact, it is essentially an outright ban on gas stoves.

Ron, any opinion piece written by a Republican member of Congress and published in the Washington Examiner should probably be taken with a very large grain of salt.  

Here's a slightly more balanced piece on the topic:

https://www.eenews.net/articles/doe-rule-may-block-50-of-new-gas-stoves/

Make of it what you will, but I think the outrage is more... well, hot air... than substance.  

WOW, John…I think this is already some kind of new record! Your reply has received 1 like and 1 dislike…BUT I have somehow already exceeded your ratings with 3 dislikes! I don’t understand why if someone disagrees that they can not have the ‘nads to reveal themselves and explain their objection(s)! 

(though I personally have not ruled out the idea that that loser has created more accounts here…just too bad that the @buffalo doesn’t look into this “dislike without being identified” ability.

QDude

CTMike said:

I can’t seem to find the original thread discussing this, so I am starting a new one. 

In that thread, this study was linked/discussed:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/gas-stoves-air-pollution-1.6394514

Then I came across this study from Massachusetts correlating 30 years of data linking natural gas stoves to a marked increase in childhood asthma:

https://www.massmed.org/Publications/Vital-Signs---Member-Publication/Connection-Between-Natural-Gas-Stoves-and-Pediatric-Asthma/

From what I can find propane (what we use) produces lower amounts of benzene and nitrous oxide than natural gas, but I’m not taking any chances considering how severe SWMBO’s asthma is. We installed this range in 2014, and her asthma got markedly worse in 2016. I know that is not enough evidence to absolutely correlate one to the other, but as I said above, I’m not taking any chances.  

So with all that said, I am looking at 36” wide induction ranges. I was considering Wolf, but not available until November, and I’m not willing to wait that long. Models that have a 4 to 6 week lead time are:

Fisher & Paykel RIV3-365
Bertazzoni MAST365INSXT
Bosch HIS8655SS

ILVE UMI09NS3SSC

Anyone have any experience with any of the above brands? 

My cookware is all induction capable so no worries there. 

The article from Massachusetts says there is an "association" between gas stoves and asthma.  That is not the same as "causation".

Ozzie_Isaac

I removed all the weather stripping from my doors and windows.  Now I can use my stove with impunity.

fishlessman

Legume said:

And for anyone that's lived in a house 50 or so years old and one that's new - the older homes all have airflow whether you want it or not.  Newer homes are airtight by comparison.

No problem with this, house is 1940, windows are 40 maybe 50 years older. It's windy

Gulfcoastguy

JohnInCarolina said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

So 20 out of 21 models that the DoE tested failed but they said that only 50% would fail? One of these things is not like the other. 

Because the 21 they tested aren't representative of the options that are out there.  I don't know how what criteria they used to select the 21, but it wasn't based on market availability.  

Based on what? You had probabilities and statistics right? Name the odds of picking 96% failing models if only 50% fail. And where did the 50% fail statement come from?

Botch

Ozzie_Isaac said:

I removed all the weather stripping from my doors and windows.  Now I can use my stove with impunity.

...but you will die from a spider bite.    

HeavyG

Botch said:

Ozzie_Isaac said:

I removed all the weather stripping from my doors and windows.  Now I can use my stove with impunity.

...but you will die from a spider bite.    

Or scorpions or rattlesnakes.

caliking

caliking said:

@CTMike if you have any reason to believe that a relatively minor thing, like changing out your stove, will impact SWMBO's health, then obviously you don't need validation from a bunch of yahoos on a bbq forum.

I know that wasn't the intent of the thread, but maybe some folks need to hear it.

To clarify, when I said "relatively minor thing", I meant the cost and effort of switching out the stove. Something like that would be a no-brainer if  there was even a slight chance of making an impact on one's health.

I realized that it can be read somewhat differently.

JohnInCarolina

Gulfcoastguy said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

So 20 out of 21 models that the DoE tested failed but they said that only 50% would fail? One of these things is not like the other. 

Because the 21 they tested aren't representative of the options that are out there.  I don't know how what criteria they used to select the 21, but it wasn't based on market availability.  

Based on what? You had probabilities and statistics right? Name the odds of picking 96% failing models if only 50% fail. And where did the 50% fail statement come from?

I am quite literally a professor of mathematics at one of the best institutions in the country.  

You are assuming the 21 they tested were a random sample of what’s on the market.  There’s no evidence of that.  They didn’t test a random sample, because they were sure a good number out there wouldn’t have any issue meeting the new standard.  They only tested a set they had questions about.

Let me give you an example.  Imagine you’re interested in the claims of some high end sports cars.  They all claim to be able to do 0-60 in under 3.5 seconds.  So you get ten of them, and 9 are able to, but 1 cannot.

Now would you use that result to claim that 90 percent of *all cars* can do 0-60 in under 4 seconds?  I should hope not.  

HeavyG

JohnInCarolina said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

So 20 out of 21 models that the DoE tested failed but they said that only 50% would fail? One of these things is not like the other. 

Because the 21 they tested aren't representative of the options that are out there.  I don't know how what criteria they used to select the 21, but it wasn't based on market availability.  

Based on what? You had probabilities and statistics right? Name the odds of picking 96% failing models if only 50% fail. And where did the 50% fail statement come from?

I am quite literally a professor of mathematics at one of the best institutions in the country...

Yeah, well... but do you do your crossword puzzles IN INK???

JohnInCarolina

HeavyG said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

So 20 out of 21 models that the DoE tested failed but they said that only 50% would fail? One of these things is not like the other. 

Because the 21 they tested aren't representative of the options that are out there.  I don't know how what criteria they used to select the 21, but it wasn't based on market availability.  

Based on what? You had probabilities and statistics right? Name the odds of picking 96% failing models if only 50% fail. And where did the 50% fail statement come from?

I am quite literally a professor of mathematics at one of the best institutions in the country...

Yeah, well... but do you do your crossword puzzles IN INK???

😂😂😂

RRP

Langner91 said:

@RRP, even if it takes all your money, never say never.  If you have natural gas in the place, you can have a gas stove.  You might need to install it in your bedroom or bathroom, but you can have a gas stove.

Some houses are just easier to install them where they are wanted.

I hear you, pal...but without ripping out all of our custom cabinets much less re-work all the plumbing and electrical network...and THEN of course getting that gas line up here so as to TOTALLY RE-DESIGN our kitchen then yes...anything can be redone!!!  BUT at my advancing age of 79 do I REALLY give a sh*t?

Get my point?

Gulfcoastguy

JohnInCarolina said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

So 20 out of 21 models that the DoE tested failed but they said that only 50% would fail? One of these things is not like the other. 

Because the 21 they tested aren't representative of the options that are out there.  I don't know how what criteria they used to select the 21, but it wasn't based on market availability.  

Based on what? You had probabilities and statistics right? Name the odds of picking 96% failing models if only 50% fail. And where did the 50% fail statement come from?

I am quite literally a professor of mathematics at one of the best institutions in the country.  

You are assuming the 21 they tested were a random sample of what’s on the market.  There’s no evidence of that.  They didn’t test a random sample, because they were sure a good number out there wouldn’t have any issue meeting the new standard.  They only tested a set they had questions about.

Let me give you an example.  Imagine you’re interested in the claims of some high end sports cars.  They all claim to be able to do 0-60 in under 3.5 seconds.  So you get ten of them, and 9 are able to, but 1 cannot.

Now would you use that result to claim that 90 percent of *all cars* can do 0-60 in under 4 seconds?  I should hope not.  

And my last sentence? Not to mention the evidence for your reply to the first?

Legume

If you like the gas stove you have, you can keep the gas stove you have.

Unlike a say, um, virus, if there is an issue, it will be limited to those that live and spend significant time in your home.  This is what is sometimes referred to as a risk - it's not proven, lots of variables, blah blah blah.  Nobody is coming for your stove.

JohnInCarolina

Gulfcoastguy said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

So 20 out of 21 models that the DoE tested failed but they said that only 50% would fail? One of these things is not like the other. 

Because the 21 they tested aren't representative of the options that are out there.  I don't know how what criteria they used to select the 21, but it wasn't based on market availability.  

Based on what? You had probabilities and statistics right? Name the odds of picking 96% failing models if only 50% fail. And where did the 50% fail statement come from?

I am quite literally a professor of mathematics at one of the best institutions in the country.  

You are assuming the 21 they tested were a random sample of what’s on the market.  There’s no evidence of that.  They didn’t test a random sample, because they were sure a good number out there wouldn’t have any issue meeting the new standard.  They only tested a set they had questions about.

Let me give you an example.  Imagine you’re interested in the claims of some high end sports cars.  They all claim to be able to do 0-60 in under 3.5 seconds.  So you get ten of them, and 9 are able to, but 1 cannot.

Now would you use that result to claim that 90 percent of *all cars* can do 0-60 in under 4 seconds?  I should hope not.  

And my last sentence? Not to mention the evidence for your reply to the first?

It’s all in the article I linked.  You just have to read it, albeit carefully. 

nolaegghead

I read it to the end.  Makes perfect sense and answers most of the the questions here except: wtf did Ron post?

billt01

Ozzie_Isaac said:

I removed all the weather stripping from my doors and windows.  Now I can use my stove with impunity.

#winning

lkapigian

Ozzie_Isaac said:

I removed all the weather stripping from my doors and windows.  Now I can use my stove with impunity.

IAQ has gotten far worse at the expense of "Weatherization", I have a leaky old house and I'll keep it that way 

Gulfcoastguy

The dog’s door takes care of my house being “over sealed”.

Ozzie_Isaac

lkapigian said:

Ozzie_Isaac said:

I removed all the weather stripping from my doors and windows.  Now I can use my stove with impunity.

IAQ has gotten far worse at the expense of "Weatherization", I have a leaky old house and I'll keep it that way 

My uncle has an incredibly airtight house in Northern Wisconsin.  He has the most complex AC system I have ever seen.  He has to pull in a lot of fresh air to keep good IAQ.  He pulls it in, conditions it, then pumps it into the house.  He utilizes some of the return air in heat exchangers then exhausts the return air outside.  He has a huge room dedicated to all the equipment.