Lots of people with wood burners in France, something to think about.
Interesting article.
In France, for those who heat/cook with wood⌠there is guidance available⌠on which wood to burn, how to burn it etc etc⌠to reduce pollution⌠and use efficiently.
never hurts to check/rethinkâŚ
1 Like
Notice how Martins team and the journalists lump wood burners and open fires together when the characteristics are completely different.
I have measured particles from PM1 to PM10 indoors on mine and friends wood burners and the levels are minimal. Nothing to worry about if you dont have health conditions. I am going to try and messure outside levels by positioning the sensor near the chimney terminal.
Any of these countries have outright ban on smoking tobacco?
Older wood burners are pretty bad compared to the newest models and people may like their old stoves but they dont burn very completely or cleanly as those made to do so under the latest regs.
5 Likes
This does read like a bit of a FUD special TBH - what can we find to target next?
7 Likes
Off topic (sorry, not sorry!) âŚbut not as dangerous as a stainless steel fire globe!
2 Likes
Itâs another Guardian obsession that mixes up all sorts of data with some irrelevant examples from all sorts of very different places such as Ireland and China (peat and brown coal)
Canberra is not rural France. Apart from the obvious, what differs is the fuel and possibly also the stoves. Unlike French oak and chestnut, many Australian woods burn explosively and generate enormous heat, which may be why from casually glancing at some Aussie stove data the efficiency ratings can be comparatively low eg.70%!
From personal experience Iâd argue that woods like eucalyptus and black wattle are actually dangerous on an open fire because they burn very fiercely and emit explosive sparks. Incidentally, in C20th South Africa fast growing Australian trees generated all sorts of unforeseen environmental problems by lowering the water table and destroying through fire most of the south coastâs temperate rainforest, which cannot be replaced. Natural forest fires become much more destructive as the slow growing indigenous hardwoods could not survive the higher burn temperatures, whereas the Australian trees germinated with the heat and became very invasive.
1 Like
That was the most egregious example in that particular piece, which seemed to conflate all sorts of things without explaining why they were relevant. I didnât know that about certain Australian woods but youâve neatly illustrated the point!
I am increasingly noticing that the mass media (tv, radio, the Press) are turning into campaigning organisations and omitting to provide any balance or context. Itâs going to create a generation of ignorant people who (rightly) donât trust them and so get their information from other sources.
3 Likes
Had to look that up! SF is sooooo good for my education 
1 Like
Did the article conflate - or just discuss a number of scenarios where burning wood has been shown to be less benign than previously thought?
Itâs part of a general realisation that smoke particles are in a size range which, if inhaled, have health consequences.
1 Like
Very true, the fine particles sub PM2.5 pass through the aveoli and enter the blood stream where they damage the glycocalyx and endothelium of the arteries leading to atherosclerosis. However with so many of these researchers, whoâs paying and why?
1 Like
I think the conflation arose from a simplistic headline and introduction being followed by examples the relevance of which was not explained and apparently doubtful.
If the Guardian has a bee in its bonnet about woodburners etc then that would explain it!
We donât have a woodburner (yet!).
1 Like
Today and something else next week, just keeps people worried and buying the chip paper.
1 Like
At the risk of repeating myself, itâs part of a Guardian campaign against wood burners in English cities, but itâs never stated as such, and instead comes across as being against wood burners per se. I suspect that a lot of the wood burnt in the UK isnât as seasoned as the usual French stuff, but also wonder how many UK metropolitan homes have room for a dozen stères of logs.
Anyhow, I read this stuff and think OK, but thatâs not how it is here, and that citing Irish peat burning and Chinese use of brown coal without mentioning the different fuels is just shoddy journalism. As is increasingly the case âjournalismâ is done via Wikipedia rather than through real research, so you have some young person, who probably lives in a London flat share,trying to write about wood burning stoves.
Every single response above is one or other way of saying âstuff and nonsenseâ! Also: itâs only coming from the Guardian so we can ignore it.
There is no question that it is deleterious to health (Wood smoke is particle pollution). The fact is that most inhabitants of rural France are stuck with having to burn wood and have to find a way of reconciling themselves to it.
1 Like
There is no question that it is deleterious to health (Wood smoke is particle pollution )
Not disagreeing entirely, but the study you cite is from California which has particular naturally occurring smog probs anyway, before one adds all the man-made pollutants besides wood burners. The point I was making, was that living in a sparsely populated rural area of France, I find it hard to believe that local wood burning stoves are a serious problem.
Solar isnât an option for us because of our location at the bottom of a valley and immediately below the remains of a C11th chateau.
Iâve been a Guardian reader for over fifty years and would argue that in recent times the quality of so much of its journalism has severely deteriorated. Too many op-ed pieces of the sort that one used to find only in popular magazines. These days the NY Times is my go-to primary source of Eng lang info.
3 Likes
And just then the farmers set fire to the stubble in their fields 
2 Likes
In rural France farmers are the worst polluters.
2 Likes
Iâm afraid thatâs just common sense. I wouldnât trust the Daily Mail any more than the Guardian (or a pressure group called âDoctors and Scientists Against Wood Smoke Pollutionâ!) nowadays. How are the mighty fallen!
1 Like
PM2,5 particles are Bon today⌠hurrah
I wouldnt go quite that far but. From actual sample tests (indoors) made by me at my home and everyone I visited that week, the levels were very low. Even after the small peak that you get from re filling the stove the low level returned after about 5-10 minutes.
2 Likes