Sam Harris' "The Fireplace Delusion"

[Apathia]

APATHIA, I think kissing is a great way of inoculating ourselves!

Isn't it?

Thank you, Science!

 

[blobru]

They used to put people who rejected the god delusion in fireplaces. I guess people who reject the fireplace delusion should be made to go to church.

 

[geni]

Incidentally his error is in paragraph 6. One of the things we don't have a very good handle on is the link between something being full of carcinogens and cancer. The classic example is asphalt workers who are exposed to a lot of carcinogens and while we may see an increase in cancer (the data is inconclusive) its not as large as we would expect.

 

[Craig B]

Incidentally his error is in paragraph 6. One of the things we don't have a very good handle on is the link between something being full of carcinogens and cancer. The classic example is asphalt workers who are exposed to a lot of carcinogens and while we may see an increase in cancer (the data is inconclusive) its not as large as we would expect.

The reason may be low levels of ingestion. Where wood fires are used in third world enclosed or poorly ventilated kitchens the incidence of respiratory disease is very high, but open air cooking or the use of improved cooking stoves, even very simple ones like this http://www.rippleafrica.org/environ...wi-africa/changu-changu-moto-cookstove-africa can reduce the dangers very substantially, without of course reducing the natural content of carcinogens present in wood.

As to asphalt, it is in the form of solid blocks or a thick liquid. How much of it is ingested by workers using it?

 

[asydhouse]

They used to put people who rejected the god delusion in fireplaces. I guess people who reject the fireplace delusion should be made to go to church.

blobru! I love you!

 

[GlennB]

I read the article as one who is "rather attached" to his wood stove. I'd put myself at 7/10 on the stove attachment scale (not fond of open fires, though).

I found his article to be overstated and lacking in critical thought in many places D). Seriously -

"There is no amount of wood smoke that is good to breathe. It is at least as bad for you as cigarette smoke, and probably much worse.(One study found it to be 30 times more potent a carcinogen.)".

Ummm, doesn't it depend on how you analyse those sources?. When I puff a cig it's a very direct application straight to my lungs; when a neighbour 50yds downwind gets a heavily diluted whiff of woodstove smoke what's the dose of carcinogen they're receiving?

"Research shows that nearly 70 percent of chimney smoke reenters nearby buildings".

Actually, trawling the net finds the immediate claim is ".... 70% of chimney smoke can re-enter ...". Naughty man! Finding the origin of the claim we read "Also, about 70% of the outdoor wood smoke reenters the house (T. V. Larson, PhD, University of Washington, Department of Civil Engineering, unpublished data)." My bolding. Under what circumstances would this happen?

Well, I'll confidently state if 70% of the smoke from our stove "reenters the house" we would evacuate in about 10 seconds flat and never use it again. Meanwhile our CO monitor has never registered anything above normal background.

" burn a sufficient quantity of wood and the air in the vicinity of your home will resemble a bad day in Beijing". Depends on what you mean by "sufficient quantity" and "vicinity" I suppose. A few yards from the chimney stack maybe, or if every garden were roaring with bonfires. Neither would be a reasonable condition for making the point. Come winter every occupied house in this area is burning wood domestically and sometimes burning off tree prunings in their nearby fields and it never looks like "a bad day in Beijing".

Shame is that he has a point overall about wood-burning and certainly about how we cling on to our prejudices, but almost invites rejection by the provocative and shoddy way he makes his arguments.

 

[geni]

As to asphalt, it is in the form of solid blocks or a thick liquid. How much of it is ingested by workers using it?

Your main concern is the fumes from heating the stuff either before pouring or when removing it.

 

[asydhouse]

I read the article as one who is "rather attached" to his wood stove. I'd put myself at 7/10 on the stove attachment scale (not fond of open fires, though).

I found his article to be overstated and lacking in critical thought in many places D). Seriously -

"There is no amount of wood smoke that is good to breathe. It is at least as bad for you as cigarette smoke, and probably much worse.(One study found it to be 30 times more potent a carcinogen.)".

Ummm, doesn't it depend on how you analyse those sources?. When I puff a cig it's a very direct application straight to my lungs; when a neighbour 50yds downwind gets a heavily diluted whiff of woodstove smoke what's the dose of carcinogen they're receiving?

"Research shows that nearly 70 percent of chimney smoke reenters nearby buildings".

Actually, trawling the net finds the immediate claim is ".... 70% of chimney smoke can re-enter ...". Naughty man! Finding the origin of the claim we read "Also, about 70% of the outdoor wood smoke reenters the house (T. V. Larson, PhD, University of Washington, Department of Civil Engineering, unpublished data)." My bolding. Under what circumstances would this happen?

Well, I'll confidently state if 70% of the smoke from our stove "reenters the house" we would evacuate in about 10 seconds flat and never use it again. Meanwhile our CO monitor has never registered anything above normal background.

" burn a sufficient quantity of wood and the air in the vicinity of your home will resemble a bad day in Beijing". Depends on what you mean by "sufficient quantity" and "vicinity" I suppose. A few yards from the chimney stack maybe, or if every garden were roaring with bonfires. Neither would be a reasonable condition for making the point. Come winter every occupied house in this area is burning wood domestically and sometimes burning off tree prunings in their nearby fields and it never looks like "a bad day in Beijing".

Shame is that he has a point overall about wood-burning and certainly about how we cling on to our prejudices, but almost invites rejection by the provocative and shoddy way he makes his arguments.

Thank you. A well-considered and articulate post that doesn't negate the thought experiment aspect of the exercise, but does apply some good critical thinking to the factual basis of the exercise.

My gratitude goes to you, Sir!

 

[Pup]

The article is clearly supposed to be presenting a strong case, just to make a point. But one can see an equally overstated case in the response. This really is instructive, as far as how emotionally-invested arguments are presented and responded to.

"There is no amount of wood smoke that is good to breathe. It is at least as bad for you as cigarette smoke, and probably much worse.(One study found it to be 30 times more potent a carcinogen.)".

Ummm, doesn't it depend on how you analyse those sources?. When I puff a cig it's a very direct application straight to my lungs; when a neighbour 50yds downwind gets a heavily diluted whiff of woodstove smoke what's the dose of carcinogen they're receiving?

How does that contradict the quoted part? It seems a non-sequitur.

A diluted whiff of woodstove smoke may not be statistically harmful, but I can't see that it's "good for you," either (at least not physically; maybe psychologically, but cigarettes might be good psychologically for some people too).

I have no idea if the 30x is true, as far as carcinogens involved, but the quoted part didn't talk about typical exposure rates.

If you're making the argument that cigarette smoke is more harmful because typical exposure is higher (smokers inhale it directly, while people tend to avoid inhaling more than a minor whiff of fireplace smoke), that's a very valid point. But it doesn't contradict any of the points in the quoted section, although it's presented as if it does.

"Research shows that nearly 70 percent of chimney smoke reenters nearby buildings".

Actually, trawling the net finds the immediate claim is ".... 70% of chimney smoke can re-enter ...". Naughty man! Finding the origin of the claim we read "Also, about 70% of the outdoor wood smoke reenters the house (T. V. Larson, PhD, University of Washington, Department of Civil Engineering, unpublished data)." My bolding. Under what circumstances would this happen?

Well, I'll confidently state if 70% of the smoke from our stove "reenters the house" we would evacuate in about 10 seconds flat and never use it again. Meanwhile our CO monitor has never registered anything above normal background.

Like you, I find that intuitively wrong, and not supported by the evidence given. However, I'd grant that it might be possible over time. It actually brings up a good question.

Where does smoke go? It can't go "up" indefinitely into outer space. So the particles must come down eventually, unless most of the smoke ever emitted is hovering somewhere in the upper atmosphere. If it comes down eventually, highly diluted, those particles will filter into houses too as they circulate, I'd guess. Is that harmful, if it reaches a certain quantity? Well, that leads into the next issue...

" burn a sufficient quantity of wood and the air in the vicinity of your home will resemble a bad day in Beijing". Depends on what you mean by "sufficient quantity" and "vicinity" I suppose. A few yards from the chimney stack maybe, or if every garden were roaring with bonfires. Neither would be a reasonable condition for making the point. Come winter every occupied house in this area is burning wood domestically and sometimes burning off tree prunings in their nearby fields and it never looks like "a bad day in Beijing".

Cities that pumped industrial smoke out of high smokestacks learned that you can't just do that forever, or smog happens with its attendant health issues.

There's nothing special about woodsmoke compared to industrial smoke. It caused the same problem and prompted similar laws. From 1985:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-02-10/news/8501080513_1_wood-smoke-fireplaces-wood-stoves

"DENVER — Here in the Mile High City it is called 'the brown cloud.' In Albuquerque they call it 'log smog.'It hangs over the casino strip in Reno, stings the eyes of the jet-set skiers at Aspen, Colo., and sets the air-raid sirens wailing several times each winter in Missoula, Mont."

The argument that everybody has woodfires around here and there's no problem, seems as relevant as the argument that someone's grandmother smoked cigarettes and lived to 90 so there's no problem. It ignores the problems that others actually have experienced, and is hopelessly anecdotal.

 

[GlennB]

How does that contradict the quoted part? It seems a non-sequitur.

A diluted whiff of woodstove smoke may not be statistically harmful, but I can't see that it's "good for you," either....

Agreed. My objection was with the way he phrased it, leaving one with the impression that being around a woodburner might have harmful effects comparable with smoking tobacco. Inhaling plenty of relatively dense wood smoke on a regular basis would, I'd imagine, be comparable.

Cities that pumped industrial smoke out of high smokestacks learned that you can't just do that forever, or smog happens with its attendant health issues.

Agreed again, but he didn't qualify his statement. He said " ... will resemble ...".

If he really peppers these dinner parties with unqualified sensationalism based on deeper truths then I'm not surprised he meets with resistance.

 

[GlennB]

But the issue reminds me of a domestic example:

There's a fun comic panel quiz in the UK called "Quite Interesting", in which the host (Stephen Fry) runs interesting trivia, fallacies, urban myths (and sometimes weird truths) and the like past the panel.

Meanwhile, MrsB has spent decades telling me, our kids, and anyone else listening to leave a few hours between a big meal and going swimming or you might get cramps and drown.

One day QI seemed to debunk this notion and I swear I could hear MrsB turning purple. And her reaction went deeper than just turning a funny colour - some choice words were spoken

Too much ego had been invested over the years not to defend the position that seemed so well established. We all tend to do it.

A somewhat related oglaf.com cartoon (contains a little strong language).

 

[GlennB]

Thank you. A well-considered and articulate post that doesn't negate the thought experiment aspect of the exercise, but does apply some good critical thinking to the factual basis of the exercise.

My gratitude goes to you, Sir!

You are too kind Actually, you are probably literally being too kind.

In dissecting Harris's piece I might just be defending our own slightly irrational behaviour in running a log stove. But we'll run the slight risks in the knowledge that we're not disturbing anyone as they also choose to run the same risks. It's like excusing several smokers puffing away together in a remote spot, while knowing that that specific doesn't excuse smoking around people in general.

But Harris's general point is taken, leaving aside the specifics he used to illustrate it.

 

[Piggy]

Dear Sam,

Thanks for believing that you have anything to enlighten me about.

But you see, I'm not stupid or ignorant, and I know all this already.

And I still enjoy my fires, because you see, I realized a long time ago what it would mean for me to stop polluting the earth and harming myself and others, and I came to the realistic conclusion that I was not about to go live that way, even if it were possible.

I freely gave myself up to the Devil's work. I still drive, still buy plastics, still keep pets instead of killing them fresh from the womb.

That's my informed choice.

So stuff it.

 

[Pup]

Dear Sam,

Thanks for believing that you have anything to enlighten me about.

But you see, I'm not stupid or ignorant, and I know all this already.

And I still enjoy my fires, because you see, I realized a long time ago what it would mean for me to stop polluting the earth and harming myself and others, and I came to the realistic conclusion that I was not about to go live that way, even if it were possible.

I freely gave myself up to the Devil's work. I still drive, still buy plastics, still keep pets instead of killing them fresh from the womb.

That's my informed choice.

So stuff it.

This really is fascinating. My personal opinion is similar to Piggy's. We don't have a fireplace in our main home, but we do in a cabin, and I camp and we burn wood outside sometimes, and many neighbors have fireplaces. Most people around here, including us, have a personal woodlot. Despite already being aware of most of the information in the article and acknowledging that in some areas (not where we live currently) woodsmoke is a problem and health hazard, I have no intention of changing my behavior, and feel the minor risk of inhaling some smoke a few times a year is worth it.

But reading the article doesn't make me angry or defensively afraid. It doesn't make me want to tell Sam to stuff it.

That's because I do like to breathe fresh air in public places, and I'm glad the environment is cleaner than it was, say, 50 years ago. I think we should keep an eye on growing problems, so they don't get as bad as things used to be in Pittsburgh or London or Colorado. In my opinion, the best way to avoid that is to discuss information about such topics publicly, weigh the risks vs. rewards, decide accordingly (which may mean take no action), but continually reassess.

Despite having no intention of changing my current habits, my reaction is not defensiveness or anger. But that's the emotional reaction the author was deliberately trying to provoke, and apparently it worked.

 

[Piggy]

This really is fascinating. My personal opinion is similar to Piggy's. We don't have a fireplace in our main home, but we do in a cabin, and I camp and we burn wood outside sometimes, and many neighbors have fireplaces. Most people around here, including us, have a personal woodlot. Despite already being aware of most of the information in the article and acknowledging that in some areas (not where we live currently) woodsmoke is a problem and health hazard, I have no intention of changing my behavior, and feel the minor risk of inhaling some smoke a few times a year is worth it.

But reading the article doesn't make me angry or defensively afraid. It doesn't make me want to tell Sam to stuff it.

That's because I do like to breathe fresh air in public places, and I'm glad the environment is cleaner than it was, say, 50 years ago. I think we should keep an eye on growing problems, so they don't get as bad as things used to be in Pittsburgh or London or Colorado. In my opinion, the best way to avoid that is to discuss information about such topics publicly, weigh the risks vs. rewards, decide accordingly (which may mean take no action), but continually reassess.

Despite having no intention of changing my current habits, my reaction is not defensiveness or anger. But that's the emotional reaction the author was deliberately trying to provoke, and apparently it worked.

I don't disagree with you, and I'm not angry at Sam... don't even know him.

Yet his article was clearly arrogant and condescending.

So I say, without bangs or caps, a simple and heartfelt "stuff it" to the man, who might want to consider that not everyone who burns woodfires is as ignorant he seems to think they are.

It's not his message, it's his delivery that merits my kindly advice to him.

Good day.

 

[asydhouse]

You are too kind Actually, you are probably literally being too kind.

<snip>

Well I was sort of taking shelter under your wings, as I have a stack of branches in the garden waiting for a nice bonfire soon.

Not so worried about my own health as I was feeling a slight guilty frisson over subjecting the neighbourhood to such toxic smoke! I'd known for years that smoke is carcinogenic and a major cause of respiratory disease in places like Kathmandu (listening to the terrible wracking coughs of some poor chap nearby while we were in that city a few years ago was enough to make anyone cringe!... which was just an illustration of the knowledge I already had of that problem with wood burning), but I'd always thought if you burned the fire hot enough to minimise the amount of smoke (by thorough combustion), it was better.

Harris at first made me think we really shouldn't do it, but your measured response put it all into a bit better perspective.

So, successfully rationalised our way out of it then, eh!

But as Pup says, continualy monitoring the state of play and adjusting behaviour accordingly is the wise way to deal with these things... and I am glad that legislation has resulted in a much cleaner environment for us all these days than when London had smogs through coal fires in the 50s, for instance.

 

[GlennB]

Well I was sort of taking shelter under your wings, as I have a stack of branches in the garden waiting for a nice bonfire soon.

It's probably wrong(ish) to dwell too much on Harris's detail, but we here are in an odd situation regarding wood.

We're supposed to prune the trees (mostly olive) in the garden/field out back to keep them productive. We're supposed to burn off the useless smaller twigs in winter so's they're not a fire hazard come summer.

This leaves plenty of more substantial wood that might as well go in a woodstove rather than be wasted on a bonfire that produces the same effluents, afaics. Or pulverise them and use them as mulch, but it would take rather a lot of electricity to run a heavyweight shredder for that kind of volume. I'm not even sure domestic shredders run to 2" diameter branches.

But as Pup says, continualy monitoring the state of play and adjusting behaviour accordingly is the wise way to deal with these things... and I am glad that legislation has resulted in a much cleaner environment for us all these days than when London had smogs through coal fires in the 50s, for instance.

Yep. I was born in London in 1950 and vaguely recall the bad smogs. We switched to coke for fires after the Clean Air Act. Not sure if even that's allowed these days.

 

[TimCallahan]

. . . (snip) . . . Yep. I was born in London in 1950 and vaguely recall the bad smogs. We switched to coke for fires after the Clean Air Act. Not sure if even that's allowed these days.

I remember, when I visited London in 1978, that several of the buildings there were being sandblasted, thereby going from black to tawny in color. I imagine people living there while coal was being used instead of natural gas endured a lot of respiratory illness.

While wood is often seen as cleaner than coal, solid fuels all seem to have a particulate problem.

 

[Craig B]

I remember, when I visited London in 1978, that several of the buildings there were being sandblasted, thereby going from black to tawny in color. I imagine people living there while coal was being used instead of natural gas endured a lot of respiratory illness.

While wood is often seen as cleaner than coal, solid fuels all seem to have a particulate problem.

When I was a child in Glasgow I thought all the buildings were made of black stone. But the older tenements are blond or red, as was revealed after they were cleaned. Wood has a "particulate problem" but that can readily be alleviated by proper stove design, which ensures complete combustion. Open fires, either coal or wood, are unacceptable, at least in urban environments.

 

[GlennB]

I remember, when I visited London in 1978, that several of the buildings there were being sandblasted, thereby going from black to tawny in color.

When I was a child in Glasgow I thought all the buildings were made of black stone. But the older tenements are blond or red, as was revealed after they were cleaned.

Yep, The UK's cities used to be very dirty indeed, and our lungs must have been too.