Saw this on news.com.au ‘Worse than passive smoking’: Warning about gas stoves and was wondering what the general consensus was.
Due to lease renewal soon and thinking whether I should consider a hotplate or induction cooktop place!
Are Gas Stove Tops Cancerous?
RickyPoontang on 23/06/2023 - 09:54
Last edited 23/06/2023 - 10:03 by 1 other user
Last edited 23/06/2023 - 10:03 by 1 other user
Comments
@dasa: blackout=outage
2013 blackout = 2023 blackout X 1.4
2013 blackout more bigger than 2023
Make sense? Or math not too strong with you?@dasa: There are fewer blackouts than ever so why bother worrying about what we do during one?
It’s not like gas lets me see at night during a blackout. It doesn’t save the cheese and milk in my fridge during a blackout. 🤷♂️
@2025: we were talking about heating such as heat pumps they cannot turn on the lights or charge the fridge either last time I looked.
@dasa: Yeah good point - with every gas furnace I’ve owned, I’ve often wondered what powers its ignition. And its fan. I figured that it was magic.
Why I can’t start it during a blackout, and why it cuts off when there is a black out, I just figured it was because magic and blackouts don’t mix.
After thinking about it, turns out it needs electricity for the fan so that it doesn’t overheat. Amazing!
@2025: never heard of piezo ignitions that come in various forms for such a reason. I even have 2 that I use when we have no power.
@dasa: No it’s not all I have - I also have clean, healthy, fresh air.
Let me guess - you removed the batteries from your carbon monoxide alarm because it always went off just as you were trying to sleep!??
But to answer your question - what to do during a black out?
Grab a blanket - It’ll be over soon. I dunno actually. Hasn’t really happened in ages.
European governments are moving away from gas, which is borderline suicidal and cannot be justified as a rational decision.
Lol. Heat pumps are far cheaper and more efficient than gas heaters, even northern Europe. Electrification also allows energy independence, which is very handy when your local energy-exporting autocrat threatens to hold gas supply hostage in response to sanctions. You know, the exact scenario that happened late last year.
@SydStrand: I'm all for electricity independence, but that's hardly been happening in the 'democratic' western world, hasn't it? France shutting down nukes, brown outs, no fracking. Didn't you get your letter last week saying electricity is going up 25% in cost, in already one of the highest electricity paying nations?
Gas is a reliable and cheap source, if your pipeline isn't sabotaged. To be fair, Trump did warn back in 2017 that Germany/Europe being reliant on Russian gas is foolish and hypocritical. Putin never stopped the flow of gas, it was financial sanctions against HIM that stopped FX being settled, plus stupid things like Canadian private companies not servicing and return core infrastructure items. Very strange that you think Putin would stop his number 1 export.
Heatpumps and induction stoves aren't worth jack if you don't have electricity
Good thing burning firewood and cow dung is classified as 'renewable'
Do you support using coal as an electricity source?@gfjh567gh3: No one claimed that Russian ban on gas exports wasn't a predictable response to sanctions. No one should be freely trading with a dictator who invades their neighbour. The fact that Russia is still on the UN Security council is grotesque.
It's a good thing that Europe has been more successful in their transition to renewables than we are, and Russian sanctions have only accelerated this. Over 50% of Germany's electrical supply is now from renewable sources.
You're conflating two different things: renewable vs clean. Burning of dung and responsibly-sourced wood is indeed renewable, but it doesn't mean we have to do it in our homes. I support coal burning power stations as a necessary stopgap until cleaner sources scale up. Per unit of energy, a coal burning power station is more efficient and clean than burning fossil fuels in private dwellings, and it's supplied via an electrical grid which can also accommodate future renewable sources, vs ageing, leaky, and dirty pipes which carry nothing but gas.
I've switched to induction cooktop, heat pump hot water heater, and split system heaters. Most of the heavy lifting is timed to maximise solar usage and the rest winds up costing <$15 a month after feed in. The gas tap is disconnected, so no daily supply fee. If I stumped for a home battery, it would easily cover night time usage. A 25% hike won't hurt me.
Wait till OP finds out his kitchen cabinets and made out of fibreboard soaked formaldehyde and arsenic, and his bathroom is lined in asbestos.
faints
The reason articles like this are in the media, & so called "studies" are being done that find harms from gas stoves, is because, all over the western world, gas is effectively being phased out because of the shift to so called renewables/electric. Note that Russia has invested heavily in, & built out massive infrastructure, for gas.
The entities warning you about so called "climate change" are the ones who are poisoning life & manipulating atmospheric conditions through cloud seeding, solar radiation management techniques including stratospheric aerosol injection & phased array (the small cells being rolled out for 4G/5G are also phased array) radar systems capable of ionospheric heating.
We are being mocked & taken for fools.
so called "studies"
What makes this study a so called one? In fact, it's worse than that, there's even the " " scare quotes around the word…
Why is this a so called "study" instead of being a study?
Because news.com AND the "study" suggest Benzene and Cancer are linked in a "Cause-Effect" mechanism …
The study does not point out that there is only an association between benzene and cancer (and a pretty weak one at that) …
ASSOCIATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION - an important "scientific" pillar ;)
Any paper / article that conflates the two are fairly "so called "studies"" …
Aha, so you've read the study. I couldn't find it, can you send me a link to it, so I can also read it online?
@Crow K: It aint rocket surgery to find, or just trying to be a typical keyboard high and mighty know better warrior?
Correlation not being equal to causation is an important scientific pillar, but in this case there is an established causal relationship. Benzene is well accepted to cause cancer, and a decent amount is understood about how it does so.
@iactuallydontknow: Link? Proof? or just another rando on the internets claims ;)
Why ask?
Because "Causation" in living humans is VERY difficult to prove IN VIVO due to ethics!
(it might occur in vitro, but that excludes immune systems, defense systems and liver enzymes)@7ekn00: @7ekn00 its quite transparent that you've not so much as even googled it, but here are some sources I think are high quality.
You can download a pdf here which is a Lancet evaluation of the carcinogenicity of benzene, as provided by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the WHO.
https://publications.iarc.fr/Book-And-Report-Series/Iarc-Mon…
Page 297 they state
There is sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of benzene. Benzene causes acute myeloid leukaemia in adults.
In case for some reason you still think you know better, here is the US National Toxicology Program profile on benzene:
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/roc/conten…
Here is another paper cited by 238 in the Carcinogenesis Journal
https://academic.oup.com/carcin/article/33/2/240/2464247
The reality is that there is abundant evidence out there establishing a causal relationship using a combination of epidemiological studies and in vitro studies. You're right is more difficult to establish because obviously we don't want scientists to be trying to give people cancer, but its not nearly as difficult as you are insinuating.
In epidemiological studies they test the probability that benzene exposure and cancer co-occur by chance, when that probability is consistently vanishingly small across many methodologies and researchers, we can assert a causal relationship. This in combination with in-vitro research provides a clear and robust picture of the carcinogenic processes.
@iactuallydontknow: Still an association, notice, you can give 100% rats benzene and not get 100% cancer …
So still associative, not causal ;)
Also, read the definition they use for "carcinogenicity" - ASSOCIATED WITH RISK (ie. not "causal")
It's also the same muppets that deem meat carcinogenic (then how did we possibly evolve eating it for 300,000 years?!?)
It's also like confusing smoking as a "causal" affect for cancer, it's still just highly associated, as is obesity :/
@7ekn00: @7ekn00 So you're saying that the first link saying "Benzene causes acute myeloid leukaemia in adults" is not causal.
Causality doesn't ever require a 1:1 relationship. Setting your curtains on fire isn't always going to burn down your house, but by your logic they are just associated events. Setting your curtains on fire wouldn't cause your house to burn down?
Obviously smoking does cause cancer but I'm going to leave that because I mistook you as genuinely wanting evidence but evidently something else is your motivation.
I'm satisfied now that people who may read your comment have some context to put around your blatant misinformation.
EDIT: I see you've added a line about meat, I didn't respond to that because at the time I responded it wasn't there.
Causality doesn't ever require a 1:1 relationship.
Um, it does and that's the scientific criteria! What else do you think "cause" means?!?
I slap my hand on water, it "causes" a wave. It's cause and effect. The wave doesn't happen sometimes and not other times.
Setting your curtains on fire wouldn't cause your house to burn down?
I will let you answer your own question:
Setting your curtains on fire isn't always going to burn down your house, but by your logic they are just associated events.
As I said, you are getting yourself confused between associated and causal ;)
@7ekn00: Could you please highlight what you are referring to with your link. It appears to just contradict you.
It actually specifically refutes under probabilistic causation the deterministic approach which would mean war doesn't cause deaths. Quite comically it also uses smoking causing cancer as an example. It goes onto also explain when experimental interventions are infeasible or illegal, and how we rely upon probabilistic approaches to causality.
That wave example is cause and effect, as is my curtain example.
EDIT: Again you've edited your comment. Your line of logic here is that you assert that cause has to be 1:1, which it doesn't. You go on to say my example is association not causality because you said that causality requires a 1:1 relationship. Perhaps not the most robust argument.
Why is this a so called "study" instead of being a study?
Because most of the "science" published these days is, in one word, garbage. Angell reluctantly came to that conclusion, as have others. "Science" in todays world is more accurately described as "$cience".
That's disappointing. I wonder where our new technology and discoveries are coming from if science (sorry, "science") is basically now just garbage.
@Crow K: It's called publish or perish …
It means if scientists don't publish want the money donors want to see, they get no more money ;)
It's a great way to ensure there are no credible opposing articles to discussions! And you would be surprised in how many fields it has happened too (eg. LDL cholesterol = bad, meat = cancer, CO2 = the only molecule that drives atmospheric temperatures, etc)
@7ekn00: wait, that doesn't mean that the science itself is bad, just that the people paying for the research are the problem?
dude clearly said science was .. sorry, "science" was garbage now.
so if "science" is garbage now, what are we using instead?
@LVlahov: I remember reading the viewport installation people would only certify it holding to pressure to 1300 psi, whereas the Titanic wreck itself as at 4000 psi, and the greedy CEO basically said "whatever" and ran the tours anyway (because people signing waivers and international waters laws etc)
Not sure how this is a condemnation of "science" itself, though.
Wow, I wish I could dismiss any science/information that doesn't agree with my current opinions and worldviews.
It would make the entire world conform to my current understanding of it, and I would never need to learn anything new.
@ForkSnorter: That's the funny part, you can find scientific articles to support ANY opinions and worldviews ;)
Look at vegan vs carnist or flat earth vs round earth debates, they all have "science" articles to support their views :P
That's the funny part, you can find scientific articles to support ANY opinions and worldviews ;)
Not really. If you dig deep enough and apply the principles of science, the information can only lead you in one direction (the truth).
In areas where we lack reliable knowledge and scientific consensus, any proper scientific paper will state the limitations of the information obtained by the study in unambiguous language. If they don't, then you know it's bogus science or a low-quality study. All bogus/low quality studies are eventually corrected by high quality studies. This is how human knowledge grows: by applying the principles of science.
Science is simply the acquisition of reliable knowledge.
@ForkSnorter: Oh, like a closed circle!
I suppose you could then build a way of categorising the information in the world that
- anything that supported your world view was proof of your world view and
- anything that didn't support your world view would be artifical/fake and made up by people to try and trick you into no longer following your world view
Of course, we'd need some sort of name for this concept. That there's a giant network of conspiracies out there to undermine your beliefs and theories.
Hmm.
Jokes aside, I feel like the conspiracy theorist heavy pushback on this article is because it's throwing shade at cookers (and we know how they protect their own)
Wow, I wish I could dismiss any science/information that doesn't agree with my current opinions and worldviews.
It would make the entire world conform to my current understanding of it, and I would never need to learn anything new.
This is what the mainstream has been doing. The corporations fund the research through various channels like "not for profit" foundations, charities, institutes, & the like. Anything or anyone that shows industry in a bad light is targeting for defunding or "debunking".
Good science these days is ridiculed. See Chris Exley's work on aluminium for example. Pushed out of Keele for doing honest & good quality science, but because his teams work was a danger to corporate interests they made sure he was vilified, ridiculed & debunked so that the "masses" wouldn't connect the dots.
An example of someone who is held up to do "good science" for the "greater good" is Hotez. Anyone following the twitter fallout with Rogan & RFK Jr over the last few days? Lol. He's a hack, but the image is one of competence & brilliance. With awards to match.
That is how the population is made to believe up is down & black is white.
Good science these days is ridiculed.
I think you need to learn a bit about confirmation bias.
You have decided what you think is the truth and that's all you're searching for: more information to confirm your view of the world. You're not interested in objectively weighing up all the data for and against any idea from a completely neutral perspective.
Wow, I wish I could dismiss any science/information that doesn't agree with my current opinions and worldviews.
It would make the entire world conform to my current understanding of it, and I would never need to learn anything new.
I wish it was confirmation bias.
Unfortunately, the experience of many researchers in many different fields all point to the same result. Good science is being undermined & pushed aside for "$cience" that advances corporate interests. You only have to look at the field of so called vaccine research to realise this. Ever heard anyone say "Vaccination has saved millions of lives."? If you have, then you should know, from a "scientific" point of view, that statement is meaningless. There is no way to prove or disprove it. It can be MODELED only. Garbage.
Then what happened to polio and smallpox?
p) still exists under a different classification. it isn't an "infectious" organism. It's poisoning by pesticide residues in various forms, or in contaminated food or environment, or the obvious one of polio vaccines themselves. Do you know how products like DDT killed mosquitoes? By…..neuronal death, spasms, PARALYSING them. Coincidence.
s) it was rife when people in developing industrial cities were exposed to all sorts of poisons. it eventually cleared up in those areas.None of it should of been attributable to "vaccines" but all of it is by the mainstream.
s) it was rife when people in developing industrial cities were exposed to all sorts of poisons. it eventually cleared up in those areas.
timeline of when those industrial cities exposed all those poisons
timeline of when those industrial cities exposed all those poisons(cdc.gov)
Lol, you really think the CDC is giving you objective impartial advice, after the last 4 years?
You also think people weren't exposed to "poisons" thousands of years ago? What about lead usage in Roman times, or the art of metalworking & the various toxic fumes workers were exposed to? How about mining? You do know miners are at high risk of a plethora of illnesses? And then there's coal burning, people moving from clean rural land & living in squalor in major industrial centers post industrial revolution.
Nothing the CDC tells you is the whole truth. The entire "infectious" disease paradigm can be viewed as a convenient cover for other causes of illness. But you have to develop an inquiring & questioning mind to see it!
poisons poisons chemicals poisons
You don't like my link, fair enough. Before we go any further, can you share a link to support your ideas about the industrial city poisons?
I know you don't like the CDC webpage (you're right, they're probably spreading misinformation about the preceding centuries, because that's how they make all their money I guess), but there's probably another page that suits you - maybe an embedded youtube clip of some guy sitting in his car yelling into the camera for 20 minutes about the WEF and chemtrails?
Before we go any further, can you share a link to support your ideas about the industrial city poisons?
Given the general poor quality of linked articles on this forum, here's one that fits right in, & doesn't even cover basics like sanitation or vaccination….
https://listverse.com/2017/07/16/10-dreadful-ways-the-victor…
Notice number 2….GAS!!!
It's the tip of the iceberg. You're not a baby, I shouldn't have to spoon feed you.
I know you don't like the CDC webpage (you're right, they're probably spreading misinformation about the preceding centuries, because that's how they make all their money I guess)
The CDC's remit is to encourage the uptake of vaccination.
It is also co-responsible for evaluating safety data.
Geberding, after she left the CDC, went to work for Merck.
Gottlieb, after leaving the FDA, ends up on Pfizer's board.
Shrug, nothing to see.
@mrdean: I couldn't see the part of the listicle that explained how the poisons (and GAS!) created the skin scarring and symptoms of smallpox, but maybe I didn't have enough tabs about the Great Reset and the Rothschild family open simultaneously.
Thanks for the breadcrumbs, I'm off to watch a three hour youtube documentary about Sept 11 and the Elders of Zion.
@core101: "Learn The Risk is an American anti-vaccine group founded in 2015. It is known for its billboard campaigns asserting vaccines are responsible for a large number of deaths of young children. Arguments against vaccination are contradicted by overwhelming scientific consensus about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learn_The_Risk
And a press release for a talk labelled "Is Your Health For $ale"! Always encouraging to see serious discussions replace S's with $, like you know, scientists and technical experts usually do: https://www.send2press.com/wire/join-brandy-vaughan-of-learn…
lol why not just get RFK Jr to write "vaccines bad >:|" on a Post-It note and hand it to me while you're making your incredibly persuasive non-biased presentation?
anyway, thanks for dropping in with your conspiracy theory contribution. make sure you forget to do so next time, yeah?
@Crow K: Wikipedia quality is sub-standard - biased, and therefore it cannot be cited in academia.
Real science is based on the scientific method, and not on consensus, which is essentially a vote by select group of people on the payroll.
To some people it may appear that the real scientific method is biased and should be ignored, as it conflicts with their core-belief system.
Just by pointing out the timeline, some critical thinkers expect persuasive amounts of information be given to them, on a silver platter, with the burden-of-proof cited for everything, just so if they feel like it, they may run it through Wikipedia, fact-checkers, The Guardian, etc. to see if it is true. lol@core101: Wikipedia is a collection of articles that have a listing of sources/footnotes at the bottom of each one. To dismiss it without commenting on the (accuracy or not) of supporting documents therein is a facile mistake that shows your bias.
Also, cooked conspiracy theorists who tell people they can get out of hoon speeding tickets by accusing the police/Premier of treason are not a credible source of information.
Your contribution has been noted, please stop sharing "alternate theories" with me directly.
I found this timeline(learntherisk.org) of diseases and when vaccines where introduced for the disease.
You make good points. It has been shown vaccines were introduced towards the end of the decline of mortality for illnesses like measles. The establishment then credits the vaccines for the success when the reality is they don't know what would of happened if vaccines hadn't been introduced. In other words there is no way of knowing if the decline in deaths would have continued on the downward slope. Personally, I suspect the decline would of continued in western first world countries.
The skeptics use the argument that the morbidity of illnesses like measles are just as important a metric to consider, in addition to mortality. And here is the rub. It is undoubtedly true vaccines have substantially decreased the incidence of measles, to the point where it could be considered eradicated. However what the skeptics & the authorities do not do, indeed something they absolutely do not wish to consider at all, because of their tunnel vision of vaccination, is the ramification of eradicating a childhood illness like measles. What are the real trade offs?
Are there benefits to overcoming the illness as a child? What are the real ramifications of injecting multiple compounds into a child multiple times?
The authorities do not want to know, which is why the benefits of vaccines are exaggerated & the harms under reported. Studies could easily be done to ascertain whether vaccines are worth the trade off. Even doing something basic like recording & following babies for the first 2 years of life….how many times vaccinated vs unvaccinated babies have doctor & hospital visits would give some idea of the harms. But the authorities will never do it, or allow it.
None of it should of been
You're not even literate, and you want me to trust your rewriting of the history of medicine based on a few conspiratorial articles you've read?
You're not even literate, and you want me to trust your rewriting of the history of medicine based on a few conspiratorial articles you've read?
I didn't ask you to trust me on anything.
@ForkSnorter: I dunno, I was somewhat bemused by the retcon "and actually vaccines have never existed" plot twist.
Kind of like the Sixth Sense, with Bruce Willis playing the vaccine?
Even if the shift to renewable is done to spite Russia, so what?
it's cheaper, causes less deaths and diseases, and doesn't run out.All this climate change denying is a plot from the lobbyists of non-renewable energy conglomerates that don't want their reign to end.
Remember how cigarette companies knew about the dangers, but hid and downplayed their own research for their financial benefits?Renewables offer LESS dense energy, and are still beset by the problem of diminishing returns. I.e. the more we dig up rare earth minerals to put to use in energy generation, the further we have to dig to get the next lot, delivering us, JUST LIKE non-renewable sources, a requirement to input every increasing energy, for a diminishing return.
They don't tell you the full picture to prevent panic, but it means really significant things for human civilisation.
Signed a qualified sustainability consultant and founder of S**terra Solar.
lol I work in climate science you are assuming a much higher level of competence and coordination from governments than exists. But yes, you are being mocked and come across a fool
The particles from car brakes cause cancer at a much worse level and that is never spoken about. Some studies say they account for 30% of foreign particles we breathe in and car exhaust only accounts for 15%.
:O
Exactly! I"ve known about this for yonks.
This is why I don't slow down in school zones, officer. So the kids don't get cancer. And they learn to dodge!
Literal man is here! He takes everything literally… in one single bound.
Don't listen to the overconfident people who say this is clickbait news.
Cancer is all about risk factors. You can't say categorically that something will give you cancer. But a lot of things do increase the risk.
Including: processed meat, asbestos, cigarettes (and other forms of smoking), alcohol, diesel exhaust fumes, and yes, gas from cooktops.
If you close the windows and leave a gas cooktop on for a few hours, even if it's burning, your house will stink of gas. You will especially notice this if you step outside for a few minutes then come back into the house. Not all the gas is burnt. A lot of it leaks, and fills the air with toxic substances.
There is no way I'll ever install a gas cooktop in my house again. Standing next to my old gas cooktop while cooking used to give me a sore throat. Since switching to electric and induction, no more sore throat.
Every person living near a city or built up area where prescribed burns occur, and subsequent smoke accumulates is breathing in and being impacted by CARCINOGENIC ( CANCER CAUSING ) particles. The authorities know it, the EPA gauges show it, and yet? The billion dollar burning industry runs the show, and the govt is looking the other way.The ABC ran some radio stories and articles on it last year, and then 'ffft' >>silence. (google it) And in it's place this gas bullshit campaign.
The ABC is a lefty org any more, it's a trainwreck scrabbling for stories like Folbbigg so they can take the credit for freeing someone based on even more spurious science theory than the gas scam .
These are not conspiracies .It 'was' there on their site. The words carcinogen seemed to have miraculously erased themselves.
Sajni Gudka from the University of WA's School of Population and Global Health was interviewed and expressed alarm about the carcinogenic particles lodging in peoples lungs. The EPA had air quality monitors matching the concern, but 'alas' they seemed to go offline until the smoke cleared. Go figure
Are the gas stove alarmists concerned about days of the worst carcinogens on earth closing in on NY from Canadian fires. (cricket noises)Are the gas stove alarmists concerned about days of the worst carcinogens on earth closing in on NY from Canadian fires. (cricket noises)
Are you a New Yorker?
Nope.
Here's one article that is still out there.>
(It was based on a radio interview) It ruffled too many fire industry and govt dept feathers)https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-02/perth-smoke-haze-prom…
BTW The ABC has since bowed to govt pressure it seems, and now they have since played the 'look over their card' by steering all focus away from the KNOWN carcinogen impacts, and swapped it for a shiny 'early warning system'. I think that's called 'govt trying to head off litigation' or shut down scrutiny debate.
I "think" the scientist involved in the report has probably had her study focus, 'redirected'
and watched from afar?
https://gfmc.online/2021/05-2021/perths-prolonged-smoke-haze…
Yeah smoke is carcinogenic. This is well known, it's not some conspiracy. It's all about degree of risk. You are at higher risk living next to something producing a lot of smoke or gas, etc., including busy roads. The further away, the lower the risk.
But think about this. Which are you more worried about? Prescribed burns 10km or 100km from your house 2 or 3 times a year, OR standing 10cm from a burning gas stove half an hour a day for your entire life?
Mate if the stove is OK why he alarm bells. Watch this space, monoxide alarms and laws coming our way, while the days of certain sized cancer time bombs find their way into hundreds & thousands of lungs in one hit.
The joke that every person can avoid this smoke is deranged stuff. Take shelter while the particles creep through cracks,materials cars vents etc? The reality is we can't avoid the risk when it is across a 100+km front that hangs around for days multiple times a year.
Give me the gas stove any day. It's my choice.
And the impacts from diesels with doctored EGRs and other things like CATS in urban situations also blows the nasty gas theory to bits.
If it's about KNOWN risks , we are being sold a pup, and this gas one is a 3 legged one@[Deactivated]: One mans cat is another mans tree.
I'll try planting a few cats, but just cos you asked nicely
Foil hat discounts required…
Thanks for the excuse to order Uber Eats for dinner.
Saw this on news.com.au
'nuff said
could have been worse and come from the abc
As a blanket rule: don't trust anything too seriously from mass media, especially re scientific studies. Mass media is for entertainment/drama and nothing more. If it is getting you anxious, stop using it.
If you really want to get cancer in your home, then get a nice wood-burning stove or open fire.
Gas is squeaky clean compared to the crap pumped out by burning woodBushfires and prescribed burn smokes are different how?
They’re worse.
Think of living in Armadale in the winter.
Your point being?Point?
If you claim to be concerned about the health impacts why pluck the low hanging fruit. This mythical storyline about gas is one for the willingly terrified.
The people peddling this crap are in it for the relevance and the money.@Protractor: Just read your comment above about prescribed burning & nauseous woodsmoke. I am in full agreement with you mate, so don’t attack a sympathiser.
I live in an urban area where I choke every winter due to woodsmoke. On windless, clear winter days the Rural Arsenist Service choke me to death with their “Hazardous Respiration Burning”.
Meanwhile the neighbourhood I live in is full of folk who think it’s “wonderful “ to have a real fire, not realising they’re killing theirs, and their neighbours kids.
I know this stuff. I’m not fighting you!Just checked & I see that various articles about Asthma cases in Armadale (due to toxic woodsmoke) & other published articles have conveniently disappeared from ABC. You might be right, there’s an industry/business push to prevent this stuff making it into the news.
Instead let’s focus on getting News Dot Com to tell everyone how dangerous gas can be@cashless: From my understanding the wood smoke issue is in 'Armidale', not 'Armadale'.
You can still find articles about woodsmoke in Armidale. Great town otherwise.
There is no risk from gas, and it's also by far the best way to cook.
Finally, an adult in the room.
Gas has been worse than electric cooktop for decades. Gas literally does nothing better than a electric cooktop, except for lighting a ciggie.
Gas is slower, inaccurate, unsafe, breaks down, harder to clean and takes up bench space. Gas was much better than electric cooktops but electric cooktops overtook gas a long time ago.
Old electric ceramic cooktops are what most people have experience with, and they're awful. IMO those are significantly worse than induction (and gas).
But induction specifically is so much better than gas - heats instantly, and extremely efficient energy transfer. A gas cooktop loses 68% of its energy and heat to the surrounding atmosphere. Since induction heats the pan itself and uses electricity, its energy loss is only about 15%. It also responds instantly to temperature adjustments (although, this isn't as visible as gas as there's no flame).
The kicker - it boils water in half the time. Can't wait to eventually replace our gas cooktop with induction, once it gets cheap enough.
But induction specifically is so much better than gas
It could be just swapping out one danger for another. It may be better than gas in the long term, it may be worse. What's for certain, money will be made in the meantime, & denial of harms.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-19/pacemaker-users-stay-…
@mrdean: That article says:
"As soon as you step away, that impact is removed. It shouldn't lead to anything untoward"
"The magnetic field is extremely local to the cooktop… what our evidence that we've seen is that there's not likely to actually be a health risk"There's no evidence that induction is bad for you - the technology's been around since the 70s. I'd follow doctor's instructions if I had a pacemaker, but otherwise it's the safest cooktop option by far.
Old electric ceramic cooktops are what most people have experience with, and they're awful.
Why are they awful?
@[Deactivated]: This is just my opinion, but ceramic hot plates are super slow to heat up compared to induction and gas and slow to respond to to temperature changes. The surface heats rather than the pan, and therefore it can stay hot for a while after it turns off, creating more of a burn risk. The energy efficiency isn't amazing either.
It's better for emissions than gas, but in terms of cooking, it's the least pleasant to use in my experience.
@2025: That answers nothing, just shows there were outages.so I said seeing a lot more of that doesn't dispel what I said dh what bumhurt your little mate and he still hasn't answered my first question.