It isn’t a judges job to decide this, that’s why we have public health officials and scientists.
A judges job is to decide if this law violates other laws.
My reading of this article shows the judge issued a temporary injunction saying the evidence suggested looks like the manufacturers will win. That is something a judge should decide.
It’s the wrong decision but we don’t know what was presented or how.
I believe it hinges on “controversial” but how do you give the controversy any credence when it is only manufacturers with a profit motive to disagree with science?
I’m not sure what’s more dumb
Not acknowledging simple pollutants or
Thinking another warning label will somehow change or fix things
Research shows warning labels reduce health risks.
I can only find research that giant graphic warning labels work but otherwise they do not work at all.
we’re also talking about stoves which are huge purchases so how many people are genuinely going to care about another label when the gas stove is cheaper to buy and operate?
That’s not accurate at all. A known risk weighs on people’s mind. You have to identify a problem before doing something about it.
It’s accurate insofar as people don’t change their buying habits when those warnings aren’t extremely prominent and graphic
They need to just invest in renewable energy and subsidize electric stoves
Not entirely true: some people will change with smaller warnings, even just this news. Others require graphic warnings plastered on the front to change. More warnings, more impact.
I’ve never lived in a home or an apartment with a gas stove. These places have had gas lines, but people weren’t interested.
and on that day, not a single citation was given…
With such organised pushback small steps (stickers) are the only options forward.
There is a huge number of consumers that would believe in basic science but just didn’t get the info about (at least) healthcare risks.
Another warning label is a step. It will raise awareness and convince some. Most importantly it should ease the process for more significant steps.
Given that induction ranges are so hard to find and so much more expensive, I hope the warning can lead to incentive programs to convert. Maybe having a predictable and growing market will help companies with the decisions to manufacture more choices at more reasonable cost
There are people willing to literally die for their gas stoves, for them a warning will have no effect.
The labels are for people who listen to the science.
I love my gas stove (for its simplicity and reasons) but there’s absolutely no question it produces CO, CO2, and other combustion products in addition to the usual VOCs from cooking and I need a really big hood to handle it.
This judge is not qualified.
There is a study that showed Asian women who cook at home were getting lung cancer regardless of the hood.
Source?
Not OP, but it made me curious too, and this is the study I found that sounded like what was mentioned.
From my quick skim of it, it didn’t look at gas vs electric specifically, and I don’t know if biomass fuel use was included in this study or not. Their results seemed to indicate more cooking daily in general, lots of frying, and not using a fume hood all had notable increases in cancer risk per their data collected.
The frying is important because that means they’re also eating that food, and fried food has links to cancer. Frying also releases a lot of VOCs, regardless of heat source.
Yeah, the VOCs seemed to be the main focus. The introduction talked about how most cooking studies have been on people still using biomass fuel in low income regions, and they wanted to look if higher income areas using more modern methods of cooking still suffered the same increased lung cancer risks.
It was just a yellow fucking sticker, not even a ban.
A sticker is better than nothing but yes every jurisdiction should ban gas stoves.
I could see requiring specific ventilation requirements to install gas stoves to reduce the impact, or even ban within city limits, but a complete ban would negatively impact rural residences where electricity is not as accessible and reliable for power.
Why not both? Even before I understood the indoor pollution caused by gas stoves, I never understood how it was legal to have a “vent” blowing supposedly filtered air back into the kitchen. cooking causes pollutants and should always require venting to the outside
It really is amazing how stupid those “vents” are. Why the hell would I care about moving smoke from directly above the stove to blowing against my ceiling?
Wait, really? You’re telling us there are rural areas with unreliable electricity, yet are piped for gas?
Most of those areas use propane (with ~100 to ~500 gallon refillable tank) instead of natural gas, but the stoves are still the same. My parents, sister, and grandmother all have propane stoves.
That is exactly what I was thinking of.
We had an electric stove, but the water and central heating were gas. That way we still had heat if the power went out so the pipes wouldn’t freeze and we could wash things. If the power went out more frequently we might have gone with a gas stove too.
He says there is no evidence that gas stoves cause or contribute to health issues.
Which can be proven by the “judge” directly.
Federal “Court”. There is no law and no court federally. There is a fossil fuel funded lobby group masquerading as a court. It’s not the same thing.
One thing Trump taught us is that you can just ignore this federal judgement and let the state enforce its own laws as it sees fit. Non compliant products can be sent for destruction.
Health Effects Associated with Nitrogen Dioxide
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/subst/0080_summary.pdf
NO2 acts mainly as an irritant affecting the mucosa of the eyes, nose, throat and respiratory tract. Extremely high-dose exposure (as in a building fire) to NO2 may result in pulmonary edema and diffuse lung injury. Continued exposure to high NO2 levels can contribute to the development of acute or chronic bronchitis. Low level NO2 exposure may cause: increased bronchial reactivity in some asthmatics decreased lung function in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease increased risk of respiratory infections, especially in young childrenHome interventions are effective at decreasing indoor nitrogen dioxide concentrations https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4909253/
Abstract
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a by-product of combustion produced by indoor gas appliances such as cooking stoves, is associated with respiratory symptoms in those with obstructive airways disease. We conducted a three-armed randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy of interventions aimed at reducing indoor NO2 concentrations in homes with unvented gas stoves: (i) replacement of existing gas stove with electric stove; (ii) installation of ventilation hood over existing gas stove; and (iii) placement of air purifiers with high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) and carbon filters. Home inspection and NO2 monitoring were conducted at 1 week pre-intervention and at 1 week and 3 months post-intervention. Stove replacement resulted in a 51% and 42% decrease in median NO2 concentration at 3 months of follow-up in the kitchen and bedroom, respectively (P = 0.01, P = 0.01); air purifier placement resulted in an immediate decrease in median NO2 concentration in the kitchen (27%, P < 0.01) and bedroom (22%, P = 0.02), but at 3 months, a significant reduction was seen only in the kitchen (20%, P = 0.05). NO2 concentrations in the kitchen and bedroom did not significantly change following ventilation hood installation. Replacing unvented gas stoves with electric stoves or placement of air purifiers with HEPA and carbon filters can decrease indoor NO2 concentrations in urban homes.
I find it interesting when Judges, such as Justice S. Kato Crews, appear unable to do literature searches, and/or appear unable to read said literature.
From OP’s article, this pertinent review: Review from American Lung Association: https://www.lung.org/getmedia/ce1e7bfa-db92-42a3-9ff4-3044324ec2c9/ICF_Impacts-of-Residential-Combustion_Addendum.pdf
There’s a lot of blame going towards gas stove users but there is also a concerted effort from the gas industry with propaganda and fighting off these regulations.
Yeah. I don’t care if you like your gas stove, I understand that I’m controversial in preferring electric, but the health data is increasingly clear, you are taking health risks when you use one. You should be free to make that choice, but the gas industry is actively propagandizing this unhealthy choice.
No. The stove causes pollution. This is the same as smoking around children. And it’s not addictive. Getting rid of it should be easy.
Uhm who buys gas stoves anymore in the first place? Electric stoves are cleaner, more efficient (e.g. induction cooking) and don’t cause random house explosions.
Is this an US only thing because gas is so cheap there?
If you search on the internet there is a whole ass culture war for keeping the gas stoves alive by the fossil fuel industry
I have a very naive question that I’m hoping somebody can help with
Are there electric stoves that maintain temperature? Mine just turns on and off at different rates, so it can be difficult to work with
That’s the only reason I would want a gas stove. A gas oven would drive me crazy for like 5 different reasons
Are there electric stoves that maintain temperature? Mine just turns on and off at different rates, so it can be difficult to work with
That’s the my only gripe with electrical stoves. There many good reasons against gas stoves but keeping a steady temperature and cooking with woks are nearly impossible on any other kind of stove I know.
I think it’s only really old stoves that have gas ovens (at least around here). In these you’d put in a metal sheet or a brick to regulate heat. Newer gas stoves come with electric ovens. Electric cookers are okay, but you have to cook with them five minutes in the future. And induction ones seemed too quantized to me, like they switch on and off all the time
I think any modern stove will work that way.
Something that helps mitigate it is using pots and pans with more thermal mass. Cast iron is great for that. I know not everybody wants to deal with it so really any pots or pans that are on the thicker side will be better.
I notice it a lot more when I’m forced to use the dirt cheap thin non stick pans.
Yes, there are induction stoves.
These use magnets to heat the pan directly, instead of heating an element which then conducts heat into the pan.
Since they don’t rely on resistive heating, they can actually be controlled in a much more precise manner. Maybe under the hood this actually involves cycling of the heat, but the result is something that for all intents and purposes “maintains temperature”
You can only use pans made of certain metals, which is the main drawback besides expense. No aluminum
Having a gas stove myself I can tell you there are only 2 temperatures to hot and way to hot. There is no low and medium so what you will end up doing is cycling the heat in and off yourself all the time.
Further there are many different electric stoves. From the old just an electric heater over infrared based to induction based. Due to having a lot of different homes in my life I have cooked with everything and all electric stoves are way easier and maintain heat way better than a gas stove and you can have low and medium heat.
My gas stove has one really big burner for when you need extra heat, and one really small burner for super low heat. It’s pretty nifty.
Being cheap is a big part of it.
But also, gas is a superior cooking medium to any but the most high quality electric cooktops. Gas is instantly responsive, whereas induction heating elements take time to cool off and heat up.
When I was younger living in apartments, I had some really shitty electric stoves. Terrible consistency, hotspots, took forever to heat up and stayed hot for ages.In vancouver people love them even though gas is expensive as fuck here. I have a single portable burner that can use cans or hose connect to gas plumbing that I use once every two years to cook with a wok but other than that even my electric coil stove is preferred but I miss the induction stove from my old place and the absolute sorcery that it was.
Oh yeah, just remembered the US also has the issue with their 110v circuits, not the best for a stove and they may need to run new cables and stuff to support one or have to have a built in battery in the stove.
technology connections has two great videos on the topic https://youtu.be/CVLLNjSLJTQ
I think it’s pretty common to have 240v outlets in the kitchen for exactly this reason. Same with electric clothes dryers.
“No safe amount” does not mean dangerous and this dumb phrase has escalated in popularity to trigger fear. For many instances it just means detectable. There is no safe amount of radiation, but it’s all around us. I’m not going to die of radiation poisoning tomorrow.
It’s why California posts cancer warnings on coffee shops and other dumb prop 65 requirements. It’s blown so out of proportion the warning has lost all meaning.
Concentration of a compound is essential information, but not taken into consideration. Post that info on these dumb warnings so we can laugh at them.
I am all for warning labels but they have to be legitimate for dangerous concentrations, not fear mongering.
There is no safe amount of radiation
This isn’t even a little bit true. There is definitely a safe amount of radiation
Ahh, but see you fell for the tricky wordplay. There are safe levels which is a concentration, but not a safe amount which is simply detectable.
The EPA tests and regulates safe levels of lead, but there is still no safe amount.
Level is exposure. Amount is accumulating.
There is no safe amount of lead but there is absolutely a safe amount of radiation.
Radiation is part of our biology. We are bathed in. To claim there is no safe amount of safe level is wrong.
Our biology has no use for lead. People who freak out over radiation will downplay lead.
Ohh nice rebuttal. Much respect.
I considered accumulation more pertaining to levels than detectable but, although it applies to both for some substances, concentration is just a snapshot in time.
Wow thanks. I love problems that keep me up at night.
No safe amount means that any exposure increases your risk of bad outcomes. The increase may be negligible, but if it’s detectable, it’s there. There are many compounds that do have a safe level (like water) but may be hazardous above a specific level.
A more useful metric is often the number of excess cancers (or deaths) caused by different levels of exposure. But that requires nuance which is hard to communicate effectively.
You just pointed out my problem with this. If it’s negligible, it doesn’t need a warning label. All sorts of things are detectable; we have amazingly sensitive technology. But it doesn’t mean it’s at harmful levels. I want to know harmful levels, not detectable.
We want there to be meaning behind detectable, but science simply doesn’t work that way; it is a poor indicator of risk.
It is for the very reason I have suggested the usage of micromorts should be standard in research pertaining to safe levels of exposure and government health warnings.
If I am more likely to die walking down the street, then why do I care about the radioactive potassium in bananas killing me?
