Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gas utilities used tobacco tactics to avoid gas stove regulations

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 220 posts

Re: Gas utilities used tobacco tactics to avoid gas stove regulations

#121

Post by korhojoa »

nephy wrote: post #43
ahoka wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you also just dig a hole in your backyard and dump used oil there?

No, but my electric company buried tons of coal ash that leaked into the surrounding water table.

Sounds like they should be held responsible for environmental harm, perhaps part of their their restitution could be installing a bunch of renewable energy sources (kind of like dieselgate). Seems awfully dumb to let them not do anything about it, but doesn't seem like a valuable counterargument to stay with a energy method that directly contributes to poorer health.

Re: Gas utilities used tobacco tactics to avoid gas stove regulations

#122

Post by weathergod »

lucidguppy wrote: post #27

I switched to electric radiant. I miss being able to manipulate the pan yes. I like that it's more efficient. Gas kicked a LOT of heat into the kitchen. I like that it didn't scorch the side of the saucepans. Ultimately I switched to avoid burning fossil fuels. Every bit counts.

[flagged]

Re: Gas utilities used tobacco tactics to avoid gas stove regulations

#123

Post by belorn »

nephy wrote: post #47
kccqzy wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why we need a carbon tax. Your gas bill needs to be much higher.

As opposed to my electricity, which is mostly produced by a coal plant?

Impose a law that forbids the constructions of new fossil fuel power plants, and any existing plants must be decommissioned when their current planned operational life-time has expired.

Either the market will start to invest in non-fossil fueled alternatives when demand exceed supply, or people will elect governments that step in and invest in non-fossil fueled alternatives. Either way, the coal, oil and gas plant can not continue to be part of the European energy grid.

Re: Gas utilities used tobacco tactics to avoid gas stove regulations

#124

Post by saalweachter »

CharlieDigital wrote: post #66
dangus wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what about their kids that didn’t choose to get asthma? And what about the adults who wouldn’t have chosen a gas stove if they had balanced and factual information rather than information tainted by corporate influence? https://youtu.be/gCMzjJjuxQI

When my daughter was younger, I thought she might have respiratory issues from being born premature due to mild coughing fits almost her entire life. Tested for allergies and nothing came up. When she was 5, we moved to a new house. When I read the recent research, I realized that this coughing declined around when we moved. The difference? The old house had a microwave over the stove and vented inside. The new house…

It blows my mind that the fake microwave hood is a thing.

It's barely filtration, yet it successfully masquerades as ventilation.

Re: Gas utilities used tobacco tactics to avoid gas stove regulations

#125

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

> "In my field, we know who those groups are, and we know that work that's done by those groups is not really trustworthy because they have never taken a stance on the side of public health," says Laura Vandenberg, professor of environmental health sciences at University of Massachusetts Amherst.

This sounds like we disagree with any science that disagrees with our preferred policy.

Notice how she does not criticize their methods or analysis, but rather the conclusions.

This is not how science should be done.

Re: Gas utilities used tobacco tactics to avoid gas stove regulations

#126

Post by nemo44x »

sasmithjr wrote: post #107
nemo44x wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heating up water quickly is almost never a use case. It is not on the critical path for optimizations either. Unless you subsist on boiling noodles when you’re late for a meeting.

> Heating up water quickly is almost never a use case. It'd be helpful for my household for hot water for coffee and tea, and it'd also help us for heating up some extra water for grits or risotto when they need more. Also, isn't boiling water just the measurable outcome of the test but what matters is that the pot is coming to temp sooner? Pots and pans heating up more quickly is helpful all the time.

Electric kettles are great for heating water quickly.

Pans coming to temp sooner would be useful if the gap was measured in large units of time but it isn’t. I care more about the properties of the pan and fire more. For instance cast iron pan is used to hold a lot of heat but isn’t very reactive. A copper pan can heat up quickly but more importantly it can change temps quickly. This is known as reactivity.

For instance maybe I want to sear a pork chop on high heat and then drop the burner and toss in butter and herbs. I need reaction (in this case the pan cooling quickly) for this basic technique or else I have burned my butter.

Re: Gas utilities used tobacco tactics to avoid gas stove regulations

#127

Post by perihelions »

- "Environmental epidemiologist Josiah Kephart studies pollution from cooking. In this 2021 photo he measured nitrogen dioxide levels from cooking in his kitchen. At right: A nitrogen dioxide air monitor shows 0.159 parts per million, or 159 parts per billion. That's above the World Health Organization hourly guideline of 106 ppb. Kephart has since replaced the gas stove with an electric one."

That's *barely* above the 1-hour guideline, and as evident in that photo it's an (illegal?) stove with no hood or ventilation. This just reinforces my prior beliefs—that this is a complete non-issue for normal, code-compliant stoves.

(Was NPR unable to take a photo of a NOx meter next to a normal stove?)

Re: Gas utilities used tobacco tactics to avoid gas stove regulations

#128

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

ahoka wrote: post #44

Reading the comments here, these tactics were very successful!

> "In my field, we know who those groups are, and we know that work that's done by those groups is not really trustworthy because they have never taken a stance on the side of public health," says Laura Vandenberg, professor of environmental health sciences at University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Notice how she does not criticize their methods or analysis, but rather the conclusions.

Sounds like some groups have a preferred outcome and will not tolerate any dissent and engage in ad-hominem attacks and innuendo (for example see the title of the article).

Re: Gas utilities used tobacco tactics to avoid gas stove regulations

#129

Post by fallingknife »

dangus wrote: post #39
nephy wrote: post #35

I have a gas range, gas water heater, gas logs, and gas backup heat. My gas bill is around $15 a month. My home has proper ventilation to the outside and I have no intention of converting a cheap gas bill into a high electric bill.

Induction ranges heat up water faster and use less energy than gas ranges: https://www.treehugger.com/which-more-energy-efficient-cooki... Since you mentioned that you have backup heating, I assume you don’t live in a very cold climate, in which case a heat pump for your backup heat and water heater is your most efficient lowest cost option, not a gas system. Part of your gas bill is just paying the gas company for a…

People pitching induction always mention that they boil water faster, and it's true. But in my experience with induction, which I admit is not a lot, it seems like that is the only thing it's better at.

Re: Gas utilities used tobacco tactics to avoid gas stove regulations

#130

Post by the_third_wave »

ahoka wrote: post #44

Reading the comments here, these tactics were very successful!

Seeing how "pro-gas" comments tend to get greyed-out reminds me very much of the way those who went again the "current thing" were treated during the SARS2 pandemic. Why do many people here have to be so religious about these issues? Why has "supporting the current thing" been turned into something resembling a mantra? I wrote a fairly long comment [1] on my experience with different types of heat sources for cooking. Once I hit the "reply" button I noticed the comment a few levels upstream had been killed [2], probably for bluntly stating the author's preference for gas cookers. This comment section is full of all sorts of hyperbole about hurting children and destroying the planet and such by those who insist on using gas stoves but those comments are left alone - why? Until 2 years ago people could choose their own cooking appliance without the risk of being considered morally bankrupt but now that the current regime has made gas cookers into a "current thing" this has suddenly changed into a choice with decided moral implications.

In other words, it seems like the tactics used by the current regime are successful in that gas stoves have been turned into a "current thing".

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38771676

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38771305

Post reply on HN