Reading through the articles and linked articles in the comments, gas stove emissions contribute to, not a direct cause of, the deaths of .04% of the 50 million people in the US that use gas stoves.
Not saying this isn’t important, but I don’t think this will ever crack the top 10 concerns of my lifetime.
What sucks, is I can’t afford a comparable induction range that cooks as well, and quickly, as gas. Unless I can get some sort of rebate, buying a new range is out of the question.
If you’re not commonly using more than 1 or 2 heating elements at a time, portable induction cooktops are significantly less expensive than an entire induction stovetop ($50-60 each). I wouldn’t want it as a permanent solution, but it works.
Just a warning for people that see this, generally you’re going to want to spend more like $150 because you want to make sure you get a unit that has true variable power and not duty cycles. If you get one with Duty Cycles you’re likely going to hate it because temperature control is going to be almost impossible unless what you want is full blast or almost nothing.
If the only thing you do is basically turn the stove on to high and that’s it then you won’t care but if you ever do anything that needs to hold a very specific temperature you are going to definitely want a unit that has a true variable power inverter so that it can actually change the power output instead of attempting to approximate that through Duty Cycles (turning on full blast then off in cycles)
This is also something you want to look for in a microwave.
It is something that is not very well documented for products either. The cheap ones without variable power obviously won’t advertise it but many of the ones that do have the capability also don’t advertise it well, or even at all for whatever reason. It makes a huge difference when trying to cook anything on any setting other than high.
I’ve been using a single-burner induction cooktop as my primary cooktop for over a year now, and it’s awesome. I very rarely need more than one burner, and have never needed more than two. Paying $50 for a cooktop vs $5000 for a range is a pretty easy choice.
I also have a large toaster oven and generally avoid any dishes that would require a full-size oven. That toaster oven was not cheap, though, unlike the induction cooktop.
It is not just the range replacement, but also adding the electrical requirements.
This isn’t that big of an issue, but another one is that I have to replace almost all of my cookware because it’s not induction compatible.
I mean, a countertop plug-in model is only a few hundred bucks for the good ones with actual true variable power. And thanks to their insanely higher efficiency because they’re literally making the pot the heating element thus very little heat not going directly into the food those countertop models generally can boil water much faster than a gas range can even if it has the hyper burner or whatever your particular range marketing team decides to call it.
So you both use less power than a range, have better temperature control (as long as you get a unit with true variable power and not Duty Cycles) and faster heating speeds!
Related Technology connections time!
There’s a Fridgidare that costs ~$1000. So, if I’m gonna spend a few hundred, I might as well get that and make payments.
Just make sure it has true variable power, for whatever reason a lot of the full range tops only have Duty Cycles. I was originally looking for a range top but after tons of searching and only finding duty cycle models unless i spent like 3kI gave up and got the countertop ones instead
Or, y’know, just get a regular electric stove like we use in Europe?
Better for the enviroment as well as safer and healthier.
I’d rather spend $1000 on an induction than $500 for an inferior electric coil range. But either way, this has spurred me to save up money for an induction stove, so I can have a similar cooking experience to gas.
Induction doesn’t work in case of powercut either.
If you live in an area where you regularly have to worry about what’s for dinner if the power cuts, then gas stoves are probably not your biggest concern.
Shove your privilege where the sunlight doesn’t shine.
Damn my bad. I’m just saying that it’s better to prioritize public health issues like food insecurity and reliable electricity over gas stove emissions in areas of the world where funding or ability is limited. Didn’t think that was a privileged take.
Reliable electricity is going to be more difficult as electrical grid will strain and fail because of higher ambient temperature, thanks to climate change.
I’ve rarely needed to cook for my family of four in the event of an outage. I also have family nearby to head to in that case.
I believe gas stoves are included in the IRA rebates for replacing gas appliances with electric. That is, assuming you are in the US, meet the income requirements, and that they ever become available in your area.
Even the single burner ones? Some of the higher wattage ones seem like they really should cook pretty quickly
If you are in Massachusetts, there’s a $500 mass save rebate for a new induction stove if you are replacing a gas stove. Take before and after pictures, and document everything because the process is a pain.
If you live in another state, there may be something specific to your state.
Alas, I live in the South where natty gas rebates roam wild.
I’m sure everyone knows this but just in case someone doesnt:
Burning anything where air is the oxidizer creates nitrogen oxides. Because they have a triple valent bond they are very stable so they are around for a long time. If you combust in higher pressures you create more of them. They contribite to acid rain and low level ozone pollution. They are a problem.
All that said I don’t think gas stoves are a huge health concern. I would think OSHA would ban natural gas forklifts from operating indoors if that were the case.
I keep seeing this pop up lately like its news. Its so obvious. How do people not realize that combustion of nearly everything creates carcinogens? It’s like cigarettes all over again. If you take something thats already bad for you, light it on fire, then inhale what that creates, what are the chances that its now not bad for you?
deleted by creator
California
What doesn’t cause cancer in California?
Hopefully the stickers plastered to everything saying may cause cancer.
Everything has a does-response curve that, at one or both extreme, will kill you. Oxygen, water, nitrogen, pizza, everything. Since 1986, California has had a reporting law on the books with a very steep financial fine, so it’s cheaper to slap a sticker on any product that may contain those chemicals than to run the risk of the fine. For things like furniture/matresses/clothes, it’s usually off-gassing of flame retardants. Most foods have been exposed to herbicides/pesticides/fertilizers or are packaged in something that would qualify. Building materials are chock full of carcinogenic.
We’re fairly good at keeping everything to safe doses for the general population, and making companies tell consumers about the crap isn’t a bad thing. Think about it loke nutrition labels… most people don’t care, but if you have a dietary restriction or an allergy, it’s pretty helpful to know what’s in it before you buy and eat it.
My favorite is when that warning is on sunglasses
So there’s stuff about this that confuses me. Are US gas stoves always burning gas for a pilot flame? Is that the issue? Are there no regulations about kitchen ventiation for gas installations? Is it less usual to have an active smoke extractor over your stove? Are all the kitchen walls in the US super gross as a result?
Gas stoves are on the way out as general climate change (and energy dependency) pushes away from gas anyway, and I haven’t seen a functional gas oven in decades, but still, some of the language in the discussion and in this study seem to assume something different than what I expect when somebody says “gas stove”.
Very old ones will have a permanent pilot and any home one in the last 20 plus years will have a electric start. Only ones still sold with the always on pilot will be industrial kitchen stoves which are required to have vent hoods above them and even those have probably changed since I worked with them.
bullshit
It’s not bullshit, and this has been known for quite some time.
Edit: its been known that pollutants are emitted from gas stoves and ovens and those contribute to cancer and other things.
I’m surprised anyone would think there wasn’t harmful pollutants emitted when combusted, it’s burning things. I would have thought the exhaust fans above them though were enough to make it a non issue.
Too lazy to read the actual report, but hopefully they’re able to properly account for the differences in deaths caused when using proper ventilation vs not using proper ventilation, and show the risk factor between the two.
The gentle breeze that a microwave venthood blows 6 inches above your head isn’t exactly premium-grade ventilation. It’s not even ventilation at all, really. The gas is just moved like a foot up before it fills the room.
They aren’t all that bad though, those would fall into the bad ventilation side of things.
I don’t even have a gas range but still hate the microwave mounted over top the stove. If I’m boiling water, it doesn’t matter if the range fan is on, it’s condensing on the microwave’s surfaces. And I don’t burn things on the stove often, but if I do it would be nice to vent that outside, like the whole point of a fucking range fan is you stupid fucking cheap developers.
Gas stoves are used in approximately 50 million U.S. homes (1) and millions more worldwide (2, 3). Gas and propane combustion in stoves emits hazardous air pollutants, including nitrogen dioxide (NO2), benzene (C6H6), carbon monoxide (CO), formaldehyde (H2CO), and ultrafine particles (4–12).
Which of those seem harmless to you? “Nuh uh” isn’t particularly compelling.
Why is everyone all of a sudden against gas stoves? Lol
Because, through science, we are constantly improving our understanding of the world, including our bodies. Sometimes, that means things we used to think were safe or acceptable no longer are. We used to shit in buckets and throw it out the window in the morning right next to where the butcher was carving up a carcass on the street. We used to have parties when a kid got sick, so all the kids in the neighborhood got sick at the same time. Recently, we learned more about the impact of the compounds released and their concentrations when we burn natural gas in a confined area.
My understanding is that, while we knew about the compounds released by gas stoves, we either didn’t know how high the concentrations were or didn’t know enough about the dangers those concentrations could present. Of course, the reactionaries blow it out of proportion and a statement like “Gas stoves might not be safe without adequate ventilation” becomes “THEY’RE GONNA TAKE YOUR STOVE BY FORCE” just like how “cattle produce a lot more greenhouse gases than we thought” became “THEY’RE MAKING BURGERS ILLEGAL!”
Lol. Good lecture, bro. Take a chill pill, geez, it was just an innocent question. Damn
Wasn’t a lecture… I just assumed you were asking in good faith, so I explained why it’s a “new” concern and why some people seem so angry about it. Of course we can all have our own opinions…an opinion would be “I’ll keep my gas stove for now because I’m not concerned about the additional risk” or “I’m switching immediately because I AM concerned.” Saying it’s a conspiracy by green energy companies isn’t an opinion, it’s just misinformation.
Going by what I’ve heard, it’s a growing movement to switch to green energy and the concern that burning any fossil fuels is damaging to the environment.
A lot of these articles, while using completely valid science, are also worded in such a way to help convince people of the health concerns (no matter how small) to make the change, which also helps the movement. Sort of the “any little bit helps,” sort of thing.
Isn’t electricity coming from burning fossil fuel in most of the country, if not all still, though? Also, thank you for the sane response.
Yes, but electricity has the potential to be replaced by non fossil fuel sources.
Because electricity in California is deregulated.
Could you elaborate?
I don’t have much data(just a little involvement with Enron and their manipulation of electricity costs), but there is a lot of money to be made in electricity. I believe the California lobby is pretty strong and pushing the reduction of natural gas. I think they want an all electric state(not including power plants)
We also have a bunch of ESS startups (at least in the bay area) carving into the newer market of decentralized energy.
ESS is worthy of a separate post. I doubt they are involved in this anti-gas chicanery, but they would really help push us to a more sustainable future.
How dare you. You’re going to get chased out of this fucking post with spears and swords like I did when I asked my question. 😂 People on the internet always have their fingers on the trigger. You can’t even fucking breathe without getting attacked. How dare you say something they don’t agree with.
Yeah. There is a lot of that. I tried to correct some factual errors about container homes and got downvoted and got replies of pigs butts. Eventually the mod deleted all my comments.
Lmao. No worries, downvotes don’t really mean jack on Lemmy. Let them downvote as much as they want. Fucking speak your mind, who cares?
