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?
pixpotato 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
The fumes from any gas appliance is unhealthy.. this also impacts indoor gas heaters :) They did a study for it in schools due to health risks
Opening lots of windows can be a easy fix. Fumes from burning oil can also be unhealthy…
Induction cook tops emit more EMR then anything else we live with.. i would be more worried about the long term effects of those. Granite bench tops or granite pestle and mortar's also emit ionizing radiation..
The worry and stress would cause more long term health impacts… best to avoid what you can and stress less
EMR fear is unsubstantiated, while gas issues have been heavily researched. Open windows only works if you have cross a ventilated space. A kitchen with one window for example won't work
you've got to be kidding.
you think an induction stove is more dangerous to you than inhaling toxic gases from a burning gas stove?
wow.
"Lol"……Proceeds to use the gas stovetop to light my cigarette.
The media is scaremongering again. If gas stove tops were really cancerous, then why don't we see more incidents of cancer among chefs and people working in restaurants?
That’s what i was thinking, working in kitchens growing up you would see 3 or 4 stoves constantly lit and going for 8 to 12 hours a day, multiple ovens everything and I’m yet to see a dramatic increase in cancer in chefs. Usually if a large increase in cancer occurs in a particular trade they can find the cause I.e asbestos removals or stone masons
if we mention trades, i think diesel engines (truck drivers) and concreters for lung ca or people working in paint/plastic factories for leukemia type issues
Possible, but there are a lot of contributing factors. I think a lot of concreters and truckies get lung cancer because there is a culture of smoking in these industries, Its better not to look at things in isolation when there are other significant contributing factors.
@borrisz0r: absolutely, dont quote me in a journal :D i was just bouncing off the guy mentioning trades, this is just a vague personal "impression"
drum brakes were made of asbestos. brake dust was probably the worst thing affecting mechanics.
Australian kitchens tend to be better ventilated than homes in the northern hemisphere. Which also lessens the perceived risk.
Wasn't the article reporting on a scientific study?
Do you think the scientists have deliberately falsified their study to pursue a secret anti-stove agenda? If so, what was their motivation, and who would benefit?
Big Microwave?
Wasn't the article reporting on a scientific study?
I'd take ANYTHING news.com.au says, even about a scientific study, with a kilo of salt.
I mean yeah, I get it, news.com.au is shit and clickbait trash and their analysis/hot takes riffing on things are garbage..
..but there's still an actual scientific study showing the stoves/benzene/cancer thing is a Thing.
I don't follow how we're using the "news.com.au is terrible" to discredit the science?
@CrowReally: Because you can make numbers say whatever you want.
Scientific study: some cooked meats under special circumstances may cause cancer signals in mice
News.com.au: scientific study says meat causes cancerI haven't read the study, I might later today when I get a moment, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's just sensationalist BS spin.
Because you can make numbers say whatever you want.
Which neatly circles back to my original point, because it implies the scientists "wanted" this result.
So.
Do you think the scientists have deliberately falsified their study to pursue a secret anti-stove agenda? If so, what was their motivation, and who would benefit?
Big Microwave?
@CrowReally: Don't be so naive, gas = bad is a climate argument (which all media is pushing) …
Look at you trying to discredit discrediting by doing the same thing news.com.au did, ie big microwave ;)
@7ekn00: Unlike you, if someone suggests people are conspiring, I'd like to have a think about what that would mean. (Who benefits? Why? etc)
Of course it's easier to say "oh scientists make things up for their own reasons", but it's also easier to let others do your thinking for you.
@CrowReally: I just had a quick glance at the study ok my phone while on hold, seems they are measuring 1-1.6ppb of benzene. From a very quick google, aren't danger levels in the ppm for limited exposure, ppb for very long term exposure.
Also, when they reference "X times worse than second hand smoke", they are simply talking about the levels of benzene , not the cancer dangers of second hand smoke in general.
@7ekn00: big microwave was more a fear of new tech like people were afraid of electricity in 1900s, seems we always do that to new tech
@juki: Fear of new tech is justified because there are a lot of unknowns. Sometimes it's more than unknowns, imagine if some big company came up with a great anti-knock fuel additive that they tell us is safe and we all breathe it for 70 years, then we find out it's been poisoning us the whole time!
@ssfps: Yes - those people with fear are the ones that create the checks and balances to ensure we aren't ram rodded with actual unsafe products and practices
Sounds like news.com.au is the real cause of cancer.
Just because something is scientific doesnt mean it was accurate or relevent.
Is the study independently funded?
"The tobacco industry has been seeking since the 1950s to influence science by funding research that supports its business interests and by suppressing and criticising research that unfavourable to its positions. These attempts to present scientific research as credible and unbiased is a clear conflict of interest when they fund the very same research that advances their interests – notably on the relative harms of novel tobacco products"
https://www.uicc.org/news/smokescreen-tobacco-industrys-use-…
Green movements wish for gas to cease being used.
How was this test designed?
Tests, collating, and assessing the results are also completed by people and people make mistakes.There needs to be multiple studies completed by completely separate scientists with transparency as to who funded the research.
Inhaling anything other than fresh air in excessive amounts could impact your health.
A single study on it own is often not taken as definitive. The narrow inferences drawn by scientists and the guarded language they use to make sure the results of the study are not misconstrued also tend to be lost as they make their way into the media.
E.g. you might find the study was conducted with a different gas mix than that used in Australia, or in a nation where homes had insufficient ventilation etc (the last actually mentioned by the article).
Also, although we don't have the paper in front of us, we can infer from the wording of the article that the study was about the PARTICLES in the air, not an actual study on occurrences of cancer in people with stoves.
So the science in fact DOES NOT say, unlike the article, that gas stoves definitively increase cancer rates, or whether the difference is meaningful. Rather if we had the original paper to work from we might find that the scientists used guarded language like "could indicate the possibility that…" and "this presents a prospective angle for ongoing research".
True science is very particular about treating hypotheses as hypotheses, with the need to test them specifically. A finding that stoves leave lingering cancer associated particles in the air can lead to a hypotheses that homes with gas stoves will have higher rates of cancer, but this would have to be tested in its own study, which does not look like a study that has been done, or is being referred to in the article, which reads as a study on the presence of the particles themselves.
And if you have an issue with my take, I wonder if you'd have an issue with an article that says.. "aluminium particles are associated with Alzheimer's disease", aluminium particles in vaccines found to cross the blood/brain barrier.. vaccines cause Altzeimer's". Same sequence, same method of making an inference.
The intention is to eliminate all gas…
Then we can sell it all overseas for $$$.
Gas is fine.
It isn't.
What is the reproducibility crisis?
Can you not conceive that studies are sponsored by interest groups that want a particular outcome?
Do you know that scientist can be bought ?
Do you know people can murder, therefore everyone is a murderer.
Ridiculous argument.
@doobes: https://financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-scientist…. You can research the rest, or just take it as a cult shurg Idc
@frewer: Scientists can be bought. That's why it's important, like those woke factories they call universities taught us, to check who did the research, how was it funded, its methodology and conclusions, its strengths and weaknesses, and if there are other similar papers approving or disproving what they have found.
We all know that the oil companies did research into burning fossil fuels and global warming in the 70s and found links between the two, yet there's people in the media who still defend fossil fuels and deny man-made climate change. I wonder who that benefitted over 50 years…
Scientists can be bought.
Exactly my point.
https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/16745693482022625…
How dare you disparage big microwave, they’ve been keeping me alive for decades.
Restaurants are not homes! Completely different.
Homes are more airtight and often have a poor or no proper rangehood.Homes also use a stove top for a fraction of the time compared to a restaurant and not as powerful so there's that too
Probably because cancer amongst humans in general is pretty high.
Granted, they're still scaremongering, benzene is everywhere in way too high levels and probably contributes to loads of cancer cases already. We get more sitting traffic from car fumes than stoves are producing (and the "10-25" times higher is when running a gas stove and running burners on full, probably a rare occurrence).
The government discouraging gas is a good idea. Across a population it would reduce cancer rates. The risk to any individual is tiny, but across a large number of people it probably adds up.
then why don't we see more incidents of cancer among chefs and people working in restaurants?
Get outta here with that logic!
Cooking oil fume exposure as well as not using a kitchen ventilator when cooking was significantly associated with lung cancer among nonsmoking women (Z=10.07, P<0.00001; Z=4.65, P<0.00001). Cooking oil fume exposure, especially lacking a fume extractor, may increase the risk of lung cancer among Chinese nonsmoking women.
cancer among chefs and people working in restaurants?
Have you seen the air handling systems in commercial kitchens? Basically a chemical fume hood
Gas flame as supplied to Australian households produces unpleasant chemicals. To date it doesn't make any difference because Australia has traditionally leaky houses so those by-products don't get much chance to build up to dangerous levels. Commercial kitchens have great ventilation. Private homes may have good ventilation if the rangehood is maintained and ducted externally. With the push to improve energy efficiency of homes, builders are looking to make Australian homes more air-tight so those rangehoods become more important - but most people think if it makes a whirring noise it must be working they fail to maintain it in a functional manner that is necessary for gas burners.
For me, considering that if you have gas and electricity you are paying around $300-400 per utility per year in just having the services connected. And $300 buys a fair amount of electricity. If you live in a house, installing PV on the roof and generating your own electricity is easy and saves you quite a bit of money. If you sink a gas well in your back yard and start producing your own gas you'll have the government, gas companies and Greenies watching your every move.
well actually women in asia are do have more oropharangeal and airway related cancers but if my memory is correct it was related to breathing the boiling oil fumes when cooking from a wok.
Not to mention everyone in Asia smokes
everyone..? maybe a little too cliche, i found it the same in europe ect, but there has been less prevention in asia and 30-40 years ago women in asia apparently smoked less (because they smoked secretly). going back a decade ago i think my european friends and colleagues smoke a lot more than the asian ones (probably because they drink more too)
many restaurants have industrial ventilation & larger kitchens (more air) than home kitchens
it's not false to say combustion causes toxic fumes, it's not news but to compare to second hand smoke is lack of evidence.
true, i think second hand smoke wasnt really ventilated if i think of my childhood but cooking fumes and smells were
'Why don't we see more incidents of cancer among chefs and people working in restaurants'… I'll tell you why, because these restaurants have big ass vents that suck up the crap and expel it outside. These vents move huge volumes of air… Most houses don't have such ventilation and if anything it just filters grease and expels it back in the kitchen.
Statistically we actually do but its linked to the fumes from cooking meat at high temperatures.
because they have commercial grade exhaust fans?
Ventilation
How many chefs do you know? Most of them will die of liver failure from drink and drugs before lung cancer gets them.
Hey cool this is closely related to my work. Working in a kitchen for many years IS associated with chronic lung disease to the best of our knowledge. I can't speak to lung cancer specifically because that's not what I research, but long-term exposure to fumes and burning biomass (e.g. combusted gas, burnt food etc) actually is associated with later-life development of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, the third highest cause of mortality and fifth highest cause of burden in the world), chronic bronchitis and other long term airway syndromes.
High quality ventilation, efficient gas burners and good cooking practices are very good at reducing the risk of these diseases occurring. However, their risk appears to remain slightly higher than the background population even after we adjust our calculations to include other thing like smoking habits, drug use etc. This is why good kitchen design and occupational health and safety enforcement is so important - it keeps that risk low enough that we don't have an epidemic of these debilitating diseases.
In developing countries we can see what happens when these aren't available. Household air pollution from burning dirty fuel sources (coal, wood, cow dung) or gas without adequate ventilation is believed to be a major cause of COPD and long-term lung disease in females in places like China and India. Whereas the men are more likely to have developed these diseases from tobacco smoking, women are more likely to get it from being exposed to these household air pollution in the course of their daily lives in the role of a "homemaker."
So in short - yes - burning fossil fuels and any organic substance for cooking is associated with development of lung disease. With adequate ventilation, efficient burners and other design considerations we can very drastically minimise the risk of long-term exposure leading to these diseases. However, the risk remains non-zero.
I'm trying to understand the relevance of the last paragraph in the article, to the rest of the report.
Just a bit of extra info, signalling that the authorities are guiding Australians away from gas usage, and the article as well can be read in relation to that push.
Yes I mentioned something similar below - European governments are moving away from gas, which is borderline suicidal and cannot be justified as a rational decision.
Ie Dutch new build houses cannot have gas, even though it's a cold country that relies on gas for heating and electricity grids are already strained.
This is the same country that has had protests for YEARS now (barely reported) because they are bulldozing farmland to make way for huge smart cities, citing the "co2 budget cannot allow both farming and construction".
Gas being expensive is probably a bigger issue if the alternative is solar power. Your gas stove probably has a proper vent above it, plus you can crack a window to let fresh air in if you really want. Everybody loves gas, more fun to cook with, unlimited hot water, but it so expensive and they want to phase out gas connections to houses.
Gas isn't expensive gov just wants to sell it offshore for more cash
The "gov" doesn't own the gas to sell it offshore, and collects little in the way of taxes, royalties, etc., from the companies which want to keep exporting it because they make a lot of money from it.
Which is bullshit. The gas should belong to all Australians and the government should represent all Australians. We should have taxed the bajesus out of the gas exports and used that money to secure our own energy future and other needs.
@AustriaBargain: Money and making myself rich is always going to win out over looking after random Australians you've never met and don't care about.
@AustriaBargain: Didn't we vote on this topic of tax on resources not that long ago and the outcome was we didn't want to tell the companies? Love democracies.
@tessel: Can thank Rupert Murdoch for that result. In China his actions would be considered corrupt, News Ltd would be forcibly broken up, and he would be executed.
Classic case of a commenter having no idea.
A rental is unlikely to have solar power though.
If it does then might be worth it, otherwise gas is best.
energy provider might
More fun to cook with? Lol
Fire is fun.
Bro microplastics have been found in human blood, probably thru no fault of the study participants.
It's not gonna be the gas stove that kills you
Slow news days, huh… Next they will come up with something even more stupid, like vaccines cause autism.
…..and a reduction in the birth rate…..
And vaccines interact with 5G signals don’t forget…
Breathing in Combustion products isn't healthy.
However, using a gas stove for an hour (or probably less) per day is highly unlikely to see you to a noticeably early grave.
Even less so if you have a rangehood sucking most of those combustion products away which you should anyway.It's like the "Bananas will give you radiation poisoning!!!" but then fail to tell you that you would need to eat 45,000 bananas a day for 3 years…
depends on the size of the room also. that's why there is ventilation in kitchens.
this isn't news.
Just media clickbait trash.
Wouldn't be a problem if you house is well ventilated.
And if you house isn't well ventilated, small amount of Benzene would be least of your worry.
Household ventilation on gas burners isn't compliant with modern standards.
If the combustion process isn't ideal will product toxic by products, not only toxic gases (eg NOx, CO) but particulate matter. Not going to drop dead but aint good for you either. Was a study that fumes from gas burners being more toxic than diesel trucks fume. Wont die from truck fumes but aint good for you in a enclosed space.
If you can put in better extraction, ie vent to outside, its fine. If not consider induction or outdoor kitchen (which I do)
Was a study that fumes from gas burners being more toxic than diesel trucks fume.
That is ridiculous, honestly.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c04707
Should of said truck fume from living next to a highway, not direct.
Maybe you should quote it because I don't see any mention of that in the study you linked.
You've dropped your tin foil hat.
Meanwhile in India where people have coal & wood powered stoves…
Now they have a cancer issue due to the particulates, we do not.
Surprised this is the first people are hearing of the push to move away from gas stoves. NYTimes have run no less than 7 stories in the last year about it.
There is definitely an agenda to eliminate gas stoves from homes.
Whether it is justified by climate change or cancer, certain elements have decided and its now just a matter of time.Yes I mentioned something similar below - European governments are moving away from gas, which is borderline suicidal and cannot be justified as a rational decision.
Ie Dutch new build houses cannot have gas, even though it's a cold country that relies on gas for heating and electricity grids are already strained.
This is the same country that has had protests for YEARS now (barely reported) because they are bulldozing farmland to make way for huge smart cities, citing the "co2 budget cannot allow both farming and construction".
which is borderline suicidal and cannot be justified as a rational decision.
Umm
What?Reverse cycle air conditioners and heat pumps are the most efficient and environmentally conscious way of heating your home
@Drakesy: Can you even read, I definitely don't think so, what statement??? I asked what you do in a blackout.
what do you do in blackouts which we are seeing a lot more of.
Don't think I'm the one struggling to read
You made a claim, now i'd like the evidence.@Drakesy: why are you deliberately ignoring the blackout question and focusing on we see a lot more of, if you are illiterate and cannot see that for yourself, I am not going to spoon feed you just answer what about blackouts or would you prefer power failures?
@Drakesy: what for, I asked a question then a statement so answer my question and then I will tell you how to turn on your tv and go to any news station then wait until you see one tell you about blackouts or for the simple power failures. Then you can stop waiting.
seeing a lot more of
Wait I’ll save you, with some data and numbers
According to Ausgrid, using freely available data:
Jan - March 2013 had 659 outages 350,479 customers affected
Jan - March 2023 had 468 outages affecting 252,032Oh hold up this doesn’t back up your statement. Umm does Drakesy still need to answer your fanciful made up lies?
Lol