[CarlR33]

Before you chuck it to the curb might try to run it on self clean and see if whatever might be lingering new oils and such might burn all the way off? Obviously, this will need to be done on a colder day when you can open all the windows up, etc.

[Ritagoyer]

Originally Posted by MplsPete

When we stayed in Newell on our Lifestyle Visit, as I recall, it seemed as if the microwave above the range had a vent. I did not study it, but I assumed it was only a filter device that did not vent to the outside.

If it is a designer home it vents to outside vents go through attic and up on the roof. To check take a paper towel on top by cabinets turn on fan on microwave if town is pulled down it vents to outside if blown up it is vented into the house.

[JP]

Originally Posted by Ritagoyer

If it is a designer home it vents to outside vents go through attic and up on the roof. To check take a paper towel on top by cabinets turn on fan on microwave if town is pulled down it vents to outside if blown up it is vented into the house.

I don't believe any government "studies" anymore. They are all agenda driven with questionable data and conclusions.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Altavia

If you read the study, it was based on a series of rowhouses with no ventilation.

Now let me see - should I believe a government study by the Consumer Product Safety Commission OR some one person that claims to have read that very study and have found so-called definitive HOLES in it, which I have no way to verify IF that study was really read or NOT. Or how valid would be the holes in that study. Gee, I think that I will continue to believe in the study made by the US government agency rather than a ONE person claim with PERHAPS (?) NO expertise behind it. If I find out that the Government Agency has redone the study and a different result (like maybe a change to 15% of childhood asthma cases are related to gas stoves) .......then, I will believe THEM and see how that recalculates MY opinion on the subject.

[Altavia]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Now let me see - should I believe a government study by the Consumer Product Safety Commission OR some one person that claims to have read that very study and have found so-called definitive HOLES in it, which I have no way to verify IF that study was really read or NOT. Or how valid would be the holes in that study. Gee, I think that I will continue to believe in the study made by the US government agency rather than a ONE person claim with PERHAPS (?) NO expertise behind it. If I find out that the Government Agency has redone the study and a different result (like maybe a change to 15% of childhood asthma cases are related to gas stoves) .......then, I will believe THEM and see how that recalculates MY opinion on the subject.

Well then perhaps you should do YOUR research to determine if the US Goverment Agency conclusions could be flawed.

Multiple scientific and medical studies have pointed out the flaws in the CSPC conclusions. ONE example...

ScienceDirect

4. Lessons and recommendations

Some suggested lessons and recommendations from the foregoing observations are as follows.

• The causal claims that “Our study demonstrates that known mitigation strategies will lessen childhood asthma burden from gas stoves” [6] and that “Gas stove pollution causes 12.7% of childhood asthma” [8] are not supported by the data analyzed because the underlying study designs and data do not address effects of mitigations or resulting changes in childhood asthma burden.

• These claims are also not supported by the analyses performed since these analyses only quantify measures of association (ORs and PAFs derived from relative risk ratios) but not measures of preventability or of the causal impact of exposures on asthma risk.

• Alternative plausible explanations for the reported statistical associations between gas stove cooking and childhood asthma, such as confounding by poverty and substandard housing (Belanger and Triche, 2008), were ignored.

• Differences between the times, populations, settings, and locations for which data were collected and the current US were ignored in extrapolating associations – many of them estimated in European countries before 2000 – to current US populations. Yet, the underlying meta-analysis of Lin et al. noted that associations were stronger in data collected before 2000 than in more recent data.

• Because of these limitations, the projections of Gruenwald et al. that about 13% of childhood asthma in the US could be prevented by reducing or eliminating gas stove emissions have no known validity. They are not supported by the data and analyses performed.

• These limitations follow peviously identified common patterns of prevalent questionable research practices (QRPs) that undermine the reliability and validity of much of the recent research literature in applied epidemiology [5].

• By insisting on routinely asking how (or whether) these QRPs have been addressed, research authors, journal reviewers and editors, reporters, politicians, and members of the public can help to judge (and document) the extent to which causal claims of adverse health effects from exposures are well supported by data and analyses.

• A widespread habit of QRP-checking might perhaps help all parties to improve the credibility and trustworthiness of published results by systematically identifying and downplaying claims that rely on QRPs.

• Exercising such critical thinking before broadcasting and responding to sensational claims about adverse health effects caused by everyday exposures might help to reduce the social amplification of risk [9] and encourage more responsible risk research and reporting.

Viewing announcements of health effects being “linked” to (i.e., associated with) various exposures as opportunities to apply critical thinking and to check the logical validity of causal claims against well-known QRPs may help to teach the value and spread understanding of sound, critical, epidemiological reasoning about causal claims and their policy implications.







ScienceDirect

[jimjamuser]

OK I did what was asked and did some more research. It turns out that the CSPC study that I quoted WAS peer reviewed. And the National Institutes of Health came to the same conclusion about 13% of childhood asthma IS caused by gas stove. That % is about the same as for people exposed often to 2nd hand cigarette SMOKE. An expert researcher said, "it is like having car EXHAUST in the home"
........ Also Science Direct is NOT in the top 20 of research publications. MIT decided to END their relationship with Science Direct !!!!! Science Direct is NOT a stranger to CONTROVERSY.
Australia did a similar study 2018 and came to the same conclusion about GAS ranges being a cause of childhood asthma and also even affecting adults. My main takeaway was the quote LIKE CAR EXHAUST IN YOUR HOME.
.........So, I stand by my statements and I would HOPE That state and federal governments begin to OUTLAW the manufacture of GAS STOVES. The health implications should inspire ACTION. I wonder what, if anything, Australia and countries in Europe do with regard to GAS STOVES?

[Altavia]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

OK I did what was asked and did some more research. It turns out that the CSPC study that I quoted WAS peer reviewed. And the National Institutes of Health came to the same conclusion about 13% of childhood asthma IS caused by gas stove. That % is about the same as for people exposed often to 2nd hand cigarette SMOKE. An expert researcher said, "it is like having car EXHAUST in the home"
........ Also Science Direct is NOT in the top 20 of research publications. MIT decided to END their relationship with Science Direct !!!!! Science Direct is NOT a stranger to CONTROVERSY.
Australia did a similar study 2018 and came to the same conclusion about GAS ranges being a cause of childhood asthma and also even affecting adults. My main takeaway was the quote LIKE CAR EXHAUST IN YOUR HOME.
.........So, I stand by my statements and I would HOPE That state and federal governments begin to OUTLAW the manufacture of GAS STOVES. The health implications should inspire ACTION. I wonder what, if anything, Australia and countries in Europe do with regard to GAS STOVES?

I found the same in parallel refreshing my memory but there are options other than banning gas stoves.

The worst case statistics were in non-ventilated environments. The studies show proper ventilation mitigates the risk.

Building codes could (are) require(ing) gas stoves to be equipt with automatic ventilation systems to mitigate any risk.

California now requires ventilation of 100 CFM or more, or at least 5 air exchanges per hour. This applies to new residential areas, remodeled homes, or additions of 1,000 square feet or more.

But other political agendas are using this as an opportunity to attack fossel fuels.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Altavia

I found the same in parallel refreshing my memory but there are options other than banning gas stoves.

The worst case statistics were in non-ventilated environments. The studies show proper ventilation mitigates the risk.

Building codes could (are) require(ing) gas stoves to be equipt with automatic ventilation systems to mitigate any risk.

California now requires ventilation of 100 CFM or more, or at least 5 air exchanges per hour. This applies to new residential areas, remodeled homes, or additions of 1,000 square feet or more.

But other political agendas are using this as an opportunity to attack fossel fuels.

I can agree with that. And fossil fuels will probably be with us forever. I would just recommend that each 1st world country try to increase their E-vehicles by 20% in a few years and try to stabilize population numbers because that could be enough to stop the increase in global temperatures. E-vehicles have many good features- quiet, fast, low center of gravity etc so it should NOT be a terrible hardship to have more E-vehicles and it could help the whole planet. Several posts here have mentioned alternatives to gas stoves, which would have many advantages and might be acceptable to almost everyone.

[Altavia]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I can agree with that. And fossil fuels will probably be with us forever. I would just recommend that each 1st world country try to increase their E-vehicles by 20% in a few years and try to stabilize population numbers because that could be enough to stop the increase in global temperatures. E-vehicles have many good features- quiet, fast, low center of gravity etc so it should NOT be a terrible hardship to have more E-vehicles and it could help the whole planet. Several posts here have mentioned alternatives to gas stoves, which would have many advantages and might be acceptable to almost everyone.

I can't disagree with that but don't want to run the thread to far off the rails ;-)

Interesting the six air exchanges an hour was put in the requirements.

If I recall correctly, this is the same as a BSL1 Biosafety requirement.

So using your gas stove ventilation will also reduce the risk of upper respiratory infection transmission :-)