|
Hmm quiet interesting article.
About smoke beeing unhealthy:Yes this should be obvious and am such i am not completely suprised that inhaling smoke from burning wood is dangerous also.
What i do miss in the whole article is a reference to the research.
Woodsmoke is dangerous but what the article does not say is HOW dangerous it is.
Is this smoke inhaled from burning wood in a small confined room or is this an open windy area around a camp fire?
I have no clue how this is measured and as such it would be difficult to say if i believe the claim since its not realy clear what is claimed.
Woodsmoke is as dangerous as sigarete smoke is way to general.
My first reaction was indeed "this can not be true, so lets see where they went wrong" and after a bit more examining i come to the conclusion that the claim is to general to have anny meaning.
People response "this cant be true" feels logical to me
Common believe is that sitting next to a normal fireplace is less unhealthy then sitting in a room filled with sigarette smoke
It also makes sense, you dont inhale smoke from a fire, most of it goes staight up in the air due to heat.
Was this a fireplace in a room without chimney or with verry bad ventilation?
meh...
About the analogy of this case and the case of arguing religion.
I am not sure i can fully understand the analogy but it does seem to make sense , and also make no sense at all at the same time lol.
The analogy is basicly that people will find it difficult to believe something contrary to their common believes, and even presented with "proof" people wont be easily convinced?
That would not suprise me at all though it is interesting.
Other then that this analogy is not ok as i feel it is inherently impossible to proof scientifically that god does not exist (just as it is impossible to proof he does exist)
The "proof" the atheist presents is not scientific proof unlike the proof that sigarette smoke is bad (asuming now that this was indeed a well done research with verry specific claims, unlike as presented in the article) and thats where the analogy goes a bit wrong imo.
Still its verry interesting and it does make a good point.
|
It must be! With all these other realizations like pizza being a vegetable, sugar being a toxin, etc.
|
I'll try to cut back on the amount that I burn wood.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wdvAy.jpg)
|
That was an interesting article, but what really made it hit home for me are some of the responses in this thread. Some of them may have been unfairly provoked by the misleading thread title, but the extreme defensiveness shown by some posters is fascinating to say the least.
On the matter of the science (although this article has nothing to do with whether or not fires are unhealthy), I really did not know. In the back of my mind I had assumed that the smoke was simply too diffuse to have any significant health effects. I'm surprised that health damages from smoke pollution in suburban areas are not talked about, while a huge segment of the population strongly opposes indoors public smoking for health reasons.
|
There's something very annoying going on here.
I perceive the goal of the article being the self-critique in changing your opinion of something as commonplace as a fireplace. Good, learning how to change your opinion on deep convictions is important to personal development, and probably to societal development as well. This is an important realisation.
But the argument is made via analogy to smoking and environmental issues, and it's being argued that "we don't actually need to use a fireplace, it's only done recreationally, so maybe you should revise".
If anything, that makes me want to burn wood more than ever. Most likely, fireplaces have a minuscule factor on global environment and public health. Aligning this issue with the current trend of total paranoia on these subjects is either populism or socialism.
The good part is convincing people about changing their opinion on unexpected concerns. I assume the first reports on the health effects of smoking were met with skepticism, as well. But the argument is based on you sharing the viewpoint that something "unhealthy and unenvironmental" is something you need to be immediately concerned about. Misanthropy.
Edit: As a direct response to the topic -- yeah, of course inhaling smoke is dangerous. Cigarettes even have filters to them and don't last several hours. But I'm certain sitting at a fireplace a few times a month or smoking a few cigs a week is completely fine. Keep the intents in mind when consuming propaganda on public health.
|
It seems like a lot of people didn't even read the article or don't understand the point he is trying to make. He is comparing the reaction he faces with religious groups to reaction he would expect after writing this article which seems to be working very well.
It didn't seem like he was saying you must stop doing this. He was just giving the facts to show how dangerous wood fires can be. Then immediately people come in and start trying to rationalize why it is either okay to have wood fires or explain why they will keep having them anyway. Which seems to be exactly what he was expecting. You come in defense of something in the face of factual evidence just because you have been using it all all these years or you enjoy it.
|
We really need studies and tests to tell us that inhaling smoke is bad?
|
How would this affect smoked / barbecued meats?
I refuse to stop eating ribs, pulled pork, brisket, and smoked salmon.
|
On February 04 2012 03:20 Yettyman wrote:
It seems like a lot of people didn't even read the article or don't understand the point he is trying to make. He is comparing the reaction he faces with religious groups to reaction he would expect after writing this article which seems to be working very well.
It didn't seem like he was saying you must stop doing this. He was just giving the facts to show how dangerous wood fires can be. Then immediately people come in and start trying to rationalize why it is either okay to have wood fires or explain why they will keep having them anyway. Which seems to be exactly what he was expecting. You come in defense of something in the face of factual evidence just because you have been using it all all these years or you enjoy it.
Thanks for clearing that up for everyone on page ten, I'm sure you're the only person who's mentioned this so far.
But anyways, just because people respond defensively doesn't mean they are ignoring factual evidence. I'm positive that inhaling any smoke is harmful to your health, that's just common sense, but the suggestion that this should dictate some kind of policy change, which is TYPICALLY what happens when these public health/environmental issues come up, then I disagree. That's why people keep bringing up the example of cars, because although they are dangerous, they still have value to people.
Now if people were coming in here and saying things like "That's BS, the science is wrong, inhaling smoke isn't harmful at all" then I might agree with the point that it is similar to religious fanaticism. Just saying "lol look people got defensive" is stupid.
|
I feel like these side effects are minimal and can easily be prevented, yes burning wood over on an open fire is worse than burning gas, but gas its not a renewable recourse. Entire forests burn with not adverse affects to the environment so, I think it is quite harsh to say bluntly stop burning wood and make it illegal its just plain stupid, such as banning the use of incandescent light bulbs, they both make no sense. Rather they should be altered such as cigarettes, for example incandescent light bulbs could have a much higher tax rate to discourage their use along with the risks to the environment of using them, but should not be banned completely. Fire's along a similar line should not be stopped or made illegal, that's just plain ridiculous why not require a filtration system if you are using wood, because for the foreseeable future wood will remain very cheep relative to gas and other heating methods, and a simple filtration system could fix these negative short term effects of burning wood while leaving the great long term effects that created this civilization. * did not reread i hope that made sense*
|
On February 04 2012 03:27 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 03:20 Yettyman wrote:
It seems like a lot of people didn't even read the article or don't understand the point he is trying to make. He is comparing the reaction he faces with religious groups to reaction he would expect after writing this article which seems to be working very well.
It didn't seem like he was saying you must stop doing this. He was just giving the facts to show how dangerous wood fires can be. Then immediately people come in and start trying to rationalize why it is either okay to have wood fires or explain why they will keep having them anyway. Which seems to be exactly what he was expecting. You come in defense of something in the face of factual evidence just because you have been using it all all these years or you enjoy it. Thanks for clearing that up for everyone on page ten, I'm sure you're the only person who's mentioned this so far. But anyways, just because people respond defensively doesn't mean they are ignoring factual evidence. I'm positive that inhaling any smoke is harmful to your health, that's just common sense, but the suggestion that this should dictate some kind of policy change, which is TYPICALLY what happens when these public health/environmental issues come up, then I disagree. That's why people keep bringing up the example of cars, because although they are dangerous, they still have value to people. Now if people were coming in here and saying things like "That's BS, the science is wrong, inhaling smoke isn't harmful at all" then I might agree with the point that it is similar to religious fanaticism. Just saying "lol look people got defensive" is stupid.
Bingo. The OP's blog post is about dismissal of evidence based on faith; most of us simply don't think that the evidence necessitates anything.
|
Wood smoke could be worse than tobacco for you, but do they take into account the fact you suck tobacco smoke right down into your lungs? I think its negligible at most, the human race has been burning wood for thousands of years and never noticed it before.
|
I believe it, and honestly I'm not surprised at all.
My only hesitation in believing it fully is that lack of citation or links, and I don't normally trust anything on the internet without citations or links. But I don't really doubt it is true.
Now that I think about it, I haven't been around burning wood in years. Oh well. Gas logs, anyone?
|
the fuck? I never would have guessed... I mean, instinctivly I never think that inhaling fumes is a good idea, as it certainly can't be helpful at least, but this? Burning wood is worse than smoking? I mean the "sugar is dangerous"-thread I just laughed at and ignored because I wouldn't change because of it, but this... might... I'll look more into it before I decide where I stand on this
|
We love everything about it: the warmth, the beauty of its flames, and—unless one is allergic to smoke—the smell that it imparts to the surrounding air.
I am sorry to say that if you feel this way about a wood fire, you are not only wrong but dangerously misguided.
Breathing smoke is bad, and therefor fire isn't warm, flames aren't beautiful, and you don't enjoy the smell you enjoy.
Seems pretty strawman, was that the point?
|
On February 04 2012 03:30 bonifaceviii wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 03:27 liberal wrote:On February 04 2012 03:20 Yettyman wrote:
It seems like a lot of people didn't even read the article or don't understand the point he is trying to make. He is comparing the reaction he faces with religious groups to reaction he would expect after writing this article which seems to be working very well.
It didn't seem like he was saying you must stop doing this. He was just giving the facts to show how dangerous wood fires can be. Then immediately people come in and start trying to rationalize why it is either okay to have wood fires or explain why they will keep having them anyway. Which seems to be exactly what he was expecting. You come in defense of something in the face of factual evidence just because you have been using it all all these years or you enjoy it. Thanks for clearing that up for everyone on page ten, I'm sure you're the only person who's mentioned this so far. But anyways, just because people respond defensively doesn't mean they are ignoring factual evidence. I'm positive that inhaling any smoke is harmful to your health, that's just common sense, but the suggestion that this should dictate some kind of policy change, which is TYPICALLY what happens when these public health/environmental issues come up, then I disagree. That's why people keep bringing up the example of cars, because although they are dangerous, they still have value to people. Now if people were coming in here and saying things like "That's BS, the science is wrong, inhaling smoke isn't harmful at all" then I might agree with the point that it is similar to religious fanaticism. Just saying "lol look people got defensive" is stupid. Bingo. The OP's blog post is about dismissal of evidence based on faith; most of us simply don't think that the evidence necessitates anything.
Precisely, and now trying to examine WHY we are so apt to dismiss (or believe) this distinguished religious atheistic fanatic's point, let's delve!
It seems to me that many nonbelievers have forgotten—or never knew—what it is like to suffer an unhappy collision with scientific rationality. We are open to good evidence and sound argument as a matter of principle, and are generally willing to follow wherever they may lead. Certain of us have made careers out of bemoaning the failure of religious people to adopt this same attitude.
Oh man an opening sentence LIKE THAT ^^| ? Dichotomy 'us versus them'.
[inserts science that no one cares about but can't really find any blatant problem with, so now you're convinced amirite? Any of you even bother to check it, sources? I didn't, but then again, it conflicts with my beliefs, therefore it MUST be wrong!]
I suspect that many of you have already begun to marshal counterarguments of a sort that will be familiar to anyone who has debated the validity and usefulness of religion. Here is one: Human beings have warmed themselves around fires for tens of thousands of years, and this practice was instrumental in our survival as a species. Without fire there would be no material culture. Nothing is more natural to us than burning wood to stay warm.
/Agenda {well ok it's somewhat to be expected}
True enough. But many other things are just as natural—such as dying at the ripe old age of thirty. Dying in childbirth is eminently natural, as is premature death from scores of diseases that are now preventable. Getting eaten by a lion or a bear is also your birthright—or would be, but for the protective artifice of civilization—and becoming a meal for a larger carnivore would connect you to the deep history of our species as surely as the pleasures of the hearth ever could. For nearly two centuries the divide between what is natural—and all the needless misery that entails—and what is good has been growing.
Natural =/= good ... ?
'See guys, I'm right [because I support convenience and the easy life].'
I have discovered that when I make this case, even to highly intelligent and health-conscious men and women, a psychological truth['high' intellectual language] quickly becomes as visible as a pair of clenched fists['low' primitive language of violence]: They do not want to believe any of it. Most people I meet want to live in a world in which wood smoke is harmless. Indeed, they seem committed to living in such a world, regardless of the facts. To try to convince them that burning wood is harmful—and has always been so—is somehow offensive['well I'm right y'know']. The ritual['low' primitive language] of burning wood is simply too comforting and too familiar to be reconsidered, its consolation so ancient and ubiquitous that it has to be benign. The alternative—burning gas over fake logs—seems a sacrilege.
'Sadly, I am right again, yet none of my friends wish to believe me, even the smart ones }: . '
Note again the dichotomy, which is parallel to 'high vs low' 'with me or against me'.
The point I'm trying to make [to those who haven't picked up on it yet], the register and style of this piece is highly polarizing, forcing the reader to make a truth check ["do I agree or disagree, completely" as he's left no middle-ground]. By appealing to popular ideals (intellectualism, convenience, civilization etc.) he tries to tip the reader's opinion onto his side of the artificial wall he is inciting. Oh, well, that and demeaning and categorically dismissing the intellect (among just about everything else) of anyone who disagrees with him. Insert ANY agenda into this winning formula, and you've got some excellent rabble-rousing material for the congregation, next time service is convened. <:
Picking at the technicalities, It seems to me that many nonbelievers have this gentleman has forgotten—or never knew—what it is like to suffer from an unhappy collision with scientific rationality a nice cheery fire, or perhaps it was such a disaster he wishes to pass a law against it! [I'm being flip] If he'd done it right, the nice warm air would be sucked from the whole house, up to feed the fire, and through a couple of stories out the chimney. Note how none of the smoke goes into the house; the only direction the air goes is out. Are you going to try and scare us with benzene? I'd rise faster than the rest of the air and get sucked out faster. Yes go outside and you'd breath it, but in the dead of winter? Really? Who's even going to have a window open! ---> lol-fail-pwned-stfu
And while being eaten or dying are animal traits of the past, community (close family unit), organized society and mastery over fire (all symbolized by fireplace) are still valid enough themes not to be thrown out quite yet.
Ugh I should have gone straight to the article before reading the description of the author. Nevertheless (I bet u can guess which side of the wall I fall on, u haz brain!) the opening sentence reeked of "I. am. stuck. up. [expand upon this idea profusely]". Will we still have fires during the winter? Yes. Was this more informative than /b/ today? Well, as you must be convinced by now Christians like me most certainly don't have brains, or at least rational ones, so <:
dude needs to skate some more IMO
|
|
|
Fundamental problem with analogy? The harmfulness of smoke is provable, atheism is not. The scientific process can show what in smoke is bad, science cannot disprove religion, or say how it is bad. That would be Philosophy. At one time, the two were closely linked, but no more. It seems that people such as Dawkins, Harris, and Co. are liked because, despite atheist claims, these men are very reliant on rhetoric, and the feeling that "this speaker makes me feel smart". They tell religion to stay out of science, and yet they won't keep science out of philosophy! (Though I don't believe the two disagree anyway.) These men love to attack general ideas and straw men, I've never once heard them say "(insert someone: Augustine, Calvin, etc.) is wrong about X because of Y". Atheists are human beings as well, and subject to the same effects when having their ego stroked, etc, as everyone else. Even in this article, he is catering to an audience.
As for fires, I don't care. I like them, and will continue using them whenever I camp 
|
If your fireplace is filling your house with smoke, there's a problem with it. A properly working fireplace draws air from inside the house through the chimney. I can't even smell smoke when I have a fire.
Smoke IS bad for you, but I strongly doubt that sitting upwind of a campfire is worse than smoking cigarettes.
|
So the analogy is...
Making anti-smoke arguments about fire is like making atheistic arguments about religion.
(there is more to religion than God, just as there is more to fire than smoke)
Most people understand that arguments about a single aspect don't negate the whole. And so OP is a sad panda because he can't logic his friends into not going to church?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
