|
On February 03 2012 20:29 Ation wrote:Show nested quote +Most of the particles generated by burning wood are smaller than one micron—a size believed to be most damaging to our lungs. In fact, these particles are so fine that they can evade our mucociliary defenses and travel directly into the bloodstream, posing a risk to the heart. I must say that this very specifically caught my attention. It is widely known that Finland - the land of thousand lakes and saunas... etc. - is having a lot of heart and blood circulation related diseases and issues. We have SICK amount of wood in our country and we make crazy amount of fire with it.
yeah but i bet that stress is a bigger killer than wood.. but i don't see any country taking action against stress.
stress is working 12 hours a day for next to minimum wage (national average), being overworked to the point where you can't have a proper break or lunch, being in debt and unable to cope with bills etc... hell that's the average person in the UK i think 
burning wood might be seen as theraputic, and stress-releiving. in this sense it's actually HEALTHY to burn wood.... so do it and don't listen to stupid scientists.
|
PLEASE NOTE: I may have interpreted this in the completely wrong way.
I think the majority of people that read this thread have completely overlooked the foremost underpinning ideologies in the opening post - The beliefs and counteracting beliefs of the various religious cultures that operate around the world - which have been included in the text through the use of an analogy.
If you read though the post thoroughly, you may notice that it is an analogy for the treatment of the members of different religions, namely Atheism (if you could call it a religion). By using the analogy of a fire burning, and describing the scientific effects it would have on your body, the author has effectively shown an alternate viewpoint towards heating. This has ultimately questioned the beliefs of the general public, the majority of which believe that fireplaces are beneficial to you, heating your body and not having dangerous side effects.
Transfer this view to religion and Atheism, and the author is actually attempted to question the different stances towards religion and atheism and how people feel when their religious beliefs are challenged.
Perhaps I am wrong, but that is the way that I interpreted the text rather than as a scientific paper, particularly due to the fact that the author is an Atheist that often writes about his views towards religion.
|
On February 03 2012 20:35 StoRm_res wrote:Show nested quote +(Research shows that nearly 70 percent of chimney smoke reenters nearby buildings.) I stopped reading there ^^ But guess what guys, we should stop driving our cars around, because burning gasoline is poisonous! And what if you heat your house with oil or gas? Pointless article.
But don't you see, that you are simply condemning knowledge? Of course we shouldn't stop burning gasoline, because right now the benefits are larger than the costs.
But if you have the option of choosing between several sources of energy, with this knowledge, you can save maybe years of you and your childrens life. The article is simply informing you of the reality, so that you may better adapt to fit your way of life.
|
On February 03 2012 19:40 oGoZenob wrote:
How the hell did his atheism has anything to do with this ?
I'm a bit surprised so many people seems to think this article is actually about burning wood and the dangers of its smoke...
It is completely irrelevant if his scientific claims are correct or not. He is just trying to give an example about the power of cultural influences in our lives. His point as I understand it is that most of us prefer a comforting lie rather than the "harsh truth". In his case I'm assuming he is referring to the question of whether or not God exists.
I find it a bit ironic that almost everyone in this thread is proving his point by getting into an argument about whether or not you should ban the burning of wood. You're all walking right into his trap.
EDIT:
On February 03 2012 20:42 Hefrosh wrote:
On February 03 2012 20:35 StoRm_res wrote:Show nested quote +(Research shows that nearly 70 percent of chimney smoke reenters nearby buildings.) I stopped reading there ^^
That's exactly what he argues religious people would do if someone claimed something about their faith that didn't sound right in the ears of the religious person.
|
lol don't really care
yaoming.jpg
|
This man is correct, to say the least. I have seen so many patients with pulmonary fibrosis or chronic interstitial lung disease resulting from having a fireplace that does not properly vent the smoke. You would also be surprised at the amount of farmers with chronic lung conditions due to being around hay and animal feces their whole lives.
All you need is a proper fireplace that will vent the smoke.
|
lmao how sad for him that his analogy is 10 times more interesting and concerning than his 'atheism' point... fail
|
On February 03 2012 20:36 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +I am quite baffled at all the "fear-mongering" accusations and generally hostile responses towards this article. I mean, neither the article nor the study behind it, is condemning people who burn wood. The study is simply stating, that it is proven that smoke from the combustion of wood is very dangerous to the health of you and people in the vicinity. Do what you want with that information, but the facts remain the same. See, thats exactly the problem. It's not VERY dangerous. It's not even DANGEROUS. It's unhealthy. Thats it. You shouldn't inhale it and avoid directly inhaling it (which every normal being does anyway)... But you won't fall over and die because it's so VERY DANGEROUS if you inhale it. Wrestling a Bear is VERY DANGEROUS. Sitting around a Fireplace isn't.
You are right, I had a bad choice of words. My point is, that people should not condemn knowledge of the reality, but just understand it and then act upon that new wisdom, however they feel fit.
|
|
|
On February 03 2012 20:48 Klesky wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 20:45 shizna wrote:
lmao how sad for him that his analogy is 10 times more interesting and concerning than his original point... fail I disagree, I think his message is far more interesting, and important, than the analogy itself. You live in the UK, where fanatics of religion are somewhat rare. Sam Harris lives in the USA, where religion rules politics and there's a constant state of conflict on all sides. It's pretty frustrating when someone just goes "lol article fail." when it's done very well :/.
Since it seems like most people don't even get that it's an analogy in the first place, I'd say it's a bit of a fail though. Regardless of how good the analogy in itself might be.
|
|
|
On February 03 2012 20:40 shizna wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 20:29 Ation wrote:Most of the particles generated by burning wood are smaller than one micron—a size believed to be most damaging to our lungs. In fact, these particles are so fine that they can evade our mucociliary defenses and travel directly into the bloodstream, posing a risk to the heart. I must say that this very specifically caught my attention. It is widely known that Finland - the land of thousand lakes and saunas... etc. - is having a lot of heart and blood circulation related diseases and issues. We have SICK amount of wood in our country and we make crazy amount of fire with it. yeah but i bet that stress is a bigger killer than wood.. but i don't see any country taking action against stress. stress is working 12 hours a day for next to minimum wage (national average), being overworked to the point where you can't have a proper break or lunch, being in debt and unable to cope with bills etc... hell that's the average person in the UK i think burning wood might be seen as theraputic, and stress-releiving. in this sense it's actually HEALTHY to burn wood.... so do it and don't listen to stupid scientists.
thats so true...
today i made my first fire of the year couse its just gettin too cold n i was just sitting infront of the fire chillin and gettin my thought process all goin.. very relaxing indeed
|
Yes it truely is facinating the reactions people hav to certain scientific data. Especially, when it is something which is common sense really and something which mankind has been doing for thousands of years.
|
|
|
Inhaling everything but the natural air composition is bad for you, that's common knowledge isn't it?
I mean, cigarette smoke isn't healthy for you either? And tobacco are dried plants anyway so it's not that much difference with burning wood..
|
On February 03 2012 18:40 Elzar wrote:Now wait a second! Are you telling me inhaling smoke from burned materials isn't healthy? My god! ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qeh4k.gif)
You know, you amongst others did not grasp the nature of this post 
Its not about telling you that inhaling smoke is bad (because DUH) but to educate you in the fact that you RESIST what has been told to you (backed up by scientific facts)
I've read a few more posts here and its funny to read that the creator of this analogy is right. There is a lot of resistance and counter arguments that are emotional, not rational.
That is also the conclusion of the post when pointing at religious people/debate. Even if you come up with 1000000 arguments to not do it, some people can never be convinced to change there opinions just because they feel like it.
|
Wow, the responses in the thread really do show what sam harris was getting at. And I'm sorry, but a lot of the sarcasm in many posts is essentially the same kind of dismissive, resistant attitude.
I'm a little confused at the comparison to smoking simply because smoking is addictive.
I dunno, I was mentally prepared for the article and I've been trying to become more of a Bayesian rationalist recently, so my resistance may have taken a different form. I saw it more as problem solving. Is there some way we can mimic wood burning without the health effects? Similarly, how often do people burn wood? Smoking is addictive, so obviously people smoke a lot, but wood burning seems a lot less common.
The regulation actually made me think more though. I don't quite know how we'd do regulation. We already have fire regulation, so I'm going to guess that its better to self regulate, then use the government.
|
I must be totally rational and awesome because it made perfect sense to me, no resistance here. I'm still gonna do it though. Gonna smoke more cigarettes too.
On February 03 2012 21:15 Uldridge wrote:
Inhaling everything but the natural air composition is bad for you, that's common knowledge isn't it?
I mean, cigarette smoke isn't healthy for you either? And tobacco are dried plants anyway so it's not that much difference with burning wood..
Actually oxygen and the way it reacts with your cells when burning fuel is what makes you old. It also causes cancer on occasion.
Themoreyouknow!
|
On February 03 2012 20:40 shizna wrote:
yeah but i bet that stress is a bigger killer than wood.. but i don't see any country taking action against stress.
...
burning wood might be seen as theraputic, and stress-releiving. in this sense it's actually HEALTHY to burn wood.... so do it and don't listen to stupid scientists.
No. Smokers often find cigarettes relaxing. We still do not consider cigarettes to be healthy by way of reducing stress.
The article details the health effects for the community of smoke from wood fires, including the 2 million premature deaths per annum estimate. That is very likely far higher than the number of stress-related premature deaths that would be prevented by people sitting down by a nice fire.
[sidenote: Many countries do have initiatives aimed at reducing stress in the populace, including maximum working hours, mandatory provision of breaks for staff, and various forms of income support.]
I think the author hoped that people would not only instinctively resist the notion that wood fires are dangerous, but also critically examine their resistance and in doing so develop a greater understanding of those who follow other dogmas. It seems that many people have stopped at resistance.
I like a nice fire sometimes and knew that inhaling smoke was always bad for you, but I did not realise the extent to which a home fireplace affects neighbours. In the future, I shall stick to using electric and gas heating unless my fireplace has a proper filter in the chimney to deal with the smoke. It would not be fair for the children of others to suffer healthwise for my pleasure.
|
On February 03 2012 21:26 -_-Quails wrote:
I like a nice fire sometimes and knew that inhaling smoke was always bad for you, but I did not realise the extent to which a home fireplace affects neighbours. In the future, I shall stick to using electric and gas heating unless my fireplace has a proper filter in the chimney to deal with the smoke. It would not be fair for the children of others to suffer healthwise for my pleasure.
Then you are overreacting a bit. Chimney are mostly on top of roofs and such, and therefore release the smoke fairly high up. Smoke is warm and would not travel downwards, so I think the adverse effects on neighbours would be rather minimal at best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
