banner
LightNews
deathstoveindustry.bsky.social
Death Stove Industry
@deathstoveindustry.bsky.social
41 followers 68 following 41 posts
Fact-checking the misinformation from the stove industry and their members. Wood burning stoves cause death and illness. Look out for the #DSIAwards www.youtube.com/@DeathStoveIndustry
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Pinned
deathstoveindustry.bsky.social
Death Stove Industry @deathstoveindustry.bsky.social · May 8
#WoodBurningStoves

5 quick facts about Wood Smoke Pollution.
See more facts from Doctors and Scientists Against Woodsmoke Pollution here:
www.dsawsp.org/resources/wo...
1 1 3
deathstoveindustry.bsky.social
Death Stove Industry @deathstoveindustry.bsky.social · 21h
☹️
www.dsawsp.org/blog/wood-sm...
Wood smoke pollution harms pets too
When fine particle pollution levels go up, so do veterinary costs. Lowering air pollution levels would improve our pets’ health as well as our own.
www.dsawsp.org
deathstoveindustry.bsky.social
Death Stove Industry @deathstoveindustry.bsky.social · 21h
PDF with links to all sources: drive.google.com/file/d/146ZV...
Fact-Check - Smoke and Invisible Pollution.pdf
drive.google.com
1 4
deathstoveindustry.bsky.social
Death Stove Industry @deathstoveindustry.bsky.social · 21h
Invisible wood smoke from any stove, including “clean” Ecodesign models, contains harmful PM2.5 and toxic gases.
You can’t see or smell the worst pollution, but it still travels and damages lungs, heart, and brain. Invisible does not equal harmless.
#StoveIndustryLies
Smoke and Invisible Pollution Myth 1: If you can’t see smoke, there’s no pollution.
Fact: Wood smoke contains invisible PM2.5, ultrafine particles, and gases like benzene and PAHs. These pollutants persist even when no plume is visible and they’re the most harmful to health. Myth 2: Only the visible plume matters for health.
Fact: The smallest particles are invisible and they’re the most dangerous. PM2.5 and ultrafine particles reach deep into the lungs and bloodstream, linked to heart, lung and brain disease. Myth 3: If neighbours can’t see or smell smoke, it’s harmless.
Fact: Invisible wood smoke still travels. Monitoring shows local air spikes when stoves are lit, even without visible plumes. Health risks don’t depend on what you can see or smell. Myth 4: Ecodesign stoves eliminate smoke.
Fact: Even “clean” burns release invisible fine particles and toxic gases. You may not see or smell smoke, but harmful pollution is still entering your home and neighbourhood air.
Ecodesign stoves reduce visible emissions but still emit far more PM2.5 per unit of heat than gas. They replace visible smoke with invisible pollution that still harms health. ✅ Bottom line:
Smoke is not just what you see. The most harmful pollution from wood burning is invisible, odourless, and still present even in “clean” stoves. Invisible doesn’t mean harmless.
1 1 4
deathstoveindustry.bsky.social
Death Stove Industry @deathstoveindustry.bsky.social · 1d
PDF with links to sources: drive.google.com/file/d/1k4vP...

Original Article: nation.cymru/news/welsh-invention-prevents-indoor-pollution-from-wood-burning-stoves/
Fact-Check - Island Pellet Stoves - Nation Cymru.pdf
drive.google.com
1 3
deathstoveindustry.bsky.social
Death Stove Industry @deathstoveindustry.bsky.social · 1d
A recent article from Nation Cymru overstates the capabilities of a pellet stove technology by using absolutes like “eliminate” or “prevent.”
The larger issue of ambient air pollution and collective health burden remains unaddressed by any single “clean” stove.
#StoveIndustryLies
Welsh invention prevents indoor pollution from wood burning stoves? The article overstates what the new “pollution-preventing” pellet stove can do. While it’s a useful advance, the claims of eliminating indoor pollution or solving the wood-burning problem are misleading. No stove is emission-free. Even sealed or DEFRA-approved pellet stoves release pollutants during ignition, refuelling, or from leaks. Lab tests ≠ real homes. The “20× cleaner” figure for pellet stoves reflects ideal lab conditions, not real-world variability or other pollutants like CO, VOCs and ultrafine particles. Indoor exposure is mostly reduced only for the stove user. While this technology may improve air quality inside the home where the stove is used, neighbouring homes and outdoor air are still heavily impacted. Studies show homes with stoves have higher indoor PM2.5, and pollutant spikes occur when doors are opened. Public health impact persists. Even “clean” stoves contribute to outdoor PM2.5 and shared air pollution. It’s a major health concern. Bottom line:
This technology can reduce emissions and exposure but does not eliminate them or resolve the wider air-quality problem from domestic wood burning. The article’s “pollution-free” framing exaggerates its real impact. Myth 4: This invention solves the air-quality/health problem of wood burning.
Fact: It addresses only one piece (indoor emission exposure). The broader public health burden is significantly driven by ambient / outdoor particulate pollution resulting from wood combustion in many homes. Indoor exposure is mostly reduced only for the stove user. While this technology may improve air quality inside the home where the stove is used, neighbouring homes and outdoor air are still heavily impacted. Estimates of annual health costs tied to domestic wood burning in London are around £173 million due to PM2.5 and NO₂ impacts.
Even “cleaner” stoves contribute to that shared burden. ✅ Bottom Line
This technology can reduce emissions and exposure but does not eliminate them or resolve the wider air-quality problem from domestic wood burning. The article’s “pollution-free” framing exaggerates its real impact. 
Indoor exposure reductions are real but not perfect. Spikes and leaks still occur in real homes.
The larger issue of ambient air pollution and collective health burden remains unaddressed by any single “clean” stove.
1 1 5
deathstoveindustry.bsky.social
Death Stove Industry @deathstoveindustry.bsky.social · 1d
PDF with links to sources: drive.google.com/file/d/1k4vP...

Original Article: nation.cymru/news/welsh-invention-prevents-indoor-pollution-from-wood-burning-stoves/
Myth 4: This invention solves the air-quality/health problem of wood burning.
Fact: It addresses only one piece (indoor emission exposure). The broader public health burden is significantly driven by ambient / outdoor particulate pollution resulting from wood combustion in many homes. Indoor exposure is mostly reduced only for the stove user. While this technology may improve air quality inside the home where the stove is used, neighbouring homes and outdoor air are still heavily impacted. Estimates of annual health costs tied to domestic wood burning in London are around £173 million due to PM2.5 and NO₂ impacts.
Even “cleaner” stoves contribute to that shared burden. ✅ Bottom Line
This technology can reduce emissions and exposure but does not eliminate them or resolve the wider air-quality problem from domestic wood burning. The article’s “pollution-free” framing exaggerates its real impact. 
Indoor exposure reductions are real but not perfect. Spikes and leaks still occur in real homes.
The larger issue of ambient air pollution and collective health burden remains unaddressed by any single “clean” stove.
deathstoveindustry.bsky.social
Death Stove Industry @deathstoveindustry.bsky.social · 1d
PDF with links to sources: drive.google.com/file/d/1k4vP...

Original Article: nation.cymru/news/welsh-invention-prevents-indoor-pollution-from-wood-burning-stoves/
Myth 4: This invention solves the air-quality/health problem of wood burning.
Fact: It addresses only one piece (indoor emission exposure). The broader public health burden is significantly driven by ambient / outdoor particulate pollution resulting from wood combustion in many homes. Indoor exposure is mostly reduced only for the stove user. While this technology may improve air quality inside the home where the stove is used, neighbouring homes and outdoor air are still heavily impacted. Estimates of annual health costs tied to domestic wood burning in London are around £173 million due to PM2.5 and NO₂ impacts.
Even “cleaner” stoves contribute to that shared burden. ✅ Bottom Line
This technology can reduce emissions and exposure but does not eliminate them or resolve the wider air-quality problem from domestic wood burning. The article’s “pollution-free” framing exaggerates its real impact. 
Indoor exposure reductions are real but not perfect. Spikes and leaks still occur in real homes.
The larger issue of ambient air pollution and collective health burden remains unaddressed by any single “clean” stove.
deathstoveindustry.bsky.social
Death Stove Industry @deathstoveindustry.bsky.social · 2d
The article overstates the capabilities of a pellet stove technology by using absolutes like “eliminate” or “solve.”
The larger issue of ambient air pollution and collective health burden remains unaddressed by any single “clean” stove.
More detail coming soon.
#StoveIndustryLies
The article overstates what the new “pollution-preventing” pellet stove can do. While it’s a useful advance, the claims of eliminating indoor pollution or solving the wood-burning problem are misleading. No stove is emission-free. Even sealed or DEFRA-approved pellet stoves release pollutants during ignition, refuelling, or from leaks. Lab tests ≠ real homes. The “20× cleaner” figure for pellet stoves reflects ideal lab conditions, not real-world variability or other pollutants like CO, VOCs and ultrafine particles. But it doesn’t account for all pollutants (e.g. CO, VOCs, ultrafine particles) or real-world operation (imperfect fuel, maintenance issues). Real homes see variation.
 Indoor exposure is mostly reduced only for the stove user. While this technology may improve air quality inside the home where the stove is used, neighbouring homes and outdoor air are still heavily impacted. Studies show homes with stoves have higher indoor PM2.5, and pollutant spikes occur when doors are opened. Public health impact persists. Even “clean” stoves contribute to outdoor PM2.5 and shared air pollution. It’s a major health concern. Bottom line:
This technology can reduce emissions and exposure but does not eliminate them or resolve the wider air-quality problem from domestic wood burning. The article’s “pollution-free” framing exaggerates its real impact.
1
deathstoveindustry.bsky.social
Death Stove Industry @deathstoveindustry.bsky.social · 2d
The article overstates the capabilities of a pellet stove technology by using absolutes like “eliminate” or “solve.”
The larger issue of ambient air pollution and collective health burden remains unaddressed by any single “clean” stove.
More detail coming soon.
#StoveIndustryLies
1 1
Reposted by Death Stove Industry
deathstoveindustry.bsky.social
Death Stove Industry @deathstoveindustry.bsky.social · 2d
The Stove Industry Association’s recent article selectively omits key evidence on, the shared toxicology between wood and tobacco smoke, real-world emission levels from Ecodesign stoves, and the disproportionate public-health impact of domestic burning.
Links in 2nd post.
#StoveIndustryLies
TLDR Fact-Check: Stoves vs Smoking – What the Science Actually Says The Stove Industry Association argues that comparisons between wood-burning stoves and cigarette smoke are misleading. However, independent research and government data show otherwise: Wood smoke ≈ tobacco smoke: Both contain many of the same carcinogens and fine particles (PM₂.₅, PAHs, benzene, formaldehyde). Ecodesign ≠ clean: Real-world stove emissions are several times higher than lab claims and can exceed WHO air-quality limits indoors. Indoor pollution persists: Even “sealed” or “Ready to Burn” stoves raise PM₂.₅ and VOC levels during normal use. Renewable ≠ harmless: Domestic wood burning emits 17–21 % of UK PM₂.₅ but provides < 2 % of heat.an inefficient, high-pollution trade-off. Health & cost impacts: Studies find wood heating is often more expensive and less climate-efficient than heat pumps or gas. ✅ Bottom line: Modern stoves may be cleaner than open fires but they are not clean. Framing wood burning as a small, safe, or sustainable heating choice misrepresents current scientific and public-health evidence. Myth 1: The comparison with smoking is misleading and risks confusing the public. 
Fact: The SIA correctly notes that the cited conference abstract did not claim stove smoke is identical to cigarette smoke. However, multiple peer-reviewed studies and public-health agencies (WHO, European Respiratory Society) have long highlighted that wood smoke and tobacco smoke share many of the same toxic and carcinogenic compounds, including fine particulate matter (PM₂.₅), PAHs, formaldehyde, and benzene. The comparison used in media headlines reflects those chemical similarities, not an identical exposure pathway. Myth 2: Modern Ecodesign stoves emit 90% less particulates than open fires.
Fact: Lab tests under Ecodesign conditions often show large PM reductions, but real-world emissions are much higher. The UK Government’s own evidence review found that Ecodesign testing omits condensable PM, and real emissions can be several times greater than declared lab figures. Moreover, independent research in 2025 from the University of Surrey found Ecodesign stoves still release high ultrafine particle counts (UFPs) and indoor spikes during lighting/refuelling. Levels that can exceed WHO short-term exposure limits. Another study from the University of Surrey from 2023 found that modern stoves emit twice the amount of UFPs compared to older stoves, but more research is needed. Myth 8: Wood fuel used alongside heat pumps is always a renewable, affordable, and resilient heating choice for many UK homes.
Fact: While wood fuel can be renewable and resilient in certain contexts, in most realistic modern UK urban scenarios it is more expensive, less climate-efficient, and carries serious health costs, especially compared to heat pumps or gas boilers, unless the wood is truly free and sustainably sourced.
 ✅ Bottom Line The Stove Industry Association’s article correctly challenges over-simplified media headlines but selectively omits key evidence on, the shared toxicology between wood and tobacco smoke, real-world emission levels from Ecodesign stoves, and the disproportionate public-health impact of domestic burning.
While modern stoves can be cleaner than old ones, they are not clean, and framing them as minimal-risk appliances misleads the public.
1 1 5
deathstoveindustry.bsky.social
Death Stove Industry @deathstoveindustry.bsky.social · 2d
PDF with links to sources: drive.google.com/file/d/1Cs20...

Original SIA article: stoveindustryassociation.org/wood-burning...
Fact-Check - SIA - Stoves vs Smoking – What the Science Actually Says.pdf
drive.google.com
3
deathstoveindustry.bsky.social
Death Stove Industry @deathstoveindustry.bsky.social · 2d
The Stove Industry Association’s recent article selectively omits key evidence on, the shared toxicology between wood and tobacco smoke, real-world emission levels from Ecodesign stoves, and the disproportionate public-health impact of domestic burning.
Links in 2nd post.
#StoveIndustryLies
TLDR Fact-Check: Stoves vs Smoking – What the Science Actually Says The Stove Industry Association argues that comparisons between wood-burning stoves and cigarette smoke are misleading. However, independent research and government data show otherwise: Wood smoke ≈ tobacco smoke: Both contain many of the same carcinogens and fine particles (PM₂.₅, PAHs, benzene, formaldehyde). Ecodesign ≠ clean: Real-world stove emissions are several times higher than lab claims and can exceed WHO air-quality limits indoors. Indoor pollution persists: Even “sealed” or “Ready to Burn” stoves raise PM₂.₅ and VOC levels during normal use. Renewable ≠ harmless: Domestic wood burning emits 17–21 % of UK PM₂.₅ but provides < 2 % of heat.an inefficient, high-pollution trade-off. Health & cost impacts: Studies find wood heating is often more expensive and less climate-efficient than heat pumps or gas. ✅ Bottom line: Modern stoves may be cleaner than open fires but they are not clean. Framing wood burning as a small, safe, or sustainable heating choice misrepresents current scientific and public-health evidence. Myth 1: The comparison with smoking is misleading and risks confusing the public. 
Fact: The SIA correctly notes that the cited conference abstract did not claim stove smoke is identical to cigarette smoke. However, multiple peer-reviewed studies and public-health agencies (WHO, European Respiratory Society) have long highlighted that wood smoke and tobacco smoke share many of the same toxic and carcinogenic compounds, including fine particulate matter (PM₂.₅), PAHs, formaldehyde, and benzene. The comparison used in media headlines reflects those chemical similarities, not an identical exposure pathway. Myth 2: Modern Ecodesign stoves emit 90% less particulates than open fires.
Fact: Lab tests under Ecodesign conditions often show large PM reductions, but real-world emissions are much higher. The UK Government’s own evidence review found that Ecodesign testing omits condensable PM, and real emissions can be several times greater than declared lab figures. Moreover, independent research in 2025 from the University of Surrey found Ecodesign stoves still release high ultrafine particle counts (UFPs) and indoor spikes during lighting/refuelling. Levels that can exceed WHO short-term exposure limits. Another study from the University of Surrey from 2023 found that modern stoves emit twice the amount of UFPs compared to older stoves, but more research is needed. Myth 8: Wood fuel used alongside heat pumps is always a renewable, affordable, and resilient heating choice for many UK homes.
Fact: While wood fuel can be renewable and resilient in certain contexts, in most realistic modern UK urban scenarios it is more expensive, less climate-efficient, and carries serious health costs, especially compared to heat pumps or gas boilers, unless the wood is truly free and sustainably sourced.
 ✅ Bottom Line The Stove Industry Association’s article correctly challenges over-simplified media headlines but selectively omits key evidence on, the shared toxicology between wood and tobacco smoke, real-world emission levels from Ecodesign stoves, and the disproportionate public-health impact of domestic burning.
While modern stoves can be cleaner than old ones, they are not clean, and framing them as minimal-risk appliances misleads the public.
1 1 5
Reposted by Death Stove Industry
nbrsvswoodsmoke.bsky.social
Neighbours Against Wood Smoke @nbrsvswoodsmoke.bsky.social · 3d
How much influence did Robert Jenrick have on the aggressive stove industry lobbying that has devastated the health & lives of many people in SCAs after many decades of smoke free living? His father’s company has made huge profits from assaulting neighbours with toxic fumes from “Ecodesign” stoves.
fergus.oolong.co.uk
Fergus Murray @fergus.oolong.co.uk · 4d
To be fair (perhaps excessively so) his company did, at least, start out as gas fitters.
A page from an early filing with Companies House: Charlton and Jenrick Limited Directors Report The Directors present their annual report and the audited financial statements for fifteen months ended 31st December 1987. 1. ACTIVITIES The Company retails and fits gas fires, fireplaces and accessories. 2. REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT The Company was incorporated on 17th July 1986 as Liggart Limited, changed its name on 21st August 1986 and commenced to trade on ist September 1986.. 3. DIVIDENDS The Directors do not recommand the payment of a dividend. 4. FUTURE PROSPECTS The Directors are optimistic about the longterm prospects of the Company and intend in the near future to increase the authorised share capital and the issued share capital of the Company by capitalisation of part of their loan account. 5. DIRECTORS The present membership of the board since incorporation and at present is set out below. Both of the Directors have served throughout the period. The Directors interests as defined by the Companies Act, in the shares of the Company at the date of incorporation and at 31st December 1987 is as follows: Ordinary Shares of £1 each W.J. Jenrick B.G. Charlton
1 2 4
deathstoveindustry.bsky.social
Death Stove Industry @deathstoveindustry.bsky.social · 3d
PDF with links to sources: drive.google.com/file/d/1fYP1...
Fact-Check - Scotlands New Build Heating Bill & Wood Stoves.pdf
drive.google.com
1
deathstoveindustry.bsky.social
Death Stove Industry @deathstoveindustry.bsky.social · 3d
The original Scottish bill never banned all stoves. It was a targeted rule for new builds and conversions, to reduce CO₂ emissions and air pollution. Industry voices and some politicians pushed the framing it was a blanket ban, which created pressure for a U-turn.
#StoveIndustryLies
1 2
Reposted by Death Stove Industry
deathstoveindustry.bsky.social
Death Stove Industry @deathstoveindustry.bsky.social · 3d
This article overstates some claims.
The UK CCC and IPCC do not class wood burning as carbon neutral.
In terms of overall resilience, especially for keeping critical home systems running, a home battery system provides far greater security and practicality.
#StoveIndustryLies
Myth 1: A modern Ecodesign-compliant stove delivers high efficiency on renewable wood fuel
Fact: Ecodesign stoves are more efficient than many older stoves or open fires, but they are not emissions-free or automatically climate-neutral. Ecodesign sets stricter limits on particulate and other pollutant emissions and requires a minimum efficiency (market guidance says ~75% minimum efficiency for Ecodesign stoves vs ~65% for older CE rules). That does mean less wood and lower emissions than older appliances, for some pollutants, but modern stoves still produce particulate matter (PM2.5), CO₂ and other pollutants and will contribute to local air pollution and climate impacts depending on fuel sourcing and timescale. 
A 2025 University of Surrey/GCARE field study found that Ecodesign stoves produced higher UFP counts, especially when using briquette fuels. There were also short-term spikes during lighting and refuelling than simple seasoned-wood stoves. Myth 3: Wood fuel is renewable and low-carbon
Fact: Whether wood heating is net low-carbon depends on fuel sourcing, transport, drying, and the timescale for forest regrowth. Policy and scientific debate show biomass/carbon accounting is complex. Some analyses find burning wood can produce more CO₂ per unit energy than fossil fuels in the short term; others point to benefits if wood is sustainably sourced and regrowth is rapid. The article’s blanket framing “renewable wood fuel” glosses over these important nuances. By contrast, wind, solar and hydro do not emit CO₂ during operation and therefore don’t have the same near-term carbon-payback timing issues.
The UK Climate Change Committee and IPCC do not class biomass wood burning as carbon neutral. Bottom line Charnwood’s article overstates some claims. In terms of overall resilience, especially for keeping critical home systems running, a home battery system provides far greater security and practicality. Myth 5: Wood burning stoves offer practical resilience
Fact:While Ecodesign stoves can provide valuable heat during power cuts, they are not the most resilient or versatile solution for keeping a modern household running.
A home battery system offers much broader and cleaner energy resilience, as they can power essential appliances like fridges and freezers enabling food to be preserved, and enable communication by charging phones, powering radios and TVs, while also maintaining comfort and safety without smoke, fire risk, or manual effort. Batteries can be paired with solar panels for renewable, continuous backup power. ✅ Bottom line Charnwood’s article overstates some claims (e.g., implied carbon-neutrality, a blanket “replace grid energy” message, and an unqualified “50% less wood” statement). These are partly manufacturer claims or simplifications and should be phrased more cautiously and supported with independent evidence. In terms of overall resilience, especially for keeping critical home systems running, a home battery system provides far greater security and practicality.
2 3
deathstoveindustry.bsky.social
Death Stove Industry @deathstoveindustry.bsky.social · 3d
This article overstates some claims.
The UK CCC and IPCC do not class wood burning as carbon neutral.
In terms of overall resilience, especially for keeping critical home systems running, a home battery system provides far greater security and practicality.
#StoveIndustryLies
Myth 1: A modern Ecodesign-compliant stove delivers high efficiency on renewable wood fuel
Fact: Ecodesign stoves are more efficient than many older stoves or open fires, but they are not emissions-free or automatically climate-neutral. Ecodesign sets stricter limits on particulate and other pollutant emissions and requires a minimum efficiency (market guidance says ~75% minimum efficiency for Ecodesign stoves vs ~65% for older CE rules). That does mean less wood and lower emissions than older appliances, for some pollutants, but modern stoves still produce particulate matter (PM2.5), CO₂ and other pollutants and will contribute to local air pollution and climate impacts depending on fuel sourcing and timescale. 
A 2025 University of Surrey/GCARE field study found that Ecodesign stoves produced higher UFP counts, especially when using briquette fuels. There were also short-term spikes during lighting and refuelling than simple seasoned-wood stoves. Myth 3: Wood fuel is renewable and low-carbon
Fact: Whether wood heating is net low-carbon depends on fuel sourcing, transport, drying, and the timescale for forest regrowth. Policy and scientific debate show biomass/carbon accounting is complex. Some analyses find burning wood can produce more CO₂ per unit energy than fossil fuels in the short term; others point to benefits if wood is sustainably sourced and regrowth is rapid. The article’s blanket framing “renewable wood fuel” glosses over these important nuances. By contrast, wind, solar and hydro do not emit CO₂ during operation and therefore don’t have the same near-term carbon-payback timing issues.
The UK Climate Change Committee and IPCC do not class biomass wood burning as carbon neutral. Bottom line Charnwood’s article overstates some claims. In terms of overall resilience, especially for keeping critical home systems running, a home battery system provides far greater security and practicality. Myth 5: Wood burning stoves offer practical resilience
Fact:While Ecodesign stoves can provide valuable heat during power cuts, they are not the most resilient or versatile solution for keeping a modern household running.
A home battery system offers much broader and cleaner energy resilience, as they can power essential appliances like fridges and freezers enabling food to be preserved, and enable communication by charging phones, powering radios and TVs, while also maintaining comfort and safety without smoke, fire risk, or manual effort. Batteries can be paired with solar panels for renewable, continuous backup power. ✅ Bottom line Charnwood’s article overstates some claims (e.g., implied carbon-neutrality, a blanket “replace grid energy” message, and an unqualified “50% less wood” statement). These are partly manufacturer claims or simplifications and should be phrased more cautiously and supported with independent evidence. In terms of overall resilience, especially for keeping critical home systems running, a home battery system provides far greater security and practicality.
2 3
Reposted by Death Stove Industry
deathstoveindustry.bsky.social
Death Stove Industry @deathstoveindustry.bsky.social · 5d
“Just move” is one of the standard responses from a person that burns wood.
Wood smoke is not a private choice. It harms neighbours, and drives up public health costs. Telling people to “just move” ignores reality. Everyone deserves clean air where they live.
#StoveIndustryLies
Fact-Check: Personal Choice vs Community Impact Myth 1: If you don’t like the smoke, just move.
Fact: Moving isn’t realistic. Homes are expensive, bound by rent, people need to stay near jobs, schools, friends and family. Even if you did move, a new neighbour could install a stove. Wood smoke spreads across whole neighbourhoods, so there’s no escape. Bottom line:
Wood smoke is not a private choice. It spreads beyond chimneys, harms neighbours, and drives up public health costs. Telling people to “just move” ignores reality. Everyone deserves clean air where they live.
2 4
deathstoveindustry.bsky.social
Death Stove Industry @deathstoveindustry.bsky.social · 5d
“Just move” is one of the standard responses from a person that burns wood.
Wood smoke is not a private choice. It harms neighbours, and drives up public health costs. Telling people to “just move” ignores reality. Everyone deserves clean air where they live.
#StoveIndustryLies
Fact-Check: Personal Choice vs Community Impact Myth 1: If you don’t like the smoke, just move.
Fact: Moving isn’t realistic. Homes are expensive, bound by rent, people need to stay near jobs, schools, friends and family. Even if you did move, a new neighbour could install a stove. Wood smoke spreads across whole neighbourhoods, so there’s no escape. Bottom line:
Wood smoke is not a private choice. It spreads beyond chimneys, harms neighbours, and drives up public health costs. Telling people to “just move” ignores reality. Everyone deserves clean air where they live.
2 4
deathstoveindustry.bsky.social
Death Stove Industry @deathstoveindustry.bsky.social · 6d
Brilliant. That's literally the only reason they should be used. 🙂

You are probably emitting less CO2 than the average house, as heat pumps are so efficient.
1
Reposted by Death Stove Industry
deathstoveindustry.bsky.social
Death Stove Industry @deathstoveindustry.bsky.social · 6d
London’s PM2.5 is falling, but not because of stove sales. Modern stoves are cleaner, yet still significant polluters. Industry claims underplay real-world emissions and exaggerate their role in air quality gains.
#StoveIndustryLies
Myth 1: London PM2.5 is falling because of new stove sales.
Fact: PM2.5 declines are mainly due to transport and industry controls. Stove sales coinciding with lower pollution is correlation, not proof of impact. Myth 2: Ecodesign stoves only produce 0.3% of UK PM₂.₅, so they’re insignificant.
Fact: The number looks small only because stoves are used lightly compared to gas boilers. Per unit of heat, even “clean” stoves emit hundreds of times more PM₂.₅ than gas. If they supplied the same energy as boilers, emissions would soar. Myth 3: New stoves cut emissions by 90% in real life.
Fact: Lab tests under perfect conditions show high reductions. Real-world studies find much higher emissions due to fuel, maintenance, and user behaviour. Myth 4: Falling wood-burning emissions mean the issue is solved.
Fact: Wood burning still makes up ~15% of London PM2.5. A major source compared to its small role in heating. It remains a disproportionate health risk. Myth 5: Balance, not bans, is the scientific position.
Fact: This is advocacy, not science. Public health bodies stress cutting combustion where possible. Cleaner stoves help, but they remain dirtier than heat pumps, gas, and electricity. ✅ Bottom line:
London’s PM2.5 is falling, but not because of stove sales. Modern stoves are cleaner, yet still significant polluters. Industry claims underplay real-world emissions and exaggerate their role in air quality gains.
1
deathstoveindustry.bsky.social
Death Stove Industry @deathstoveindustry.bsky.social · 6d
London’s PM2.5 is falling, but not because of stove sales. Modern stoves are cleaner, yet still significant polluters. Industry claims underplay real-world emissions and exaggerate their role in air quality gains.
#StoveIndustryLies
Myth 1: London PM2.5 is falling because of new stove sales.
Fact: PM2.5 declines are mainly due to transport and industry controls. Stove sales coinciding with lower pollution is correlation, not proof of impact. Myth 2: Ecodesign stoves only produce 0.3% of UK PM₂.₅, so they’re insignificant.
Fact: The number looks small only because stoves are used lightly compared to gas boilers. Per unit of heat, even “clean” stoves emit hundreds of times more PM₂.₅ than gas. If they supplied the same energy as boilers, emissions would soar. Myth 3: New stoves cut emissions by 90% in real life.
Fact: Lab tests under perfect conditions show high reductions. Real-world studies find much higher emissions due to fuel, maintenance, and user behaviour. Myth 4: Falling wood-burning emissions mean the issue is solved.
Fact: Wood burning still makes up ~15% of London PM2.5. A major source compared to its small role in heating. It remains a disproportionate health risk. Myth 5: Balance, not bans, is the scientific position.
Fact: This is advocacy, not science. Public health bodies stress cutting combustion where possible. Cleaner stoves help, but they remain dirtier than heat pumps, gas, and electricity. ✅ Bottom line:
London’s PM2.5 is falling, but not because of stove sales. Modern stoves are cleaner, yet still significant polluters. Industry claims underplay real-world emissions and exaggerate their role in air quality gains.
1
deathstoveindustry.bsky.social
Death Stove Industry @deathstoveindustry.bsky.social · 6d
Drax is a major CO₂ emitter and has documented health impacts. Domestic wood burning adds both CO₂, dangerous PM₂.₅, and other toxic pollutants. One problem doesn’t excuse the other. We need stricter rules on biomass and domestic wood burning.
#StoveIndustryLies
#Drax
Myth 5: Drax is far worse than Ecodesign stoves, so household burning doesn’t matter.
Fact: Drax is one of the UK’s biggest CO₂ emitters and releases harmful particulates. Ecodesign stoves are cleaner than old models but still add PM₂.₅, black carbon, CO₂, and other toxic pollutants, where people live. Cleaner stoves help, but they remain dirtier than heat pumps, gas, and electricity. Both contribute to climate change and health harms. One does not excuse the other. Bottom line:
Drax is a major climate emitter and has documented health impacts. Domestic wood burning adds both CO₂, dangerous PM₂.₅, and other toxic pollutants, which harms communities. One problem doesn’t excuse the other. We need stricter biomass rules and action on domestic wood burning.
1
deathstoveindustry.bsky.social
Death Stove Industry @deathstoveindustry.bsky.social · 6d
While cooking particles can irritate, wood smoke includes more complex organic compounds like levoglucosan, high black carbon, and certain metals which penetrate deeply and have chronic effects. Toxic composition of wood smoke is worse in many markers.
#StoveIndustryLies
Myth 1: Frying eggs or grilling produces more PM₂.₅ than a stove, so stoves are harmless.
Fact: Cooking does cause short indoor PM₂.₅ spikes, sometimes higher than roadside levels. But stoves emit continuously, add to outdoor air, and drive neighbourhood PM₂.₅. Comparing a kitchen spike with city-wide emissions is misleading. 
Wood smoke contains high levels of organic carbon, black/brown carbon, and trace metals. Studies in UK homes showed Ecodesign stoves reduce PM₂.₅ vs open fireplaces, but still produce sustained exposures (≈ 14-40 µg/m³) indoors. Bottom line:
Yes, domestic cooking causes sharp indoor PM₂.₅ spikes; but measured data shows pollution from even modern Ecodesign stoves produces sustained indoor and ambient PM₂.₅ exposures containing harmful chemical components like black carbon, metals and wood smoke tracers. Risk isn’t just about peaks — it’s about frequency, duration and composition.
Using cooking as a deflection minimises the proven impact sof wood smoke.
deathstoveindustry.bsky.social
Death Stove Industry @deathstoveindustry.bsky.social · 6d
Does cooking make more PM₂.₅ than a wood-burning stove??
stoveindustryassociation.org/higher-level...

Cooking is indoor exposure; wood burning raises neighbourhood PM₂.₅ and is linked to wider health harms. Comparing a kitchen peak to cumulative outdoor emissions is misleading
#StoveIndustryLies
1