Democrats, gas stoves, and Diesel trucks

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

Nobody is saying that "children aren't more susceptible" so you can knock that bs off.


www.statista.com...#:~:text=Deaths%20attributable%20to%20air%20pollution%20in%20the%2 0United%20States%201990%2D2019&text=The%20number%20of%20deaths%20attributable,figure%20had%20fallen%20to%2060%2C200.

This study is from 2023. It shows that, in the US, 60k people total died from air pollution in 2019. Not just children. That is 10% of the number claimed for just children in 2018 from your source.

According to the WHO, 4.2 million people died of air pollution globally in 2019.

60,000 in the US is 1.5% of the global 4.2 million for 2019.

Using that as an average, you could guess, that in 2018 of the 600,000 children to die of air pollution globally, roughly 9,000 of them were in the US.


Yes, any child death is unacceptable, but when you cut through the BS that these "studies" try to cram down your neck to scare you into giving up something that has little to no affect on anybody, you realize how fearmongered you are by those that want to take those appliances from you.

The only BS is coming from your behaviour at this point. Anyway, everyone else take it or leave it, it's from a new study and it again verifies many others' findings on this same topic.

Again, here is the study for everyone's consideration, since it's got buried under nonsensical posts.

neurosciencenews.com...

a reply to: quintessentone

And what behavior would that be?

I gave you data and sources to back up my points. Where is the problem?

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

And what behavior would that be?

I gave you data and sources to back up my points. Where is the problem?

This source is not wrong just because you deny the truth.

neurosciencenews.com...

a reply to: quintessentone

And I have posted several articles of data and sources to prove you otherwise, but yet you still deny my findings.

Now why is that?

From your "source"

"1.Exposure to unclean cooking fuels and passive smoke during pregnancy and early life correlates with developmental delays in children."
NG and propane are not "unclean cooking fuels and as stated earlier, second hand smoke is already child abuse which is illegal

"2.Gas stoves contribute to indoor levels of carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide, affecting children who spend significant time indoors."
Proper venting and installation will minimize the CO2 and NO2 in your home

"3.Unclean fuel exposure from pregnancy to 36 months can increase the odds of developmental delays by up to 52% in certain domains."
Again, NG and Propane are not "unclean fuels" and are verified that by the WHO

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

And I have posted several articles of data and sources to prove you otherwise, but yet you still deny my findings.

Now why is that?

Google unclean cooking gas and see that the numbers aligning with these findings are an overwhelming number. But, hey, you do your beliefs and I'll do empirical science.

neurosciencenews.com...

a reply to: quintessentone

So you're saying that google knows better than the WHO?

"Unclean cooking fuels (i.e., polluting fuels including kerosene/paraffin, and solid fuels) "

None of those are NG or propane, weird.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

So you're saying that google knows better than the WHO?

I am saying here is a new study with empirical evidence, take it or leave it.

neurosciencenews.com...

a reply to: quintessentone

You keep posting the same article that has been rebuked by evidence from the WHO, being a one trick pony doesn't suit you.


You're allowed to have your opinion and if that aligns with a BS study that doesn't even know what an unclean fuel is or that smoking around children is already illegal(being that it is child abuse), then that is your problem.


Have fun in your "take all the appliances" echo chamber.


Never mind the fact that a single jetliner will produce more pollution in one flight than a one car will in it's lifetime.

a reply to: PorkChop96

The science can not be rebuked just misunderstood or denied by you as per usual.

childstudy.ca...

a reply to: quintessentone

Wow, a 2023 article from a 11 year old study.

How impressive

They also consider 25% use of gas stoves to be a prevalent appliance!! Hysterical...

There is no misunderstanding when the data is easily rebuked through the WHO. Which clearly your sources don't use.


BTW, Canada is not the USA. Just so you know

a reply to: PorkChop96

Gas stove toxic air pollutants do the same thing to children no matter the city or country.

Anyway, there are links between gas stove fumes and children's asthma as well as child developmental issues, so the information is there, do with it what you will.

a reply to: quintessentone

I have done with it what I will, I rebuked your "articles" and "studies" that claim gas stoves are a "prevalent appliance" at 25% usage across the country, claim that NG and propane are "unclean fuel", remind you that "passive smoke" is illegal around children because it is child abuse.

You ignore all of this and continue on your echo chamber of "gas stoves bad" because the government told you so.

Here is a question for you, and you alone. No sources or links or data required.

Where, in the US, do we have the grid capacity to go completely electric? Give me one state that has that commodity.

a reply to: PorkChop96

Again, you go with your beliefs or misbeliefs and I'll go with empirical scientific evidence.

a reply to: quintessentone

Avoiding the question does nothing but make you look a bigger fool


Beliefs? You mean the data I am giving you from the WHO?

Mental corruption runs deep with this one..

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

Avoiding the question does nothing but make you look a bigger fool


Beliefs? You mean the data I am giving you from the WHO?

Mental corruption runs deep with this one..

And being obtuse, insulting and combative is your trademark here. Your WHO source does not refute anything because it states statistics of air pollution my study pinpoints developmental issues in children specifically from inhaling toxic fumes from gas stoves, two different things. My study has empirical evidence your source is statistical, two different things.

But you do you and keep the BS flowing.

a reply to: quintessentone

Are you going to answer the question asked to you or keep being your ignorant self and act like you're the end all be all of every topic you comment on?

The question is on topic, so don't use that as an excuse not to answer. And if you don't have a legitimate answer, we will all know how uninformed on the subject you really are.

Always amusing to see how, when given the evidence that proves your "evidence" as not as big of a deal as you want people to believe, you can still go around touting of how much "BS" I am flowing.

Keep that head buried in the sand pal

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

Are you going to answer the question asked to you or keep being your ignorant self and act like you're the end all be all of every topic you comment on?

The question is on topic, so don't use that as an excuse not to answer. And if you don't have a legitimate answer, we will all know how uninformed on the subject you really are.

Always amusing to see how, when given the evidence that proves your "evidence" as not as big of a deal as you want people to believe, you can still go around touting of how much "BS" I am flowing.

Keep that head buried in the sand pal

Move along kid and bother someone else.

a reply to: quintessentone

I'll take that as you have no answer because they don't exist. Thank you for not cooperating.

Glad to see how dismissive you are when it comes to getting asked a question you don't have an answer for or you don't like the answer, so you don't answer

Have fun lefty