DC taking dead national issues and making them local

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My main issue with the proposal is that it is only for households earning 80k or less. DC is an incredibly expensive city, inflation is bad right now. I think if you are seriously concerned about the impacts of gas stoves on children in the city, you should provide subsidies or other incentives for families up to like 130k. Replacing a home appliance would be a hardship for most families in that range. It's not like people with kids making 90 or 100k in DC are living large.

I agree with this. If you're earning 80k or less, you're probably not looking at big ticket but not time critical items like stove replacements for statistical long term health benefits. Been there and it's just not on the radar compared to immediate costs and repairs. Impact would be broader if extended.

If you're earning 80K or less, you are more likely to be renting. DC landlords already deal with many things and they are not going to jump on replacing gas ranges because they contribute to asthma

That’s what I was thinking too. Wonder how many stoves will actually be replaced as a result of this initiative.

Gotta say I much prefer gas for cooking (and because it is still available during power outages) but I’d consider replacing with electric if we remodel our kitchen down the road. However, it would probably require adding another circuit and updating the electrical panel, which isn’t exactly cheap either.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Just to be clear, you prefer to see poor children in DC suffer from asthma and increased risk of diabetes and cancer rather than be provided with an affordable means of reducing those risks? How many children are you willing to see suffer simply because you don't like Charles Allen?

Tell me you don’t know how to read studies without telling me…

Jeff, this is embarrassing you fell for that.

Here is an analysis of 41 separate studies that concludes, "in children, gas cooking increases the risk of asthma".

https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/42/6/1724/737113

That doesn't seem particularly hard to understand.

But, if you are not concerned about the risk, don't replace your stove. Nobody is forcing you. This bill just provides an opportunity for low income folks who do want to replace gas stoves.

The authors aren't very confident about gas cooking being causal. It may only be linked to another variable, like urban living, where gas is readily available.

Our finding of an association between gas cooking and asthma in the absence of an association between measured NO2 and asthma suggests that gas cooking may act as a surrogate for causal variables other than air pollutants produced by gas combustion

You are misinterpreting that quote, which doesn't say anything about urban living. The quote is saying that there may be factors involved with gas cooking beyond the production of NO2 which contribute to asthma and then goes on to say:

"This is supported by an Australian study, where the association between gas cooking and respiratory symptoms remained significant after adjustment for measured NO2."

In other words, NO2 production is not the only problem arising from gas cooking.

DP here. I think you misunderstood what the study says.

Why don't you explain it then because I think I understood it perfectly well.

They are saying that gas stoves are intercorrelated with other variables.

[Anonymous]

I think we should be clear that we are NOT talking electric cook tops but induction cook tops. So even more expensive.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Just to be clear, you prefer to see poor children in DC suffer from asthma and increased risk of diabetes and cancer rather than be provided with an affordable means of reducing those risks? How many children are you willing to see suffer simply because you don't like Charles Allen?

Tell me you don’t know how to read studies without telling me…

Jeff, this is embarrassing you fell for that.

Here is an analysis of 41 separate studies that concludes, "in children, gas cooking increases the risk of asthma".

https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/42/6/1724/737113

That doesn't seem particularly hard to understand.

But, if you are not concerned about the risk, don't replace your stove. Nobody is forcing you. This bill just provides an opportunity for low income folks who do want to replace gas stoves.

The authors aren't very confident about gas cooking being causal. It may only be linked to another variable, like urban living, where gas is readily available.

Our finding of an association between gas cooking and asthma in the absence of an association between measured NO2 and asthma suggests that gas cooking may act as a surrogate for causal variables other than air pollutants produced by gas combustion

You are misinterpreting that quote, which doesn't say anything about urban living. The quote is saying that there may be factors involved with gas cooking beyond the production of NO2 which contribute to asthma and then goes on to say:

"This is supported by an Australian study, where the association between gas cooking and respiratory symptoms remained significant after adjustment for measured NO2."

In other words, NO2 production is not the only problem arising from gas cooking.

DP here. I think you misunderstood what the study says.

Why don't you explain it then because I think I understood it perfectly well.

They are saying that gas stoves are intercorrelated with other variables.

Yes, that's basically what I said above. Those other variables are also linked to increased asthma. NO2 is not the only issue.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Just to be clear, you prefer to see poor children in DC suffer from asthma and increased risk of diabetes and cancer rather than be provided with an affordable means of reducing those risks? How many children are you willing to see suffer simply because you don't like Charles Allen?

Tell me you don’t know how to read studies without telling me…

Jeff, this is embarrassing you fell for that.

Here is an analysis of 41 separate studies that concludes, "in children, gas cooking increases the risk of asthma".

https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/42/6/1724/737113

That doesn't seem particularly hard to understand.

But, if you are not concerned about the risk, don't replace your stove. Nobody is forcing you. This bill just provides an opportunity for low income folks who do want to replace gas stoves.

The authors aren't very confident about gas cooking being causal. It may only be linked to another variable, like urban living, where gas is readily available.

Our finding of an association between gas cooking and asthma in the absence of an association between measured NO2 and asthma suggests that gas cooking may act as a surrogate for causal variables other than air pollutants produced by gas combustion

You are misinterpreting that quote, which doesn't say anything about urban living. The quote is saying that there may be factors involved with gas cooking beyond the production of NO2 which contribute to asthma and then goes on to say:

"This is supported by an Australian study, where the association between gas cooking and respiratory symptoms remained significant after adjustment for measured NO2."

In other words, NO2 production is not the only problem arising from gas cooking.

DP here. I think you misunderstood what the study says.

Why don't you explain it then because I think I understood it perfectly well.

The OP of the quoted section, the authors said asthma doesn't seem to be causal with gas stoves. They believe it is possible gas stoves to represent some other variable that they can't correct for or measure. So, you can't use this study to blame gas stoves for asthma. However, indoor NO2 and wheezing are correlated and the main source of indoor NO2 is gas stoves.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Just to be clear, you prefer to see poor children in DC suffer from asthma and increased risk of diabetes and cancer rather than be provided with an affordable means of reducing those risks? How many children are you willing to see suffer simply because you don't like Charles Allen?

Tell me you don’t know how to read studies without telling me…

Jeff, this is embarrassing you fell for that.

Here is an analysis of 41 separate studies that concludes, "in children, gas cooking increases the risk of asthma".

https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/42/6/1724/737113

That doesn't seem particularly hard to understand.

But, if you are not concerned about the risk, don't replace your stove. Nobody is forcing you. This bill just provides an opportunity for low income folks who do want to replace gas stoves.

The authors aren't very confident about gas cooking being causal. It may only be linked to another variable, like urban living, where gas is readily available.

Our finding of an association between gas cooking and asthma in the absence of an association between measured NO2 and asthma suggests that gas cooking may act as a surrogate for causal variables other than air pollutants produced by gas combustion

You are misinterpreting that quote, which doesn't say anything about urban living. The quote is saying that there may be factors involved with gas cooking beyond the production of NO2 which contribute to asthma and then goes on to say:

"This is supported by an Australian study, where the association between gas cooking and respiratory symptoms remained significant after adjustment for measured NO2."

In other words, NO2 production is not the only problem arising from gas cooking.

DP here. I think you misunderstood what the study says.

Why don't you explain it then because I think I understood it perfectly well.

The OP of the quoted section, the authors said asthma doesn't seem to be causal with gas stoves. They believe it is possible gas stoves to represent some other variable that they can't correct for or measure. So, you can't use this study to blame gas stoves for asthma. However, indoor NO2 and wheezing are correlated and the main source of indoor NO2 is gas stoves.

You are still misreading. Here is the conclusion:

Conclusions This meta-analysis provides quantitative evidence that, in children, gas cooking increases the risk of asthma and indoor NO2 increases the risk of current wheeze.

If your reading were correct, they could not arrive at this conclusion.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Just to be clear, you prefer to see poor children in DC suffer from asthma and increased risk of diabetes and cancer rather than be provided with an affordable means of reducing those risks? How many children are you willing to see suffer simply because you don't like Charles Allen?

Tell me you don’t know how to read studies without telling me…

Jeff, this is embarrassing you fell for that.

Here is an analysis of 41 separate studies that concludes, "in children, gas cooking increases the risk of asthma".

https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/42/6/1724/737113

That doesn't seem particularly hard to understand.

But, if you are not concerned about the risk, don't replace your stove. Nobody is forcing you. This bill just provides an opportunity for low income folks who do want to replace gas stoves.

The authors aren't very confident about gas cooking being causal. It may only be linked to another variable, like urban living, where gas is readily available.

Our finding of an association between gas cooking and asthma in the absence of an association between measured NO2 and asthma suggests that gas cooking may act as a surrogate for causal variables other than air pollutants produced by gas combustion

You are misinterpreting that quote, which doesn't say anything about urban living. The quote is saying that there may be factors involved with gas cooking beyond the production of NO2 which contribute to asthma and then goes on to say:

"This is supported by an Australian study, where the association between gas cooking and respiratory symptoms remained significant after adjustment for measured NO2."

In other words, NO2 production is not the only problem arising from gas cooking.

DP here. I think you misunderstood what the study says.

Why don't you explain it then because I think I understood it perfectly well.

The OP of the quoted section, the authors said asthma doesn't seem to be causal with gas stoves. They believe it is possible gas stoves to represent some other variable that they can't correct for or measure. So, you can't use this study to blame gas stoves for asthma. However, indoor NO2 and wheezing are correlated and the main source of indoor NO2 is gas stoves.

You are still misreading. Here is the conclusion:

Conclusions This meta-analysis provides quantitative evidence that, in children, gas cooking increases the risk of asthma and indoor NO2 increases the risk of current wheeze.

If your reading were correct, they could not arrive at this conclusion.

That is a scientific nothing burger.

[Anonymous]

So free bikes, free buses, and now free stoves. How about a tux cut instead?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Just to be clear, you prefer to see poor children in DC suffer from asthma and increased risk of diabetes and cancer rather than be provided with an affordable means of reducing those risks? How many children are you willing to see suffer simply because you don't like Charles Allen?

Tell me you don’t know how to read studies without telling me…

Jeff, this is embarrassing you fell for that.

Here is an analysis of 41 separate studies that concludes, "in children, gas cooking increases the risk of asthma".

https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/42/6/1724/737113

That doesn't seem particularly hard to understand.

But, if you are not concerned about the risk, don't replace your stove. Nobody is forcing you. This bill just provides an opportunity for low income folks who do want to replace gas stoves.

The authors aren't very confident about gas cooking being causal. It may only be linked to another variable, like urban living, where gas is readily available.

Our finding of an association between gas cooking and asthma in the absence of an association between measured NO2 and asthma suggests that gas cooking may act as a surrogate for causal variables other than air pollutants produced by gas combustion

You are misinterpreting that quote, which doesn't say anything about urban living. The quote is saying that there may be factors involved with gas cooking beyond the production of NO2 which contribute to asthma and then goes on to say:

"This is supported by an Australian study, where the association between gas cooking and respiratory symptoms remained significant after adjustment for measured NO2."

In other words, NO2 production is not the only problem arising from gas cooking.

DP here. I think you misunderstood what the study says.

Why don't you explain it then because I think I understood it perfectly well.

The OP of the quoted section, the authors said asthma doesn't seem to be causal with gas stoves. They believe it is possible gas stoves to represent some other variable that they can't correct for or measure. So, you can't use this study to blame gas stoves for asthma. However, indoor NO2 and wheezing are correlated and the main source of indoor NO2 is gas stoves.

You are still misreading. Here is the conclusion:

Conclusions This meta-analysis provides quantitative evidence that, in children, gas cooking increases the risk of asthma and indoor NO2 increases the risk of current wheeze.

If your reading were correct, they could not arrive at this conclusion.

All of the evidence they have presented is correlation. The study explicitly dispels a causal link between asthma and NO2. In fact, their conclusion of “increases the risk” actually goes beyond the evidence that they present because they have no mechanism, nor do they claim one exists whereby gas stoves by themselves increase risk of asthma.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Just to be clear, you prefer to see poor children in DC suffer from asthma and increased risk of diabetes and cancer rather than be provided with an affordable means of reducing those risks? How many children are you willing to see suffer simply because you don't like Charles Allen?

Tell me you don’t know how to read studies without telling me…

Jeff, this is embarrassing you fell for that.

Here is an analysis of 41 separate studies that concludes, "in children, gas cooking increases the risk of asthma".

https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/42/6/1724/737113

That doesn't seem particularly hard to understand.

But, if you are not concerned about the risk, don't replace your stove. Nobody is forcing you. This bill just provides an opportunity for low income folks who do want to replace gas stoves.

The authors aren't very confident about gas cooking being causal. It may only be linked to another variable, like urban living, where gas is readily available.

Our finding of an association between gas cooking and asthma in the absence of an association between measured NO2 and asthma suggests that gas cooking may act as a surrogate for causal variables other than air pollutants produced by gas combustion

You are misinterpreting that quote, which doesn't say anything about urban living. The quote is saying that there may be factors involved with gas cooking beyond the production of NO2 which contribute to asthma and then goes on to say:

"This is supported by an Australian study, where the association between gas cooking and respiratory symptoms remained significant after adjustment for measured NO2."

In other words, NO2 production is not the only problem arising from gas cooking.

DP here. I think you misunderstood what the study says.

Why don't you explain it then because I think I understood it perfectly well.

The OP of the quoted section, the authors said asthma doesn't seem to be causal with gas stoves. They believe it is possible gas stoves to represent some other variable that they can't correct for or measure. So, you can't use this study to blame gas stoves for asthma. However, indoor NO2 and wheezing are correlated and the main source of indoor NO2 is gas stoves.

You are still misreading. Here is the conclusion:

Conclusions This meta-analysis provides quantitative evidence that, in children, gas cooking increases the risk of asthma and indoor NO2 increases the risk of current wheeze.

If your reading were correct, they could not arrive at this conclusion.

All of the evidence they have presented is correlation. The study explicitly dispels a causal link between asthma and NO2. In fact, their conclusion of “increases the risk” actually goes beyond the evidence that they present because they have no mechanism, nor do they claim one exists whereby gas stoves by themselves increase risk of asthma.

They have 41 studies supporting the same conclusion. Anyone here can read the report themselves and decide for themselves what it says. As I have said many times, if you want to keep your gas stove, nobody is going to argue with you. The bill doesn't require anyone to replace their stoves, but only provides assistance for those who want to. I see no reason that anyone would oppose the bill.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Just to be clear, you prefer to see poor children in DC suffer from asthma and increased risk of diabetes and cancer rather than be provided with an affordable means of reducing those risks? How many children are you willing to see suffer simply because you don't like Charles Allen?

Tell me you don’t know how to read studies without telling me…

Jeff, this is embarrassing you fell for that.

Here is an analysis of 41 separate studies that concludes, "in children, gas cooking increases the risk of asthma".

https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/42/6/1724/737113

That doesn't seem particularly hard to understand.

But, if you are not concerned about the risk, don't replace your stove. Nobody is forcing you. This bill just provides an opportunity for low income folks who do want to replace gas stoves.

The authors aren't very confident about gas cooking being causal. It may only be linked to another variable, like urban living, where gas is readily available.

Our finding of an association between gas cooking and asthma in the absence of an association between measured NO2 and asthma suggests that gas cooking may act as a surrogate for causal variables other than air pollutants produced by gas combustion

You are misinterpreting that quote, which doesn't say anything about urban living. The quote is saying that there may be factors involved with gas cooking beyond the production of NO2 which contribute to asthma and then goes on to say:

"This is supported by an Australian study, where the association between gas cooking and respiratory symptoms remained significant after adjustment for measured NO2."

In other words, NO2 production is not the only problem arising from gas cooking.

DP here. I think you misunderstood what the study says.

Why don't you explain it then because I think I understood it perfectly well.

The OP of the quoted section, the authors said asthma doesn't seem to be causal with gas stoves. They believe it is possible gas stoves to represent some other variable that they can't correct for or measure. So, you can't use this study to blame gas stoves for asthma. However, indoor NO2 and wheezing are correlated and the main source of indoor NO2 is gas stoves.

You are still misreading. Here is the conclusion:

Conclusions This meta-analysis provides quantitative evidence that, in children, gas cooking increases the risk of asthma and indoor NO2 increases the risk of current wheeze.

If your reading were correct, they could not arrive at this conclusion.

All of the evidence they have presented is correlation. The study explicitly dispels a causal link between asthma and NO2. In fact, their conclusion of “increases the risk” actually goes beyond the evidence that they present because they have no mechanism, nor do they claim one exists whereby gas stoves by themselves increase risk of asthma.

They have 41 studies supporting the same conclusion. Anyone here can read the report themselves and decide for themselves what it says. As I have said many times, if you want to keep your gas stove, nobody is going to argue with you. The bill doesn't require anyone to replace their stoves, but only provides assistance for those who want to. I see no reason that anyone would oppose the bill.

Because we would rather the money be spent getring rid of things we know cause asthma, like rats, cockroaches and the number one killer of man, mosquitoes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They're not banning gas stoves in D.C., anyway, they're proposing an incentive for households who earn less than $80,000 to replace them.

The studies notwithstanding, the more we can shift to electric power instead of gas, the better for climate change — making the electric grid greener is far easier than mitigating the effects of burning natural gas.

Also, it's possible that the D.C. Council is doing this because they think it's a good idea on the merits, not to be part of The Discourse?

I don't see this as serious with an income limit of $80k. How many families in that income range even own a home in DC? Or is this a giveaway to the Georgetown people who have no income but lots of assets?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're not banning gas stoves in D.C., anyway, they're proposing an incentive for households who earn less than $80,000 to replace them.

The studies notwithstanding, the more we can shift to electric power instead of gas, the better for climate change — making the electric grid greener is far easier than mitigating the effects of burning natural gas.

Also, it's possible that the D.C. Council is doing this because they think it's a good idea on the merits, not to be part of The Discourse?

I don't see this as serious with an income limit of $80k. How many families in that income range even own a home in DC? Or is this a giveaway to the Georgetown people who have no income but lots of assets?

Easy, it's for elderly/retired people. Their income can own a home and have an income below 80k anywhere in the city. I'm pro getting rid of gas stoves, but this is a huge, expensive program by the city. Homeowners aren't the poor here, they own an asset!

Very clear that Allen has announced many such programs recently. The city is not planning ahead for 2025 when the $2 billion in federal funding disappears (and commercial real estate will be re-valued). $500 billion in surplus now, with a $2 billion subsidy, is a $1.5 billion shortfall soon.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Just to be clear, you prefer to see poor children in DC suffer from asthma and increased risk of diabetes and cancer rather than be provided with an affordable means of reducing those risks? How many children are you willing to see suffer simply because you don't like Charles Allen?

Tell me you don’t know how to read studies without telling me…

Jeff, this is embarrassing you fell for that.

Here is an analysis of 41 separate studies that concludes, "in children, gas cooking increases the risk of asthma".

https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/42/6/1724/737113

That doesn't seem particularly hard to understand.

But, if you are not concerned about the risk, don't replace your stove. Nobody is forcing you. This bill just provides an opportunity for low income folks who do want to replace gas stoves.

The authors aren't very confident about gas cooking being causal. It may only be linked to another variable, like urban living, where gas is readily available.

Our finding of an association between gas cooking and asthma in the absence of an association between measured NO2 and asthma suggests that gas cooking may act as a surrogate for causal variables other than air pollutants produced by gas combustion

You are misinterpreting that quote, which doesn't say anything about urban living. The quote is saying that there may be factors involved with gas cooking beyond the production of NO2 which contribute to asthma and then goes on to say:

"This is supported by an Australian study, where the association between gas cooking and respiratory symptoms remained significant after adjustment for measured NO2."

In other words, NO2 production is not the only problem arising from gas cooking.

DP here. I think you misunderstood what the study says.

Why don't you explain it then because I think I understood it perfectly well.

The OP of the quoted section, the authors said asthma doesn't seem to be causal with gas stoves. They believe it is possible gas stoves to represent some other variable that they can't correct for or measure. So, you can't use this study to blame gas stoves for asthma. However, indoor NO2 and wheezing are correlated and the main source of indoor NO2 is gas stoves.

You are still misreading. Here is the conclusion:

Conclusions This meta-analysis provides quantitative evidence that, in children, gas cooking increases the risk of asthma and indoor NO2 increases the risk of current wheeze.

If your reading were correct, they could not arrive at this conclusion.

That's the one-liner that people are going to run as headlines. The discussion makes it clear that they don't have a mechanism that would directly implicate gas stoves as a cause for asthma in children. Gas cooking is an indicator of increased risk of asthma, but the reasons for it aren't clear. Gas cooking may be a proxy for some other environmental hazard related to asthma. I believe the main problem is that they don't have indoor PM2.5 readings, the suspected mechanism in gas cooking. Indoor NO2 was easier to link to wheezing because the occurence of wheezing was linked to measured indoor NO2 concentrations, and the only significant indoor source is gas cooking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're not banning gas stoves in D.C., anyway, they're proposing an incentive for households who earn less than $80,000 to replace them.

The studies notwithstanding, the more we can shift to electric power instead of gas, the better for climate change — making the electric grid greener is far easier than mitigating the effects of burning natural gas.

Also, it's possible that the D.C. Council is doing this because they think it's a good idea on the merits, not to be part of The Discourse?

I don't see this as serious with an income limit of $80k. How many families in that income range even own a home in DC? Or is this a giveaway to the Georgetown people who have no income but lots of assets?

Easy, it's for elderly/retired people. Their income can own a home and have an income below 80k anywhere in the city. I'm pro getting rid of gas stoves, but this is a huge, expensive program by the city. Homeowners aren't the poor here, they own an asset!

Very clear that Allen has announced many such programs recently. The city is not planning ahead for 2025 when the $2 billion in federal funding disappears (and commercial real estate will be re-valued). $500 billion in surplus now, with a $2 billion subsidy, is a $1.5 billion shortfall soon.

I’m more curious what the plan is for when these cheap gas stoves they buy everyone inevitably break. Are they going to pay to fix/replace them too? I had a brand new induction stove top break within the first year of owning it and the guy who came to replace it said he sees it happen all the time.