Anonymous wrote:Billions of people in Asia use gas to cook and will never displace gas. They use much more intense gas flames to cook too. Yet why is there no epidemic of childhood asthma and lung diseases in children in Asia? No epidemics of COPD in restaurant workers in Asia. This push is such a laughable farce.
These kinds of sites and ways of cooking are soooo common in Asia:
Banning has stoves is entirely ethnocentric and assumes everyone cooks using western style techniques. Somehow gas stoves are crisis for Americans, yet an order of magnitude more people in Asia use it everyday with no widespread problems.
Anonymous wrote:Banning has stoves is entirely ethnocentric and assumes everyone cooks using western style techniques. Somehow gas stoves are crisis for Americans, yet an order of magnitude more people in Asia use it everyday with no widespread problems.
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.
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?
Jeff, seriously? You fell for that "study"?
DC would be better off getting rid of rats. There is a larger health impact to the city's kids based on rats and mosquitoes running/flying unchecked in DC.
I don't know what "study" you think I fell for, but there are dozens of studies going back decades. But again, the legislation doesn't force anyone to do anything. I just provides an opportunity. Why do you oppose that?
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?
Jeff, seriously? You fell for that "study"?
DC would be better off getting rid of rats. There is a larger health impact to the city's kids based on rats and mosquitoes running/flying unchecked in DC.
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.
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?
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?