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.

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.

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

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.

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

Anonymous 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.

Yes PLEASE get rid of rats, mosquitoes and roaches (ahem childhood asthma.AND a plethora of other disease)

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.

Anonymous 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.

Yes PLEASE get rid of rats, mosquitoes and roaches (ahem childhood asthma.AND a plethora of other disease)

Anonymous wrote:One of the things that frustrates me to know end about DC is its ability to seize on niche issues and attempt to shape itself as a national lead on the topic. As if when it does go viral, somehow DC will be credited as the State that fostered the change.

The latest one is the apparently nationally dead topic of replacing gas appliances with electric. Just when you thought the subject might have been made up by fear mongering Republicans, DC resurrects it and says "don't worry, we will lead the way..."

And to top it off is is being heralded by our savior Charles Allen.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/02/04/dc-gas-stoves-charles-allen/

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:

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.

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.