
The Fireplace Delusion - moultano
https://samharris.org/the-fireplace-delusion/
======
it
Rocket stoves might be a way out of this, since they produce nowhere near as
much smoke as a conventional fireplace. That's because the airflow around the
wood in a rocket stove is mostly laminar rather than turbulent.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_stove](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_stove)

~~~
hetman
But since you can't see very much of the fire they're also not going to be
very desirable for "recreational" use at the author puts it.

~~~
greenyoda
But they could help alleviate smoke exposure in poor countries where people
have to burn wood because they can't obtain or afford cleaner fuels.

------
Vordimous
For those looking for the entire referenced article, Woodsmoke health effects:
a review. Author: Naeher LP
[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.510...](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.510.4296&rep=rep1&type=pdf)

------
rmbeard
Am curious as to what the so-called "clean" alternatives are: coal, nuclear? A
full lifecycle analysis of renewables such as solar and wind, may also not
compare favorably with wood, remember that wood is a also a renewable energy
source. In some parts of the world, notably Europe, forest cover has actually
been expanding, so its far from clear that wood is all that bad. The
individual health impacts are clearly bad with current wood burning
technology, and it is probably not something that one should be doing in high
density urban centers, but on the whole, it seems far from proven that wood is
worse than say photovoltaic panels
[https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/11/1411...](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/11/141111-solar-
panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/)

------
age_bronze
Am I the only one here which hates smoking neighbors? Cigarettes, wood, I'd
rather live next to a drummer than next to a smoker any day. I can't possibly
stand the stench of smoke, and just now I moved apartment only because of
smoking neighbors. If it were up to me, releasing any kind of smoke from your
house should be illegal.

I find it way more disgusting and rude than just believing in religion. At
least most people don't actively hurt other people's health by believing in
religion. (and when they do, that's a line I can't accept).

~~~
Joe-Z
Nobody likes smoke! The whole premise of the article is screwed because of
this weird assertion that people somehow like to breathe the smoke of burning
wood for comfort.

Me personally, I don't know if the heavy smoking or the drum playing neighbor
would be worse but it's both environmental pollution and thus should give you
a stake in determining when it is and when it's not okay to expect their
neighbors to deal with the consequences of their hobbies

~~~
happytoexplain
Anecdotally, everyone whose opinion I've had occasion to discover enjoys
breathing the air around a wood fire, though it might be more accurate to say
that they enjoy the smell and warmth of the inhaled air, and don't seem to
regard the negative effects in the moment. I've always known there are people
who find it displeasurable regardless of the health effects, but I'm not aware
of any in my personal circles, and am surprised to see that you think "nobody
likes smoke" in the context of wood fire smoke.

------
Joe-Z
I don't get one of the three premises the author is making: Nobody likes a
campfire for the smoke, right?

I mean, I get the whole 'now let me tell you why what you love is actually a
bad thing'-experiment, but latching it onto wood-smoke, which I'm pretty sure
nobody would miss, seems kind of disingenuous.

~~~
plorkyeran
People certainly don't like being the ones that have the plume of smoke blown
into their face, but they still treat that as merely a minor annoyance.

If you asked a group sitting around a campfire if they enjoyed the smell of
the smoke when it wasn't being blown in their face I would expect the majority
to say yes.

------
PavlovsCat
I experienced none of the resistance he assumes. As someoone who smoked
cigarettes and looked at tobacco, wood is just similar stuff, but bigger, give
or take. And the smoke bites in the lungs in an even worse way (though I would
assume cigarettes have additional stuff that make the smoke seem easier on the
lungs while making it even more toxic). So why should I have a problem
believing that? And I always loved fire, I love the smell from a distance at
least, but hey, gasoline also smells nice, and I'm not sniffing that either.

I just haven't thought about it actively, but if you had asked me "what do you
think is more harmful, cigarette smoke or wood fire smoke", I would say "I
have no clue, and I suspect it may also depend on wood type, but the way
you're asking makes me suspect wood is worse".

So thanks for the PSA, but I'm not sure what the point is in regards to
religious believers.

> that should give you some sense of what we are up against whenever we
> confront religion.

What does that mean? It should give me an idea, but it doesn't, so spell it
out. All this teached me is that I am vastly different from personal friends
of Sam Harris. I could have guessed that, too.

edit: You could shorten it all to " _Wood fire smoke is very toxic, yet most
people refuse to believe that because they find it very comfy, despite any
evidence you present them with. That should give you some sense of what we are
up against whenever we confront religion._ ", and it would be obvious that the
actual point is just left as exercise to the reader.

~~~
kfoley
It sounds like you are already an "atheist" of the wood burning debate, in
which case the metaphor isn't intended for you and it's understandable you
didn't relate.

I think shortening it would lose the effect on the intended audience. Your
proposed replacement doesn't really contain any compelling evidence, so
someone who does enjoy fires can easily dismiss it without getting the point.
I think it's a good summary having read the article but not really enough to
get the point across for the intended audience.

~~~
PavlovsCat
> It sounds like you are already an "atheist" of the wood burning debate

As Sam Harris wrote

> _We love everything about it: the warmth, the beauty of its flames,
> and—unless one is allergic to smoke—the smell that it imparts to the
> surrounding air._

That describes me. As a kid I _loved_ playing with fire, a lot.

> _I am sorry to say that if you feel this way about a wood fire, you are not
> only wrong but dangerously misguided._

I am happy to confirm that even after knowing that it's toxic, the above facts
don't change, it just means I would probably not indulge in it. I changed my
position regarding this on a dime, without the least resistance, while Harris
was still talking abour troubles I did not experience, -- I didn't already
have it. If it "sounds" that way to you, then simply take my word that it's
not true. This is the first time I heard of this, and I was paying attention
to my feelings just as instructed. I detected new information, but no
resistance. Then impatience as it seemed there might be no point, then
amusement when there was none. I can be very convinced of something and still
not _identify_ with it, maybe that's the reason.

> _I have discovered that when I make this case, even to highly intelligent
> and health-conscious men and women, a psychological truth quickly becomes as
> visible as a pair of clenched fists: They do not want to believe any of it._

If it's some kind of "psychological truth" \-- supposedly general and not
individually different for each of these persons about none of whom we learn
any detail -- so what is it? You say "intended audience" \-- what are its
features?

Sam Harris spends a lot of effort on the padding and decoration, but none on
the actual meat, that's what I see. If the truth is that "people can't accept
new information when it contradicts something they like", then I hereby proved
it wrong. I'm not sure why his anecdotes, with not one conversation recorded,
would make a valid point that can't even be spelled out so it might be
falsified, but my experience falsifying what the point (whatever it may be) is
based on, just doesn't count because I'm not "the intended audience". That's
fine, but I still overheard it, that's why I responded ^^

> _Of course, if you are anything like my friends, you will refuse to believe
> this._

So is that the psychological truth, being "anything like", or "totally unlike
someone"? Fine, so I and Sam Harris are "nothing like" his friends (since he
wouldn't be able to write the blog post if he "was committed to living in a
world where wood fire smoke is not toxic"), so that's the one positive claim,
and even if it's true, it contains no information, no signal.

> I think it's a good summary having read the article but not really enough to
> get the point across for the intended audience.

If you know what that point is, can you spell it out? What does this analogy
tell us about "confronting religion", much less what does it tell us that
would have a constructive effect on doing that? That religious people are just
normal people? If there's more than that, what it is it? What does the
stretched out version of my "summary" add?

