
The Fireplace Delusion (2012) - co_pl_te
http://samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion
======
spindritf
He has a good, larger point but this article is plagued with those little,
annoying inaccuracies and misprepresentations which, for me at least,
completely ruin it.

> Here is what we know from a scientific point of view: There is no amount of
> wood smoke that is good to breathe.

There is no way to make a value judgement "from a scientific point of view."
This is just the first from a collection of his moral convictions (we should
live as long as possible, affecting our neighbours as little as possible).
Nothing particularly wrong with having those but why dress them up in science?

> many other things are just as natural—such as dying at the ripe old age of
> thirty.

People may have _on average_ had life expectancies in the 30 years range but
that was because of child and infant mortality. Adults weren't dropping dead
at 30.

And then some silly js sticks this to every paste:

> \- See more at: [http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-
> delusion#st...](http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-
> delusion#sthash.r9agKEEk.dpuf)

So sloppy.

~~~
burntsushi
> There is no way to make a value judgement "from a scientific point of view."

I'm not sure if your familiar with Sam Harris' other writing, but one of his
shticks is applying a scientific approach to morality.[1] Not that I
necessarily agree with him, but wanted to point out that there's a bit more
substance there than some off-the-cuff remark.

[1] -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)#The_Moral_L...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_\(author\)#The_Moral_Landscape)

~~~
md224
I haven't read a lot of his stuff (although what I _have_ read/heard I mostly
respect), but I'm not super comfortable with how he just waltzes over the
is/ought divide.

But this brings up a larger issue: where do we draw the line between this kind
of health-centric utilitarianism and the ability for humans to indulge in
pleasurable but potentially self-destructive behaviors?

When I was younger, I basically cheered whenever laws were passed to further
restrict the sale / usage of cigarettes, because I knew they were harmful and
that was all that mattered. But as I grew older, and I realized that the depth
of the human experience goes beyond mere self-preservation, I became less sure
of this monolithic approach to public policy.

I guess my point is that I find that Mr. Harris's essay, while aimed at
allowing us to see why religious beliefs are so hard to dislodge, kind of
illuminates an opposite idea: that perhaps in our crusade to rid the world of
"irrational" behavior, we risk compromising something fundamental to the human
experience. The problem is agreeing on where we draw the line.

~~~
burntsushi
> utilitarianism

I personally draw the line that cuts out as much utilitarianism as possible.

> I became less sure of this monolithic approach to public policy.

I've been a voluntaryist for several years now, so I'm quite on the same page
as you. :-) I really was just trying to be fair to Sam Harris. (I both
strongly agree and disagree with many of the things he claims.)

> I guess my point is that I find that Mr. Harris's essay, while aimed at
> allowing us to see why religious beliefs are so hard to dislodge, kind of
> illuminates an opposite idea: that perhaps in our crusade to rid the world
> of "irrational" behavior, we risk compromising something fundamental to the
> human experience. The problem is agreeing on where we draw the line.

Absolutely. Although, I do view recreational wood burning as a different kind
of "irrational" than claiming things based on revealed knowledge. The former
_can_ be a reasoned judgment about one's preferences, while the latter is
necessarily logically flawed.

I believe both types of "irrational" are impossible to eradicate. I share your
hesitation with the notion that we might even _want_ to eliminate
"irrationality" in the first place.

------
xarien
Drinking a warm cup of coffee or hot chocolate next to a wood fire during a
cold night is possibly one of the most enjoyable and stress reducing
activities I can think of. Life isn't about evaluating every risk.

Here's a small list of that has a high probability of harming my body:

* Snowboard when I'm not at my prime

* Use MSG in my cooking once in awhile

* Smoke seldomly

* Eat fatty meats such as lamb / duck

* No sleep consistently

* Have too much stress

No one is going to refute these scientifically, but at the same time, just
because we ignore the warnings, do not mean that we do not accept the warning
as truthful. There is simply a more complex heuristic function we use to
evaluate our decisions than a purely risk adverse one.

~~~
modeless
It's not about the harm you're doing to your own body, it's about the harm
you're doing to other people and their property without their consent.
Snowboarding or missing sleep doesn't harm anyone else. Burning wood does, and
that's why it's different.

~~~
electronvolt
However, missing sleep and then driving (a rather common occurrence) is
incredibly dangerous to the person doing it and others.
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep-
deprived_driving](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep-deprived_driving)) In
fact, I think it's fair to argue that sleep deprivation plus daily activities
(work or otherwise) likely puts more people at risk than burning wood, many of
them without their consent (as they are not the sleep deprived ones).

------
gamegoblin
I don't know if is that I am a very skeptical person, that I am a Sam Harris
fan, or that I grew up without a fireplace (I suspect it is this one), but I
didn't find myself at all opposed to the information about fireplaces.
Consider me an anti-fireplace convert!

~~~
ucarion
It continues to amaze me how Sam Harris has managed to change my mind about
nearly everything he talks about, be it gun control, scientific morality, or
how we should talk about "faith".

~~~
selmnoo
Did he actually manage to change your mind about scientific morality though?
That seems to be the one area where he's met with a lot of resistance from the
secular types.

Specifically that science can quatify the morality of various actions and
doings. This is what his last book is all about, "The Moral Landscape". He
talks about it here on a TED talk:
[http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_...](http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html)

A lot of people are unconvinced, but he's definitely the guy to be making
these arguments, considering he got his PhD in neuroscience.

~~~
ucarion
Just finished reading "The Moral Landscape" \-- to me it's clear that morality
is just as much a science as medecine or economics is.

------
adulau
It seems that Mr. Harris is not aware of the various improved techniques to
burn wood like rocket mass heater or heat-accumulating fireplaces (e.g.
Tulikivi). By the way, I'm in Europe, burning woods to heat my house and not
for a "recreational" objective using a heat-accumulating fireplace.

~~~
lingben
None of these are new or improved and they all have the same consequences
because we are talking about chemistry (what happens to wood when it is
burned).

This pseudo argument is akin to those who, after some initial evidence came to
light about the harmful effects of smoking 50-60 years ago, argued that with a
filter, smoking was safe (because the filter would 'catch' the bad stuff).

No matter what kind of technique or equipment you use, nothing will 100%
prevent the escape of the carcinogenic compounds produced by the chemical
reaction of burning wood.

So the question becomes, do you want a little bit of carcinogens in your air?
a lot of them? or none (produced by you in your enclosed space/home)?

~~~
InclinedPlane
The "chemistry" of wood burning only implies that CO2 and water will be
produced. These are not particularly harmful compared to smoke.

~~~
maxerickson
Plants are well known to contain elements other than carbon and hydrogen. So
sure, if you stick to cartoon chemistry you just have those, if you try to
actually characterize the reaction, not so much.

~~~
InclinedPlane
The hazardous chemical byproducts of incomplete wood combustion are primarily
CHO compounds. With sufficient combustion wood burning can produce very little
to none of those compounds. Not that such conditions are typical of wood
burning, but the idea that burning wood must produce carcinogenic and
hazardous products due to the fundamental chemistry involved is simply
erroneous.

------
wamatt
See also previous HN discussion,
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5355248](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5355248)

~~~
Apocryphon
I just hope no one brings up the dangers of owning guns vs. pools in this
thread, please.

------
cdjk
We have a fireplace. It's our primary source of heat. It's efficient, however
- an EPA approved catalytic model. The smoke from the chimney is very light,
and once it's burning dissipates very quickly. Plenty of stoves/fireplaces
produce a blue pall of smoke that hangs over the entire area for days, and
it's not one of those.

I'd be curious to know if studies included modern and correctly-installed
stoves as well.

~~~
revelation
This is the 21th century, but I'm afraid the message hasn't quite arrived yet:
no, your generation of (heat|power|motion) through _combustion_ or _burning_
of things is not ever going to be healthy, efficient or sane.

~~~
cdjk
I think I disagree. For energy density, gasoline is hard to beat. And I'm not
convinced that catalytic wood stoves are that bad, without doing more
research.

------
vacri
This argument seems to have 'recreational' as its cornerstone - as soon as
it's not recreational, it falls apart, since death from potential cancer in
the future is not as bad as poor health or death now from being cold or having
poor-quality food.

But even when it's not recreational, the author calls it a scourge in the
developing world - apparently 'warmth' is just a nice-to-have, and food cooked
for both taste (better subjective experience of life) and to ease digestion
(better physical health) are significant issues that the author ignores.

I would say that the 'intelligent' people that the author presents this
argument to are not intelligent enough to see the gaping flaws in the argument
as presented. There are problems with burning wood, and these can be quite
significant in some areas. But balancing this against the argument "all a wood
fire gives us is a sense of comfort" should be easily countered by any
intelligent audience. What is described in the article is not 'scientific
reality', but a very selective subset of it.

It's a reasonable analogy for the some of the issues of discussing religion as
an atheist, but I don't think it's anywhere near as clever as the author does,
because it relies on intentionally withholding or glossing over a host of very
pertinent information. A well-read atheist should be able to counter any point
without withholding information.

As an aside, the best thing I've seen on the problems of atheism versus
(christian) religion was one guy who became an atheist over the course of
years. He mentioned that the way many atheists go about arguing their case
undermines themselves - screaming facts at people, then being abusive to some
degree when they "can't understand reason". He points out that it doesn't
matter what it is you think, if someone is demanding you think differently,
and abusing you for not changing instantly, you're instinctively going to
create barriers to what they're saying. Whether it's religion, sporting teams,
personal politics, diet, anything that's not a trivial investment for the
individual. Of course, the fly in the ointment is that politics at the
national level can't really be run this way...

~~~
d0mine
You might have missed the point that wood is not the only way to get 'warmth'
e.g., you could use gas that is less harmful. It discards most of your
comment. Though your last paragraph suggests that you might have some
difficulty accepting that if you are not considering it a trivial investment.

(I've tried to make the comment to sound less snarky without sacrificing
accuracy).

Personal data point: Maybe I'm too gullible but I love to find out something
new that changes my mind (not too often), especially non-trivial stuff e.g.,
about weight/fitness as it relates to health. Not all people resist change all
of the time.

~~~
vacri
I didn't miss the 'use gas instead' argument - and it doesn't discard most of
my comment at all. Read the comment again - I'm talking about the times when
wood is _not_ used 'recreationally'. This is usually in rural areas in
developed countries, where wood is very cheap, if not free, or in some
developing countries where it's often the only fuel source available en masse.

The article is framing 'a wood fire' as something that is merely to provide
some sort of cosy sense of solace, which is really a very selective way to
look at it. Not to mention that saying "just use gas instead" isn't so trivial
- if you're not hooked up to a gas pipe, then managing the gas supply has its
own transport issues, extra costs and so forth. For a lot of subsistence
farmers with access to both, free wood is likely to be favourable over gas
bottles. Gas has wonderful convenience, but if you don't have the money?
Frequently the answer is gas for cooking and wood for heating.

Similarly, he begs the question a bit when he says that wood fires are
natural. They're not natural the way humans use them, not even remotely. That
whole argument over the 'naturalness' of fires is a total sideshow, simply
because they're not natural - they are _traditional_. I get that it's supposed
to be an illustrative analogy, which is why I say I think it's okay, but not
as clever as the author seems to think.

------
pragmar
The city I live in ran a campaign a number of years ago handing out $1000
vouchers to upgrade inefficient wood stoves. It can be a air quality issue,
but the major issue is one of efficiency. Modern wood stoves are very
efficient - where a fireplace may run at 15%, some of the new hearthstones
exceed 80%. In any case, as someone from New Hampshire, I find it insulting
that anyone would frame burning wood as "recreational."

~~~
maxerickson
I think reacting to it as framing is wrong, it is simply an attempt to
sidestep wood burning that is primary intended for heating.

Recreational wood burning really is a thing that people do...

------
CamperBob2
_Research shows that nearly 70 percent of chimney smoke reenters nearby
buildings_

Well, then the "research" is obviously wrong. What else in the article is
wrong?

~~~
Osmium
Why so obviously wrong? Seems reasonable to me that chimney smoke – defined as
air with heavy particulates created from burning wood – might fall back down
to the ground (and thus into surrounding buildings) once it has cooled.

I'm not saying it's right, but it doesn't seem obviously wrong to me.
Regardless, I'm sure whatever "research" there is must be based on
_something_! A citation would have been appreciated so we could judge for
ourselves...

~~~
vacri
If 70% of chimney smoke re-entered nearby buildings, then those times when
most buildings were burning, the air inside them would be nearly as smoky as
what come out of the chimney. It's also very hard to believe outside of a
tenement arrangement. In a village where there's lots of space between houses,
and assuming _all_ particulate matter fell back within the bounds of the
village (itself a big stretch), it's hard to see how two-thirds of smoke would
find its way back into buildings.

~~~
mangotree
No, since one persons smoke could enter a dozen peoples houses.

~~~
vacri
"those times when most buildings were burning" would not have one burner per
twelve recipients.

------
Killah911
This is the umpteenth time I've seen this on HN. Is there a flaw in the HN
algorithm that allows the exact same article of be recycled several times thru
or is that a feature. Is it a way to get lots of Upvotes? Just resubmit an
article that did well before?

~~~
tokenadult
Have you seen this more than two times before? This shows up as the third
submission by the HN Search I just did.

[https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=Fireplace+delu...](https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=Fireplace+delusion)

------
mkstowegnv
While his essay is thought provoking and makes some valid points, he has
oversimplified the moral equation in at least two ways. It is not clear that
in many areas burning wood (especially using modern catalytic converter
efficient wood stoves) would raise air pollutants above background levels due
to car/ truck/ airplane exhaust, coal fired power plants, forest fires/
controlled burns, and the burning of sugar cane and other crops (not to
mention indoor dust and other non combustion air pollutants). Also heating and
cooking with wood using a modern wood stove can significantly lower one's
carbon footprint compared to alternatives.

------
anonymous
Isn't there something else we can burn that also gives off that nice wooden
smell? I smell a market opportunity here - bio natural imitation fireplace
wood - 100% carcinogen free smoke, asbestos free, cholesterol free, contains
no hydrogenated fats.

~~~
ssalenik
Well, I assume that burning pretty much anything that is solid will produce
some sort of micro-particles... which even if they are not cancerogenic are
probably not good to inhale...

------
microcolonel
After seeing some cops riding horses on my way home, this corroborated my
awareness of silliness in my world.

~~~
cdjk
Mounted police are surprisingly effective. They're highly visible (you noticed
them on your way home, for example). They're useful for crowd control, as the
officer is above the crowds. And being chased by an officer on horseback is a
memorable experience, which may have a deterrent effect.

------
corresation
"I am sorry to say that if you feel this way about a wood fire, you are not
only wrong but dangerously misguided"

This does not follow the preceding paragraph at all, making it painful to read
the rest. If my opposition just demonstrates that I'm a romantic that loves my
wood fires, then I suppose...

