Want to see a real insurrection?

WSJ Freelink Culture War on Gas Stoves

Come after my wife’s stove.

53 thoughts on “Want to see a real insurrection?

  1. Not to worry. The musings by the government official were more intended to alert to the probable issues with unvented gas stoves.

    I was an ardent believer in gas cooktops. As we moved, I replaced electric with gas in the new homes.

    Then I discovered induction. Highly efficient, and instant on or off. That precise heating control is the major benefit of gas. Plus no need for a vent and super easy to clean. We had saved my wife’s cookwear from the 70’s. Being steel, it works like a charm.

    Europe had been using that technology for a long time. Probably because of higher energy costs and smaller kitchens. Induction will not heat up a kitchen like gas.

    Still, you might keep your guns loaded in case a jackbooted stove officer knocks at night. They are coming…I saw it on the internet. 😇

    Liked by 1 person

      1. So, the un-woke do not give a damn about the health of children? Not surprising.

        As with so much of the “conservative” culture wars “issues” the phony manufactured outrage you are displaying is laughable.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. The increasingly nonsensical WSJ has outdone itself with this one. Leaving aside that the use or POSSIBLE regulation of gas stoves has NOTHING to do with climate activism one way or another, the only “culture war” on display is – maybe – between science and science-denial culture. Democrats are on the side of science. MAGA-Republicans are not.

    Looks look at the statement that WSJ and “conservatives” find objectionable . . .

    “This is a hidden hazard. Any option is on the table. Products that can’t be made safe can be banned.”

    The opposite of that statement is “Unsafe products cannot be banned.”

    One statement makes perfect sense. The opposite is pure foolishness.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Really?

      What science?

      Where is the study showing that gas stoves used to the degree they are in homes, not commercial kitchens, produce enough NO2 to be an irritant?

      There is nothing other than speculation, and thatg is not science.

      Like

        1. As I said, speculation. Did you read the methodology?

          No actual data, just mathematical masturbation.

          Where is the comparison in childhood asthma between homes where gas stoves are used to cook and an equal amount of cooking is done with an electric stove?

          Combustion produces a small amount of NO2, lost in the background levels. All other cooking irritants are produced no matter the source of heat.

          Like

          1. If it isn’t experimental, and thus falsifiable, it isn’t science, it is speculation.

            Cooking produces lots of irritants and antigens that can trigger asthma. The only different irritant from cooking on a gas stove is NO2.

            At the least, to show causality, you would have to demonstrate an increased exposure to NO2 in the households.

            There is considerable background NO2 in the air, depending on where you live..

            Like

          2. “Because you say so?”

            Uh, no. Because epidemiology is an established and respected science. The fact that it is observational rather than experimental does not change the fact that it is science.

            “Epidemiology is the branch of medical SCIENCE that investigates all the factors that determine the presence or absence of diseases and disorders”

            https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/what-epidemiology

            You are so eager to be outraged over nothing that you throw out this “mathematical masturbation” and “epidemiology is not science” bullshit rather than simply admit there may well be issues with respect to gas cooking and children’s health and it is not extreme to say that regulation MAY be appropriate.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. “May be issues” is a hypothesis. It remains unproven speculation.

            Even if you were to try to establish truth through untested observation, you would have to rigorously exclude other factors. No effort was made to do so,

            Cooking produces scores of irritants. To blame the levels of NO2 produced by gas stoves for asthma without controlling for those other irritants isn’t even good observation.

            Like

          4. “BTW, it is not ‘epidemiology is not science’ it is this effort is not.”

            Boy oh boy are you full of yourself!

            The study did NOT even try to identify the causal agent or agents. Your blather about NO2 and experimental methods is not even remotely relevant in challenging the methods or findings of this particular study. Your going down that path demonstrates very clearly that you did not even read the material before offering your critique.

            The study starts with the known fact – there is a meaningful correlation between gas stove cooking and childhood asthma. Using statistical methods on data from a variety of sources it set out to quantify what portion of childhood asthma can be attributed to gas cooking. It reported a final figure derived by these methods – 12.7%.

            You people in the anti-science culture may not want to believe that there is a problem but people who study these matters professionally believe that there is. It is on the same order of magnitude as the damage to children by second-hand smoke.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. It is you who are in the anti-science culture.

            What known fact?

            Remember the fallacy of correlation and causation?

            Do people with gas stoves cook more? Less? Are there other socioeconomic correlations?

            Are gas stoves as common in rental properties as owner occupied homes?

            Attributions by correlation are useless absent very careful exclusion of other correlations.

            Without a lot of controls,, 12.7% is just speculation.

            Like

          6. “Without a lot of controls,, 12.7% is just speculation.”

            You do not even seem to know what you are rebutting. You are talking out of your ass. You criticized things that the study made no claims about. You asked “what science?” I answered. Your pretending to know more than the pros – again – does not make my answer wrong.

            The simple fact is that cooking with gas is positively correlated with increases in childhood asthma. (The underlying cause relative to electric cooking could not be more obvious – fire in the home.) Based on this known correlation a public health official offered a reasonable and virtually self-evident opinion – “This is a hidden hazard. Any option is on the table. Products that can’t be made safe can be banned.”

            Did he say they WOULD be banned? No. Did he say they SHOULD be banned? No. But that does not stop you idiots from claiming that . . . “Progressive Democrats really are coming for your kitchen appliances.”

            You dodged the question – how is the statement that started this going “a bridge too far?” IF there is evidence that a product is unsafe for children, why should it not be subject to regulation?

            Liked by 1 person

          7. Do I have to explain the correlation/causation fallacy again?

            If A & B have a correlation, A might cause B. or B might cause A. or, just as likely. A & B might both be caused by C.

            This study makes zero effort to exclude possible Cs

            Just as an alternative, for whatever reason, asthma is much more common in low income children. I won’t guess at why.

            Did the authors make any attempt to control by income? Are gas stoves more common in low income households?

            I have no idea if that was a factor, but absent some consideration and control, you have no idea if that was a “C”

            Like

          8. “This is a hidden hazard. Any option is on the table. Products that can’t be made safe can be banned.”

            Why?

            If my gas stove posed a hazard to my neighbor, then maybe,

            But if it poses no risk to anyone but me and mine, whose business is it to ban it?

            Sushi and raw oysters are risky, are you going to ban them? Alcohol has many hazards, want to try Prohibtion again?

            Like

          9. That’s a slippery slope.

            Why not using the same rational ban sodas, sweets, screen time, inappropriate TV content, fattening foods, salty chips, and so on? How about swimming pools, skate boards?

            Parents are the arbiters of risk for their children.

            Like

          10. “Why not using the same rational ban sodas, sweets,….”

            Those are all options that can be avoided or not. Cooking with gas may not be optional for renters, for example.

            No more of a slippery slope than banning flammable pj’s or lead paint.

            Liked by 2 people

          11. “But if it poses no risk to anyone but me and mine, whose business is it to ban it?”

            There we have it. Your “Liberty” includes the freedom to harm your children.

            Here in the real world it depends on the level of risk whether it is somebody’s business and what kind of regulation is proposed to mitigate the damage. One can imagine, for example, that building codes might be altered to require better ventilation around gas cookers.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. “When they can’t win the political debate, they resort to brute government force.”

    Yeah, it’s kinda like losing an election and trying to hang the Vice President for it. Or throwing women in prison for taking a pill you don’t approve of. When those libtards can’t win a political debate, they result to brute government force… oh, wait…

    Liked by 3 people

        1. Nope.

          The point is that when you get my politically uninvolved wife pissed off enough to start checking the ammo supplies, you have crossed that bridge too far.

          It is not hard to get me riled up over government overreach, but when you turn millions of women libertarian by sticking the government’s nose into their kitchens, you have crossed a line.

          But as I said, carry on.

          Like

          1. “You really don’t get figures of speech, do you.”

            I do. Maybe you don’t. Figures of speech carry meaning.

            This particular “figure of speech” is a threat of violence.

            Maybe you think it is cute or funny to conjure up images of irate women murdering the postman. It really isn’t.

            Liked by 1 person

      1. Oh it is exactly relevant. Just a question of oxen.

        I’ll see your gas stove and raise 10 million state controlled uteruses. Poor uteruses only, of course.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. Relevant to whether women are more likely to “rise up in insurrection” over gas stoves or abortion rights.

            The likelihood of the government coming for your wife’s gas stove is non-existent. The likelihood of the government forcing her to carry a rapist’s baby… currently depends on where she lives.

            Liked by 3 people

  4. The gas stove story popped up so unexpectedly that my first reactions to it have all been cynical. Perhaps it is intended as a distraction from Stumble Joe’s illegal mishandling of classified documents. Or the opposite, a piling on to draw attention to Stumble Joe’s demonstrable incompetence so as to ease him out of office.

    Maybe the plan is to dismantle the gas appliances industry so as to help the world reduce its consumption of Russian natural gas. Or maybe the plan is to deploy smart-energy surveillance devices inside American households.

    Whatever the real context might be, I infer that potential federal regulation of gas appliances is just another example of government governing in its own insular interests by telling the people how they must live.

    Like

        1. There’s that word again: Woke.

          You need a new tune to pitch your complaints with. If it ain’t WOKE, you’ll call it that anyway. A conveniently short word used, at the behest of Charlie Kirk @ TPUSA, to describe ANYTHING and EVERYTHING Liberal.

          Liked by 1 person

      1. RE: “That is conspiratorial thinking.”

        So what? I said, “The gas stove story popped up so unexpectedly that my first reactions to it have all been cynical.” Then I gave examples.

        Besides, some conspiracies are real.

        Like

          1. RE: “It was YOUR comment suggesting there must be some conspiratorial plan that was ‘jejune.'”

            As I wrote, “The gas stove story popped up so unexpectedly that my first reactions to it have all been cynical.” The examples I gave illustrated my cynicism. Unless you want to argue that my self-reported cynicism isn’t real, you and Mr. Rothman have nothing useful to say about it.

            Like

  5. Yet another example of left wing nanny stupidity. There is zero actual evidence that such a miniscile amount of NO2 has any effect on asthmatics, only speculation. That’s abt as idiotic as saying the smell of peanut butter “might” somehow affect those allergic to peanuts so ban peanut butter. OH the children, OH the humanity. And nanny lefties eat this stuff up. Idiots!!

    Like

        1. No cogent or compelling response is possible to your hate-filled drivel.

          It was my way of saying your full of POO and offer nothing but hateful diatribe towards those who disagree.

          Your consistently immature attacks on me grow old and tiresome, kind of like yourself. But keep going. Keep referring to me as a child in need of a diaper change. You are in need of a removal of your assholery.

          Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s