Highlights: A study this summer found that using a single gas stove burner on high can raise levels of cancer-causing benzene above what’s been observed from secondhand smoke.

A new investigation by NPR and the Climate Investigations Center found that the gas industry tried to downplay the health risks of gas stoves for decades, turning to many of the same public-relations tactics the tobacco industry used to cover up the risks of smoking. Gas utilities even hired some of the same PR firms and scientists that Big Tobacco did.

Earlier this year, an investigation from DeSmog showed that the industry understood the hazards of gas appliances as far back as the 1970s and concealed what they knew from the public.

It’s a strategy that goes back as far back as 1972, according to the most recent investigation. That year, the gas industry got advice from Richard Darrow, who helped manufacture controversy around the health effects of smoking as the lead for tobacco accounts at the public relations firm Hill + Knowlton. At an American Gas Association conference, Darrow told utilities they needed to respond to claims that gas appliances were polluting homes and shape the narrative around the issue before critics got the chance. Scientists were starting to discover that exposure to nitrogen dioxide—a pollutant emitted by gas stoves—was linked to respiratory illnesses. So Darrow advised utilities to “mount the massive, consistent, long-range public relations programs necessary to cope with the problems.”

These studies didn’t just confuse the public, but also the federal government. When the Environmental Protection Agency assessed the health effects of nitrogen dioxide pollution in 1982, its review included five studies finding no evidence of problems—four of which were funded by the gas industry, the Climate Investigations Center recently uncovered.

Karen Harbert, the American Gas Association’s CEO, acknowledged that the gas industry has “collaborated” with researchers to “inform and educate regulators about the safety of gas cooking appliances.” Harbert claimed that the available science “does not provide sufficient or consistent evidence demonstrating chronic health hazards from natural gas ranges”—a line that should sound familiar by now.

  • moitoi@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The interesting part in the NPR article is:

    As the scientific evidence grew over time about the health effects from gas stoves, the industry used a playbook echoing the one that tobacco companies employed for decades to fend off regulation.

    This is the case in each industry from tabacco to at the other end Autism for example. People should do their research and look for the quality of the papers and the COI (conflict of interest).

    • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most people cannot judge the quality of scientific papers, that’s what public regulators are for, but they failed the people there.

      • speff@disc.0x-ia.moe
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s what gets me about the “do your own research” parrots. Ok - let me just google it and blindly trust the top SEOd results. That’s what most people’s research is going to be

        It’s good advice if the audience knew how to critically evaluate articles, but people don’t even read the articles.

  • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    "Make no mistake, radical environmentalists want to stop Americans from using natural gas. The Consumer Product Safety Commission’s proposed ban on gas stoves is the latest egregious scaremongering by the Far Left and their Biden administration allies. I am pleased to partner with Senator Manchin in this bipartisan effort to stop the federal government from issuing regulations that put the interests of the Green New Deal before the well-being of American families,” said Senator Cruz.

    • ngdev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      We tried voting him out, we really did. Coincidentally, he beat Beto by a very small margin while there was a small percentage of voting machines that reportedly flipped votes for Beto (I think they would flip them to Cruz, and if you didn’t double check all your votes before casting them, then a Beto voter could have inadvertently voted Cruz)

      • PLAVAT🧿S@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If you take the larger words out of this comment it really reads like Trump wrote it.

        Supporting article below.

          • PLAVAT🧿S@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Is there such a thing?

            My comment was in reference to a lack of trust in voting machines, and it reminded me of someone else who thinks they “flip votes” while not providing evidence.

            • ngdev@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Yeah there was a whole thing about it at the time, it made news and was credible. The fix for it being of course to double check your ballot before you cast, which could easily be a miss by a first time voter or maybe an elderly one.

              My comment was in reference to the fact that Ted Cruz is a moron, and that we came really close to getting him out, but I do think there were some shenanigans with voting. Just the other way.

              Every accusation is an admission

              Here’s an article about it, a quick Google returns a ton of results

              https://apnews.com/texans-say-voting-machines-changing-straight-ticket-choices-a8825810d10441f2ad828e95d6851d55

      • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        What is the better solution? What country has implemented something better than capitalism?

        • TinyPizza@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          A system that fully accepts environmental realities and works against the wholesale ecocide of the planet as it’s first tenet. The rest is kinda whatever at this point. It could be a resource based economy or some sort of mixed planned/free market. Just gotta make sure that invisible hand doesn’t strangle us all in our sleep, ya know?

          • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            A climate-focused approach can be built into any economic system. This isn’t really an argument for ditching the economic system that has led to the least human suffering.

        • Rivers@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Capitalism is industrialised greed, it keeps the wheels turning, having people forever chase shit that they don’t need for the sake of feeling better than the man stood next to them. What an inspirational ladder to climb.

          You’re under the misunderstanding that it works.

          • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re under the misunderstanding that it works.

            Again, what works better? What country has implemented a better economic system?