He cites his sources (which seem reasonable), is making measurements and has written up objective results it seems.

Perhaps there are other articles less objective on that site but it doesn’t seem like this article should be dismissed out of hand.

We always use heuristics to assess if a source is credible.

Otherwise we have to do our own research, collect our own data. There is no other way around if there is no trust.

It’s very easy for some information to be true, but also excluding all the bits that don’t fit the author bias.

I think a source that is that biasied should be called out.

Balance does not imply truth. Sometimes truthful views are imbalanced because the truth is imbalanced.

You're never going to be convinced of anything if you'll only accept arguments from people who do not believe them.

(We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34316898)

They may not be "pure evil" but they are clearly extremely bad. What does a balanced view of that look like for you?

Gas stoves (like everything else) have pros and cons. CO2 emissions are certainly a major con, which is why my next stove will be an induction. I got a gas ten years ago because induction cooktops were not widely available and the cook quality of gas is far higher than non-induction electric, and I cook a lot and really need quality tools.

Facts matter, and it doesn't do anyone any good to paint something as "extremely bad" without balancing all relevant facts. Acknowledging that gas stoves are often (but not always) bad for indoor air quality is part of that.

I really can’t understand this perspective. Perhaps cheap gas is better than cheap electric cooktops. But my Miele which is radiant, not even induction, heats up VERY fast and provides a very predictable amount of heat via the digital interface. I cook a lot, and thought I’d miss gas when buying my new house, but just about the only change I needed was to get a flat bottomed wok. Electric can definitely be more than adequate on the high end, imo.

> digital interface

Like a touchscreen?

Sort of but less high tech than most think of w that word, it’s a “touchscreen” - red LEDs tell you the level.

The obvious outcome of the "both sides"-ism of late: We need to give equal airtime to the Inhaling Ignited Hydrocarbons Is Okay Actually group.

Sources don't matter, depth of analysis doesn't matter, expert consensus doesn't matter, basic risk mitigation principles don't matter, what matters is that wherever a view is shared, all other views must be shared at equal volume and with equal credence.

Strawman.

37000 people die each year in vehicular accidents, but somehow people think there's a benefit to using cars, and to use them without making them 3X as expensive just to save perhaps half of those lives.

So too do we continue to use gas appliances because they're relatively cheap, effective, and resilient, and if you want to convince us the harm is too great, then quantify it for our judgement.

> if you want to convince us the harm is too great, then quantify it for our judgement.

That's literally what TFA does. Dispute the data or the argument if you want. "This site looks like it doesn't like fossil fuels" is not disputing the data. It's "I suspect there's another side that's not represented [duh] and I therefore will dismiss this information out of hand." It's a terrible heuristic to get anywhere.

> 37000 people die each year in vehicular accidents, but somehow people think there's a benefit to using cars, and to use them without making them 3X as expensive just to save perhaps half of those lives.

And each of those crashes is a tragedy. Surely you know that there are also efforts to make streets safer, and that other countries have been vastly more successful at it than the US?

Traffic crashes were until very recently the leading cause of death among young people, and are still #2. We shouldn't just overlook that either!

Just basic common sense would do.

Everything is dangerous and has some risks, but usually weights the risks against other things, we see what are the ways to mitigate them, etc.

If you say that gas stove is bad for indoor air quality, how does it compare to making toasts or having carpet and a bit more dust or living close to roads with lots of circulation.

When it become a religious fervor, when there is only one side of the coin, that’s where there I see a problem.

The obvious outcome of "Misinformation and hate speech" policing of late. Proponents of things that are synonymous with civilization cannot have any airtime at all.

Right, the only defense of inhaling hydrocarbons is some kind of trad culture war thing. Like because something bad is happening it has to continue happening because it's a part of my "civilization".

In this article I understand the concern about NOx, good ventilation, a detector might be a good idea. A quick look at the site show how much it is targeting at fighting all fossil fuels. But fossil fuels are the backbone of our civilisation. Yes we need to transition, and it’s happening, but if you were to cut them off completely I think that more that half of the world population would die in the next 12 months. So let’s be careful with that transition, we can easily kill more people by raising the cost of fuel than saving future people from hypothetical climate catastrophes or from NOx.

Whatever what the activists and government does, the pricing alone is driving out all fossil fuels. Solar, wind and batteries are already cheaper than the other alternatives. It’s just a question of a few years.

With a decent hood, they are not clearly bad.

The emissions from such stoves is a large part of what makes them "extremely bad"

Which emissions, exactly?

With a proper hood, they aren’t an issue inside.

When working properly, they are also quite minor.

This thread got remove from the main discussion.

Fell like Twitter before the cleanup here.