It turns out, pushing unrealistic green energy schemes onto low- and middle-income people at the expense of a safer fuel source was not only bad science, it was dangerous propaganda.

From Legal Insurrection

Posted by Leslie Eastman 

Legal Insurrection readers may recall that in 2023, the Biden administration seriously considered a nationwide ban on gas stoves, blaming “pollutants” released by the appliances.

One of the studies cited was published in Scientific American. We documented the narrative science and agenda-driven conclusions that the publication offers.

The “study” involved 53 households, all in California.  As I reported at that time, the findings that asserted gas stoves contributed to increased risk of asthma were based on bad science.

Now, a review of the data from 116 separate studies that was recently published in The Lancet and funded by the World Health Organization shows that heating and cooking with natural gas stoves is not associated with asthma in children or adults.

The study conducted an extensive meta-analysis and examined the health risks of cooking or heating with natural gas compared to other fuels and electricity. It found no significant association between natural gas and asthma, wheeze, cough or breathlessness, and a lower risk of bronchitis when compared to electricity. When compared to other household fuels including kerosene and solid fuels, natural gas was associated with a lower risk of several health conditions.

The study’s conclusion that there is no association between the use of natural gas and asthma contradicts prior claims of population incidence of asthma attributable to gas, which are only valid where a causal relationship exists.

In fact, the Lancet study (Estimated health effects from domestic use of gaseous fuels for cooking and heating in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analyses) shows that the use of gas stoves has a very positive effect on human health, as follows:

• Pneumonia: 46% risk reduction.
• Wheeze: 58% risk reduction.
• Cough: 56% risk reduction.
• Breathlessness, COPD, Other Adverse Respiratory Impacts: Substantial risk reductions.
• Preterm Birth and Low Birth Weight: Significant reduction in risk.

It’s important to note that when natural gas burns, it mainly produces carbon dioxide (CO₂, a life-essential gas) and water vapor, with smaller amounts of nitrogen oxides (NOₓ), carbon monoxide (CO), and very little particulate matter. In contrast, coal and kerosene are more complex fuels. For example, burning coal releases high amounts of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO₂), nitrogen oxides, mercury, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, all of which are linked to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.

Therefore, pushing unrealistic green energy schemes onto low- and middle-income (LMIC) people at the expense of a safer fuel source was not only bad science, it was dangerous propaganda.

This study shows a lower risk for key health outcomes when switching from polluting solid fuels and kerosene to use of clean gaseous fuels for cooking or heating. Our study also identifies a modest increase in risk from use of gaseous fuels compared with electricity for a few health outcomes, including acute lower respiratory infections and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (although not statistically significant when focusing on evidence from higher-quality studies).

For LMICs reliant on polluting solid fuels and kerosene, transitions to gaseous fuels for cooking or heating can potentially produce substantial health benefits.

The risk of asthma associated with gas cooking was often inflated in prior studies that failed to adjust adequately for other factors (e.g., smoking, area air pollution). The Lancet meta-analysis showed that with proper adjustment for possible contributing factors, any association between gas use and child asthma was not statistically meaningful.

What are the chances the elite media will give the new Lancet publication the same about of attention it gave the bogus study?