Quietly and without national attention, the global warming crowd is still concocting plans to outlaw gas stoves because they fear those tiny flames are heating up the air or something. And the psychopaths who believe this hold more sway over government policy than many probably believe.
Just the other day, researchers from Purdue University quietly published a study claiming that cooking on a gas stove produces up to 100 times more "dangerous particles" than a car exhaust pipe. The New York Post ran with the bogus study, calling it "terrifying."
"These super tiny nano-particles are so small that you're not able to see them," claimed associate professor Brandon Boor from Purdue's Lyles School of Civil Engineering. "They're not like dust particles you would see floating in the air."
"After observing such high concentrations of nano-cluster aerosol during gas cooking, we can't ignore these nano-sized particles anymore," Boor continued.
(Related: Without access to gas stoves, restaurants everywhere will fail – and what are people to do during a power outage?)
Fear of gas stoves: a mental illness
If Boor is so personally bothered by these invisible, non-detectable, and thus nonexistent "nano-cluster aerosols," then he is welcome to cook with subpar and typically far more expensive electric, if he so chooses.
If any of Boor's conspiracy theories about gas stoves were real, one would think that humanity would have died off long ago, seeing as how gas stoves were invented back in 1826.
We are building the infrastructure of human freedom and empowering people to be informed, healthy and aware. Explore our decentralized, peer-to-peer, uncensorable Brighteon.io free speech platform here. Learn about our free, downloadable generative AI tools at Brighteon.AI. Every purchase at HealthRangerStore.com helps fund our efforts to build and share more tools for empowering humanity with knowledge and abundance.
"There has been the occasional accident due to faulty installation," writes William M. Briggs on his Science Is Not The Answer Substack. "On the other hand, gas ovens serve as good places to stick reporters' heads. They also serve as nifty plot devices in murder movies."
"Given the humongous numbers of uses of gas stoves over nearly two centuries, if there were systematic ill health effects wreaked using them to scramble your eggs, the world would surely have noticed by now. Since we haven't seen them, we can conclude that any effects are buried in the noise, or non-existent. Or far outweighed by the many benefits gas stoves bring."
It turns out that the aforementioned study is completely bogus. The way Boor and his colleagues set it up used what Briggs described as a "dinky 'house,' which probably doesn't match the domiciles of most readers."
Boor and his team then "married their air-sucker with an 'aerosol general dynamic equation (GDE) to provide fundamental insights into the size-dependent (dp) behavior of NCA in indoor atmospheres.'"
In other words, Boor set up an unrealistic model that appears to have been purposely constructed in such a way as to produce the scariest-sounding findings. In a real-life setting, any combustion particulates produced by gas disperse quickly, rendering them non-detectable – and thus nonexistent, for all intents and purposes – fairly quickly.
Shame on the New York Post for spreading this propaganda, and shame on Boor and his colleagues for devising it. The study, so-called, is just fearmongering nonsense that deserves to be ignored. Instead, climate fanatics everywhere will prop it up as "proof" that gas stoves need to go.
"... there is nothing in this paper, just some equations and descriptions of the use of air suckers and the like," Briggs says. "It doesn't describe ordinary households. It only says what everybody knew it would say."
"But it will still be used as ammunition in the 'climate change' propaganda wars. Which means readers can look forward, though not with pleasure, to us reviewing those studies claiming gas stoves cause various maladies."
Climate lunacy is spreading like a virus. Learn more at Climate.news.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
