Jump to content

Recommended Posts

'What I don?t quite understand is how the OP?s house is smelling of smoke. Presumably she has a flat in a house and people using the communal entrance would allow smoke into the hallway etc but for it to permeate all the flats appears to be extraordinary unless her windows need attention.'


Keano77 - I don't think you've thought this though. How do you think houses have air in them! Would you suffocate if nooone opened a door and you had breathed on all the oxygen?


Smoke particles - which include particulates - black carbon and polycyclic aromatic compounds are around 1/1000 of a mm. Imagine that there were 500 people lined up - at 3 people a metre that would be 166m - that is the space a particulate would experience in just a 0.5mm crack. Thousands would float in no problem.


And ALL houses have far more than a 0.5mm crack. I have double glazing. Double glazed windows have ventilation grills! They have to. All houses have to have air flow or you will get damp. They have air bricks for example. This is why particulate levels in houses with all the windows closed are 75-80% that of outside.


'The smoke from neighbouring chimneys enters houses through windows, systems of ventilation and fine cracks in the outer walls. In the night people can not air the bedrooms without getting the rooms filled with wood smoke.' http://www.forskningsdatabasen.dk/en/catalog/2389107281

You?re correct pinkladybird. Houses are not hermetically sealed. I don?t really know what to say except that we must all be doomed. There must be at least 30 vehicles a minute running up and down Lordship Lane between 8am and 10 pm and fumes from thousands of central heating boilers, gas fires and cookers 24-hours a day during the winter entering people?s homes although I don?t notice the smells.


I suspect there isn?t a corner of the world where people don?t light real fires, from the Amazon to the Himalayas, it?s what makes us human.

Football / lemon an exaggeration for effect, not a statement of fact. Apologies if it seemed glib.


It's not really a case of variables, it's a case of The Whole Picture. Particulate data is not The Whole Picture. To simply cite output particulate data i.e. what comes out at the end, without any reference to what goes into it at the beginning, how it gets there, what happens in the chain along the way (from SE22 to the wider world), the alternatives and their consequences, as well as the actual real world impact (apart from on Christmas Day) - is a little un-nuanced. Of course, if your house smells of someone else's smoke of course, nuance is of no comfort - I appreciate that.


I don't disagree with a lot of what you say - I don't think a lot of people will. Chimneys should not emit dark smoke, agree. Open fires are illegal in London, true. The legislation should be enforced, agree. But I don't believe the natural conclusion is 'too many people burning wood'.


Totally admit that we (like everyone else) do it because 'we like it'; but if I did want to present a soap-boxy argument: why dismiss one of the few carbon-neutral, renewable fuels on the planet; one that - quite literally - grows on trees, just because current legislation is laughably unenforced and the current technology is at present, more primitive than it could be? Enforce the legislation, improve the technology.


We?re an out of sight, out of mind race though. Whack the central heating on for the whole of a poorly-insulated house for a whole day (despite only sitting in one room watching the telly) and let the associated CO2, NOx, etc spill out in someone else?s backyard / country at point of production.


Abe: wood fuel is taxed in the same way as every other fuel if you buy it from a reputable supplier, which of course you should.

pinkladybird Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> the specific incident described takes place

> near North Cross road.



I also live near North Cross Road and I wonder if we experienced the same incident.


I was sitting in my living room last night and became aware of a terrible smell of burning. Having gone all over my house and (thankfully) found nothing amiss, I opened my front door and it was clear the very intense smell was coming from somewhere nearby.


A passerby was coincidentally also trying to identify the source of the smoke, as he (and then I) was worried a house might be on fire. Neither of us could see smoke coming from a chimney in the road, but we could see smoke drifting over the rooftops.


Having waited a while and wondered whether to knock on doors (in case of an undetected fire) we decided that it must be from an open fire somewhere nearby rather than a house on fire.


Legality aside, it does seem very anti-social to continue to burn fuel producing so much smoke and smell, particularly once you have been told your neighbours have lung problems (and what must it be doing to young children's lungs, too?)


I have asthma, and have encountered the same sort of response when asking drivers to turn off their engines outside my house instead of just sitting there with the engine running. The only reason I knew they were doing it was the fumes coming into my living room.


ETA: The smell I smelled last night in the street was not like woodsmoke, however. I like the smell of woodsmoke. It was more like coal smoke.

I don't think it is as simple as comparing PM2.5 emissions between a stove and cars.


The key comparison to me, is what source of energy the wood burning stove is displacing. The previously posted link makes this point: The net benefits or dis-benefits from using biomass as a fuel depend on what fuel it replaces.


If, in winter, the wood burning stove is substituting for an electric heater, it is likely displacing power derived from a coal fired power station - which in winter is the marginal power source. As such it is likely no better or worse. If it substitutes for gas powered central heating, it is likely producing higher PM2.5 emissions. If it is replacing an open fire, it is likely producing less PM2.5 emissions.

I've asked GLA Aseembly Member Caroline Pidgeon to find out what thE London Mayor can do to help fight this aspect of air pollution.


This is the response she organised from her office:

"

James,


I think there is a bit of uncertainty as to the provisions of the 1956 Act in relation to wood stoves ? and we should not forget that the main purpose of the Act was to tackle very different forms of air pollution that plagued London at the time.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/4-5/52/enacted


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1956/52/pdfs/ukpga_19560052_en.pdf


There is in fact widespread support for new and updated clean air legislation ? see this recommendation from the House of Commons Environment Audit Committee.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/environment-food-and-rural-affairs-committee/news-parliament-2017/joint-improving-air-quality-report-publication-17-19/


Sadiq Khan to be fair has also backed the need for such legislation quite some time:


https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-unveils-action-plan-to-battle-toxic-air


Of course wood burning stoves are a serious cause of air pollution (and it is a growing problem) ? this is an excellent report from Tom Edwards of the BBC:


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-38746482


However, whether London Boroughs have real legal powers to take effective enforcement action against many of them at present is not absolutely clear, and the call for extra powers is quite obvious from the Mayor?s reply to a question Caroline has already asked:


https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2018/0354


I thought this reply to another Mayoral Question might also be of interest:


https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2014/1351


I will liaise with the Southwark and also with London Councils on this.

"

bobbsy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't think it is as simple as comparing PM2.5

> emissions between a stove and cars.

>

> The key comparison to me, is what source of energy

> the wood burning stove is displacing. The

> previously posted link makes this point: The net

> benefits or dis-benefits from using biomass as a

> fuel depend on what fuel it replaces.

>

> If, in winter, the wood burning stove is

> substituting for an electric heater, it is likely

> displacing power derived from a coal fired power

> station - which in winter is the marginal power

> source. As such it is likely no better or worse.

> If it substitutes for gas powered central heating,

> it is likely producing higher PM2.5 emissions. If

> it is replacing an open fire, it is likely

> producing less PM2.5 emissions.


I think this is more to do with overall impact in terms of greenhouse gasses, rather than local particulates pollution. It's the latter that the OP was raising as a concern as I understand it.

>

> I think this is more to do with overall impact in

> terms of greenhouse gasses, rather than local

> particulates pollution. It's the latter that the

> OP was raising as a concern as I understand it.


Agreed - whilst it may be possible to make an argument re using woodburners from a greenhouse gas perspective, The concentration of particulate matter in the air generated by woodburners in cities and dense housing areas is proven to be one of the key contributing factors.


Whilst in rural areas the arguments re biomass fuel may hold true, the proliferation of wood burners is a genuine problem for places like Dulwich and thus the argument that its 'no better or worse' than central heating isn't entriely true. Its the basis on which burners are sold, and all the marketing states this but in reality its creating a health issue now which is worse for those with existing respiratory problems, but not unique to this group!


Its a bit like the diesel car issue all over again - people being encouraged to buy something to cut down on CO2 emmissions, which then turn out to create an even bigger problem.

PM2.5 emissions cause defective lung and brain development in young children growing up in the places those particulates are emmitted as well as contributing to lung cancer and heart disease in all people.


The damage done to children in East Dulwich is caused by burning wood in East Dulwich.


There are no coal fired power stations causing particulate emissions in all of London so that is irrelevant to this discussion.

Frenchy and bobbsy - There appear to be 2 issues here,CO2 emissions and particulate localised emissions. Of course they both need taking into account.


Wood burning doesn't stand up to either.


1. CO2 - Wood burning was advertised as being 'green'and carbon neutral.Stove companies propogated this with vigour and still do. It's now thought that although technically renewable it is NOT carbon neutral. That is taking into account life cycle, chain etc... 200 scientist wrote to the EU to change policy ?bioenergy [from forest biomass] is not carbon-neutral? this was for drax wood pellets, but applies to all wood burning. No space for details but check out: https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/woody-biomass-power-and-heat-impacts-global-climate

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/congress-says-biomass-is-carbon-neutral-but-scientists-disagree/


Comparison - Gas vs Wood - 'biomass generated around 18TWh of renewable energy in the UK between April and June this year, second only to onshore wind as a renewable energy source, which delivered around 23TWh. However, the NRDC argues recent science, including from the former Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), shows many forms of biomass, and in particular feedstock from forest wood, results in higher carbon emissions than even coal and natural gas.'

https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/2474217/is-biomass-really-more-polluting-than-coal - looks like gas is be emerging as somewhat better.


Comparison Electricity vs Wood - Wood would win here.


Localised Emissions - You can't just look at CO2 emissions - Local ones are incredibly important. Especially in a city!

At the point of use, gas is the cleanest fuel we have. Negligible particulates -the most toxic form of pollution.

N2 (nox formed after emission) - Both wood and gas. Not sure which produces more.


Wood contains particulates AND PAHs - the same toxic compounds in cigarettes. When you burn biomatter whether tobacco or wood you get similar stuff. Wood smoke has effects that are IN ADDTION to those from particulates (PM). I.e more potent lung cancer risk and alzheimers risk. On top of that from car fumes.


Lets pretend that wood burning is co2 neutral. That does not change anything. I object for my health to be sacrificed, and that of hundreds of people for miles around, suffering increased risk of so many diseases just so a few people can make crazily insignificant reductions to their CO2 impact. I'm afraid the logic is just not there.


British Medical Journal:

woodsmoke causes '..increased exposure of just 1 ug/m3 PM2.5 increases the risk of Alzheimer's by 15%..'

https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k167/rr-3


They go on to list loads more depressing statistics... 1ug/m3 is really not much.

I addition to my last post - should just add that using seasonal and time related data Kings college pollution researchers concluded that wood burning is for aesthetic reasons! I've seen people have central heating AND a burner.


And note that just 4% of London households burning wood legally or illegally produce 23 -31% of particulate emissions in London (not sure if annual or winter).


I don't blame anyone who has bought a wood burner - they are not to know. The Stove companies advertising is like the wild west - such blatent distortions I don't know how they get away with it.


The info that people should know - the science - is hidden away in dusty 'papers' that noone sees. Stove companies are doing all the education here.

HMG has put out a "strategy" to tackle wood-burning stoves amongst other sources of pollution. Not clear if it's a green paper or a white paper or a discussion document


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46823440

Sally Eva Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> HMG has put out a "strategy" to tackle

> wood-burning stoves amongst other sources of

> pollution. Not clear if it's a green paper or a

> white paper or a discussion document


There's already been an initial consultation. This is the resulting white paper / policy document, "Clean Air Strategy 2019". Links to both at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/air-quality-draft-clean-air-strategy-2018. Official announcement here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-world-leading-plan-to-tackle-air-pollution. It covers most types of air pollution.


Dr Gary Fuller of KCL Environmental Research Group, was interviewed on BBC R4 PM programme today. From which:


"There's a calculation that's been done that says, if you take one of the most modern wood-burning stoves,

it's equivalent to driving about six of the most modern heavy goods vehicles up and down your road."He also reckoned that there are about two million wood-burning households, half of which use open fires, and that the best stoves produce about one fifth the pollution of an open fire.

Its clear theres a problem, and its also clear that people will be unlikely to voluntarily give up their woodburners - mainly because the mainstay of public opinion is that 'wood burners are a clean, efficient means of heating homes' as a result of the sales pitch from the manufacturers.


In terms of what to do - whilst there's a longer term education process about just how dangerous producing particulate matter in densely populated areas really is, is there anything that can be done to reduce the impact of such burners until such time that the legislation catches up with the need?


Does anyone know whether there are particular types of wood that could be used to lessen the impact of wood burning?

I'm pretty sure that the pollution referred to by the OP was nothing to do with a woodburner.


It was the same again on early Sunday evening when we went out - horrible choking fumes from somewhere in the North Cross Road area, spreading all down the adjacent roads.


It wasn't woodsmoke, and as before it smelled like some sort of coal - or other non-smokeless fuel - being burned on an open fire.


At least we were going out, so didn't have to sit in my living room breathing it in.

ianr Wrote:


> Dr Gary Fuller of KCL Environmental Research

> Group, was interviewed on BBC R4 PM programme

> today. From which:

>

> "There's a calculation that's been done that says,

> if you take one of the most modern wood-burning

> stoves,

> it's equivalent to driving about six of the most

> modern heavy goods vehicles up and down your

> road."


Interesting that one of pro-CPZ lobby justifications is the basis it'll reduce pollution. I wonder how many own wood burning stoves ?. Accepted that they aren't used all year round though. It'd be interesting to know whether monitoring can tell the source of the particulates.

Sally Eva Fabhat Thanks for the links


So not much will be done about wood burning except for 2022 stove legislation banning all but the cleanest (Ecodesign) stoves, which is not a government initiative despite Defra presenting it as such. It is EU legislation, which we will have to adopt as stove manufacturers are not going to make stoves just for the UK.


But these 'clean-er' Ecodesign stoves are not new and have been sold in some EU countries for years and have not solved emission problems. The 'er' is very important. These are not clean stoves.


As ianr pointed out they are


'...equivalent to driving about six of the most

> modern heavy goods vehicles up and down your

> road."


I don't think there is any justification for wood stoves in cities - especially London where we have gas. New York has had a ban since 2014 and had cleaner air than us to start with.

Sue- the pollution that I was complaining about is an open fire but is woodsmoke - can smell the wood. It is from a house on Crystal Palace road a few houses before the junction of North Cross road. I think there is another house actually on North Cross road that burns too. There are quite a few houses that do it and so hard to tell where it comes from. Horrid burning smell in my garden this eve that didn't smell of wood..


But I was also talking about wood stoves because although you can't smell them they do give off a lot of pollution as well.

pinkladybird Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sue- the pollution that I was complaining about is

> an open fire but is woodsmoke



OK, fair enough, there must be another open fire in the same area which isn't burning wood but isn't burning smokeless fuel either.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...