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.

  • Labototmized@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Haha! I go in about three houses per day for work and the majority will have gas. Also SE US. Although I’ve never had one in the places I’ve lived so if not for work I’d never have seen them either.

    • bradorsomething@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a certain wealth line where they all have gas stoves. Look up the Wolf 6-burner gas range. Not something you find in a 3-2 home.

    • janNatan
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I grew up in a rural area, hence the no gas. I now live in a metro area and maybe it’s just my friends, but I’ve really never seen one. They always sounded dangerous to me.

      • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Outside of this (and the utility fucking up, sending too much pressure, and blowing up a bunch of houses) they’re perfectly safe. Millions of homes around the world have gas service and incidents are very rare.

        But given the health implications of just normal operation, I’m still not going to get a gas stove in the future.

      • pirat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m just here to let you know that in some rural areas, bottled gas is/was the viable solution.