Wood heater pollution is a silent killer. Here's where the smoke is worst

I remember in one of his books, Dr Karl recalls knowing when winter started because the ER suddenly fills up with kids fighting for their lives.

Does he not own a calendar?

Health bodies such as Asthma Australia and the Australian Medical Assocation want state and territory governments to ban new wood heater installs and phase out the existing ones in residential areas. But governments appear reluctant to impose such a ban.

If a ban is out of the question, then can we at least tighten the requirements on new installations (e.g. https://www.homeheat.com.au/wood-heaters/certified-wood-heaters/) and provide subsidy programs? As far as I can tell there is only one active one and that's in the ACT: https://www.energy.gov.au/rebates/wood-heater-removal-program (Armidale NSW did have one but applications have closed.)

They should be completely banned nationwide unless you live on at least a 4 hectare property.

The electricity grid may not yet be able to handle the sudden influx in demand that replacing them would cause. Once electricity prices come down due to renewables naturally it would make no economic sense to use a wood-heater anyway.
- It makes no economic sense already.

This is about as credible as the ANU study that said dozens of people were being killed in the ACT every year. It's a study commissioned, and written by the every people who have already decided that wood heaters are bad. If we are banning wood heaters, then we should ban fossil fuel cars as well. What a joke. This just stinks of "take away my privileges for my own good Daddy".

If we are banning wood heaters, then we should ban fossil fuel cars as well.
This, but unsarcastically. It's 2025 and people are still buying huge 4WD diesels to drive through the city to the office.
- Just got rid of my fuel sipping crossover and went full electric and boy is it nice. A week so far and I just passed 69% (nice). Im going to be really pleased if I can get two weeks out of one charge. And the price to recharge? Less than $20 usd. About half of my weekly 10 gallons of 81 unleaded.
If we are banning wood heaters, then we should ban fossil fuel cars as well.
The article specifically mentions that fewer deaths are attributable to vehicle emissions than to wood heaters:
The Centre for Safe Air at the University of Tasmania estimates long-term exposure to wood-heater smoke causes 729 premature deaths every year in Australia, which is more than the deaths attributable to emissions from the national fleet of 20 million vehicles, or from energy generation, or even bushfires.
- Come on, this study is extremely poorly done. For starters, the lead researcher has been advocating to ban wood heaters for over 15 years, and has never done a study that has found anything that high mortality rates. Second, they assume that there is a blanket level of a PM2.5 percentage air pollution caused specifically by wood heaters evenly over Australia. This means that they are assuming an even wood heater pollution level (at a rate that is not scientifically backed, and whjile they may try to justify it, the reality is that it is pulled out of their arse) over the whole country. It is not based on actual measurements taken, there was poor and biased methodology of coming to this level. It does not take account of seasonal variations, or the fact that wood heaters are more common in areas with lower population density. The population functions they use rely on research done in North America and Europe, populations with different health concerns and living conditions. Populations, which have a higher level of air pollution and consistently worse air quality.
  I will admit, that yes there is obviously health concerns from wood heaters. But this study has serious methodological concerns, heavily relies on insufficiently modeled methodologies, with poor input numbers, and worst of all is potentially biased by the people who wrote it have long standing advocacy positions. It's like asking Exxon Mobile to make a study on the health impacts of fossil fuel cars.
- The article specifically mentions that fewer deaths are attributable to vehicle emissions than to wood heaters:
  Calling bullshit on that number....
  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-24/air-pollution-modelling-university-of-melbourne-traffic/102015778
  Traffic pollution likely causes more than 11,000 premature deaths in Australia a year,
You have a cat converter on your coonara?

A work colleague had a funny story about wood fires.

His neighbours had a wood fire, and every winter they'd load up on wood and it would be billowing smoke.

One summer the neighbours had a tree go down in their backyard. Beauty! Free wood! They had it chopped up and stacked by their house. There was enough for years!

What they didn't realise is the white ants liked that setup too. They got into that, and then destroyed the wood in the house. Some of it structural.

It cost them many,many thousands of dollars to have the wood ripped out and replaced.

Workmate hasn't seen a wood fire since. He suspects the fireplace was also ripped out, or an electric/gas heater was installed.

Yep, need to get a hot blazing burn then it's fairly clean (and efficient). Smaller wood is better -- just keep loading it in.
Trouble is, no one ever listens. They throw on massive logs then crank the airflow right down for the lovely slow burn through the evening, then wedge in the biggest piece they can find and close the airflow "so it's still burning in the morning" (*smouldering).
- Unless you are awake to refill it every hour or so... slow burning means consistent heat throughout the night.

Masonry heater or don't even bother.

It's barely practical to run a typical modern Australian wood heater efficiently because they can't store the heat of a blazing hot efficient smokeless burn.

Come on, this study is extremely poorly done. For starters, the lead researcher has been advocating to ban wood heaters for over 15 years, and has never done a study that has found anything that high mortality rates. Second, they assume that there is a blanket level of a PM2.5 percentage air pollution caused specifically by wood heaters evenly over Australia. This means that they are assuming an even wood heater pollution level (at a rate that is not scientifically backed, and whjile they may try to justify it, the reality is that it is pulled out of their arse) over the whole country. It is not based on actual measurements taken, there was poor and biased methodology of coming to this level. It does not take account of seasonal variations, or the fact that wood heaters are more common in areas with lower population density. The population functions they use rely on research done in North America and Europe, populations with different health concerns and living conditions. Populations, which have a higher level of air pollution and consistently worse air quality.

I will admit, that yes there is obviously health concerns from wood heaters. But this study has serious methodological concerns, heavily relies on insufficiently modeled methodologies, with poor input numbers, and worst of all is potentially biased by the people who wrote it have long standing advocacy positions. It's like asking Exxon Mobile to make a study on the health impacts of fossil fuel cars.

Fires are horrible. Very difficult to controll the heat output, they also are very costly to run, require a lot of maintenance, and require a lot of space to store the wood.

Fires are horrible.
They're about the best feeling source of heat around, so not horrible.
Very difficult to controll the heat output
It's not particularly difficult to control the heat output, it's just a matter of how you load it and how much air you let in. They don't do well for extremely low heat output, but at that sort of cold just put on a jumper instead.
they also are very costly to run
Used to cost about $20 a tonne for wood a few years back when I was in a place with a fire, plus maybe another $50 per tonne in fuel for the ute and saws to gather it (so ~$70 a tonne total). Was a hell of a lot cheaper than gas and a lot cheaper than electricity.
require a lot of maintenance
It's just popping up onto the roof once a year and taking ash out every week or so, I never found it a big deal.
require a lot of space to store the wood
This I'll grant you, given how tiny modern yards are. You need a square metre or two for the wood and another couple for room to split it - not much in a traditional suburban backyard but it's noticeable in newer blocks where you have bugger all room around the house.
- A single high efficiency wood heater can fill a valley with visible smoke. I can't believe that breathing that density of smoke can be healthy. The valley I live in is full of smoke from mid spring through to new years, I wonder how many are killed by that smoke
- another couple for room to split it
  You split your own wood? I'm in the USA so maybe it's different here, but when I lived in a house with a wood stove, I bought my wood pre-split from a guy who presumably did it with a machine.
- You go and collect your own wood? From land you own? Is it sustainably sourced? I don't know where you live but it's a few hundred a ton, here, now and has been for about 10 years.
- Heat pumps generator 3kwh heat per 1kwh electricity you or in. Nothing beats it. It would be like getting 3 logs of heart out of 1 log. Fireplace you can't say i want my room at 22 degrees. Also if you come the fire, then you are wasting money cause the wood is but burning properly, Thefore you are wearing moneyq. I grew up with a fireplace, fireplaces are shit compared with heat pumps.
- the vast majority of the heat will always be lost through the chimney. poor efficiency coupled with extremely high particulate output. the maintenance may be easy for you today, but for people with mobility issues chimney problems can quickly become fire hazards.
  meanwhile, you're in AUSTRALIA, sunlight is plentiful and battery tech will store and dole out that power all night. I don't see why anyone wants it besides 'ehh feels real cozy'
  was cheaper. and you're cutting down trees, which take carbon in. we don't live in the 50s anymore.
  lol downvote away it's not changing physics you dingus
As someone who grew up with wood heaters, I have to disagree with some of that. You are right that you need space to store wood, but maintenance is generally straightforward for many models of wood heater. "Costly" depends on your reference point - as the article mentions, cost of living and energy prices are likely pushing more people to use them, and if you live in a semi-rural or regional area, then you will often have a cheap supply of wood to burn.
It does take a little bit of practice to learn how to control the heat output, but most of this is understanding two things: 1) the lag between the firebox temperature and how rapidly it is burning wood, and 2) how different types of timber burn (lightweight timbers such as pine burn quickly, denser timbers like ironbark and redgum take longer).
The problem, as the article points out, is that one controls the fire (and hence heat output) by reducing the oxygen intake - which leads to incomplete combustion and a lot more particulates and pollutants in the air. Newer designs allow for more efficient combustion but still suffer the same basic problem.