Source? What makes combustion particulates from coal substantially worse than combustion particulates from wood?

Wood is made of complex carbohydrates (lignins). The worst thing you’ll get in the smoke is carbon particles and maybe a small amount of aromatic hydrocarbons like benzene.

Coal is made of up of a mixture of aromatic hydrocarbons like a anthracene, naphthalene. These are already toxic to humans. Add metals like mercury, antimony, etc.

Coal smoke is much worse than wood smoke.

Sulfur is a big one. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

Leading to, for example, acid rain.

Also just a guess, coal is a finer particulate matter than wood, I think that might give more particles off. Wood dust, nope, coal dust? Hell no. Also radioactive!

Coal can have radioactive materials inside of it. There's radioactive carbon (c14) and it looks like also a bunch of more concerning materials.

[] - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-....

Regarding carbon-14, there is so little of it that it makes no sense to even think about it (about 1 in 10^12 atoms). In addition, all biological matter (including you and the food you eat) has carbon-14 present in it -- that's the basic principle behind carbon dating. In fact, ash from wood burning would probably have more carbon-14 if anything.

But yes, the article you linked talks about trace amounts of uranium and other materials that actually could be harmful.

The half life of C-14 is much shorter than geologic formation time for coal. Coal's radioactivity is due to primordial nuclides and their decay chains.

How does the radioactivity from coal compare with the radioactivity from bananas?

> Source?

This one is easy to research. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, just being helpful.

Spreading dangerous misinformation is not helpful, and you are trying to convince them of something- namely that this air pollution is no big deal.

PM2.5 pollution, even at levels far lower than being seen now, is associated with literally hundreds of negative outcomes- lower IQ, worse test scores in standardized tests, more depression, worse ADHD, more asthma, more cancers (of both the lungs and other body parts), emphysema, as well as a whole host of issues related to full-body inflammation (ranging from auto-immune disorders to digestive problems).

I didn't say, "No big deal." I am aware of the danger. Thus, "if you survive."

The issues you're describing are studied after what I'd say is long term exposure. So far it's less than a week. A person with healthy lungs and no related problems will be back to normal if this ceases in a relatively short time. Of course, that doesn't mean we should relax about smoke season becoming a month-long annual event.

They say dosage makes the poison, but duration is important, too.

I would make the educated guess that the reason wood smoke is OK is because we have thousands of years of evolution to be more tolerant of wood smoke.

You would hope, but no. Wood smoke is still deadly.[0]

[0]https://www.stoveteam.org/why-stoves

“more tolerant” is what I said. Evolution is mostly a slow process and can never reach perfection.

An evolutionary force that is too strong just kills a species.

Close to a million years by the best guess.

Which is thousands of years... about a thousand such thousands.

Doesn’t coal burn more cleanly than wood?

Edit: I was probably thinking of smokeless coal which is processed to burn more cleanly.

It depends on the grade of coal. If you're burning anthracite, yes. If you're burning lignite... no.

No, that's not the takeaway. I wear my N95 outside, run my air filter inside, and avoid strenuous activity. However, there's no need to panic if you get a cough from the smoke.

Don't exaggerate my statement.

Wood smoke kills around 2 million people a year, though that generally takes long term exposure.

So, while you’re not incorrect that individual wildfires are not a major concern, living in places where such exposure is common is a significant issue.

I've never heard this number, but I find it really interesting. If you remember where you got this number, could you please share a link?

It is probably because a billion? people still use open wood fires indoors with poor ventilation. Visualize a fire in the middle of a hut with a pot on it and a small hole in the ceiling. AQI in that hut is going to be very bad. Creating systems where people can afford to use propane or other gas stoves are a huge win for the health of humanity and ecosystems.

Die drei Plagen des Bauern: Hausrauch, ein undichtes Dach und eine untreue Frau

> The three plagues of the farmer: household smoke, a leaky roof and an unfaithful wife

Supposedly an old saying, but almost certainly retcon. Not necessarily wrong though, look at houses a few hundred years ago, that sort of thing is still ubiquitous in the developing and pre-developing world.

It's not the wood I'm worried about, it's all the non-organic material in the smoke. Plastic, household chemicals, paint, etc... In some years we'll see a massive spike in cancer and respiratory issues from these fires.

I doubt there is a significant enough amount of those materials being burned. Millions of acres of forest has burned compared to relatively few buildings.