Stove comments are exaggerated

May I politely raise issues with some of the points

Robert Bishop makes in his letter of January 28 on the subject of wood burning stoves?

I am sorry if his neighbours are smoking him out, although I feel he might be guilty of a degree of exaggeration on this.

He goes on to say that ‘in this area these stoves are no more than a fashion statement’ and only heat one room.

I’m sorry Mr Bishop, but I cannot let this pass. Yes, we have central heating, but if the temperature outside starts heading towards zero, the central heating goes off, and the stove is lit in midafternoon.

Far from heating one room, the heat circulates around the house, creating a very pleasant ambience, and making the boiler redundant for a few hours.

Whilst the principle benefit of this is that we can sit in a very cosy room and watch the flames, much more agreeable than staring at a radiator, this also means that we are not burning any oil for a few hours, nor using electricity to power the heating pump, so there is an environmental trade off.

Regarding the current scary noises being made about the damage to our health and the atmosphere caused by wood burners, I would suggest that open fires, whether burning wood or coal, are far less efficient, and dirtier than modern stoves, and it was these which caused the revolting smogs in the 50s to which Mr Bishop refers.

I grew up in London in that era, and also remember them well, but I don’t believe that my passion for burning seasoned wood a dozen or so times through the winter is going to lead to a return to that particular health hazard!

The human race is responsible for many activities which are damaging the planet and its occupants, but I do not believe that enjoying the comforts of a wood-burning stove on a freezing night rates very highly on that list.

CAYOUNGMAN Hornbrook Copse, Horsham