The UK's national government has published a document that arguably disinforms the public

Article format: Statements related to evidence are referenced with research. Links to the referenced papers & websites are in the “reference” section. This article is generally written in the format of an American Psychological Association paper, however, this article has not been peer-reviewed. To the best of my knowledge, I have been clear when statements align with the general scientific consensus, or when there is disagreement. For example, there is a scientific consensus that smoking tobacco harms human health (Edwards, 2004), and there is a scientific consensus that inhaling wood smoke harms human health (Orozco, 2006). This consensus is the general scientific literature on the subject and can be accessed via the provided references (Peer-reviewed papers) The UK's conservative government published a document (DEFRA, 2019) that misinforms &, arguably ( i.e., in a court of law) disinforms the public regarding the health impacts of smoke pollution. In other words, misinformation. The scientific consensus is explicit that exposure to wood smoke, & air pollution, in general, is harmful to human physiology (Pintos et al., 1988). Furthermore, many scientists agree that burning wood fuel is a leading cause of deforestation and climate heating (Booth et al., 2020; Johnson, 2009). Although, some scientists disagree and advocate the burning of biomass as “carbon neutral” ( Berndes et al., 2016). However, Berndes (2016) paper, amongst others, explicitly “cherry-pick” the evidence. They don’t mention the medical evidence regarding how burning wood fuel causes human disease. Personally, I consider the Berndes (2016) paper unprofessional, because, considering the general evidence, the paper is discussing a method that increases human disease, whilst not significantly discussing the healthier alternatives to burning wood fuel. For instance, zero-emission technologies are available in the UK (e.g., Heat Pumps). Although, Berndes (2016) does discuss, whether biomass (e.g., wood fuel) is Carbon neutral, or not. However, because of this “cherry-picking” the evidence methodology by only focusing on specific CO2 emissions, it could be argued that the wood fuel “carbon neutrality” claims are not factoring in the CO2 emissions associated with, for example, the logging industry. For example, deforesting woodlands for tree plantations degrades the soil (Hajabbasi et al., 1997), and the logging industries standard practices use fossil fuels to power their machinery, process the wood and transport the wood fuel (often overseas). Furthermore, 500+ scientists including economists (2022) wrote a polite letter to the politicians explaining that burning wood fuel maybe two to three times worse than burning fossil fuels. However, the politicians tend to respond more to climate protests (Extinction rebellion Global, 2021) Whilst I will not speculate whether organisations such as the Homeowners alliance (2022) are intentionally spreading disinformation (e.g., “Ecodesign” wood stoves), I do think the case made in this article is sufficient to argue (e.g., in a court of law) that the UK government is intentionally spreading disinformation (DEFRA., 2019). I have tried to discuss the evidence with conservative and labour politicians on numerous occasions either by email or on social media (e.g., Twitter). Members of parliament not replying to emails that contain details of the scientific evidence, is arguably one method to avoid being held accountable too that evidence (i.e., ignoring science) The UK conservative government has a history of publishing advice about burning wood fuel for home use that features the same forms of misdirection as the fossil fuel and wood fuel industries. For example, using words associated with health (E.g., “fresh”, "good") and words associated with good behaviour (E.g., “right”, "good"). For instance, the “burn right” DEFRA (2019) publication has phrases such as "burn right", "fresh wood", & indicates that "lighting bonfires" is a "nuisance", when in fact it's a severe health hazard (Erlandsson et al., 2020) Whilst the DEFRA (2019) publication does acknowledge that wood smoke is harmful when inhaled, to quote "What you can do to help reduce the harmful effects from smoke", the DEFRA's (2019) general advice is arguably misinforming and advocating wood burning by suggesting, to quote "Think if you have to burn","burn seasoned wood", "For more good practice tips". However, whether the UK conservative government is intentionally using a form of associated "good" word promotion method or not, it's certainly the fact that the UK conservative government is advising "good practice tips" that evidently will mean some people will believe that burning wood fuel is merely a "nuisance" (DEFRA, 2019), when in fact, regular exposer to wood smoke causes disease, mental health issues and decreases life expectancy ( Calderon et al., 2002; Orozco et al., 2006) The research clearly states that wood smoke is hazardous to human health ( Erlandsson et al., 2020) and the conservative party has been informed of this research on numerous occasions. I can provide personal examples of emails sent to UK conservative & labour politician[s], referencing the research, emails that have received no reply. I can also provide examples of emails sent to organisations that either directly sells wood fuel & / or woodstoves or promote wood fuel. Their general reply as been, to paraphrase “that’s only your opinion” (woodstove industry) or “considering the evidence of wood smoke exposure is beyond our mandate” (e.g., The woodland trust, UK) To quote the misleading information from the UK government “burn right” publication. "Defra exemption permitting its use in smoke control areas or an Ecodesign Ready stove. These have been rigorously tested and demonstrate low-smoke emissions." (DEFRA, 2019). The DEFRA (2019) publication does not reference the “rigorous test”. Industries often use the prefix “eco” to greenwash products. "Ecodesign" is misdirection. Even if a woodstove (in lab conditions) emitted, for example, 20% less smoke pollution, if governments motivate more consumers to install more woodstoves by promoting “burn right” (DEFRA, 2019), that will cause the general level of wood smoke pollution (& CO2 emissions) in the environment to increase. In conclusion, DEFRA (UK government) should be tried in a court of law regarding this complaint. In a democracy, the role of government is to correctly inform the public of the scientific evidence. The general evidence this article provides, arguably converges on the conclusion that the UK government intentionally user’s misdirection & mixed messaging so as to try and disinform the public. For example, to burn wood “right”. When in fact, & good conscience, the Gov should be informing and helping the public not to burn wood fuel at all. References 500 Scientists (2022). https://www.dropbox.com/s/hdmmcnd0d1d2lq5/Scientist%20Letter%20to%20Biden%2C%20von%20der%20Leyen%2C%20Michel%2C%20Suga%20%26%20Moon%20%20Re.%20Forest%20Biomass%20%28February%2011%2C%202021%29.pdf?dl=0 Berndes, G., Abt, B., Asikainen, A., Cowie, A., Dale, V., Egnell, G., ... & Yeh, S. (2016). Forest biomass, carbon neutrality and climate change mitigation. From science to policy. https://nbsapforum.net/sites/default/files/efi_fstp_3_2016.pdf Booth, M. S., Mackey, B., & Young, V. (2020). It’s time to stop pretending burning forest biomass is carbon neutral. GCB Bioenergy, 12(12), 1036-1037. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12716 Edwards, R. (2004). The problem of tobacco smoking. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7433.217 Calderon-Garciduenas, L., Azzarelli, B., Acuna, H., Garcia, R., Gambling, T. M., Osnaya, N., ... & Rewcastle, B. (2002). Air pollution and brain damage. Toxicologic pathology. https://doi.org/10.1080%2F01926230252929954 DEFRA., (2019). Department of Environment and Rural Affairs. Open fires and wood-burning stoves – a practical guide https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat09/1901291307_Ready_to_Burn_Web.pdf [DOA:2022] Erlandsson, L., Lindgren, R., Nääv, Å., Krais, A. M., Strandberg, B., Lundh, T., ... & Malmqvist, E. (2020). Exposure to wood smoke particles leads to inflammation, disrupted proliferation and damage to cellular structures in a human first trimester trophoblast cell line. Environmental Pollution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114790 Extinction rebellion global (2021) "This is an emergency" https://rebellion.global/ Hajabbasi, M. A., Jalalian, A., & Karimzadeh, H. R. (1997). Deforestation effects on soil physical and chemical properties, Lordegan, Iran. Plant and soil. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004243702208 Homeowners alliance (2022) Wood-burning stoves: What do the new rules mean for your fireplace? https://hoa.org.uk/2021/11/wood-burning-stove/ Johnson, E. (2009). Goodbye to carbon neutral: Getting biomass footprints right. Environmental impact assessment review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2008.11.002 Newbury, J., Stewart, R., Fisher, H., Beevers, S., Dajnak, D., Broadbent, M., . . . Bakolis, I. (2021). Association between air pollution exposure and mental health service use among individuals with first presentations of psychotic and mood disorders: Retrospective cohort study. The British Journal of Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2021.119 Orozco-Levi, M., Garcia-Aymerich, J., Villar, J., Ramirez-Sarmiento, A., Anto, J. M., & Gea, J. (2006). Wood smoke exposure and risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. European Respiratory Journal. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.06.00052705 Pintos, J., Franco, E. L., Kowalski, L. P., Oliveira, B. V., & Curado, M. P. (1998). Use of wood stoves and risk of cancers of the upper aero-digestive tract: a case-control study. International Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/27.6.936 Additional reading Doctors & Scientists against wood smoke pollution (2022) https://woodsmokepollution.org/