Overblown assumptions related to gas stoves causing increased cases of pediatric asthma have plagued medical journals and top-tier media reporting in recent years. These studies often rely on assumption-heavy risk models to create causation, rather than empirical data connecting the two.

A recent Cox Associates study that was funded, in part, by the American Gas Association, explained what any Introduction to Statistics course will teach you: correlation does not equal causation.

With recent debates surrounding indoor air quality and health focusing their attention on gas stoves, particularly in relation to childhood asthma rates, Louis Anthony Cox Jr., author of “Challenging unverified assumptions in causal claims: Do gas stoves increase risk of pediatric asthma?” critically analyzed these claims, concluding:

“The underlying data suggests that the number of pediatric asthma cases caused by gas stoves in the United States is indistinguishable from zero.”

This finding is essential to ensuring a sound, scientific foundation that both informs all public health policies and works to mitigate unverified public panic.

Core Findings

In his study, Cox found claims from a sensationalized May 2024 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) study were based on unverified assumptions, particularly the linear no-threshold (LNT) model, which attributes even low levels of exposure to harmful impacts. In their study, “Nitrogen dioxide exposure, health outcomes, and associated demographic disparities due to gas and propane combustion by U.S. stoves,” Kashtan et al. used these LNT models to claim gas stoves “likely causes ∼50,000 cases of current pediatric asthma from long-term nitrogen dioxide (NO2) exposure alone.”

However, these models have been shown to often result in misleading conclusions that fail to align with empirical data. In fact, Cox goes on to assert:

“The paper presents no causal analyses to support it. It does not cite any references to such causal analyses. Indeed, the rest of the paper makes no reference to causal methods, causal analyses, or causal inferences.”

Cautions Related to Risk Models

Key references throughout the NO2 study do not report a significant association between NO2 exposure from gas stoves and pediatric asthma. In fact, other studies, including Li et al. and Atkinson et al., cautioned against overinterpreting high variability and low-quality data to establish a link between gas stove emissions and asthma.

Specifically, the assumption-driven risk models used throughout the NO2 study failed to account for variables, presenting a skewed picture of the actual risks involved. In fact, Atkinson et al.’s study noted:

“The substantial heterogeneity between study results also weakens the argument for causality.”

The reality is: scientific studies must include rigorous validation for modeling assumptions to create a scientifically sound foundation for public health policy. Rather than acknowledging the ambiguity in these risk models – showing minimal to no impact of gas stoves on human health – Kushtan et al. opted to use pseudo-science to feed into the ideological and partisan attack on gas stoves.

Gas stoves have fallen victim to politicization, resulting in the misinterpretations of data to prove a point. However, in the heat of a debate, it is essential to prioritize scientific evidence—which currently shows no evidence linking gas stove emissions to increased rates of childhood asthma.

Protecting public health is of the utmost importance across the natural gas value chain. However, discourse focused on villainizing the industry without sound scientific backing, is only perpetuating a cycle of public mistrust.

Bottom Line: Cox’s findings that gas stoves do not significantly contribute to pediatric asthma cases serve as a reminder of the importance of grounding public health policy in empirical evidence. At the end of the day, the American public deserves policies and regulations based on sound science rather than assumptions.

The post Gas Stove Statistics 101: Correlation Does Not Equal Causation appeared first on .

This post appeared first on Energy In Depth.