We are we seeing electric stove tops on blue water cruisers?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

Oh come on, we haven't even started yet on the discussion about which cooking method is a greater contributor to global warming

Dockhead, that is the problem with statistics, they lump everything together and make it difficult to sort out individual cases. But then we haven't seen anything from your side either, other than "some RNLI friend of mine said", and "I posted it elsewhere, somewhere"...

Indeed. There are surprisingly few good statistics for anything concerning boating. I'm trying to build a marina and it's unbelievably difficult to find decent data.

My information comes from reading newspaper articles describing 5 fatal gas explosions last year -- everyone was talking about it over here. And talking to an authoritative person in RNLI, which is the SAR service for the UK, one of the best in the world.

That's pretty good data. If someone has some actual data which is different from that, I'll be glad to read it with an open mind. But what has been referenced so far says nothing about this question. And I guess that nothing better will be found. But everyone can believe whatever he wants to. Especially those who think they're too smart to ever have an accident -- more power to you and good luck. God protects fools and drunks, after all, they say.

[cruisersfarm]

I'll report back after another 2 decades of propane use at sea.... dead or alive.

[Stumble]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

What about that dinghy outboard gas/petrol bomb hanging out buried in the lazarette? You can avoid that by just using a rowing dinghy. Better for you too. All comes down to personal taste and choices in your degree-of-comfort selections.

Your argument then if life can't be made entirely safe then don't do anything safer? Not sure this is a winning argument, ever.

[Dsanduril]

Originally Posted by Stumble

Your argument then if life can't be made entirely safe then don't do anything safer? Not sure this is a winning argument, ever.

No, not at all. You asked if there was an alternative, that was safer, then why not avoid the risk altogether? The problem with that is that no one here has shown it to be 'safer'. The are risks to both systems. Some of the risks are the same or similar, others and inherent to only one of the systems.

I'm just saying you can make these types of decisions with every system (and even with whether or not to go boating at all). A rowing dinghy is a completely viable system for getting back and forth to your boat, so why even risk having a petrol/gas powered dinghy? You can get run down in a rowing dinghy, and the risk of that may even be greater since you may not be able to get out of the way of some idiot.

Nothing is black-and-white, lots of gray/grey. In the US, people in the Midwest frequently ask how someone can live in California with earthquakes and fires, while statistically they are just as likely to get killed in the Midwest by a tornado. Human nature discounts the risks with which we are familiar/complacent. Hence we've all necro'd an old thread to argue about our minuscule risk from either cooking approach, while happily getting into cars, subways, airplanes, or whatever where we have a significantly higher risk, to which we are complacent.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

What about that dinghy outboard gas/petrol bomb hanging out buried in the lazarette? You can avoid that by just using a rowing dinghy. Better for you too. All comes down to personal taste and choices in your degree-of-comfort selections.

Don't put petrol in the lazarette. Keep it outside the main hull volume.

On my boat the outboard stays on the pushpit and any extra petrol either in the anchor locker or behind the transom platform. Don't put it in your lazarette!

Kept out of the main hull volume, petrol is not too dangerous and I have enjoyed all of the many outboards which have been in my life over the years.

Drip petrol into your bilge because you carelessly threw the outboard into the laz, though, and all bets are off.

[Dsanduril]

Exactly the point. You have a dangerous system, and have taken risk mitigation measures to reduce (but not entirely eliminate) your risk.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

. . .

Nothing is black-and-white, lots of gray/grey. In the US, people in the Midwest frequently ask how someone can live in California with earthquakes and fires, while statistically they are just as likely to get killed in the Midwest by a tornado. Human nature discounts the risks with which we are familiar/complacent.

Yes! Very perceptive and true.

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

Hence we've all necro'd an old thread to argue about our minuscule risk from either cooking approach, while happily getting into cars, subways, airplanes, or whatever where we have a significantly higher risk, to which we are complacent.

But no. Subways and airplanes, and even cars, are far less dangerous than drowning, asphyxiation, or explosions on yachts. I don't talk about motorcycles.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

Exactly the point. You have a dangerous system, and have taken risk mitigation measures to reduce (but not entirely eliminate) your risk.

Are we arguing? That's all correct, and that's what we all do, and with lots of things on board.

I do have gas on board my boat, and as I have written, I don't lose any sleep over it. I respect it, I'm careful with it, I invest some time and effort into safety. And keeping in mind, philosophically, that all that effort reduces risks, but is no guarantee against an accident. We all have to die sometime.

If there were no good alternative to gas, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Since electric cooking would work almost as well, and with several significant advantages, however, I will change to that with the next boat.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

But no. Subways and airplanes, and even cars, are far less dangerous than drowning, asphyxiation, or explosions on yachts. I don't talk about motorcycles.

The UK Offices of National Statistics doesn't seem to agree with you on any of the above.

[Ungvar]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

Have not seen anyone say propane is always safe, which post was that ?

Well, you stated I should remove my alcohol system and install a propane system because X percentage of boat fires are started by alcohol stoves.

An uniformed statement like that brushes a brand new Origo with the same strokes as a rusty old pressurized system that sprays hot alcohol all over the bulkhead.

When in reality, what happened was I removed a rusty old propane system, which did at least have a solenoid, proper propane locker and decent plumbing, and replaced it with a much newer and much much safer alcohol system.

The above indicates to me your opinion is not based on fact, but on selecting statistics that support your prejudice, while disregarding facts that clearly do not support your prejudice.

My question was more or less directed at you, why is the use of propane not permitted on commercial passenger vessels, trains or airplanes, while electric cooking appliances are?

It's because, those commercial conveyances are inspected to a much higher standard then pleasure craft. The general public has an expectation that the government will protect them from excessive risk, like for example, propane cooking appliances on passenger vessels.

We don't need to try to interpret published statistics, we only need to look to the law, the people that wrote those laws have access to better science and statistics then our interpretation of some online website. The government, and most governments around the world consider propane to be a dangerous good in commercial applications.

They will permit you the opportunity to use it on your private vessel, where it will only blow up you and your family, but they will not permit it's use where it can put the general public at risk.

Just like if you want to drive dangerously on a closed loop private race track you can, but as soon as you want to jeopardise others by traveling 180 miles an hour on the Queen Elizabeth Way, they pull you over, give you a ticket and impound your car.

In 2011, I happened to arrive in Lions Head Ontario, shorty after a fueling explosion, this was petroleum, but propane blows up in more or less the same fashion.

The boat was completely destroyed. The only identifiable piece of boat left was a flattened bottom of a hull sitting on the bottom of the lake near the fuel dock.

In 2005 I witnessed the Coast Guard take a burning cruising sailboat on a short tow behind their zodiac to get it into open water before the propane tanks on the stern blew and took out half of Confederation Basin. Brave guys, they did a good job, they got it out before the tanks blew, but it was pretty spectacular.

Most electrical fires I've seen on boats were extinguished after somebody sauntered over to the power pedestal, beer in hand and unplugged the shore power cable.

I don't use propane inside my boat because I've seen compelling evidence that convinces me it's not worth the risk for me. I don't want to stop others from using it, but for me I am happy to wait the extra 45 seconds to boil my spaghetti water using a safer medium.

Sent from my XP7700 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by Ungvar

Well, you stated I should remove my alcohol system and install a propane system because X percentage of boat fires are started by alcohol stoves.

Now your just making stuff up. Show me where I said that.

[Ungvar]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

According to BoatUS, 52% of all boat fires are electrical

Below is a quote from the same article
Stoves. The incidence of fires due to stoves has decreased with the gradual replacement of alcohol stoves with propane stoves and electric ranges. Two percent of fires were caused by stoves, more than half resulting from problems with lighting alcohol stoves. Given how few alcohol stoves there are on boats these days, they are significantly more dangerous than those that use other fuel sources. If you still have an alcohol stove on board, you may want to consider upgrading. Most people agree that they don't heat very well, anyway.

Here. Yes, I paraphrased.

Sent from my XP7700 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by Ungvar

Here. Yes, I paraphrased.

Sent from my XP7700 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Paraphrased !!!! you simply made it up.

I made no positive statements about propane, alcohol, kerosene, gasoline, diesel or wood burning stoves.
I made no negative statements about propane, alcohol, kerosene, gasoline diesel or wood burning stoves.
All I did was provide a link to an article, nothing more.

[Dsanduril]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

But no. Subways and airplanes, and even cars, are far less dangerous than drowning, asphyxiation, or explosions on yachts. I don't talk about motorcycles.

That's your risk complacency creeping in about the real dangers of cars.

I'll use 2014 US statistics, because those are the easiest for me to get, and 2014 is the last year for which reporting is complete.

4064 boating accidents, of which 68 sailing vessels were involved.

610 deaths, of which 9 were on sailboats. 5 of all deaths related to fuel/fire/vapor (unknown how many of those are sailboat).

Source:https://www.uscgboating.org/library/...stics-2014.pdf

Number of persons involved in boating, 87.3 million. • Statista - The Statistics Portal for Market Data, Market Research and Market Studies

Chance of dying in a recreational boating fire = 87.3e6/5 = 1 in 17.5 million.

Number of automobile deaths = 32,675
Source:Fatality Facts
Number of persons in automobiles in US (a$$ume everyone) 318 million

Chances of death by automobile = 318e6/32675= 1 in 9.7 thousand.

So, in a year, if you are both a boater and an automobile user (driver or passenger) you are 1800 times more likely to die in a car than a boat fire.

That's the raw statistics, it doesn't account for hours spent in each activity. But at 1800 times, that would mean I have to spend 1 hour all year sailing vs. 5 hours per day driving to reach the same risk level.

The statistics say that if I boat I average 10 days/year of boating activity. Even if I boat only one hour each of those days I would need to be in an automobile 50 hours/day, every day to get to the same risk level.

Even if you look at all 610 boating deaths you have a risk of 1 in 143000 vs 1 in 10000 for cars.

We are complacent about the real risks of cars.

[Dsanduril]

One last, late night thought after looking through all the statistics - we're discussing the relative safety of electricity vs. propane as a cooking fuel based on exploding propane bombs. But we all stand a much greater risk of serious injury or death from the cooking itself.

All those great statistics say that we're more likely to seriously hurt ourselves with a grease fire than with a propane explosion or problems from electricity and its generation. And this is true whether we are using a propane stove or an electric one. Until now. The technology is too young for serious statistics, but the precision temperature control possible with induction cooking should significantly reduce the risk of cooking fires. There's still room for human error (setting a temperature higher than the flash point of your grease), but with induction cooking the risk of forgetting a greasy pan on the stove should be much less (time will tell).

So, with induction cooking specifically, it is likely we are all safer, not because of electric vs. propane questions directly, but because the precision control that can be obtained with induction will, in all likelihood, reduce kitchen fires.

Just a different perspective.