<span style="font-family: georgia, palatino;">Well, let's start with the "good news", the things the article got not exactly right, then move on to other stuff.</span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, palatino;"> </span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, palatino;">First off, it wasn't too hard to convince people back then that gas was better: most people were cooking with wood or coal (sometimes even sawdust stoves) and even the homes that had electric stoves often had stoves which were underpowered by current standards (no pun intended) -- many homes had 50-60A electric panels for the entire home, while nowadays just the electric range is often 40-50A.</span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, palatino;"> </span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, palatino;">Up to the 50's or so (but at the very least 30's-40's), methane ("Natural Gas") was less common than it is now. Most of the cities who had gas used "manufactured gas" or "town gas", which was extracted from coal, if I remember right, and was more dangerous, in that it had a higher percentage of carbon monoxide in it. (As a sidebar, the amount of inherent carbon monoxide in town gas was one of the reasons movies often used the "suicide by sticking their heads in the oven" thing.)</span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, palatino;"> </span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, palatino;">And yes, it's funny how so many people who have asthma and other breathing problems fight for their "cooking with gas" rights, but people quickly back down from induction stoves when doctors tell them it might affect their implants (pacemakers, defibrillators).</span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, palatino;"> </span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, palatino;">Things the article either doesn't mention or didn't get quite right include the fact that, with population growth, even if we didn't care about pollution or climate change, we wouldn't have a choice to stay with gas for home heating or home cooking. And that's to say nothing about bringing manufacturing back into US, which will use massive amounts of natural gas.</span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, palatino;"> </span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, palatino;">If you ask around, right now, there are plenty of restaurants in the past 5 years or so, particularly in NYC and other metro areas, which couldn't get their permits because there wasn't enough gas to supply the stoves/ovens -- some of them chose to go with induction and electric ovens and say they'll never look back, some kept their place in the "wait line" to get connected to gas, because it's cheaper than the electric options.</span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, palatino;"> </span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, palatino;">The article also mentions that "there is no standard for ventilation", which is not quite true, there are multiple areas of the country where building standards require not only more ventilation for gas stoves (particularly "commercial-style" ranges with high-power burners), but it also requires a heat-exchanger for make-up air to replace the air being exhausted by the hood. This adds enough expense that many owners give up their gas stoves in favor of electric or induction, where they can get away with less than 600 cu ft of air/min or even just a recirculation hood ("commercial-style" ranges often require 1,200 cu ft/min hoods or higher).</span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, palatino;"> </span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, palatino;">Either way, I've said this before here multiple times: the hubby and I grew up with gas stoves, and a few years ago we installed an induction range and we don't want to go back to gas. In fact, my parents had a new home built right after we made the change, and we warned them to at the very least instal an electric line/outlet for an induction range behind their gas range in case they ever wanted to switch, but they said "nah, we'll use that money for something else", and now, for years, every time they visit us, they both say they regret not having that line all the time.</span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, palatino;"> </span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, palatino;">Before I forget, someone asked the question -- a full-size induction range, particularly with pots/pans of the proper size for the burner, will generate way less stray electromagnetic fields than one of those portable countertop single induction burners, which are housed in plastic and allow for more "leakage" than the regular stovetops/ranges, which are encased in metal.</span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, palatino;"> </span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, palatino;">Most of the problem comes from the fact that the vast majority of implants had a coil somewhere on the body so that the doctors could use an induction coupling to either reprogram the devices or gather data. </span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, palatino;"> </span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, palatino;">That being said, more recent implants are more resistant to interference (coils put higher up on the body and responsive to a much narrower frequency band, plus microchips that discard interference they don't understand, instead of just passing it thru to the heart), and my plan, if/when such implants become necessary, is to tell my doctors "we have an induction range, and that's not gonna change, so plan for the implant accordingly" and I think that even people who have gas stoves should do the same, you never know when you're gonna be visiting people who have induction ranges in their homes, and the percentage of induction stoves will only rise as more and more people find out they are much easier/nicer to use than gas burners.</span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, palatino;"> </span>