Other than tiny traces of certain hydrocarbons (benzine, etc) that are going to be in levels similiar to those found in commercially bottled drinking water, the paraffin and beeswax will have the same emissions: carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and water. Yes, you'll get formaldehyde and related chemicals from the paraffin, but honey and bees wax both contain formaldehyde. And ammonia. Because it has bee pee in it.

All that being said, food-grade paraffin is eaten by most of us pretty much every day or so- glossy chocolates, the coatings on M&Ms and Reeses Pieces, the shells on glazed chewing gum, etc. It is biologically inert, and the the contaminates are at or below the levels allowed for commercial bottlers. If those are to high or not is another debate and not one that applies here.

However, beeswax contains various "natural" contaminants, such as bee pee, but also pollen which can trigger various allergic reactions in amazingly small doses. It also accumulates various pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers that the bees carry in with them on their bodies. Any and all of these can be bad when burned.

Oh, and dismissing a nearly 13% efficiency difference as "not really impressive" is kinda funny. While I agree more modern data should be sought, and I might go hunting this weekend if I've got time, in any other kind of fuel you'd be treated like a rock star if you could put that kind of efficiency improvement off without having to completely reinvent your mechanism, manufacturing techniques and distribution. Plaques for the walls, trophies for the mantel, grant money out the wazzoo, talk show circuit, speaking engagements, honorary degrees and tenure, companies sending hit teams out so that the other companies' HR guys never to talk to you, and geek girls wanting to have your children. Nope, not really impressive, not at all.