[Stoves] report with dissapointing results from cleaner cookstoves

Wed Dec 7 18:23:30 CST 2016

Dear stovers,

        All WRONG discussions !

   If you take the most dangerous  disease  CANCER , it depends on 7 ulta
dangerous  chemical components  as naphtaleen and antraceen (dual and 3
benzene rings ) you can smell from meters away  on top  of  a chimney ! 

  If it enters cells from lung or legs skin you can get cancer .

British chimney cleaners first  got cancer to the  buttocks , from soot on
pants  in 1800  !

      In ROSTOK Germany, A COCKES factory  has tested  each of 70  soot
chemical  components ;it  was isolated and given to 10X 70 rats to
investigate the cancer inducing effect ,after how much time.    7 formulas
are most dangerous .

So you can begin to use PE plastic groves for every ash an stove cleaning
!!!

       So my point :

If you get 2000 PARTICLES of pure carbon into any of your cells  It is INERT
,no reaction ,no danger .

If you get 1900 particles Carbon an 100  naphtalene  into your cells 
.you
could get cancer !

If you get 2000  alfa particles of Pu 239  (or Rn or Po  Cm )  you  ” GET”
cancer in one year” .  (Pu 239    1microgram=2000 Bq  D 19  calculate your
particle size 
..)

Special air filters of 25000$ are used in this plants .

       Deep into the brain are found MAGNETITE and Pd Pt nobel metals
particles from car exhaust  catalisator  !!!

You need an electron microscope to find it at 100 000 magnification .

          PM 2.5  a  particles  size  measurement for dust (dangerous and
non- dangerous ) entering the  lung 

If Chlorine is present PCB  can make it more dangerous .

It is said that burning bread with salt gives PCB s     But NaCl reacts only
at 1200° C 

  Much is said !    To waste our time .         Ask   OAKRIDGE LAB   

Test your smokeless stove with polystyrene  and watch .

Regards

Frans

Van: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] Namens Crispin
Pemberton-Pigott
Verzonden: woensdag 7 december 2016 18:53
Aan: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Onderwerp: Re: [Stoves] report with dissapointing results from cleaner
cookstoves

Dear Andrew

The message from the large scale investigation supports other observations:

The health impact of stove smoke has always been based on estimations that
only apply to populations.

The health impact of stove smoke is over-estimated by those estimations.

The health impact estimates are based on several quirky things, one of which
is that all particles of PM2.5 are equally toxic (the concept of
equitoxicity). There is no factual foundation for such an assumption. 

The health impacts are probably not concentrated on particular diseases. 

You will often see quoted the idea that "The PM2.5 particles are the
smallest and they get deeper into the lung..." with the idea that the
smaller the particle, the more easily the cause 'disease' and the more
easily they get into the lung, and the more easily and the deeper they go,
the more effect they will have. Right? Is this a misrepresentation of the
claims? I don't think so.

At the NESCAUM/NYSERDA meeting in Albany last week there was again a
presentation on the 'ability' (or chance) that a particle of size x will get
into the lung and cause a problem. It happens that the current thinking is
focused on the head passages, not the deep lung. The coincident claims for
the deep lung are COPD and pneumonia and particles. But small particles do
not get into the deep lung so easily – the head passages are very efficient
at getting small particles humidified, enlarged, and trapped by the mucous
membranes.

This is the same idea they emphasized at the Brookhaven National Lab
presentation by NYSERDA. It is not the deep lung that is the problem, they
are worried about the smallest particles being trapped in the upper body and
conducted via the opening in the skull, through the flesh, to the brain.
They worried much more about trapping in the nose and communicating cell by
cell to the brain where such particles have been found. That has little to
do with getting them into the deep lung, into cells there, and thence to the
red blood cells, which is also a current meme.

The efficiency with which small (10-20 nm) particles get trapped in the deep
lung is quite low. The smaller the particle, the less the chance of being
absorbed. One guy gave me a spirited defence of the potential for danger to
the lung saying that diffusion of particles into the cells was a greater
danger than ‘being trapped’. Well, I will have to think about that
mechanism. The main point, supported by charts of efficiency of trapping
things, is that the upper head is the worry point, not the lungs.

So, it is not such a big surprise that the effects on disease occurrence was
not detectable. Reducing PM to zero in the kitchen is not anything close to
removing PM2.5 from people’s lives. Witness the burning garbage, outdoor
large scale cooking, grass fires, fugitive dust, smoky bus engines. There is
a lot in the environment other than cooking fire smoke.

Nikhil has been at pains to try to communicate the change in the relative
risk from a reduction or complete elimination of cooking smoke does not have
a predictable effect on any individual because we don’t know what their
other risks are. The information simply doesn’t exist to make such a
calculation. Models of models of models have results in health impact
estimates that have “false concreteness”. The error is to treat an idea as
if it is a real thing. The Global Burden of Disease is not a real thing, it
is a way of discussing risks within a national cohort. One person in a
population of 1 million does not have a fixed ‘millionth’ of the GBD.

The study proceeded on the basis that they do, and that changing one of the
contributing factors would produce a particular, detectable outcome. If it
had, such a correlation would have been spurious because it is based on a
conceptual flaw at the root.

This definition of Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness is sourced from here
<https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html> . Stove smoke impacts
individuals. Reducing exposure impacts them individually. The impact of that
change is also individual, even on average, is not susceptible to a
calculation based on a GBD number. The GBD is an abstraction negotiated by a
committee.  

Regards

Crispin

Fallacy of Reification (Also called “Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness” by
Alfred North Whitehead): The fallacy of treating a word or an idea as
equivalent to the actual thing represented by that word or idea, or the
fallacy of treating an abstraction or process as equivalent to a concrete
object or thing.  In the first case, we might imagine a reformer trying to
eliminate illicit lust by banning all mention of extra-marital affairs or
certain sexual acts in publications. The problem is that eliminating the
words for these deeds is not the same as eliminating the deeds themselves.
In the second case, we might imagine a person or declaring “a war on
poverty.” In this case, the fallacy comes from the fact that “war” implies a
concrete struggle with another concrete entity which can surrender or be
exterminated. “Poverty,” however is an abstraction that cannot surrender or
sign peace treaties, cannot be shot or bombed, etc. Reification of the
concept merely muddles the issue of what policies to follow and leads to
sloppy thinking about the best way to handle a problem. It is closely
related to and overlaps with faulty analogy
<https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html#faulty_analogy_anchor>  and
<https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html#equivocation_anchor>
equivocation.

 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-38160671>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-38160671

It's a surprising result and I would like to know why the cleaner stoves
used did not return a lower incidence of respiratory infections.

Is is because there are other vectors of the  illnesses linked to poverty?

The two  good results were that the cleaner stoves appear to be safer and
more economical to use.

AJH

_______________________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20161208/b8ee9d76/attachment.html>