[Stoves] The 20% Solution for Stoves - Ron's cite-o-logy
Traveller
miata98 at gmail.com
Sat Dec 10 11:09:18 CST 2016
Attachments area
Dear Ron:
I beg your pardon. I have no "anti-stove development" agenda. It is people
like Marc Gunther, or that UN official (I mean a real one, not the fake one
at 1750 Penn I used to frequent so much) quoted by Xavier a few months ago,
or even GACC, who have been disappointed with the 40+ years of "stove
development" by -- well, just who I wonder.
I already replied to your itemized summary of anti-Nikhil rant. I haven't
yet seen the details you promised on my "at least 28" sins you promised
three days ago; please tell us what you find so unprofessional and what
your counter-propositions would be.
For now, let me respond to your post below from two days ago.
All I see is "cite-o-logy", the disease that corrupts science. One cannot
get away with providing references without at the same time making some
statements about what those citations mean and how.
So, please state your propositions. What do you intend to tell us - that
there are citations outside this list to read up which you haven't read
yourself?
A. *DALYs*: I don't think I ever said all DALYs are bogus numbers, but
coming to think of it, yes. They are. Just go back and read my post a few
months ago on the "super-human" adventures of the GoBbleDygood that is GBD.
To repeat, GBD is "killing by assumptions". In the words of one of the
principals, they "got away with murder". All I am saying is that they are
still getting away with murder. If you have doubts, also please read up the
WHO Director's plea for "better data". Fancy models with cooked up "data"
are a waste of time and money. Keeping PhDs employed has no inherent value;
Keynesian that I am, I would rather have some of them dig holes and refill
them.
B. *BAMG *Webinar: But that is science - dig holes, check, refill them, dig
new ones. I did suffer through the "fake classroom" we now call "Webinar" -
with Michael Johnson and Ajay Pillarisetti - you wanted us all to attend. I
have some notes somewhere, but the take-away was Johnson's frank admission
about the extremely simplifying assumptions that have to be made to use
HAPIt and churn out numbers. Of course, simplifying assumptions are
necessary to propose a model, but if the assumptions have no - repeat, no -
basis in empirical observations, we get a farce, not science. No matter how
many adherents choose to become blind so they can also make money writing
news stories on elephants. (I did meet some people from BAMG around the
time it was formed, I think 10+ years ago. I am not at all accusing Johnson
and Pillarisetti of blindness. They are honest in describing what they do.
I even read up Ajay's PhD thesis a few months ago.)
C. *Use of coal*: The WHO link you cite
<http://www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc/recommendation_3/en/>
says '"Unprocessed
coal* should not be used as a household fuel." There is a WHO-Europe 2015
report says ""*WHO currently makes no recommendation about the residential
use of processed coal but calls for future research* to examine the content
of, emissions from and exposure to pollutants – including toxic
contaminants – from the use of “clean” or “smokeless” coal." (Residential
heating with wood and coal:health impacts and policy options in Europe and
North America
<http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/271836/ResidentialHeatingWoodCoalHealthImpacts.pdf>
Authors include Zoe Chafe and Kirk Smith. Emphasis added). Even this is
patently misleading -- the degree of processing matters only to the extent
that it affects the quality of combustion. If unprocessed coal - or wood -
combusted with the right equipment can achieve very low levels of PICs, it
can be better than processed coal or wood combusted badly. This is basic
combustion science; I can give you citations if you wish. EMISSIONS ARE NOT
A PROPERTY OF THE FUEL; THEY ARE A RESULT OF FUEL CHEMISTRY, COMBUSTION
PRACTICES. (Besides, emissions do not automatically lead to exposures
unless you cook up the right equations for right "boxes". Please ask
Michael Johnson. I don't think much of his model, but then I rarely think
much of anybody's models. Doesn't mean the modelers are dumb; others are.)
D. *IERs*: Please read my posts on this list about EPA's PM2.5 theology and
Burnett et al. (2014). For EPA, "absence of evidence is evidence of
absence" -- and deception (they need to assume equitoxicity because now
that they have regulated SO2 exposures out, they have to BLAME EVERYTHING,
no matter what the known toxicity levels. As for IERs, my post quotes the
reservations of the authors. If you don't accept those reservations, write
to them. (IER has now been extended from a single study of limited duration
in some parts of one country to at least 67 studies. The basic criticism
stands -- "relative risk" refers to attribution, not causality. Of course,
millions and millions of dollars have to be spent further to keep this
exercise going on and on and on.)
E. *The 20% solution*: At last. I see you make one assertion -- "This graph
from about 20% through the Ppt is key to our stove work." Please elaborate.
What does this graph say? What do the numbers on the horizontal axis -
micrograms per cubic meter - mean? Concentrations or exposures? Where?
(Can't be labs because pneumonia cannot be generated in labs.) What does
"relative risk" on the vertical axis imply? (My view, which I suspect Prof.
Smith may agree to: a) This graph has no predictive power for disease
incidence in any particular population, leave alone for individuals; b) Nor
does it have any specific policy relevance other than to opine that LPG
cooking is probably safer as far as emissions go, though immediate, actual
deaths due to fires may be far higher in some regions. Just look up reports
on actual deaths instead of concocted "premature deaths".)
I admit to naughtiness here - you only meant 20% as in "20% down the
presentation"; the precise number for those who care is 23% in a file of 50
pages.
Could it be that you just raced down the presentation to find something you
felt salvaged your own "stove development" agenda, ignoring all else?
After all, Prof. Smith speaks of stove development problem as "a very large
technical challenge to solid fuels to reach 99% or greater reductions over
open fires".
I don't agree with Prof. Smith on that. It is not some ISO IWA claptrap of
boiling water in labs that will determine percentage reductions. (Compared
to what baseline? Not all solid fuels are the same, and not all of them are
cooked over open fires. The whole "stoves and health impacts" propaganda of
GBD, of which Prof. Smith is now unfortunately a part, is based on -- um, I
have said that before, so I won't be naughty again.) What matters is not
fuels or emission rates but emission loads, concentrations, and above all,
exposures. I will write about that in another post. I happen to think coals
are much better fuel to tinker with than generic "biomass". Everything has
a context; labs and computers are not context, not to me at any rate.
For now, please - you and all others - read Up in Smoke
<http://www.caravanmagazine.in/reportage/smoke-india-perfect-cookstove>.
While Neros played fiddle, "The cleanest models have been disseminated to
only a few 100s of thousands of households." (Prof. Smith again, lest you
accuse me of insulting your intelligence.)
You ask members of this list "to decide whether Nikhil and Crispin are
better authorities on the topic of this exchange than the cites above."
I will let Crispin speak for himself. Whatever gave you the idea that I
claim to be an authority? Perish the thought!! You think I - who am not
ready to kowtow to any "authority", including WHO (because buried in WHO
bowels are inconvenient truths, as is the case with GoBbleDygook) - will
not make fun of myself??
Come on, friend. Have some fun. Do some reading. Don't throw citations and
please don't insult the intelligence of list members by asking them to
decide on the basis of throwing citations. That would mean mortgaging the
brains. (GACC will extend loans to those who are ready to do so).
Nikhil
(*) I have know Prof. Smith's work since 1981, soon after he landed at
Delhi airport with the monitoring equipment pictured in slides 21 and 22 of
the presentation you cite. You may notice the absence of visible smoke in
slide 21. :-)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 16:00:05 -0700
> From: Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> To: Discussion of biomass <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Cc: Traveller <miata98 at gmail.com>, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
> <crispinpigott at outlook.com>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] report with dissapointing results from cleaner
> cookstoves (Crispin)
> Message-ID: <CD1C366F-D55E-4EDE-9EC6-D2AF28C46AD5 at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> List cc Crispin and Nikhil:
>
> Looks like another dreary day and night. Sigh. Before addressing
> the places where my name appears below, I first have to work on completing
> last night?s response to Nikhil.
>
> What I see below are two stove ?experts? - saying that those
> dealing with the health aspects of stoves are doing it all wrong. But the
> good news is that we are talking about stoves finally. I will try to
> explain tomorrow why their following exchange makes no sense. (and I
> suppose there will be another half dozen messages by then on this topic -
> as happened on the one I am going to).
>
> I hope those interested in this ongoing health topic will go back
> and read an exchange between Nikhil and myself in September.
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.
> bioenergylists.org/2016-September/012166.html <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.
> bioenergylists.org/2016-September/012166.html> That older message
> strongly relates to this new set below.
>
> To read the following exchanges you need these further
> explanations:
>
> DALY and ADALY (respectively in years and $) are many places
> below, but a simple start is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Disability-adjusted_life_year <https://en.wikipedia.org/
> wiki/Disability-adjusted_life_year> . I encourage all readers to decide
> if these are valid units - and if not what should replace them. Nikhil
> says they are bogus numbers
>
> WHO = World Health Organization; they sponsored a webinar
> featuring Dr. Michael Johnson - who developed a nice model disparaged
> (above) by Nikhil. I believe some of the failure to see large health
> effects in the other thread we are talking about is contained in Michael?s
> modeling. The particular webinar with Dr. Johnson is saved at
> http://www.pciaonline.org/webinars <http://www.pciaonline.org/webinars>
> (Thanks to the folks maintaining this older work.)
>
> http://www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc/recommendation_3/en/
> <http://www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc/recommendation_3/en/>
> explains why NOT to use coal as a fuel (this re a topic raised in the
> exchange below)
>
> IWA is explained at http://cleancookstoves.org/
> technology-and-fuels/standards/iwa-tiers-of-performance.html <
> http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/standards/iwa-tiers-of-
> performance.html>
>
> GBD = Global Burden of Disease; see http://thelancet.com/gbd <
> http://thelancet.com/gbd>
>
> IER= Integrated Exposure Response http://www.who.int/phe/health_
> topics/outdoorair/databases/AAP_BoD_methods_March2014.pdf <
> http://www.who.int/phe/health_topics/outdoorair/databases/AAP_BoD_methods_
> March2014.pdf>
>
> I am only a beginner (and expect to stay that way) on this part of stove
> science. I suggest the task of this list?s members is to decide whether
> Nikhil and Crispin are better authorities on the topic of this exchange
> than the cites above. Everyone is welcome to trust Nikhil and Crispin on
> these matters, but I tend to trust the stove side of all this presented by
> Prof. Kirk Smith of UC-Berkeley - who I believe would not agree with much
> of their below exchange. See http://static.squarespace.com/static/
> 53856e1ee4b00c6f1fc1f602/538570c1e4b071a53f15e518/
> 538570d9e4b071a53f15e9cc/1401254105672/DFID-SE4.pdf?format=original <
> http://static.squarespace.com/static/53856e1ee4b00c6f1fc1f602/
> 538570c1e4b071a53f15e518/538570d9e4b071a53f15e9cc/
> 1401254105672/DFID-SE4.pdf?format=original>
>
> This graph from about 20% through the Ppt is key to our stove
> work. I am now checking whether it likely that any stove (likely to be a
> TLUD) can get to the WHO-desired 10 ug/m3 (without a chimney). Anyone know?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20161210/62d369ae/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list