[Stoves] personal pollution monitors (Andrew)

[Andrew Heggie]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 19:53:42 -0500,Traveller <miata98 at gmail.com> wrote:

>Andrew:
>
>You lived downscale from Chernobyl? (At least not near Windscale!)

A long way downwind  but apparently some of the plume settled over
southern England, such that sheep in the hilly areas were declared
unfit for human consumption.
>
>COPD is Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

 Given that there is a causal link between Products of Incomplete
Combustions and a number of respiratory complaints (as well as cancer
of the scrotum from both soot and engine oil) and that these PICs are
found on black carbon particulates then it must be best to avoid
inhaling as much of the smoky air containing <PM4 as possible.
>
>The LLIR (low-level ionizing radiation) method is relevant to how the PM2.5
>theology has been constructed in recent years.

OK presumably that is what Frans is suggesting  in his DIY monitor
(professional ones seem to be above $5k). I was aware smoke alarms
contained a small radioactive source so was aware the particles had
some reaction with ionising radiation.
>
>The way I see it, because SO2 levels went down, the regulatory fanatics
>cannot use SO2 exposure for further tightening emissions and air quality
>standards,

Yes I can see that reduction in SO2 from power stations could cause a
movement of the goal posts. In UK it had an effect on arable
agriculture as some fungi did better in the cleaner air.


>so they NEED TO ASSUME that all PM2.5 is equally toxic. Or to do
>WBT in stoves so that PM2.5 from foods and other sources in the kitchen are
>ignored.

Yes I accepted this point when Tami mentioned it on the list some
years ago, so if particulates from combustion are more damaging than
say fly ash should we be being more specific? How?

Philip has mentioned much smaller particles (presumably silica based)
as being a problem in mines and we do know miners suffered from
respiratory problems. I mentioned this also because forced air stoves
are more likely to produce fly ash which will be largely silica.
<snipped>
>
>When "health practitioners are citing concentrations from wood burning
>stoves as being responsible for more particulate pollution than diesel cars
>in my neighbourhood", they are probably doing good PM2.5 "source
>allocation" for your neighborhood. How this particulate pollution leads to
>health damage is - to use my favorite phrase - is GoBbleDygook.

OK but as I said science is based on measurements, how do we arrive at
the correct measurement to be able to make some sort of causal
relationship?

>
>"Black Carbon" toxicity is unknown; blaming all PM2.5 for "7 million
>premature deaths" (with 86 years as the threshold for every human) is a bit
>like saying dust storms in the Sahara kill 300,000 people a year.
>
>Heck, why not?

"black carbon" contains PICs amongst those are Poly Aromatic
Hydrocarbons one of which Benzo[a]pyrene which has been linked to lung
cancer. So I take it it is not the toxicity of the particles but how
that has been attributed to particles in general  and the money that
has been sunk  into the administration of the research that you rail
against?

Merry Xmas to all

Andrew