[Stoves] Stacking and health: Cooks with Common Sense (Crispin, Dieter, Tom)

[Traveller]

Dieter mentioned "optimal combinations of cooking technologies". This
amounts to "stacking", an application of common sense. Lately, electrical
induction cooking can also be put in the mix.

Tom asked, "Are there studies which address the use of multiple fuels and
the impact of improved cook stoves?" That too will require application of
common sense.

But that would not be in the interest of parasitic research - which

Johnson and Chiang, 2015 (Quantitative Guidance for Stove Usage and
Performance to Achieve Health and Environmental Targets
<http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/123/8/ehp.1408681.alt.pdf>),
while rightly recognizing "Usage is ultimately determined by consumers and
is not typically integrated into standards frameworks" (though begging the
definition and measurement of usability) and "In cases where full adoption
of a high performing stove is difficult to achieve" assert,

"Even minimal use of the TSF quickly raises concentrations to levels above
WHO thresholds, where *the exposure–response curves begin to level out,
making health gains more difficult to achieve. *The importance of exclusive
or near exclusive use of a new stove is also supported by the RESPIRE
study, which showed the impact of a chimney stove on reducing incidence of
ALRI (Smith et al. 2011). Indoor air pollution and personal exposures were
reduced by 90% and 50%, respectively, but these reductions were aided by
weekly field team visits to ensure that the chimney stoves were well
maintained and working properly. Thus, efforts to expedite the transition
to clean fuels (e.g., liquefied petroleum gas, ethanol) and technologies
with the ability to fully displace traditional cookstoves should be the
ultimate priority." (emphasis added).

There is minimal evidential basis for this assertion or for the alleged
"exposure-response curves".

The RESPIRE study, like all cooking and health, is too context-specific. I
have already posted on the manipulations in the "Integrated Exposure
Response" exercise (Burnett et al. 2014).

Besides, who (WHO?) has the jursdiction to set and achieve "Health and
Environmental Targets"? Or to set the time frame for "ultimate priority" -
when funding runs out?

This is a numbers game, sandbox for the playful researchers. Those who care
for the poor should disabuse themselves of the notion that the health
research extravaganza has anything to do with improving stove design,
except perhaps to regulate solid fuel cooking out by regulation. By the
Empire Promotion Agency.

In the meantime, do not think we'll see "the use of multiple fuels and the
impact of improved cook stoves" demonstrated on White House South Lawn and
the lawn around Imperial Hotel, New Delhi.

The fine-wine-dine-and-shine party of GACC is for Leo DeCaprio and Donald
Trump.
------------
On a broader front, I submit "the use of multiple fuels and the impact of
improved cook stoves" is amply demonstrated worldwide in the last 25 years.
Just drive around capital cities and peri-urban/slum areas of Addis Ababa,
Nairobi, Kampala, Maputo, Kigali, Lusaka, Ouagadougou, Dar-e-Salam, Port
Vila, Delhi, Mumbai, Kabul, even small towns in these countries including
Bamiyan and out to Band-e-Amir.

Common sense rules. Thankfully. (With some disastrous consequences, like
fires and explosions from kerosene and LPG in Afghanistan and elsewhere,
some major like this one <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbawjgE52VE>.
Neglect of safety standards for fuels, electricity and buildings probably
has a large contribution to disability and death due to cooking, not that
the super-human folks at IHME care, busy with their killing-by-assumption.)

Nikhil




Message: 6
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:52:52 +0000
From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>
To: Stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] News 31 October 2016: Cleaner, Healthier
        Cookstoves May -- At Long Last -- Be Catching On.p
Message-ID:
        <YTOPR01MB023518EE151745C7F618B34CB1A40 at YTOPR01MB0235.
CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear Dieter

This optimisation can be seen in the study of cooking habits in Central
Java done by Cecil Cook. ?The initial assumption that there were 'LPG using
cooks' and 'wood burning cooks' turned out to be incorrect.

Seventy per cent of LPG users use wood to heat water. Another 70% of wood
users use LPG to cook. Cecil identified two particular tasks well suited to
gas cookers: reheating food and making a quick cup of tea in the same room
as guests. And that is exactly what even 'really poor' people do with LPG,
if they can get it.

So, those not using any LPG at all, which is 30% of the lower income 40% of
the general population, either cannot afford any or cannot access it.

There are two opportunities in that market which are not being addressed:
dedicated, clean burning and efficient water heaters, then a biomass-fueled
stove with very fast ignition, a short burn time and quick extinction. So
far, neither has been addressed well.

Perhaps a quick cooker should be using charcoal pellets or powder.

Regards
Crispin


Dear Crispin and All,
I believe that we all accept that there are optimal combinations of cooking
technologies. LPG-stoves may be appropriate for tasks with short processes
and low heat consumption. In community kitchens e.g school kitchens, social
restaurants as proposed by Anil, the combination with several options
(integrated cooking) is easy.

Best wishes. Dieter

?Dear Dieter

Exactly. That is an example of making a 'contextual' calculation. Actual
exposure is dependent upon the context of use.

Regards
Crispin


Dear Crispin,
The exposure time you mention can be effectively shortened  (e.g. from
3...4 hours to half an hour when cooking beans) trough cooking  with
retained heat. An average cook should not waste health, time, and money by
simmering.

Kind regards, Dieter


Dear Nikhil

The WHO has 'emission rates' which they model into exposures. As was
pointed out on this list already, the exposure, modeled or measured, has to
consider the duration of the exposure, not just the concentration.

The metrics of the IWA, for example, which are claimed to have been created
using the same or a similar dispersion model, do not account for the amount
of time the exposure is endured. There is no context.

There is no meaningful way to rate a stove 'according to the WHO' that
protects human health without stating a context.

An average emissions rate in an average kitchen with average ventilation
must also consider the average time the average cook of average health with
an average diet living in an average city/village/community is exposed to
that PM averaged over a single (or triple) box of average air.

If someone in that average house smokes? an average number of average
cigarettes the average exposure number goes out the average window.

Regards
Crispin toking above average Turkish coffee

---------
(US +1) 202-568-5831
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20161106/f4ca7cb0/attachment.html>