[Stoves] Off-topic no longer, re: News from Colorado: 'Rolling Coal"

[Traveller]

Dear Paul:

I am afraid you misunderstand me.

The difference between "clean cooking" and "clean cookstoves" is not mere
playing with words.

Words matter. Numbers matter.

Metrics, measurement methods, assumptions, model structures matter.

"Clean" is a matter of exposures, and quantitative causal relationship
between exposure and disease incidence at individual level is a matter
worth debating. (WHO's own evidence reviews admit as much.)

There is much more to cooking than just "clean". I don't think the science
of stoves will match the science of cooking, leave alone the art.

Who is going to declare what are "clean cookstoves" and how?

The ISO IWA exercise with WHO/EPA lab testing, voluntary emission rate
targets, and presumptuous forecasts of averted DALYs is not science.

It is artfulness.

Since you do agree "Of course there are fuel issues," would you join me in
a call to compile fuel chemistry database for all the alleged "evidence" of
"emission factors" for "solid fuels"?

Nikhil


---------

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:

> Nikhil,
>
> Your message is based on playing with words, trying to make "Clean
> Cookstoves" into a silly term because there can be fuel issues.  Of course
> there are fuel issues and stove issues.  That does not make the topic silly.
>
> If this was just silly stuff, I would not have spent 15 years of my life
> helping to bring TLUD stoves to the top of the solid biomass stoves.
>
> If you  think that clean cookstoves are silly and not important, then you
> are writing to the wrong group of people.
>
> Paul
>
> Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
> Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu
> Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072
> Website:  www.drtlud.com
>
> On 9/27/2016 9:13 AM, Traveller wrote:
>
> Teddy:
>
> Thank you. That news item has great relevance to this list.
>
> There are no "clean car engines" per se; their alleged cleanness or
> "emission rates" depend on fuel quality.
>
> Which is why "Clean Cookstoves" - global alliances or blogal dalliances -
> is a silly term.
>
> There are no "clean cookstoves" per se; only in combination with fuels,
> and in the context of operating practices and local environment
> (ventilation, wind, ambient air quality, other sources of emissions ranging
> from food and smoking to open waste.)
>
> The scientist collective at the ISO 2012 IWA on cookstoves (Guidelines
> for evaluating cookstove performance
> <https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:iwa:11:ed-1:v1:en>)
>
> ""recognizes that the quality and type of fuel used by a testing centre
> may impact the emissions of a cookstove. Because of that, the International
> Workshop on Cookstoves recommends that testing centres document the key
> physical and operational characteristics (e.g. fuel, moisture content, pot
> size and shape) of the system."
>
> Whatever little I know suggests that temperatures and air flows determine
> the ratio and composition of PICs and that at relatively low temperatures
> and irregular air flows, fuel chemistry plays a critical role. But there's
> nothing here about chemical composition.
>
> Is it any wonder folks go mumbling about "solid fuels", "dirty fuels"?
> (More on that later.)
>
> WHO/GBD claims on the "global dataset for cooking fuel use" are bubbly
> champagne - or dope - served up to minors. (Remember the song "Goodnight,
> farewell" in Sound of Music where Liesel asks for her first taste of
> champagne?)
>
> Let me put it bluntly - WHO has manufactured a "global emergency" based on
> non-existent data and questionable intelligence. (Burning Opportunity
> <http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/204717/1/9789241565233_eng.pdf>,
> marketing the GBD adventure of killing by assumption as a global health
> emergency
> <http://www.ccacoalition.org/en/news/new-who-report-household-air-pollution-driving-global-health-emergency>
> )
>
> Clean Cookstoves are dirty business.
>
> I for one do not believe one needs convincing evidence to act on reducing
> pollution exposures of vulnerable populations. The challenge is not
> compiling reams and reams of dubious data and faulty forecasts - of YLD and
> YLL - but to please the cooks.
>
> Ron here thinks I have soured on science. Living in Washington, I am
> familiar with the politics of science and the science of politics. What is
> going on is corrupting intelligence. There is an emergency in "global
> health", namely, it has little to do with individual health.
>
> Nikhil
>
>
> ---------
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20160927/d2daebe7/attachment.html>