[Stoves] Off-topic: My CV - Cooking Vitae (Re: Ron, Paul, Anil)
Traveller
miata98 at gmail.com
Fri Sep 30 00:52:19 CDT 2016
Dear Ron:
Thank you for doing a background check on me. Will help FBI when I apply
for US citizenship. Your epithet - "climate denier" - may make me
Un-American, but I trust Hillary.
You might like my piece on Nautilus website - Electric Chaiwallas
<http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-policy-forum/policy-forum-electric-chaiwallas/>,
where I advocated solar roofs for roadside tea sellers.
Now, I would appreciate if you could challenge a single assertion in my
Nautilus posts - on The Carbo Cult, Tale of Two Disasters, and Connecting
the Dots in an Ocean. (This was years ago, and I am always prepared to
change my views.)
All of that is off-topic, but may help heal your feeling of discord.
As for my "credentials," nobody need take my Curriculum Vitae, which is for
paid consultations. When I write free, I write for fun. I thank the
moderators for indulging me; I take clowning as a serious business, like
science.
It's just that the alleged science of GBD and WHO/EPA exercise on modeling
concentrations from emission rates is no science. I may write on the
evidence basis at a later time.
I just sent you (privately) a couple of my sober writings on cooking and
stoves. Feel free to post them on this List.
-----
Paul:
My work history has little to do with my "cooking life". (Only once I
cooked on work, but that was because my students in Addis gave me a party;
we ran out of food but had enough beer.)
I know very little about stove design. My interest is in policy - what is
the problem and what can be done by whom how? There is too much "global"
talk, playing loose with facts.
I talk to real people about cooking, about making homes, about livelihoods.
I do read peer-reviewed publications but demand a lot of money to write
one.
-----------
Anil:
If most - or even a half - of the readers on this list are 60+ in age,
there is a serious crisis of identity and purpose. Yes, many people I
interacted with on the subject of cooking and stoves - mostly, friends who
were far more tolerant than Ron but that doesn't necessarily make them
wiser - are 55+, but I also know many in younger age group. I don't know
which ones read this list and comment on it.
I also don't know how many women - mothers and cooks, in particular - read
this list and if any are interested in the "evidence for policy".
We still don't have a good response to Xavier Brandao's posts. What are the
achievements of this group over 30 years, and what are the voluntary
performance targets over the next five years?
Nikhil
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 14:06:34 -0500
> From: Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: [Stoves] Oxymorons and credentials --- was Re: Off-topic no
> longer, re: News from Colorado: 'Rolling Coal"
> Message-ID: <606e690c-dee3-3284-10d7-f1829c395557 at ilstu.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"
>
> Crispin (and Nikhil),
>
> 1. "Clean stoves" and "clean fuels" are not oxymorons any more
than "happy housewife" would be.
>
> 2. You wrote:
>> Unlike most of us here, he [Nikhil] has been in the trenches in
>> Washington at a high level for decades and knows how the system is
>> manipulated to generate funding by popularising the latest fad.
> I did not know of his credentials. This is probably a good time to
> generate some credibility. Easiest might be to post a resume, but a
> short description might be sufficient.
>
> 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
>>
---------
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 14:44:44 -0600
> From: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> To: Discussion of biomass <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Oxymorons and credentials --- was Re: Off-topic
> no longer, re: News from Colorado: 'Rolling Coal"
> Message-ID: <C1D56CE7-8549-49F8-A5B1-102731794F57 at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Paul and list:
>
> I have tried to learn more about Nikhil and found something quite
informative (at
http://nautilus.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Carbo-Cult.pdf <
http://nautilus.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Carbo-Cult.pdf>), with a few
excerpts:
>
> ?I am speaking of the cult of anti-CO2 (Carb-o) activists. ??? Of
course, there was local biomass, which they could use amply, but that
wasn?t the object of the NoCarbo Cult. Besides, biomass cooking practices
produced smoke and other toxic emissions, which too didn?t concern the
No-Carbo Cult, because, its proponents argued, biomass was ?renewable?.
Just how the CO2 molecules absorbed by a growing tree anywhere can be
separated by their origin ? this little piggy came from coal, this little
piggy from gas, this little from making charcoal and this one from burning
charcoal ? was not clear to me or anybody. ????.. Hence the No-Carbo Cult.
What it promises is so long-term, it has to stress that the calamity is
already here, because we are all sinners today and are suffering because of
the sins. It treats every molecule of CO2 as a weapon of mass destruction,
but only selectively ? a very small fraction of the CO2 that goes up in the
atmosphere.?
>
> The same climate denying stance is at these sites:
http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-policy-forum/connecting-the-dots-in-an-ocean/
<
http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-policy-forum/connecting-the-dots-in-an-ocean/>
and
http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-policy-forum/a-tale-of-two-disasters/ <
http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-policy-forum/a-tale-of-two-disasters/>
>
> I think that background is justification also for this list to get
into the topic of Internet trolls, where Wiki says this - where I have
emphasized some key words: ?In Internet slang <
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_slang>, a troll (/?tro?l/ <
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English>, /?tr?l/ <
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English>) is a person who sows
discord on the Internet <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet> by
starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] <
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#cite_note-1>extraneous <
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extraneous#Adjective>, or off-topic <
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-topic> messages in an online community
(such as a newsgroup <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsgroup>, forum, chat
room <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_room>, or blog) with the
deliberate intent of provoking readers into unemotional response[2] <
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#cite_note-PCMAG_def-2> or of
otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] <
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#cite_note-IUKB_def-3> often
for their own amusement.?
>
> Managed lists have a way of dealing with this behavior - fortunately.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 09:58:17 +0530
> From: nari phaltan <nariphaltan at gmail.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Oxymorons and credentials --- was Re: Off-topic
> no longer, re: News from Colorado: 'Rolling Coal"
> Message-ID:
> <CAGeG2tD8gAR4tnQfpSFm-ZrKLy2DoyzRq8d-_GEtX=u_ae1uTg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Ron and others,
>
> One of the great things about discussion via internet is that if you do
not
> like what somebody is saying just ignore it (in face to face discussion
> this is sometimes not possible). You can always divert the attention of
the
> group by giving better answers and examples of new clean cooking
technology.
>
> The problem starts when people start attacking each other by calling
names.
> Then it diverts the attention from the main thing - developing solutions
> for cooking for rural poor.
>
> I am sure the time you spent in digging up the past of Nikhil would have
> been better spent in looking at interesting new technologies for char.
>
> Nature evolves by making the other branch redundant not by pushing it
down!
> I am sure most of the members on this list are 60+ years in age. We should
> show some wisdom and not rancor.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Anil
>
> Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute (NARI)
> Tambmal, Phaltan-Lonand Road
> P.O.Box 44
> Phaltan-415523, Maharashtra, India
> Ph:91-2166-220945/222842
> e-mail:nariphaltan at gmail.com
> nariphaltan at nariphaltan.org
>
> http://www.nariphaltan.org
----------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 17:09:55 -0400
> From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Oxymorons and credentials --- was Re: Off-topic
> no longer, re: News from Colorado: 'Rolling Coal"
> Message-ID: <COL402-EAS83292C6009634E89F1826EB1CC0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Ron
>
> I object you your use of the junk-science-advocacy term ?climate denying
stance?.
>
> What the heck is a ?climate denier? when it has clothes on? What is a
?climate denying stance??
>
>> ?In <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_slang> Internet slang, a
troll ( <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English> /?tro?l/, <
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English> /?tr?l/) is a person
who sows discord on the <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet> Internet
by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, <
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#cite_note-1> [1] <
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extraneous#Adjective> extraneous, or <
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-topic> off-topic messages in an online
community (such as a <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsgroup> newsgroup,
forum, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_room> chat room, or blog) with
the deliberate intent of provoking readers into unemotional response <
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#cite_note-PCMAG_def-2> [2] or
of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, <
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#cite_note-IUKB_def-3> [3]
often for their own amusement.?
>
> In that includes anyone who makes drive-by insults about anyone else who
happens to be well-read, informed, professional and up-to-date on the
subject of the CO2 cult. You must feel so threatened by Nikhil?s
fearlessness in the face of the mighty Berkeley and WHO that you went
looking for ways to ?tear him down? based on his advocacy of common sense
and calling a spade a spade. He is from India, Ron, and he is standing up
to bullying by the incompetents. He is also able to respond, cite by cite,
why that spade is a space and not a shovel.
>
> Stoves are not going to be improved while you still feel the poor are to
be held responsible to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. They owe you
nothing. The poor of the world are specifically exempted under the Kyoto
Protocol from being held to any CO2 emission reductions. That includes coal
combustion, which is how they stay alive.
>
> Here is a photo of a stove that will burn dung, wood and coal really well
? about half the fuel consumption of the local traditional devices.
>
>
> Big one on the left, small one on the right. You can see the grate for
the big one on top. They can be made in 2-3 hours and sell for $30-50.
Expected life time is >5 years.
>
> This is a transfer of knowledge and innovation from Indonesia to
Kyrgyzstan through a WB stove programme of technical assistance. It
involved no boiling of water, not wonky metrics that lie about fuel
consumption, no carbon credits. Just the sharing of simple, effective ideas
that produce results all can benefit from.
>
>
>
> Let?s give up the mystical stuff and get on with making better stoves for
real people.
>
> Crispin
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 22:30:57 -0400
> From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>
> To: "Stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Libelous allegations by Crispin (and a stove
> added)
> Message-ID: <COL402-EAS178F45A960815D6C9BC79C4B1CF0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Nikhil
>
> My definitions of what you have been up to is clearly different from your
own. I admire your willingness to think conceptually, out loud, and to
speak it as you see it.
>
> I have not been able to do a bang-up job of keeping up because I have to
produce outputs now and then.
>
> Those interested in the version 4 of the GTZ 7 series (GTZ-7.6 if you are
keeping score). It is retitled TJ4 because it was adapted to the situation
in Tajikistan, not Ulaanbaatar.
> Drawings are available here <
http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/library/Stoves/Kyrgyzstan/KG%20Model%204/>
. There are 54 files in all. The combustor has been built in 4 countries so
far and it seems to be fairly stable even with some dimensional changes to
accommodate the available brick sizes. It can be adapted by keeping the
hopper and fire chamber the same size and varying the enclosing metalwork.
>
> It is heavy, it is very clean burning, and it likes stone-free coal below
25mm size. It should work with large wood pellets but I haven?t had a
chance to try it with measurements yet. The power is about 10 kW and the
efficiency (without adding extra chimney) is about 70% at high power, more
at low power, obviously (obvious because it has very well controlled air).
>
> +++++++++
> On top the regular business: you continue to surprise me with your
ability to apply a set of skills methodically to new tasks. Some highlights
from below:
>> Nor do I ever accuse anybody of manipulating the system to generate
funding. Sorry, just not me.
>
> That was not about you at all. It is about people finding issues to
generate headlines and then ask for money to solve. Dr Samer Abdelnour?s
paper on the technologization of social problems ? basically saying that a
stove cannot solve a problem with a social pathology. Cecil calls it
?techno-cure?.
> You wrote:
>
> a) I do hold the dictum "Do not rush to ascribe to conspiracy that which
mere stupidity would suffice to explain"; and,
>
> b) I think everybody has a right to manipulate the system to generate
funding; another dictum I hold dear is "The task of public budgeting is to
separate weak claims from weak claimants."
>
> Fully agree, provided that there is no false case (invalid memes)
exploited to generate funding for a problem that cannot be solved by the
proposed solution.
>> You are also wrong that I understand the "health modeling field" very
well.
>
> Coulda fooled me. Did I guess. Knowing enough to know what is possible
and what isn?t is a good start. Good grief I wish our students would start
with that, instead of finishing with it. I see from the webinar that more
than half the observers asked for additional information on how exactly the
model worked (meaning the model of exposure). Clearly the communication is
partial or people don?t understand what is being explained.
>
>> I did write posts on PM2.5 "relative risk" estimation via "integrated
exposure response" and the "super-human" GBD, killing by assumptions. There
are only so many ways to do statistical inference, and modeling without
thinking is less than what it is made out to be.
>
> Well that is the impression I get from what is available. I went through
the minutes and models of the WHO committee that made the presentation and
it is clear the selected model is not their best ? so why use it, I asked.
>
>> What I confess to having done for decades is dealing with energy,
environmental, demographic, and economic statistics. There was a time when
people did worry about data quality and interpretation.
>
> Many still do, and they have real money and are expecting a return on the
spend ?at a certain level of confidence?. Seems reasonable. How can we
help? By providing answers that reflect the context.
>
>> ?That applies to the "inventories" of solid fuel quantities and
emissions. These are not direct measurements, but estimates based on sample
surveys (if that, sporadically and for limited regions) and assumptions.
Similarly, global air pollution "data" are <
http://www.who.int/phe/health_topics/outdoorair/databases/modelled-estimates/en/>
model estimates. I have already written how "premature mortality" and
DALYs are model estimates.
>
> Your further contribution hits one nail on the head ? the claims for
?deaths caused? lifted directly from a quote saying ?premature deaths?. It
is obvious that people do not intuitively understand the difference so it
is not wrong to point it out. There is one heck of a lot of difference
between ?7 millions deaths caused by air pollution? and 7 million people
who died having lived a life shorter than it would have been if they were
not exposed to any air pollution at all. The question that hangs over the
quote from the Geneva paper is, was the statement from the WHO about
?deaths? or did the reporter interpret ?premature deaths? as actual killing
of people who were asphyxiated (or slower) by air pollution?
>
>> There is no "knowledge" to claim that is not subject to qualification
and debate.
>
> Agreed. There is no measurement that does not have an uncertainty about
it. To get an ?answer? from a calculated output one has to ensure the
uncertainties is not so large after propagation that we can?t bank on the
result.
>
> [big snip]
>
>> The authors then derive their Table 18.18 Burden of disease from use of
solid fuel, 2000 (p. 1476) and Table 18.19 - Use of solid fuel and exposure
to its smoke: estimates for 2000 and predictions for 2010 (p. 1480).
>
> Then?
>
>> NOT [the] WHO.
> <
http://cleancookstoves.org/about/news/03-25-2014-who-7-million-deaths-annually-linked-to-air-pollution.html
>
> "GENEVA ? 25 March 2014 ? In new estimates released today, the World
Health Organization (WHO) reports that in 2012 around 7 million people died
- one in eight of total global deaths ? as a result of air pollution
exposure. <
http://cleancookstoves.org/about/news/03-25-2014-who-7-million-deaths-annually-linked-to-air-pollution.html>
"
>
>
>> This is sheer hype. Or to repeat from one of my prior posts - "Insanity,
folly, deception, and faith or plain error."
>
>> Words matter. Without words, numbers are dumb. In my view, a proper
statement could be
>
> "In new estimates released today, the WHO reports that air pollution
exposures were associated with premature mortality of about 7 million in
the cohort that died in the world in 2012. Attribution of deaths to
diseases and diseases to risk factors should not be interpreted as
causality, even for statistical lives lost. We do not have enough evidence
on the exposure intensity and duration of the 55 million or so people who
died that year, nor have we identified the interactions among risk factors
and variations across different populations across regions, income levels,
sex, age, or mobility profiles. We do not have enough evidence to assess
whether risks due to air pollution exposures are reversible and if so, how.
Nor do we have enough evidence that any particular intervention would lead
to a specific reduction in risk at individual level."
>
> So who gets the funding? The one who shouts that 7 million people were
killed by air pollution or the one who claims their lives were probably
shortened because we are pretty sure air pollution has consequences?
>
>> A. Forecasts of burden of disease are subject to many assumptions and
qualifications. But so are all forecasts. The fault is with the consumer of
forecasts, not the producer. (Hey, I did my share of forecasts.) Be a smart
consumer; some of what is served up by WHO/EPA or GACC is charred bananas.
Examine assumptions, including your own.
>
> Noted.
>
>> B. While Rwanda did not "ban charcoal as the primary cooking fuel", I
think it did ban use of charcoal for industrial purposes - in particular, a
brick kiln in what was then the outskirts of Kigali. In 2004, a colleague
who had worked in Rwanda before the genocide in 1994 returned and helped
start sensible biomass energy strategic choices. The government reduced or
eliminated the duties and taxes on LPG - around 2008, I think - which also
made a difference in urban settings (household and commercial).
>
> I think it did, actually, some years ago. I will have to check. It
usually comes and goes. Like Haiti, it is and always probably legal to make
and sell and obviously use charcoal if it was from wood grown on a farm. It
is perfectly OK to stimulate the private sector of create a domestic
resource. What you may notice (Cecil did) is that people who have LPG don?t
use it for heating water. That is often done (Lusaka for example) on
charcoal even in wealthy households. In Java everyone uses at least a
little LPG if it is available ? even in places where you think it is
impossible to get it there. They also (70%) use wood to heat water even if
they cook with LPG. Thus it is not simple. In an attempt to encourage
change we (CSI Indonesia) offered incentives to anyone who could make a
dedicated water heater ? even if it only ran on pellets ? provided the
efficiency was really high ? more like a regular gas water heaters. It was
a perfect opportunity for TLUD?s because the fuel load can be matched to
the task at hand. Not one product was submitted in that category, so far.
>
> C. Charcoal has long been a promising business opportunity at a
commercial scale. There is some waste wood, and trees can be grown
profitably. In many parts of the world, charcoal is transported hundreds of
miles.
>
> That is what is so inspiring about AD Karve?s work on charring waste
biomass to produce a high quality fuel. He even produced the extruder and
the Sarai stove to go with it. That is a museum quality piece of work ? to
be studied.
>
> But he is promoting charcoal consumption ? very offensive to some. Shall
we forgive him too? :)
>
> Crispin
>
> ------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
> ------------------------------
>
> http://www.nariphaltan.org
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 9:43 PM, <cec1863 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well spoken Anil!
>>
>> I know that Karl Popper made much of Logical Negativism ?as the main
>> dynamic by which science advances but I disagree with him because most
>> scientists are too thin skinned to benefit from the public falsification
of
>> their theories and hypotheses. Scientists under attack waste life times
and
>> resources protecting themselves from criticism. The result is that the
>> advance of science including even stove science such as it is slows down
to
>> a crawl. In big science we still have to wait for the influential big men
>> to die off to get an entrenched paradigm to change (see the Structure of
>> Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn).
>>
>> So I am personally and methodologically in favor of keeping as many odd
>> balls and outsiders as possible in the stove conversation. Why not?
>>
>> When I studied briefly under Karl Popper ?at LSE I remember the emphasis
>> he gave to the instrument makers of telescopes and microscopes in terms
of
>> their impact on the advancement of science or for the influence of
>> astrology on Newton's theory of gravity, I recall that Sir Popper viewed
>> the makers of instruments for observing nature as being more responsible
>> for the advancement of science than the makers of big theories.
>>
>> That implies stovers perhaps need to spend more energy devising novel
ways
>> of testing stove performance as cultural artifacts, as consumer products
>> for cooking and heating, as fuel burners, as air polluters and/or air
>> cleaners, as employment generators and less time huffing and puffing
about?
>> how to shift big paradigms a bit to the left or right!
>>
>> My position is that we are wasting time arguing over global stove
>> performance standards? and tests. We are still in the model T stage of
the
>> development of the small household stove industry. A global ISO process
is
>> counter productive because it is very premature. We need to bring
practical
>> role of thumb as well sophisticated applied stove science and testing to
>> the people who need stove services, We need simple tried and true test
>> methods that involve the end users and stove producers. As Crispin has
been
>> urging we need competent stove scientists who know how to evolve
optimized
>> stoves *in situ.*
>>
>> IMO we do not need more stove, fuel and testing protocol missionaries.
>>
>> ?Cecil
>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
>> *From: *nari phaltan
>> *Sent: *Wednesday, September 28, 2016 12:31 AM
>> *To: *Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>> *Reply To: *Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>> *Subject: *Re: [Stoves] Oxymorons and credentials --- was Re: Off-topic
>> no longer, re: News from Colorado: 'Rolling Coal"
>>
>> Ron and others,
>>
>> One of the great things about discussion via internet is that if you do
>> not like what somebody is saying just ignore it (in face to face
discussion
>> this is sometimes not possible). You can always divert the attention of
the
>> group by giving better answers and examples of new clean cooking
technology.
>>
>> The problem starts when people start attacking each other by calling
>> names. Then it diverts the attention from the main thing - developing
>> solutions for cooking for rural poor.
>>
>> I am sure the time you spent in digging up the past of Nikhil would have
>> been better spent in looking at interesting new technologies for char.
>>
>> Nature evolves by making the other branch redundant not by pushing it
>> down! I am sure most of the members on this list are 60+ years in age. We
>> should show some wisdom and not rancor.
>>
>> Cheers.
>>
>> Anil
>>
>> Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute (NARI)
>> Tambmal, Phaltan-Lonand Road
>> P.O.Box 44
>> Phaltan-415523, Maharashtra, India
>> Ph:91-2166-220945/222842
>> e-mail:nariphaltan at gmail.com
>> nariphaltan at nariphaltan.org
>>
>> http://www.nariphaltan.org
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Ronal W. Larson <
>> rongretlarson at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul and list:
>>>
>>> I have tried to learn more about Nikhil and found something quite
>>> informative (at http://nautilus.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Carbo-Cul
>>> t.pdf), with a few excerpts:
>>>
>>> * ?I am speaking of the cult of anti-CO2 (Carb-o) activists.* ??? *Of
>>> course, there was local biomass, which they could use amply, but that
>>> wasn?t the object of the NoCarbo Cult. Besides, biomass cooking
practices
>>> produced smoke and other toxic emissions, which too didn?t concern the
>>> No-Carbo Cult, because, its proponents argued, biomass was ?renewable?.
>>> Just how the CO2 molecules absorbed by a growing tree anywhere can be
>>> separated by their origin ? this little piggy came from coal, this
little
>>> piggy from gas, this little from making charcoal and this one from
burning
>>> charcoal ? was not clear to me or anybody.* *????.. **Hence the
>>> No-Carbo Cult. What it promises is so long-term, it has to stress that
the
>>> calamity is already here, because we are all sinners today and are
>>> suffering because of the sins. It treats every molecule of CO2 as a
weapon
>>> of mass destruction, but only selectively ? a very small fraction of the
>>> CO2 that goes up in the atmosphere.?*
>>>
>>> The same climate denying stance is at these sites:
>>> http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-policy-forum/connecting
>>> -the-dots-in-an-ocean/ and http://nautilus.org/napsn
>>> et/napsnet-policy-forum/a-tale-of-two-disasters/
>>>
>>> I think that background is justification also for this list to get into
>>> the topic of Internet trolls, where Wiki says this - where I have
>>> emphasized some key words: ?In Internet slang
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_slang>, a *troll* (/?tro?l/
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English>, /?tr?l/
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English>) is a person who
>>> sows discord on the Internet <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet> by
>>> starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1]
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#cite_note-1>*extraneous
>>> <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extraneous#Adjective>, or off-topic
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-topic>* messages in an online
>>> community (such as a newsgroup <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsgroup
>,
>>> forum, chat room <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_room>, or blog)
>>> with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into unemotional
response
>>> [2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#cite_note-PCMAG_def-2>
>>> or of *otherwise disrupting norma*l on-topic discussion,[3]
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#cite_note-IUKB_def-3>
often
>>> for their *own amusement.**?*
>>>
>>> Managed lists have a way of dealing with this behavior - fortunately.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 27, 2016, at 1:06 PM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Crispin (and Nikhil),
>>>
>>> 1. "Clean stoves" and "clean fuels" are not oxymorons any more than
>>> "happy housewife" would be.
>>>
>>> 2. You wrote:
>>>
>>> Unlike most of us here, he [Nikhil] has been in the trenches in
>>> Washington at a high level for decades and knows how the system is
>>> manipulated to generate funding by popularising the latest fad.
>>>
>>> I did not know of his credentials. This is probably a good time to
>>> generate some credibility. Easiest might be to post a resume, but a
short
>>> description might be sufficient.
>>>
>>> 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 10:47 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Paul
>>>
>>> I think Nikhil?s complaint is that the concepts of ?clean fuels? or
>>> ?clean stoves? are oxymorons. There is no such thing on either score.
>>>
>>> As you are well aware, and have demonstrated in person, if a ?clean TLUD
>>> gasifier? goes wrong, there is a huge amount of smoke coming out until
it
>>> is re-lit. So it is only clean under certain circumstances and with
certain
>>> fuels, perhaps even only a certain *size* of fuel.
>>>
>>> Nikhil seems to be calling ?BS? on the alarmist thing when that alarmist
>>> thing is supported by vapourware and numerical puffery.
>>>
>>> Unlike most of us here, he has been in the trenches in Washington at a
>>> high level for decades and knows how the system is manipulated to
generate
>>> funding by popularising the latest fad. I guess there is some merit is
>>> saying ?that is how it works? at least these days, but it does not
>>> compensate for the deliberate misrepresentation of facts in order to
scare
>>> people into handing over the piggy bank.
>>>
>>> It seems everyone but everyone in this field is aware that only a
>>> combination of operator, fuel and product has an assessable ?emission?
or
>>> ?fuel? metric. So let?s not beat around that bush. The forecasts (of
which
>>> there are very few) of future impact on the public, especially public
>>> health or the destruction of forests which are the two major topics in
>>> regulations and project documents, have not been very accurate. The
>>> prediction to the Ulaanbaatar government that their air quality would
>>> continue to get worse if they didn?t ?ban the burning of raw coal
>>> completely? was a major forecast of doom. The population of the city
grew
>>> faster than expected, the expansion of burning raw coal expanded, the
>>> stoves were replaced with ?middling? technical features and the air
quality
>>> improved more than the scenario that required they ?ban coal completely
and
>>> replace everything with ?clean fuels?.?
>>>
>>> The emergence of Rwanda as a charcoal-sustainable country while
>>> continuing not to ban charcoal as the primary cooking fuel ? even in the
>>> absence of any substantive stove replacement programme ? is another
example
>>> of failed calamitous prediction. Everyone knows we are supposed to decry
>>> charcoal as a cause of blah-blah-blah. Now we have in Laos a wide scape
>>> roll out of the lighting cone (SNV) that reduces emissions dramatically,
>>> saves fuel and is cheap. No change in the stove at all. Nor the fuel.
Next
>>> they can follow in the footsteps in Rwanda and produce enough fuel on
>>> private farms to feed the need.
>>>
>>> We have not talked about Chad (I think) and how they turned their
>>> charcoal industry into a profitable, sustainable enterprise owned by the
>>> communities. That is another amazing example of how changing the
>>> administration of fuel can create wealth and jobs and sustainable
biofuel.
>>> It didn?t require the change of stove or fuel or people. Just how they
>>> worked together.
>>>
>>> There is a lot of room for self- examination here. Nikhil is on the
right
>>> track with this modelling of health impacts. He, unlike most of us,
>>> understands the health modeling field very well.
>>>
>>> Caution is advised
>>> Crispin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------
>>> (India +91) 909 995 2080
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Cookswell Jikos <
>>> cookswelljikos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> What a story....similar to this gem is a story in todays newspaper
>>> regarding air pollution from bad fuel rejected by the EU and dumped in
the
>>> African market -
>>>
>>> ''The high-sulphur fuels also have a knock-on effect, rapidly destroying
>>> emission-reducing technologies in vehicles, according to Rob de Jong,
the
>>> head of the UNEP transport programme. ?So if you buy a vehicle that?s a
>>> couple of years old and import it into some of the African countries,
the
>>> technology in there ? sensors and filters ? all gets spoilt, and these
>>> cars, which are potentially very clean, are destroyed in a couple of
tanks,
>>> and for the next 20 years will be belching smoke. It?s important to
>>> understand the tragedy of this,? he said. This in turn increases
emissions
>>> of fine particulate matter, which can lodge deep in the lungs, causing
>>> cancers and other health problems.
>>> Read more at: http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/business/article/20002175
>>> 48/dirty-diesel-rejected-in-europe-exported-to-africa''
>>>
>>> I certainly hope something like this cannot happen with LPG cooking gas
>>> or that all those generators in Lagos and Accra are not pumping smoke
into
>>> the kitchens with induction stoves :(
>>>
>>> Teddy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Cookswell Jikos*
>>> www.cookswell.co.ke
>>> www.facebook.com/CookswellJikos
>>> www.kenyacharcoal.blogspot.com
>>> Mobile: +254 700 380 009
>>> Mobile: +254 700 905 913
>>> P.O. Box 1433, Nairobi 00606, Kenya
>>> Save trees - think twice before printing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> Stoves mailing list
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>>>
>>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>>>
>>>
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
>>>
>>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Stoves mailing list
>>>
>>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email
addressstoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web pagehttp://
lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>
>>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Stoves mailing list
>>>
>>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_list
>>> s.bioenergylists.org
>>>
>>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
>>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Stoves mailing list
>>>
>>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_list
>>> s.bioenergylists.org
>>>
>>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
>>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stoves mailing list
>>
>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_
>> lists.bioenergylists.org
>>
>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>
>>
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20160928/029f6a75/attachment-0001.html
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 22
> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 13:53:36 -0400
> From: Traveller <miata98 at gmail.com>
> To: nari phaltan <nariphaltan at gmail.com>
> Cc: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
> <crispinpigott at outlook.com>
> Subject: [Stoves] Bans and taxes (Re: Anil)
> Message-ID:
> <CAK27e==vVc2ki9hHs+4DVbdFvswVu07bdhQKyfjNBXeynmieEw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Anil:
>
> How dare you claim, without any peer-reviewed survey, that "the poor are
> not fools"??
>
> Experts' and advocates' careers depend on portraying the poor as ignorant
> (of health risks and destruction of forests), incompetent (not doing what
> they ought to do), and sexist (girls and women bear the burden of
cooking.)
>
> They inspect only what they expect to find. Some pictures I picked up from
> the web (attached) amply show the role of men in the fuel cycle -
> literally, cycles. Something of a counter-balance to the poverty
> pornography of women in front of smoky stoves.
>
> I am sure there is much truth in it, just that I am sick of mindless
> regressions - a pun and a redundancy intended here - in peer-reviewed
> publications. Some people get paid to complicate simple things.
>
> Manufacturing data devoid of deliberation is dumb. Have made me numb.
>
> **
>
> Looks like you were picking up on another thread where banning of charcoal
> was mentioned.
>
> Banning of charcoal was attempted in Malawi and Rwanda (industrial use)
and
> talked about in Zambia, Tanzania.
>
> Banning fuel use of particular type in specific areas is a necessary tool
> in air quality management and land use planning. It may also help in tree
> resource management - I think Himachal Pradesh in India was the pioneering
> case in widespread dissemination of LPG, ban on charcoal production, and
> strict forest management controls.
>
> I happen to place stock in spatial and environmental planning, and am
> amazed that the Johnny-come-latelys of the WHO/EPA/BAMG exercise on
> modeling emissions, concentrations and exposures - with an explicit
purpose
> to misinform the ISO and the world, it seems - pay no attention to the
> ambient air quality and fuel ban options. "Environmental damage" occurs
all
> along the fuel cycles; the key is modernizing the fuel cycles (which
> includes the final combustion devices such as stoves), not mere "Clean
> Cookstoves" silliness.
>
> But I am skeptical about the mechanical association of deforestation and
> charcoal business. True in many cases, but the processes are quite
complex.
> Why, the last I checked in 2012, charcoal in Mussoorie, an area of hilly
> forests, came from Kutchh, which is the most arid part of India. Go
figure.
> Delhi and Washington think-tanks don't research except by cite-o-logy.
>
> Have a look at Social Dimensions of Climate Change - A Discussion Draft
> <
http://www.who.int/globalchange/mediacentre/events/2011/social-dimensions-of-climate-change.pdf?ua=1
>
> (it was never finished). WHO was one of the agencies involved. In
> particular, see Chapter 2 - led by UN Women - and Figure 2 - Convergence
of
> agendas and related benefits.
>
> It too has an academic flavor and confuses fuels with pollution, but it
> pulls together the interconnectedness of many processes.
>
> I think a paradigm shift - to modernize and "clean up" solid fuel cycles
> (not just stoves), to plan for urban or air basin air quality management
> strategies - is required on the energy and environmental policy fronts
> respectively. Health policy should focus on disease management, with
> contribution of environmental and social health perspectives to energy and
> environment policy. Those two subsume the angst of "clean cooking",
women's
> empowerment, climate protection (SLCP controls), and the like; some
> problems cannot be directly attacked.
>
> What remains is the huge problem of nutrition and education for children
> and youth. We bleed our hearts over emission rates of household stoves and
> ignore possibly the most significant confounding factors - other air
> pollution and health care systems as I mentioned above and opportunity
> costs - lost lives not just in terms of heartbeats and breaths as this GBD
> chatter would have, but in terms of productivity loss - of poor nutrition
> and poor education. You had a nice idea of "rural restaurants" - mass
> cooking and serving of "good food" - but nobody is going to take that up.
> Food industry and nutrition are fairly intractable issues the way public
> administration and aid planning are organized. (Look at Wall Street
Journal
> Global Food Forum <http://globalfood.wsj.com/> coming up. I think GACC and
> GAIN, WHO and EPA, should go there and share ideas.)
>
> ***
>
> That said,
>
> i) Markets for the non-poor are not separate from those for the poor.
> Historically, oil and gas retail products were heavily taxed in Europe and
> the practice continues throughout the world. The opposite - sharply
> discounted prices - continues in some developing oil exporting countries.
> Coal, despite the nonsense put out by the IMF "externalities" folks, is
> rarely subsidized, though in some former Communist countries the
production
> costs were kept low by cheap technologies.
>
> ii) There is an option to segment the market for the poor by region or by
> changing the product (1-2 kg cylinders of LPG) or a "minimum block" tariff
> for electricity of PNG. It's tricky, and once set, it's difficult to
> change, I can tell from personal experience. Still, these options have
been
> used for LPG, PNG, electricity and work very well.
>
> iii) Modernization of the fuel cycle for the BOP - what I call "ecosystems
> of energy poverty" - and comprehensive air pollution control strategies
> offer avenues for using bans and taxes for dirtiest processes and
corporate
> polluters. Enough of this "Gold Standard" insanity.
>
> ****
>
> So fossil fuels have destroyed businesses and jobs, and are linked to
> farmer suicides in Maharashtra. Let's get a grant for research and movie
> rights for a fiction on climate change!
>
> Nikhil
>
> [image: Inline image 1][image: Inline image 2][image: Inline image
3][image:
> Inline image 4][image: Inline image 5][image: Inline image 6]
> Credits: sevenbythree.com, flickriver.com, afkinsider.com, afronline.org,
> ipsnews.net, binghamsinzambia.blogspot.com, espa.ac.uk
>
> On Sep 28, 2016, at 12:45 AM, nari phaltan <nariphaltan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Nikhil.
>
> Any technologies or fuels which supports life for rural or urban poor
> should not be banned or taxed. The poor are not fools. They also like
clean
> air and when the affordable clean technologies become available they will
> go for it. Till then they have to survive and if in doing so they pollute
> the environment so be it. That is the law of Darwin. Survival is the first
> order of scheme!
>
> One of the unintended benefits of LPG availability for rural poor in
> Maharashtra has been that people have stopped cutting trees and collecting
> wood. Most of the people who use to sell wood and provide jobs to so many
> for cutting it illegally in our area are closing shops.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Anil
>
> Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute (NARI)
> Tambmal, Phaltan-Lonand Road
> P.O.Box 44
> Phaltan-415523, Maharashtra, India
> Ph:91-2166-220945/222842
> e-mail:nariphaltan at gmail.com
> nariphaltan at nariphaltan.org
>
> http://www.nariphaltan.org
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20160928/16d3ec2f/attachment.html
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 69070 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20160928/16d3ec2f/attachment.png
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 109931 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20160928/16d3ec2f/attachment-0001.png
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 95649 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20160928/16d3ec2f/attachment-0002.png
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 98606 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20160928/16d3ec2f/attachment-0003.png
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 110144 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20160928/16d3ec2f/attachment-0004.png
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 111343 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20160928/16d3ec2f/attachment-0005.png
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
> http://www.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Stoves Digest, Vol 73, Issue 26
> **************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20160930/850abe2d/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list