[Stoves] [Stoves Digest, Vol 81, Issue 21] Another attack on solid fuels by public health adventurers

Wed Aug 9 14:28:24 CDT 2017

Crispin:

Three quick comments:

1. WHO "recommendations" have no value. Just check on ambient urban air
quality data and status of emission standards for sources small and large,
new and old, stationary and mobile, around the developing world. The
faithful refer to the Holy Book; for everybody else there is law.

2. There is no "safe" level of air quality, just that which cannot be
ascribed to anthropogenic sources and behaviors (mobility, use of fans or
chimneys).  I remember some interesting debate back in the 1960s about
"safe" thresholds. EPA assumes there are none. The question is not "safety"
but "risk" . So long as scientists get together and claim a risk, the
regulatory process gets going to determine methods of control. That is
rightfully a matter of economics, politics, judiciary, and philosophy, not
mere science, especially environmentalist cult variety.

3. For Kirk Smith and his colleagues at BAMG and GACC, concentrations are
exposures. Look up Smith, Mehta, Pillarisetti (or some other order)
description of HAPIT model. It is fuel-free, stove-free, and even data-free
(i.e., dependent on the assumptions of equitoxicity and Integrated Exposure
Response.) You should be satisfied that they do make adjustments for
"background" PM2.5 (from ambient air; don't know about tobacco indoor) and
also for chimney.

Will write more on chimneys some other time.

Nikhil

On Aug 7, 2017, at 8:13 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

Dear Karin

I am taking a moment to respond to your message of 27 May. It concerns your
very important comment about the reduction in PM and CO. Because it has
been a while, I will repeat the relevant paragraph:

“*The note that you cited [from] our paper saying that the Philips stove
reduces PM2.5 concentration by only 66% was a cite of the work by
Muralidharan et al., 2015. It is based [on] a KPT not in a WBT: “Here, we
tested a traditional clay chulha cookstove (TCS) and five commercially
available ACSs, including both natural draft (Greenway Smart Stove,
Envirofit PCS-1) and forced draft stoves (BioLite HomeStove, Philips
Woodstove HD4012, and Eco-Chulha XXL), in a test kitchen in a rural village
of western India. Compared to the TCS, the ACSs produced significant
reductions in particulate matter less than 2.5 µm (PM**2.5**) and CO
concentrations (Envirofit: 22%/16%, Greenway: 24%/42%, BioLite: 40%/35%,
Philips: 66%/55% and Eco-Chulha: 61%/42%), which persisted after
normalization for fuel consumption or useful energy. PM**2.5** and CO
concentrations were lower for forced draft stoves than natural draft
stoves. Furthermore, the Philips and Eco-Chulha units exhibited higher
cooking efficiency than the TCS. Despite significant reductions in
concentrations, all ACSs failed to achieve PM**2.5** levels that are
considered safe by the World Health Organization (ACSs: 277–714 μg/m**3** or
11–28 fold higher than the WHO recommendation of 25 μg/m**3**;)*”

Two issues arise from these comments. The first is the idea that the stove
is the only or major reason for the PM2.5 concentration measured. Obviously
if the stoves had been fitted with chimneys the concentration would have
been as low as zero, which is to say, that stoves would have contributed as
little as nothing and any measurement would reflect the background level.
IF the ambient concentration is 100 then a perfect stove will not help.

Even if the stoves produced varying amounts of smoke, the test was of the
influence of that stove in a particular kitchen operated in a certain way
by a certain cook producing a certain meal. It was the kitchen that had the
largest influence on the concentration.  I acknowledge that there is value
to having a *relative* performance difference, but mostly you were testing
the kitchen, not so much the stove, with my concession that the stoves are
different as to the amount of smoke emitted.

The numbers reported: are they personal exposures? If so, then people in
the same room will be subject to quite different exposures. If it was
‘ambient in the room’ then we do not know what the personal exposure was
because it depends on where you are in the room. Ambient at head height
varies around the room.  As the WHO has reported in their meeting minutes,
the concentration in a room is highly variable depending on the ventilation
rate and the position of vents. In spite of that knowledge, they assume (at
present) that the concentration is immediately equal through the volume of
the room which is obviously unrealistic.

My second point the idea that, somehow, the WHO has a justifiable claim
that 25 µg/m3 is ‘safe’ or ‘healthy’ with the implication that the number
is supported by some evidence. Having looked into the way the value, or
‘target’, was generated, I found there is literally nothing real behind the
number. It is all estimations, assumptions and guessing. I don’t think
there is much danger this observation will be contradicted.

There are several useful conclusions one can draw from the study.

   1. Chimneys should be promoted as a way to reducing exposure to smoke by
   cooks and children as a matter of urgency when the kitchen is enclosed.
   Whatever the health impact of some emissions from common fuels, chimneys
   make everything better.
   2. Where the stove is openly vented, a stove hood is appropriate.
   3. People cooking outdoors are at very low risk of exposure to cooking
   smoke, and about ¼ of India’s cooking takes place outside – maybe more. In
   Indonesia there are 4 classic kitchens only one of which is enclosed.
   4. Unless it is already in the ambient air, cooking outdoors offers
   little exposure, and smokeless stoves are rarely, or never, going make a
   tangible difference. Ulaanbaatar heating stoves are a good example of an
   exemption to this, but they are heating stoves, primarily. Crakow is
   another.
   5. Some weak and unjustified arguments have been made about ambient air
   pollution from stoves being a major cause of *indoor* air pollution in
   other homes ‘because of the use of chimneys’. If this were true in any
   community, it means that only an integrated air quality program could make
   a big difference, as is being implement in Hebei Province in China. That
   pilot includes a heating and cooking stove component (800,000 units) with a
   view to improving ambient air quality in Beijing, next door. But it is one
   of 51 measures being conducted. Getting the smoke outdoors by hood or
   chimney where it can be greatly diluted is obviously a good start.

The current discussion here and behind the scenes is concentrating on the
main flaws in the WHO’s case for claiming what constitutes a healthy
environment:

Flaws:

   - The assumption that all particles below 2.5 microns in aerodynamic
   diameter are equally toxic
   - That a certain list of diseases are caused by a certain exposure to PM
   2.5
   - That a certain list of diseases are exacerbated by a certain exposure
   to PM2.5
   - That certain diseases are caused by exposure to particular sources
   - That an ambient concentration causes a certain exposure
   - That a certain emission rate creates a certain ambient concentration
   - That the smoke emitted by a stove can be meaningfully reported as an
   ‘emission rate’ without reference to constancy (pulses) and independent of
   time.

We need a reboot on this whole matter. There are far too many things
assumed being given the status of ‘truth’.  I suggest the main reason for
the reboot is because there is a lot of money being directed, or
redirected, based on really poor quality information and guesses. I
appreciate that you are making measurements and creating a base upon which
to construct a more realistic version of reality.

Regards

Crispin

_______________________________________________
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/20170809/809558a4/attachment.html>