[Stoves] ISO TC285: Down with Smoke?

Traveller miata98 at gmail.com
Fri Jan 6 10:44:49 CST 2017


Ron: (and any others who can answer my questions, please)

You wrote (29 Dec. below): "here is also one-time notice (5th item down) of
an upcoming vote in the ISO process - this time on field testing.  I'm a
participant if anyone has a message they want in."

I couldn't find any document on the link to ISO Ballot
<http://cleancookstoves.org/about/news/12-18-2016-ballot-open-for-iso-standards-document-on-field-testing.html>
notice in
GACC CEO's message (pretty picture there, though, of clean cooks and their
clean stoves) nor GACC webpage on standards
<http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/standards/> as far as IWA
work progress goes. Nor on the link Developing Standards
<http://cleancookstoves.org/binary-data/ATTACHMENT/file/000/000/46-1.pdf>.

On TC 285 website, I see a list
<http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_tc_browse.htm?commid=4857971&development=on&includesc=true>
of
five documents - ISO/NP TR 21276 and 19915; ISO/CD 19867-1 and 19869; and
ISO/NP 19868. But on respective websites, there is no document.

It seemsTC WGs finalized the drafts
<http://cleancookstoves.org/binary-data/ATTACHMENT/file/000/000/47-1.pdf> in
November 2015 and that by May 2016 (six months after November 2015), they
were to be published.

*Where are these documents, or any other the ISO Ballot is for? Could you
please guide us? *

GACC states, "The Alliance has partnered with ISO and national standards
bodies to provide a *consensus-based and transparent process* for *clean
cooking sector experts to develop and approve standard* (emphasis added)"

I don't see transparency here, and I find any label of "clean cooking
sector experts" to be highly dubious.

Back on 15th December (post titled Terms and Definitions - Stoves and ISO),
I wrote "I was amused to discover yesterday that ISO ISO/NP TR 21276
<http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=70366>
- Clean
cookstoves and clean cooking solutions Terms and definitions" - is a blank
page."

It is not amusing any more. I see in IWA 10
<https://cleancookstoves.org/binary-data/DOCUMENT/file/000/000/6-1.pdf> that
it was to be reviewed in February 2015, but there is no indication of such
and whether it was confirmed "for a further three years, transferred to an
ISO technical body for revision, or withdrawn".

That said, I did find Cookstove Field Study Resources
<http://cleancookstoves.org/binary-data/DOCUMENT/file/000/000/485-1.pdf> on
a GACC webpage.

Then there is A rough guide to clean cookstoves
<http://cleancookstoves.org/resources_files/a-rough-guide-to-clean.pdf>,
surely written by and for those who do NOT cook with solid fuels in
poverty-ridden areas, or else I wouldn't see the top reason for CO2
reduction as "environmental benefits" (none) or  being assigned to CO2.

   - Field studies show that the most critical factors for the adoption and
   salability of clean cookstoves are 1) reduced fuel consumption, 2) reduced
   cooking time, 3) similar or improved functionality.
   -  Laboratory testing should, however, still be conducted as a first
   step to determine whether or not it is worthwhile to engage in expensive
   field testing.

*How does TC 285 utilize the advice in these two documents? *

Getting the objective right -- pleasing the cook, subject to the
requirement that a new technology has certain functional characteristics
and time expenditure patterns that s/he prefers - and stove development
science can get out of the quagmire of intellectual manure, the pit of
smoke.

I wouldn't even press on "time reduction". Every cooking and every cook has
a different rhythm (depending on whether there is running water, how many
children are crying at what decibel level and how long, whether she has to
deliver two rounds of tea to other family members and cook rice before
bread).

Reasonable people can differ about lab testing as "the" first step. I tend
to side with Cecil that the IWA is premature.

*********
Sorry, I couldn't resist that subject line. "Up in Smoke" was taken, twice
(once illegitimately, by Cambridge cons).

Sorry, also, that I am dead serious.

"Down in Smoke" is kinda appropriate, for combustion cognoscenti with their
heads in the fireboxes for as far back as I can remember, instead of
looking at the cooks and their lives, environments, all of which give what
Cecil might call "context".

Context is everything. That might even bring more money to stove
development research (instead of wasting it on proving reductions in
"premature mortality" or "averted DALYs).

Why, I am now going to claim "context is chemistry" - not the chemistry of
cooking (I mean the romances), since you don't care for cooking, but the
agrochemistry, fuel chemistry, human biochemistry, which influence local
resource use and opportunity costs, and also the real burden of disease -
i.e., disease incidence, not cooked up GBD. (See, I avoided using the term
that offends you.)

Boiling water purposefully avoids the chemistry of food emissions, because
heavens, smoke from meat might be blamed when solid fuels have to be proven
murderers! What else, with the assumption of equitoxicity for all PM2.5?

Again, reasonable people can differ on methods and assumptions. To me, the
GBD enterprise is "beyond the pale", the wailing about "cooking kills" or
"clean stoves will avoid premature deaths" is deceit and dumbness combined.

Now I am wondering about this TC 285. Is it also as much of a chicanery?


Nikhil






********

> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:56:07 -0700
> From: Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> To: Discussion of biomass <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: [Stoves] Fwd: December?News: 2016 Progress Report; Forums in
>         Asia, Africa, and Latin America
> Message-ID: <2F1A1DC2-8910-483B-AFD7-161C949D817B at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> List:
>
>         Apologies for sending this to the many of you already receiving
> this.
>
>         I enjoy these any time, and this has some important news items.
>
>         But I mainly am sending this to encourage participating in their
> annual survey (3rd item down).  My survey response centered on char-making
> stove development (lack of by GACC).  Mostly I was supportive of GACC.
>
>         There is also one-time notice (5th item down) of an upcoming vote
> in the ISO process - this time on field testing.  I?m a participant if
> anyone has a message they want in.
>
>         I think the message below should still have active links.  If not,
> I think it will open at:
>    http://www.globalproblems-globalsolutions.org/site/MessageV
> iewer?autologin=true&em_id=74308.0&s_AffiliateSecCatId=1&dlv
> _id=96295&pw_id=3281 <http://www.globalproblems-glo
> balsolutions.org/site/MessageViewer?autologin=true&em_id=743
> 08.0&s_AffiliateSecCatId=1&dlv_id=96295&pw_id=3281>
>
> Ron
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170106/f72d1fad/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list