[Stoves] Domestic stoves, air pollution and health ==> Back to basics

Roger Samson rogerenroute at yahoo.ca
Sat Jan 7 14:19:44 CST 2017


Thanks Harold for your fine and detailed overview. 

It's pretty obvious that household cooking is quite complicated to come up with any definitive statements over health issues. Look at this USAID funded rural biomass stove study done in the Philippines involving WINROCK. There was no serious risk from biomass cooking over an open flame.  REAP-Canada was working in the central Philippine region of the Visayas at the same and we observed the same thing. .. the rural people mitigated the cooking risk themselves.  

The rural kitchens just needed ventilation and to be separated from the main house. This is what we are promoting in rural villages in West Africa with our low fuel consuming REAP clay brick stoves. Biomass cooking has high sustainability in  well ventilated kitchens separated from the main house and with a simple locally built improved biomass cookstove. THERE IS NO APPRECIABLE HEALTH RISK. The particles rapidly and harmlessly disperse in rural areas. If you read the study it cites another study that denotes open kitchens are as important as fuel switching for reducing exposure. I do not know why GACC is so obsessed with switching to fossil fuels. I do not know why agencies like ours that work on sustainable rural cooking systems with biomass have no sustainable funding pathway with GACC. 

I think somebody needs to get the message through to GACC that either they back off on their condemnation of renewable cooking with biomass or we pull out of GACC. All the partners involved in sustainable biomass cooking can form a sustainable household cooking systems alliance and withdraw as GACC partners. I am nearly certain the Chinese government will not favor a vision of a fossil fuel dependent future of LPG for its household cooking systems.

Indoor Air Pollution in Coastal Houses of Southern Philippines
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sumeet_Saksena/publication/247731922_Indoor_Air_Pollution_in_Coastal_Houses_of_Southern_Philippines/links/55c3dab308aea2d9bdc1c833.pdf

"The results of this study suggest that IAP from cooking does not represent a serious health risk to women, despite
the fact that nearly 75% of women surveyed cook with biomass over open fires".

regards
Roger Samson
www.reap-canada.com

--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 1/6/17, Harold Annegarn <hannegarn at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: [Stoves]  Domestic stoves, air pollution and health ==> Back to basics
 To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
 Cc: miata98 at gmail.com, "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at outlook.com>
 Received: Friday, January 6, 2017, 5:17 AM
 
 Dear Stovers
 A) I have been following the debates on stove
 emissions, health effects (dallying with DALYs) and carbon
 climate neutrality with interest, and varying degrees of
 amusement and despair at the grave (or jocular)
 misrepresentations of science and the scientific method. My
 interventions, under a new thread, are intended to go back
 to basics of science on air pollution and health. I hope
 thereby to clean up some of the messier aspects of recent
 debates that are based on misconceptions of science.
 (Regrettably, I claim no authority to be able to similarly
 clarify issues of policy, developmental economics or
 institutional politics.)
 B) As a starting point, a draw your attention to
 the following article:
 Lung
 Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to
 Fine Particulate Air PollutionC. Arden Pope, III,
 PhD, Richard T. Burnett,
 PhD, Michael J. Thun, MD, Eugenia E. Calle,
 PhD, Daniel Krewski, PhD, Kazuhiko Ito, PhD,
 and George D. Thurston, ScD
  JAMA. 2002 Mar
 6; 287(9): 1132-1141.PMCID: PMC4037163 (Journal of American
 Medical Association)The
 publisher's full final edited version of this article is
 available at JAMA with no
 paywall: JAMA. 2002 Mar 6; 287(9):
 1132–1141.
 Abstract
 
 Context
 Associations have been found
 between day-to-day particulate air pollution and increased
 risk of various adverse health outcomes, including
 cardiopulmonary mortality. However, studies of health
 effects of long-term particulate air pollution have been
 less conclusive.ObjectiveTo assess the relationship between long-term exposure
 to fine particulate air pollution and all-cause, lung
 cancer, and cardiopulmonary mortality.Design, Setting, and
 ParticipantsVital status and cause of death data were collected by
 the American Cancer Society as part of the Cancer Prevention
 II study, an ongoing prospective mortality study, which
 enrolled approximately 1.2 million adults in 1982.
 Participants completed a questionnaire detailing individual
 risk factor data (age, sex, race, weight, height, smoking
 history, education, marital status, diet, alcohol
 consumption, and occupational exposures). The risk factor
 data for approximately 500,000 adults were linked with air
 pollution data for metropolitan areas throughout the United
 States and combined with vital status and cause of death
 data through December 31, 1998.Main Outcome MeasureAll-cause, lung cancer, and
 cardiopulmonary mortality.ResultsFine particulate and sulfur
 oxide–related pollution were associated with all-cause,
 lung cancer, and cardiopulmonary mortality. Each
 10-μg/m3 elevation
 in fine particulate air pollution was associated with
 approximately a 4%, 6%, and 8% increased risk of all-cause,
 cardiopulmonary, and lung cancer mortality, respectively.
 Measures of coarse particle fraction and total suspended
 particles were not consistently associated with
 mortality.ConclusionLong-term exposure to
 combustion-related fine particulate air pollution is an
 important environmental risk factor for cardiopulmonary and
 lung cancer
 mortality.|____________
 C) The significance of this article for the stove
 list debates is that:
 It is a primary research article - not a secondary
 summarised/re-interpreted version valorised by the WHO. 
 It deals with statistical associations
 (Risk Ratios) between PM2.5 and lung cancer and
 cardiovascular mortality over a 16 year period for a study
 cohort numbering in the millions. It does not claim or
 explain causality.It presents statistical
 correlations of Risk Ratios of lung cancer and
 cardiovascular mortality. It does use the concepts of
 premature deaths, a source of heated contestation in
 StoveList debates. It does not enter into a discussion of
 the financial value of life or DALYs.The study
 deals comprehensively with the confounding effects of
 smoking - which has a higher Risk Ratio - and mentions in
 passing other factors controlled for and which have elevated
 Risk Ratios for the study population (e.g. gross obesity
 (level 3).No enhanced Risk Ratio was found in
 association with PM10 (defined in the post-2000 sense of
 particles below 10 but above 2.5-micron
 diameter). D) Arising from this, several
 points of clarity regarding the
 science:Establishment of Risk
 Ratios is a property of the population ensemble
 numbering in hundreds of thousands. This ensemble
 property of a population cannot be attributed to
 individuals or small populations of a few hundred or
 thousand. Accordingly, taunts such as "Show me one life
 that has been saved by a clean cook stove", reveal a
 perhaps jocular but nevertheless foolish conceptual
 misunderstanding.PM2.5 and EQUITOXICITY
 (addressed mainly to Crispin). 
 PM2.5 is measured as an INDICATOR of fine particulate
 matter (mainly in urban atmospheres). Scientists and
 regulators are well aware that fine particulate matter
 originates from diverse sources and contains particles of
 widely differing physical and chemical composition, and that
 some of these species may be more damaging to the human
 respiratory system than others. Nevertheless, as an
 INDICATOR of urban air quality, PM2.5 serves the purpose of
 an indicator. (a) It is readily measurable with a moderate
 amount of technical skill and commercially available
 apparatus; (b) It is applicable across a range of conditions
 in space and time, allowing for tracking of trends. (c) The
 indicator values are easily communicated to and understood
 by the lay public. PM2.5 is again an ensemble
 property, and at a superficial level may one assert that
 all particles comprising the ensemble are EQUITOXIC. That
 some individuals may have used the term EQUITOXICITY in this
 sense, is not intended to be taken literally. To rail
 against the term is to set up a straw man argument, dressed
 in funny clothes designed to scare off the
 crows. However, when it comes to controlling or
 reducing sources or PM2.5 in particular localities, then
 source apportionment studies are needed, to establish the
 relative contributions from diverse sources, that may
 include residential wood burning (also in American cities in
 colder climates), sulphates from coal combustion, diesel
 soot emissions. Reductions are planned and regulated on the
 basis of cost-effectiveness, reflected in State
 Implementation Plans (SIPs) in USA jurisdictions. Source
 apportionment plans deal with reducing the concentrations of
 overall PM2.5, without going into issues of health effects
 and consequent economic loss due to mortality of morbidity -
 the domain of epidemiologists, not air quality regulators.
 In the case of specific high toxicity compounds, such as
 asbestos fibres or CrVI (chromium valence 6), other air
 toxic regulations come into play quite separately from the
 generalised PM2.5 control strategies.
 On the health effects of various species of particles in the
 PM2.5 ensemble (often now referred to as nanoparticles),
 there are significant advances in the last decade of
 understanding the modes of interaction between particles and
 the human physiological system. One interesting finding is
 that some materials are more active (toxic) in the finely
 divided nano range than one would suppose from the bulk
 properties of the material.Inhalation of and
 deposition of PM2.5.
 Point 2 above leads to the need to clarify misconceptions
 reflected in recent stove list discussions concerning the
 deposition of particles in the human respiratory system.
 Broadly, coarse particles greater than 2.5 microns diameter
 are trapped in the upper airways (nose, throat), while fine
 particles (<2.5 microns) proceed into the bronchial
 system. Particles in the range 300 nm (0.3 microns) and
 less, the bulk of PM2.5 mass, behave similarly to gas
 molecules and are carried in the air stream through 18
 bifurcations of the bronchial system to the alveolar sacs.
 Once in the alveolar region, governed by laws of diffusion,
 some of the nanoparticles may reach the walls of the
 alveolar sacs and be dissolved or absorbed and transmitted
 to the blood stream (e.g. nicotine droplets from tobacco
 smoke). Insoluble particles are attached by macrophages
 (white blood cells) and either transmitted away by the lymph
 drainage fluids, or remain in place eventually forming
 inflexible fibrous tissue (in advanced cases causing e.g.
 silicosis and emphysema). Paradoxically, the very properties
 that allowed the nanoparticles to reach the deepest airways,
 similarly allow the particles to make their way out of the
 lungs and to be exhaled. In each breath, typically only
 about 60% of particles are deposited, and 40% are exhaled.
 For example, a smoker will still exhale detectable levels of
 nicotine fumes for ten to twelve breaths after the last
 puff.
 Coarse particles deposited in the upper airways can also
 trigger physiological responses - one need only mention the
 allergic response to inhalation of pollen grains (typically
 in size range 5 to 50 microns) that are trapped in the nose.
       E. Arising from this, a personal
 comment based on my four decades as an academic research on
 atmospheric particles. This point addresses ongoing
 messiness and confusion in the recent StoveList debates
 (which is a good open forum for robust verbal sparring) but
 more seriously has resulted in major conceptual confusion in
 the debates of the international efforts to devise clean
 stove evaluation procedures and associated performance
 criteria (tiers).
 The fundamental error is to try and combine
 efforts to reduce particulate emissions from stoves (source
 characterisation and emission control measures) with
 Relative Risk outcomes or, even more remotely, with
 premature deaths or DALYs.Stove experts
 know about stoves, thermal and emissions performance
 testing.
 Exposure modelling and monitoring of stove
 emissions concentrations in homes and air pollution in
 general in the ambient environment are separate disciplines
 that do not necessarily fall within the knowledge domain of
 stove experts.
 Correlations between exposure to air pollutants and
 specific health outcomes are established by epidemiologists
 at a population scale. Even relationships between tobacco
 smoke and adverse health outcomes took decades and
 population-scale studies to establish. Testing for
 causal relationships (i.e. beyond statistical correlations)
 between specific pollutants and human immunological
 responses is properly the domain of specialised medical
 studies.As professional scientists,
 environmentalists, developmental economists we are aware of
 the broad issues of air quality and public health. However,
 when the task was a relatively straightforward assignment:
 Develop a standard method for testing the energy and
 emissions performance of a domestic stove designed for
 cooking and space heating, it is in my opinion a grave
 perversion of sound science, technology and regulation to
 try and conflate two or more of the above four stages into a
 single standard.  For well-intentioned students who
 approached me to supervise a project on air pollution and
 health because they were concerned about the health
 consequences of high smoke concentrations (in South Africa
 from domestic coal combustion), I had to advise them: I can
 supervise a study of ambient concentrations, of the
 emissions of stoves, or the characterization of individual
 particles or bulk particulate matter. However, as a
 physicist, environmentalist, geographer, I cannot supervise
 and I cannot marshall the resources to do a health based
 study. If you wish to study health effects, then you need to
 be in a medical faculty. 
 I rest my case.
 A similar argument can be mounted concerning the
 conflation of stove testing and global soil properties, food
 security, de/reforestation and global change, but that may
 be a topic for a future post.
 Best regardsHarold the
 Sceptic
 (N.B. I am a sceptic by vocation and profession,
 for such is the nature of science. To those who wish to
 believe, go the church on Sunday or mosque on Fridays. On
 all other days of the week, I will tempt you to doubt, ye
 even deny, and ask for the evidence.)  
  
 
   
 Harold Annegarn
 Energy Institute
 Cape Peninsula University of Technology
 Mobile +27 (0)83 628 4210           Office
 +27 hannegarn at gmail.comhannegarn@outlook.com 
 
 
 On 6 January 2017 at
 08:11, Traveller <miata98 at gmail.com>
 wrote:
 Dear
 Ron: 
 
 Happy New Year! 
 
 First, I am DELIGHTED, RELIEVED to read your definition of a
 "climate denier" - "a person with no interest
 in carbon dioxide removal (CDR)."
 
 I do have megahours of interest in CDR. Just tell me from
 where, when, how much, by whom, at what cost, and where to
 put it. 
 
 I have been doing CDR for all my life. 
 
 Thank you, thank you, thank you. Now that I am not a climate
 denier, I don't have to fear going to hellfires or ovens
 till I die. 
 
 It's all a matter of accounting. 
 
 ***On the other hand, I am sad to see
 you start out a New Year on a sour note. 
 On Haiti and LPG Webinar, I did address your
 Comment 1 -  "I don’t think many will mind if I
 reopen the topic." and Comment 2 - " I
 don’t have the time now to prove this, but am sure we can
 find climate denial funding coming from this Association.
 " I took my cue to reopen the topic from you, and
 I also made some comment on WLPGA. Please don't blame me
 for your neglect to read. 
 
 ***
 
 We can continue that LPG thread if you read my replies to
 Paul and to you on GACC and Haiti (more to come). Here I
 address your "I will respond about Kirk when I am told
 which of hundreds of Kirk Smith writings I should read.
 "
 
 Oh, dear. I don't know what if anything you have read
 from Kirk Smith. You could start with  his opinion pieces
 - "In Praise of Petroleum", "Power to the
 People", and "The Petroleum Product That Can Save
 Millions Of Lives Each Year". 
 
 I assume you have read his research on putting carbon gases
 in the atmosphere via traditional biomass combustion
 (defined as uncontrolled combustion of unprocessed solid
 biomass). 
 
 What you may find is relevant to both this thread as well as
 Paul's question on LPG in the Haiti thread about lower
 GHGs (and one earlier). 
 
 Please also tell us just what of Kirk Smith's papers you
 have read on health effects of biomass combustion and quotes
 that you like. Taking his name in vain is intellectual
 abuse. 
 
 In a 6 November 2016 post on this list's thread
 "LPG versus gasifiers with dry biomass", I had
 cited Prof. Smith's assertion: 
 
 "And, as yet, no biomass stove in
 the world comes close to the boundary – is clean enough to be truly health protective in
 household use."
 He was also reported in a Washington
 Post item in 2015  “As yet, no biomass stove in the
 world is clean enough to be truly health protective in
 household use”.
 
 I expressed my dissent from this view, but if you agree with
 it, please say so. 
 
 Because that means biomass stoving for the last 50-odd years
 has failed in terms of being "truly health protective
 in household use." 
 
 Amen. I was hoping to leave all that in the last
 year. 
 ****
 
 Now to the main issue here -  biomass power and
 climate-neutrality. 
 
 It is a matter of ideological accounting, not science. 
 
 Whoever has a hammer in hand sees nails everywhere.
 Biochar seems to be your hammer.
  
 I have written earlier that I discovered Biochar in 2007/8
 and Stephen Joseph made me a believer. 
 
 Now just tell me your global plan for biochar. I will be a
 partner in Alliance for Biochar Cooking (ABC). GACC CEO can
 be invited to help. 
 I did some CDR work 20+ years ago on TVA
 co-firing of peanut shells in Georgia and other biomass
 power options. I also worked on CCS (Carbon Capture and
 Sequestration) options and putting CO2 in old mines and
 domes. How much CDR did you do? 
 *****
 Apart from biochar or such projects, taking the earth system
 as a whole, I repeat my assertions: 
 
 “To begin with, biomass is not GHG-neutral.
 Period. "
 
 This time I will give you some suggestions to read - Ruddiman and
 Unger.
 Also this.
 Prove me wrong. 
 
 Water and biomass is nearly there is to understand about
 human climate. But please read Kirk Smith, then we can
 debate the GHG-neutrality of biomass combustion (alone).  
 
 “And if you don't assume that, you leave the
 field open to any carbon from biomass combusted anywhere
 being re-absorbed in a new tree anywhere." 
 
 This is a
 scientific truism - that any carbon emitted anywhere may be
 re-absorbed anywhere (tree or not) - and other assumptions
 are matter of accounting. Prove me wrong. 
 
 Chemistry is everything. Not counting molecules. CO2 is not
 a WMD; do ask CIA though. 
 
 Nikhil
 
 ---------  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at
 11:43 PM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
 wrote:
 Nikhil:  cc List and
 Paul
 	Whew -  5 messages
 today from Nikhil and finally one that I can see all of on
 my screen at once.    (Here’s hoping I don’t have to
 read 5 more tomorrow for the third day in a
 row.)
 	In three of the four
 others I see one citation - GACC on Haiti.   It would help
 me (and I think others) if Nikhil would keep all of my
 messages, not selectively pull out of them.  (for his
 GACC2,  Nikhil has excised all of my remarks #1 and #3. 
 Why?)
 	I will respond about
 Kirk when I am told which of hundreds of Kirk Smith writings
 I should read.  I seriously doubt that Kirk has written
 much about the two cites below covering BECCS and albedo. 
 Note that neither of these have much, if anything, to do
 with stoves.
 	I don’t have time
 tonight to refute any of the mostly incorrect and
 non-pertinent arguments below, but let me repeat one
 (yNikhil, from below)that could only come from a climate
 denier -  defined here as a person with no interest in
 carbon dioxide removal (CDR):
 	“And if you
 don't assume that, you leave the field open to any
 carbon from biomass combusted anywhere being re-absorbed in
 a new tree
 anywhere." 
 	I interpret Nikhil to
 mean that CDR via biochar only makes sense when source and
 sink are in the same block, county, state, or country, (or
 continent?)  Whew!   If not, what then does he mean?  (Of
 course you have to read more below.)
 	In sum, I strongly
 support Paul’s gentle request to Nikhil to stick to topics
 that relate to this list - not things again/always in
 support of coal.  And not blame me for not having responded
 quickly enough to some un-named publication of Prof. Smith
  (whose work, I repeat, on health matters related to stoves
 I strongly support - and look forward to learning what I am
 supposed to dissociate myself from in order to agree that
 the (9:04 AM CDT) climate-denying material (not in any way
 stove or health-oriented) below is on-topic.)
 	Last point for Nikhil
 re his last line below
   (“To begin
 with, biomass is not GHG-neutral. Period.
 ")- does he think that biochar from
 stoves cannot be carbon negative?
 Ron
 ps.  I argue these topics (albedo, BECCS,
 afforestation , etc) most every day - on half a dozen lists
 - but never on this list.  
 On Jan 3, 2017, at 12:36
 PM, Traveller <miata98 at gmail.com>
 wrote:
 Paul: 
 
 It might become on-topic once Ron reads Kirk Smith. 
 
 Nikhil
 
 --------- (US +1)
 202-568-5831
  
 
 On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at
 1:05 PM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu>
 wrote:
 
   
     
   
   
     To Nikhil only,
 
     
 
     I agree that your message is "Off-topic".  
 Thank you for making
     that clear in your subject line.   Please do not make
 more messages
     that are so far off-topic that they just are beyond the
 scope of the
     Stoves Listserv.
 
     
 
     Thanks,
 
     
 
     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
 1/3/2017 9:04 AM, Traveller wrote:
 
     
     
       Oh, dear. Just because a tree is
 releasing CO2
         absorbed earlier makes it carbon neutral? 
 
         
 
         Then all trees could be harvested, burnt, and that
 would still
         be carbon neutral. I don't think IPCC allows
 that -- its
         inventorying methods require that such "land
 use change" be
         reported separately. 
 
         
 
         ****
 
         Another way of putting the question (and I
 think this is
           implied by the current methods) is whether the
 CO2 released
           will in future be absorbed by another tree. 
 
         
         
 
           But that raises a different problem -- this
 re-absorption may
           take years and that it may happen somewhere else.
 Assuming
           that the Drax carbon emissions from biomass
 burning were to be
           re-absorbed in the US forests where the pellets
 came from is
           quite a stretch. 
 
           
 
           And if you don't assume that, you leave the
 field open to any
           carbon from biomass combusted anywhere being
 re-absorbed in a
           new tree anywhere. 
 
           
 
           Since CO2 from wood combustion in a power plant is
 no
           different from CO2 from my breaths or cremation or
 CO2 from a
           power plant, it is plausible to argue that CO2
 from Chinese
           coal-fired power plant is what gets absorbed in
 the net
           expansion of boreal forests in Canada and
 Europe. 
 
         
         
 
         Aha! But then we have the dilemma of changing the
 albedo effect.
         (Reforestation
 Doesn’t Fight Climate Change
           Unless It’s Done Right, Natasha Geiling,
 ThinkProgress, 31
         August 2016). 
         
 
         
         Perhaps it's better to trim boreal forests,
 convert into
           charcoal, and export to Nigeria, Ethiopia, DRC. 
 
           
 
           Albedo effect, apart, bioenergy capture has
 another problem -
           "“But if you are going
 to do
             BECCS, you are going to have to grow an awful
 lot of trees
             and the impact on land use may have very
 significant effects
             on food security,” (Reflecting
 sunlight into space has
               terrifying consequences, say scientists,
 Damien
             Carrington, Guardian (UK)  26 November
 2014)
           
 
             
           In short, the CO2 accounting business is riddled
 with
           confusion. 
 
           
 
           ****
 
           
 
           Deliberate confusion for political purposes. The
 methods of
           GHG accounting are NOT value-free; they (including
 the choice
           to use 100-year GWPs instead of 20- or 50-year
 GWPs) are
           intentionally biased. (I was marginally involved
 with this
           30-odd years ago.) 
 
           
 
           The most serious objection to the purported
 "carbon
           neutrality" of "biomass" is that
 depending on combustion
           technology, the emissions of non-CO2 GHGs -
 methane, which is
           counted under Kyoto cooking of numbers, and
 NMVOCs, CO, which
           Kyoto does not permit -- are more potent than
 CO2. 
         
 
         
         If  you add in black carbon, the non-CO2
 damage is
           significantly higher. 
 
           
 
           More so if you use 20-year GWP (my preference for
 the
           developing countries). 
         
 
           The combined GHG loads from biomass direct thermal
 use around
           the world - when counting all GHGs and black
 carbon (I can
           cook up some estimates) - are in the range of all
 CO2 from
           Indian coal-fired power plants, maybe even all CO2
 from
           Chinese coal-fired power plants. 
 
           
 
           So, global warming is due to inefficient biomass
 use, as much
           as it is from India-China coal-fired power
 plants. 
 
           
 
           Surprised? 
 
           
 
           Some sages said 16+ years ago, "If one is
 going to put carbon
           in the atmosphere anyway, CO2 is the least harmful
 species
           from climate or health point of view." 
 
           
 
           The policy implications of this observation are
 profound. 
 
           
 
           To begin with, biomass is not GHG-neutral.
 Period. 
 
           
 
           
 
          
 Nikhil
 
 
 
 
 ______________________________ _________________
 
 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/
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
 
 _______________________________________________
 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/
 
 




More information about the Stoves mailing list