[Stoves] Adolescent females killed by WHO (Re: Crispin, Philip)

Thu Jun 1 07:32:45 CDT 2017

Crispin, Philip:

Please recognize that WHO has a gratuitous war against solid fuels simply
because a house of cards has been built on no data on fuel/stove types,
paltry emission, concentration, and exposure measurements, and patently
ludicrous assumptions.

All of these have passed certain standards of practice that have been
accepted by the public health community (or nobody bothers). The most
recent GBD 2015 paper in Lancet (link posted by Crispin; I have some notes
on it) has a couple of nice tables and figures about how these standards of
evidence and methods have been met. It may help to go through these in a
dispassionate way and try to construct a biomedical basis of association
between fuel use and disease incidence to realize just how illogical the
whole enterprise is.

Therefore, it does not matter if you speak of kerosene or ethanol. Deaths
from fuel use are concocted BY ASSUMPTION. Solid fuels are ASSUMED to be
uniformly DIRTY FUELs. This is "fact-free" science.

Let's look at this claim - "“the leading cause of death for younger
adolescent girls aged 10–14 years is lower respiratory infections, such as
pneumonia – often a result of household air pollution from cooking with
solid fuels.”

A. How many females? WHO press release More than 1.2 million adolescents
die every year, nearly all preventable
<http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2017/yearly-adolescent-deaths/en/>
 says,

Data in the report, *Global accelerated action for the health of
adolescents (AA-HA!): Guidance to support country implementation*, reveal
stark differences in causes of death when separating the adolescent group
by age (younger adolescents aged 10–14 years and older ones aged 15–19
years) and by sex.

...........
The picture for girls differs greatly. The leading cause of death for
younger adolescent *girls aged 10–14 years are lower respiratory
infections, such as pneumonia* – *often* a result of indoor air pollution
from cooking with *dirty fuels*.

Female adolescent deaths in the age group *10-19* from LRI numbered 36, 337
in 2015. The corresponding number for males 10-19 was 36,018, negligibly
lower than that for females.

To put the number in perspective, the main report's summary - Global
Accelerated Action for the Health of Adolescents (AA-HA!)Guidance to
Support Country Implementation – Summary
<http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/255415/1/9789241512343-eng.pdf?ua=1>
- shows females age group 10-14 deaths due to LRI as *7.3 per 100,000*
population, not surprising. Nowhere can I find the absolute number for
females 10-14 deaths from LRIs, but it seems to be less than 15,000.

So the accurate statement could be "An estimated 15,000 girls aged 10 to 14
died of lower respiratory infections, including pneumonia, in 2015.
Exposure to pollution from household cooking has been established as a risk
factor for such illnesses. "

I have a problem even with this, because there is no factual basis for such
assertions. Death data for youth in the developing world are just as poor
as those for the elderly if not more so. (Varies by cause -- accidents and
murders are one thing, suicides and LRI another.)

*B. How are they dying? *

The main report - Global Accelerated Action for the Health of Adolescents
(AA-HA!)Guidance to Support Country Implementation Annexes 1–6 and
Appendices I–IV
<http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/255415/5/9789241512343-annexes-eng.pdf?ua=1>
only
says, "Risk factors associated with chronic respiratory diseases, including
asthma include tobacco use, second-hand tobacco smoke; other indoor
pollutants; outdoor air pollutants; allergens; and occupational agents."

This is standard IHME language and I have no objection to it. But note that
"other indoor pollutants" and "outdoor air pollutants" are mentioned,
without any specific reference to "dirty fuels".

Writers of WHO press releases just threw in gratuitous language to please
UN Foundation (a major donor to WHO and contracted to run GACC).

Horror, horror. The reality of science in Washington and Geneva.  Money
sitting in Seattle.

*C. Why bother? *
THE GLOBALSTRATEGYFOR WOMEN’S,CHILDREN’S ANDADOLESCENTS’HEALTH(2016-2030)
<http://www.who.int/life-course/partners/global-strategy/ewec-globalstrategyreport-200915.pdf?ua=1>

Cites a 2006 WHO Report to claim, "Globally, more than 3 billion people
cook with wood, dung, coal and other solid fuels on open fires or
traditional stoves. If 50 per cent of people who use solid fuels
indoors *gained
access to cleaner fuels, health-system cost savings would amount to US$165
million annually. Gains in health-related productivity would range from 17
to 62 per cent in urban areas and 6 to 15 per cent in rural areas.*"

That is something I can connect to, instead of aDALY blather.

But then I see meaningless platitudes in "Energy and Environment",
something WHO should develop better skills in:

"• Reduce *household and ambient air pollution through the increased use of
clean energy fuels and technologies in the home* (for cooking, heating,
lighting)
• Take steps to *mitigate and adapt to climate changes that affect the
health of women, children and adolescents*
• Eliminate non-essential uses of lead (e.g. in paint) and mercury (e.g. in
health care and artisanal mining) and ensure the safe recycling of lead- or
mercury-containing waste
• *Reduce air pollution and climate emissions and improve green spaces by
using lowemissions technology and renewable energy"*

Who appointed WHO as the world's central planner?

Or the world's mommy?

Just recite "clean energy", "low emissions", "renewable", "mitigate and
adapt to climate changes". Why bother thinking who is going to do this how?

*D/. Where are adolescent dying of what? *

By far the largest burden of LRI is in Sub-Saharan Africa (p. 19), and
slightly lower than what is euphemistically called "interpersonal violence"
in the Americas.

Go figure. WHO is not going to utter a word about the high murder rate of
American (north, central and south) youth, but has to put in its platitudes
about "dirty fuels". Once hysteria sets in...

This is environmental imperialism plain and simple. WHO has been hijacked
by ideologues of "clean fuels" in the name of preventable premature deaths.
How ludicrous. They don't have a leg to stand on.

I think Dr Chan is leaving her successor a mind-boggling agenda creep.

What next - "clean cookstoves" to be added to the LIFE-SAVING
COMMODITIESFOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN
<https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/Final%20UN%20Commission%20Report_14sept2012.pdf>

Nikhil

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikhil Desai
(India +91) 909 995 2080 <+91%2090999%2052080>
*Skype: nikhildesai888*

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

> Dear Philip
>
> Is there any evidence for other fuels, and stoves of the base superior
> kind?
>
> I fear that ethanol cooking is a similar risk because there are so many
> crummy ethanol combustors, particular ethanol gel stoves. ‎Nothing is
> 'automatically clean'.
>
> Chemical pneumonia from evaporated paraffin (stoves that overheat the fuel
> in the tank) is well known and if the current standard SANS1906 is adhered
> to, controllable.
>
> For those not familiar with the risk, poor combustion of paraffin can
> directly cause ill health but the greater risk is overheating the fuel and
> evaporating it directly into the room.
>
> Where people use a paraffin wick stove for space heating, the difference
> between a good and bad stove is very clear. A well designed stove emits
> very little other than CO2 and water vapour.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
> “the leading cause of death for younger adolescent girls aged 10–14 years
> is lower respiratory infections, such as pneumonia – often a result of
> household air pollution *from cooking with solid fuels*.” [Emphasis added]
>
>
>
> We have some fairly solid evidence that respiratory infections were
> endemic in households cooking and heating on kerosene-fuelled wick stoves;
> and of minimal similar health effects when clean stoves were fuelled with
> solid fuel (wood).
>
>
>
> I think it is time for the GACC to recognize that it is the fuel/stove
> combination that leads to indoor air pollution, not just the fuel.
>
>
>
> Prof Philip Lloyd
>
> Energy Institute, CPUT
>
> SARETEC, Sachs Circle
>
> Bellville
>
> Tel 021 959 4323
>
> Cell 083 441 5247
>
> PA Nadia 021 959 4330
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170601/4d6f1313/attachment.html>