[Stoves] Health protective environment and solid fuel burning devices

Sat Jun 3 05:33:22 CDT 2017

Crispin:

1. Heating stoves come in wide ranges appropriate to the local weather
conditions and housing structures. Your results are context-dependent.

2. At the same time, only context-dependent evidence of change in disease
incidence -- don't call it general "health benefit", which is a meaningless
term -- matters. "Health protective" is a vague, meaningless term. I have
said here repeatedly that I disagree with Kirk Smith's claims about "truly
health protective" -- I disagree with the term and I also disagree with the
baseless association of "health protective" with hourly emission rates.

I wonder why it has escaped notice that much of the empirical work on
"cookstoves and health" has been done in areas where long-term,
high-temperature heating is not required but short-term, low-temperature
heating is required -- Kirk Smith's project in Guatemala highlands, Dan
Kammen and others' work in Kenyan highlands, and the other reports we see
from Nepal (some Johns Hopkins babble a couple of  years ago) or Malawi (we
discussed this here a few months ago).

Is it purely coincidental that health researchers go find the demonic smoke
in relatively cold areas, where traditional housing may have less
ventilation, at least part of the year, and people may have a higher
prevalence of respiratory difficulties (altitude, climbing up steep) and
lower prevalence of air pollution other than household smoke, as also lower
prevalence of some infectious diseases?

It is simply silly - if not deceitful - to ignore geography.

As far as I am concerned, it is up to Kirk Smith and IHME to prove that
solid fuel emission rates, irrespective of the variations in fuel, stoves,
and cooking practices, have a quantifiable link to future lifetime
disability, disease, and death (i.e., DALYs). If nothing else, there is no
way to track individual exposures to all PM2.5 - from foods,

Such computation of "health damage" cannot be done without regard to the
demographic, geographic, nutritional characteristics of a cohort - leave
aside individuals, just statistically. Kirk Smith said so in 1999, then got
drawn in the "global burden" dogma of "equitoxicity of PM2.5" and
"integrated exposure response", "no or very low threshold".

Just because WHO has bought into this babble of killing people by
assumptions does not mean stove designers have to get into a meaningless
competition to produce quantifiable evidence of "lower disease incidence"
from "low emission heating stoves".

WHO has raised a red herring. To help get research grants so youngsters can
be kept busy with mindless modeling.

We have far more serious work to do -"clean enough" stoves that users find
usable.

Yes, we cannot ignore " the improvement of indoor air quality (or not) and
ambient (meaning outdoor) air pollution. This is a very important argument
being made presently in the* funding pool* and we should have a clear
perspective on what works and doesn't, and what is *fundable* and what is
not."

We need to educate the funders that there is zero evidence that transition
to gas and electric cooking over the past 100 years has reduced DALYs and
that to compute aDALYs from "clean cooking solutions" is a meaningless
exercise with very weak theoretical foundations.

Poor people of the world being held hostage to opinions of BAMG modelers is
immoral. We have enough deceit with boiling water. Emphasize how your
results from heating stove interventions lowering pollutant concentrations
- with some consistent research on exposures (all pollutants in real life,
of which household fuel emissions may have been a large component) and
disease incidence - are the appropriate methods to study cost-effective
interventions, not this babbler about ISO TC 285 Tier 4 emission rate
targets.

Nikhil

Boil blood, not water.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikhil Desai
(India +91) 909 995 2080
*Skype: nikhildesai888*

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

> Dear Friends
>
> I will be posting, as I find it, information relating to the concept that
> there is a 'health protective' aspect to the lowering of stove emissions,
> the improvement of indoor air quality (or not) and ambient (meaning
> outdoor) air pollution. This is a very important argument being made
> presently in the funding pool and we should have a clear perspective on
> what works and doesn't, and what is fundable and what is not.
>
> Individual perceptions are necessarily partial so through consultation we
> should be able to draw a larger picture.
>
> Because everything cannot be put into a single message I hope readers will
> keep things in mind and add relevant perspectives. The first thing to
> establish is whether improvements in indoor air quality can be achieved
> with current technologies (this is first, a technology question). Here is
> an example of a 'desired result:
>
> [cid:image002.png at 01D2DAB4.468F98B0]
>
> In this region a lot of homes have inexpensive LPB (low pressure boilers,
> hydronic heaters, to Americans) and this is a set of measurements made by
> Fresh Air in comparable homes. The metric is intended to show IAQ (indoor
> air quality). In the control homes, the PM2.5 level was 165, 45 and 62 (24
> hr average, if I read correctly).
>
> In the homes with a higher performance and better constructed LPB (about
> the same price as the usual ones) there is a significant difference,
> 'significant' meaning a difference larger than the limit of determinability
> (LOD) by a factor of 3 (which is a sort of standard, accepted way of saying
> the difference is real which high confidence).
>
> In order to have some way of saying, "This product delivers significant
> health benefits" we have to be able to prove that either the overall result
> (24 average PM2.5) is 'acceptable' or we have to be able to prove that the
> contribution to the total has been reduced a great deal. What I mean by
> that is if the above values of 25 for each of the improved LPB homes is
> only made of cooking emissions (boiled fats etc), smoking indoors,
> shuffling of feet, clapping of hands, combing of hair, outdoor air ingress
> and so on, then the contribution by the LPB is zero. So changing fuels from
> chopped wood to wood pellets would make no difference unless it affected
> the contribution from the ambient air ingress.
>
> We should not casually mix these two reporting 'mechanisms'. There is the
> PM2.5 delivered into the home from the device, and there is the total. We
> cannot look at the total exposure (those are individual exposures, not
> indoor air averages - people wore personal measurement devices) and say
> that it was all from the appliance.  Those are two different things. If I
> put the LPB in a lab, pipe all the exhaust outside the lab, and measure the
> leakage from the appliance, I can quantify the total that comes out. If I
> place that in a home and measure the total in the room or the total to
> which someone is exposed, I do not get the same answer because now the
> leakage is mixed with all the other sourced materials. Are you with me?
> There is the contribution from the device and the total contribution.
>
> A lab test is a good at to isolate the stove's contributions. A field test
> is a good way to show the difference between a home with and without the
> device. Obviously the test conducted in the lab should have the same
> typical burning conditions and fuels as the field test so the difference
> has meaning. There is literally no use testing in the lab and getting an
> emissions number and then taking it to the field to check how that impacts
> the total exposure, say, but operating the stove differently with a
> different fuel. That is nearly useless as a method of producing the
> information needed to inform policy.
>
> To 'inform policy' one needs enough information to decide whether or not
> to support the dissemination of a particular device.
>
> Here is another way of making a comparison of 'performance':
>
> [cid:image008.jpg at 01D2DAB4.468F98B0]
> Baseline CO (48 hrs)
>
> [cid:image009.jpg at 01D2DAB4.468F98B0]
> Improved stove installed.
>
> This is a demonstration that the CO level can be reduced quite a lot just
> by changing the stove. There are very few other sources of CO other than
> the stove however one should not rule out that other cooking appliances may
> be in the home. My home has a dozen different 'appliances' from kettles to
> BBQ. A gas BBQ is a significant source of PM2.5 but not a big source of CO.
> In the second chart the average is a bit less than 10 ppm. Prior to
> changing the stove there were periods of several hours with a value above
> 50, sometimes 100 in other homes.
>
> Important to the discussion is that all these improvements were achieved
> without changing the fuel. It is all coal or dung or wood or (frequently in
> the baseline homes) combinations. Dung burns much better in a dreadful
> stove if it is mixed with crop waste like cotton stalks or wood.
>
> There is a toxin spreading through the stove community which is the claim
> that only gas and certain (but not all) liquid fuels can deliver the
> necessary 'health benefits'.  It is obviously false, based on the above,
> but it is easier to say it than to effectively counter a years-long
> campaign to demonise solid fuels in general using the invalid assumption
> that the above results are impossible to achieve.
>
> If we are going to talk about 'health benefits' we have to talk about the
> whole package and the discussion has to be grounded on first principles.
> Measuring PM2.5 for IAQ purposes has to be analysed correctly.
>
> End of rant
> 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/20170603/2627932b/attachment.html>