[Stoves] The goals of my TLUD work

Nikhil Desai pienergy2008 at gmail.com
Fri Sep 29 13:57:39 CDT 2017


Dear Ron:

Before going this into further details, let me ask you if you were able to
get that toxicology review paper by Tony Cox and if so, what was your
reaction to it?

Also, what did you learn from your visit to IHME in Seattle? You promised
us you would have something to share. (FYI I did write to them and was told
they did not have any HAP emissions and exposures database and referred me
to WHO Indoor people. I happen to know that WHO does not have any HAP
emissions database, just a stack of literature references that don't amount
to anything if one is looking for exposure numbers.

I urge Ajay, cc'd here, to submit HAPIT for publication in Lancet with a
plea to align health financing for SDG 3.9.1 according to HAPIT.

Credibility - mine or yours or Ajay's - depends on credulousness. I am
frankly happy that there are some people who don't find me credible.

Now, for the substantive issues and not who believes what why how when.

1. As for "scholars" being information-poor, I can cite tens of sloppy
econometrics papers I don't care to revisit, though one recently came to
mind - the possible confusion of "time-series" hypothesis -- the cumulative
burden of disease for the cohort that died in 2010 or 2013 or now 2016 over
life-time exposures and incidence of cerebrovascular disease, cardiac
disease or cancer (which don't grow overnight from PM2.5 exposure) -- with
"cross-section" data - applying IERs to data collected from a cross-section
over some 600 households over a few weeks. Ajay may explain this, as also
how the new methods of Global Burden of Disease computations in 2013
affected the original version of HAPIT in his PhD thesis.

The more blatant example of ignorance is for you to notice -- how
everything in the GBD computations is based on model estimates based on
assumptions based on model estimates, and with zero information about the
cooks' living conditions, home and neighborhood environments, non-cooking
kitchen operations, or for that matter your favorite WBT - the cook-free,
fuel-free, context-free lab test. I have written enough about this in the
past, and I have no problem with infantile "first order approximations".  I
have done many such over my lifetime, and usually triangulated my estimate
so I can defend them with people who know better.

Let me recount some I posted over a year ago - IHME super-human effort
consists of taking rather weak death data (check on Life Tables with WHO)
in the developing countries, then slapping a "single cause of death"
(neglecting that death certificates may say nothing or something else on
the coded data), thus concocting YLLs (years life lost) by disease. Then
slapping utterly spurious "disability" estimates by cause. (Again, ask WHO
to supply disability data by source and by cause by country, age, sex).
Then allocating DALYs to different "risk factors".

Then imputing causality to risk factors.

If this isn't ignorance, I am ignorant as to what ignorance means.

Call me when governments have made wiser decision about health financing in
terms of *"a widely accepted methodology". *I have some experience in
public budgeting, procurement methods, sector-wide approaches,
harmonization and alignment philosophies; I have yet to find a single case
of governments allocating health budgets by aDALYs. In which case, aDALYs
for smoking cessation, substance abuse prevention, pneumonia vaccine, or
dust control in cities, improving kerosene stoves and fuel quality, may win
hands down against some "truly health protective" biomass stove blessed by
Kirk Smith.

I am still waiting to see such a biomass stove and Prof. Smith's blessings.
Then a response to his second epiphany - that biomass stoves community does
not have the organizational capacity to put enough legs on the ground.

I don't know who is Quixotic. But then again, you can write me off as a
"First World scholar" who is ignorant. DALYs and aDALYs are dilly-dallying,
and I will post my reply to Gold Standard here when I am finished with it.
The real task is to see whether a "truly health protective" biomass stove
can be marketed at scale in the next five years. I happen to think a very
different paradigm can be launched if GACC can be freed of this millstone
that is the IWA and WHO Tiers for hourly average PM2.5 emission rates from
household solid fuels that are supposed to translate into annual average
exposures to all PM 2.5.

Coming to think of it, please read Ajay's PhD thesis. He is - as expected -
honest in terms of HAPIT assumptions and limitations. It was a heroic
effort and I agree that it is "the best that can be done" at a particular
stage, so worthy of a PhD of course.

I just happen to think it is not worthy of a policy decision.  Different
standards apply.

Nikhil



On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
wrote:

> List,  cc Nikhil and Crispin
>
>


> Inserts below
>
> On Sep 28, 2017, at 1:19 PM, Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Crispin:
>
> You are too generous in "The First World's public scholars are
> information, and especially science-information, poor. I do not blame them
> for it."
>
> I do. All the way up to universities and tenured, honored, celebrated
> faculties.
>
>
> *[RWL1:  I wonder if there is a typo here.  The definition of First World
> I find (first item ) in Googling is **“*the industrialized capitalist
> countries of western Europe, North America, Japan, Australia, and New
> Zealand.”
>
> * I doubt that many “public scholars” in the Second and Third Worlds feel
> that “**The First World’s public scholars are information, and especially
> science-information, poor.”    **I’ve interacted with a few dozen
> scholars in third world countries - who probably have higher IQ on average
> than in the First world - and I doubt strongly any would agree with
> Crispin’s observation on apparently the majority of First World Scholars
> being “information-poor.*
>
> * I also fail to understand Nikhil’s agreement.    I take both statements
> to be ad hominem and prejudicial - especially without giving examples.  I
> guess it is to denigrate those working on the ISO TC-285 process.   If not,
> what is the purpose of making this observation on someone being science
> information poor?*
>
>  http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/standards/iwa-tiers-of-
> performance.html
>
> Your best ideas never saw the light of day? Well, Kirk Smith's worst idea
> - aDALY using HAPIT - is in bright sunlight now. Will post my reply to Gold
> Standard soon.
>
> *[RWL2:  Nikhil - Re “worst idea” -  I asked long ago to cite anyone who
> agreed with you.  I think you have supplied one - that didn’t come up to
> snuff.  I suggest you are hurting your own credibility by being on this Don
> Quixote crusade against a widely accepted methodology that clearly is
> helping governments make wiser decision about how to allocate their limited
> resources.   *
> * It is absurd to think that Kirk Smith doesn’t know what he is talking
> about..  *
> * What is the “bright sunlight”?  *
> * Have you a second citation on someone who agrees with your disparagement
> of aDALYs?  *
>
> ISO TC-285 is all about "Techno-cure". But aDALY is the only “saleable
> health product" (according to Gold Standard) to come to market soon.
>
>
> *RWL3   Re sentence #1 - you must be unaware there is a fine (I’ve read
> the present draft) 4th part of ISO TC-285 - that is societal - not *
> *"Techno-cure”.  Been delayed but has a new chair who I think highly of -
> Ryan Thompson, formerly a grad student with Professor Bond, and an alum of
> Aprovecho.*
>
>
> * Re Sentence #2- Can you give a cite - it doesn’t sound logical that
> aDALYs can be sold.  In fact I can’t think of any statistical number I can
> sell to anyone.  What exactly is Gold Standard selling (a cite?).*
>
>
> I am willing to sell my DALY at three times the US GDP/capita to Prof.
> Smith.
>
>
> *[RWL4:  Nikhil - I suggest you lose credibility when you make nonsense
> statements like this.*
>
>
> Nikhil
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Nikhil Desai
> (US +1) 202 568 5831 <(202)%20568-5831>
> *Skype: nikhildesai888*
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Jock
>>
>>
>>
>> >I take your point re-cooking.  A great goal, but I am more focused on
>> getting these ideas into first world public schools.
>>
>>
>>
>> Listen carefully:
>>
>> The idea that is missing is that the cook matters.
>>
>>
>>
>> The prevailing idea in the First World's public schools is that poor
>> people should 'change' so they are not poor any more. Basically they blame
>> the poor for their poverty.
>>
>>
>>
>> The First World's public scholars are information, and especially
>> science-information, poor. I do not blame them for it.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you promote a technology that is not optimised for the cooks, there is
>> a danger of reinforcing in the students the idea that the cooks do not need
>> to be the dominant players in the scientific development of cooking
>> alternatives. I see that as a problem. Cecil and I call it 'techno-cure':
>> that a technology will solve the problem without reference to the people
>> involved. Biochar will not overcome scientific illiteracy, nor
>> anthropological illiteracy.
>>
>>
>>
>> A good question is whether or not a stove is a material or a social
>> construct. An inventor is not really free to do anything they want, unless
>> they don't care if the invention is used or not. That is my sobering
>> experience having run a technology development and marketing company for
>> more than 30 years. In my narrow view, my best ideas never saw the light of
>> day. And won't. The world isn't ready for them!!
>>
>>
>>
>> 😊
>>
>> Crispin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> These are ideas that need to be mainstream in the developed or first
>> world or what ever we call the richer nations these days.  Today there
>> resounding ignorance in US the education system when it comes to pyrolysis
>> and Biochar.  I once spoke with a young MIT grad with a masters from MIT in
>> Environmental Science.  She had never heard of pyrolysis, much less Biochar.
>>
>>
>>
>> I like your ignition idea.  I could model it after a wood stove draft
>> controller.  I have been thinking about this already, but you have spurred
>> me on.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> Jock
>>
>>
>>
>> Jock Gill
>>
>> P. O. Box 3
>>
>> Peacham, VT 05862
>>
>>
>>
>> Cell: (617) 449-8111
>>
>>
>>
>> Extract CO2 from the atmosphere!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 28, 2017, at 11:38 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
>> crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Dear Jock
>>
>> >
>>
>> > There are two user-centric goals you could add:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > That it cooks well, and long enough to be an acceptable alternative to
>> other cooking solutions.
>>
>> > That it is safe and convenient to use.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > I have a design suggestion to help with the ignition:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Suppose the central disk could be rotated 90 degrees? It could be made
>> vertical until the gas can support a flame. Then turn it horizontal so
>> there is no need to separately ignite the gas. You do have a flame already,
>> you just need to get it above the disk.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Regards
>>
>> > Crispin
>>
>> >
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>>
>> > From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
>> <stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>] On
>>
>> > Behalf Of Jock Gill
>>
>> > Sent: 28-Sep-17 11:31
>>
>> > To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>
>> > Subject: [Stoves] The goals of my TLUD work
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Here are the basic goals I have for my TLUD development work:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > 1. Achieve as long a period of blue flames as possible;
>>
>> >
>>
>> > 2. Look like a gas stove burner - aspirational;
>>
>> >
>>
>> > 3. Be very low cost so teachers can afford to make it;
>>
>> >
>>
>> > 4. Get pyrolysis and Biochar into schools;
>>
>> >
>>
>> > 5.  Use the heat from the burning gases as completely as possible;
>>
>> >
>>
>> > 6. As few and as simple parts as possible;
>>
>> >
>>
>> > 7. Easy and safe construction with simple tools;
>>
>> >
>>
>> > 8. No metal cutting or sharp edges;
>>
>> >
>>
>> > 9. Best run time with the maximum yield of high quality charcoal;
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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_list
>> s.bioenergylists.org
>>
>>
>>
>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
>>
>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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_list
>> s.bioenergylists.org
>>
>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170929/67fdda5a/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list