[Stoves] Better stoves and furnaces for solid fuels in Poland? (Guardian picture story)

[Nikhil Desai]

Poland's deadly addiction to coal – in pictures
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2018/dec/14/poland-deadly-coal-addiction-in-pictures>,
Guardian 14 December 2018. Same day, same place - Can Poland wean itself
off coal?
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/14/poland-wean-coal-climate>

Funny - since WHO says that for 2016,

1) age-standardized death rate per 100,000 attributable to HAP in Poland is
a glorious ZERO! (WHO deaths attributable to HAP at
http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.BODHOUSEHOLDAIRDTHS).

2)  age-standardized death rate per 100,000 attributable to AAP in Poland
is 38, about the same as in Hugary (39) little below that in Russia (46),
almost a half that in Mongolia (79) or Kyrgyzstan (74), a third that in
Nepal (112) or India (109). (WHO deaths attributable to AAP athttp://
apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.BODAMBIENTAIRDTHS)

I can't find the numbers for JOINT mortality on WHO website, but the World
Bank, citing WHO, says for Poland, that attributable death rate per 100,000
for Poland in 2016 was 37.9, which makes sense - less than the sum of the
two impacts. (
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.AIRP.P5?locations=PL)

Who is lying - these pictures or WHO?

Depends on gullibility.

WHO's notes on definitions, data and methods at
http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.wrapper.imr?x-id=3793. \Has the usual
drivel - " By polluting fuels is understood solid fuels such as wood, coal,
animal dung, charcoal, and crop wastes and also kerosene." Somehow diesel
and RFO are not mentioned; WHO does not know chemistry of fuels or
combustion. Doesn't need to, I guess.

But it also says,

"In the case of air pollution, however, there are some limitations to
estimate the joint effects: limited knowledge on the distribution of the
population exposed to both household and ambient air pollution,
correlation of exposures at individual level as household air pollution is
a contributor to ambient air pollution, and non-linear interactions (Lim et
al. 2012, Smith et al. 2014). In several regions, however, household air
pollution remains mainly a rural issue, while ambient air pollution is
predominantly an urban problem. Also, in some continents, many countries
are relatively unaffected by household air pollution, while ambient air
pollution is a major concern. *If assuming independence and little
correlation, a rough estimate of the total impact can be calculated, which
is less than the sum of the impact of the two risk factors*. The joint
effects of both ambient and household air pollution would result in the
impacts shown in the present table. Given the limitations, however, the
estimates presented should be interpreted with caution, and provide
indicative values only. " (emphasis added)


But the more fundamental problem is that there is no measurement of
exposures for either the household or the ambient air pollution, and except
for "instantaneous" diseases and deaths such as with extreme
cardiopulmonary conditions, there is no consistent dose-response study for
a long enough period for chronic diseases.

By exposures, WHO means only concentrations, not ingestions, which is
another lie - "the annual mean concentration of particulate matter to which
the population is exposed." But no matter; the "mean concentration of
particulate matter" and "population" are as fictional as "exposed".

In agreements lie lies.

WHO lies. It can always blame IHME for cooking up those lies and passing
them through "peer review" and publishing them in the Lancet. (Which is
another story to investigate; what does Richard Horton read and know, and
how?)

Nikhil
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikhil Desai
(US +1) 202 568 5831
*Skype: nikhildesai888*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20181217/3065db8e/attachment.html>