[Stoves] Ultrafine particles (Re: Xavier

Thu May 24 11:14:09 CDT 2018

Dear Crispin,

OK, I just wanted to check in this discussion what was the current state of knowledge on the relationship between air pollution and health.

See if and how misguided is the WHO, and how misguided we are, as stovers.

It seems we still have good reasons to want to lower the emissions of our stoves, even if we don’t know exactly how many lives we save (or we extend, depending on how you put it).

I have now enough literature, I believe, to see more or less what’s the current state of knowledge. 

Regarding the last EPA news: I am all for transparency. Given his reputation, I am not so certain about (nor confident in) what Scott Pruitt has set out to do, but we’ll see soon enough I guess.

Best,

Xavier

De : Crispin Pemberton-Pigott [mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com] 
Envoyé : mardi 22 mai 2018 06:23
À : Xavier Brandao; ndesai at alum.mit.edu
Cc : 'Philip Lloyd'; 'Harold Annegarn'; 'Anil Rajvanshi'; 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'; 'Norbert Senf'
Objet : Re: Ultrafine particles (Re: Xavier

Dear Xavier

There is some movement related to making the sources used to create regulations more transparent. This reflects on the WHO's position regarding PM2.5 exposure thresholds which are rooted in EPA regulations including the concept of 'no tolerable limit' and 'equitoxicity' of all particles. 

Last month EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt requested public comment on a new rule, “ <https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/30/2018-09078/strengthening-transparency-in-regulatory-science> Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” (STRS), designed to solve that problem.

STRS provides that “When promulgating significant regulatory actions, the Agency shall ensure that dose response data and models underlying pivotal regulatory science are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation.” It codifies what was intended in the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015, and the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017 (HONEST Act), both of which passed the House but never came up for vote in the Senate.

This is directly relevant to your investigations. 

regards

Crispin 

Dear Nikhil,

Sorry if I was rude in my last email, I didn’t mean to be offensive.

I was just trying to say that the discussion on air pollution on this List is sometimes confusing from my point of view. I often do not manage to understand what you mean exactly in your posts.

« Considering that practically no data exist on low dosages of ultrafine particles, nor is any causal pathway from such dosage to disease incidence, toxicity claims of the type you have found are useless from policy perspective. »
I said « potentially », but indeed, there is not much data about the nanoparticles toxicity:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4689276/ <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fpmc%2Farticles%2FPMC4689276%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbd739e9707c54484ecc108d5bf5bde22%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636625323639372527&sdata=KxGYp%2Fh4H26DtvzOG9WDqf3E%2BvrdIJfQG%2F9SOC9GWjU%3D&reserved=0>  

And, posterious to the above, the INSERM has found metal oxide nanoparticles in lung tissue sections of welders lungs. The welders had lung alterations. The researchers tried to confirm if the metal oxide nanoparticles could have an effect on health. So they tested it on rats. They concluded there is a potential risk for respiratory health:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17435390.2016.1242797?src=recsys <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tandfonline.com%2Fdoi%2Fabs%2F10.1080%2F17435390.2016.1242797%3Fsrc%3Drecsys%26journalCode%3Dinan20&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbd739e9707c54484ecc108d5bf5bde22%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636625323639372527&sdata=TO0tsXky%2BxvlJh4FXnZoY3qdmKHPFL24I3N86ntsZ%2FU%3D&reserved=0> &journalCode=inan20 

So, indeed, there isn’t much evidence of nanoparticles toxicity, and more research is needed.

« Whether any premature death was from hunger or HAP exposure or contaminated alcohol, nobody would ever know. »

Leaving aside nanoparticles, we have no way, at all, not the slightest hint, that, maybe, cookstoves emissions are harmful to human health? 

Best,

Xavier

De : Nikhil Desai [mailto:pienergy2008 at gmail.com] 
Envoyé : lundi 21 mai 2018 04:22
À : Xavier Brandao
Cc : Philip Lloyd; Crispin Pemberton-Pigott; Harold Annegarn; Anil Rajvanshi; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves; Norbert Senf
Objet : Ultrafine particles (Re: Xavier

Xavier:

Rich theories make some people rich. 

As with stove design and promotion, context is everything. 

Considering that practically no data exist on low dosages of ultrafine particles, nor is any causal pathway from such dosage to disease incidence, toxicity claims of the type you have found are useless from policy perspective. 

Maniacal chatter is not science.

Preventing exposures to ultrafine particles may or may not prevent premature deaths. Even Kirk Smith and Ajay Pilarisetti accept as much, considering their methodologies for aDALY computations. 

Say, Ebola is spread by just one virus and preventing the emergence or the spread of the virus would prevent premature death. There is no similar potential with ultrafine particles generally. Too many sources, varying compositions, confounding factors.

Ultrafine particle emissions are a new fad in cookstove business. Fads kill people by omission. Whether any premature death was from hunger or HAP exposure or contaminated alcohol, nobody would ever know. 

I propose the ISO process be subjected to premature death. 

Nikhil

Skype: nikhildesai888

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20180524/3d9a3e56/attachment.html>