[Stoves] Off-topic Re: New PM2.5 health impact analysis
Nikhil Desai
ndesai at alum.mit.edu
Thu Sep 6 19:42:18 CDT 2018
Norbert:
Thank you so much. I hadn't seen this Roden and Bond, et al. (2006) paper
before.
It is quite a find -- emission factors by stages of cooking, and type of
food cooked, for example. Not to speak of real-time field measurements of
species with differential optical properties and size. And the conclusion
that emissions from solid fossil and biomass sources are indistinguishable.
1. Compare this richness of data to the gibberish that has gone behind the
cookstove IWA and the WHO Guidelines for Household Fuel Combustion - Solid
Fuels. And the ISO TC-285 PM2.5 Tier-setting by lab tests - free of fuel,
cook, and food - that is contemptible if not laughable.
2. Compare also the discussion of optical properties - essential for
atmospheric physics research - with the mindless assumption of PM2.5
equitoxicity when it comes to cooking up the "premature deaths" and DALY
numbers in the Kirk Smith/WHO universe. Why is it that the seriousness with
which atmospheric physics is done is not matched by public health
enthusiasts ready to regulate every cookstove in the world? Why is
chemistry - of fuels, of combustion, of living systems - blithely ignored,
when there is prima facie evidence that certain PM2.5 is clearly and
causally implicated in damage to human or animal living cells?
The more I discover scientific facts, the more immoral the WHO/ISO deceit
looks.
I don't mind a million dead here or there, nor would I wait for another 35
years tor a proof of causality. I just wish people understood that Kirk
Smith's claims were based on assumptions, and that from policy perspective,
it is as legitimate to support gas and electricity as cleaner-burning
biomass and coal stoves. It is air quality and dosage that is of concern,
no matter what the quantifiable consequences are. We haven't yet seen a
computation of aDALYs from the last century of gas, electricity, and
cleaner wood heating stoves and boilers in the OECD world.
The poor of the world are guinea pigs for EPA. What's new?
------------------------
Nikhil Desai
(US +1) 202 568 5831
*Skype: nikhildesai888*
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 5:39 PM, Norbert Senf <norbert.senf at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks, Nikhil. You are well versed in this, and have an interesting take
> on it. It is an education for me.
>
> I have recently re-read a paper by Tami Bond (attached), coincidentally
> with re-discovering Forrest Mims III, an amateur scientist who has done
> some interesting stuff with low cost and accurate atmospheric measurement.
> In fact, he annually calibrates some of the instruments at Mauna Loa
> observatory in Hawaii. Anyway, I have a sudden interest in atmospheric
> science.
>
> Tami Bond's paper gives a pretty convincing demo of being able to measure
> PM in the field and getting a correspondence between gravimetric methods
> (filters) and optical methods (3 bands). The optical method is able to
> distinguish between EC and OC, whereas the filter method gives only the
> sum. I had missed the significance of a table of results she presents,
> where EC + OC, obtained optically, = PM(gravimetric) within 10%.
>
> Forrest Mims discovered in the early 70's that LEDs can also be used as
> photoreceptors and give you the same results as high end optical narrow
> bandpass filters. LEDs these days are available basically for free, and in
> pairs form narrow band emitters/receptors and span the range from
> ultraviolet to far infrared. It ties in conveniently with work we will be
> doing this winter.
>
> Best .......... Norbert
>
>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Norbert Senf
> Masonry Stove Builders
> 25 Brouse Road, RR 5
> Shawville Québec J0X 2Y0
> 819.647.5092
> www.heatkit.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20180906/e728f15a/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list