<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Rebecca,<br>
<br>
Thanks for writing. Your reference to very open outdoor kitchens
is very important. I am not able to respond to your questions.
I hope that others can do so.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a> Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
On 6/5/2013 11:43 AM, Rebecca A. Vermeer wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:620D20B2D91D4A42B2365718C71E3AB7@RebeccaHP"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="content-type">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR:
#000000">
<div>Hello Paul,</div>
<div>THANK YOU VERY MUCH for raising this very important topic
as it concerns me deeply. I come from a family of 6 in the
Philippines – 2 died of cancer (pancreas -mother &
breast- sister) and 1 is battling with it (prostate
–brother); in all cases, the cancer had spread to other
parts of the body. The household I was raised in had a well
ventilated kitchen but black soot was evident on the inside
roof from the use of traditional wood burning cookstoves
(kalan). I am acutely aware of the harmful effects on
health and the carcinogenic properties of smoke and this
concern has been my motivating force in the development of
the Eco-Kalan. The HAP studies I have seen so far are of
confined indoor areas. My questions are:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>1) Do you know of any HAP studies of OUTDOOR KITCHENS
such as shown in my photos above?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>2) Is there a way that particulate and other emissions
can be measured accurately for outdoor or well ventilated
kitchens? –these outdoor kitchens are common in the
Philippines.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>3) Are you aware of the harmful effects of extreme
radiant heat generated by open-fire cooking (and other
traditional cookstoves) but which the energy efficient
rocket stoves have addressed successfully?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>4) Have you considered the fact that there are rocket
type stoves that use 80% + less fuel and I therefore deduce,
80%+ less particulate and other emissions than open-fire and
other traditional cookstoves?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>5) Don’t you think outdoor kitchens can further reduce
any remaining harmful effects of using fuel efficient and
COOL COOKING rocket stoves? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>6) If stove testing were to factor in 4) and 5), where
do you think these Tier 1 or Tier 2 stoves would sit? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I look forward to meeting you again, Paul.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Warm regards,</div>
<div>Rebecca Vermeer</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri';
FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal;
TEXT-DECORATION: none; DISPLAY: inline">
<div style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<div> </div>
<div style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<div style="font-color: black"><b>From:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" title="psanders@ilstu.edu"
href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">Paul Anderson</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, June 05, 2013 5:47 AM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="krksmith@berkeley.edu"
href="mailto:krksmith@berkeley.edu">Kirk Smith</a> ;
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org"
href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">Discussion
of biomass cooking stoves</a> ; <a
moz-do-not-send="true" title="wastemin1@verizon.net"
href="mailto:wastemin1@verizon.net">Hugh McLaughlin</a>
; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="j.smith@harborhomes.org"
href="mailto:j.smith@harborhomes.org">Jay Smith</a>
; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="psanders@ilstu.edu"
href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">Doc Anderson</a> </div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> [Stoves] Fwd: Re: Between PM 2.5
and PM 10</div>
</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri';
FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal;
TEXT-DECORATION: none; DISPLAY: inline">Again, thanks to
Kirk for some VERY interesting inputs of expert-comments and
data that I and many other Stovers do not sufficiently
appreciate. His attachment gives valuable ammunition for
the fight against Household Air Pollution (HAP)<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
A quote from the linked report by CNN:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">In the poorer regions, such as
South Asia and most of Sub-Saharan Africa, where cooking
with solid fuels is common, household air pollution is
the most important single risk factor for women and
girls.</blockquote>
<br>
Kirk wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">Yes, at least a reliable 95%
reduction in emissions over open fires, which actually
are not well characterized. </blockquote>
PSA: And if open fires are not well characterized
(partly because there are so many different configurations
and fuels), our baseline data is also rather "loose".
And our own understanding (by experienced Stovers who
design and make stoves) is also with problems because so
much of stove production is really of stoves that
contribute little to the HEALTH solutions (but do reduce
forest destruction). Too many are merely Tier 1 or Tier
2 for PM and CO emissions. But that is "techy-talk."<br>
<br>
I am trying to get to a better "visualization" (or written
expression) of HAP amounts that are sufficiently low to
make a major difference. <br>
<br>
Kirk concluded with "Stay tuned." so I await his reply to
my comment that I repeat here:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Another way of saying the same
thing: When the current technology /equipment for
testing stove emissions is in use (such as for 75
minutes, which is 30 minutes to boil plus 45 minutes for
simmer), what would be the equivalent of passive smoke
from how many cigarettes that would equal the Tier 0, 1,
2, 3, and Tier 4 levels? Think of this as one person
smoking (exhaling smoke) under the hood of the
equipment. [Added: or into a small kitchen-size
area.]<br>
<br>
I think that these comparisons can be useful, but only
when we have some numbers will we be able to see if the
info is useful. </blockquote>
<br>
I hope that someone is forwarding these messages to people
(medical types, etc.) who are not subscribed to the Stoves
Listserv. I have been assured in the past that
leadership in the GACC does monitor the Stoves List
messages. But I am not sure that other groups such as
ACESS and regional groups do monitor and do forward useful
messages to their contacts.<br>
<br>
PLUG: This summer at Stove Camp at Aprovecho (22 - 26
July) we will be measuring emissions for different
comparisons about emissions (same equipment, but not just
WBT data). As one of the main presenters and organizers
of the activities, I hope that many of you will consider
attending. <br>
<br>
Paul (and be sure to read the attached document)<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
Email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a> Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
<br>
<br>
-------- Original Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" style="COLOR:
#000000" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th valign="baseline" align="right" nowrap="nowrap">Subject:
</th>
<td>Re: Between PM 2.5 and PM 10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="baseline" align="right" nowrap="nowrap">Date:
</th>
<td>Tue, 04 Jun 2013 22:08:07 -0700</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="baseline" align="right" nowrap="nowrap">From:
</th>
<td>Kirk R. Smith <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:krksmith@berkeley.edu">mailto:krksmith@berkeley.edu</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="baseline" align="right" nowrap="nowrap">To:
</th>
<td>Paul Anderson <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<pre>At 09:31 PM 6/4/2013, you wrote:
>Dear Kirk,
>
>Your reply (below) is quite useful, and I hope the Stovers on the
>Listserv will read it. And it leads to further questions:
>
>1. Did I understand correctly? You say that HALF of a single
>cigarette per day (directly inhaled) is equal to the PM 2.5 inhaled
>(as "secondary" smoke in the kitchen) by a cook or child who is in a
>typically poorly enclosed "smoky kitchen" with a 3-stone fire . WOW!!
Cannot say exactly for the child, but yes for an adult. Worse thing
you can do is stick burning stuff in your mouth. Next worse is have
a bunch of it burning in your house (HAP: household air
pollution). Next is having someone else sticking in their mouth near
you. And not even so great having it burning somewhere in your
city. See the post on the CNN website:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/18/tackling-the-worlds-forgotten-killer/">http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/18/tackling-the-worlds-forgotten-killer/</a>
>2. And that a
>>typical open wood cookfire produces about 400 cigarettes an hour
>>worth of PM2.5
>(that I assume can also be inside a poorly enclosed cooking
>space). If a person takes 12 minutes to smoke one cigarette, that
>is 5 per hour for one person. So the 3-stone fire creates a smoky
>environment that is the equivalent of 80 persons smoking 5
>cigarettes per hour in an enclosed space. That helps explain the
>smoke billowing out under the eaves and through the door and cracks
>of many "kitchens" with 3-stone fires.
>(Did I express that correctly?)
yes
>I was in one of these kitchens 10 days ago in Uganda, and I sat low
>to the floor because higher up was so horrible. But being in such a
>setting even for many hours would only equal the equivalent of half
>of one cigarette that is inhaled per day. BUT THAT CONSTITUTES THE
>FOURTH WORSE HEALTH HAZARD FOR PEOPLE IN THE LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES.
Yes, the exposure response relationship is highly non-linear. For
example, the heart disease risk for a secondhand tobacco smoker is
maybe 1.8 while the risk for active smoking is perhaps 2.5. And yet
the active smoker experiences hundreds of times more dose (say 60
versus 20,000 ug/m3 equivalent). HAP is in between (at around
300). Thus, burden from smoking, while bigger, is not orders of
magnitude so - 6 million premature deaths annually compared to 3-4
for HAP. See the attached commentary.
>3. And from the above, can we say the following:
>Improved biomass-burning cookstoves need to be soooo clean burning
>that the air in the kitchen should cleaner than that of a kitchen in
>which only 10? or 5? (or 2? or how many?) cigarettes are smoked per hour.
>Of course the number will vary depending on the openness or
>enclosed-ness of the kitchen.
Yes, at least a reliable 95% reduction in emissions over open fires,
which actually are not well characterized. To be reliably 95%, it
probably means 99% reduction in controlled testing. A cigarette
emits 12 mg, roughly. Probably need to limit to no more than a few
per day (equivalent) to meet the WHO IT-1 guideline of 35 ug/m3 mean,
depending on household size and ventilation rate. We are developing
these relationships more formally in the WHO Indoor AIr Quality
Guidelines Expert Group -- also using a monte carlo approach to
express results as probabilities. In its second draft and under
review at present. Plan is that the WHO guidelines will be
incorporated into the final ISO standards down the road.
Stay tuned.
>Another way of saying the same thing: When the current technology
>/equipment for testing stove emissions is in use (such as for 75
>minutes, which is 30 minutes to boil plus 45 minutes for simmer),
>what would be the equivalent of passive smoke from how many
>cigarettes that would equal the Tier 0, 1, 2, 3, and Tier 4
>levels? Think of this a one person smoking (exhaling smoke) under
>the hood of the equipment.
>
>I think that these comparisons can be useful, but only when we have
>some numbers will we be able to see if the info is useful.
>
>Paul
>
>Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
>Email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a> Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
>Website: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com">www.drtlud.com</a>
>
>On 6/4/2013 5:40 PM, Kirk R. Smith wrote:
>>
>>
>>At 02:30 PM 6/4/2013, you wrote:
>>
>>>Thank you to Kirk Smith for his reply (below for all Stove
>>>Listmembers to read).
>>>
>>>I think someone told me that <2.5 PM cannot be seen. But if
>>>there is a lot of it, is it visibly detectable (like the haze of a
>>>smoky room, or is that just the larger particles that we are seeing?)
>>
>>yes, but the coefficient of haze measured in outdoor settings is
>>highly correlated with PM2.5, but only if adjusted for humidity.
>>
>>
>>>Related question: For a small child besides it mother in a smoky
>>>cooking shack, cooking "typically" 2 - 3 times per day, what is
>>>the "equivalent" as expressed in cigarettes smoked per
>>>day? And can that be expressed as equivalent of SECONDARY
>>>smoke from being in a room with smokers in it (but that becomes
>>>confused because of room size and number of smokers in it)?
>>
>>Not an answerable question since small children do not smoke (who
>>knows how much they would breath in if they did). For an adult,
>>the levels are a about half a cigarette or so equivalent in daily
>>dose (PM2.5 inhaled), depending of course on how polluted the house is.
>>In terms of secondhand tobacco smoke, a typical open wood cookfire
>>produces about 400 cigarettes an hour worth of PM2.5. More in
>>terms of some other pollutants, for example BAP.
>>
>>All this is laid out in some detail in my book "Biofuels, Air
>>Pollution, and Health" (Plenum, 1987)/k
>>
>>
>>>I am trying to visualize this as a mother/cook smoking cigarettes,
>>>and as a baby or a 2-year old child smoking cigarettes (an
>>>unnatural but powerful visual image).
>>>
>>>Paul
>>>
>>>Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
>>>Email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a> Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
>>>Website: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com">www.drtlud.com</a>
>>>
>>>On 6/4/2013 9:15 AM, Kirk R. Smith wrote:
>>>>Quick responses below
>>>>
>>>>At 06:27 AM 6/4/2013, Paul Anderson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stovers,
>>>>>
>>>>>Please tell me or direct me to an explanation of the impact of
>>>>>the PM that is BETWEEN PM 2.5 and PM 10.
>>>>>
>>>>>I believe that the experts say that under 2.5 is the bad stuff
>>>>>for respiratory health, and that over 10 is not sufficiently
>>>>>important even to be measured.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, material over PM10 generally is caught in the upper
>>>>respiratory system (nose, etc) and does not penetrate the body
>>>>sufficiently to be a health hazard. May be a nuisance, of
>>>>course. Major reviews of health impacts, however, show that the
>>>>fine fraction (less than 2.5) is the best single indicator for
>>>>health, but that the coarse fraction (between 2.5-10) also shows
>>>>effects. Thus, no agency has abandoned PM10 regs, but most are
>>>>moving to add PM2.5 regs as well.
>>>>Issue for measurements right at the combustion source is that
>>>>nearly all is PM2.5.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Is PM size 10 to 25 (twenty five) ( 50 or 100) "visible"?
>>>>>Detectable to the nose or eyes?
>>>>
>>>>yes, which is a reason that perception is not a great indicator of hazard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>What causes cataracts?
>>>>
>>>>not known for sure, but probably from internal, not external
>>>>exposure to combustion-related pollutants in any case. Chemical
>>>>carried to the eye through the blood. Eye is well protected
>>>>externally. Need to think of PM2.5 as the best indicator of a
>>>>mixture, not that itself causes all effects. Like "tar" for
>>>>cigarettes, which is essentially PM2.5
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>How important is the PM larger than 2.5?
>>>>
>>>>See above.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Please forward this inquiry to the stove-medical people who are
>>>>>not readers of this Listserv.
>>>>>
>>>>>Paul
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
>>>>>Email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a> Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
>>>>>Website: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com">www.drtlud.com</a>
>
</pre>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<p>
</p>
<hr>
_______________________________________________<br>
Stoves mailing list<br>
<br>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see
our web site:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>