<html>
<body>
A few additional comments about the model<br><br>
--There were some minor formatting glitches in the sample report for
Rwanda used in the webinar. Here is a corrected version. No
changes in the results. Sorry.<br><br>
- HAPIT is designed for assessments within specific countries and uses
national background characteristics for its calculations. Using Rwanda to
represent the world's solid fuel users would assume the same background
disease characteristics globally. We know there is significant
heterogeneity among countries, however.<br><br>
- Because of the nonlinear integrated exposure response (IERs) curves for
health effects from air pollution, we now know that interventions need to
lower HAP exposures substantially to yield large health benefits. A good
explanation of the IERs can be found in Smith, K. R.; Bruce, N. et al.
Millions Dead: How Do We Know and What Does It Mean? Methods Used in the
Comparative Risk Assessment of Household Air Pollution. Annual Review of
Public Health 2014, 35, 185–206. (See
<a href="http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/" eudora="autourl">
http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/</a>)<br><br>
- If the scenario you describe were implemented (100 million stoves),
there would most likely be larger health benefits than estimated by HAPIT
due to the impacts on ambient pollution of reducing household air
pollution and the effects of a large global program on adoption rates.
HAPIT is catered toward a single intervention at a local scale and does
not account for added benefits due to 'complete' change-outs.<br><br>
--Even though a typical rocket stove (as incorporated as the default
calculation in HAPIT) may not touch most of the health effects in Rwanda,
it will still reduce a sufficient number to be considered cost-effective
based on criteria suggested by the WHO. Introduction of good rocket
stoves, therefore, might be considered a reasonable first step on the way
to bringing much cleaner cooking to the area if truly clean alternatives
were not currently feasible. And of course is likely to save fuel
and time, which are also important benefits of good stoves aside from
health benefits. These benefits are not included in
HAPIT.<br><br>
Kirk Smith and Ajay Pillarisetti, UC Berkeley<br><br>
At 08:14 AM 9/4/2014, Sumi Mehta wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Thanks, Marc-Antoine, for
your keen interest in ensuring the health benefits of adopting clean
cooking technologies. As you can imagine, this is of very high
priority here at the Alliance. Our aim is to ensure the promotion
of cleaner cooking technologies, i.e. the cleanest possible technologies
accessible and available for different customer segments. In
addition, since the long term goal is universal adoption of truly ‘clean’
cooking, we are committed and working with partners to ensure that the
cleanest possible technologies are developed for all fuels currently in
use. <br>
We are also committed to ensuring that people can shift to cleaner and
cleaner technologies and fuels, by working with a wide range of our
partners to facilitate increased access and affordability. <br>
<br>
As you are aware, there is even a wide variability of performance
associated with the range of rocket stoves available. Indeed, HAPIT
offers different performance scenarios to reflect the range of
options in the market (as well as aspirational performance), and the
Alliance’s work will strive to cover the range of options
available. In any case, I will leave it to Kirk and his team to
reply about the HAPIT-specific questions in more detail....
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sumi<br>
<br>
Sumi Mehta, MPH, PhD<br>
Director of Research and Evaluation<br>
1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300<br>
Washington DC 20006<br>
tel: +1 202-787-5642 <br>
<a href="mailto:smehta@cleancookstoves.org">smehta@cleancookstoves.org</a>
<br>
<a href="http://www.cleancookstoves.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.cleancookstoves.org</a><br>
<br>
<dl>
<dd>From: Marc-Antoine Pare
<<a href="mailto:marcpare0@gmail.com">marcpare0@gmail.com</a>>
<dd>Date: September 3, 2014, 2:57:50 AM EDT
<dd>To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
<<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">
stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>>
<dd>Subject: [Stoves] health impact?
<dd>Reply-To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
<<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">
stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>>
<dd>Hi everyone,
<dd>
<dd>A big confession: having tinkered with stoves for years, I never
actually looked into the numbers of stove health impacts. I'm trying to
fix that, and I hope you can help!
<dd>
<dd>I mean, yes, I can wave my hands about PM and CO and four million
deaths!
<dd>
<dd>But how many deaths (or DALYs) do you avert per stove? Or per 10,000
stoves? Or per 100,000,000?
<dd>
<dd>I thought it would be an easy question to answer, but it's turning
out to be quite tricky to even ballpark.
<dd>
<dd>Here is one interesting source. This is from the very recent webinar
on Kirk Smith's HAPIT tool.
<dd>
<dd>
<a href="http://www.cleancookstoves.org/resources_files/hapit-results-rwanda.pdf">
http://www.cleancookstoves.org/resources_files/hapit-results-rwanda.pdf</a>
<dd>
<dd>This report considers 25,000 households.
<dd>If you provide all of those households a rocket stove, you save only
0.75 lives per year.
<dd>
<dd>If you take the GACC's target 100,000,000 households, that would mean
<dd>
<dd>0.75/25000*100000000 = 3,000 lives saved worldwide annually.
<dd>
<dd>What am I missing there? This seems so small.
<dd>
<dd>Some speculation:
<dd>
<dd>Kirk Smith mentions in the HAPIT webinar that even a small amount of
PM2.5 is still harmful. Perhaps biomass stoves just don't get the number
low enough?
<dd>
<dd>I think this would fit with the chart in the linked PDF that shows
that stoves only reduce deaths by <5% for indoor air pollution. A few
times in the HAPIT webinar, they mention "a lot of lives are still
left on the table."
<dd>
<dd>This also seems to agree with something I found in Christian
L'Orange's dissertation:
<dd>
<a href="http://digitool.library.colostate.edu/exlibris/dtl/d3_1/apache_media/L2V4bGlicmlzL2R0bC9kM18xL2FwYWNoZV9tZWRpYS8yNDYyOTQ=.pdf">
http://digitool.library.colostate.edu///exlibris/dtl/d3_1/apache_media/L2V4bGlicmlzL2R0bC9kM18xL2FwYWNoZV9tZWRpYS8yNDYyOTQ=.pdf</a>
<dd>
<dd>Figure 33 shows that Envirofit G3300 stoves only have a 3% (or so)
impact on "Adjusted Relative Risk" (of death)
<dd>
<dd>
<dd>Please do not worry about hurting my feelings in correcting these
numbers. Am I thinking about this the wrong way around? Have I punched
the numbers in incorrectly?
<dd>
<dd>Also, I would be very interested to read more good papers on health
impacts for stoves. It is all really quite interesting work. I feel bad
that I didn't look at it sooner.
<dd>
<dd>Best,
<dd>Marc Paré
<dd>_______________________________________________
<dd>Stoves mailing list
<dd>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
<dd><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">
stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
<dd>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
<dd>
<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org">
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
<dd>for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our
web site:
<dd><a href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>