<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0mm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0mm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0mm;
margin-right:0mm;
margin-bottom:0mm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:115875128;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1479270240 269025295 269025305 269025307 269025295 269025305 269025307 269025295 269025305 269025307;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0mm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0mm;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-CA link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Dear Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Thanks for noticing this silliness that seems to expand each year.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>What has happened is that some people have got their world view locked in 2007 or something and are continuing to ‘bring technical solutions’ that are outdated. Even if the recommendations were ever true, which I doubt, they are not practical.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Whether we should be proposing practical solutions or pie-in-the-sky solutions is an urgent question. First of all, there is not enough LPG to satisfy peoples domestic energy requirements. End of that short story. There is a huge shortage of electrical power and even if it were available, distributing it is an enormous challenge. At the power point (plugs) it would cost so much we would bankrupt continents subsidising it as a replacement for biofuels. It is not going to happen, and should not.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Advances in stove combustion is not generally recognised and the tests we have for evaluating performance are <i>so bad </i>that people don’t really know what the performance of stoves products are to begin with, let alone what to support or how and in what measure and on what basis. There is a lot of yelling, but not much clarity about how clean things are, how to get things clean, and what the consequences will be. The advances in the past 3 years in clean combustion are serious underestimated.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Although the lower comment in caps reflects general ignorance of how well stoves can burn fuels, the commenter is not alone ‘out there’. The sentiment is also promoted by the gas industry and other vested interests. Don’t think this is a cosy planet populated only by self-sacrificing volunteers improving the common weal. People want money and power.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Just to highlight what is possible compared with what is believed, Dr Kirk Smith wrote a report this year for the Environment Ministry in Mongolia analysing the city’s air pollution numbers and suggested several scenarios that are somewhat like the IPCC’s ‘global warming’ scenarios where there are multiple paths we can create if we take action 1, action 2 or action 3. He suggested LPG will reduce air pollution. Huh.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>He projected a PM2.5 level in Ulaanbaatar that showed a slow rise with population if the government’s current plan to replace ger stoves, then small home boilers, continued using the ‘available technologies’ (which are evaluated locally, BTW). A downward trending scenario 2 resulting in a 40% or so improvement (can’t remember the exact number) was only possible of there was a breakthrough technology that was ‘50% cleaner’ that those supposed in scenario 1, and this would have to be rolled out in similar fashion.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>The conclusion was that even in scenario 2 there was going to be a PM level far above the WHO limit <i>before</i> they reduce it further. Where is it going? It is going crazy of course. There was an observation that the EPA was going to make it pretty much impossible to farm because farms produce airborne dust. They were going to set a limit so low it would have prevented ploughing. Maybe they can ban wind. Dunno, but PM is in the crosshairs for more regulation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>So there are some problems with this sort of analysis about Ulaanbaatar, which I believe is no unusual in how it was done, how the numbers were crunched or how expectations underwrote the conclusions.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>1.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>The current UB-CAP stove replacement programme which has reached about 180,000 ger-stove-using homes continues now for the third year. The reduction in PM2.5 in ambient UB City air has been some 45% in two years, exceeding the scenario 2 case for improving the air, yet it required no additional ‘breakthrough’ technology. That is still to come. They haven’t even moved to pelleted fuel or anything helpful like that.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>2.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>If the entire city stopped heating their homes and apartments tomorrow it would never drop to the PM limit set by the WHO because the PM2.5 in the air is no longer (right now) even 50% caused by home energy heating. It is caused by all sorts of things but particularly vehicles and dust blown off the ground and from the Gobi Desert (like Beijing).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>3.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>The call in the report to convert all homes to a set of alternative energy sources such as LPG (imported), electricity (no power stations available), and DME (dimethyl ether, largely to be imported and very expensive) is simply never going to happen. The WB and others looked at these years ago when there was no really clean stove option. Now there is and they are rolling it out, there is no need to waste millions. Or billions. We should process the available fuels into forms that make it easy and cheap to burn them with virtually no measurable anything.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>So you gotta wonder who is behind these calls for various massively subsidised energy interventions. Have you noticed that fuels are always criticised on the basis of how some crummy, low tech device burns them? Dung is always reported to have a really low combustion efficiency, as if cows make it that way. Kerosene is a good example: “stinking and smoky fuel”. Yeah? See much stinky smoke training behind turbofan engine powered aircraft? They run on kerosene.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Prof Annegarn asks a very relevant question: “What is smoke made of?”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>If you burn the smoke there isn’t any. Why not do that instead of manufacturing bogeymen to hurl billions of $ at? Is the money supply infinite?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I just read a national standard that talked about only allowing the burning of ‘treated coal’ meaning semi-coked of course. The purpose of semi-coking is to remove ‘volatiles’ which people erroneously believe contain ‘smoke’ as if smoke was one of the Elements. OMG. They want to remove the hydrocarbon fuel to leave the carbon fuel – much harder to light, larger fuel pile required at all times, and earlier refuelling required or it goes out. For this they would triple the cost of fuel and subsidise it to the poor instead of creating stoves that burn the fuel properly. I guess we can always count on the vote of the ‘subsidee’ for expensive ‘treatment’.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Paul, you and I know that there is very little formal support for stove product development. That which is happening is often misdirected by private companies creating products optimised to get good numbers ‘on standard tests’ or National Standards which are themselves not measuring or calculating or reporting properly. It is a mess. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>It is widely acknowledged (I believe) that the EPA stove test for space heating, wood burning stoves does not characterise performance in homes, it characterises performance when tested the way they test it. Actual performance is really different. We all know that.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I am picking on them because they are in a position to do something about it and haven’t. India is in a position to change their national test method but getting agreement to make a break with the past is always difficult. Will they do it? In both cases the major issue has to do with the fuel used (and its moisture content) and how it is run (the burn cycle). Using an atypical fuel or with atypical moisture in an atypical manner will invariably give atypical emissions. Products are allowed/disallowed based on those numbers, only.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>So, the manufacturers make stoves that will burn the atypical fuel in the atypical manner to get a stamp, then sell them to people who they know full well will never get that performance because they are using normal fuels and normal burn cycles. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Let’s see what happens on the 20-21<sup>st</sup> Nov in NYC, and whether or not it provokes the growing anti-solid-fuel-stove forces to try to bring down the house. They are out there – make no mistake, and they smell money. Big money.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0mm 0mm 0mm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'> Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul Anderson<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 17, 2014 1:05 PM<br><b>To:</b> Discussion of biomass cooking stoves; Hugh McLaughlin; Kirk Smith<br><b>Subject:</b> [Stoves] The future of biomass stoves. was...Fwd: [stove and LF Annals] Historical watershed<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Stovers,<br><br>The message below from Dr. Kirk Smith's mailing list has not been distributed to the Stoves Listserv. It is too important to overlook, and merits our discussions.<br><br>He wrote: <o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>newer evidence since 2005 on the health effects of combustion air pollution, as for example found in the latest Global Burden of Disease estimates, would indicate that when the next revision of the AQGs is done (as now planned), the limits will become even lower. The stove community thus should probably therefore consider <b><u>what this document recommends as likely to tighten further [emissons standards] over time.</u></b> (emphasis added)<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><br>In an earlier (Nov 6) message to the Stoves Listserv, this <u>comment by a reviewer</u> stated about Dr. Smith's work: <o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>IT MARKS A MAJOR SHIFT IN THINKING FROM IMPROVING COOK STOVES TO RECOGNIZING THAT TO GAIN THE POSITIVE HEALTH IMPACT STOVES HAVE TO BE CLEAN (GAS-LIKE), AND THAT PROBABLY THE ONLY WAY TO ACHIEVE THIS ON A MASS SCALE IS THROUGH LP GAS AND ELECTRICITY.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><br>Holy Smokes!! Nobody even made a comment about this!! (I was on a trip and am only replying now.) That is an endorsement of LP Gas and electricity as "probably the only way" to get the emissions down low enough. And nobody said anything??<br><br>If we do not discuss this, does that mean that we accept it? What about these issues:<br><br>1. Probably biogas (from wet biomass) is sufficiently clean?<br><br>2. Can the TLUD and other gasifiers stoves make the cut-off because they are gas-burning stoves that make their own gases, that is, they are "gas-like" in operations? And funding to determine if this can happen?<br><br>3. Other technologies related to solid fuels for cooking, (including coal as mentioned by Crispin in other messages)?<br><br>4. AND what about the socio-economic impracticality to expect that impoverished people who depend on wood and other solid fuels will be able to sustainably obtain LPG and electricity within multiple generations? Move them up to the top of the energy ladder right away, or simply neglect them for additional decades while the affluent world decides what assistance is given to whom? <br><br>5. And a big issue: Are we making the many efforts for better cookstoves ONLY because of health? What about deforestation and fuel efficiency? and CO2 increases? and safety from burns? and development of other biomass fuels / semi-processed biomass from "refuse" and low-value stems, etc.?<br><br>6. Should the GACC and other organizations pull out of their support for solid-fuel-stoves? <br><br>I am certain that Kirk Smith and the GACC and others have the best interests of all in mind. But in light of the recent scientific and health findings, what should be the future of biomass stoves?<br><br>I will contribute to this discussion as appropriate, but I am not going to get into any individualized debates. So please direct your comments to EVERYONE. Feel free to adjust the Subject line to reflect your "flavor" of reply, because there are SOOOOO many different aspects to the topics at hand, and we should soon have a few different threads of messages.<br><br>And remember that this week, Thurs 20 Nov, is the big GACC meeting in New York City. I have been assured by the organizers that it will have live broadcast via Internet, so we can all listen to the high powered presentations that day. Will any speaker comment on this latest interpretation of what constitutes "sufficiently clean" regarding cookstoves? And at the Friday private meeting for the pledging of funding for further clean-cookstove efforts, will the funds flow for LPG and electricity?<br><br>What is the future of biomass stoves?<br><br>Paul<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><pre>Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Email: <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Website: <a href="http://www.drtlud.com">www.drtlud.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><p class=MsoNormal><br><br>-------- Original Message -------- <o:p></o:p></p><table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0><tr><td nowrap valign=top style='padding:0mm 0mm 0mm 0mm'><p class=MsoNormal align=right style='text-align:right'><b>Subject: <o:p></o:p></b></p></td><td style='padding:0mm 0mm 0mm 0mm'><p class=MsoNormal>[stove and LF Annals] Historical watershed<o:p></o:p></p></td></tr><tr><td nowrap valign=top style='padding:0mm 0mm 0mm 0mm'><p class=MsoNormal align=right style='text-align:right'><b>Date: <o:p></o:p></b></p></td><td style='padding:0mm 0mm 0mm 0mm'><p class=MsoNormal>Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:59:05 -0800<o:p></o:p></p></td></tr><tr><td nowrap valign=top style='padding:0mm 0mm 0mm 0mm'><p class=MsoNormal align=right style='text-align:right'><b>From: <o:p></o:p></b></p></td><td style='padding:0mm 0mm 0mm 0mm'><p class=MsoNormal>Kirk R. Smith <a href="mailto:krksmith@berkeley.edu"><krksmith@berkeley.edu></a><o:p></o:p></p></td></tr><tr><td nowrap valign=top style='padding:0mm 0mm 0mm 0mm'><p class=MsoNormal align=right style='text-align:right'><b>Reply-To: <o:p></o:p></b></p></td><td style='padding:0mm 0mm 0mm 0mm'><p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:krksmith@berkeley.edu">krksmith@berkeley.edu</a><o:p></o:p></p></td></tr><tr><td nowrap valign=top style='padding:0mm 0mm 0mm 0mm'><p class=MsoNormal align=right style='text-align:right'><b>To: <o:p></o:p></b></p></td><td style='padding:0mm 0mm 0mm 0mm'><p class=MsoNormal>Kirk R. Smith <a href="mailto:Krksmith@berkeley.edu"><Krksmith@berkeley.edu></a><o:p></o:p></p></td></tr></table><p class=MsoNormal><br><br>Beginning this week, for the first time in human history, it will no longer be possible to claim a stove is truly "improved" or "clean" without reference to authoritative global set of health-based guidelines..<br><br><b><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>WHO GUIDELINES FOR INDOOR AIR QUALITY: HOUSEHOLD FUEL COMBUSTION, World Health Organization, Geneva, 2014<br><br></span></b>This is the third, and last currently planned, volume from WHO on IAQ, the first two being on selected individual pollutants <a href="http://www.who.int/indoorair/publications/9789289002134/en/">http://www.who.int/indoorair/publications/9789289002134/en/</a> and dampness and mold <a href="http://www.who.int/indoorair/publications/7989289041683/en/">http://www.who.int/indoorair/publications/7989289041683/en/</a>. This last one is at <a href="http://www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc/en/">http://www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc/en/</a> and also on my website below. It is the result of 3+ years of work by an international expert committee and many peer reviewers including a year-long internal WHO process of quality checking and reframing to be consistent with other WHO guideline documents,<br><br>This third volume is a bit different in its recommendations than most other WHO guidelines in that it does not develop new exposure/concentration guidelines for the critical pollutants themselves, but takes these for CO from the previous IAQ document on Selected Pollutants and for PM2.5 from the 2005 WHO Air Quality Guidelines (AQGs) --- <a href="http://www.who.int/phe/health_topics/outdoorair/outdoorair_aqg/en/">http://www.who.int/phe/health_topics/outdoorair/outdoorair_aqg/en/</a> In addition to extensive reviews of the literature, this new document presents recommended guidelines for indoor<b> emissions </b>limits that will keep a large fraction of households below the AQGs themselves for CO and PM2.5. As there are wide ranges of household sizes, ventilation rates, and cooking patterns, it specifies limits in a probabilistic manner using a Monte Carlo model, e.g., to keep 90% of household below the AQG, the emissions needs to be below X, for 50% they need to be below y. <br><br>Notably, this document formalizes what was only stated conceptually in the 2005 AQGs, which is that the guidelines should apply in every non-occupational micro-environment where people spend significant time -- indoor or outdoor.<br><br>The document also addresses chimney stoves as well as having sections on coal and kerosene as household fuels -- discouraging both because of apparent extra toxicities.<br><br>The quantitative recommendations will be a challenge to the biomass stove community in that, in keeping with the health evidence, truly low emission rates of unvented stoves will be needed to protect health adequately. We firmly hope that the ongoing process of creating stove standards under the ISO process will adopt these recommendations, as was agreed previously.. I might add in this context, that newer evidence since 2005 on the health effects of combustion air pollution, as for example found in the latest Global Burden of Disease estimates, would indicate that when the next revision of the AQGs is done (as now planned), the limits will become even lower. The stove community thus should probably therefore consider what this document recommends as likely to tighten further over time.<br><br>Congratulations to the whole expert group and particularly Nigel Bruce, Heather Adair-Rohani, and Carlos Dora at WHO-Geneva for moving it through from start to finish.. Best/k <br><br>Below is from the Executive Summary, the full version being in the report and available separately on the WHO website <a href="http://www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc">www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc</a><br><br><b><span style='font-size:18.0pt'>Overview<br><br></span></b>Almost 3 billion of the world’s poorest people still rely on solid fuels (wood,<br>animal dung, charcoal, crop wastes and coal) burned in inefficient and highly<br>polluting stoves for cooking and heating, currently resulting in some 4 million<br>premature deaths annually among children and adults from respiratory and cardiovascular<br>diseases, and cancer. Together with widespread use of kerosene stoves<br>and lamps, these household energy practices also cause many deaths and serious<br>injuries from scalds, burns and poisoning. The use of solid fuel for heating<br>in more developed countries is also common and contributes significantly to air<br>pollution exposure. Air pollution from household fuel combustion is the most<br>important global environmental health risk today.<br><br>These new guidelines bring together the most recent evidence on fuel use,<br>emission and human exposure levels, health risks, intervention impacts and policy<br>considerations, to provide practical recommendations to reduce this health<br>burden, which build on existing WHO air quality guidelines for specific pollutants<br>(AQG). Implementation of these recommendations will also help secure<br>the additional benefits to society, development and the environment including<br>climate that will result from wider access to clean, safe and efficient household<br>energy.<br><br>Drawing on a broad range of newly commissioned, or recently published,<br>systematic reviews of the scientific literature, the guidelines apply strict criteria<br>for assessing the quality of available evidence and the suitability for developing<br>recommendations. Among the key findings is that for several important health<br>outcomes, including child acute respiratory infections, exposure to the key<br>pollutant fine particulate matter, or PM<span style='font-size:7.5pt'>2.5 </span>needs to be brought down to low<br>levels in order to gain most of the health benefit. The other main finding is that<br>most of the solid fuel interventions promoted in recent years have not even come<br>close to these levels when in everyday use, and there is a need for much more<br>emphasis on accelerating access to clean household fuels.<br><br>The recommendations focus particular attention on reducing emissions of<br>pollutants as much as possible, while also recognizing the importance of adequate<br>ventilation and information and support for households to ensure best use of<br>technologies and fuels. They encompass general considerations for policy, a set<br>of four specific recommendations, and a good practice recommendation for<br>addressing both health and climate impacts. The general considerations address<br>issues such as the need for community-wide action, as pollution from one house<br>or other source affects neighbours, and vice-versa, and the fact that safety of new<br>fuels and technologies cannot be assumed and must be assessed. <br><br>The specific recommendations address the following:<br><br>• Emission rate targets which specify the levels of emissions from household<br>energy fuels and technologies that pose minimal health risks, and which are<br>designed to guide assessment of how well various interventions can meet the<br>air quality concentrations specified in WHO guidelines;<br>• Policies for the period of transition from current practices to community-wide<br>use of clean fuels and household energy technologies, recognizing that intermediate<br>steps will be needed for some time to come among lower income and<br>more rural homes reliant on solid fuels;<br>• The need to avoid the use of unprocessed coal as a household fuel, in light of<br>the specific health risks;<br>• The need to avoid the use of kerosene as a household fuel, in light of concerns<br>about emissions and safety.<br><br>The good practice recommendation encourages policy makers to recognize<br>that many of the pollutants from household fuel combustion lead to both health<br>risks and climate change.<br><br>The guidelines are targeted at public health policy-makers and specialists<br>working with the energy, environment and other sectors to develop and implement<br>policy to reduce the adverse health impacts of household fuel combustion.<br>This publication is linked to ongoing work by WHO and its partners to provide<br>technical support for implementation of the recommendations, as well as<br>monitoring progress and evaluating programme impacts, for example, through<br>the WHO database on household fuel combustion. Further details of the guidance,<br>tools and other resources are available on the guidelines web pages: <a href="http://"><b>http://<br></b></a><b><a href="http://www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc">www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc</a></b>.<br><br><b><span style='font-size:18.0pt'>Rationale for these guidelines<br></span></b>Household air pollution (HAP) released by inefficient combustion of solid fuels<br>for cooking and heating is currently responsible for the world’s largest single<br>environmentally-related disease burden. It has been calculated that household<br>air pollution released during cooking causes around 4 million premature deaths<br><i>(1, 2)</i>. WHO estimates that household air pollution caused 4.3 million deaths in<br>2012 <i>(3). </i>A further 0.4 million deaths are linked to the contribution HAP makes<br>to ambient (outdoor) air pollution <i>(2). </i>Added to this, but as yet not quantified due<br>to lack of sufficient research and weaker evidence, are deaths and disease from<br>HAP derived from heating and lighting.<br><br>Use of inefficient fuels for household heating, cooking and lighting also puts<br>household members, particularly children, at high risk of being burned (e.g. as<br>a result of falling into fires, spilled fuel, etc.) and poisoning (caused by ingesting<br>kerosene). While HAP from household fuel combustion is less serious in more<br>developed countries, it remains an issue in settings where solid fuel (mainly wood<br>and other biomass) and kerosene are used for heating.<br>T<br>o date, there have been no health-based guidelines with recommendations<br>for policy to address this issue. Growing recognition that access to modern<br>household energy is critical for the achievement of health, development and environmental<br>(including climate) goals, has led to several ambitious United Nations<br>(UN) and government-led initiatives to secure universal access to modern household<br>energy over the next 15–20 years.<br><br>Against this background, it is important to have guidelines available to ensure<br>that the potentially large health benefits of investment in, and policy for, household<br>energy are realized.<br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Kirk R. Smith, MPH, PhD<br>Professor of Global Environmental Health, University of California, Berkeley<br>(Fulbright-Nehru Distinguished Chair (2013/14), Indian Institute of Technology-Delhi)<br>Delhi cell: (91) 97-1641-6091 [note new number]<br><a href="http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/">http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/<br><br><br></a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>