<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16800">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Nari and all,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>The problem I have with Nikhil is not his
contributions as much as with his scorn and derisions. Also I
find his writings to be sometimes reasonable and sometimes meandering, perhaps
even confused. The derision and confusion seem to accompany each
other. I would like to see his contributions but not his scornful
attitude. I wish he would put more effort into writing clearly and making
his points without the scorn. He does seem to contradict himself
sometimes, as others have pointed out, and perhaps putting in the
effort to write more clearly would help him to gather his thoughts more clearly
as well.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I am looking forward to ETHOS, and have applied to
make two presentations. One on turn-down and the other on wood gas
and air mixing in the Wonderwerk TLUD-ND. There is just to much
information for one presentation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Respectfully,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Kirk H.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=nariphaltan@gmail.com href="mailto:nariphaltan@gmail.com">nari
phaltan</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org
href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">Discussion of biomass cooking
stoves</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, December 09, 2016 5:43
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Stoves] report with
dissapointing results from cleaner cookstoves (Crispin)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: verdana,sans-serif; COLOR: #351c75; FONT-SIZE: large"
class=gmail_default>Crispin. Very well put. Such debate should continue and I
think both you and Nikhil are adding clarity and "removing the smoke".</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: verdana,sans-serif; COLOR: #351c75; FONT-SIZE: large"
class=gmail_default><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: verdana,sans-serif; COLOR: #351c75; FONT-SIZE: large"
class=gmail_default>I am amazed why people get so worked up and start
attacking the personality rather than the ideas.</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: verdana,sans-serif; COLOR: #351c75; FONT-SIZE: large"
class=gmail_default><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: verdana,sans-serif; COLOR: #351c75; FONT-SIZE: large"
class=gmail_default>Talking about removing some researchers from list sounds
very much like Trump!</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: verdana,sans-serif; COLOR: #351c75; FONT-SIZE: large"
class=gmail_default><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: verdana,sans-serif; COLOR: #351c75; FONT-SIZE: large"
class=gmail_default>Cheers.</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: verdana,sans-serif; COLOR: #351c75; FONT-SIZE: large"
class=gmail_default><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: verdana,sans-serif; COLOR: #351c75; FONT-SIZE: large"
class=gmail_default>Anil</DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra><BR clear=all>
<DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_signature data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Nimbkar
Agricultural Research Institute (NARI)<BR>Tambmal, Phaltan-Lonand
Road<BR>P.O.Box 44<BR>Phaltan-415523, Maharashtra,
India<BR>Ph:91-2166-220945/222842<BR><A
href="mailto:e-mail%3Anariphaltan@gmail.com"
target=_blank>e-mail:nariphaltan@gmail.com</A><BR>
<A href="mailto:nariphaltan@nariphaltan.org"
target=_blank>nariphaltan@nariphaltan.org</A><BR><BR><A
href="http://www.nariphaltan.org"
target=_blank>http://www.nariphaltan.org</A></DIV></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Crispin
Pemberton-Pigott <SPAN dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com"
target=_blank>crispinpigott@outlook.com</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>Dear Ron<BR><BR>Some comments on your
comments:<BR><SPAN><BR>>DALY and ADALY (respectively in years and $) are
many places below, but a simple start is <A
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability-adjusted_life_year"
rel=noreferrer
target=_blank>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<WBR>Disability-adjusted_life_year</A>
. I encourage all readers to decide if these are valid units - and if
not what should replace them. Nikhil says they are bogus
numbers<BR><BR></SPAN>Depending on what you mean by ‘bogus’ I agree with
Nikhil. The results are estimations agreed by committee and are not
reflective of some real situation where we know with any precision what
contributes someone premature or post-mature death. The concept of a
‘mature death’ is itself fraught. Is it three score and ten, of 86? Half of
all people, by definition, die post-maturely. Obviously some of them were
exposed to stove smoke. How much more post-maturely would they have died if
they had not been exposed? How can anyone credibly put a number on
that?<BR><SPAN><BR>>WHO = World Health Organization; they sponsored
a webinar featuring Dr. Michael Johnson - who developed a nice model
disparaged (above) by Nikhil.<BR><BR></SPAN>I am not sure why you call the
exposure model ‘nice’. It is primitive compared with the model contained in
their own committee papers, which they failed to use even though it is
stated by be much closer to modeling reality. My complaint about using the
single box model instead of their own three box model is that the three box
model calculates an exposure that is less than half of that calculated by
the single box model. It means at stove can emit twice as much smoke and ‘be
safe’ according to them. So why would they use a model that they admit
reflects exposure poorly?<BR><BR>For those with good memories, the modeling
of exposure done by Prof KK Prasad at the University of Eindhoven in 1982
(etc) was quite superior to the three box model. It shows even less
exposure. How is it that more than 30 years later with all the super
computers around, we have to use a silly single box model to estimate
exposure when Prof Prasad far surpassed the method decades ago? Does the WHO
and Berkeley only have Apple II’s at their disposal?<BR><SPAN><BR>><A
href="http://www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc/recommendation_3/en/"
rel=noreferrer
target=_blank>http://www.who.int/indoorair/<WBR>guidelines/hhfc/<WBR>recommendation_3/en/</A>
explains why NOT to use coal as a fuel (this re a topic raised in the
exchange below)<BR><BR></SPAN>This is so out of date as to be
embarrassing.<BR><BR>“Unprocessed coal* should not be used as a household
fuel.<BR>(*Unprocessed coal is that which has not been treated by chemical,
physical, or thermal means to reduce contaminants.)<BR><BR>“Three reasons
guide this recommendation, over and above the documented health risks from
products of incomplete combustion of solid fuels:<BR>• The International
Agency for Research on Cancer has concluded that indoor emissions from
household combustion of coal are carcinogenic;<BR>• In those parts of the
world where it is most extensively used as a household fuel and the evidence
base is strongest, coal contains toxic elements, such as fluorine, arsenic,
lead, selenium and mercury, which are not destroyed by combustion; and<BR>•
Technical constraints make it difficult to burn coal cleanly in
households.<BR><BR><BR>1. It ascribes emission to
the fuel, not the combustor.<BR><BR>2. It assumes
that coking coal ‘removes the smoke’.<BR><BR>3.
The IARC has never tested a modern coal-burning stove that procures no
PM.<BR><BR>4. Having just said that the coal
should be ‘processed’ to remove ‘contaminants’ (by which they obviously mean
the volatiles that are cleanly combusted in a modern stove) they assert that
the contaminants are not removed by such treatment, being inherent in the
fuel. This is a deliberate confabulation of the products of incomplete
combustion of coal in a poor combustor, and the inherent properties of coals
that contain “fluorine, arsenic, lead, selenium and mercury” in toxic
amounts.<BR><BR>5. All food also contains
“fluorine, arsenic, lead, selenium and mercury”. What matters is how
much.<BR><BR>6. The pretense was offered in the
introduction to the Stove Comparison Chart document that all coal has to be
abandoned because somewhere in SW China there is coal with a very high level
of arsenic. Well, there are fish with a high level of methyl mercury – does
that mean all fish on the planet should be avoided?<BR><BR>7.
Just because the WHO and IARC don’t know how to burn coal
cleanly should not restrain those who are actually doing something about the
problem of pollution from coal combustion.<BR><BR>These are good links to
start with. Thanks.<BR><SPAN><BR>>GBD = Global Burden of Disease;
see <A href="http://thelancet.com/gbd" rel=noreferrer
target=_blank>http://thelancet.com/gbd</A><BR>IER= Integrated Exposure
Response<BR><A
href="http://www.who.int/phe/health_topics/outdoorair/databases/AAP_BoD_methods_March2014.pdf"
rel=noreferrer
target=_blank>http://www.who.int/phe/health_<WBR>topics/outdoorair/databases/<WBR>AAP_BoD_methods_March2014.pdf</A><BR><BR></SPAN>This
is disingenuous to say the least:<BR><SPAN><BR>>I am only a beginner (and
expect to stay that way) on this part of stove science. I suggest the
task of this list’s members is to decide whether Nikhil and Crispin are
better authorities on the topic of this exchange than the cites above.
Everyone is welcome to trust Nikhil and Crispin on these matters, but I tend
to trust the stove side of all this presented by Prof. Kirk Smith of
UC-Berkeley - who I believe would not agree with much of their below
exchange.<BR><BR>See <A
href="http://static.squarespace.com/static/53856e1ee4b00c6f1fc1f602/538570c1e4b071a53f15e518/538570d9e4b071a53f15e9cc/1401254105672/DFID-SE4.pdf?format=original"
rel=noreferrer
target=_blank>http://static.squarespace.com/<WBR>static/<WBR>53856e1ee4b00c6f1fc1f602/<WBR>538570c1e4b071a53f15e518/<WBR>538570d9e4b071a53f15e9cc/<WBR>1401254105672/DFID-SE4.pdf?<WBR>format=original</A><BR><BR></SPAN>Please
see slide No.2 which shows how the GBD has been allocated in India. Note
that these numbers are not ‘measured’ they are population estimates.
Important for our discussion is the attribution-by-committee to the ‘chronic
respiratory diseases’ with household air pollution presented as a risk
factor, raising it from ≈4.4 to 6.1. This has been squarely rebutted by the
Malawi stove health impact study. Because the attribution is not based on
measurements of people, it reflects a committee decision.<BR><BR>As for
‘believing Nikhil or Crispin’, we raised the matter comparing the
allocation-by-committee and the results of an actual large scale
investigation in Malawi. The only position remaining that could defend the
content of Slide 3 is if disease in India has different causes than the same
disease in Malawi. As the DALY calculations makes the assumption they are
the same, then the slide is challenged by the study.<BR><SPAN><BR>>This
graph from about 20% through the Ppt is key to our stove work. I am
now checking whether it likely that any stove (likely to be a TLUD) can get
to the WHO-desired 10 ug/m3 (without a chimney). Anyone
know?<BR><BR></SPAN>It is slide
12.<BR><BR>[cid:image001.png@01D25211.<WBR>C3FB3E70]<BR><BR>The contents of
the slide are based on allocations-by-committee and have no underlying data.
When the study in Malawi was funded, the intention was to get the data
necessary to bolster the claims made in Slide 12. The real world challenges
the assertions of the good Professor Kirk Smith and the GBD committee and
the creators of the DALYs.<BR><BR>Childhood pneumonia was unaffected by
changing the exposure to cooking fire smoke. Big scale, proper field study.
If you don’t believe the study, you can instead believe Prof
Smith.<BR><BR>Further: the “calculation” of the WHO’s exposure to stove
smoke is fanciful, literally. The emissions from a stove cannot be used,
with any WHO method proposed so far, to tell us what exposure to that smoke
is. When the room is smoky, people leave it. When the day is hot, people
open the door. When it is cold they close the window. When they are cooking
for a long time, they load the fuel and go and do something else for a
while. There is literally no way the emission rate can be used to calculate
the exposure, and therefore the reduction in exposure, to stove
smoke.<BR><BR>So what do the WHO people do? They model a range of emissions
from a range of stoves and a range of kitchen architectures, and a range of
air turnover rates, then calculate an instantaneous dispersion of all smoke
from those stoves throughout the room and assume the cook is always present.
Then they assume all PM2.5 is equally toxic, both coal smoke and wood smoke
and LPG PICs and everything. Then they estimate the exposure and the
consequences of that exposure using charts like slide 3 and 12 from Kirk.
Then they say x is acceptable and y is not.<BR><BR>This is witchcraft! By
changing the assumptions you can produce any result you want. And what they
wanted was a clear association between stove smoke and childhood pneumonia
and COPD. They didn’t get it when they finally went to the field looking.
Does it mean it is not there? We truly don’t know. And when we don’t know,
we can make the assertion that ‘it is probably there, trust
me’.<BR><BR>Kirk’s presentation goes on with the usual ads for propane and
electricity. That is fine by itself, but no one is going to bankrupt a
country to provide LPG so cheaply that everyone use it in place of solid
fuels.<BR><BR>This Stoves discussion site is marvellous for presenting a
place for inventions and concepts to be presented that get us past the
one-size-fits-all “if I ruled the world’ development mentalities. On size
does not fit all and no one rules the world.<BR><BR>The first, simplest,
most obvious, clear response that should be made with cooking smoke is to
get it outdoors where it is heading anyway. Put on a chimney. It vastly
improves indoor air quality in a single day. And whose voices are loudest in
protesting this simple and effective solution? Do your own homework.
It won’t take long to find out where the problem lies.<BR><BR>On slide 49
Kirk says two wise things: [and my comments]<BR><BR>“Make the available
clean” [put in a hood or chimney and clean up the combustion]<BR>“Embrace
leap-frog technologies” [accept that there are now wood and coal, kerosene
and ethanol-burning stoves that are as clean as LPG]<BR><BR>This is a little
more wobbly:<BR><BR>“Act recognising that it is primarily a health
issue.”<BR><BR>Nikhil correctly asks,<BR>“To whom is it primarily a health
issue?” Health experts, of course.<BR>To whom is it primarily a fuel
processing issue? Fuel processing businesses, of course.<BR>To whom is it
primarily a stove design issue? To stove designer, of course.<BR>To whom is
it primarily an LPG distribution issue? LPG vendors, of course.<BR>To whom
is it primarily an electricity grid extension issue? Electricity generators,
of course.<BR>To whom is it primarily a funding issue? Grant recipients, of
course.<BR><BR>If all you have is a hammer, everything is defined as a
nail.<BR><SPAN class=HOEnZb><FONT
color=#888888>Crispin<BR><BR><BR></FONT></SPAN><BR>______________________________<WBR>_________________<BR>Stoves
mailing list<BR><BR>to Send a Message to the list, use the email
address<BR><A
href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.<WBR>org</A><BR><BR>to
UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<BR><A
href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org"
rel=noreferrer
target=_blank>http://lists.bioenergylists.<WBR>org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_<WBR>lists.bioenergylists.org</A><BR><BR>for
more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web
site:<BR><A href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/" rel=noreferrer
target=_blank>http://stoves.bioenergylists.<WBR>org/</A><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>Stoves mailing
list<BR><BR>to Send a Message to the list, use the email
address<BR>stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org<BR><BR>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change
your List Settings use the web
page<BR>http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org<BR><BR>for
more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web
site:<BR>http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/<BR><BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P><A></A>
<P align=left color="#000000" avgcert??>No virus found in this
message.<BR>Checked by AVG - <A
href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</A><BR>Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus
Database: 4728/13567 - Release Date: 12/10/16</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>