<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Xavier, cc list</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>1. Thanks for taking the time to enter this foray. Below I make four points about your following email (and a few earlier others)</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>a. We seldom hear from those active in marketing stoves - and you have an exemplary background. I hope others with your background will join you here. Thanks for your support of this list. In googling I found that you were a member of the ISO group - so thanks also for taking on that responsibility.</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>b. I urge listening to Xavier in a webinar from 2013. </div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>c. To learn more about you I reviewed a few months of this list archives - and want to justify the $30 million number for a study on the value of an LPG stove intervention (that you questioned).</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>d. I have transferred most of my stove time over to biochar, and appreciate that you are open to char-making stoves and biochar.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>2 (a). I urge looking more closely at Xavier’s company: Prakti. See <a href="http://www.praktidesign.com/staff/xavier-brandao/" class="">http://www.praktidesign.com/staff/xavier-brandao/</a> . It seems that GACC might be directly responsible for this company’s formation.</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>In my googling, I found Xavier is the only representative from France on the important ISO activity: <a href="https://cleancookstoves.org/binary-data/DOCUMENT/file/000/000/6-1.pdf" class="">https://cleancookstoves.org/binary-data/DOCUMENT/file/000/000/6-1.pdf</a></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Because I have moved from (the charcoal-making side of) stoves to the biochar area (with a sister discussion group - also managed by Tom Miles; see my last paragraphs), I am much less involved with stoves (and this list) than I used to be. So this is to thank the many dozens of people who have been involved with this stove measurement and characterization effort. I listened to a progress report last week - and it seems they are getting near done. Not sure, but I think considerable thanks should also go to GACC here.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>3 (b). i) The websites where you can hear Xavier and see his slides are: <a href="http://www.pciaonline.org/files/Q&A_Webinar_7Mar2013.pdf" class="">http://www.pciaonline.org/files/Q&A_Webinar_7Mar2013.pdf</a></div><div class=""><a href="http://www.pciaonline.org/files/Institutional_Stoves_Webinar_March 7_2013/Institutional_Stoves_Webinar_March 7_2013.html" class="">http://www.pciaonline.org/files/Institutional_Stoves_Webinar_March%207_2013/Institutional_Stoves_Webinar_March%207_2013.html</a></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I raise this only in part in connection with Xavier. This is a wonderful series of webinars - approximately every other month, organized by John Mitchell of EPA and Elisa Derby of Winrock. Elisa is also chair of next month’s ETHOS conference. I recommend this as a first rate gathering of people like Xavier. I believe John and some from GACC will be there. I will try to give a daily report on this - as I have in the past; but that is a poor substitute for being there. I expect at least half the dialog will be on TLUDs.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>ii) The last question in the webinar was: <i class="">Q16: How are char-making and solar institutional stoves being used? </i></div><div class=""><i class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>A16: [Xavier] We do not manufacture these type of stoves, but would be curious to hear more about that.
Remember that user-acceptance is the key to the diffusion of any technology. </i></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="font-style: italic; white-space: pre;"> </span>RWL: Xavier - anything new on this char-making front at Prakti in the last 3 years? Last month, I saw a nice looking TLUD to be introduced soon by Envirofit. (I also heard of a study with volunteers paid by Colorado State University to inhale stove smoke - plenty of medical precautions!) Dean Still at Aprovecho seems to have switched a lot of his attention to TLUDs. I visited Peter Scott at Burn Labs last year as they disected and discussed the Mimi Moto (see <a href="http://www.mimimoto.nl" class="">http://www.mimimoto.nl</a>. For one of the few stove WBT (water boiling test) reports I have seen, see <a href="http://www.mimimoto.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Mimi_Moto_IWA-Tiers-of-Performance-WBT-4.2.3-Report-REV.A.pdf" class="">http://www.mimimoto.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Mimi_Moto_IWA-Tiers-of-Performance-WBT-4.2.3-Report-REV.A.pdf</a> . In my mind these tests are well done and valuable in promoting advancement of all stove technologies. Does anyone have other stove test reports they can share?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>iii) answer from (third fellow panelist) Fred Colgan of Instove</div><div class="">[Fred] <i class="">I’ve seen few solar stoves in use in any form – household or institutional. I agree with Xavier on the
point of user acceptance.</i></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>RWL: I bring this in because I have a response in preparation to Dieter Seifert on solar cookers (hoping we can see ways to better tie them to char-making). Here only to say I have seen some very nice work with (a friend) Dr. Salih Hamadto’s use of Scheffler concentrators in Sudan for institutional cookers - see <a href="http://solarcooking.wikia.com/wiki/Solar_Energy_Enterprises_Company" class="">http://solarcooking.wikia.com/wiki/Solar_Energy_Enterprises_Company</a></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>My point here is that there is a need to couple stove technologies. Solar cookers/heaters could be highly desirable where biomass is in short supply - and solar cookers/heaters always need backup. Having charcoal making stoves will help increase the supply of biomass.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">4 (c) Re the $30+million study on LPG (which you wrote about recently): This does seem outrageous - but reading up on the recent Lancet paper and the work from the Berkeley folks (Michael Johnson et al) - many of the costs are in the staff needed to follow the weekly results. We are talking 4 countries and 3 years; per year and country, we are down to $3 million each. The hardware costs are probably a small part of the study. Assuming 300 households (could be more), we are down to $10k/household-yr - and probably most of that spent in the US. To make any sense out of the data, there will have to be detailed knowledge not only of the stove emissions, but also of the room into which they are emitted - and all the other stoves nearby - and of the time spent by the cook in that room.</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>My guess is that Emory University is in here because it is next door to CDC - the US Center for Disease Control. At the GACC meeting in Cambodia, I met a Physician from CDC who was consulting for GACC. I doubt they could find a better choice in the US. I recommend not criticizing this study or its costs until we learn more. This study could be a boon for biomass stoves.</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Professor Kirk Smith has good reason to be dissatisfied with biomass cook stoves. But I believe he is overlooking the possibility that stove users will find it hard to ignore char-making stoves when their use can turn cooking expenses into income. Further, there is an important health impact to CDR (carbon dioxide removal) - which has a solution in char-making stoves - not at all in LPG.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">5 (d) Re biochar: This just to encourage those who haven’t understood my emphasis on char-making stoves - please investigate the sister list called “biochar”, which is now about half the age of the stoves list. I wish that community were moving as fast as is the stove community now. We badly need a “BGA” (Biochar Global Alliance); (I am rejected “GAB”). The biochar website for archiving messages is at <a href="https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/info" class="">https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/info</a> . Now up to 21,000 messages since about 2007 (the site has shifted around; we had a start in 2005 under a different name). I am mentioning all this to say there is quite a difference between the two groups - even though with the same ownership. I raise this to better understand the differences. For biochar there is an international organization with a board, and good website - and a dire shortage of funds. There is a US group with the same characteristics. Dozens of regional groups. None of this for stoves. </div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Why such good (albeit recent) funding for stoves and almost none for biochar? Why lots of volunteer groups for biochar and almost none for stoves? Why are the two discussion groups quite similar (in part, meaning not enough people like Xavier who are active full time in a business - but the biochar list seems better than the stove list)? Is it because there is a GACC?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>This is already too long, so I look forward to hearing some answers. To summarize - this was mainly to thank Xavier for his past and ongoing work with stoves - and being unique among the stove producing/sales community for his valuable participation on this list. And apologies for going off in different tangents, mostly initiated by his most recent message - repeated below. I am going to follow Xavier more closely now.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Ron</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Dec 14, 2016, at 3:24 PM, Xavier Brandao <<a href="mailto:xvr.brandao@gmail.com" class="">xvr.brandao@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">
Crispin,<br class="">
<br class="">
<pre wrap="" class="">"Nikhil says it is not suitable for generating policy. It is a Lancet-style study. It is not the type of information depth and quality needed to make policy."</pre>
Nikhil clearly says this study is a worthless piece of rubbish,
without further details:<br class="">
<pre wrap="" class="">"Ah, another report on "scientific" advance. I see scientists regressing to infantilism."
"Lancet and GACC are plain liars."
"Learn and respect science, that is all I ask of you."
"Honest stove research" does not belong to these suited-skirted gangs of "public health". Enough said. Just because so-called "scientists" publish "peer-reviewed" journal articles doesn't make the product safe from an examination of facts and methods. If you can justify these inane results. present your arguments"
</pre>
Not really along the lines of: "hey, good effort from the
scientists, interesting findings but it is unfortunately not
suitable for generating policy."<br class="">
<br class="">
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.<br class="">
<br class="">
Mine is that while it is probably not perfect, this study is far
from being rubbish.<br class="">
I think it is one more little step in the long stairway that is our
understanding of stoves and health. Every progress should be
saluted.<br class="">
<br class="">
It doesn't not prove anything 100%, but what study does? It only
focuses on pneumonia and stoves, but what health study can assess
all the factors?<br class="">
We complain that is does not do enough. Possibly, but that is
already something.<br class="">
<br class="">
<pre wrap="" class=""><i class="">It does not, as Nikhil points out, qualify as anything definitive that can be used to create policy.</i></pre>
And should it? Haven't people on this list said that science should
be independent, be detached from any policy, and do its job, which
is to increase our knowledge?<br class="">
I think this is what this study tried to do, and did.<br class="">
<br class="">
What are we complaining about exactly?<br class="">
<br class="">
To me, I think we need to be very clear in expressing what we think,
at the risk of repeating ourselves.<br class="">
<br class="">
Obviously, if I qualify myself as a "project implementer", and not a
scientist or researcher, I do have to rely a bit on you guys, who
have a much better understanding of the technicalities related to
this type of studies.<br class="">
Asking for other people opinions, helps me building my own.<br class="">
<br class="">
That's why this discussion is important to me, and I am not
satisfied with only a "this study is plain rubbish". And I am sure
it is important also for other project implementers, in fact,
anything related to stoves and health should be.<br class="">
I sure hope the GACC is reading us, and that the results of this
study will help them make adjustment in their communication.<br class="">
<br class="">
So that's why I ask so many questions, and try to make things clear
for me.<br class=""><p class="">Again I ask: <b class="">if you would design a health study to really
understand </b><b class="">the health impact of improved cookstoves,
what would be your methodology?</b></p><p class="">It is by answering this question that we show our will to make
progress rather than just debating for the sake of debating.</p><p class=""><br class="">
Best,</p><p class=""><br class="">
Xavier<br class="">
</p>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">Stoves mailing list<br class=""><br class="">to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br class=""><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" class="">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br class=""><br class="">to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br class="">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org<br class=""><br class="">for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br class="">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/<br class=""><br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>