<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=utf-8">
<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:Georgia;
panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5 2 3 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
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.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></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 lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Dear Andrew<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;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;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I hope this is sinking in, not just for you but for the stove community in general.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;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;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">When things were not very important – meaning, there was not much money involved – it didn’t matter much that the science was well represented or
completely misrepresented. Now that organisations are sniffing around for ways to bring in funding, they have to pick ‘issues’ to concentrate on, and make up based on a factoid here and there, or simply invent out of whole cloth (i.e. “fake news”).
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;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;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">The equitoxicity thing is an interesting story in itself – why was it necessary to make such an assumption when it is very obvious to anyone who
looks that particles are not at all the same in their toxicity. Even looking at say, wood smoke from a typical stove in current use – that would make sense for that cohort of users. Perhaps wood smoke from a typical stove is much more toxic than, say, Sahara
fugitive dust. It would make sense to me to do that. Not even difficult because the particles can be characterised.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;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;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">In Ulaanbaatar Prof Lodoysamba not only looked at the particle composition he was able to relate them to sources, based on the combustion temperature.
Now that is a remarkable piece of work. He is able now to trace the drop in PM from domestic combustion in stoves relative to those from a power station or large scale boilers in factories. We should be doing that with stove smoke, right?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;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;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Last year I was in Beijing during the annual burning of the crop waste in Hebei (about mid-October). The PM level went up to 400 in Beijing. It was
<i>far worse</i> on the eyes and nose than 1500</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">µ</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">g/m<sup>3</sup>
in Ulaanbaatar from coal smoke. The BBC blamed it on coal-fired power stations, of course.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;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;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">It means the composition of the particles varies greatly depending on the source and combustion conditions. Perhaps we have a better argument to
reduce wood stove smoke that we thought. Equitoxicity works both ways, so to speak. Burning damp wood badly can create a terrible set of toxins because of the organic nature of the fuel.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;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;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">It would make an interesting investigation. Perhaps Philip Lloyd has already done something on this because his lab can track VOC’s.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;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;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;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;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Andrew: <br>
<br>
You lived downscale from Chernobyl? (At least not near Windscale!) <br>
<br>
COPD is Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. <br>
<br>
The LLIR (low-level ionizing radiation) method is relevant to how the PM2.5 theology has been constructed in recent years. <br>
<br>
The way I see it, because SO2 levels went down, the regulatory fanatics cannot use SO2 exposure for further tightening emissions and air quality standards, so they NEED TO ASSUME that all PM2.5 is equally toxic. Or to do WBT in stoves so that PM2.5 from foods
and other sources in the kitchen are ignored. <br>
<br>
Back 20 years ago I was involved in PM10 work and I remember some research starting at PM5 or PM2.5 level that some electric utilities were involved in. I left that field and wasn't aware of this PM2.5 trickery till a few months ago. <br>
<br>
Leave that aside, the fundamental problem is that all the "global" numbers on PM2.5 exposures from solid fuels are model estimates of dubious validity. They are not even approximations; they are simply cooked up (some I may have observed decades ago or contributed
to). <br>
<br>
When "<span style="font-size:9.5pt">health practitioners are citing concentrations from wood burning stoves as being responsible for more particulate pollution than diesel cars in my neighbourhood", they are probably doing good PM2.5 "source allocation" for
your neighborhood. How this particulate pollution leads to health damage is - to use my favorite phrase - is GoBbleDygook. <br>
<br>
Some day I will get around to posting USEPA 30-years long adventure to come up with New Source Performance Standards for residential wood heaters. The last I heard, Gina McCarthy was claiming that these standards will reduce one statistical DALY (or premature
death, I forget) per week in the whole of US. When the existing stock of residential wood heaters will run out so that all new heaters will make up the new stock - when EPA will come up with a mandate to install wind-electric heaters in every home - is anybody's
guess. <br>
<br>
I challenge WHO to enter this debate and produce the numbers, their sources, and methods. (They have done that, but buried in the references of their Reviews of Evidence or something.) <br>
<br>
The emperor has no clothes. My posts on GBD ("we got away with murder," as quoted in Lancet), EPA, and IER (Integrated Exposure Response) quoted from the horses' mouths. Scientists are honest among themselves. But then WHO, EPA, BAMG take over. <br>
<br>
"Black Carbon" toxicity is unknown; blaming all PM2.5 for "7 million premature deaths" (with 86 years as the threshold for every human) is a bit like saying dust storms in the Sahara kill 300,000 people a year. <br>
<br>
Heck, why not? If I had a PhD in Global Health and a grant of $100 million, I could even say that myself. (Just kidding; about myself and about serious researchers. One must always read as much of original literature as possible; qualifications and cautions
abound.) <br>
<br>
Nikhil</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br clear="all">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif"><br>
--------- </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif">(US +1) 202-568-5831<br>
<i> </i></span><span style="font-size:9.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Andrew Heggie <<a href="mailto:aj.heggie@gmail.com" target="_blank">aj.heggie@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal">On 23 December 2016 at 20:50, Traveller <<a href="mailto:miata98@gmail.com">miata98@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> What do these monitors measure and what do those measurements mean?<br>
<br>
Nikhil they measure particulates in micrograms per cubic meters of<br>
air. Various types and some claim to measure "black carbon" from<br>
diesel exhausts<br>
><br>
> Once the assumption of equitoxicity of all PM2.5 is given up, and so long as<br>
> the concentration at any given time is not immediately irritating to eyes or<br>
> nasal passages, what do we know of predictability for individual dosages,<br>
> especially over short periods?<br>
<br>
I know nothing and I am neither recommending nor disapproving of them,<br>
simply put; health practitioners are citing concentrations from wood<br>
burning stoves as being responsible for more particulate pollution<br>
than diesel cars in my neighbourhood and I'd quite like to see some<br>
comparisons of my own using similar methods to theirs.<br>
<br>
Bearing in mind there are "lies, damned lies and statistics" a<br>
statistician interviewed on the local TV suggested that banning all<br>
internal combustion engines in London (and this may or may not include<br>
jets flying in to Heathrow) would increase everyone's life by 30 days,<br>
he didn't say whether that was every Londoner or everyone living in<br>
England.<br>
<br>
I drove an open cabbed diesel engined machine for 35 years and I don't<br>
know what effect that added to my pollution intake, then again 30<br>
years ago I lived under the plume of the world's worst nuclear<br>
disaster and don't know the effect of that though I'm a long way<br>
through my allotted three score and ten so it doesn't really matter.<br>
><br>
> Dosimetry of ionizing radiation distinguishes according to source,<br>
> composition (alpha, beta, gamma, X), and duration (one-time max, cumulative<br>
> max). Some of us remember the huge controversies in the 1960s about these<br>
> and the UNSCEAR, about RAD v. REM.<br>
<br>
OK this is a tangent and too far off topic, I was using it as an idea<br>
of the sort of thing I wanted to try but measuring daily particulate<br>
dose rather than radiation.<br>
<snipped><br>
><br>
> If the epidemiology of Black Lung is not that precise, where does that of<br>
> PM2.5 exposure from wood smoke, inside and outside the kitchens, stand?<br>
<br>
I don't know either but I guess once indoor air pollution is cited as<br>
a problem then measuring it is a start.<br>
<br>
I do wonder why we have gravitated to PM2.5 when 15 years ago only<br>
pm10 seemed to be mentioned.<br>
<br>
> Of course, nobody need take me at my word. I<br>
<br>
I wouldn't dream of doing so<br>
<br>
> I have COPD,<br>
COPD?<br>
<span style="color:#888888"><br>
<span class="hoenzb">Andrew</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>