<div dir="ltr">Ron: (and any others who can answer my questions, please) <div><br></div><div><div>You wrote (29 Dec. below): "<span style="font-size:12.8px">here is also one-time notice (5th item down) of an upcoming vote in the </span><span class="m_5512881780457207555gmail-il" style="font-size:12.8px">ISO</span><span style="font-size:12.8px"> process - this time on field testing. I'm a participant if anyone has a </span><span class="m_5512881780457207555gmail-il" style="font-size:12.8px">message</span><span style="font-size:12.8px"> they want in."</span><br><br>I couldn't find any document on the link to ISO <a href="http://cleancookstoves.org/about/news/12-18-2016-ballot-open-for-iso-standards-document-on-field-testing.html" target="_blank">Ballot</a> notice in GACC CEO's message (pretty picture there, though, of clean cooks and their clean stoves) nor GACC <a href="http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/standards/" target="_blank">webpage on standards</a> as far as IWA work progress goes. Nor on the link <a href="http://cleancookstoves.org/binary-data/ATTACHMENT/file/000/000/46-1.pdf" target="_blank">Developing Standards</a>. </div><div><br>On TC 285 website, I see <a href="http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_tc_browse.htm?commid=4857971&development=on&includesc=true" target="_blank">a list</a> of five documents - ISO/NP TR 21276 and 19915; ISO/CD 19867-1 and 19869; and ISO/NP 19868. But on respective websites, there is no document. <br><br>It seems<a href="http://cleancookstoves.org/binary-data/ATTACHMENT/file/000/000/47-1.pdf" target="_blank">TC WGs finalized the drafts</a> in November 2015 and that by May 2016 (six months after November 2015), they were to be published. <br></div><div><br></div><div><b>Where are these documents, or any other the ISO Ballot is for? Could you please guide us? </b></div><div><br></div><div>GACC states, "The Alliance has partnered with ISO and national standards bodies to provide a <u>consensus-based and transparent process</u> for <u>clean cooking sector experts to develop and approve standard</u> (emphasis added)"<br><br>I don't see transparency here, and I find any label of "clean cooking sector experts" to be highly dubious. </div><div><br></div><div>Back on 15th December (post titled Terms and Definitions - Stoves and ISO), I wrote "I was amused to discover yesterday that ISO <a href="http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=70366" target="_blank">ISO/NP TR 21276 </a> - Clean cookstoves and clean cooking solutions Terms and definitions" - is a blank page."<br><br>It is not amusing any more. I see in <a href="https://cleancookstoves.org/binary-data/DOCUMENT/file/000/000/6-1.pdf" target="_blank">IWA 10</a> that it was to be reviewed in February 2015, but there is no indication of such and whether it was confirmed "for a further three years, transferred to an ISO technical body for revision, or withdrawn". </div><div><br></div><div>That said, I did find <a href="http://cleancookstoves.org/binary-data/DOCUMENT/file/000/000/485-1.pdf" target="_blank">Cookstove Field Study Resources</a> on a GACC webpage. <br><br>Then there is <a href="http://cleancookstoves.org/resources_files/a-rough-guide-to-clean.pdf" target="_blank">A rough guide to clean cookstoves</a>, surely written by and for those who do NOT cook with solid fuels in poverty-ridden areas, or else I wouldn't see the top reason for CO2 reduction as "environmental benefits" (none) or being assigned to CO2. <div><div><ul><li>Field studies show that the most critical factors for the adoption and salability of clean cookstoves are 1) reduced fuel consumption, 2) reduced cooking time, 3) similar or improved functionality.<br></li><li> Laboratory testing should, however, still be conducted as a first step to determine whether or not it is worthwhile to engage in expensive field testing. <br></li></ul><b>How does TC 285 utilize the advice in these two documents? </b><br><br>Getting the objective right -- pleasing the cook, subject to the requirement that a new technology has certain functional characteristics and time expenditure patterns that s/he prefers - and stove development science can get out of the quagmire of intellectual manure, the pit of smoke. <br><br>I wouldn't even press on "time reduction". Every cooking and every cook has a different rhythm (depending on whether there is running water, how many children are crying at what decibel level and how long, whether she has to deliver two rounds of tea to other family members and cook rice before bread). <br><br>Reasonable people can differ about lab testing as "the" first step. I tend to side with Cecil that the IWA is premature. </div><div><br>*********<br></div></div></div>Sorry, I couldn't resist that subject line. "Up in Smoke" was taken, twice (once illegitimately, by Cambridge cons). <br><br>Sorry, also, that I am dead serious. <br><br>"Down in Smoke" is kinda appropriate, for combustion cognoscenti with their heads in the fireboxes for as far back as I can remember, instead of looking at the cooks and their lives, environments, all of which give what Cecil might call "context". <br><br>Context is everything. That might even bring more money to stove development research (instead of wasting it on proving reductions in "premature mortality" or "averted DALYs). <br><br>Why, I am now going to claim "context is chemistry" - not the chemistry of cooking (I mean the romances), since you don't care for cooking, but the agrochemistry, fuel chemistry, human biochemistry, which influence local resource use and opportunity costs, and also the real burden of disease - i.e., disease incidence, not cooked up GBD. (See, I avoided using the term that offends you.) <br><br>Boiling water purposefully avoids the chemistry of food emissions, because heavens, smoke from meat might be blamed when solid fuels have to be proven murderers! What else, with the assumption of equitoxicity for all PM2.5? <br><br>Again, reasonable people can differ on methods and assumptions. To me, the GBD enterprise is "beyond the pale", the wailing about "cooking kills" or "clean stoves will avoid premature deaths" is deceit and dumbness combined. <br><br>Now I am wondering about this TC 285. Is it also as much of a chicanery? <br><br> </div><div>Nikhil<br><div><div><br></div></div><div><div><br></div><div><div><br><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>******** </div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Message: 2<br>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:56:07 -0700<br>
From: Ronal W. Larson <<a href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net" target="_blank">rongretlarson@comcast.net</a>><br>
To: Discussion of biomass <<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.o<wbr>rg</a>><br>
Subject: [Stoves] Fwd: December?News: 2016 Progress Report; Forums in<br>
Asia, Africa, and Latin America<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:2F1A1DC2-8910-483B-AFD7-161C949D817B@comcast.net" target="_blank">2F1A1DC2-8910-483B-AFD7-161C9<wbr>49D817B@comcast.net</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
List:<br>
<br>
Apologies for sending this to the many of you already receiving this.<br>
<br>
I enjoy these any time, and this has some important news items.<br>
<br>
But I mainly am sending this to encourage participating in their annual survey (3rd item down). My survey response centered on char-making stove development (lack of by GACC). Mostly I was supportive of GACC.<br>
<br>
There is also one-time notice (5th item down) of an upcoming vote in the ISO process - this time on field testing. I?m a participant if anyone has a message they want in.<br>
<br>
I think the message below should still have active links. If not, I think it will open at:<br>
<a href="http://www.globalproblems-globalsolutions.org/site/MessageViewer?autologin=true&em_id=74308.0&s_AffiliateSecCatId=1&dlv_id=96295&pw_id=3281" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.globalproblems-glo<wbr>balsolutions.org/site/MessageV<wbr>iewer?autologin=true&em_id=743<wbr>08.0&s_AffiliateSecCatId=1&dlv<wbr>_id=96295&pw_id=3281</a> <<a href="http://www.globalproblems-globalsolutions.org/site/MessageViewer?autologin=true&em_id=74308.0&s_AffiliateSecCatId=1&dlv_id=96295&pw_id=3281" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.globalproblems-glo<wbr>balsolutions.org/site/MessageV<wbr>iewer?autologin=true&em_id=743<wbr>08.0&s_AffiliateSecCatId=1&dlv<wbr>_id=96295&pw_id=3281</a>><br>
<br>
Ron<br>
<br> <br></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div>