<div dir="ltr">Xavier: <br><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:12.8px">I wholehearedly support your call "to </span>ask the GACC to:<ul><span class="gmail-"><li>publicly acknowledge that the WBT has major shortcomings</li></span><li>to remove the protocol from its website, so cookstove sector stakeholders do not use it</li><span class="gmail-"><li>to actively promote development and use of other, valid, protocols."</li></span></ul><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:12.8px">GACC is not accountable to anybody and its Leadership Council has no legally defined role (which is perhaps why it is not called a Board of Directors). The only persons who can be publicly shamed are Hillary and Bill Clinton. (GACC was Hillary's version of Clinton Global Initiative, one of the lead fronts for Clinton Foundation, since obviously she wanted something with her signature on it. CGI did promote GACC by and by.) <br><br>Nor should GACC continue to enjoy the privileges of being a "custodian" for WBT, an incoherent, conceptually fatal toy for some technologists just as DALY baloney has become the tool for infantile epidemiologists gallivanting from Nepal and Malawi to Nigeria and India. </span><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:12.8px">I for one think it should be forced to leave the TC 285 as the IWA is reviewed and GACC is reformed. In another post, I will argue that it has failed DfID and the whole "cause" of individual quantification of multiple benefits - health, climate, livelihoods, women's empowerment. </span></div><div><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:12.8px">Five years since IWA, GACC has little progress to show toward what it hazily called "international standards". There is no internationally standard fuel, cook, cuisine, geographic and economic environment. Cooking is in the chemistries of smells and taste, and physics of touch and optics. <br><br>I also question the performance metrics and WHO IAQ Guidelines for Household Fuel Combustion. But the current base for all cooked up numbers is either WBT or similar questionable protocols - or worse, measurements without protocols. (Cite-o-logists wouldn't know that there can't be measures without methods.) Hence, WBT must go, and a re-assessment of the failed enterprise must begin. <br><br>WBT, RIP. </span></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:12.8px">I won't say the same of GACC, because it did take on far much more than can be plausibly delivered. The higher ups at UNF should be joined in public shaming, not GACC staffs. <br><br>I suggest GACC gather donor funds to compile an inventory of all methods and results of "performance metrics" for "baseline" and/or "intervention" stoves in the last ten years, and also put up an inventory of all emission and exposure data underlying the updates in Global Burden of Disease since 2008. Lab fanatics do not seem to recognize that small definitional errors or computational manipulations have huge propaganda consequences. </span></div><div><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:12.8px"><br>Nikhil<br>--------- </span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:12.8px">(India +91) 909 995 2080</span><font face="georgia, serif"><br><i> <br></i></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 2:51 AM, Xavier Brandao <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:xvr.brandao@gmail.com" target="_blank">xvr.brandao@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Dear all,<div class="gmail_quote"><br><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Sorry if I am spamming the Stove List, I will try to post less
and gather my answers together.
<p>Thanks to those of you who supported the initiative! Each voice counts.</p>
<p>I wanted to say a few words about our stance, especially for
non-technical people. Some of you have said that the testing issues were very technical and complex, and they felt a
bit uncomfortable to take a stance on a question they don't master
completely. This is fully understandable.<br></p>
<p>I am myself not a technical person, I don't have an engineer or
researcher background.<br>
</p>
<p>In fact, our stance is really simple, it is the following:</p>
<ul>
<li>"Several studies have been published these last years. They
conclude that the WBT has a lot of fundamental flaws. That the
results generated by WBT testing are not reliable. I am not able
to understand everything that led the scientists to this
conclusion, but what I can understand very well is the
conclusion. These authors are sounding the alarm.</li>
<li>I have not seen, during all these years, anyone answer to
these alarms. No scientist contested the outcomes of the study.
The burden of proof lies now in the WBT "camp".</li>
<li>So, if there are no satisfactory answer to these critiques, as
a concerned stove practitioner (or sympathiser) concerned by the
future of this sector, I would like the precautionary principle
to be followed. I am asking that the GACC stop promoting this
protocol and instead support promotion and development of
protocols which validity is not contested."<br>
</li>
</ul>
<p>This is a simple, solid, reasonable position. This is common
sense. This is something understandable, and no one should go
against that.</p>
<p>If you want to support but don't want your name to be public, no
problem at all, please let me know by email.</p>
<p>I remind you that our goal is to ask the GACC to:</p>
<ul><span class="gmail-">
<li>publicly acknowledge that the WBT has major shortcomings</li>
</span><li>to remove the protocol from its website, so cookstove sector
stakeholders do not use it</li><span class="gmail-">
<li>to actively promote development and use of other, valid,
protocols<br>
</li>
</span></ul>
<p>Please support our initiative by writing a simple email to me
here:</p>
<p><a class="gmail-m_6411914776900570472m_2758038377122707963moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:xvr.brandao@gmail.com" target="_blank">xvr.brandao@gmail.com</a></p>
<p>Thank you very much in advance!</p><span class="gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><span class="gmail-m_6411914776900570472HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<p>Xavier<br>
</p></font></span></font></span></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>