<div dir="ltr">Crispin: <br><br>[I might use your phrase "<span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:calibri,"slate pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;font-size:medium">using fear of the unpreventable to attack the preventable". </span>That is what the CO2 fanatics did to "energy for development", shifting discourse and money to climate change, making every CO2 molecule except from their mouths a WMD.) <br><br>It is all EPA. GACC is EPA. Berkeley/BAMG is largely EPA. I used to do GHG emissions inventories and policy models with "carbon constraints"; it is EPA footprint everywhere from IPCC to WHO. Regulatory madness using science of pollution to create pollution of science. I do hope Scott Pruitt keeps good air and climate programs but restrains EPA bulls and cows.<br><br>EPA contractors and now Gates Foundation grantees have compromised their independence. Their claims on "clean" and "healthy" - i.e., against solid fuel use for cookstoves - are in turn based on vacuous theories of solid fuel extraction and fuel cycles, including combustion; when it comes to biomass, not a single one worthy of serious attention because with some rare exceptions I cannot rule out, nobody studies local biomass balances (multiple sources and uses, and means of combustion), or has fuel properties characterization, <br><br>However, please bear in mind that "solid fuel use" was merely a proxy for indoor air pollution in Kirk Smith's desk studies of national burden of disease. (I suspect back then, there was some effort to build the Global Burden of Disease from NATIONAL BOD studies. Then came the IHME pseudo-science. I should interview someone at IHME or go visit them.) <br><br>Same with WHO."Solid fuel use" was demonized by assumption. Then the environmental ideologues with less sense than volume (of voice) go on with the blather of "clean energy" and "dirty fuels". <br><br>Once a dogma has been spread - with incentives and sanctions for mere questioning - it tends to acquire the gullible and turn them into the faithful and evangelists. Every cult spreads that way. Clean Cooking Forum is like a meeting of the College of Cardinals, no? Let's find out. <br><br>Having ASSUMED that SFU (solid fuel use) is "dirty", the next step was to ASSUME fuel quantities,dismiss fuel qualities, ASSUME emission factors, ASSUME non-SFU pollution sources, ASSUME pollutant transport (incl. "ventilation factor") and human mobility, ASSUME exposures, and then ASSUME the applicability of Integrated Exposure Response. And, of course, PM2.5 equitoxicity and applicability of dose-response ratios across populations, cohorts. Imperial ambitions follow. <br><br>I am not fooling. Those willing to be fooled are ready to fool. Called cite-o-logy, you know; as in all theology. <br><br>Have laptop, will lie. <div><br></div><div>But there is a very easy answer to all this rampant fussing among the intellectuals, They are of no help to the poor. <br><br>Separately I will send you and the list excerpts from a 2014 LiveWire piece by Koffi Ekouevi, Kate Kennedy and Ruchi Soni of the World Bank. It accepts and asserts that advanced combustion of solid fuels can reduce pollutant emissions drastically, at least as shown in lab tests. <br><br>I am fairly sure all those "lab tests" used WBT protocols of different vintages and manipulations. <br><br>All we should ask of GACC is to declare, "Our past use and promotion of WBT protocols was not meant to endorse its quality or applicability. Errors have been made.We suggest that except shown to be potentially relevant, cookstove testing should not use WBT protocols and instead new protocols currently being tested." <br><br>That is an easy challenge GACC can meet.I don't expect Ranyee to be reading this,but just as Tami referred to WBT as a "place holder" or "interim" agreement to agree or something - I don't remember the exact words - but I think Xaiver should seek to end the WBT dispute by asking GACC to simply make a declaration. Face-saving texts can be negotiated. I am good at that, and volunteer my help. <br><br>As I do for requesting IHME,WHO to make a declaration: </div><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div>"The assignment of SFU to pollution exposures and ill health was for the first round of estimation of the burden of disease and allocation of DALYs. We have always hoped that SFU can be made clean enough so as to not warrant such an assumption. However, until mass adoption of clean enough devices appropriate to the type of SFU (including coal) is burnt, we suggest that national authorities make a determination on revising or dropping the assumption that SFU is unclean. Fuels,devices,and operating practices determine pollutant load, and a lot many other variables affect the health damage for prospective generations.| </div></blockquote><div><br>I think Kirk Smith should have no problem with it. He has thrown a challenge to the Biomass Stoves Community. I would like him to disassociate himself from the WHO Tiers and PM2.5 targets.They have nothing to do with health outcomes. Or usability and adoption potential.<br><br>The only problem is WHO muddying the waters and polluting the air with its interjection of SFU guidelines and Tier 1 hourly PM 2.5 average emission rate of < 2 mg/</div><div><br></div><div>Yes, TC 285 is lurching toward chaos and irrelevance. It can choose to adopt my proposed text to WHO blather, and kick WHO out. Enough pretending and preening. <br><br>I am writing a presentation here with one key message - "Cleaner, healthier, and productive energy, not "clean energy"". Good enough? <br><br>"<span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:calibri,"slate pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;font-size:medium">Does anyone think the medical community and stove market will stand by while wordsmiths work out how to cast aspersions on entire classes of cheap fuel and high performance stoves? "<br></span><br>Well, what do you think USc 5/kWh electricity and smart controllers would do? <br><br><br>Nikhil<br><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><font face="georgia, serif">------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>Nikhil Desai</font></div><div><font face="georgia, serif">(India +91) 909 995 2080<br><i>Skype: nikhildesai888</i><br></font><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com" target="_blank">crispinpigott@outlook.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 bgcolor="#FFFFFF" lang="en-US" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);line-height:initial">
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:calibri,"slate pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
Dear Paul</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:calibri,"slate pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:calibri,"slate pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
The solid fuels being something we should improve until clean fuels come along is a GACC thing and the toxins are inherent in the fuel is a Berkeley thing. Calling CO2 a pollutant is an EPA thing. </div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:calibri,"slate pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:calibri,"slate pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
The for former I can refer you to any piece of correspondence from GACC with its boilerplate concluding paragraph. For the second a good example is the Stove Comparison Chart document. Technically it is a GACC document written by Berkeley and paid for by the
Canadian government. The case against coal is made in the introduction. It is classic Kirk Smith: coal (somewhere in SW China) contains fluorine which has terrible consequences therefore no one should burn coal. That is not a quote but is close enough. </div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:calibri,"slate pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:calibri,"slate pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
In general the war on coal combines inherent emissions (the evaporation of toxic metals) with the emission of products of incomplete combustion, using fear of the unpreventable to attack the preventable, and sell the idea solid fuel is itself 'bad' while liquid
and gaseous fuels are 'good'.</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:calibri,"slate pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:calibri,"slate pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
To the credit of Kirk, as Nikhil has repeatedly pointed out, his piece in favour of fossil fuels, promoting LPG, shows he is not against fossil fuels per se (assuming the biotic origin hypothesis is correct, they are limited in supply). </div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:calibri,"slate pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:calibri,"slate pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
The basic arguments boil down to this: processed fuels are 'clean' and raw fuels are not, except natural gas. </div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:calibri,"slate pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:calibri,"slate pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
A TLUD pyrolyser is a method of processing raw fuel to provide two,'clean fuels': wood gas and charcoal. We know that there is no such thing as a clean fuel. Neither wood gas nor charcoal gives a clean result unless burned properly.
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:calibri,"slate pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:calibri,"slate pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
In theory natural gas is easy to burn cleanly but if 'clean' were an <i>inherent</i> property, we wouldn't need national standards for NG combustors and we wouldn't have different burners for different altitudes with the rated altitude stamped on the metal
of each. We also wouldn't have different burner head-to-pot vertical gaps for the same stove in the European and N American markets which have different CO limits. </div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:calibri,"slate pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:calibri,"slate pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
As you know I have been working on the clean combustion of coal for more than 15 years, with some success, as is mentioned briefly in the Stove Comparison Chart. It says these stoves 'only appear to be clean'! That is the excuse used to leave them off the
chart. If they were included, they would be clustered on the bottom left in what might be considered Tier 6 for PM and CO. That rather effectively speaks against the 'solid fuels are dirty' meme and the idea that they 'cannot be burned cleanly enough to
provide significant health benefits'.</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:calibri,"slate pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:calibri,"slate pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
The Kyrgyzstan project shows clearly that the combination of a good stove design, correct installation and operation can indeed provide 'significant health benefits'. Even for dung burning stoves, and a 'significant effect' has been independently quantified
by a highly regarded consortium (Fresh Air, have a look at their website).</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:calibri,"slate pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:calibri,"slate pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-size:initial;text-align:initial;line-height:initial">Does anyone think the medical community and stove market will stand by while wordsmiths work out how to cast aspersions on entire classes of cheap fuel and high performance stoves?
Good grief, we are directly saving thousands of lives here, and not 'statistical ones' from GBD and IER number crunching. </span></div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:calibri,"slate pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-size:initial;text-align:initial;line-height:initial"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:calibri,"slate pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-size:initial;text-align:initial;line-height:initial">Regards </span></div><span class="gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:calibri,"slate pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-size:initial;text-align:initial;line-height:initial">Crispin
</span></div></font></span><div><div class="gmail-h5">
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:calibri,"slate pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br style="display:initial">
</div>
<div style="font-size:initial;font-family:calibri,"slate pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div id="gmail-m_-6671793503490969558_originalContent" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Crispin,<br>
<br>
Please provide links or documents to support your statement: (I do not doubt, but I want clear examples for everyone to see.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="color:windowtext">claiming, as the GACC does at the end of each piece of correspondence, that solid fuels are only permissible as an interim measure until ‘clean fuels’ are available (even if they are unaffordable). Having
shown that solid fuels can be burned cleanly (for simplicity, you with wood, me with coal) the objections are that burning these solid fuels produces all sorts of toxins.</span></blockquote>
Paul<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="gmail-m_-6671793503490969558moz-signature" cols="72">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: <a class="gmail-m_-6671793503490969558moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>
Skype: paultlud Phone: <a href="tel:(309)%20452-7072" value="+13094527072" target="_blank">+1-309-452-7072</a>
Website: <a class="gmail-m_-6671793503490969558moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com" target="_blank">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
<div class="gmail-m_-6671793503490969558moz-cite-prefix">On 5/6/2017 12:33 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="color:windowtext">claiming, as the GACC does at the end of each piece of correspondence, that solid fuels are only permissible as an interim measure until ‘clean fuels’ are available (even if they are unaffordable). Having
shown that solid fuels can be burned cleanly (for simplicity, you with wood, me with coal) the objections are that burning these solid fuels produces all sorts of toxins.</span></blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div></div></div>
<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></div></div>