<div dir="ltr">Roger: <br><br>Shocked? <br><br>You ain't seen nuthin' yet. <br><br>The way aid industry communications have transformed over the last quarter century or so, I have learned to forgive mild exaggeration and soft deceit. Here the main problem is that the authors of press release claim - "<span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)">pneumonia – often a</span><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"> result of household air pollution from cooking with solid</span><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"> fuels.”</span><br><br>To claim "a result of" means "caused by". WHO cannot provide any evidence of this. <br><br>In turn, that is because - as I pointed out in a post back last September on this list - the cooks of GBD use different standards of scientific integrity than what you and I may find logical. They ASSIGN causes of death. They ALLOCATE risk factors for such causes. <br><br>It's a farce. That it is an accepted farce within a certain class of public health folks is as tolerable as some theories of free market capitalism or of central planning in academic economics departments which I am familiar with. Social sciences - public health is a social science first, not a biomedical science - have this problem of accountability all the time. <br><br>Nikhil<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><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="georgia, serif">------------------------</font></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="georgia, serif">Nikhil Desai</font></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="georgia, serif">(India +91)909 995 2080<br><i>Skype: nikhildesai888</i></font></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></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Roger Samson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rogerenroute@yahoo.ca" target="_blank">rogerenroute@yahoo.ca</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">I was looking at the data also and was shocked also how they cherry-picked data and use it out of context. The drownings of young men in India were a bigger problem than respiratory problems of young women. How they link the respiratory deaths of the women to smoke from stoves is another reach as you said Nikhil. I do not know if they are deliberately spreading fake news or if it was an accident. If it was an accident they should withdraw the press release or make a clarification.<br>
<br>
regards<br>
Roger<br>
------------------------------<wbr>--------------<br>
On Thu, 6/1/17, Nikhil Desai <<a href="mailto:pienergy2008@gmail.com">pienergy2008@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Subject: [Stoves] Adolescent females killed by WHO (Re: Crispin, Philip)<br>
To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.<wbr>org</a>>, "Philip Lloyd" <<a href="mailto:plloyd@mweb.co.za">plloyd@mweb.co.za</a>>, "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com">crispinpigott@outlook.com</a>><br>
Cc: "Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves" <<a href="mailto:info@cleancookstoves.org">info@cleancookstoves.org</a>><br>
Received: Thursday, June 1, 2017, 8:32 AM<br>
<div><div class="gmail-h5"><br>
Crispin, Philip: <br>
<br>
Please recognize that WHO has a gratuitous war against solid<br>
fuels simply because a house of cards has been built on no<br>
data on fuel/stove types, paltry emission, concentration,<br>
and exposure measurements, and patently ludicrous<br>
assumptions.<br>
<br>
All of these have passed certain standards of practice that<br>
have been accepted by the public health community (or nobody<br>
bothers). The most recent GBD 2015 paper in Lancet (link<br>
posted by Crispin; I have some notes on it) has a couple of<br>
nice tables and figures about how these standards of<br>
evidence and methods have been met. It may help to go<br>
through these in a dispassionate way and try to construct a<br>
biomedical basis of association between fuel use and disease<br>
incidence to realize just how illogical the whole enterprise<br>
is. <br>
<br>
Therefore, it does not matter if you speak of kerosene or<br>
ethanol. Deaths from fuel use are concocted BY ASSUMPTION.<br>
Solid fuels are ASSUMED to be uniformly DIRTY FUELs. This is<br>
"fact-free" science. <br>
<br>
Let's look at this claim - "“the leading cause of<br>
death for younger adolescent girls aged 10–14 years is<br>
lower respiratory infections, such as pneumonia – often a<br>
result of household air pollution from cooking with solid<br>
fuels.”<br>
<br>
A. How many females? WHO press release More<br>
than 1.2 million adolescents die every year, nearly all<br>
preventable says, <br>
<br>
<br>
Data in the report, Global accelerated action for<br>
the health of adolescents (AA-HA!): Guidance to support<br>
country implementation, reveal stark differences in<br>
causes of death when separating the adolescent group by age<br>
(younger adolescents aged 10–14 years and older ones aged<br>
15–19 years) and by sex.<br>
</div></div> ...........The picture for girls differs<br>
<div><div class="gmail-h5"> greatly. The leading cause of death for younger<br>
adolescent girls aged 10–14 years are lower<br>
respiratory infections, such as<br>
pneumonia – often a result of indoor air<br>
pollution from cooking with dirty<br>
fuels. <br>
<br>
Female adolescent deaths in the age group<br>
10-19 from LRI numbered 36, 337 in 2015. The<br>
corresponding number for males 10-19 was 36,018, negligibly<br>
lower than that for females.<br>
<br>
To put the number in perspective, the<br>
main report's summary - Global<br>
Accelerated Action for the Health of Adolescents<br>
(AA-HA!)Guidance to Support Country Implementation –<br>
Summary - shows females age group 10-14 deaths due to<br>
LRI as 7.3 per 100,000 population, not surprising.<br>
Nowhere can I find the absolute number for females 10-14<br>
deaths from LRIs, but it seems to be less than 15,000. <br>
<br>
So the accurate statement could be "An estimated 15,000<br>
girls aged 10 to 14 died of lower respiratory infections,<br>
including pneumonia, in 2015. Exposure to pollution from<br>
household cooking has been established as a risk factor for<br>
such illnesses. "<br>
<br>
I have a problem even with this, because there is no factual<br>
basis for such assertions. Death data for youth in the<br>
developing world are just as poor as those for the elderly<br>
if not more so. (Varies by cause -- accidents and murders<br>
are one thing, suicides and LRI another.) <br>
B. How are they dying? <br>
The main report - Global<br>
Accelerated Action for the Health of Adolescents<br>
(AA-HA!)Guidance to Support Country Implementation Annexes<br>
1–6 and Appendices I–IV only says, "Risk factors associated with chronic<br>
respiratory diseases, including asthma include tobacco use,<br>
second-hand tobacco smoke; other indoor pollutants; outdoor<br>
air pollutants; allergens; and occupational agents."<br>
<br>
This is standard IHME language and I have no objection to<br>
it. But note that "other indoor pollutants" and<br>
"outdoor air pollutants" are mentioned, without<br>
any specific reference to "dirty fuels". <br>
<br>
Writers of WHO press releases just threw in gratuitous<br>
language to please UN Foundation (a major donor to WHO and<br>
contracted to run GACC). <br>
Horror, horror. The reality of science in<br>
Washington and Geneva. Money sitting in<br>
Seattle. <br>
<br>
C. Why bother? <br>
<br>
<br>
THE<br>
GLOBALSTRATEGYFOR WOMEN’S,CHILDREN’S<br>
ANDADOLESCENTS’HEALTH(2016-203 0)<br>
<br>
<br>
Cites a 2006 WHO Report to claim,<br>
"Globally, more than 3 billion people cook with<br>
wood, dung, coal and other solid fuels on open fires or<br>
traditional stoves. If 50 per cent of people who use solid<br>
fuels indoors gained access to cleaner fuels,<br>
health-system cost savings would amount to US$165 million<br>
annually. Gains in health-related productivity would range<br>
from 17 to 62 per cent in urban areas and 6 to 15 per cent<br>
in rural areas."<br>
<br>
That is something I can connect to, instead of aDALY<br>
blather. <br>
<br>
But then I see meaningless platitudes in "Energy and<br>
Environment", something WHO should develop better<br>
skills in: <br>
<br>
"• Reduce household<br>
and ambient air pollution through the increased use of clean<br>
energy fuels and technologies in the home (for cooking,<br>
heating, lighting)• Take steps to mitigate<br>
and adapt to climate changes that affect the health of<br>
women, children and adolescents• Eliminate<br>
non-essential uses of lead (e.g. in paint) and mercury (e.g.<br>
in health care and artisanal mining) and ensure the safe<br>
recycling of lead- or mercury-containing<br>
waste• Reduce air pollution and climate<br>
emissions and improve green spaces by using lowemissions<br>
technology and renewable energy"<br>
Who appointed WHO as the world's<br>
central planner? <br>
<br>
Or the world's mommy? <br>
Just recite "clean energy", "low<br>
emissions", "renewable", "mitigate and<br>
adapt to climate changes". Why bother thinking who is<br>
going to do this how? <br>
<br>
D/. Where are adolescent dying of what? <br>
<br>
By far the largest burden of LRI is in<br>
Sub-Saharan Africa (p. 19), and slightly lower than what is<br>
euphemistically called "interpersonal violence" in<br>
the Americas. <br>
<br>
Go figure. WHO is not going to utter a word about the high<br>
murder rate of American (north, central and south) youth,<br>
but has to put in its platitudes about "dirty<br>
fuels". Once hysteria sets in... <br>
<br>
This is environmental imperialism plain and simple. WHO has<br>
been hijacked by ideologues of "clean fuels" in<br>
the name of preventable premature deaths. How ludicrous.<br>
They don't have a leg to stand on. <br>
<br>
I think Dr Chan is leaving her successor a<br>
mind-boggling agenda creep. <br>
<br>
What next - "clean cookstoves" to be added to<br>
the LIFE-SAVING<br>
COMMODITIESFOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN <br>
Nikhil<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
------------------------------ ------------<br>
</div></div> Nikhil Desai(India <a href="tel:%2B91%29%20909%20995%202080" value="+919099952080">+91) 909 995 2080</a><br>
<div><div class="gmail-h5"> Skype: nikhildesai888<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at<br>
4:05 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com">crispinpigott@outlook.com</a>><br>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dear Philip<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Is there any evidence for other fuels, and stoves of the<br>
base superior kind?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I fear that ethanol cooking is a similar risk because there<br>
are so many crummy ethanol combustors, particular ethanol<br>
gel stoves. Nothing is 'automatically<br>
clean'. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Chemical pneumonia from evaporated paraffin<br>
(stoves that overheat the fuel in the tank) is well known<br>
and if the current standard SANS1906 is adhered to,<br>
controllable. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
For those not familiar with the risk, poor<br>
combustion of paraffin can directly cause ill health but the<br>
greater risk is overheating the fuel and evaporating it<br>
directly into the room. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Where people use a paraffin wick stove for<br>
space heating, the difference between a good and bad stove<br>
is very clear. A well designed stove emits very little other<br>
than CO2 and water vapour. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards <br>
<br>
Crispin<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
“the leading cause of death for<br>
younger adolescent girls aged 10–14 years is lower<br>
respiratory infections, such as pneumonia – often a result<br>
of household air pollution<br>
from cooking with solid fuels.” [Emphasis<br>
added]<br>
<br>
We have some fairly solid<br>
evidence that respiratory infections were endemic in<br>
households cooking and heating on kerosene-fuelled wick<br>
stoves; and of minimal similar health effects when clean<br>
stoves were fuelled<br>
with solid fuel (wood).<br>
<br>
I think it is time for the GACC<br>
to recognize that it is the fuel/stove combination that<br>
leads to indoor air pollution, not just the fuel.<br>
<br>
Prof Philip Lloyd<br>
Energy Institute,<br>
CPUT<br>
SARETEC, Sachs<br>
Circle<br>
Bellville<br>
Tel 021 959 4323<br>
Cell 083 441 5247<br>
PA Nadia 021 959<br>
4330<br>
<br>
</div></div> _____________________________<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<br>
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<br>
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>