<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
</head>
<body class="" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<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)">
I recommend we ignore trolling behaviour. </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)">
Crispin </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)">
<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)">
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div class="">Nikhil et al:</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>I take your response to mean that you have never seen any citation to support your personal prejudice (word used intentionally) against this well known and widely supported methodology.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>I of course will be trying to find if anyone has ever agreed with you - in a published peer-reviewed manner.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Ron</div>
<br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Jun 3, 2017, at 9:32 PM, Nikhil Desai <<a href="mailto:ndesai@alum.mit.edu" class="">ndesai@alum.mit.edu</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">Ron: <br class="">
<br class="">
You will have to do your own reading of what I have posted in the past nine months. GBD business goes back to 1990, and that related to HAP to around 2000. There is no short cut to fighting groupthink. <br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="">You could start with definition of DALY and ask how they are measured or rather, computed. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Nikhil</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="" style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="georgia, serif" class="">------------------------</font></div>
<div class="" style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="georgia, serif" class="">Nikhil Desai</font></div>
<div class="" style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="georgia, serif" class="">(India +91)909 995 2080<br class="">
<i class="">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 class="">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 3:50 AM, Ronal W. Larson <span dir="ltr" class="">
<<a href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net" target="_blank" class="">rongretlarson@comcast.net</a>></span> wrote:<br class="">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:1px #ccc solid; padding-left:1ex">
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="">Nikhil et al:</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><span class="m_4748941641697647698Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"></span>I will be in Seattle in two days, where I have an appointment to visit IHME. Would you please supply a few citations that support your viewpoint of DALYs and
GBD?</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Ron</div>
<div class="">
<div class="h5">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Jun 3, 2017, at 4:33 AM, Nikhil Desai <<a href="mailto:pienergy2008@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">pienergy2008@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="m_4748941641697647698Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">Crispin: <br class="">
<br class="">
1. Heating stoves come in wide ranges appropriate to the local weather conditions and housing structures. Your results are context-dependent. <br class="">
<br class="">
2. At the same time, only context-dependent evidence of change in disease incidence -- don't call it general "health benefit", which is a meaningless term -- matters. "Health protective" is a vague, meaningless term. I have said here repeatedly that I disagree
with Kirk Smith's claims about "truly health protective" -- I disagree with the term and I also disagree with the baseless association of "health protective" with hourly emission rates. <br class="">
<br class="">
I wonder why it has escaped notice that much of the empirical work on "cookstoves and health" has been done in areas where long-term, high-temperature heating is not required but short-term, low-temperature heating is required -- Kirk Smith's project in Guatemala
highlands, Dan Kammen and others' work in Kenyan highlands, and the other reports we see from Nepal (some Johns Hopkins babble a couple of years ago) or Malawi (we discussed this here a few months ago). <br class="">
<br class="">
Is it purely coincidental that health researchers go find the demonic smoke in relatively cold areas, where traditional housing may have less ventilation, at least part of the year, and people may have a higher prevalence of respiratory difficulties (altitude,
climbing up steep) and lower prevalence of air pollution other than household smoke, as also lower prevalence of some infectious diseases?<br class="">
<br class="">
It is simply silly - if not deceitful - to ignore geography. <br class="">
<br class="">
As far as I am concerned, it is up to Kirk Smith and IHME to prove that solid fuel emission rates, irrespective of the variations in fuel, stoves, and cooking practices, have a quantifiable link to future lifetime disability, disease, and death (i.e., DALYs).
If nothing else, there is no way to track individual exposures to all PM2.5 - from foods, <br class="">
<br class="">
Such computation of "health damage" cannot be done without regard to the demographic, geographic, nutritional characteristics of a cohort - leave aside individuals, just statistically. Kirk Smith said so in 1999, then got drawn in the "global burden" dogma
of "equitoxicity of PM2.5" and "integrated exposure response", "no or very low threshold".<br class="">
<br class="">
Just because WHO has bought into this babble of killing people by assumptions does not mean stove designers have to get into a meaningless competition to produce quantifiable evidence of "lower disease incidence" from "low emission heating stoves".<br class="">
<br class="">
WHO has raised a red herring. To help get research grants so youngsters can be kept busy with mindless modeling. <br class="">
<br class="">
We have far more serious work to do -"clean enough" stoves that users find usable. <br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="gmail_extra">Yes, we cannot ignore " the improvement of indoor air quality (or not) and ambient (meaning outdoor) air pollution. This is a very important argument being made presently in the<u class=""> funding pool</u> and we should have a clear
perspective on what works and doesn't, and what is <u class="">fundable</u> and what is not."<br class="">
<br class="">
We need to educate the funders that there is zero evidence that transition to gas and electric cooking over the past 100 years has reduced DALYs and that to compute aDALYs from "clean cooking solutions" is a meaningless exercise with very weak theoretical foundations.<br class="">
<br class="">
Poor people of the world being held hostage to opinions of BAMG modelers is immoral. We have enough deceit with boiling water. Emphasize how your results from heating stove interventions lowering pollutant concentrations - with some consistent research on exposures
(all pollutants in real life, of which household fuel emissions may have been a large component) and disease incidence - are the appropriate methods to study cost-effective interventions, not this babbler about ISO TC 285 Tier 4 emission rate targets. <br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Nikhil<br class="">
<br class="">
Boil blood, not water. <br class="">
<br clear="all" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="m_4748941641697647698gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class=""><font face="georgia, serif" class="">------------------------------<wbr class="">------------------------------<wbr class="">------------<br class="">
Nikhil Desai</font></div>
<div class=""><font face="georgia, serif" class="">(India <a href="tel:+91%2090999%2052080" value="+919099952080" target="_blank" class="">
+91) 909 995 2080</a><br class="">
<i class="">Skype: nikhildesai888</i><br class="">
</font><br class="">
</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 class="">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
<span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com" target="_blank" class="">crispinpigott@outlook.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class="">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204); padding-left:1ex">
Dear Friends<br class="">
<br class="">
I will be posting, as I find it, information relating to the concept that there is a 'health protective' aspect to the lowering of stove emissions, the improvement of indoor air quality (or not) and ambient (meaning outdoor) air pollution. This is a very important
argument being made presently in the funding pool and we should have a clear perspective on what works and doesn't, and what is fundable and what is not.<br class="">
<br class="">
Individual perceptions are necessarily partial so through consultation we should be able to draw a larger picture.<br class="">
<br class="">
Because everything cannot be put into a single message I hope readers will keep things in mind and add relevant perspectives. The first thing to establish is whether improvements in indoor air quality can be achieved with current technologies (this is first,
a technology question). Here is an example of a 'desired result:<br class="">
<br class="">
[<a class="">cid:image002.png@01D2DAB4</a>.468<wbr class="">F98B0]<br class="">
<br class="">
In this region a lot of homes have inexpensive LPB (low pressure boilers, hydronic heaters, to Americans) and this is a set of measurements made by Fresh Air in comparable homes. The metric is intended to show IAQ (indoor air quality). In the control homes,
the PM2.5 level was 165, 45 and 62 (24 hr average, if I read correctly).<br class="">
<br class="">
In the homes with a higher performance and better constructed LPB (about the same price as the usual ones) there is a significant difference, 'significant' meaning a difference larger than the limit of determinability (LOD) by a factor of 3 (which is a sort
of standard, accepted way of saying the difference is real which high confidence).<br class="">
<br class="">
In order to have some way of saying, "This product delivers significant health benefits" we have to be able to prove that either the overall result (24 average PM2.5) is 'acceptable' or we have to be able to prove that the contribution to the total has been
reduced a great deal. What I mean by that is if the above values of 25 for each of the improved LPB homes is only made of cooking emissions (boiled fats etc), smoking indoors, shuffling of feet, clapping of hands, combing of hair, outdoor air ingress and so
on, then the contribution by the LPB is zero. So changing fuels from chopped wood to wood pellets would make no difference unless it affected the contribution from the ambient air ingress.<br class="">
<br class="">
We should not casually mix these two reporting 'mechanisms'. There is the PM2.5 delivered into the home from the device, and there is the total. We cannot look at the total exposure (those are individual exposures, not indoor air averages - people wore personal
measurement devices) and say that it was all from the appliance. Those are two different things. If I put the LPB in a lab, pipe all the exhaust outside the lab, and measure the leakage from the appliance, I can quantify the total that comes out. If I place
that in a home and measure the total in the room or the total to which someone is exposed, I do not get the same answer because now the leakage is mixed with all the other sourced materials. Are you with me? There is the contribution from the device and the
total contribution.<br class="">
<br class="">
A lab test is a good at to isolate the stove's contributions. A field test is a good way to show the difference between a home with and without the device. Obviously the test conducted in the lab should have the same typical burning conditions and fuels as
the field test so the difference has meaning. There is literally no use testing in the lab and getting an emissions number and then taking it to the field to check how that impacts the total exposure, say, but operating the stove differently with a different
fuel. That is nearly useless as a method of producing the information needed to inform policy.<br class="">
<br class="">
To 'inform policy' one needs enough information to decide whether or not to support the dissemination of a particular device.<br class="">
<br class="">
Here is another way of making a comparison of 'performance':<br class="">
<br class="">
[<a class="">cid:image008.jpg@01D2DAB4</a>.468<wbr class="">F98B0]<br class="">
Baseline CO (48 hrs)<br class="">
<br class="">
[<a class="">cid:image009.jpg@01D2DAB4</a>.468<wbr class="">F98B0]<br class="">
Improved stove installed.<br class="">
<br class="">
This is a demonstration that the CO level can be reduced quite a lot just by changing the stove. There are very few other sources of CO other than the stove however one should not rule out that other cooking appliances may be in the home. My home has a dozen
different 'appliances' from kettles to BBQ. A gas BBQ is a significant source of PM2.5 but not a big source of CO. In the second chart the average is a bit less than 10 ppm. Prior to changing the stove there were periods of several hours with a value above
50, sometimes 100 in other homes.<br class="">
<br class="">
Important to the discussion is that all these improvements were achieved without changing the fuel. It is all coal or dung or wood or (frequently in the baseline homes) combinations. Dung burns much better in a dreadful stove if it is mixed with crop waste
like cotton stalks or wood.<br class="">
<br class="">
There is a toxin spreading through the stove community which is the claim that only gas and certain (but not all) liquid fuels can deliver the necessary 'health benefits'. It is obviously false, based on the above, but it is easier to say it than to effectively
counter a years-long campaign to demonise solid fuels in general using the invalid assumption that the above results are impossible to achieve.<br class="">
<br class="">
If we are going to talk about 'health benefits' we have to talk about the whole package and the discussion has to be grounded on first principles. Measuring PM2.5 for IAQ purposes has to be analysed correctly.<br class="">
<br class="">
End of rant<br class="">
<span class="m_4748941641697647698gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888" class="">Crispin<br class="">
</font></span><br class="">
______________________________<wbr class="">_________________<br class="">
Stoves mailing list<br class="">
<br class="">
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br class="">
<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank" class="">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.or<wbr class="">g</a><br class="">
<br class="">
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br class="">
<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.bioenergylists.or<wbr class="">g/mailman/listinfo/stoves_list<wbr class="">s.bioenergylists.org</a><br class="">
<br class="">
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br class="">
<a href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">http://stoves.bioenergylists.o<wbr class="">rg/</a><br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
______________________________<wbr class="">_________________<br class="">
Stoves mailing list<br class="">
<br class="">
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br class="">
<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank" class="">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.<wbr class="">org</a><br class="">
<br class="">
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br class="">
<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.bioenergylists.<wbr class="">org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_<wbr class="">lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br class="">
<br class="">
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br class="">
<a href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/" target="_blank" class="">http://stoves.bioenergylists.<wbr class="">org/</a><br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</body>
</html>