<div dir="ltr">Frank: <br><br>As things stand, only Gold Standard Foundation is offering aDALYs, using Kirk Smith's HAPIT, a thinly veiled marketing tool for LPG or "Tier 4" (ISO protocols, whatever they are).<br><br>THAT is the measure of "truly health protective" Kirk Smith is marketing (i.e., HAPIT, not any stove as such). <br><br>While Gold Standard demands WBT, no technical improvement in stoves have much value. <br><br>So, public donors for bulk procurement as well as private middlemen such as Gold Standard and CDM need to get away from WBT. <br><br>The stakes are not small. <br><br>Nikhil<br><br>PS: Gold Standard sells aCO2 and aDALY monitoring and certification services in its own name (no public authority required). aDALY may not require any stove testing, since - to my knowledge - DALYs were not based on any emissions, just concentrations. Pretty much like WBT - a fuel-free, cook-free metric so as to raise propaganda hell. <font face="georgia, serif"><br></font><br><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Frank Shields <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:franke@cruzio.com" target="_blank">franke@cruzio.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><br><div><div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<p class="MsoNormal">Nikhil writes:<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">. The real task is to see whether a "truly health
protective" biomass stove can be marketed at scale in the next five years.
</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u><span style="font-family:Menlo-Regular,sans-serif;font-size:13.5pt"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:Menlo-Regular,sans-serif">Crispin writes:<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:Menlo-Regular,sans-serif"> </span><span style="font-family:Menlo-Regular,sans-serif;font-size:13.5pt">At first blush, because
the EPA wanted to create a set of tiers for performance similar </span><span style="font-family:Menlo-Regular,sans-serif;font-size:13.5pt">to the ones
they have for other industries, and to embed the WBT as the go-to test method </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Menlo-Regular,sans-serif;font-size:13.5pt">before it was seriously challenged in academic circles. Obviously it was already
being </span><span style="font-family:Menlo-Regular,sans-serif;font-size:13.5pt">challenged by the private sector.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Frank writes:</p><p class="MsoNormal">To achieve the goal Nikhil mentions we only need to replace
the Go-To test Crispin mentions with something that is not flawed, is robust,
simple and information provided on; Biomass >> to >> Task (6-Box
system) such that the test can be </p><p class="MsoNormal">repeated at different labs. This Go-To test
is the core for all the other parameters like Tiers, PM2.5, energy eff., selection
for a receiving site, health & safety, measurements for making improvements.
Etc. Etc. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">We NEED a Go-To test before we can do anything else. That’s what
needs our full attention IMO. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Regards<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Frank<u></u><u></u></p>
Thanks<br><div><div style="letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div>Frank</div><div><br></div><div>Frank Shields</div><div>Gabilan Laboratory</div><div>Keith Day Company, Inc.</div><div>1091 Madison Lane</div><div>Salinas, CA 93907</div><div><a href="tel:(831)%20246-0417" target="_blank" value="+18312460417">(831) 246-0417</a> cell</div><div><a href="tel:(831)%20771-0126" target="_blank" value="+18317710126">(831) 771-0126</a> office</div><div><br></div><div><a href="mailto:franke@cruzio.com" target="_blank">franke@cruzio.com</a></div><div><br></div></div><br class="m_5653631665950593187Apple-interchange-newline"><br class="m_5653631665950593187Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
</div></div></blockquote></div> </div><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>