<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Nikhil: A few comments below.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But first I also specifically asked about your reaction to the AGU article by Chris Mooney. No comment about health impacts of forest fires?<br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Dec 16, 2017, at 6:45 PM, Nikhil Desai <<a href="mailto:pienergy2008@gmail.com" class="">pienergy2008@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Ron: <div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">You are making a strawman out of me and relishing demolishing it, burning it. <br class=""><br class="">Enjoy!!<br class=""><br class="">1. You: "<b style="font-size:12.8px" class="">And the thousands of paper supporting BOD have <u class="">no</u> “theory or facts”? You must have stopped looking."<br class=""><br class=""></b>*** Yeah, right. I only questioned the GBD from HAP, WHO estimates in 2012. I gave you and the list link to WHO's method and results. If you see "data" there, prove it. ** <br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">[RWL1: I tried to find something but your reference is too vague. I am now reading this report</b></div><div><b class=""> <a href="http://www.who.int/healthinfo/RGHS_MeetingReport_March2017.pdf?ua=1" class="">http://www.who.int/healthinfo/RGHS_MeetingReport_March2017.pdf?ua=1</a>. </b></div><div><b class="">How about pulling out a few sentences that prove your point, and we’ll compare to mine. And I’ll read your prior cite. </b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span> What are your thoughts on the SDGs and health goals that I see there? All bogus also?</b></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><br class="">2. The "one study" I mentioned was discussed at the EPA/Winrock webinar recently. Write to Jim Jetter or John Mitchell or Elisa Derby or wait till Winrock uploads the webinar on its website. <br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">[RWL2: I listened to that webinar and thought it was great. Let me know what you disliked when it is out. Wr, why don’t your write them - because I have no idea what this “one study” was about.</b><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><br class="">3. See Grant's thesis <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265361292_Emissions_of_Rural_Wood-Burning_Cooking_Devices" class="">here</a>. Kirk Smith's 1999 note to the World Bank should be on his website. My reference to Grant’s thesis being on the methods for measuring concentrations, not emissions, was incorrect. <br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">[RWL3 I met Grant in Johannesburg in 2002 and probably read it then, because I thought he looked quite knowledgeable I stopped reading the Thesis this time after the first two sentences: “<i class="">Approximately 2,500 million people are exposed daily to emissions from biofuel-burning cooking sites. Respiratory disease, which is the main cause of death in developing communities, is linked to these emissions.”</i></b></div><div><b class=""><i class=""><br class=""></i></b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>How about giving one or two sentences that supports your reading of this thesis? Shall we waste Grant’s time by asking him whether he supports your version of stove health issues? </b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I also can’t believe you are asking me to go Kirk’s website to prove something on stove health issues that supports your non-causation, anti-WHO theory.</b></div><div><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></b><b class=""> Nikhil - you have gotten desperate in proposing support cites. I’m willing to waste some time in hopes you will stop the Don Quixote activity.</b></div><div class=""><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div><br class=""></div><div>4. The reason I don't like the IWA metrics of efficiency and PM2.5 is, there is no statement of the problem and there is no theory of change. Prove me the alleged worldwide deforestation and desertification, climate change, ill health, and sexual violence caused by inefficient and smoky use of solid fuels. </div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>RWL4: Please cite something anybody ever said to support that really curious argument. </b></div><div><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span> The rest of this paragraph below is also unfathomable - zero logic. The next sentence is covered by my point RWL1. We should believe you because some future report “might” give you the evidence? </b></div><div><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I suggest it is time for you to stop this line of attack against the obvious positive relationship between stove emissions and health impacts. Your argument is identical to that made by the cigarette industry; they eventually gave it up and you’d be wise to do the same.</b></div><div><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div><b class="">Ron</b></div><div><br class=""></div><div>I have already pointed out that WHO has no data on health and I haven't yet found any data on the other three evils either. When GACC publishes its report on this 8.8 million British pounds research project by DfID - <a href="https://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/projects/GB-1-203036" class="">here</a>.- we might get the evidence I am looking for. Anybody can attribute anything to anything else; the glib and the gullible enjoy a great marriage. </div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Nikhil</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all" class=""><div class=""><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="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=""><font face="georgia, serif" class="">------------------------------------------------------------------------<br class="">Nikhil Desai</font></div><div class=""><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small" class="">(US +1) 202 568 5831</span><font face="georgia, serif" class=""><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></div></div>
<br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 6:52 PM, 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 style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><div class="">Nikhil and list:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="m_3256402727550745594Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Besides the following responses, the front page feature article today in the Denver Post concentrates on health aspects of forest fires - one scientist saying their emissions are probably more hazardous to health than coal-fired power plants (in this country). This from the just concluded AGU conference, I’d like your reaction to this piece written by science writer Chris Mooney (originally printed one day earlier in the Washington Post. The article is at: <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/2017/12/15/wildfire-smoke-deadly-csu-researchers-say/" target="_blank" class="">http://www.denverpost.com/<wbr class="">2017/12/15/wildfire-smoke-<wbr class="">deadly-csu-researchers-say/</a></div><div class=""><span class="m_3256402727550745594Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>There are four scientists quoted here on the relationship between smoke and health; why should we believe you and not them?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Bit more below</div><br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><span class=""><div class="">On Dec 16, 2017, at 2:01 PM, Nikhil Desai <<a href="mailto:pienergy2008@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">pienergy2008@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_3256402727550745594Apple-interchange-newline"></span><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Ron:<br class=""><br class="">Thank you so much. I will read that paper. I don’t have any opinion on health rationales <b class="">[RWL: Huh? No opinions?</b></div></div></blockquote><span class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">because what is usually strewn around as “burden of disease" has no basis in theory or facts. <br class=""></div></div></blockquote><span class="m_3256402727550745594Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b class="">[RWL: And the thousands of paper supporting BOD have <u class="">no</u> “theory or facts”? You must have stopped looking.</b><span class="m_3256402727550745594Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Why are you so paranoid about criticism of WBT though? WBT is for lab testing of efficiency and emission rates, with a fixed fuel type and energy content, and actual emission rates can differ. It would be no different with other lab test methods; lab is meant to be a controlled environment and an abstraction from reality.</div></div></blockquote><span class="m_3256402727550745594Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b class="">[RWL: I’m sure I have said this numerous times. </b></div><div class=""><b class=""><span class="m_3256402727550745594Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>1. I am strongly driven by concern over climate change.</b></div><div class=""><b class=""><span class="m_3256402727550745594Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>2. We must take carbon out of the atmosphere - very quickly. Wind and solar are not enough, even if 100% overnight.</b></div><div class=""><b class=""><span class="m_3256402727550745594Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>3. The best means I have found for CDR is biochar (based on social acceptance and economics - exemplified by Julien Winter’s report from Bangladesh - re improved NPP)</b></div><div class=""><span class="m_3256402727550745594Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b class="">4. The lowest cost biochar I have found is via char-making stoves (today - could change). This char/stove </b><b class="">stove connection is </b><b class="">not limited to TLUDs - thinking also Nat Mulcahy and possibly Norbert Senf.</b></div><div class=""><b class=""><span class="m_3256402727550745594Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>5. The best way I have seen to promote char-making stoves using major funding groups (mainly health oriented) is through the well established and accepted system of Tiers</b></div><div class=""><b class=""><span class="m_3256402727550745594Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>6. The Tier system today relies on the WBT.</b></div><div class=""><b class=""><span class="m_3256402727550745594Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>7. Char-making stoves excel at the WBT (which is not “an abstraction from reality” - the results are reproducible.)</b></div><div class=""><b class=""><span class="m_3256402727550745594Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><br class=""></b></div><div class=""><span class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""> <br class=""><br class="">I brought in "protocols" because just as there stove testing methods for supposed "performance metrics" (scrupulously eliminating the cook and the cooking method, so as to promote expert control in support of expert theories), there are also different methods and equipment for measuring pollution concentrations. <br class=""><br class="">If I am not mistaken, this is what Graham Ballard-Tremeer did his PhD thesis on, circa 1998 at the Uni of Wittwatersrand. It was quite a revelation to me that reported indoor air pollution measurements came from use of different protocols or no protocols at all.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><span class="m_3256402727550745594Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b class="">[RWL: I’d like to see a cite on that (look for Grant not Graham). I just skimmed through his paper from 2000: <a href="http://www.hedon.info/docs/IAP_interventions.pdf" target="_blank" class="">http://www.hedon.info/docs/<wbr class="">IAP_interventions.pdf</a> , which makes a strong case on the need for stove improvements for health reasons.</b></div><div class=""><span class=""><span class="m_3256402727550745594Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Kirk Smith also wrote something similar in 1999 - how few actual measurements had been and not comparable over time and across location. <br class=""></div></div></blockquote><span class="m_3256402727550745594Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b class="">[RWL: Dr. Smith supports the WBT. I believe also Tiers.</b><span class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class="">Most recently, as I may have noted elsewhere today, I discovered that only one study has measured emission rates for a particular stove using different fuels and that all other multi-fuel tests have been with the three-stone fire. (I can’t imagine how anybody can simulate a three-stone fire, which has survived over millennia simply because it is so fuel-flexible and versatile.) <br class=""></div></div></blockquote><span class="m_3256402727550745594Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b class="">[RWL: I know of one on different fuels and will be reporting on it - using a TLUD. What is your study? The three stone fire measurements provide the definition of the lowest tier. One doesn’t simulate the 3-stone fire - one builds one in the lab. Yes the three-stone fire has virtues, but not on efficiency and emission metrics (and especially being able to make money while using.)</b><span class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class="">You may have noticed that it's not the WBT I don't care for - hadn't, in 1983, and see no reason to change my view - but the metrics. They are meant to rationalize expert research grants. Academia is a different world from that of budgeting and policy decisions. <br class=""></div></div></blockquote><span class="m_3256402727550745594Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b class="">[RWL: The metrics look fine to me. Which don’t you like? In my experience, budgeting and policy decisions rely heavily on academia.</b><span class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class="">Could the Washington University researcher on seeds Bedigian by any chance? Jatropha seeds have been mentioned as a fuel option - I think direct burning as well as esterification. <br class=""></div></div></blockquote><span class="m_3256402727550745594Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b class="">[RWL: You can make money today using these seeds in a TLUD - just the right size and shape, I believe. A.nyone tried them? (Their poisonous character needs testing. But there are plenty of seed types around</b></div><div class=""><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div class=""><b class="">Ron<br class=""></b><span class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class=""><div class="m_3256402727550745594gmail_signature" data-smartmail="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=""><font face="georgia, serif" class=""> <br class=""></font>Nikhil</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 Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 3:30 PM, 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 style="word-wrap:break-word" class="">Nikhil and list:<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="m_3256402727550745594m_1951825311752651923Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>The (non-fee) paper is at <a href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/17/13721/2017/acp-17-13721-2017.pdf" target="_blank" class="">https://www.atmos-chem-phys<wbr class="">.net/17/13721/2017/acp-17-1372<wbr class="">1-2017.pdf</a> </div><div class=""><span class="m_3256402727550745594m_1951825311752651923Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>The supplement at <a href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/17/13721/2017/acp-17-13721-2017-supplement.pdf" target="_blank" class="">https://www.atmos-chem-phys.n<wbr class="">et/17/13721/2017/acp-17-13721-<wbr class="">2017-supplement.pdf</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="m_3256402727550745594m_1951825311752651923Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Looks like a credible paper - but not one I am going to read carefully as it is only related to traditional chulas. Seems to have a somewhat different means of monitoring the pollutants - in the field. I doubt one can use this paper to downgrade the WBT.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="m_3256402727550745594m_1951825311752651923Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>I am going to guess you won’t like the paper as it is full of health rationales (for India).</div><div class=""><span class="m_3256402727550745594m_1951825311752651923Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></div><div class=""><span class="m_3256402727550745594m_1951825311752651923Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Re repeatability, I am working up more on fuel shape, which is a main feature of the L’Orange et al paper. Fuel shape also not covered in the TLUD paper I noted with the 10% efficiency that Crispin has since commented on.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="m_3256402727550745594m_1951825311752651923Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Twenty years ago we had some fine comments from a Professor at Washington University - who (I vaguely recall) was interested in some seeds that performed well for cooking because of their high oil content - that had no other use, because they were poisonous.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Ron</div><div class=""><br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="m_3256402727550745594h5"><div class="">On Dec 16, 2017, at 9:01 AM, Nikhil Desai <<a href="mailto:pienergy2008@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">pienergy2008@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_3256402727550745594m_1951825311752651923Apple-interchange-newline"></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><div class="m_3256402727550745594h5"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><table style="font-family:Arial;border-collapse:collapse;border-left:1px solid rgb(228,228,228);border-right:1px solid rgb(228,228,228)" class=""><tbody class=""><tr class=""><td style="font-family:Arial;padding:18px 0px 12px;vertical-align:top" class=""><span style="padding:0px 6px 0px 0px" class=""><a href="http://indiacsr.in/on-the-ground-research-reveals-true-impact-of-cook-stove-emissions-in-india/" target="_blank" class="">On-the-ground research reveals true impact of <b class="">cook-stove</b> emissions in India</a>. India CSR Network blog, 15 December 2017</span></td></tr></tbody></table><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px" class=""><div class=""><div class="m_3256402727550745594m_1951825311752651923gmail_signature"><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><font face="georgia, serif" class=""> </font> "We conducted real-life cookstove tests and burned a wide variety of biofuels, cooked different meals in a number of varying ventilation situations, then <u class="">recorded the resulting emission levels</u> using high-tech particle measurement devices.</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class=""><div class="m_3256402727550745594m_1951825311752651923gmail_signature"><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class=""><div class="m_3256402727550745594m_1951825311752651923gmail_signature"><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class="">Once the data was crunched back in St. Louis, the results were startling: In some cases, <u class="">more than twice the emission levels were detected when compared to the previous lab findings</u>, revising what people thought they knew for decades about this pervasive and dangerous problem."</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><div class="m_3256402727550745594m_1951825311752651923gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><br class="">I wonder what protocols and fuels were used, and also whether they only measured emissions but also concentrations and tried to model the two. <br class=""><br class="">Or whether the alleged "previous lab findings" are comparable or this research team is just boasting. <br class=""><br class="">I hope the revisions are not as shoddy as the history. What people thought they knew was what they chose to or were instructed to believe. <br class=""><br class="">Related press release at <a href="https://source.wustl.edu/2017/08/engineers-work-fight-pollution-home-globally/" target="_blank" class="">Engineers work to fight pollution at home, globally</a>, Erika Ebsworth-Goold August 11, 2017. Haven't yet located the full paper. <br class=""><br class="">Nikhil </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div>
</div></blockquote></span></div><br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div>
</blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></body></html>