<div dir="ltr">Ron:<br><br>Thank you so much. I will read that paper. I don't have any opinion on health rationales because what is usually strewn around as "burden of disease" has no basis in theory or facts. <br><br>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. <br><br>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><br>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><br>Kirk Smith also wrote something similar in 1999 - how few actual measurements had been and not comparable over time and across location. <br><br>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><br>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><br>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><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="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><font face="georgia, serif"> <br></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><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Ronal W. Larson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net" target="_blank">rongretlarson@comcast.net</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">Nikhil and list:<div><br></div><div><span class="m_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">https://www.atmos-chem-<wbr>phys.net/17/13721/2017/acp-17-<wbr>13721-2017.pdf</a> </div><div><span class="m_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">https://www.atmos-chem-phys.<wbr>net/17/13721/2017/acp-17-<wbr>13721-2017-supplement.pdf</a></div><div><br></div><div><span class="m_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><br></div><div><span class="m_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><span class="m_1951825311752651923Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></div><div><span class="m_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><br></div><div><span class="m_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><br></div><div>Ron</div><div><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5"><div>On Dec 16, 2017, at 9:01 AM, Nikhil Desai <<a href="mailto:pienergy2008@gmail.com" target="_blank">pienergy2008@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_1951825311752651923Apple-interchange-newline"></div></div><div><div><div class="h5"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></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)"><tbody><tr><td style="font-family:Arial;padding:18px 0px 12px;vertical-align:top"><span style="padding:0px 6px 0px 0px"><a href="http://indiacsr.in/on-the-ground-research-reveals-true-impact-of-cook-stove-emissions-in-india/" target="_blank">On-the-ground research reveals true impact of <b>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"><div><div class="m_1951825311752651923gmail_signature"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><font face="georgia, serif"> </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>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><div class="m_1951825311752651923gmail_signature"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div class="m_1951825311752651923gmail_signature"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>Once the data was crunched back in St. Louis, the results were startling: In some cases, <u>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><div class="m_1951825311752651923gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><br>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><br>Or whether the alleged "previous lab findings" are comparable or this research team is just boasting. <br><br>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><br>Related press release at <a href="https://source.wustl.edu/2017/08/engineers-work-fight-pollution-home-globally/" target="_blank">Engineers work to fight pollution at home, globally</a>, Erika Ebsworth-Goold August 11, 2017. Haven't yet located the full paper. <br><br>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></div></div>