<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 and list:<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Your key sentence below is near the end (with my added emphasis): <i class="">All I am saying is that no quantification <b class=""><u class="">can yet be made</u></b>. </i></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>I claim such quantification can and has been made. My proof are the statements made at the AGU conference linking deaths to forest fires - with the connection made within days or weeks. This to ask you for the fifth time to comment on those experts statements. This has nothing (repeat nothing) to do with your opinion of the reporter’s credentials.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Ron</div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Dec 19, 2017, at 9:58 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="">Dear Ron: <br class=""><br class="">Lab WBT is not worth arguing about. I don't know what good it does. <br class=""><br class="">This paper in question does look at real stoves and fuels, but what shall I compare its results with - lab readings with WBT with some fictional three-stone stove and a fuel type that is not obtained locally in the areas in question? That's what I meant by "cooked up evidence". They compare their findings to the lab results with WBT; I say the comparison is meaningless, since WBT itself is meaningless to begin with. <br class=""><br class="">There is no established relationship between real emission factors and emission rates and the type of disease incidence that may have any meaning for intervention. All we have is GoBbleDygook of DALYs computed from emission rates, with no theory, no data. <br class=""><br class="">There is no question that smoke may lead to some illness depending on the person in question, level of exposure, and other individual and environmental factors. All I am saying is that no quantification can yet be made. <br class=""><br class="">I thought you tracked GACC's work. <br class=""><br class="">Nikhil</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=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div style="font-size:12.8px" class=""><font face="georgia, serif" class="">------------------------</font></div><div style="font-size:12.8px" class=""><font face="georgia, serif" class="">Nikhil Desai</font></div><div style="font-size:12.8px" 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></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></div></div>
<br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:03 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 Few notes below.<div class=""><br class=""><div class=""><span class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Dec 18, 2017, at 10:25 AM, Nikhil Desai <<a href="mailto:pienergy2008@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">pienergy2008@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_2816065107989974762Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra">Ron: <br class=""><br class="">I have now read the paper and I am baffled at your claim that "it is full of health rationales (for India)."<br class=""><br class="">It makes no findings about health, just about emission factors in a small part of India. <br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><span class="m_2816065107989974762Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></div><span class="m_2816065107989974762Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b class="">[RWL: Maybe I’m wrong, but I believe you can’t do anything related to health without knowing emission factors. </b><span class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra">
<br class="">To the authors' credit, they specify what fuels they have evaluated, provide their chemical analysis. And they have looked at actual cooking, not water boiling. <br class=""><br class="">I wonder if they had looked at GACC-commissioned study in India of district-level emissions. <br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote></span><div class=""><span class="m_2816065107989974762Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b class="">[RWL: <span class="m_2816065107989974762Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>The cite for which is?</b></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><br class="">I am astounded at your claim "I doubt one can use this paper to downgrade the WBT." when the authors clearly conclude that " standardized burn protocols (typically
a water boiling test) may not replicate cookstove performance
in the field.”</div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><span class="m_2816065107989974762Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b class="">[RWL: You are “astounded” because lab staff can produce lower emission results than in the field? Your preference would be for them to artificially get big emission numbers? I think there is general agreement that test lab staff try very hard to not let a fire go out - and real cooks have other, conflicting responsibilities.</b></div><div class=""><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div class=""><b class=""><span class="m_2816065107989974762Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>So you doubt my doubt - please show a clear line between this paper’ s (non-WBT) numbers and what might result in a lab WBT test of a chula? </b></div><span class=""><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra">Only says "may". Because we really don't know much about emission rates across real stoves and fuels. It’s mostly a cooked up evidence. <br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><span class="m_2816065107989974762Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></div></span><div class=""><span class="m_2816065107989974762Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b class="">[RWL: You believe this paper is not looking at “real stoves and fuels”? Their study looked to me pretty real. How would you have improved it?</b></div><div class=""><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div class=""><b class="">Ron </b><span class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><br class="">Nikhil<br class=""><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:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class="">Nikhil and list:<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="m_2816065107989974762gmail-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" 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_2816065107989974762gmail-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" 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_2816065107989974762gmail-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 class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="m_2816065107989974762gmail-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 class=""><span class="m_2816065107989974762gmail-m_1951825311752651923Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></div><div class=""><span class="m_2816065107989974762gmail-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 class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="m_2816065107989974762gmail-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 class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Ron</div><div class=""><br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="m_2816065107989974762gmail-h5"><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_2816065107989974762gmail-m_1951825311752651923Apple-interchange-newline"></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><div class="m_2816065107989974762gmail-h5"><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:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px" class=""><div class=""><div class="m_2816065107989974762gmail-m_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_2816065107989974762gmail-m_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_2816065107989974762gmail-m_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_2816065107989974762gmail-m_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></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>