<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Good discussion.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I would add in that health is not the only variable. The cook using a TLUD might like not having to stay close to the hot stove pushing fuel into it, but can step back while the meal is cooking and do other things like care for the baby, prepare the rest of the meal, sew clothing, etc. The improved stove might be so nice to use that, once the cook is comfortable with how to use it, it will gradually take over more of the cooking load. </p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I think that, as nice as electrical stoves are, they are questionable in “beyond established grids” low income areas. Perhaps there isn’t enough money in some of these areas to entice electrical and fossil fuel companies to expand there (?). Improved biomass stoves might be the best choice here, especially improved stoves that can use brush, ag waste, and farmed fuels instead of trees.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Kirk H.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Sent from <a href="https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986">Mail</a> for Windows 10</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0in'><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com">Crispin Pemberton-Pigott</a><br><b>Sent: </b>Friday, May 31, 2019 5:40 AM<br><b>To: </b><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">Discussion of biomass cooking stoves</a><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Stoves] Off-topic: "Beyond Fire" - electric cooking beyondestablished grids</p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA>Dear Andrew<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b>></b>I<span lang=EN-CA> don't understand the objection to "stacking", is it just that if less clean cooking appliances are used as well as the cleaner ones the improvement is simply not good enough?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA>The claim is that stoves can be “health protective”. This is a highly suspect claim. It is obvious that stoves in combination with fuels can be “health damaging”. Just because something causes, in a general population, assessible harm, doesn’t mean that replacing a particular stove+fuel with another confers some quantifiable measure of “health protection” on that individual. Nikhil has been trying to communicate this point for a long time. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA>If you were to know a great deal about everyone in the past whose health was harmed by stove emissions, and about the individual get the new system, you could project something, but a stove is not a pill. It is not a medical treatment.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA>Similarly, people who smoke cigarettes are affected differently. Getting someone to go from 20 per day to 5 does not “confer a quantifiable health benefit” on that person. I knew a 92 year old lady who smokes almost continuously. When she died she dies “post-maturely” and it is possible, according to the logic of IHME, to attribute her exceptionally long life to smoking cigarettes. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA>Stove stacking is being used to undermine the “general benefits” of reducing exposure to smoke. Having made the error of claiming specific benefits for an individual (about whom nothing is known) it is “logical” to claim that reducing the use of the stove from 100% to 50% means half the benefits are lost and the number of avoided disability life years (aDALYs) is reduced. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA>The entire exercise is fictitious. DALYs do not actually exist and neither do aDALYs. Generally speaking the proponents are confusing health policy with medicine. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA>Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>