[Stoves] The other side of airpollution

[Boll, Martin Dr.]

Kevin,

I write this under a new topic, because the thread: [Stoves] Tom Miles'
Highlights from ETHOS 2007 is misleading.

 

You wrote:

I've always been a great fan of chimneys and exhaust for eliminating Indoor 
Air Pollution. I can't see why they don't have general acceptance in the 
Third World, when virtually nobody in Canada or the US would consider living

in a house that had an inside stove with no chimney. Is there any Building 
Jurisdiction in these areas that would permit construction of a building 
where a solid fueled stove was vented inside?
 

 

First of all: I like chimneys, and living space kept clean of smoke, as you
do.

But:

Few days ago here on a German TV-channel, there was a report of third-world
houses being kept clean from smoke over a longer time.

The negative effect of that, they showed, was: The biomass-roofs were
destructed far quicker than with *smoked* roofs. As second effect: there
were severe respiratory diseases caused by some *animals/microbes/fungi*
living in the clean -not by smoke impregnated- roofs.

 

Formerly I asked myself if smoke in living-rooms did not save sometimes some
people from malaria-infections, a silly positive effect of air pollution.

 

There are always at least two sides to be seen. You must not think that I
suggest smoky living-rooms, but by healing the air-pollution, we must
consider to be forced to heal other bad things as well, which we had not (or
less) to cure without curing the first bad thing.

 

By the way, for smiling together: We will not do wrong, if we plant some
tree-seeds.

-But let us keep out of the area of waste-water-tubes, if we choose
willow-trees.  :-) -  

 

Things are so complicated,-we all know!

 

 

Regards

 

Martin