[Stoves] The other side of airpollution

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Andrew
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "andrew" <list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk>
To: <stoves at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] The other side of airpollution


> On Monday 05 February 2007 22:49, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>
>> I would suggest that most of the "stove regulations" are
>> implemented for health and fire safety reasons. We say that we are
>> trying to reduce IAP, yet we propose conditions for the Third
>> World users that would be intolerable and unacceptable by our own
>> Standards.
>
> Yes because there is a cost-benefit constraint, a clean burning stove
> is still a lot better than a smoke producing fire even if it won't
> meet our standards.

That is a really good point. It is perhaps the salvation or the demise of 
the efforts to improve IAQ.

On the one hand, the preface "a little pollution is better than a lot of 
pollution" can simply be an excuse to continue supplying poorly designed 
stove systems. On the other hand, if there is a "pollution threshold below 
which health hazards are minimal, then any stove venting inside but not 
exceeding these levels would be quite acceptable, and would represent the 
most cost effective solution.

Have you seen any IAQ standards that are meaningful and that fairly reflect 
the health consequences to the person living in that environment? For 
example, if present Air pollution Levels were say 1000 units, and this 
caused serious health problems, it is possible that reduction to say 200 
would eliminate 90% of health hazards, while a level of less than 20 would 
be necessary to virtually eliminate the problem.

Many Standards are written to reflect "best possible conditions." Striving 
for such quality levels would probably be costly enough that nothing would 
get done.

If such data, as outlined above were available, it should be a relatively 
easy task to confirm that inside venting of stoves was a sound move, or if 
exhaust hoods and/or a chimney should be used.

Best wishes,

Kevin