http://en.opasnet.org/en-opwiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=A.gasparrini&feedformat=atomOpasnet - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T17:56:16ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.29.1http://en.opasnet.org/en-opwiki/index.php?title=Talk:The_mortality_due_to_PM_2.5_from_buses&diff=4506Talk:The mortality due to PM 2.5 from buses2008-02-21T12:59:27Z<p>A.gasparrini: /* General evaluation of the variable -- A.gasparrini 14.10, 21 February 2008 (EET) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comment|#1: |The result does not specify which bus technology results in which impact. In addition, the result does not contain uncertainty. A table of results should be created based on the result of the respective Analytica node in the model.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 13:38, 21 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
== Mortality in the formula -- [[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 16:56, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= ''Mortality'' and ''Mortality background'' ask for two different parameters in the formula. Proposal M = Mortality and Mb = Mortality background --[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 16:56, 20 February 2008 (EET)<br />
|Outcome= Accepted.<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |The background mortality (Mb) is input into the formula, whereas the Mortality (M) is the output of the formula. These are therefore two different parameters |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 17:06, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{defend|#(2): |Mortality and Mortality background are different parameters. We are in agreement with the defend 1|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 17:56, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Scope should contain temporal information -- [[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:20, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= Scope should contain temporal information and whether it is an "average" or not.<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |The scope is not clear because it refers to number of premature deaths - but not the timeframe (daily, monthly, yearly etc), or whether or not it is yearly average, or in a particular year (i.e. 1997 or 2020)|--[[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:20, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{defend|#(2): |We agree. The number of deaths should be annual|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 17:56, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Premature deaths should be considered as ''additional'' == [[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 17:30, 20 February 2008 (EET)<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= Premature deaths should be considered as ''additional''<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |Premature deaths due to PM2.5 from buses should be defined as '''addtional''' to background premature deaths|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 17:29, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{attack|#(2): |There is no such thing as 'additional' or 'premature' deaths. Everybody dies once, so in the end (let's say, if a whole cohort has died), no one died ''additionally''. Instead, they have died earlier. (see next dispute) |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 17:43, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{defend|#(3): |It is not correct to talk about ''premature'' deaths, this is clear.|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 18:03, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
:{{attack_invalid|#(number): |Mathematically, that is true. However, it is a convention to calculate health impacts this way because it is easy. And "premature" is the word used for this, not "additional.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 18:16, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
::{{attack|#(4): |The fact that it is convention does not mean we have to keep using it. ''Excess mortality'' is another phrase that can be debated. My argumentation is described in [[Image:Brunekreef - The Brave New World of Lives Sacrificed and Saved.pdf]]. If you are very clear about the timeframe, it is perhaps okay to say it this way, but I would recommend using proper (and not convential) terminology ... |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 18:26, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
:{{defend|#(5): | In such a context we are using a counterfactual approach, describing what “would” have been if we change some parameters of our scenario. In this framework, it could happen that people die twice, but in different times. So, I think that “additional” deaths is an appropriate definition. |--[[ User:A.gasparrini| A.gasparrini]] 18.16, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Premature deaths --[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 17:43, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= Premature deaths should be rephrased, eg into 'deaths put forward'<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |'premature deaths' should better be described as 'deaths put forward', since the concept of premature deaths suggests that there is something like a 'mature death' which I don't not think is the good terminology |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 17:43, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{comment|#(1): |It seems reasonable to provide an estimate of excess mortality (i.e. vs background mortality) due to PM2.5 without referring to a timeframe i.e. deaths put forward|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 18:07, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{defend|#(2): |See above. ''Excess mortality'' is another phrase that can be debated. Argumentation further described in [[Image:Brunekreef - The Brave New World of Lives Sacrificed and Saved.pdf]]. |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 18:26, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Delete "Effect of bus type on PM2.5 emissions and exposure" -- [[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:30, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= "Effect of bus type on Pm2.5 emissions and exposure" should be deleted from causality<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |"Effect of bus type on PM2.5 emissions and exposure" refers to the scenarios and assessment, but is not a<br />
parent variable (and "bus type" is not within the scope of the variable because it is a scenario in the assessment).<br />
|--[[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:30, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Parent variables -- [[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:53, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= Parent items in the causality should be variables in the assessment.<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(number): |Causality should refer to variables in the assessment:<br />
# "Primary fine PM concentration due to bus emissions"<br />
# "Concentration-response function for primary fine PM"<br />
|--[[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:53, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{defend|#(2): |There is no sense in referring to data items under 'causality' unless they are variables.|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 18:10, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Problems with definitions -- [[User:A.gasparrini| A.gasparrini]] 18.03, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= The names of the variables included in the assessment is misleading<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |the variable “mortality rate1” doesn’t refer to number of cases during time, as the word “rate” is normally used, but is the increment of risk for a specific increase in concentration. For these reason, “mortality rate” and “background mortality” relate to different things. I think “relative risk”, or “risk increment” is a more appropriate definition |-- [[User:A.gasparrini| A.gasparrini]] 18.03, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}}}<br />
<br />
== General evaluation of the variable -- [[User:A.gasparrini| A.gasparrini]] 14.10, 21 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
It seems that the information entered in this variable and in the variables upstream are not coherent. Some sections don’t link each other, and several definitions are misleading.<br />
# “Mortality data” should be defined as “background mortality” (that refers to the hypothetical situation in which bus fleet doesn’t contribute with any emission). The variable “mortality rate1” doesn’t refer to number of cases during time, as the word “rate” is normally used, but is the increment of risk for a specific increase in concentration.<br />
# The sections DATA and FORMULA are not consistent: taking into account the latter, the former should contain: 1) a concentration-response function; 2) an absolute change in exposure to PM2.5 related to bus emissions; 3) the background mortality of the population. The “fraction of bus exposure of total road traffic exposure” has no use for this variable, because is used to compute the absolute change in exposure in the upstream part of the model.<br />
# In the context of this variable the section CAUSALITY should contain just the relationship between exposure to PM 2.5 and mortality effects.<br />
# Other minor changes: the RESULTS should be more general, as if you change some variables upstream the number of deaths could be different from 3-18, but this specific variable remains the same. Then the UNIT should be just “deaths per year".<br />
[[User:A.gasparrini| A.gasparrini]] 18.03, 20 February 2008 (EET)</div>A.gasparrinihttp://en.opasnet.org/en-opwiki/index.php?title=Talk:The_mortality_due_to_PM_2.5_from_buses&diff=4500Talk:The mortality due to PM 2.5 from buses2008-02-21T12:29:12Z<p>A.gasparrini: /* General evaluation of the variable -- A.gasparrini 14.10, 21 February 2008 (EET) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comment|#1: |The result does not specify which bus technology results in which impact. In addition, the result does not contain uncertainty. A table of results should be created based on the result of the respective Analytica node in the model.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 13:38, 21 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
== Mortality in the formula -- [[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 16:56, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= ''Mortality'' and ''Mortality background'' ask for two different parameters in the formula. Proposal M = Mortality and Mb = Mortality background --[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 16:56, 20 February 2008 (EET)<br />
|Outcome= Accepted.<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |The background mortality (Mb) is input into the formula, whereas the Mortality (M) is the output of the formula. These are therefore two different parameters |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 17:06, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{defend|#(2): |Mortality and Mortality background are different parameters. We are in agreement with the defend 1|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 17:56, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Scope should contain temporal information -- [[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:20, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= Scope should contain temporal information and whether it is an "average" or not.<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |The scope is not clear because it refers to number of premature deaths - but not the timeframe (daily, monthly, yearly etc), or whether or not it is yearly average, or in a particular year (i.e. 1997 or 2020)|--[[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:20, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{defend|#(2): |We agree. The number of deaths should be annual|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 17:56, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Premature deaths should be considered as ''additional'' == [[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 17:30, 20 February 2008 (EET)<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= Premature deaths should be considered as ''additional''<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |Premature deaths due to PM2.5 from buses should be defined as '''addtional''' to background premature deaths|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 17:29, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{attack|#(2): |There is no such thing as 'additional' or 'premature' deaths. Everybody dies once, so in the end (let's say, if a whole cohort has died), no one died ''additionally''. Instead, they have died earlier. (see next dispute) |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 17:43, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{defend|#(3): |It is not correct to talk about ''premature'' deaths, this is clear.|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 18:03, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
:{{attack_invalid|#(number): |Mathematically, that is true. However, it is a convention to calculate health impacts this way because it is easy. And "premature" is the word used for this, not "additional.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 18:16, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
::{{attack|#(4): |The fact that it is convention does not mean we have to keep using it. ''Excess mortality'' is another phrase that can be debated. My argumentation is described in [[Image:Brunekreef - The Brave New World of Lives Sacrificed and Saved.pdf]]. If you are very clear about the timeframe, it is perhaps okay to say it this way, but I would recommend using proper (and not convential) terminology ... |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 18:26, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
:{{defend|#(5): | In such a context we are using a counterfactual approach, describing what “would” have been if we change some parameters of our scenario. In this framework, it could happen that people die twice, but in different times. So, I think that “additional” deaths is an appropriate definition. |--[[ User:A.gasparrini| A.gasparrini]] 18.16, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Premature deaths --[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 17:43, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= Premature deaths should be rephrased, eg into 'deaths put forward'<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |'premature deaths' should better be described as 'deaths put forward', since the concept of premature deaths suggests that there is something like a 'mature death' which I don't not think is the good terminology |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 17:43, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{comment|#(1): |It seems reasonable to provide an estimate of excess mortality (i.e. vs background mortality) due to PM2.5 without referring to a timeframe i.e. deaths put forward|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 18:07, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{defend|#(2): |See above. ''Excess mortality'' is another phrase that can be debated. Argumentation further described in [[Image:Brunekreef - The Brave New World of Lives Sacrificed and Saved.pdf]]. |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 18:26, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Delete "Effect of bus type on PM2.5 emissions and exposure" -- [[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:30, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= "Effect of bus type on Pm2.5 emissions and exposure" should be deleted from causality<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |"Effect of bus type on PM2.5 emissions and exposure" refers to the scenarios and assessment, but is not a<br />
parent variable (and "bus type" is not within the scope of the variable because it is a scenario in the assessment).<br />
|--[[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:30, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Parent variables -- [[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:53, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= Parent items in the causality should be variables in the assessment.<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(number): |Causality should refer to variables in the assessment:<br />
# "Primary fine PM concentration due to bus emissions"<br />
# "Concentration-response function for primary fine PM"<br />
|--[[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:53, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{defend|#(2): |There is no sense in referring to data items under 'causality' unless they are variables.|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 18:10, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Problems with definitions -- [[User:A.gasparrini| A.gasparrini]] 18.03, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= The names of the variables included in the assessment is misleading<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |the variable “mortality rate1” doesn’t refer to number of cases during time, as the word “rate” is normally used, but is the increment of risk for a specific increase in concentration. For these reason, “mortality rate” and “background mortality” relate to different things. I think “relative risk”, or “risk increment” is a more appropriate definition |-- [[User:A.gasparrini| A.gasparrini]] 18.03, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}}}<br />
<br />
== General evaluation of the variable -- [[User:A.gasparrini| A.gasparrini]] 14.10, 21 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
It seems that the information entered in this variable and in the variables upstream are not coherent. Some sections don’t link each other, and several definitions are misleading.<br />
# “Mortality data” should be defined as “background mortality” (that refers to the hypothetical situation in which bus fleet doesn’t contribute with any emission). The variable “mortality rate1” doesn’t refer to number of cases during time, as the word “rate” is normally used, but is the increment of risk for a specific increase in concentration.<br />
# The sections DATA and FORMULA are not consistent: taking into account the latter, the former should contain: 1) a concentration-response function; 2) an absolute change in exposure to PM2.5 related to bus emissions; 3) the background mortality of the population. The “fraction of bus exposure of total road traffic exposure” has no use for this variable, because is used to compute the absolute change in exposure in the upstream part of the model.<br />
# In the context of this variable the section CAUSALITY should contain just the relationship between exposure to PM 2.5 and mortality effects.<br />
# Other minor changes: the RESULTS should be more general, as if you change some variables upstream the number of deaths could be different from 3-18, but this specific variable remains the same. Then the UNIT should be just “deaths per year.<br />
[[User:A.gasparrini| A.gasparrini]] 18.03, 20 February 2008 (EET)</div>A.gasparrinihttp://en.opasnet.org/en-opwiki/index.php?title=Talk:The_mortality_due_to_PM_2.5_from_buses&diff=4499Talk:The mortality due to PM 2.5 from buses2008-02-21T12:20:52Z<p>A.gasparrini: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{comment|#1: |The result does not specify which bus technology results in which impact. In addition, the result does not contain uncertainty. A table of results should be created based on the result of the respective Analytica node in the model.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 13:38, 21 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
== Mortality in the formula -- [[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 16:56, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= ''Mortality'' and ''Mortality background'' ask for two different parameters in the formula. Proposal M = Mortality and Mb = Mortality background --[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 16:56, 20 February 2008 (EET)<br />
|Outcome= Accepted.<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |The background mortality (Mb) is input into the formula, whereas the Mortality (M) is the output of the formula. These are therefore two different parameters |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 17:06, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{defend|#(2): |Mortality and Mortality background are different parameters. We are in agreement with the defend 1|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 17:56, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Scope should contain temporal information -- [[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:20, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= Scope should contain temporal information and whether it is an "average" or not.<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |The scope is not clear because it refers to number of premature deaths - but not the timeframe (daily, monthly, yearly etc), or whether or not it is yearly average, or in a particular year (i.e. 1997 or 2020)|--[[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:20, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{defend|#(2): |We agree. The number of deaths should be annual|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 17:56, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Premature deaths should be considered as ''additional'' == [[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 17:30, 20 February 2008 (EET)<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= Premature deaths should be considered as ''additional''<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |Premature deaths due to PM2.5 from buses should be defined as '''addtional''' to background premature deaths|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 17:29, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{attack|#(2): |There is no such thing as 'additional' or 'premature' deaths. Everybody dies once, so in the end (let's say, if a whole cohort has died), no one died ''additionally''. Instead, they have died earlier. (see next dispute) |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 17:43, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{defend|#(3): |It is not correct to talk about ''premature'' deaths, this is clear.|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 18:03, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
:{{attack_invalid|#(number): |Mathematically, that is true. However, it is a convention to calculate health impacts this way because it is easy. And "premature" is the word used for this, not "additional.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 18:16, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
::{{attack|#(4): |The fact that it is convention does not mean we have to keep using it. ''Excess mortality'' is another phrase that can be debated. My argumentation is described in [[Image:Brunekreef - The Brave New World of Lives Sacrificed and Saved.pdf]]. If you are very clear about the timeframe, it is perhaps okay to say it this way, but I would recommend using proper (and not convential) terminology ... |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 18:26, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
:{{defend|#(5): | In such a context we are using a counterfactual approach, describing what “would” have been if we change some parameters of our scenario. In this framework, it could happen that people die twice, but in different times. So, I think that “additional” deaths is an appropriate definition. |--[[ User:A.gasparrini| A.gasparrini]] 18.16, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Premature deaths --[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 17:43, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= Premature deaths should be rephrased, eg into 'deaths put forward'<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |'premature deaths' should better be described as 'deaths put forward', since the concept of premature deaths suggests that there is something like a 'mature death' which I don't not think is the good terminology |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 17:43, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{comment|#(1): |It seems reasonable to provide an estimate of excess mortality (i.e. vs background mortality) due to PM2.5 without referring to a timeframe i.e. deaths put forward|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 18:07, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{defend|#(2): |See above. ''Excess mortality'' is another phrase that can be debated. Argumentation further described in [[Image:Brunekreef - The Brave New World of Lives Sacrificed and Saved.pdf]]. |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 18:26, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Delete "Effect of bus type on PM2.5 emissions and exposure" -- [[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:30, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= "Effect of bus type on Pm2.5 emissions and exposure" should be deleted from causality<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |"Effect of bus type on PM2.5 emissions and exposure" refers to the scenarios and assessment, but is not a<br />
parent variable (and "bus type" is not within the scope of the variable because it is a scenario in the assessment).<br />
|--[[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:30, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Parent variables -- [[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:53, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= Parent items in the causality should be variables in the assessment.<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(number): |Causality should refer to variables in the assessment:<br />
# "Primary fine PM concentration due to bus emissions"<br />
# "Concentration-response function for primary fine PM"<br />
|--[[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:53, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{defend|#(2): |There is no sense in referring to data items under 'causality' unless they are variables.|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 18:10, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Problems with definitions -- [[User:A.gasparrini| A.gasparrini]] 18.03, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= The names of the variables included in the assessment is misleading<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |the variable “mortality rate1” doesn’t refer to number of cases during time, as the word “rate” is normally used, but is the increment of risk for a specific increase in concentration. For these reason, “mortality rate” and “background mortality” relate to different things. I think “relative risk”, or “risk increment” is a more appropriate definition |-- [[User:A.gasparrini| A.gasparrini]] 18.03, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}}}<br />
<br />
== General evaluation of the variable -- [[User:A.gasparrini| A.gasparrini]] 14.10, 21 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
It seems that the information entered in this variable and in the variables upstream are not coherent. Some sections doesn’t link each other, and several definitions are misleading.<br />
# “Mortality data” should be defined as “background mortality” (that refers to the hypothetical situation in which bus fleet doesn’t contribute with any emission). The variable “mortality rate1” doesn’t refer to number of cases during time, as the word “rate” is normally used, but is the increment of risk for a specific increase in concentration.<br />
# The sections DATA and FORMULA are not consistent: taking into account the latter, the former should contain: 1) a concentration-response function; 2) an absolute change in exposure to PM2.5 related to bus emissions; 3) the background mortality of the population. The “the fraction of bus exposure of total road traffic exposure” has no use for this variable, because is used to compute the absolute change in exposure in the upstream part of the model.<br />
# In the context of this variable the section CAUSALITY should contain just the relationship between exposure to PM 2.5 and mortality effects.<br />
# Other minor changes: the RESULTS should be more general, as if you change some variables upstream the number of deaths could be different from 3-18, but this specific variable remains the same. Then the UNIT should be just “deaths per year.<br />
[[User:A.gasparrini| A.gasparrini]] 18.03, 20 February 2008 (EET)</div>A.gasparrinihttp://en.opasnet.org/en-opwiki/index.php?title=Talk:The_mortality_due_to_PM_2.5_from_buses&diff=4495Talk:The mortality due to PM 2.5 from buses2008-02-21T12:14:57Z<p>A.gasparrini: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{comment|#1: |The result does not specify which bus technology results in which impact. In addition, the result does not contain uncertainty. A table of results should be created based on the result of the respective Analytica node in the model.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 13:38, 21 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
== Mortality in the formula -- [[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 16:56, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= ''Mortality'' and ''Mortality background'' ask for two different parameters in the formula. Proposal M = Mortality and Mb = Mortality background --[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 16:56, 20 February 2008 (EET)<br />
|Outcome= Accepted.<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |The background mortality (Mb) is input into the formula, whereas the Mortality (M) is the output of the formula. These are therefore two different parameters |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 17:06, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{defend|#(2): |Mortality and Mortality background are different parameters. We are in agreement with the defend 1|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 17:56, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Scope should contain temporal information -- [[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:20, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= Scope should contain temporal information and whether it is an "average" or not.<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |The scope is not clear because it refers to number of premature deaths - but not the timeframe (daily, monthly, yearly etc), or whether or not it is yearly average, or in a particular year (i.e. 1997 or 2020)|--[[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:20, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{defend|#(2): |We agree. The number of deaths should be annual|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 17:56, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Premature deaths should be considered as ''additional'' == [[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 17:30, 20 February 2008 (EET)<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= Premature deaths should be considered as ''additional''<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |Premature deaths due to PM2.5 from buses should be defined as '''addtional''' to background premature deaths|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 17:29, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{attack|#(2): |There is no such thing as 'additional' or 'premature' deaths. Everybody dies once, so in the end (let's say, if a whole cohort has died), no one died ''additionally''. Instead, they have died earlier. (see next dispute) |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 17:43, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{defend|#(3): |It is not correct to talk about ''premature'' deaths, this is clear.|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 18:03, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
:{{attack_invalid|#(number): |Mathematically, that is true. However, it is a convention to calculate health impacts this way because it is easy. And "premature" is the word used for this, not "additional.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 18:16, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
::{{attack|#(4): |The fact that it is convention does not mean we have to keep using it. ''Excess mortality'' is another phrase that can be debated. My argumentation is described in [[Image:Brunekreef - The Brave New World of Lives Sacrificed and Saved.pdf]]. If you are very clear about the timeframe, it is perhaps okay to say it this way, but I would recommend using proper (and not convential) terminology ... |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 18:26, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
:{{defend|#(5): | In such a context we are using a counterfactual approach, describing what “would” have been if we change some parameters of our scenario. In this framework, it could happen that people die twice, but in different times. So, I think that “additional” deaths is an appropriate definition. |--[[ User:A.gasparrini| A.gasparrini]] 18.16, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Premature deaths --[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 17:43, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= Premature deaths should be rephrased, eg into 'deaths put forward'<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |'premature deaths' should better be described as 'deaths put forward', since the concept of premature deaths suggests that there is something like a 'mature death' which I don't not think is the good terminology |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 17:43, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{comment|#(1): |It seems reasonable to provide an estimate of excess mortality (i.e. vs background mortality) due to PM2.5 without referring to a timeframe i.e. deaths put forward|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 18:07, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{defend|#(2): |See above. ''Excess mortality'' is another phrase that can be debated. Argumentation further described in [[Image:Brunekreef - The Brave New World of Lives Sacrificed and Saved.pdf]]. |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 18:26, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Delete "Effect of bus type on PM2.5 emissions and exposure" -- [[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:30, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= "Effect of bus type on Pm2.5 emissions and exposure" should be deleted from causality<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |"Effect of bus type on PM2.5 emissions and exposure" refers to the scenarios and assessment, but is not a<br />
parent variable (and "bus type" is not within the scope of the variable because it is a scenario in the assessment).<br />
|--[[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:30, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Parent variables -- [[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:53, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= Parent items in the causality should be variables in the assessment.<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(number): |Causality should refer to variables in the assessment:<br />
# "Primary fine PM concentration due to bus emissions"<br />
# "Concentration-response function for primary fine PM"<br />
|--[[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:53, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{defend|#(2): |There is no sense in referring to data items under 'causality' unless they are variables.|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 18:10, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Problems with definitions -- [[User:A.gasparrini| A.gasparrini]] 18.03, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= The names of the variables included in the assessment is misleading<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |the variable “mortality rate1” doesn’t refer to number of cases during time, as the word “rate” is normally used, but is the increment of risk for a specific increase in concentration. For these reason, “mortality rate” and “background mortality” relate to different things. I think “relative risk”, or “risk increment” is a more appropriate definition |-- [[User:A.gasparrini| A.gasparrini]] 18.03, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}}}<br />
<br />
== General evaluation of the variable -- [[User:A.gasparrini| A.gasparrini]] 14.10, 21 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{comment|#(1): | It seems that the information entered in this variable and in the variables upstream are not coherent. Some sections doesn’t link each other, and several definitions are misleading.<br />
|# “Mortality data” should be defined as “background mortality” (that refers to the hypothetical situation in which bus fleet doesn’t contribute with any emission). The variable “mortality rate1” doesn’t refer to number of cases during time, as the word “rate” is normally used, but is the increment of risk for a specific increase in concentration.<br />
|# The sections DATA and FORMULA are not consistent: taking into account the latter, the former should contain: 1) a concentration-response function; 2) an absolute change in exposure to PM2.5 related to bus emissions; 3) the background mortality of the population. The “the fraction of bus exposure of total road traffic exposure” has no use for this variable, because is used to compute the absolute change in exposure in the upstream part of the model.<br />
|# In the context of this variable the section CAUSALITY should contain just the relationship between exposure to PM 2.5 and mortality effects.<br />
|# Other minor changes: the RESULTS should be more general, as if you change some variables upstream the number of deaths could be different from 3-18, but this specific variable remains the same. Then the UNIT should be just “deaths per year.<br />
|-- [[User:A.gasparrini| A.gasparrini]] 18.03, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}}}</div>A.gasparrinihttp://en.opasnet.org/en-opwiki/index.php?title=Talk:The_mortality_due_to_PM_2.5_from_buses&diff=4428Talk:The mortality due to PM 2.5 from buses2008-02-20T16:20:08Z<p>A.gasparrini: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Mortality in the formula -- [[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 16:56, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= ''Mortality'' and ''Mortality background'' ask for two different parameters in the formula. Proposal M = Mortality and Mb = Mortality background --[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 16:56, 20 February 2008 (EET)<br />
|Outcome= Accepted.<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |The background mortality (Mb) is input into the formula, whereas the Mortality (M) is the output of the formula. These are therefore two different parameters |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 17:06, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
{{defend|#(2): |Mortality and Mortality background are different parameters. We are in agreement with the defend 1|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 17:56, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Scope should contain temporal information -- [[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:20, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= Scope should contain temporal information and whether it is an "average" or not.<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |The scope is not clear because it refers to number of premature deaths - but not the timeframe (daily, monthly, yearly etc), or whether or not it is yearly average, or in a particular year (i.e. 1997 or 2020)|--[[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:20, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
{{defend|#(2): |We agree. The number of deaths should be annual|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 17:56, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Premature deaths should be considered as ''additional'' == [[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 17:30, 20 February 2008 (EET)<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= Premature deaths should be considered as ''additional''<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |Premature deaths due to PM2.5 from buses should be defined as '''addtional''' to background premature deaths|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 17:29, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{attack|#(2): |There is no such thing as 'additional' or 'premature' deaths. Everybody dies once, so in the end (let's say, if a whole cohort has died), no one died ''additionally''. Instead, they have died earlier. (see next dispute) |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 17:43, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
{{defend|#(3): |It is not correct to talk about ''premature'' deaths, this is clear.|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 18:03, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
:{{attack|#(number): |Mathematically, that is true. However, it is a convention to calculate health impacts this way because it is easy. And "premature" is the word used for this, not "additional.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 18:16, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
:{{defend|#(2): | In such a context we are using a counterfactual approach, describing what “would” have been if we change some parameters of our scenario. In this framework, it could happen that people die twice, but in different times. So, I think that “additional” deaths is an appropriate definition. |--[[ User:A.gasparrini| A.gasparrini]] 18.16, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}}}<br />
<br />
== Premature deaths --[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 17:43, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= Premature deaths should be rephrased, eg into 'deaths put forward'<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |'premature deaths' should better be described as 'deaths put forward', since the concept of premature deaths suggests that there is something like a 'mature death' which I don't not think is the good terminology |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 17:43, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
{{comment|#(1): |It seems reasonable to provide an estimate of excess mortality (i.e. vs background mortality) due to PM2.5 without referring to a timeframe i.e. deaths put forward|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 18:07, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Delete "Effect of bus type on PM2.5 emissions and exposure" -- [[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:30, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= "Effect of bus type on Pm2.5 emissions and exposure" should be deleted from causality<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |"Effect of bus type on PM2.5 emissions and exposure" refers to the scenarios and assessment, but is not a<br />
parent variable (and "bus type" is not within the scope of the variable because it is a scenario in the assessment).<br />
|--[[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:30, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Parent variables -- [[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:53, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= Parent items in the causality should be variables in the assessment.<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(number): |Causality should refer to variables in the assessment:<br />
# "Primary fine PM concentration due to bus emissions"<br />
# "Concentration-response function for primary fine PM"<br />
|--[[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:53, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
{{defend|#(2): |There is no sense in referring to data items under 'causality' unless they are variables.|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 18:10, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Problems with definitions -- [[User:A.gasparrini| A.gasparrini]] 18.03, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= The names of the variables included in the assessment is misleading<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |the variable “mortality rate1” doesn’t refer to number of cases during time, as the word “rate” is normally used, but is the increment of risk for a specific increase in concentration. For these reason, “mortality rate” and “background mortality” relate to different things. I think “relative risk”, or “risk increment” is a more appropriate definition |-- [[User:A.gasparrini| A.gasparrini]] 18.03, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}}}</div>A.gasparrinihttp://en.opasnet.org/en-opwiki/index.php?title=Talk:The_mortality_due_to_PM_2.5_from_buses&diff=4421Talk:The mortality due to PM 2.5 from buses2008-02-20T16:08:39Z<p>A.gasparrini: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Mortality in the formula -- [[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 16:56, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= ''Mortality'' and ''Mortality background'' ask for two different parameters in the formula. Proposal M = Mortality and Mb = Mortality background --[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 16:56, 20 February 2008 (EET)<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |The background mortality (Mb) is input into the formula, whereas the Mortality (M) is the output of the formula. These are therefore two different parameters |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 17:06, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
{{defend|#(2): |Mortality and Mortality background are different parameters. We are in agreement with the defend 1|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 17:56, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Scope should contain temporal information -- [[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:20, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= Scope should contain temporal information and whether it is an "average" or not.<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |The scope is not clear because it refers to number of premature deaths - but not the timeframe (daily, monthly, yearly etc), or whether or not it is yearly average, or in a particular year (i.e. 1997 or 2020)|--[[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:20, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
{{defend|#(2): |We agree. The number of deaths should be annual|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 17:56, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Premature deaths should be considered as ''additional'' == [[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 17:30, 20 February 2008 (EET)<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= Premature deaths should be considered as ''additional''<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |Premature deaths due to PM2.5 from buses should be defined as '''addtional''' to background premature deaths|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 17:29, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
<br />
{{attack|#(2): |There is no such thing as 'additional' or 'premature' deaths. Everybody dies once, so in the end (let's say, if a whole cohort has died), no one died ''additionally''. Instead, they have died earlier. (see next dispute) |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 17:43, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
{{defend|#(3): |It is not correct to talk about ''premature'' deaths, this is clear.|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 18:03, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Premature deaths --[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 17:43, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= Premature deaths should be rephrased, eg into 'deaths put forward'<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |'premature deaths' should better be described as 'deaths put forward', since the concept of premature deaths suggests that there is something like a 'mature death' which I don't not think is the good terminology |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 17:43, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
{{comment|#(1): |It seems reasonable to provide an estimate of excess mortality (i.e. vs background mortality) due to PM2.5 without referring to a timeframe i.e. deaths put forward|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 18:07, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Delete "Effect of bus type on PM2.5 emissions and exposure" -- [[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:30, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= "Effect of bus type on Pm2.5 emissions and exposure" should be deleted from causality<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |"Effect of bus type on PM2.5 emissions and exposure" refers to the scenarios and assessment, but is not a<br />
parent variable (and "bus type" is not within the scope of the variable because it is a scenario in the assessment).<br />
|--[[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:30, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Parent variables -- [[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:53, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= Parent items in the causality should be variables in the assessment.<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(number): |Causality should refer to variables in the assessment:<br />
# "Primary fine PM concentration due to bus emissions"<br />
# "Concentration-response function for primary fine PM"<br />
|--[[User:Ninais|Ninais]] 17:53, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}}}<br />
<br />
== Problems with definitions -- [[User:A.gasparrini| A.gasparrini]] 18.03, 20 February 2008 (EET) ==<br />
<br />
{{discussion<br />
|Dispute= The names of the variables included in the assessment is misleading<br />
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)<br />
|Argumentation =<br />
{{defend|#(1): |the variable “mortality rate1” doesn’t refer to number of cases during time, as the word “rate” is normally used, but is the increment of risk for a specific increase in concentration. For these reason, “mortality rate” and “background mortality” relate to different things. I think “relative risk”, or “risk increment” is a more appropriate definition |-- [[User:A.gasparrini| A.gasparrini]] 18.03, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}}}</div>A.gasparrinihttp://en.opasnet.org/en-opwiki/index.php?title=User:A.gasparrini&diff=3122User:A.gasparrini2007-12-12T17:50:34Z<p>A.gasparrini: New page: Antonio Gasparrini Public and Environmental Health Research Unit (PEHRU) London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK Office: 0044 (0)20 79272406 Mobile:...</p>
<hr />
<div>Antonio Gasparrini<br />
Public and Environmental Health Research Unit (PEHRU)<br />
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine<br />
Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK<br />
Office: 0044 (0)20 79272406<br />
Mobile: 0044 (0)79 64925523<br />
www.lshtm.ac.uk/pehru/<br />
antonio.gasparrini@lshtm.ac.uk</div>A.gasparrinihttp://en.opasnet.org/en-opwiki/index.php?title=Kuopio_Risk_Assessment_Workshop_2008&diff=3121Kuopio Risk Assessment Workshop 20082007-12-12T17:49:04Z<p>A.gasparrini: /* Attendees */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Kuopio risk assessment workshop 2008''' is the second workshop about new methods in risk assessment, organised by the National Public Health Institute (KTL), Kuopio, Finland. Its main purpose is to promote the idea and practice of open risk assessments, and further develop methods to perform them. The workshop has started from the needs of several EU-funded research projects, notably [http://www.intarese.org Intarese], [http://www.beneris.eu Beneris], and [http://www.heimtsa.eu Heimtsa]. The workshop is mainly directed to doctoral students working in the fields of environmental health or risk assessment, but it is also open to anyone interested. If you want to join the workshop, please create a user account (by following the log in/create account link in the right-top corner of the page) with your contact information and add your username to the list on the bottom of this page. The number of participants might have to be limited due to practical reasons. If we have to restrict participation, people from the projects mentioned above and the ones who have registered early will have an advantage. There is no deadline for registration or registration fee for the workshop, but early registration is highly recommended.<br />
<br />
== General information ==<br />
<br />
{|{{prettytable}}<br />
|-<br />
|'''Time:'''|| 18.2 - 22.2.2008<br />
|-<br />
|'''Place:'''|| KTL, Kuopio, Finland<br />
|-<br />
|'''Organizer:'''|| National Public Health Institute (KTL), Department of Environmental Health<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<googlemap lat="62.903976" lon="27.638855" type="map" zoom="11" width="375"><br />
62.893334, 27.679328, Kuopio, Finland<br />
62.890603, 27.627397, KTL<br />
Neulaniementie 4, <br />
70701 Kuopio, Finland<br />
</googlemap><br />
<br />
== Description ==<br />
<br />
The workshop will be on open risk assessment, namely:<br />
*Theory<br />
*Method<br />
*Technical facilitation<br />
*Application<br />
<br />
== Program ==<br />
<br />
This is a tentative plan for the workshop program<br />
<br />
<br />
Monday 18 February<br />
*9:00 - 11:45<br />
**Introduction to Open Risk Assessment<br />
**Introduction to the case study<br />
**Practical arrangements<br />
*11:45 - 12:45<br />
**Lunch<br />
*12:45 - 16:45<br />
**Parallel training sessions:<br />
***Working in the wiki<br />
***Introduction to Analytica<br />
***Case study planning<br />
**Group-work on the case study<br />
<br />
<br />
Tuesday 19 February - Thursday 21 February<br />
*9:00 - 11:45<br />
**Lecture (different aspects of ORA)<br />
**Case study review<br />
**Practical arrangements<br />
*11:45 - 12:45<br />
**Lunch<br />
*12:45 - 16:45<br />
**Group-work on the case study<br />
<br />
<br />
Friday 22 February<br />
*9:00 - 11:45<br />
**Group-work on the case study<br />
*11:45 - 12:45<br />
**Lunch<br />
*12:45 - 16:45<br />
**Wrap-up of the case study<br />
<br />
<br />
A web-conference access will be provided for the lecture sessions. The case study will be worked on using the [[Main Page|Heande website]].<br />
<br />
We will try to arrange lectures and group work in a way that people can attend the lectures via Internet (and possibly even participate). Group work will be mostly done in the Internet anyway. People who can not make it to Kuopio can be in contact using [http://www.skype.com Skype]. This way, we may be able to organise the workshop without a need to limit participation.<br />
<br />
In addition to lectures and group-work, there will naturally be a great social programme including e.g. winter sports.<br />
<br />
==Case study==<br />
<br />
One objective of the workshop is to work on a real-life case study using the Internet tools that have been developed in the projects mentioned above. The work will be chopped into bite-size pieces so that a flexible number of people can effectively work on it. The actual topic of the case study has not been decided yet. Add your suggestion below.<br />
<br />
Possible case study topics:<br />
* Fine particle risks in urban areas<br />
* Health impacts of actions reducing greenhouse gas emissions<br />
* One of the Intarese case studies<br />
* Benefits and risks of food (e.g. vegetable-rich vs. vegetable-poor diet)<br />
* Health impacts of Helsinki bus traffic - different fuel options & traffic planning scenarios<br />
<br />
== Attendees ==<br />
<br />
The registration is open. If interested to participate, please create a user account by following the log in/create account link in the right-top corner of the page and add your user name on the list of attendees below. '''Early expression of interest, although it might have to be canceled later, is better than waiting for the last minute before registering.''' We will not limit participation unless it is necessary due to practical reasons, such as shortage of physical workspace available.<br />
<br />
We will try to arrange student-apartment-level accommodation for the workshop participants, but you may also organise your own accommodation, e.g. hostel/hotel, yourself, if you prefer that. The cost/person for the student apartment accommodation will be approximately 200 - 250 €. The accommodation costs will be invoiced from the participants after the workshop. '''If you wish to have a student-apartment-level accommodation arranged for you, please add a mention about this (e.g. ''accommodation needed'') after your name and organisation in the list of attendees below!''' We can guarantee student-apartment accommodation to those who have registered before the end of December 2007. '''The student apartments will be reserved for the whole month of February to our use, so it is possible to extend your stay in Kuopio with no additional accomodation costs'''.<br />
<br />
Each participant should have a laptop computer; if this is not possible for you, please let us know well in advance and we will see what we can do about it. You may also participate from wherever you are, as most major things - except the social programme - will be made available via Internet.<br />
<br />
Please list your name and organisation here:<br />
<br />
* [[User:Juha Villman|Juha Villman, KTL]]<br />
* [[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola, KTL]]<br />
* [[User:Jouni|Jouni Tuomisto, KTL]]<br />
* [[User:Jgrellier|James Grellier, Imperial College London]] (accommodation required)<br />
* [[User:Päivi Meriläinen|Päivi Meriläinen, KTL]]<br />
* [[User:Erkki Kuusisto|Erkki Kuusisto, KTL]]<br />
* [[User:Vlasta|Vlasta Svecova, IEM AS CR (accommodation needed)]]<br />
* [[User:haereid|Anne Hæreid, University of Kuopio]]<br />
* Trisha Rytkönen, University Of Kuopio<br />
* Kwaku Oduro Lokko, University of Kuopio<br />
* [[User: Ninais|Nina Iszatt, Imperial College London]] (accommodation required)<br />
* [[User:Kinga|Kinga Lancz, Slovak medical university SR(accommodation needed from 11th to 22nd of February)]]<br />
* [[User:Lubica|Lubica Palkovicova, Slovak medical university SR(accommodation needed)]]<br />
* [[User:Pauliina Ahtoniemi|Pauliina Ahtoniemi, University of Kuopio]]<br />
* [[User:Jana|Jana Tulinska, Slovak Medical University (accommodation needed)]]<br />
* [[User:Antonio Gasparrini|Antonio Gasparrini, LSHTM, London]] (accomodation required)</div>A.gasparrini