Talk:Gasbus - health impacts of Helsinki bus traffic

From Opasnet
Revision as of 13:22, 16 November 2009 by Mikomiko (talk | contribs) (Add "total concentration" as supplementary data to the diagram. ("constant node" in Analytica))
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Excluded variables

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: The following variables should not be included in the assessment
  • A PM2.5 emissions from other sources
  • B Overall PM2.5 concentration in Helsinki
  • C Total PM-induced mortality
  • D Exposure to bus-derived PM2.5
  • E Lung intake of bus-derived PM2.5

Closing statement: Accepted.

(A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:

←--1: . For A, B, C: We are not interested in non-bus-derived emissions. --Jouni 23:11, 18 February 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--2: . For D, E: We don't need exposure or intake, because we have a concentration-response function, not an exposure-response or dose-response function. --Jouni 23:11, 18 February 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

We need to take account of that the emissions variable is per year and the concenctration variable is in 2020

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: We need to take account of that the emissions variable is per year and the concenctration variable is in 2020.

Closing statement: Resolution not yet found.

(A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:
←--1: . The emissions variable contains all years, but the concentration variable contains the values for 2020. Also, the scenarios are in 2020. So we must extract the 2020 values of the emissions variable. --Alexandra Kuhn 09:59, 21 February 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Bus technology variable is "current" and the assessment has its scenarios in 2020.

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Bus technology variable is "current" and the assessment has its scenarios in 2020.

Closing statement: Resolution not yet found.

(A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:

←--1: . It is good to have the "current" technology because we assume that the technolgoy and the bus fleet do not change from 1997 to 2020. --Alexandra Kuhn 10:02, 21 February 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

⇤--2: . The version "current" changes all the time. How to know to which time to refer to? --Alexandra Kuhn 10:02, 21 February 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Add "total concentration" as supplementary data to the diagram. ("constant node" in Analytica)

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Add "total concentration" as supplementary data to the diagram. ("constant node" in Analytica)

Closing statement: Resolution not yet found.

(A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:
←--1: . The total primary PM 2.5 concentration is not only related to the bus emissions so it is not a variable, but the measured data are used to calculate the contribution of the busses (source apportionment) so they are important to know. --Alexandra Kuhn 13:29, 21 February 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: The results and information used to derive them (data, formula) for each scenario should be contained in a variable.

Closing statement: Resolution not yet found.

(A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:
←--1: . The assessment process is not transparent without such information. --Miranda 13:19, 22 February 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Assumptions should be explicitly included as a sub-attribute in assessments and variables.

Closing statement: Resolution not yet found.

(A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:
←--1: . By explicitly putting assumptions in assessments and variables, the creators and users are forced to think about them. This is a very important part of any assessment/analysis/model. This also allows for a more transparent process. --Miranda 13:19, 22 February 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)