Talk:ERF of methyl mercury on intelligence quotient: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Parameters corrected) |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
{{discussion | {{discussion | ||
|Statements= Is the toxicology of methylmercury known enough to get a reliable result? | |Statements= Is the toxicology of methylmercury known enough to get a reliable result?{{needs editing}} | ||
|Resolution= | |Resolution= The method is a general way of doing these transformations, we can rely on this | ||
|Argumentation = | |Argumentation = | ||
{{attack_invalid|1|Is this variable toxicologically sound?|--[[User:Olli|Olli]] 15:59, 17 September 2007 (EEST)}} | {{attack_invalid|1|Is this variable toxicologically sound?|--[[User:Olli|Olli]] 15:59, 17 September 2007 (EEST)}} | ||
:{{attack|2|The further research of this variable goes on|--[[User:Olli|Olli]] 15:59, 17 September 2007 (EEST)}} | :{{attack|2|The further research of this variable goes on|--[[User:Olli|Olli]] 15:59, 17 September 2007 (EEST)}} | ||
}} | {{comment|1 |This toxicological approach is generally approved|--[[User:Olli|Olli]] 13:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)}}}} | ||
{{discussion | {{discussion | ||
| | |Statements= Author judgement about the chosen distribution | ||
|Resolution= | |Resolution= | ||
|Argumentation = | |Argumentation = | ||
{{comment|1|Justifiable procedure in author judgement would be to use name(s) of the author(s) used --> here e.g. (Leino O., 2007). Scientific information should always be citable. Maybe even a short rationale about the chosen distribution would be needed. (While proposing this, I understand this may seen trivial to someone. However, to my understanding reference issues the method will anyway face sooner or later.)|--[[User:Anna Karjalainen|Anna Karjalainen]] 16:51, 20 November 2007 (EET)}}}} | {{comment|1|Justifiable procedure in author judgement would be to use name(s) of the author(s) used --> here e.g. (Leino O., 2007). Scientific information should always be citable. Maybe even a short rationale about the chosen distribution would be needed. (While proposing this, I understand this may seen trivial to someone. However, to my understanding reference issues the method will anyway face sooner or later.)|--[[User:Anna Karjalainen|Anna Karjalainen]] 16:51, 20 November 2007 (EET)}}}} | ||
Latest revision as of 13:34, 23 November 2010
moved from Beneris -- Jouni 11:28, 14 February 2008 (EET)
Toxicology of methylmercury
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: Is the toxicology of methylmercury known enough to get a reliable result?Needs editing
Closing statement: The method is a general way of doing these transformations, we can rely on this (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
⇤--1: . Is this variable toxicologically sound? --Olli 15:59, 17 September 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
|
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: Author judgement about the chosen distribution
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
----1: . Justifiable procedure in author judgement would be to use name(s) of the author(s) used --> here e.g. (Leino O., 2007). Scientific information should always be citable. Maybe even a short rationale about the chosen distribution would be needed. (While proposing this, I understand this may seen trivial to someone. However, to my understanding reference issues the method will anyway face sooner or later.) --Anna Karjalainen 16:51, 20 November 2007 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
|