Talk:ERF of methylmercury: Difference between revisions
(old discussion resolved) |
(merged from Talk:ERF of methyl mercury on CVD risk in adults) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{discussion | |||
|Statements= ERF of Hg in hair on CVD risk vs ERF of MeHg in hair on CVD risk | |||
|Resolution= | |||
|Argumentation ={{comment|1|Is it proper to assume that the ERF of MeHg in hair on CVD risk is the same as ERF of Hg in hair on CVD risk? Or is the conversion from Hg concentration in hair into MeHg concentration in hair needed?}}}} | |||
{{discussion | |||
|Statements= ERF of Hg in hair on CVD risk vs remaining lifetime CVD risk | |||
|Resolution= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found) | |||
|Argumentation ={{comment|2|Does this ERF represent the effect of Hg in hair on remaining lifetime risk of CVD death or on CVD death risk per another unit time?}}}} | |||
== -- [[User:Heta|Heta]] 10:43, 13 October 2012 (EEST) == | == -- [[User:Heta|Heta]] 10:43, 13 October 2012 (EEST) == | ||
Latest revision as of 12:21, 22 August 2019
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: ERF of Hg in hair on CVD risk vs ERF of MeHg in hair on CVD risk
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
----1: . Is it proper to assume that the ERF of MeHg in hair on CVD risk is the same as ERF of Hg in hair on CVD risk? Or is the conversion from Hg concentration in hair into MeHg concentration in hair needed? {{{3}}} (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
|
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: ERF of Hg in hair on CVD risk vs remaining lifetime CVD risk
Closing statement: Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found) (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
----2: . Does this ERF represent the effect of Hg in hair on remaining lifetime risk of CVD death or on CVD death risk per another unit time? {{{3}}} (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
|
-- Heta 10:43, 13 October 2012 (EEST)
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 should have a reference.
Closing statement: Accepted. In the case of MeHg ERF, it is Cohen et al 2005. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--#: . Author judgement was part of the peer-reviewed study of Cohen JT, Bellinger DC, Shaywitz BA. A quantitative analysis of prenatal methyl mercury exposure and cognitive development. Am J Prev Med. 2005 Nov;29(4):353-65. They published the MeHg ERF estimate of triangular distribution (0, 0.7, 1.5) decrease of IQ points per 1 ug/g maternal hair. --Jouni (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ----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) |