Talk:PM2.5 exposure-response function: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New section: apples and oranges) |
No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{discussion | {{discussion | ||
| | |Statements= Relevance of scope is not possible to be evaluated. | ||
| | |Resolution= | ||
| | |Argumentation = | ||
{{defend| | {{defend|1|In order to know the relevance of the ER function we need to know what exposure data will be available. However,we will assume that data from ambient monitoring sites is available. This will be considered a proxy for "personal exposure data".|--[[User:Dvienneau|Dvienneau]] 15:16, 18 February 2009 (EET)}} | ||
{{defend|2|The aim of this variable is to use exposure as defined in the scope. It is true that within the context of the assessment if the corresponding exposure variable is not available, this variable will not be used, but the [[Concentration-response to PM2.5]] can be used|--[[User:Anazelle|Anazelle]] 15:50, 18 February 2009 (EET)}} | |||
}} | |||
== apples and oranges == | == apples and oranges == | ||
{{discussion | {{discussion | ||
| | |Statements= Existing ER functions don't match exposure | ||
| | |Resolution= | ||
|Argumentation = {{defend| | |Argumentation = | ||
{{defend|1|The ER functions from Dockery, Pope etc derive from ambient exposures, not personal|--[[User:Dvienneau|Dvienneau]] 15:26, 18 February 2009 (EET)}} | |||
{{defend|2|That's our point!!! We're trying to change the concentratio-response to an exposure response function, perhaps we were unclear.|--[[User:Anazelle|Anazelle]] 15:46, 18 February 2009 (EET)}} | |||
}} | |||
Latest revision as of 13:32, 16 November 2009
Exposure data availability
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: Relevance of scope is not possible to be evaluated.
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--1: . In order to know the relevance of the ER function we need to know what exposure data will be available. However,we will assume that data from ambient monitoring sites is available. This will be considered a proxy for "personal exposure data". --Dvienneau 15:16, 18 February 2009 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ←--2: . The aim of this variable is to use exposure as defined in the scope. It is true that within the context of the assessment if the corresponding exposure variable is not available, this variable will not be used, but the Concentration-response to PM2.5 can be used --Anazelle 15:50, 18 February 2009 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) |
apples and oranges
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: Existing ER functions don't match exposure
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--1: . The ER functions from Dockery, Pope etc derive from ambient exposures, not personal --Dvienneau 15:26, 18 February 2009 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ←--2: . That's our point!!! We're trying to change the concentratio-response to an exposure response function, perhaps we were unclear. --Anazelle 15:46, 18 February 2009 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) |