User:Sami Rissanen

Homework 3

(Sami Rissanen & Jukka Hirvonen)

Scope

Defines the purpose of the assessment: why is it done?

Talvivaara mine has been alot on news becauce of environmental problems. Escpecially leakages to natural waters but local air quality broblems have occurred too. Rock crushing plant creates alot of mineraldust (PM10 and PM2,5). Assessment is done to investigate the amounts (t.ex. concentration) of mineraldust that is present in air of mining and working area where workers are exposed. From other studies it seems that heavymetall concentrations in air as dust are biggest in rock crushing plant compared to other places in mine.

Question

A research question that the assessment attempts to answer.

Is the outdoor air quality a health hasard to mine workers and people who live nearby mine or work nearby mine area? What kind of mineral dust particles there is present in air and how high are the concentrations? Is there health hazard related to fine particle emissions (PM10, PM2,5)

----#: . Because you are interested in other groups as well, that should be reflected in your question. --Jouni 07:09, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Intended use and users

List of users that are supposed to need the assessment. Also, how do we expect them to use the information?

Talvivaara mining company Kainuun ELY-keskus (Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment)

Company wants to know is the air quality in acceptable level. They need infomation about when and where the worst concentrations occur. Company can do shanges to reduse emissions if needed.

ELY-keskus needs to know is the air quality legal and safe to workers. ELY-keskus can impose the company to reduse emissions if needed.

Regional TTL (Työterveyslaitos) to observe air quality levels and workers safety and work condititions, and to offer knowledge and improvements to working conditions if needed.

←--#: . Good points. --Jouni 07:09, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Participants

Who is needed to participate to make the assessment a well-balanced and well-informed work? Also, if specific reasons exists: who is not allowed to participate and why?

Needed:

A consultant to measure air quality.

Company

ELY-keskus

DARM group

Regional TTL

The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (FANC)

ELY, DARM and TTL represent as neutral participants offering objective viewpoint. FACN and Company represent viewpoints best suited for their own interest. ----#: . Are biased opinions a reason to exclude someone? How can the company be a participant, then? --Jouni 07:09, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Scenarios

Decisions and decision options considered. Also, if scenarios (defined here as delibarate deviations from the truth) are used, they are described here. For example this is a scenario: "Let's assume that the whole population is exposed as much as the maximally exposed individual, because we want to see if even the worst-case scenario causes concern."

Rock crushing plant:

BAU or reducing emissions with some technique, t.ex. building insulation around crushing devices, or offering effective personal protection devices for workers in crushing plant. Also searching more developed rock crushing techniques and/or machines to improve crushing and reducing the amount of dust that arises.

Overall mine area:

Building protection structures to prevent wind from lifting dust and moving it around mine area. Using more water or other chemicals to tie up dust in roads and other gateways in mine area where moving vehicles lift dust to air.

←--#: . Good. --Jouni 07:09, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Analyses

What statistical or other analyses are needed to be able to produce results that are useful for making conclusions about the question?

First, air quality measurements and observations are needed to obtain information about fine particle and dust concentrations in rock crushing plant and overall mine area. Interviews to workers and people living nearby mine are arranged to get more information related to dust issue. With all this information the fine particle concentration, dust concentration and which places the dust and fine particle problem is biggest in mine area are analyzed. Interviews give interesting information about subjective viewpoint that how bad the dust issue is in peoples opinions. Finally all gathered information is used to make decisions and offer possible solutions for alleged dust and fine particle problem.

----#: . This is about assessment-level analyses. Measurements of concentrations belong to variables and are described there. --Jouni 07:09, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Answer

Results

What are the results of the analysis?

As the result of analysis there is specific information about dust concentrations and fallouts in different parts of mine area and visual observations hopefully give infomation how wind effects and from which direction wind enters to mine area causing most damage by lifting sand and fine particles to air.

Conclusion

What is the conclusion about the question based on the results obtained?

The best option is...t.ex. build protection structure against wind in some specific place in mine area, to use some different and probably better method for rock crushing or insulate rock crushing site to prevent fine particle emissions surrounding air. For workers t. ex offer specific personal protection devices against fine particles.

Rationale

Endpoints

• What are the stakeholders that we should consider?

There are mainly three different groups as stakeholders: 1.People living and workind nearby the mine but not directly linked to mine. 2.Owners and leaders of mine (Company, DARM-group), and 3.mine workers who assumed to be most affected by fine particles and poor air quality in mine area.

• What are the endpoints that a stakeholder is interested in? How would the stakeholder summarise the endpoints to derive an overall preference ranking for outcomes of decision options? Think about this separately for each stakeholder.

-People living and working nearby mine, not directly linked to mine: Group is probaply interested if the mine is shut down, or if the particle emissions and amount of dust lifting in air is reduced and by what methods. This group is likely to rank putting the whole mine down as most prefered option and second best option is to offer good methods to reduce particle emissions and dust in air.

-Owners and leaders of mine: This group wants to keep mine working and is looking the most cost effective options to reduce fine particle emissions and dust to a level, that satisfies workers and people living nearby mine area. As for most prefered endpoint owners and leaders probably hope that there is no need to do any investments for solving problem, which is arised from workers and nearby living people.

-Mine workers Worker group hopes that mine can be kept running and they can keep their workplace but this groups most likely prefers effective solutions for reducing dust from air and fine particle emissions so that work conditions are tolerable or good and so that their personal health is not affected.

←--#: . Good. --Jouni 07:09, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Variables

• What are the issues that should be looked at to be able to understand the outcomes of the decision options?

- Are the observations and measurements made properly and are the results correct and enough informative to support decision making? Is there enough measurements and observations to plan different options based on this knowledge? How much does different options cost to reduce fine particle and dust emissions? Which is most cost effective, if there is such method? Does there need to be use several methods to gain control of particle emissions and dust?

• • What emissions and exposures should be considered?

Emissions from rock crushing plant:

Exposure to different heavy metal types: t.ex: copper, nickel, kobolt etc. Exposure of mineral dust PM₁₀ and PM_2,5 (different particle sizes)

Emissions and air quality in other mine area:

Exposure to dusty air, fine particles and heavy metals included

• • What health endpoints should be considered?

Overall health of workers and nearby mine living people, possible respiratory system diseases and reduction of work productiveness. Heavy metals and/or fine particles possible causing cancer.

• • What exposure-response functions should be considered?

Inhaling and swallowing air that consists of fine particles and/or dust. Exposure through skin?

• • What population subgroups should be considered?

Mine area workers

People living and working nearby mine area.

Homework 4

Helsinki Metropolitan Area Climate Change Adaptation Strategy

(Sami Rissanen & Jukka Hirvonen)

Questions and answers:

• What are the aims/goals of the strategy/program, i.e. what are the desired impacts and outcomes striven for?

Strategy concentrates on the adaptation of the built and urban environment to the changing climate. The vision is climate proof city.

The strategy aims to

1) assess the impacts of climate change in the area,

2) prepare for the impacts of climate change and to extreme weather events and

3) to reduce the vulnerabilities of the area to climate variability and change.

• Who are those that benefit if the aims/goals of the strategy/program are reached? How?

• What are the actions that are needed/intended to take in order to progress towards the aims/goals?
  • Who are those that actually realize these actions?

• What are the decisions that are needed to make in order to enable/promote the actions?
  • Who are the decision makers?

• What direct or indirect health impacts, positive or negative, these decisions and actions (may) have?
  • Where and how do these impacts take place, who are those that face these health impacts in practice?
  • Are the health impacts big or small in relation to other impacts (e.g. economical, social, climate, other environmental, ...)?
  • Do the intended policies result in win-win, win-lose, lose-win, or lose-lose situations with regard to health and other impacts?

• Formulate a plausible and meaningful specific assessment question that takes account of (some of) the aspects considered in above questions.

• Extra question: In what ways your answers do or do not represent "shared understanding"? (The climate program/strategy can be considered a compilation of contributions by many experts and attempting to reflect the views and needs of different decision makers and stakeholders).