Talk:PM2.5 exposure-response function: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|Dispute= Relevance of scope is not possible to be evaluated. | |Dispute= Relevance of scope is not possible to be evaluated. | ||
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found) | |Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found) | ||
| | |Argumentation = | ||
{{defend|#: |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|#: |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|#: |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)}} | {{defend|#: |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 == | ||
| Line 13: | Line 16: | ||
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found) | |Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found) | ||
|Argumentation = {{defend|#: |The ER functions from Dockery, Pope etc derive from ambient exposures, not personal|--[[User:Dvienneau|Dvienneau]] 15:26, 18 February 2009 (EET)}} | |Argumentation = {{defend|#: |The ER functions from Dockery, Pope etc derive from ambient exposures, not personal|--[[User:Dvienneau|Dvienneau]] 15:26, 18 February 2009 (EET)}} | ||
{{defend|#: |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)}} | {{defend|#: |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)}} | ||
}} | |||
Revision as of 15:00, 18 February 2009
Exposure data availability
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--#:: . 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) {{{3}}} (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ←--#:: . 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:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--#:: . 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) ←--#:: . 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) |