Talk:ERF of methyl mercury on intelligence quotient: Difference between revisions

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
(Parameters corrected)
Line 4: Line 4:


{{discussion
{{discussion
|Dispute= 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?
|Outcome= More research is needed
|Resolution= More research is needed
|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)}}
}}
}}


{{discussion
{{discussion
|Dispute= Author judgement about the chosen distribution
|Statement= Author judgement about the chosen distribution
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)
|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)}}}}

Revision as of 13:14, 16 November 2009

moved from Beneris -- Jouni 11:28, 14 February 2008 (EET)

Toxicology of methylmercury

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Is the toxicology of methylmercury known enough to get a reliable result?

Closing statement: More research is needed

(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)

⇤--2: . The further research of this variable goes on --Olli 15:59, 17 September 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement:

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.opasnet.org/index.php?title=Talk:ERF_of_methyl_mercury_on_intelligence_quotient&oldid=11846"