User:Sam0911

Homework 1

1. Purpose of environmental health risk assessment

So as to provide vital information for decision makers.

So as to assess the characteristics of human activity.

2.What is impact assessment

The process of evaluating potential impacts for example in the society i,e health, environment, or economy.

3.What is collaboration

It is a process of sharing ones (idea, potential, or interest) to other. ----#: . In fact not just sharing, but also working on achieving something together with others. Of course, sharing knowledge, views etc. is essential in making it possible. --Mikko Pohjola 11:05, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

←--#: . Good answers. --Mikko Pohjola 11:05, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Homework 2

What are s4 class object?

Homework 3

Assessment draft based on the application of compound x on vegetable Y as fertilizer

⇤--#: . The topic is not one of the three: Talvivaara, metal mines, or climate change policies in cities. Find a topic within these boundaries. --Jouni 06:36, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . It was difficult to evaluate this homework because the topic was not one of those three. --Salla 12:01, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ←--#: . Of-course you can assess the idea,any ways , I have already put the whole home work assignment 3 based on climate change programmme in Rotterdam city and its health impact connected to PM10, see at end,you can find the whole package --Sam0911 20:14, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) 1.Scope

----#: . Here could be a short definition about that why this assessment is done. --Salla 10:48, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

1.1 question

What the negative impact of compound x on vegetable Y

----#: . If x is fertilizer, we expect positive impacts. --Jouni 06:36, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . The question could be "what kind of impacts does compound x cause on vegetable y?" There could be added also a question like "Does the possible impacts restrict the use of the vegetable?" --Salla 10:52, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

1.2 Who is responsible for the result

----#: . Rather use term "Intended user". --Jouni 06:36, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

The company who supply compound x

----#: . Here could be also farmers that use the compound, the consumers and EVIRA. And also a description how we expect intended users to use the information that we get from the assessment. --Salla 10:56, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

1.3 Participant

Expert in the toxicology of compounds

----#: . Why are you planning an assessment with one participant only? Why do you leave others out? --Jouni 06:36, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . Here could be also, EVIRA and farmers and consumers. --Salla 11:00, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)----#: . The company that produces the compound could be excluded because it might be partial. --Salla 11:02, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

⇤--#: . You could add here a scenario about decisions and decision options. --Salla 11:04, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ⇤--#: . You could add here analyses that are needed to be able to produce results that are useful for making conclusions about the question. --Salla 11:05, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

1.4 Decisions

Alternative compound will substituted according to the severity of the problem.

----#: . Are those other compounds known? They should be listed here. --Jouni 06:36, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

2 Answers

2.1 Result

Low impact observed according to the analysis

⇤--#: . We cannot know the results and conclusions before the analysis is done. --Jouni 06:36, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

2.2 Conclusion

Compound x is suitable for vegetable Y

3 Rationale

According to the intensive field and lab work by our experts,we found that the application of compound x is suitable for vegetable y besides compound x found that ,environmentally friend.

----#: . Assessments are about using all available information, not just performing a single new study. --Jouni 06:36, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

⇤--#: . Where are your other homework answers? If they are on someone else's userpage, please add links here so they can be found. --Mikko Pohjola 11:05, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Homework 3 corrected

Last time I discussed out of range,now I would like focus on the climate change policy on Rotterdam city.

'Scope To examine the health impact due to the activities based on climate change tackling programme in Rotterdam city , in connection to the level of PM.Since the programme includes building various infrastructures,it expected the rise of particulate matter in the city.

Question

What are the level of particulate matter(PM) in the city since the climate change tackling programme started? This can be done by taking data from various station(that measure PM) in the city.

Intended use and users?

The city council of of Rotterdam, Ministry of Environment of Netherlands, Ministry of Health of Netherlands

These agents will organize the information they got from the assessment and act according to it,this can be considered as a decision.

Participants

Experts from...Environmental health area, Environmental authority of the city, Citizen of the City, Representatves from the climate change tackling programme section.

Scenarios

Exposure to PM10, Climate change tackling programmes, Potential health impact, City of Rotterdam

Analysis

Bases on exposure modelling

   Results

Level of PM matter that can be inhale-able/respirable PM10 data

   Conclusion

The activity of climate change programme in the city , can or can not have the potential impact, on the health based on the data of PM10

   Rationale

    End points,

    =City council of Rotterdam
    =Ministry health of Netherlands

  In this case they  will  get the final PM10 level especially with the limit value of exposure set by standard organizations( like WHO)
   
   Variables

  Particulate matter exposure data VS
  Respiratory infection
  The level of PM and expected infection in the respiratory system
  Mainly children and elderly people considered as a special condition because of susceptible issue but all the population in the city also involved in the assessment of the health.

Homework 4

⇤--#: . Please add here which climate strategy you consider in below answers. Also do some editing to make the text more readable. --Mikko Pohjola 06:43, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

1. 1 The main goal is to make Rotterdam city, a place to joy, work, invest, in general, to make the future bright city. Since the country situated in the low delta, there is a threat from rising sea level and fluctuation of river discharge, and by tackling these problems, the above goal can be maintained.

To make the city , a knowledge/example for climate and water management.

----#: . Quite well described aims. How are the expected benefits of the strategy distributed? --Mikko Pohjola 06:43, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

2. Actions toward the goal:

   2.1. Flood management:
Because the city is commonly known as delta city
   2.2 Accessibility: 

Since unexpected weather condition results negative impact on the city network and infrastructure, therefore, one of the action is improving this situation which can lead city for sustainable development.

   2.3. Adaptive building:
Since the risk of flood high even though there is a flood management programme, so building adaptive building is wise idea.
   2.4 Urban water system: 

The city, currently felt the climate change; in terms of the presence of heat wave, flood stress, and draught as well so as to challenge the mentioned problems especially the draught case, by building water storage facilities and water plazas.

2.5 Urban climate:

The city layout and design has an impact on the climate variability. Joint action from: The municipal public work department

                                : The municipal housing and planning department
                                 : Rotterdam development coroporation

3. Decisions:

Building green roofs

Building additional water storage space

To design and build connection

To design and build adaptive buildings

Spatial planning and socioeconomic tasks

I think again from the Joint action from: The municipal public work department

                                                                      : The municipal housing and planning department
                                                                      : Rotterdam development corporation.

And also the city of Rotterdam.

----#: . Are these the decision makers for the above mentioned decisions? --Mikko Pohjola 06:43, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

4. Positive health impact: stress will minimize across the nations because of the actions taken by the city so as tackle the problem.

----#: . Nothing else? Anything to do e.g. with increased physical exercise or improvements in indoor air quality or...? --Mikko Pohjola 06:43, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Negative health impacts: Since the solutions proposed for the problems; involves building various infrastructures, so exposure from PM (particulate matter) is one of the risk.

----#: . No other negative effects? E.g. noise or traffic accident risk or...? --Mikko Pohjola 06:43, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

But form the angle of saving Rotterdam city from the threat of climate change; the negative impacts from economic, health, environment are not that much plausible.

----#: . Why not? It must be very expensive endeavor to undertake the program and the climate risks, incl. health risks, compared with no strategy and foreseen outcomes of the strategy must be huge. --Mikko Pohjola 06:43, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

The intended polices rely on win-win approach by considering various aspects; from the citizen security and from sustainable country economy point of view.

----#: . They probably want win-win, but is it sure it always results in win-win? --Mikko Pohjola 06:43, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

5. What are the impacts on; economy, health, and environment, based on the actions which are carried out to tackle climate change?

⇤--#: . This is a sensible approach, but too unfocused for an assessment question. Try to be more specific about which actions and impacts to be considered. also think of what is the answer you would like such an assessment to provide and thene think of what is the question to be asked to get that kind of an answer. --Mikko Pohjola 06:43, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

6.May be I explain the situation in my view and of course I don’t have other option to explain other than my view.

Homework 5

⇤--#: . In order to increase clarity in both 5A and 5B, please write each question first and the answer after that. --Marjo 17:31, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

1. City of Rotterdam, Economic Development Board of Rotterdam, Ministry of housing, spatial planning and Environment Directorate General, Ministry of transport, Ministry of Water of Holland and Experts from the universities.

2. Participant from City of Rotterdam=Assessing the task in general Participant from the Ministry of housing, spatial planning and Environment Directorate=to assess the adaptive building strategy, city network. Participant from the Ministry of Water=to assess water management approach Participant from the University Members=Expert judgment ⇤--#: . In addition to what you have done, specify more clearly the roles per participant, such as expert, decision maker, executor... --Marjo 17:31, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

3. Knowledge Management (water, task/activities), Engineering (building, roads), Climate change knowledge(impacts,mitigation and adaptation strategies) ⇤--#: . You should specify which participant has which knowledge. --Marjo 17:31, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

3. Tackling climate change from mitigation and adaptation sense ⇤--#: . Aims and needs should be specified per participant. --Marjo 17:31, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Homework 5b 1, Based on expert knowledge in their field which based on organized (time)activity and scientific approach.⇤--#: . You are really not answering the question, which was about the involvement. --Marjo 17:31, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) 2. There should be some expert group who control those activities and to get the best of it. 3. The same answer as question number 2 4. Application of expert knowledge helps to convert to a good conclusion 5.By addressing the proper issue in a responsible way. ----#: . Last four answers reflect correct points. However, a bit more thorough considerations of these issues would be wished. --Marjo 17:31, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

⇤--#: . Decision and endpoint tables are completely missing. --Marjo 17:31, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

9A Based on Sami Rassanen task

Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction

Attribute	characterization
Impacts	It will show the talvivara mine plant,its potential health impact in the near by society and company worker-er.
Causes	Emission and leakage from the plant.
Problem owner	The plant which is responsible for the emission. Of-course the city council. ----#: . I don't think the city council has very much to do with mine directly. The monitoring and permissions are dealth with by regional level authorieties (ELY-keskus, AVI). --Mikko Pohjola 15:53, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Target	Company owner City council ----#: . See above. Of course the municipality is concerned and interested in what's going on. --Mikko Pohjola 15:53, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) ELY-keskus Regional TTL ----#: . TTL is the Institute of Occupational Health. They would actualy be dealing with the making of the assessment, not so much in use of the results. --Mikko Pohjola 15:53, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Interaction	The interaction that I expected a among the target agents,like company owner,city council and environmental authorities.Besides the citizen who live in the near by the mine plant.

Characterization of the dimensions of openness.

Dimension	Characterization
Scope of participation	It seems the scope of participation is wide because it includes companies,environmental authorities and experts like DARM groups ----#: . On the other hand, e.g. no local citizens are included. --Mikko Pohjola 15:53, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Access to information	.It is not mentioned specifically
Timing of openness	It is pretty good because the assessment draft try to include neutral participants like from TTL,ELY,DARM. ----#: . Does this really have to do with the timing? I would say the draft does not contain (much) information about this thing. --Mikko Pohjola 15:53, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Scope of contribution	From experts to neutral people ⇤--#: . The point here is to think which parts of the assessment would the particpants ghave possibility to influence. --Mikko Pohjola 15:53, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
Impact of contribution	There is a huge possibility to increase the quality of the assessment ⇤--#: . And the point here is to consider how much can the participants influence the results of the assessment and the related decisions. --Mikko Pohjola 15:53, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Explanations of categories of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework.

It can be concluded this assessment is shared because as it's been mentioned earlier everyone could take part and share their ideas. ----#: . Does the draft assessment actually contain much support to this statement. Looks to me that it tries to be relatively collaborative, but with some limitations. --Mikko Pohjola 15:53, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Evaluation of the assessment draft

Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment

Attribute	Score	Explanation
Quality of content	3	Overall it is good but some how it lacks specificity for example in the question,the draft want to answer health impact close to the mineral plant but how close is it if it define in statics I prefer .Besides the contribution of the participant is not specfic.
Applicability: Relevance	4	Because there is clear goal,I can say there is good possibility though it needs specificity and clarity.
Applicability: Availability	2	It is easy to have a data about PM10 or PM 2.5 just from the station near by the plant though it is not mentioned in the assessment. ----#: . But how well would the assessment results be available to participants and other members of the society during and after the assessment? --Mikko Pohjola 15:53, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Applicability: Usability	3	Of-course there is a huge possibility to be used by company owners,city-council,environmental authorities though it the draft require some kind of amendment. ----#: . Do you also think the assessment, as planned, could result in something that the intended users would be able to make use of in practice. --Mikko Pohjola 15:53, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Applicability: Acceptability	4	Based on the overall assessment why not,because the draft is based on the assessment of the health of the community,which any party interested.
Efficiency	3	It requires some amendment,for instance,in the analysis section, there is no clear information how to analyze the exposure data,based on what?,In my view the application of exposure modelling is vital in this case. ----#: . The point here is to think whether the foreseen results of the assessment would be worth spending the effort, as planned, for getting them. --Mikko Pohjola 15:53, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

9B,Based on Soroushm task

Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction

Attribute	characterization
Impacts	Will show alternate energy source which is efficient for kuopio town like wind. ⇤--#: . Not addressing the right thing. Write here what impacts are considered in the draft assessment? --Mikko Pohjola 16:06, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
Causes	It is not mentioned specifically but I can say any thing which is efficient might be the motivation behind. ⇤--#: . Look again in the draft assessment and think over. --Mikko Pohjola 16:06, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
Problem owner	City of kuopio
Target	Energy companies Stake holders City council
Interaction	The interaction that I expected a among the target agents,like Energy companies,stake holders,city councils. ----#: . Which of the example categories (modes of interaction) would be the most descriptive for the assessment, as planned in the draft? Also make use of your dimensions of openness characterizations below. --Mikko Pohjola 16:06, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Characterization of the dimensions of openness.

Dimension	Characterization
Scope of participation	Wide and commendable,because it includes companies,stakeholders and even citizens.
Access to information	It is not mentioned specifically.
Timing of openness	It is pretty good because the assessment draft try to include citizens of the town kuopio. ----#: . does this relate to timing? --Mikko Pohjola 16:06, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Scope of contribution	From experts/companies to citizens,so it is commendable. ⇤--#: . Which parts of the assessment can the participants contribute to? --Mikko Pohjola 16:06, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
Impact of contribution	There is a huge possibility to increase the quality of the assessment. ⇤--#: . Are the expected results worth spending the planned assessment effort? --Mikko Pohjola 16:06, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment

Attribute	Score	Explanation
Quality of content	2	Overall it is good but it lacks specificity and clarity in many cases like there is no information, even the availability of wind datas which can potentially substitute the current energy source in the town .
Applicability: Relevance	2	Even though there is a clear goal but detail information lack in many aspects for instance how the wind energy efficient from the cost,emission reduction point of view.
Applicability: Availability	1	It is not clearly stated. ----#: . You can give 0, if not possible to evaluate. --Mikko Pohjola 16:06, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Applicability: Usability	3	Of-course there is a huge possibility to be used by the,city-council,though detail explanation required. ----#: . Do you think the assessment could produce results that would be usable in practice by the different intended users? --Mikko Pohjola 16:06, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Applicability: Acceptability	1	Since the draft assessment lack explanation of core points like how to analyze the data and cost . ----#: . If we assume that necessary analyses were properly made, how would you rate the acceptability of the planned way of making the assessment otherwise? --Mikko Pohjola 16:06, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Efficiency	3	If further clarification obtained based on the above comment why not? ----#: . In reference to "would it be worth making?" --Mikko Pohjola 16:06, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)