Talk:ERF of methylmercury: Difference between revisions
m (Jouni moved page Talk:ERF of methyl mercury to Talk:ERF of methylmercury: typo) |
(old discussion resolved) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
{{discussion | {{discussion | ||
|Statements= Author judgement about the chosen distribution | |Statements= Author judgement about the chosen distribution should have a reference. | ||
|Resolution= | |Resolution= Accepted. In the case of MeHg ERF, it is Cohen et al 2005. | ||
|Argumentation = | |Argumentation = | ||
{{defend|# |Author judgement was part of the peer-reviewed study of Cohen JT, Bellinger DC, Shaywitz BA. A quantitative analysis of prenatal methyl mercury exposure and cognitive development. Am J Prev Med. 2005 Nov;29(4):353-65. They published the MeHg ERF estimate of triangular distribution (0, 0.7, 1.5) decrease of IQ points per 1 ug/g maternal hair.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] ([[User talk:Jouni|talk]]) 18:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
{{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 18:38, 15 October 2014
-- Heta 10:43, 13 October 2012 (EEST)
Toxicology of methylmercury
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: Is the toxicology of methylmercury known enough to get a reliable result?Needs editing
Closing statement: The method is a general way of doing these transformations, we can rely on this (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)
|
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: Author judgement about the chosen distribution should have a reference.
Closing statement: Accepted. In the case of MeHg ERF, it is Cohen et al 2005. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--#: . Author judgement was part of the peer-reviewed study of Cohen JT, Bellinger DC, Shaywitz BA. A quantitative analysis of prenatal methyl mercury exposure and cognitive development. Am J Prev Med. 2005 Nov;29(4):353-65. They published the MeHg ERF estimate of triangular distribution (0, 0.7, 1.5) decrease of IQ points per 1 ug/g maternal hair. --Jouni (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ----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) |