Talk:PM2.5 exposure-response function: Difference between revisions
(New section: apples and oranges) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
|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)}} | |||
Revision as of 13:46, 18 February 2009
Exposure data availability
{{discussion |Dispute= Relevance of scope is not possible to be evaluated. |Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found) |Argumentan = ←--#:: . 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)
apples and oranges
{{discussion |Dispute= Existing ER functions don't match exposure |Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found) |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)