User:Salla

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Homework 1

1. What is the main purpose of environmental health assessment?

To improve deliberate plans of actions that guide decisions aiming for desired outcomes using knowledge provided by environmental health research and considering how different decisions and actions influence the environmental-health relationship.

6. What is benefit-risk assessment?

A science-based process where the benefits and risks for humans following exposure (or lack of exposure) are estimated qualitatively or quantitatively. It includes also the potential to integrate the estimates in to comparable measures.

9. What are the dimensions of openness?

There are five dimensions of openness:

  1. Scope of participation (who are allowed to participate in the process)
  2. Access to information (what information is made available to participants)
  3. Timing of openness (when participants are invited or allowed to participate)
  4. Scope of contribution (which aspects of the issue participants are invited or allowed to contribute to)
  5. Impact of contribution (what extend are participant contributions allowed to have influence on the outcomes)

←--#: . Very nice answers! --Mikko Pohjola 11:01, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Homework 2

Does an encyclopedia article explain the topic so that everyone can understand it or is it ment only to experts?

Homework 3

(HW3 is done with Juho Kutvonen)

Scope

Defines the purpose of the assessment: why is it done?

Talvivaara mine is producing metal emissions to the lakes nearby and these metals can affect to the feasibility of lake water as domestic water.

Question

A research question that the assessment attempts to answer.

Does the amount of metals in lake water restrict its use as domestic water. ←--#: . Restriction is based on degree given by Ministry of Social Affairs and Health concerning quality requirements and quality analysis concerning domestic water. [2: kemialliset laatuvaatimukset] --Salla 09:56, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

----#: . Restrict based on what criteria? --Jouni 17:01, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Intended use and users

List of users that are supposed to need the assessment. Also, how do we expect them to use the information?
  • Local residents: can they use the water?
  • Environmental authorities, for example ELY center: When necessary, ELY centre can give metal emission restrictions to Talvivaara mine.
  • Talvivaara mine: how the metal emissions could be reduced.
  • SYKE: monitoring of lakes

Participants

Who is needed to participate to make the assessment a well-balanced and well-informed work? Also, if specific reasons exists: who is not allowed to participate and why?
  • ELY centre
  • Local residents living nearby lakes
  • SYKE
  • Talvivaara mine is excluded because it may be partial

----#: . How can you encourage these stakeholders to participate? Can anyone participate? --Jouni 17:01, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) ←--#: . Not everyone can participate (This concerns Talvivaara mine since it may be partial.) --Salla 10:05, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ←--#: . Local residents living nearby lakes are encouraged to participate by prospect of better water environment. We consider that authorities (ELY centre and SYKE) don´t need to be encouraged since part of their job as authorities is to supervise state of the environment. --Salla 10:05, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Scenarios

Decisions and decision options considered. Also, if scenarios (defined here as delibarate deviations from the truth) are used, they are described here. For example this is a scenario: "Let's assume that the whole population is exposed as much as the maximally exposed individual, because we want to see if even the worst-case scenario causes concern."

Let´s assume that the amount of metals in the lake water is more than limiting value, because we want to see how much the worst-case scenario causes concern.

⇤--#: . Based on your question, the key thing in this assessment is to find out the true metal concentrations. Thus, you DON'T want to assume something about the concentration. --Jouni 17:01, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

←--#: . We want to know the metal concentrations in the lake because it´s essential to know if it is safe to use the water. --Salla 10:09, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Analyses

What statistical or other analyses are needed to be able to produce results that are useful for making conclusions about the question?
  • water analyses: comparing results to the limit values
  • how much and how do people consume lake water as domestic water: exposure

----#: . This does not refer to detailed measurements, but rather how to calculate the results based on your data in variables. --Jouni 17:01, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . It is important to define the metal concentrations in the water. If the concentrations of different metals are below the limit value, there is no danger to human health and water use restrictions won´t be needed. However, if the concentrations are above the limit values, it must be considered if restrictions should be given in using lake water as domestic water. --Salla 10:28, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

⇤--#: . I agree that it is important, but you need a variable for this. So add these things to the Variables section below. This is a wrong place for these discussions. --Jouni 08:34, 7 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Answer

Results

What are the results of the analysis?
  • What is the concentration of different metals in lake water?

Conclusion

What is the conclusion about the question based on the results obtained?

Can the lake water be used as domestic water? ←--#: . Restriction is based on degree given by Ministry of Social Affairs and Health concerning quality requirements and quality analysis concerning domestic water. [2: kemialliset laatuvaatimukset] --Salla 09:56, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

----#: . Based on what criteria? --Jouni 17:01, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Rationale

Endpoints

  • What are the stakeholders that we should consider?
  • What are the endpoints that a stakeholder is interested in? How would the stakeholder summarise the endpoints to derive an overall preference ranking for outcomes of decision options? Think about this separately for each stakeholder.
  • Local residents: can they use the lake water as domestic water?
  • ELY centre: does the lake water fullfill given limit values?
  • Talvivaara mine: Do they need to reduce metal emissions by technical solutions?
  • SYKE: what is the state of lake water?

----#: . Here, you don't describe questions of stakeholders but rather their valuations about possible outcomes. --Jouni 17:01, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . Local residents need to know if drinking lake water causes any adverse health effects. Since ELY centre is an important environmental authority, it needs to know if the metal concentrations of the lake are acceptable. If not, it needs to take actions. Talvivaara mine has to decrease the metal emissions if ELY centre defines them too high. If the water quality is bad, SYKE as a national authority needs to take actions. --Salla 10:35, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Variables

  • What are the issues that should be looked at to be able to understand the outcomes of the decision options?
  • money vs. environmental issues: Do we want to get financial profit at the expense of environment?

⇤--#: . Based on the question, money seems to be a non-issue here. The assessment is simply about the quality of the water. --Jouni 17:01, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ←--#: . You are right. --Salla 10:36, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

  • how does it affect on people that use of lake water is banned if the metal concentrations are too high?
  • Typically, with health impact assessments:
    • What emissions and exposures should be considered?
  • metal emissions
    • What health endpoints should be considered?
  • irritation of respiratory tract when using lake water in the sauna
    • What exposure-response functions should be considered?
  • what happens when people use lake water in sauna?
    • What population subgroups should be considered?
  • children
  • the old
  • people with some respiratory disease

Homework 4

Homework 4 is done with Juho Kutvonen.

Homework 5

Homework 5 is done with Juho Kutvonen.

Homework 9

Homework 3: Sam0911

----#: . Please see User:Isabell Rumrich#DARM course 2013 – Homework 9 for an example how to present the characterizations and evaluations in three tables for easier reading and commenting. I recommend everyone to present their answers in this kind of format. You can do it e.g. by copying the tables as such and just replacing their contents. --Mikko Pohjola 09:53, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . Will get back to evaluating the contents later. --Mikko Pohjola 09:53, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Knowledge policy interaction

There is listed only one impact that concerns negative impact that combound X causes on vegetable Y. There is not listed neither possible positive impacts that combound X causes to vegetable Y nor possible impacts to human health when they eat vegetable Y. The company that produces combound X has interest to assess the issue because they need to know if the compound is suitable for the vegetable.

Dimension of openness

In this assessment only experts of toxicology are allowed to participate in the process. So the assessment process is not open. Because there is only one participant (experts) in the process, their contributions have much influence to the outcome. In interaction categories this assessment belongs to "isolated", where assessment and use of assessment results are strictly separated. Results are provided to intended use, but users and stakeholders shall not interfere with making of the assessment.

Properties of good assessment

  • Quality of content, evaluation: 2.
    • All impotrant acpects are not listed in the answer, now it considers only situation where the compound is suitable for the vegetable.
  • Applicability
    • Relevance, evaluation: 2.
      • There is listed only one intented user, the company, and the assessment address their intended needs quite well. There is not listes any other intendes users, so it is difficult to say if the assessment adress other intended users needs.
    • Availability, evaluation: 4.
      • Because there is only the company and the experts as users, the information is probably available whenever it is needed. ⇤--#: . Often experts don't make their information available unless they have to. Also think of the availability from the perspective of others to whom the assessment could be of use or interest. --Mikko Pohjola 20:12, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
    • Usability, evaluation: 4.
      • The intended user would be able to understand what the assessment is about and the assessment would be useful for it. ----#: . Possibly, but does the draft really contain much to support this statement? --Mikko Pohjola 20:12, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
    • Accpetability, evaluation: 3.
      • The assessment would be acceptable to the intended user, because if the compond would have negative impacts to the vegetable, they could use some other compound instead. ----#: . Think also if the assessment results would look convincing in the eyes of the intended users if the assessment was made as planned. --Mikko Pohjola 20:12, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
  • Efficiency, evaluation: 2.
    • It would be some effort to do the assessment. When doing the assessment, there should be more intended users, because the assessment results would be useful to more users than just the company. It would not be worth of spending the effort, if there is only one intended user. ←--#: . Good point. --Mikko Pohjola 20:12, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Homework 3: Sami Rissanen

Knowledge-policy interaction

Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction
Attribute characterization
Impacts Health impacts of Talvivaara mine workers and people who live or work nearby mine area.
Causes Mineraldust that is created in rock crushing plant. Based on earlier studies heavy metal concentrations in air as dust are biggest in rock crushing plant than in the other places of the mine.
Problem owner
  • Talvivaara mine has an interest and responsibility to assess the issue, because the air quality needs to be in acceptable level.
  • ELY keskus has also interest to assess the issue because the air quality needs to be legal and safe to workers. It has also a power to make decisions and do actions when needed.
  • Regional TTL has also interest because it wants to know if the working conditions are suitable for the workers. When needed, it can offer knowledge and improvements to working conditions.
  • Also the residents nearby mine area are problem owners, because they are interested in their living environment.
Target
  • The intended users of the assessment results:
    • Owners and leaders of mine, because they need to know if they have to do some actions to reduce mineraldust emissions.
    • People living and workind nearby the mine but not directly linked to mine, because they are interested in if the mine is shutting down. And how the air quality is possible made better by reducing fine particle and dust emissions.
    • Mine workers who assumed to be most affected by fine particles and poor air quality in mine area, because they want to keep their working places and have tolerable working conditions so that their personal health is not affected.
Interaction The assessment interacts with the intended use of its results so that the possible actions are based on the results of the assessment.


----#: . It seems that the intention is to make it at least relatively open, but seems like certain groups are also left out. Also in reality it can be quite a challenge to make e.g. a mining company, ELY-keskus and TTL going much further than just providing some information to each other. --Mikko Pohjola 20:34, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Characterization of the dimensions of openness.
Dimension Characterization
Scope of participation To the process are allowed to participate Talvivaara mine, ELY-keskus, DARM group, Regional TTL, The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (FANC) and a consultant to measure air quality. Talvivaara mine and FANC should be excluded because they may be partial.
Access to information The draft doesn´t give any information about that.
Timing of openness The draft doesn´t give any information about that, but I think that all participants should participant from the beginning on.
Scope of contribution It can be quite a challenge to make e.g. a mining company, ELY-keskus and TTL going much further than just providing some information to each other.
Impact of contribution All participants contributions should have similar influence to the outcome of the assessment. They should offer a objective point of view about the assessed thing. This assessment is shared where different actors involved in assessment retain their roles and responsibilities, but engage in open collaboration upon determining assessment questions to address and finding answers to them as well as implementing them in practice.

Properties of good assessment

⇤--#: . Where is availability? --Mikko Pohjola 20:34, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)


      • There might be some problems with Talvivaara mine to accept the results of the assessment if it seems that Talvivaara mine has to do significant actions to reduce the emissions. ----#: . It is easy to not accept something where one has not been involved in. Do you think the planned making of the assessment would be such that would make it hard for e.g. Talvivaara (or other participants) to not accept the results in the end? --Mikko Pohjola 20:34, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
  • Efficiency, evaluation: 4.
    • It may need much effort to do this assessment but it would be worth of spending the effort considering the expected results and their applicability for the intended users, because it is important that the emissions are not too high and cause risks to human health. ----#: . Actually quite a lot of the needed information and assessment tools (like dispersion) are relatively easily available. For example rough estimates could be done very quickly in Opasnet. Of course more detailed results for more detailed decisions and planning would require some more data collection and perhaps improvement of assessment models. --Mikko Pohjola 20:34, 10 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 5 There is addressed all important aspects and the answer address the assessment question completely.
Applicability: Relevance 5 The assessment address the intended needs of the users well and the assessment question is good in relation to the purpose of the assessment.
Applicability: Availability
Applicability: Usability 3 The results of this assessment can´t become such that intended users would actually change their understanding about the issue. I think that intended users may get new information from the results but they may not think that it is so important that they change their behavior accordingly.----#: . Being useful relates more to Relevance. DO you think the assessment results could become such that the intended users would actually change their understanding about the issue and perhaps even change their behavior accordingly? --Mikko Pohjola 20:34, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Applicability: Acceptability 3 There might be some problems with Talvivaara mine to accept the results of the assessment if it seems that Talvivaara mine has to do significant actions to reduce the emissions. ----#: . It is easy to not accept something where one has not been involved in. Do you think the planned making of the assessment would be such that would make it hard for e.g. Talvivaara (or other participants) to not accept the results in the end? --Mikko Pohjola 20:34, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) ←--#: . I think that when the assessment making is well planned such problems doesn´t exist very often. --Salla 10:00, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Efficiency

Seminar presentation

Our seminar presentation can be found from the link below.

[1]

Retrieved from "https://en.opasnet.org/index.php?title=User:Salla&oldid=28820"