Talk:ERF of dioxin

Scope/Ambiguity with Health effects of dioxins

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Ambiguity with Health effects of dioxins must be resolved Closing statement: This variable is exposure-response, Health effects of dioxins is a health estimate. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ←--1: . The variables Responses of dioxin exposure on human health at the population level (originally Dioxin exposure-response function on population level) and Health effects of dioxins are ambiguous. The first one should tell about the exposure-response function, i.e. the amount of health effect per unit exposure. The second one should tell the amount of health effect in a given situation and exposure. Taking the two variables together, the dose-response is already well characterized (although childhood effects may need more scrutiny), but the actual health effect estimates for Hämeenkyrö are missing (which is, of course, not an easy question). --Jouni 07:17, 22 September 2006 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ←--2: . I was thinking, what was the scope of this variable. Now the variables have been changed and modified in the model. Sanna 08:32, 22 September 2006 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ⇤--3: . Sanna has changed the name of her variable, and now our variables have conflicting names. What was the reason for this change? I think the names should not be changed. Anyhow, if I understand correctly, my variable Health effects of dioxins should be changed into a summary of the upstream variables - it should be a conclusion. So maybe we do the changes together with Sanna during the finalizing session. But the problem is that I should make the ultimate conclusion... Another thing is that I was not able to find any numerical data about the developmental effects concerning dioxins. --Anu 08:52, 22 September 2006 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ⇤--4: . The description of variables was ambiguous, but now when we know what was meant, we must clarify them. --Jouni (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)