Talk:The mortality due to PM 2.5 from buses

----#1:: . The result does not specify which bus technology results in which impact. In addition, the result does not contain uncertainty. A table of results should be created based on the result of the respective Analytica node in the model. --Jouni 13:38, 21 February 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Mortality in the formula -- Anne.knol 16:56, 20 February 2008 (EET)

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ←--#(1):: . The background mortality (Mb) is input into the formula, whereas the Mortality (M) is the output of the formula. These are therefore two different parameters --Anne.knol 17:06, 20 February 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ←--#(2):: . Mortality and Mortality background are different parameters. We are in agreement with the defend 1 --Jgrellier 17:56, 20 February 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Scope should contain temporal information -- Ninais 17:20, 20 February 2008 (EET)

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ←--#(1):: . The scope is not clear because it refers to number of premature deaths - but not the timeframe (daily, monthly, yearly etc), or whether or not it is yearly average, or in a particular year (i.e. 1997 or 2020) --Ninais 17:20, 20 February 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ←--#(2):: . We agree. The number of deaths should be annual --Jgrellier 17:56, 20 February 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

== Premature deaths should be considered as additional == Jgrellier 17:30, 20 February 2008 (EET) How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ←--#(1):: . Premature deaths due to PM2.5 from buses should be defined as addtional to background premature deaths --Jgrellier 17:29, 20 February 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ⇤--#(2):: . There is no such thing as 'additional' or 'premature' deaths. Everybody dies once, so in the end (let's say, if a whole cohort has died), no one died additionally. Instead, they have died earlier. (see next dispute) --Anne.knol 17:43, 20 February 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ←--#(3):: . It is not correct to talk about premature deaths, this is clear. --Jgrellier 18:03, 20 February 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ⇤--#(number):: . Mathematically, that is true. However, it is a convention to calculate health impacts this way because it is easy. And "premature" is the word used for this, not "additional. --Jouni 18:16, 20 February 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ⇤--#(4):: . The fact that it is convention does not mean we have to keep using it. Excess mortality is another phrase that can be debated. My argumentation is described in File:Brunekreef - The Brave New World of Lives Sacrificed and Saved.pdf. If you are very clear about the timeframe, it is perhaps okay to say it this way, but I would recommend using proper (and not convential) terminology ... --Anne.knol 18:26, 20 February 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ←--#(5):: . In such a context we are using a counterfactual approach, describing what “would” have been if we change some parameters of our scenario. In this framework, it could happen that people die twice, but in different times. So, I think that “additional” deaths is an appropriate definition. -- A.gasparrini 18.16, 20 February 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Premature deaths --Anne.knol 17:43, 20 February 2008 (EET)

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ←--#(1):: . 'premature deaths' should better be described as 'deaths put forward', since the concept of premature deaths suggests that there is something like a 'mature death' which I don't not think is the good terminology --Anne.knol 17:43, 20 February 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ----#(1):: . It seems reasonable to provide an estimate of excess mortality (i.e. vs background mortality) due to PM2.5 without referring to a timeframe i.e. deaths put forward --Jgrellier 18:07, 20 February 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) ←--#(2):: . See above. Excess mortality is another phrase that can be debated. Argumentation further described in File:Brunekreef - The Brave New World of Lives Sacrificed and Saved.pdf. --Anne.knol 18:26, 20 February 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Delete "Effect of bus type on PM2.5 emissions and exposure" -- Ninais 17:30, 20 February 2008 (EET)

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ←--#(1):: . "Effect of bus type on PM2.5 emissions and exposure" refers to the scenarios and assessment, but is not a parent variable (and "bus type" is not within the scope of the variable because it is a scenario in the assessment). --Ninais 17:30, 20 February 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Parent variables -- Ninais 17:53, 20 February 2008 (EET)

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ←--#(number):: . Causality should refer to variables in the assessment: "Primary fine PM concentration due to bus emissions" "Concentration-response function for primary fine PM" --Ninais 17:53, 20 February 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ←--#(2):: . There is no sense in referring to data items under 'causality' unless they are variables. --Jgrellier 18:10, 20 February 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Problems with definitions -- A.gasparrini 18.03, 20 February 2008 (EET)

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ←--#(1):: . the variable “mortality rate1” doesn’t refer to number of cases during time, as the word “rate” is normally used, but is the increment of risk for a specific increase in concentration. For these reason, “mortality rate” and “background mortality” relate to different things. I think “relative risk”, or “risk increment” is a more appropriate definition -- A.gasparrini 18.03, 20 February 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

General evaluation of the variable -- A.gasparrini 14.10, 21 February 2008 (EET)

It seems that the information entered in this variable and in the variables upstream are not coherent. Some sections don’t link each other, and several definitions are misleading.

1. “Mortality data” should be defined as “background mortality” (that refers to the hypothetical situation in which bus fleet doesn’t contribute with any emission). The variable “mortality rate1” doesn’t refer to number of cases during time, as the word “rate” is normally used, but is the increment of risk for a specific increase in concentration.
2. The sections DATA and FORMULA are not consistent: taking into account the latter, the former should contain: 1) a concentration-response function; 2) an absolute change in exposure to PM2.5 related to bus emissions; 3) the background mortality of the population. The “fraction of bus exposure of total road traffic exposure” has no use for this variable, because is used to compute the absolute change in exposure in the upstream part of the model.
3. In the context of this variable the section CAUSALITY should contain just the relationship between exposure to PM 2.5 and mortality effects.
4. Other minor changes: the RESULTS should be more general, as if you change some variables upstream the number of deaths could be different from 3-18, but this specific variable remains the same. Then the UNIT should be just “deaths per year.

A.gasparrini 18.03, 20 February 2008 (EET)