Talk:The mortality due to PM 2.5 from buses

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) ←--#(2):: . 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) ⇤--#(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)

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)