User:Sami Rissanen

⇤--#: . You still have some unfinished homework(s). For most people it is just some small thing (or maybe a broken link to an existing work?). But please check it quickly, as the deadline is on Friday. Check the follow-up table! --Jouni 18:11, 13 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Homework 1

I had these in my notebook, I just did not add these in time:

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

Give science based support for Decision makers.

2.What is pragmatism?

It is one way to solve problems. It is practical and factual way to approach situations. Aim is to assess real life situations.

15.What is collaboration?

Working together, sharing information and ideas, more than co-operation.

I add this extra:

19.What does it mean that the results of assessments can be considered intentional artifacts?

intention-aikomus, intentional-tarkoituksellinen, artifact-tulos

It means that assessor tries to influence to something by manipulating the results of assessment. Assessor may have some wrong purposes like peoples health and well-being or making money. Assessor should only concentrate to facts. ⇤--#: . In some fields of research the word artifact is used in the meaning of a man-made "false" finding among "true" results. E.g. if measuring markers of stress from subjects, the action of measuring can cause stress, thereby causing an artifact, measured stress from an unstressed subject. Such artifacts are typically unintentional, but could be intentional as well e.g. in manipulation of results. Artifact does not, however, necessarily have to mean something bad. In the context of DARM, the interpretation of intentional artifact is more positive: something concrete is done/created/manufactured/... for a purpose. Like a hammer is not just an object, but a means for driving nails, assessment results are not valuable as such, but as aids for decision making. The main point here is that the intentionality is an important thing to explicitly recognize and take account of in designing, making as well as using of artifacts. --Mikko Pohjola 12:19, 5 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . Answers missing. Pick three questions from the question list and write your answers here. Pick among those questions that have not been answered many times by all others yet (e.g. 3,4,11,13,14,17,18,19) --Mikko Pohjola 11:09, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . Required three answers (+ 1 extra) added. OK now. --Mikko Pohjola 12:19, 5 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

←--#: . Good answers altogether. --Mikko Pohjola 12:19, 5 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Homework 2

How I bring data from Excel to Opasnet? Do I need to write everything by hand?

I have this following data. See it properly in edit page.

Hiukkaspitoisuudet mittauspisteissä a-d (µg/m3) Date a b c d 1.2. 200 343 455 555 29.4. 191 289 435 900 10.8. 223 323 434 526

Homework 3

(Sami Rissanen & Jukka Hirvonen)

Scope

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

Talvivaara mine has been alot on news becauce of environmental problems. Escpecially leakages to natural waters but local air quality broblems have occurred too. Rock crushing plant creates alot of mineraldust (PM10 and PM2,5). Assessment is done to investigate the amounts (t.ex. concentration) of mineraldust that is present in air of mining and working area where workers are exposed. From other studies it seems that heavymetall concentrations in air as dust are biggest in rock crushing plant compared to other places in mine.

Question

A research question that the assessment attempts to answer.

Is the outdoor air quality a health hasard to mine workers and people who live nearby mine or work nearby mine area? What kind of mineral dust particles there is present in air and how high are the concentrations? Is there health hazard related to fine particle emissions (PM10, PM2,5)

----#: . Because you are interested in other groups as well, that should be reflected in your question. --Jouni 07:09, 21 January 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?

Talvivaara mining company Kainuun ELY-keskus (Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment)

Company wants to know is the air quality in acceptable level. They need infomation about when and where the worst concentrations occur. Company can do shanges to reduse emissions if needed.

ELY-keskus needs to know is the air quality legal and safe to workers. ELY-keskus can impose the company to reduse emissions if needed.

Regional TTL (Työterveyslaitos) to observe air quality levels and workers safety and work condititions, and to offer knowledge and improvements to working conditions if needed.

←--#: . Good points. --Jouni 07:09, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

----#: . Also the mine workers and people who live nearby mine or work nearby mine area could be added to the list intented use and users, because they are interested in the air quality and if it is tolerable. --Salla 15:07, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

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?

Needed:

A consultant to measure air quality.

Company

ELY-keskus

DARM group

Regional TTL

The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (FANC)

ELY, DARM and TTL represent as neutral participants offering objective viewpoint. FACN and Company represent viewpoints best suited for their own interest. ----#: . Are biased opinions a reason to exclude someone? How can the company be a participant, then? --Jouni 07:09, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) ----#: . FACN and Talvivaara mine should be excluded because they may be partial. --Salla 15:07, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . In my opinion, local residents as well should be given chance to participate in the assessment since they face the dust problem in their every day life. --Juho Kutvonen 19:13, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

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."

Rock crushing plant:

BAU or reducing emissions with some technique, t.ex. building insulation around crushing devices, or offering effective personal protection devices for workers in crushing plant. Also searching more developed rock crushing techniques and/or machines to improve crushing and reducing the amount of dust that arises.

Overall mine area:

Building protection structures to prevent wind from lifting dust and moving it around mine area. Using more water or other chemicals to tie up dust in roads and other gateways in mine area where moving vehicles lift dust to air.

←--#: . Good. --Jouni 07:09, 21 January 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?

First, air quality measurements and observations are needed to obtain information about fine particle and dust concentrations in rock crushing plant and overall mine area. Interviews to workers and people living nearby mine are arranged to get more information related to dust issue. With all this information the fine particle concentration, dust concentration and which places the dust and fine particle problem is biggest in mine area are analyzed. Interviews give interesting information about subjective viewpoint that how bad the dust issue is in peoples opinions. Finally all gathered information is used to make decisions and offer possible solutions for alleged dust and fine particle problem.

----#: . This is about assessment-level analyses. Measurements of concentrations belong to variables and are described there. --Jouni 07:09, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Answer

Results

What are the results of the analysis?

As the result of analysis there is specific information about dust concentrations and fallouts in different parts of mine area and visual observations hopefully give infomation how wind effects and from which direction wind enters to mine area causing most damage by lifting sand and fine particles to air.

Conclusion

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

The best option is...t.ex. build protection structure against wind in some specific place in mine area, to use some different and probably better method for rock crushing or insulate rock crushing site to prevent fine particle emissions surrounding air. For workers t. ex offer specific personal protection devices against fine particles.

Rationale

Endpoints

What are the stakeholders that we should consider?

There are mainly three different groups as stakeholders: 1.People living and workind nearby the mine but not directly linked to mine. 2.Owners and leaders of mine (Company, DARM-group), and 3.mine workers who assumed to be most affected by fine particles and poor air quality in mine area.

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.

-People living and working nearby mine, not directly linked to mine: Group is probaply interested if the mine is shut down, or if the particle emissions and amount of dust lifting in air is reduced and by what methods. This group is likely to rank putting the whole mine down as most prefered option and second best option is to offer good methods to reduce particle emissions and dust in air.

-Owners and leaders of mine: This group wants to keep mine working and is looking the most cost effective options to reduce fine particle emissions and dust to a level, that satisfies workers and people living nearby mine area. As for most prefered endpoint owners and leaders probably hope that there is no need to do any investments for solving problem, which is arised from workers and nearby living people.

-Mine workers Worker group hopes that mine can be kept running and they can keep their workplace but this groups most likely prefers effective solutions for reducing dust from air and fine particle emissions so that work conditions are tolerable or good and so that their personal health is not affected.

←--#: . Good. --Jouni 07:09, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Variables

What are the issues that should be looked at to be able to understand the outcomes of the decision options?

- Are the observations and measurements made properly and are the results correct and enough informative to support decision making? Is there enough measurements and observations to plan different options based on this knowledge? How much does different options cost to reduce fine particle and dust emissions? Which is most cost effective, if there is such method? Does there need to be use several methods to gain control of particle emissions and dust?

- What emissions and exposures should be considered?

Emissions from rock crushing plant:

Exposure to different heavy metal types: t.ex: copper, nickel, kobolt etc. Exposure of mineral dust PM₁₀ and PM_2,5 (different particle sizes)

Emissions and air quality in other mine area:

Exposure to dusty air, fine particles and heavy metals included

- What health endpoints should be considered?

Overall health of workers and nearby mine living people, possible respiratory system diseases and reduction of work productiveness. Heavy metals and/or fine particles possible causing cancer.

- What exposure-response functions should be considered?

Inhaling and swallowing air that consists of fine particles and/or dust. Exposure through skin?

- What population subgroups should be considered?

Mine area workers

People living and working nearby mine area.

Homework 4

Helsinki Metropolitan Area Climate Change Adaptation Strategy

(Sami Rissanen & Jukka Hirvonen)

Done together with Jukka Hirvonen: http://en.opasnet.org/w/User:Jukka_Hirvonen

HW 5

Done together with Jukka Hirvonen: http://en.opasnet.org/w/User:Jukka_Hirvonen

HW 6

Seminar hw 7

File:Seminar.ppt

Homework 9

----#: . Please see User:Isabell Rumrich#DARM course 2013 – Homework 9 for an example how to present the characterizations and evaluations of homework 9 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 09:58, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Following tables are resut from Soroushm's HW3

I commented this to Soroum's HW3: 'There have been some investigations about were are the most windy places in Northern Savo area. There are quite alot of information about wind speeds and weather. You could take Finnish Meteorogical Institute as a participant.'

*Characterization for knowledge policy interactions*
Attribute	Characterization
Impacts	They mention environmental and health impacts and costs, but nothing about significancy or details.
Causes	Wind power reduces fossil fuel consumption and emissions. Negative impact is noise from turbine. All of these are relevant.
Problem owner	1. University of Eastern Finland 2. Citizens 3. Energies companies 4. Adnan and Soroush. In this case actual decision maker is City of Kuopio.
Target	The city, Citizens and Energy companies needs this report. The city is the main user.
Interaction	Shared

*Characterization for Dimensions of openness*
Dimension	Description
Scope of participation	UEF, Citizens, Energy companies, Adan and Soroush
Access to information	Information comes possibly from participants. They haven't planned any details yet about producing new information.
Timing of openness	Seems to be open. They have plan to ask public opinion.
Scope of contribution	Citicens are asked for telling their opinion because there will be environmental impacts. City of Kuopio needs the information regarding the use of the energy sources because they need to invest money and satisfy the public. About other participants there are no mentioning why they are involved exactly.
Impact of contribution	City and energy companies have the pover. And citicens opinions are taken as a note.

*Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment*
Attribute	Score	Explanation
Quality of content	3	Assesment draft seems to be a little bit shallow. There is only basic important information, but no details. Still question and answer are clear and in balance.
Applicability: Relevance	4	Question is clear and fits well.
Applicability: Availability	1	Not told in draft. The city and energy companies would get the report.
Applicability: Usability	4	Assesment will be useful for everybody, especially for city and companies.
Applicability: Acceptability	4	It would be accaptable, yes.
Efficiency	3	This is where you really should have deep discussion with experts who knows alot about wind energy. There is grate possibility that this assessment gets zero result. There have been many investigations about wind speeds for wind power in Kuopio region.

Following tables are resut from Stefania's HW3 [[1]] which is group work with Isabell Rumrich

I made a comment about Stefania's HW3: In this assessment you could take account how wide support EU gives for each fuel type. And are these supporting rules going to change in near future.

*Characterization for knowledge policy interactions*
Attribute	Characterization
Impacts	Reducing GHG emissions from public transportation in Kuopio impacts climate. There are health impacts from shanging the fuel. And costs are changing too.
Causes	Changing fuel type reflects to climate. And different types of fuel has different health impacts.
Problem owner	City of Kuopio.
Target	The city, public transport company, consumers and car/bus industry. The city is the main user.
Interaction	Shared

*Characterization for Dimensions of openness*
Dimension	Description
Scope of participation	'DARM participants, transport company, manufacturer industry, city and everyone can participate to make the assessment a well-balanced and well-informed work. There is no reason for which someone is not allowed to participate, because it is an open assessment, and the basic idea is collaboration and sharing information.'
Access to information	Everything is open to everybody.
Timing of openness	Not found..
Scope of contribution	Everybody can participate to every aspect, I suppose.
Impact of contribution	No one of these participants can't do the job alone (transport company, manufacturer industry or city). All gives what they have and suits to their own interests.

*Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment*
Attribute	Score	Explanation
Quality of content	5	The idea of assessment is exact. Question and answer are exact and detailed.
Applicability: Relevance	4	Relevance is good. Actually there could be more analyzing about how different users are going to use the final report. But at least the city knows how to use it and that is the main point.
Applicability: Availability	3	Everybody gets the assessment report when it is ready. There is mention about boundaries: 'Time: Year 2013 – 2023 possible technical limitations Emissions important only in the city, not in the whole country', so does it mean that report covers those ten years of traffic or is it like building excellent report takes those ten years?
Applicability: Usability	4	Usability is hi for the city. Industry could use it for marketing and transport company can appreciate the report too.
Applicability: Acceptability	4	I am not sure about this, but at least this far acceptability shows to bee on good level from every side of view.
Efficiency	3	There are possibility to find good results. The results can be used in other cities and countries too. Still the price is possibly limiting this assessment.