Difference between revisions of "Talk:Benefit-risk assessment of fish and related policy options"
m |
(defending comment) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Maybe we could narrow down the topic more. By excluding microbiological risks, the topic could be like "Nutritional benefits & chemical risks of fish consumption and related policy options about using fish for human food". I think this topic sounds too plastic and we should work on this more, but this comment is just a starting point to discussions about issue. --[[User:Olli|Olli]] 10:45, 17 April 2007 (EEST) | Maybe we could narrow down the topic more. By excluding microbiological risks, the topic could be like "Nutritional benefits & chemical risks of fish consumption and related policy options about using fish for human food". I think this topic sounds too plastic and we should work on this more, but this comment is just a starting point to discussions about issue. --[[User:Olli|Olli]] 10:45, 17 April 2007 (EEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{defend|#(number): |I see what you mean. I first had this title "Benefit-risk assessment of fish on human health and related policy options" in my mind but was a bit insecure about it because it is a long one. Still, it is shorter than yours. Would it clarify the issue enough on your opinion?|--[[User:Anna Karjalainen|Anna Karjalainen]] 13:56, 18 April 2007 (EEST)}} | ||
== About the graph == | == About the graph == | ||
Revision as of 10:56, 18 April 2007
Maybe we could narrow down the topic more. By excluding microbiological risks, the topic could be like "Nutritional benefits & chemical risks of fish consumption and related policy options about using fish for human food". I think this topic sounds too plastic and we should work on this more, but this comment is just a starting point to discussions about issue. --Olli 10:45, 17 April 2007 (EEST)
←#(number): : I see what you mean. I first had this title "Benefit-risk assessment of fish on human health and related policy options" in my mind but was a bit insecure about it because it is a long one. Still, it is shorter than yours. Would it clarify the issue enough on your opinion? --Anna Karjalainen 13:56, 18 April 2007 (EEST)
About the graph
Dark blue boxes representing important nodes (=variables) is a good idea, but if the number of pale blue nodes grows much in the future, the model could become hard to read. Could the colour be even fainter to highlight the variables used for modelling?
--Olli 08:48, 18 April 2007 (EEST)
I added a graph derived from the previous BRAfish graph to highlight the policy options and where/what they are affecting.
--Olli 12:56, 18 April 2007 (EEST)
