Difference between revisions of "Talk:ERF of methyl mercury on intelligence quotient"
Juha Villman (talk | contribs) m |
(Parameters corrected) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
{{discussion | {{discussion | ||
| − | | | + | |Statements= Is the toxicology of methylmercury known enough to get a reliable result? |
| − | | | + | |Resolution= More research is needed |
|Argumentation = | |Argumentation = | ||
| − | {{attack_invalid| | + | {{attack_invalid|1|Is this variable toxicologically sound?|--[[User:Olli|Olli]] 15:59, 17 September 2007 (EEST)}} |
| − | :{{attack| | + | :{{attack|2|The further research of this variable goes on|--[[User:Olli|Olli]] 15:59, 17 September 2007 (EEST)}} |
}} | }} | ||
{{discussion | {{discussion | ||
| − | | | + | |Statement= Author judgement about the chosen distribution |
| − | | | + | |Resolution= |
|Argumentation = | |Argumentation = | ||
| − | {{comment| | + | {{comment|1|Justifiable procedure in author judgement would be to use name(s) of the author(s) used --> here e.g. (Leino O., 2007). Scientific information should always be citable. Maybe even a short rationale about the chosen distribution would be needed. (While proposing this, I understand this may seen trivial to someone. However, to my understanding reference issues the method will anyway face sooner or later.)|--[[User:Anna Karjalainen|Anna Karjalainen]] 16:51, 20 November 2007 (EET)}}}} |
Revision as of 13:14, 16 November 2009
moved from Beneris -- Jouni 11:28, 14 February 2008 (EET)
Toxicology of methylmercury
| Statements: Is the toxicology of methylmercury known enough to get a reliable result?
Resolution: More research is needed (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
⇤1 Is this variable toxicologically sound? --Olli 15:59, 17 September 2007 (EEST)
|
| Statements:
Resolution: Resolution not yet found. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
--1: Justifiable procedure in author judgement would be to use name(s) of the author(s) used --> here e.g. (Leino O., 2007). Scientific information should always be citable. Maybe even a short rationale about the chosen distribution would be needed. (While proposing this, I understand this may seen trivial to someone. However, to my understanding reference issues the method will anyway face sooner or later.) --Anna Karjalainen 16:51, 20 November 2007 (EET) |
