Difference between revisions of "Talk:ERF of methyl mercury on intelligence quotient"

From Testiwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(moved from Beneris -- ~~~~)
 
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
{{discussion
 
{{discussion
|Dispute= Is the toxicology of methylmercury knwon enough to get a reliable result?
+
|Statements= Is the toxicology of methylmercury known enough to get a reliable result?{{needs editing}}
|Outcome= More research is needed
+
|Resolution= The method is a general way of doing these transformations, we can rely on this
 
|Argumentation =
 
|Argumentation =
{{attack_invalid|#(1): |Is this variable toxicologically sound?|--[[User:Olli|Olli]] 15:59, 17 September 2007 (EEST)}}
+
{{attack_invalid|1|Is this variable toxicologically sound?|--[[User:Olli|Olli]] 15:59, 17 September 2007 (EEST)}}
:{{attack|#(2): |The further research of this variable goes on|--[[User:Olli|Olli]] 15:59, 17 September 2007 (EEST)}}
+
:{{attack|2|The further research of this variable goes on|--[[User:Olli|Olli]] 15:59, 17 September 2007 (EEST)}}
}}
+
{{comment|1 |This toxicological approach is generally approved|--[[User:Olli|Olli]] 13:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)}}}}
  
 
{{discussion
 
{{discussion
|Dispute= Author judgement about the chosen distribution
+
|Statements= Author judgement about the chosen distribution
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)
+
|Resolution=  
 
|Argumentation =
 
|Argumentation =
{{comment|#(number): |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)}}}}
+
{{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)}}}}

Latest revision as of 13:34, 23 November 2010

moved from Beneris -- Jouni 11:28, 14 February 2008 (EET)

Toxicology of methylmercury

How to read discussions

Statements: Is the toxicology of methylmercury known enough to get a reliable result?Needs editing

Resolution: The method is a general way of doing these transformations, we can rely on this

(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)

2: The further research of this variable goes on --Olli 15:59, 17 September 2007 (EEST)

--1 : This toxicological approach is generally approved --Olli 13:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


How to read discussions

Statements: Author judgement about the chosen distribution

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)