LEED TSAC PVC Study Database > Comments on Draft Report > View Comment

View Comment

[<] | [>]

Page(s) Lines(s)
 
Author Ted Schettler
Science director
Dept of Medicine, Boston Medical Center
tschettler@igc.org
www.sehn.org
 
Comment
General comments on the committee approach:

The committee used a novel, non-validated method for analysis. Their reasons for choosing this method are unclear. Other options exist but why they were rejected is unknown. The committee’s commitment to this method required certain sacrifices that affect that ultimate outcome. For example, whenever the methods do not accommodate the data or require data that are not available, the authors are forced to 1) ignore some data 2) make assumptions that may not be warranted. No sensitivity analysis is provided that gives a sense of what the impacts of those maneuvers might be. For example, what happens to the analysis if you DO consider mercury? What happens if you DO consider all solvents in the resin industry? What happens if you DO consider phthalates and asthma? And so forth.

The committee was apparently so intent on integrating occupational with general population impacts that they adapted the tools for their purposes, and in doing so, used them inconsistently. How (or where) they actually incorporated general population concerns in the integration remains a mystery from the data given.