3 ms·

If your claim is that the article reports that there is a link between road dust and long-term adverse health effects where is that stated? If that is the concl

If your claim is that the article reports that there is a link between road dust and long-term adverse health effects where is that stated? If that is the conclusion of the review, then that should be clearly and unequivocally stated in the, well, conclusion (or abstract). Loose quotes that may point in that direction is not sufficient. E.g: > "They reported that insoluble lead compounds were associated with respiratory tract inflammation, which could lead to respiratory tract cancer" This is speculation and not evidence. It is certainly possible that road dust containing lead increases the prevalence of respiratory tract cancer, but this is not evidence of it. > What in the paper supports your claim of no long term adverse health effects, compare to the (partial) list of items I quoted? Have a quote? Read the "Discussion" and "Possible future research" sections. I didn't claim that there was no link between road dust and long-term adverse health effects, only that the review did not identify such a link.

ChrisLomont 4y ago
Did you read the article title? "A literature review" It was not proving anything - it was listing things in the literature, of which it listed a significant amount of studies that did conclude significant adverse long term effects. No where did it claim those studies were invalid - and it went to great lengths to list all the problems I listed above and more. A literature review doesn't get to the end and say "Eureka! We proved it!" It gets to the end and says "we have listed current research, and we recommend further stuff for the following reasons". It's a literature review - not a meta study, not a new study, not a critique of the previous papers - so it's not the proof you want it to be. The evidence of the paper is in the papers it cited, with key points pulled into this one. >Read the "Discussion" and "Possible future research" sections. Yes, it starts with the phrase "Our literature review...." As does the conclusion section, which continued "This literature review found studies that reported the components of road dust particles to be associated with multiple health effects, in particular on the respiratory and cardiovascular system." I guess we're done at this point. The conclusion clearly states it's a review, and that road dust particles are associated with multiple health effects (which effects? The ones I quoted above, quite serious), which you claim the article does not state.
- bjourne 4y ago
  > It was not proving anything - it was listing things in the literature, of which it listed a significant amount of studies that did conclude significant adverse long term effects. Which of those studies did conclude "significant adverse long term effects"? > A literature review doesn't get to the end and say "Eureka! We proved it!" It gets to the end and says "we have listed current research, and we recommend further stuff for the following reasons". A literature review summarizes the scientific knowledge - it is not merely an index. And as I wrote in my first comment, this summary does not include a link between road dust and long-term adverse health effects.

ChrisLomont 4y ago

Did you read the article title? "A literature review" It was not proving anything - it was listing things in the literature, of which it listed a significant amount of studies that did conclude significant adverse long term effects. No where did it claim those studies were invalid - and it went to great lengths to list all the problems I listed above and more. A literature review doesn't get to the end and say "Eureka! We proved it!" It gets to the end and says "we have listed current research, and we recommend further stuff for the following reasons". It's a literature review - not a meta study, not a new study, not a critique of the previous papers - so it's not the proof you want it to be. The evidence of the paper is in the papers it cited, with key points pulled into this one. >Read the "Discussion" and "Possible future research" sections. Yes, it starts with the phrase "Our literature review...." As does the conclusion section, which continued "This literature review found studies that reported the components of road dust particles to be associated with multiple health effects, in particular on the respiratory and cardiovascular system." I guess we're done at this point. The conclusion clearly states it's a review, and that road dust particles are associated with multiple health effects (which effects? The ones I quoted above, quite serious), which you claim the article does not state.

bjourne 4y ago
> It was not proving anything - it was listing things in the literature, of which it listed a significant amount of studies that did conclude significant adverse long term effects. Which of those studies did conclude "significant adverse long term effects"? > A literature review doesn't get to the end and say "Eureka! We proved it!" It gets to the end and says "we have listed current research, and we recommend further stuff for the following reasons". A literature review summarizes the scientific knowledge - it is not merely an index. And as I wrote in my first comment, this summary does not include a link between road dust and long-term adverse health effects.