214 research outputs found

    Microplastics, Macro-Problems: Abundance of Man-Made Materials in the Waters and Sediments of Florida State Parks

    Get PDF
    Man-made materials (MMM) are pollutants introduced to the environment by human activity. Microplastics (MP) are a type of MMM that threaten living organisms through bioaccumulation. The term MMM also encompasses pollutants produced from natural materials, such as rayon and microfibrillated cellulose, which are used in food packaging. This study aims to determine the extent of MMM pollution within estuaries in two of Florida’s state parks, as well as the effectiveness of using restored vegetation on shorelines to reduce MMM pollution. Tomoka State Park and Gamble Rogers State Park were selected at the request of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. At each park, we compared MMM in sediments of replicate intertidal areas with bare sand (control) vs. sites with restored vegetation (mangroves, marshgrass). Additionally, MMM in estuarine water directly seaward of control and vegetated areas were compared. Restoration occurred two years prior to this study. MMM were extracted from sediments and water samples and then examined by microscopy. A total of 341 MMM were found; 120 were collected from water samples and 221 from sediments. More MMM (58%) of the total were found in Tomoka State Park samples. Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) revealed 15% of collected samples were plastic polymers (e.g., polysulfone and polystyrene). More MMM (78) were found in Tomoka State Park water samples than in Gamble Rogers State Park water samples (42) (Kruskal-Wallis: p = 0.05). MMM abundance within sediments was not different between parks, or between control and restored sites (Kruskal-Wallis, all comparisons: p \u3e 0.26). Our research provides the first documentation of MMM pollution, including MP pollution, in these state parks, thereby giving park managers insight on the resources they manage and the impact of human activity on conserved land

    Republicanism and Markets

    Get PDF
    The republican tradition has long been ambivalent about markets and commercial society more generally: from the contrasting positions of Rousseau and Smith in the eighteenth century to recent neorepublican debates about capitalism, republicans have staked out diverse positions on fundamental issues of political economy. Rather than offering a systematic historical survey of these discussions, this chapter will instead focus on the leading neo-republican theory—that of Philip Pettit—and consider its implications for market society. As I will argue, Pettit’s theory is even friendlier to markets than most have believed: far from condemning commercial society, his theory recognizes that competitive markets and their institutional preconditions are an alternative means to limit arbitrary power across the domestic, economic, and even political spheres. While most republican theorists have focused on political means to limit such power—including both constitutional means (e.g., separation of powers, judicial review, the rule of law, federalism) and participatory ones (democratic elections and oversight)—I will examine here an economic model of republicanism that can complement, substitute for, and at times displace the standard political model. Whether we look at spousal markets, labor markets, or residential markets within federal systems, state policies that heighten competition among their participants and resource exit from abusive relationships within them can advance freedom as non-domination as effectively or even more effectively than social-democratic approaches that have recently gained enthusiasts among republicans. These conclusions suggest that democracy, be it social or political, is just one means among others for restraining arbitrary power and is consequently less central to (certain versions of) republicanism than we may have expected. So long as they counteract domination, economic inroads into notionally democratic territory are no more worrisome than constitutional ones

    Injection therapy and denervation procedures for chronic low-back pain: a systematic review

    Get PDF
    Injection therapy and denervation procedures are commonly used in the management of chronic low-back pain (LBP) despite uncertainty regarding their effectiveness and safety. To provide an evaluation of the current evidence associated with the use of these procedures, a systematic review was performed. Existing systematic reviews were screened, and the Cochrane Back Review Group trial register was searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Studies were included if they recruited adults with chronic LBP, evaluated the use of injection therapy or denervation procedures and measured at least one clinically relevant outcome (such as pain or functional status). Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and risk of bias (RoB). A meta-analysis was performed with clinically homogeneous studies, and the GRADE approach was used to determine the quality of evidence. In total, 27 RCTs were included, 14 on injection therapy and 13 on denervation procedures. 18 (66%) of the studies were determined to have a low RoB. Because of clinical heterogeneity, only two comparisons could be pooled. Overall, there is only low to very low quality evidence to support the use of injection therapy and denervation procedures over placebo or other treatments for patients with chronic LBP. However, it cannot be ruled out that in carefully selected patients, some injection therapy or denervation procedures may be of benefit

    Economic Analysis of Labor Markets and Labor Law: An Institutional/Industrial Relations Perspective

    Get PDF

    ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Care for Noncardiac Surgery: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery)

    Get PDF
    These guidelines represent an update to those published in 2002 and are intended for physicians and nonphysician caregivers who are involved in the preoperative, operative, and postoperative care of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. They provide a framework for considering cardiac risk of noncardiac surgery in a variety of patient and surgical situations. The writing committee that prepared these guidelines strove to incorporate what is currently known about perioperative risk and how this knowledge can be used in the individual patient

    ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Care for Noncardiac Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery)

    Get PDF
    "These guidelines are intended for physicians and nonphysician caregivers who are involved in the preoperative, operative, and postoperative care of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. They provide a framework for considering cardiac risk of noncardiac surgery in a variety of patient and surgical situations. The writing committee that prepared these guidelines strove to incorporate what is currently known about perioperative risk and how this knowledge can be used in the individual patient. The tables and algorithms provide quick references for decision making. The overriding theme of this document is that intervention is rarely necessary to simply lower the risk of surgery unless such intervention is indicated irrespective of the preoperative context. The purpose of preoperative evaluation is not to give medical clearance but rather to perform an evaluation of the patient's current medical status; make recommendations concerning the evaluation, management, and risk of cardiac problems over the entire perioperative period; and provide a clinical risk profile that the patient, primary physician, and nonphysician caregivers, anesthesiologist, and surgeon can use in making treatment decisions that may influence short- and long-term cardiac outcomes. No test should be performed unless it is likely to influence patient treatment. The goal of the consultation is the optimal care of the patient.

    Liberalism, Contractarianism, and the Problem of Exclusion

    Get PDF
    • …
    corecore