The Economics of Spruce Budworm Outbreaks in the Lake States: An Overview

Economic effects of spruce budworm outbreaks in the Lake States were examined. The recent outbreak caused spruce and fir mortality on 420 thousand ha (I.OS million acres) of commercial forest land in the Lake States. Two models of Lake States spruce-fir markets were developed. A Static Economic Model established the nature of the Lake States spruce-fir market and a Comparative Static Model examined changes brought about by spruce budworm outbreaks. Outbreaks result in short-run supply shifts which probably decrease total revenue to stumpage owners but do not affect demand. The magnitude of long-run impacts were dependent on developing Lake States markets and forest management techniques. Further research is necessary on the value of short-run losses to stumpage owners so that the costs of forest management can be compared with outbreak losses. Long-run shifts in demand can be facilitated by attracting new industry to the area, developing new markets for the spruce-fir resource, and demonstrating that the spruce-fir resource can provide a continuous fiber source in the future. These shifts would provide the price incentives that land managers require to undertake intensive forest management. Research on the development of new markets for the spruce-fir resource is needed. As markets develop, the long-run impacts become less severe. Technology transfer programs already exist to aid land managers in developing management strategies to increase yields of spruce-fir and minimize outbreak impact

Factors Associated with Revision Surgery after Internal Fixation of Hip Fractures

Background: Femoral neck fractures are associated with high rates of revision surgery after management with internal fixation. Using data from the Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures (FAITH) trial evaluating methods of internal fixation in patients with femoral neck fractures, we investigated associations between baseline and surgical factors and the need for revision surgery to promote healing, relieve pain, treat infection or improve function over 24 months postsurgery. Additionally, we investigated factors associated with (1) hardware removal and (2) implant exchange from cancellous screws (CS) or sliding hip screw (SHS) to total hip arthroplasty, hemiarthroplasty, or another internal fixation device. Methods: We identified 15 potential factors a priori that may be associated with revision surgery, 7 with hardware removal, and 14 with implant exchange. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses in our investigation. Results: Factors associated with increased risk of revision surgery included: female sex, [hazard ratio (HR) 1.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-2.50; P = 0.001], higher body mass index (fo

Economic effects of spruce outbreaks in the Lake States

Master of ScienceForestryUniversity of Michiganhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/106221/1/39015007496287.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/106221/2/39015007496287.pdfDescription of 39015007496287.pdf : Restricted to UM users only

The Gravity Probe B test of general relativity

The Gravity Probe B mission provided two new quantitative tests of Einstein's theory of gravity, general relativity (GR), by cryogenic gyroscopes in Earth's orbit. Data from four gyroscopes gave a geodetic drift-rate of −6601.8 ± 18.3 marc-s yr−1 and a frame-dragging of −37.2 ± 7.2 marc-s yr−1, to be compared with GR predictions of −6606.1 and −39.2 marc-s yr−1 (1 marc-s = 4.848 × 10−9 radians). The present paper introduces the science, engineering, data analysis, and heritage of Gravity Probe B, detailed in the accompanying 20 CQG papers.Physic

IARC Monographs: 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans

Background: Recently the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that IARC Working Groups’ failures to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans. Objectives: The authors of this paper are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We have examined here criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. We review the history of IARC evaluations and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed. Discussion: We conclude that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various discipline and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed. Conclusions: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public’s health.This work was conducted with no direct funding, butwas supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH/NCIand NIH/NIEH

IARC monographs: 40 years of evaluating carcinogenic hazards to humans.

BackgroundRecently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also for the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that failures of IARC Working Groups to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans.ObjectivesThe authors of this Commentary are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We examined criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. Here, we present the results of that examination, review the history of IARC evaluations, and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.DiscussionWe concluded that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various disciplines and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed.ConclusionsThe IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public's health