Modern Data Acquisition, System Design, and Analysis Techniques and their Impact on the Physics-based Understanding of Neutron Coincidence Counters used for International Safeguards (draft)

Neutron coincidence counting is a technique widely used in the field of international safeguards for the mass quantification of a fissioning item. It can exploit either passive or active interrogation techniques to assay a wide range of plutonium, uranium, and mixed oxide items present in nuclear facilities worldwide. Because neutrons are highly penetrating, and the time correlation between events provides an identifiable signature, when combined with gamma spectroscopy, it has been used for nondestructive assays of special nuclear material for decades. When neutron coincidence counting was first established, a few system designs emerged as standards for assaying common containers. Over successive decades, new systems were developed for a wider variety of inspection assays. Simultaneously, new system characterization procedures, data acquisition technologies, and performance optimizations were made. The International Atomic Energy Agency has been using many of these original counters for decades, despite the large technological growth in recent years. This is both a testament and an opportunity. This dissertation explores several topics in which the performance of neutron coincidence counting systems is studied such that their behavior may be better understood from physical models, and their applications may be expanded to a greater field of interest. Using modern list mode data acquisition and analysis, procedures are developed, implemented, and exploited to expand the information obtained of both these systems and sources in question in a common measurement. System parameters such as coincidence time windows, dead time, efficiency, die-away time, and non-ideal double pulsing are explored in new ways that are not possible using traditional shift register logic. In addition, modern amplifier electronics are retrofitted in one model, the Uranium Neutron Coincidence Collar, to allow for a count rate-based source spatial response matrix to be measured, ultimately for the identification of diversion in a fresh fuel assembly. The testing, evaluation, and optimization of these electronics is described; they may serve as a more capable alternative to existing electronics used in IAEA systems. Finally, with a thorough understanding of the system characteristics and performance, neutron coincidence counters may be used to self-certify calibration sources with superior precision to national metrological laboratories

Qualitative Study of Factors Contributing to Fertility Service Use Among Cancer Survivors of Reproductive Age in the US

Cancer remains the second leading cause of death in the United States; however, there has been a decline in incidence and mortality due to advances in screening and treatment. Currently 16.9 million survivors are thriving within the United States, and the population of cancer survivors has been projected to grow to 22.2 million by 2030. Although cancer survivors report an increased surge of vitality and vigor, they often face physical, mental, psychosocial, or financial challenges that threaten their quality of life. A late treatment effect of particular concern for cancer survivors of reproductive age that has both physical and psychosocial implications is infertility. Current guidelines are in place to ensure that survivors are made aware of how treatment can impact their plans for building a family and pose viable options for preserving their fertility; however, studies indicate under-utilization of fertility preservation among cancer survivors. The aim of this study was to examine how a cancer diagnosis influenced parenthood motivation and family building strategies among individuals of reproductive age. The study identified contributors to access and use of fertility services by using a conceptual model based on Andersen’s Behavioral Model of Health Services, Lea’s model of Age-appropriate Care, and Kilbourne’s Health Services Research Framework to Advance Health Disparities. The conceptual model elucidates factors that impact cancer survivors’ use of fertility services, equitable access to services, and policy actions that assure equitable access to fertility services. A phenomenological qualitative study was conducted to allow deep exploration of these issues through the review and analysis of survivors’ stories as told through online narratives and in-depth interviews. Study findings showed a cancer diagnosis had not altered an individual’s desire to have children. Although fertility preservation was not always utilized by cancer survivors of reproductive age to conceive or sire a child, most survivors sought out some form of fertility service post treatment. Access and subsequent use of fertility services was grossly dependent on both survivor and provider factors as well as successful clinical encounters between the patient and the provider. These findings have implications for clinical care, public health policy, practice, and research

Method of Attack: A Supplemental Model for Hate Crime Analysis

On October 28, 2009, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) was signed into law by President Barack Obama. Two years later, between September and November of 2011, members of a Bergholz, Ohio, Amish community allegedly carried out five attacks in which they forcibly restrained, and cut the hair and beards of, members of other Amish communities. In September of 2012, a jury rendered a verdict in United States v. Mullet and found sixteen members of the Bergholz community—including Samuel Mullet, bishop of the community—guilty of HCPA violations. These were the first convictions for religion-based hate crimes under the new statute. Under the HCPA, a hate crime is committed when someone “willfully causes bodily injury to any person . . . because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person. . . .” At trial, the judge instructed the jury that the “because of” requirement could be proven by showing that the victim’s religion was “a significant motivating factor.” In 2014, while Mullet was awaiting decision on appeal, the Supreme Court decided Burrage v. United States and noted that, especially in the interpretation of criminal statutes, which are subject to the rule of lenity, the causation standards “because of,” “based on,” and “results from” have the ordinary meaning of requiring but-for causation. All three judges on the appellate panel in Mullet agreed that the district court’s jury instruction that the victims’ religion must have been a “significant factor” in the motivation for the attacks was incorrect and should have comported with the Burrage holding. The judges split two to one, however, regarding the disposition of the appeal. The majority opinion, written by Judge Sutton, remanded the case to the district court and held that, because the motivation behind the attacks was at issue, a new trial—this time using the proper causation standard—is necessary. In dissent, Judge Sargus would not have remanded the case because using the incorrect causation standard was harmless error. The defense did not establish that the method of attack would have been the same if the victims had not been Amish adherents. Thus, using the incorrect causation standard was harmless error. There are three commonly used models of causation for hate crime statutes: “racial animus,” “discriminatory selection,” and “because of.” The “because of” construction is the most ambiguous model—because the “because of” language is consistent with the analysis under either of the other models—and is the model used in the HCPA. Judge Sargus’s dissent would expand “because of” to include a new model for hate crime analysis: method of attack. This expansion serves the purposes of protecting classes from fear of attack due to their class membership and of giving heightened punishment to those who decide to perpetrate a crime based on protected characteristics. This new model of hate crime analysis ought to be adopted as a supplemental means of showing that a protected class member was attacked “because of” his or her class membership. If adopted, this supplemental analysis would recognize that, even assuming the Mullet victims were not chosen because of their religion, the attackers still made decisions based on the victims’ religion. In this Note, Part I provides an overview of facets of the Amish faith relevant to understanding the conflict between the defendants and the victims in Mullet. Part II recounts the conflicts and attacks and then looks to the litigation of the case from trial through appeal. Part III briefly recounts the HCPA’s namesakes and legislative history and presents the different models for hate crime statutes and their corresponding analyses, including Judge Sargus’s expanded interpretation of “because of.” Part IV argues that when, but for the victim’s protected class, an inherently class-based method of attack would not have been selected, the “because of” requirement of the HCPA should be deemed satisfied

Method of Attack: A Supplemental Model for Hate Crime Analysis

On October 28, 2009, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) was signed into law by President Barack Obama. Two years later, between September and November of 2011, members of a Bergholz, Ohio, Amish community allegedly carried out five attacks in which they forcibly restrained, and cut the hair and beards of, members of other Amish communities. In September of 2012, a jury rendered a verdict in United States v. Mullet and found sixteen members of the Bergholz community—including Samuel Mullet, bishop of the community—guilty of HCPA violations. These were the first convictions for religion-based hate crimes under the new statute. Under the HCPA, a hate crime is committed when someone “willfully causes bodily injury to any person . . . because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person. . . .” At trial, the judge instructed the jury that the “because of” requirement could be proven by showing that the victim’s religion was “a significant motivating factor.” In 2014, while Mullet was awaiting decision on appeal, the Supreme Court decided Burrage v. United States and noted that, especially in the interpretation of criminal statutes, which are subject to the rule of lenity, the causation standards “because of,” “based on,” and “results from” have the ordinary meaning of requiring but-for causation. All three judges on the appellate panel in Mullet agreed that the district court’s jury instruction that the victims’ religion must have been a “significant factor” in the motivation for the attacks was incorrect and should have comported with the Burrage holding. The judges split two to one, however, regarding the disposition of the appeal. The majority opinion, written by Judge Sutton, remanded the case to the district court and held that, because the motivation behind the attacks was at issue, a new trial—this time using the proper causation standard—is necessary. In dissent, Judge Sargus would not have remanded the case because using the incorrect causation standard was harmless error. The defense did not establish that the method of attack would have been the same if the victims had not been Amish adherents. Thus, using the incorrect causation standard was harmless error. There are three commonly used models of causation for hate crime statutes: “racial animus,” “discriminatory selection,” and “because of.” The “because of” construction is the most ambiguous model—because the “because of” language is consistent with the analysis under either of the other models—and is the model used in the HCPA. Judge Sargus’s dissent would expand “because of” to include a new model for hate crime analysis: method of attack. This expansion serves the purposes of protecting classes from fear of attack due to their class membership and of giving heightened punishment to those who decide to perpetrate a crime based on protected characteristics. This new model of hate crime analysis ought to be adopted as a supplemental means of showing that a protected class member was attacked “because of” his or her class membership. If adopted, this supplemental analysis would recognize that, even assuming the Mullet victims were not chosen because of their religion, the attackers still made decisions based on the victims’ religion. In this Note, Part I provides an overview of facets of the Amish faith relevant to understanding the conflict between the defendants and the victims in Mullet. Part II recounts the conflicts and attacks and then looks to the litigation of the case from trial through appeal. Part III briefly recounts the HCPA’s namesakes and legislative history and presents the different models for hate crime statutes and their corresponding analyses, including Judge Sargus’s expanded interpretation of “because of.” Part IV argues that when, but for the victim’s protected class, an inherently class-based method of attack would not have been selected, the “because of” requirement of the HCPA should be deemed satisfied

A Role For Scenario Planning In Rural Hospitals

Highlights: Scenario planning typically focuses on the future, beyond the normal strategic planning horizon. It has been used primarily by large organizations, but it can be useful to organizations of any size trying to develop strategy for the future. COVID-19 has arguably broadened planners’ perspectives, thus emphasizing potential benefits from scenario planning for organizations, both large and small. Rural hospitals may find some scenario planning beneficial.Background: Formal introduction of scenario planning in the U.S. can be traced to Herman Kahn’s use of stories in military planning. Royal Dutch-Shell’s use of scenario planning is widely noted as the first big organizational use. Scenario planning involving plausible future oil pricing that differed from a mere extrapolation of current prices positioned the company to weather unexpected oil market shocks in the 1970s. The requirement to break from status quo, extrapolated forecasting—thereby forcing deeper strategic conversation—is the primary strength of scenario planning. Scenario planning usually focuses on the longer-term—beyond a normal time horizon for strategic planning (Schwartz, 1991), but there is no rule to prohibit its use in a shorter horizon. By asking the question of what might happen, scenario planning can be useful to any organization trying to develop strategy for the future. While it has been utilized by primarily large organizations, this approach offers meaningful contributions to organizations, no matter its size