The Personal protective technology program at NIOSH: reviews of research programs of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Maintaining the health and safety of workers in the United States and globally is accomplished in part by reducing hazardous exposures through the use of personal protective equipment. Personal protective technologies (PPT) include respirators worn by construction workers and miners; protective clothing, respirators, and gloves worn by firefighters and mine rescue workers; and respirators and protective clothing worn by healthcare workers. An estimated 5 million workers are required to wear respirators in 1.3 million U.S. workplaces. For some occupations, such as firefighting, the worker's protective equipment is the only form of protection against life-threatening hazards; for other workers, the PPT is a supplement to ventilation and other environmental, engineering, or administrative hazard controls. In the United States, federal responsibility for civilian worker PPT is integral to the mission of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). This book examines the NIOSH Personal Protective Technology Program (PPT Program) and specifically focuses on the relevance and impact of this program in reducing hazardous exposures and improving worker health and safety.Summary -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Relevance of the NIOSH PPT Program -- 3. Impact of the NIOSH PPT Program -- 4. Emerging issues and research areas in personal protective technology -- 5. Recommendations for PPT program improvement -- Appendix A: Framework for the review of research programs of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health -- Appendix B: Methods: Committee information gathering -- Appendix C: Information Provided by the NIOSH PPT Program -- Appendix D: Biographical sketches of committee membersCommittee to Review the NIOSH Personal Protective Technology Program, Board on Health Sciences Policy, Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies.Also available via the World Wide Web.Includes bibliographical references

Commentary: why abandoning undergraduate laboratories is not an option

[Excerpt] Laboratory exercises (labs) are sometimes regarded as dispensable in BMB education for various reasons including a combination of increased class costs and small budget allocations, pressing demands for more time to lecture to fit in new BMB discoveries within constant time span of courses, and the fact that labs’ look less powerful for illustrating BMB content as state-ofthe-art research technologies gain complexity and sophistication. Virtual environments are also in the equation: available examples from other sciences—pathology, for example—which are taught with virtual instead of real labs, question what justifies the allocation of facilities, technicians, and faculty to BMB labs. Finally and equally important, are the conclusions that the quality of labs is often below educational standards. Recent reports [1, 2] emphasize the need for severe changes: from ‘‘cookbook’’ labs—in which students do little more than following a protocol, one step at a time with highly predictable results—to ‘‘enquiry-driven’’ or ‘‘project-like’’ labs. Dropping labs may look far more convenient than making profound reforms, which are always time consuming and, at the end of the day, will not be taken into consideration in academic faculty evaluations or promotions. [...

Storms, Floods, and Debris Flows in Southern California and Arizona, 1978 and 1980: Proceedings of a Symposium, September 17-18,1980

Following the floods of 1978 and 1980 in southern California and Arizona a symposium was convened at the California Institute of Technology in September 1980 to document the significant events of these floods and to exchange information and evaluations. The symposium laid the groundwork for a volume of proceedings, which serves as a compact permanent source of information on these floods for not only local readers but national readers as well. Special attention is given in the proceedings to documenting problems--some engineering, some institutional--and to drawing conclusions and making recommendations for research. The papers included are not intended to be research papers or to replace the much more detailed reports of individual agencies. The emphasis was on preparing and presenting the papers soon after the event in such a way as to emphasize the regional nature of floods and flood control problems. The proceedings are organized into several sections, with 35 papers altogether. Following the overview and summary, Section 2, STORM METEOROLOGY, which consists of four papers, describes the long-range weather patterns that affect the southwestern United States; the relationship of these patterns to sea surface temperatures in the North Pacific Ocean; the short-term synoptic meteorology of the storms under consideration, showing the importance of multiple storm sequences; and statistical analyses of return periods, based on historical data, for precipitation at a point. Section 3, DOWNSTREAM RIVER FLOODING, consisting of nine papers, gives an overview of the floods on the larger rivers, how the flood control works responded, and what damages occurred. Section 4, UPLAND FLOODS AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT (five papers), focuses on the unique aspects of sedimentation in regional floods. Section 5, LANDSLIDES, with four papers, explains the problems of landslides, both large and small, that were triggered by the prolonged periods of heavy rainfall. Section 6, CASE STUDIES OF ENGINEERING PROBLEMS (four papers), gives detailed analyses of three particular engineering problems: the failure of levees on the San Jacinto River, the uncontrolled filling of Lake Elsinore to damaging stages, and the severe streambed scour threatening to undermine the Interstate 10 highway bridge over the Salt River at Phoenix, Arizona. The experiences and analyses described in these papers should be useful to engineers who deal with similar structures and situations in the future. Section 7, EFFECTS ON THE SHORELINE, consisting of two papers, illustrates the damaging effects of the high storm waves and high tides that occurred in 1978 and 1980. Beach profiles shifted very rapidly, with sand being moved temporarily offshore, which exposed many shoreline structures to direct wave attack, causing severe damages. Section 8, POLICIES FOR FLOOD CONTROL AND HAZARD MITIGATION (six papers),focuses on institutional issues. Four of these papers advocate a strong new emphasis on hazard mitigation, better flood warning systems, and other nonstructural approaches as part of the mix of society's activities to deal with floods. About 300 people participated in the symposium, and many contributed to the questions and discussion. In the closing session there was a panel discussion by Russell Campbell, Engineering Geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey; John F. Kennedy, Director of the Iowa Institute on Hydraulic Research at the University of Iowa and member of the Committee on Natural Disasters of the National Research Council; Dale Peterson, Director of Community Services with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in San Francisco; and Richard Wainer, Los Angeles City Engineer's Office in Van Nuys. The writer served as moderator. Since it was not feasible to digest and record all of these discussions, I am attempting in this summary to capture the main conclusions and issues.* Nonetheless, the following conclusions and recommendations are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent a consensus by the participants at the symposium. For the record it should be noted that the following papers included in the proceedings were not presented at the symposium: "Geotechnical Origin and Repair of the Bluebird Canyon Landslide, Laguna Beach, California" by Beach Leighton and "Levee Failures and Distress, San Jacinto River Levee and Bautista Creek Channel, Riverside County, Santa Ana River Basin, California" by Joe Sciandrone, Ted Albrecht, Jr., Richard Davidson, Jacob Douma, Dave Bamer, Charles Hooppaw, and A1 Robles, Jr. The latter paper is a shortened version of the official Corps of Engineers report on the San Jacinto River levee failure , which was not available in time for presentation at the conference. Numerous brief discussions at the symposium are gratefully acknowledged, although very few are included in the proceedings

The Health Hazard Evaluation Program at NIOSH: reviews of research programs of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

It is the unique mission of the Health Hazard Evaluation Program within the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to respond to requests to investigate potential occupational health hazards. In contrast to other NIOSH programs, the Health Hazard Evaluation Program is not primarily a research program. Rather, it investigates and provides advice to workplaces in response to requests from employers, employees and their representatives, and federal agencies. The National Research Council was charged with evaluating the NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation Program and determining whether program activities resulted in improvements in workplace practices and decreases in hazardous exposures that cause occupational illnesses. The program was found to play a key role in addressing existing widespread or emerging occupational health issues. This book makes several recommendations that could improve a very strong program including more systematic use of surveillance data to facilitate priority setting, and greater interaction with a broader array of workers, industries, and other government agencies.Committee to Review the NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation Program, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.Title from electronic title page (viewed Apr. 7, 2009).Also issued in print.Adobe Acrobat required for PDF version.Mode of access: World Wide Web.Text in GIF and PDF format.Sponsored by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 211-2006-19152 001Includes bibliographical references

Beyond Chapter 4.7

Chapter 4.7 of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research refers specifically to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. It lays out the points at which researchers working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders must consider their approach, and the engagement with individuals, communities or groups who are involved in or affected by their research. History, of Australia and of research involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, has informed this approach. The response to that history has been a rational, institutionalised, systematic demand for a different perception of what should direct research and research processes to ensure engagement with and service to the community with whom the researchers wish to do the work. This paper considers whether these principles could inform the approach to other research work.not applicabl

Storms, Floods, and Debris Flows in Southern California and Arizona, 1978 and 1980: Proceedings of a Symposium, September 17-18,1980

Following the floods of 1978 and 1980 in southern California and Arizona a symposium was convened at the California Institute of Technology in September 1980 to document the significant events of these floods and to exchange information and evaluations. The symposium laid the groundwork for a volume of proceedings, which serves as a compact permanent source of information on these floods for not only local readers but national readers as well. Special attention is given in the proceedings to documenting problems--some engineering, some institutional--and to drawing conclusions and making recommendations for research. The papers included are not intended to be research papers or to replace the much more detailed reports of individual agencies. The emphasis was on preparing and presenting the papers soon after the event in such a way as to emphasize the regional nature of floods and flood control problems. The proceedings are organized into several sections, with 35 papers altogether. Following the overview and summary, Section 2, STORM METEOROLOGY, which consists of four papers, describes the long-range weather patterns that affect the southwestern United States; the relationship of these patterns to sea surface temperatures in the North Pacific Ocean; the short-term synoptic meteorology of the storms under consideration, showing the importance of multiple storm sequences; and statistical analyses of return periods, based on historical data, for precipitation at a point. Section 3, DOWNSTREAM RIVER FLOODING, consisting of nine papers, gives an overview of the floods on the larger rivers, how the flood control works responded, and what damages occurred. Section 4, UPLAND FLOODS AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT (five papers), focuses on the unique aspects of sedimentation in regional floods. Section 5, LANDSLIDES, with four papers, explains the problems of landslides, both large and small, that were triggered by the prolonged periods of heavy rainfall. Section 6, CASE STUDIES OF ENGINEERING PROBLEMS (four papers), gives detailed analyses of three particular engineering problems: the failure of levees on the San Jacinto River, the uncontrolled filling of Lake Elsinore to damaging stages, and the severe streambed scour threatening to undermine the Interstate 10 highway bridge over the Salt River at Phoenix, Arizona. The experiences and analyses described in these papers should be useful to engineers who deal with similar structures and situations in the future. Section 7, EFFECTS ON THE SHORELINE, consisting of two papers, illustrates the damaging effects of the high storm waves and high tides that occurred in 1978 and 1980. Beach profiles shifted very rapidly, with sand being moved temporarily offshore, which exposed many shoreline structures to direct wave attack, causing severe damages. Section 8, POLICIES FOR FLOOD CONTROL AND HAZARD MITIGATION (six papers),focuses on institutional issues. Four of these papers advocate a strong new emphasis on hazard mitigation, better flood warning systems, and other nonstructural approaches as part of the mix of society's activities to deal with floods. About 300 people participated in the symposium, and many contributed to the questions and discussion. In the closing session there was a panel discussion by Russell Campbell, Engineering Geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey; John F. Kennedy, Director of the Iowa Institute on Hydraulic Research at the University of Iowa and member of the Committee on Natural Disasters of the National Research Council; Dale Peterson, Director of Community Services with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in San Francisco; and Richard Wainer, Los Angeles City Engineer's Office in Van Nuys. The writer served as moderator. Since it was not feasible to digest and record all of these discussions, I am attempting in this summary to capture the main conclusions and issues.* Nonetheless, the following conclusions and recommendations are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent a consensus by the participants at the symposium. For the record it should be noted that the following papers included in the proceedings were not presented at the symposium: "Geotechnical Origin and Repair of the Bluebird Canyon Landslide, Laguna Beach, California" by Beach Leighton and "Levee Failures and Distress, San Jacinto River Levee and Bautista Creek Channel, Riverside County, Santa Ana River Basin, California" by Joe Sciandrone, Ted Albrecht, Jr., Richard Davidson, Jacob Douma, Dave Bamer, Charles Hooppaw, and A1 Robles, Jr. The latter paper is a shortened version of the official Corps of Engineers report on the San Jacinto River levee failure , which was not available in time for presentation at the conference. Numerous brief discussions at the symposium are gratefully acknowledged, although very few are included in the proceedings

Don't know, can't know: Embracing deeper uncertainties when analysing risks

This article is available open access through the publisher’s website at the link below. Copyright @ 2011 The Royal Society.Numerous types of uncertainty arise when using formal models in the analysis of risks. Uncertainty is best seen as a relation, allowing a clear separation of the object, source and ‘owner’ of the uncertainty, and we argue that all expressions of uncertainty are constructed from judgements based on possibly inadequate assumptions, and are therefore contingent. We consider a five-level structure for assessing and communicating uncertainties, distinguishing three within-model levels—event, parameter and model uncertainty—and two extra-model levels concerning acknowledged and unknown inadequacies in the modelling process, including possible disagreements about the framing of the problem. We consider the forms of expression of uncertainty within the five levels, providing numerous examples of the way in which inadequacies in understanding are handled, and examining criticisms of the attempts taken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to separate the likelihood of events from the confidence in the science. Expressing our confidence in the adequacy of the modelling process requires an assessment of the quality of the underlying evidence, and we draw on a scale that is widely used within evidence-based medicine. We conclude that the contingent nature of risk-modelling needs to be explicitly acknowledged in advice given to policy-makers, and that unconditional expressions of uncertainty remain an aspiration

Information-anchored sensitivity analysis: theory and application

Analysis of longitudinal randomised controlled trials is frequently complicated because patients deviate from the protocol. Where such deviations are relevant for the estimand, we are typically required to make an untestable assumption about post-deviation behaviour in order to perform our primary analysis and estimate the treatment effect. In such settings, it is now widely recognised that we should follow this with sensitivity analyses to explore the robustness of our inferences to alternative assumptions about post-deviation behaviour. Although there has been a lot of work on how to conduct such sensitivity analyses, little attention has been given to the appropriate loss of information due to missing data within sensitivity analysis. We argue more attention needs to be given to this issue, showing it is quite possible for sensitivity analysis to decrease and increase the information about the treatment effect. To address this critical issue, we introduce the concept of information-anchored sensitivity analysis. By this we mean sensitivity analysis in which the proportion of information about the treatment estimate lost due to missing data is the same as the proportion of information about the treatment estimate lost due to missing data in the primary analysis. We argue this forms a transparent, practical starting point for interpretation of sensitivity analysis. We then derive results showing that, for longitudinal continuous data, a broad class of controlled and reference-based sensitivity analyses performed by multiple imputation are information-anchored. We illustrate the theory with simulations and an analysis of a peer review trial, then discuss our work in the context of other recent work in this area. Our results give a theoretical basis for the use of controlled multiple imputation procedures for sensitivity analysis