Digging deep the oil world: corporate liability and environmental justice strategies

The impacts provoked by the expanding oil industry encompass environmental destruction, health impacts and violations of human rights. The increasing contamination jeopardizes safe conditions of life and destroys means of livelihood of vulnerable communities and of those relying on healthy ecosystems. Local communities, feeling that they are simply sacrificed to the oil industry, see themselves involved in social conflict. They are experiencing forms of environmental discrimination and might even face criminalisation of the protest when they stand up to defend their rights promoting the chilly effect on others who need and want to defend themselves and the environment. In fact, the number of lawsuits demanding justice for environmental, social, economical and cultural damages provoked by oil companies are increasing as well as their media visibility. Yet most outcomes are not satisfactory in tackling impacted communities claims for justice. This paper describes the most recent trends regarding oil corporations’ responsibilities and use of procedural justice by civil society through the review of emblematic legal cases

A Pilot Study Comparing Aortic Valve Area Estimates Derived from Fick Cardiac Output with Estimates Based on Cheetah-NICOM Cardiac Output.

Contains fulltext : 221539.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)Cardiac output during cardiac catheterization is often estimated using the modified Fick method (CO(Fick)). In this proof-of-concept, prospective non-randomized study carried out in a single academic healthcare centre, we examined whether replacing CO(Fick) in the Gorlin formula with Cheetah-NICOM monitor cardiac output (CO(Cheetah)) could produce an accurate and precise estimate of aortic valve area in patients with severe aortic stenosis. In twenty-six subjects, CO(Fick) and CO(Cheetah) were obtained concurrently. A spot and 3-minute running average of CO(Cheetah) was used. Bland and Altman analysis was used to derive bias, 95% limits of agreement (LOA) and confidence intervals (CI). The mean difference (bias) between AVA(Cheetah) (average) and AVA(Fick) was 0.11 cm(2) and the 95% LOA were ±0.42 cm(2). The 95% CI of the bias was 0.02-0.2 cm(2). The bias and 95% LOA of AVA(Cheetah) (spot value) were 0.14 ± 0.42cm(2), with a 95% CI of 0.06-0.23 cm(2). No proportional bias was present. AVA(Cheetah) thus appears to be a reasonably accurate measure of AVA in patients with severe aortic stenosis compared to AVA(Fick) measured using a modified Fick CO. However, the limits of agreement were not narrow enough to consider AVA(Cheetah) and AVA(Fick) interchangeable