Contribution for the derivation of a soil screening value (SSV) for uranium, using a natural reference soil

In order to regulate the management of contaminated land, many countries have been deriving soil screening values (SSV). However, the ecotoxicological data available for uranium is still insufficient and incapable to generate SSVs for European soils. In this sense, and so as to make up for this shortcoming, a battery of ecotoxicological assays focusing on soil functions and organisms, and a wide range of endpoints was carried out, using a natural soil artificially spiked with uranium. In terrestrial ecotoxicology, it is widely recognized that soils have different properties that can influence the bioavailability and the toxicity of chemicals. In this context, SSVs derived for artificial soils or for other types of natural soils, may lead to unfeasible environmental risk assessment. Hence, the use of natural regional representative soils is of great importance in the derivation of SSVs. A Portuguese natural reference soil PTRS1, from a granitic region, was thereby applied as test substrate. This study allowed the determination of NOEC, LOEC, EC20 and EC50 values for uranium. Dehydrogenase and urease enzymes displayed the lowest values (34.9 and ,134.5 mg U Kg, respectively). Eisenia andrei and Enchytraeus crypticus revealed to be more sensitive to uranium than Folsomia candida. EC50 values of 631.00, 518.65 and 851.64 mg U Kg were recorded for the three species, respectively. Concerning plants, only Lactuca sativa was affected by U at concentrations up to 1000 mg U kg1. The outcomes of the study may in part be constrained by physical and chemical characteristics of soils, hence contributing to the discrepancy between the toxicity data generated in this study and that available in the literature. Following the assessment factor method, a predicted no effect concentration (PNEC) value of 15.5 mg kg21dw was obtained for U. This PNEC value is proposed as a SSV for soils similar to the PTRS1

Interactive Content and Convergence Culture

As illustrated by the Netflix special Bandersnatch as a cultural phenomenon, the purpose of this study was to analyze how "new" storytelling forms exist in today's convergence culture. This was done by a discursive case study about TV-critics' reception of Bandersnatch, along with smaller comparative discourses covering both relatively traditional film and TV organizations within the media industry, as well as an online forum. Therefore, it was demonstrated how the convergence culture expanded the expression of interactive content. Themes inspired by the reviews included the categorization of Bandersnatch as a media product. The technological aspects of interactive elements were furthermore used in the analysis of the result. Moreover, this was discussed in relation to theories of design and convergence culture. Finally, the results of the study indicated that Netflix's Bandersnatch was compared to both analogue and digital media products. The film's technological aspects were considered to detract from the storytelling experience of a movie, but rather it generated the type of entertainment found in a video game. An insecurity of the future of film as an artform and a dilution of traditional ownership roles also emerged, as the viewer's control continued to be discussed, not only in relation to Bandersnatch, but also to the overall interactive and participatory digital media landscape.Belyst av Netflix-specialaren Bandersnatch som ett kulturellt fenomen var syftet med denna studie att analysera hur "nya" berättarformer existerar i dagens konvergenskultur. Detta gjordes genom en diskursiv fallstudie om TV-recensenters mottagande av Bandersnatch, ihop med mindre jämförande diskurser som behandlade relativt traditionella film- och TV-organisationer inom mediebranschen samt ett onlineforum. Därmed påvisades också hur konvergenskulturen vidgade uttrycket av interaktivt innehåll. Teman inspirerade av recensionerna inkluderade exempelvis kategoriseringen av Bandersnatch som medieprodukt. De teknologiska aspekterna av interaktiva element användes vidare i analysen av resultaten. Ytterligare diskuterades detta i relation till teorier om design och konvergenskultur. Slutligen indikerade studien att Netflix Bandersnatch jämfördes med både analoga och digitalamedieprodukter. Filmens teknologiska aspekter ansågs förminska berättarupplevelsen som film, men skapade snarare en typ av nöje som återfanns i TV-spel. En osäkerhet om framtiden av film som en konstform uppdagades också, medan tittarens kontroll fortsatte att diskuteras, inte bara i relation till Bandersnatch, utan också i förhållande till helheten av det interaktiva och deltagande digitala medier-landskapet

Interactive Content and Convergence Culture

As illustrated by the Netflix special Bandersnatch as a cultural phenomenon, the purpose of this study was to analyze how "new" storytelling forms exist in today's convergence culture. This was done by a discursive case study about TV-critics' reception of Bandersnatch, along with smaller comparative discourses covering both relatively traditional film and TV organizations within the media industry, as well as an online forum. Therefore, it was demonstrated how the convergence culture expanded the expression of interactive content. Themes inspired by the reviews included the categorization of Bandersnatch as a media product. The technological aspects of interactive elements were furthermore used in the analysis of the result. Moreover, this was discussed in relation to theories of design and convergence culture. Finally, the results of the study indicated that Netflix's Bandersnatch was compared to both analogue and digital media products. The film's technological aspects were considered to detract from the storytelling experience of a movie, but rather it generated the type of entertainment found in a video game. An insecurity of the future of film as an artform and a dilution of traditional ownership roles also emerged, as the viewer's control continued to be discussed, not only in relation to Bandersnatch, but also to the overall interactive and participatory digital media landscape.Belyst av Netflix-specialaren Bandersnatch som ett kulturellt fenomen var syftet med denna studie att analysera hur "nya" berättarformer existerar i dagens konvergenskultur. Detta gjordes genom en diskursiv fallstudie om TV-recensenters mottagande av Bandersnatch, ihop med mindre jämförande diskurser som behandlade relativt traditionella film- och TV-organisationer inom mediebranschen samt ett onlineforum. Därmed påvisades också hur konvergenskulturen vidgade uttrycket av interaktivt innehåll. Teman inspirerade av recensionerna inkluderade exempelvis kategoriseringen av Bandersnatch som medieprodukt. De teknologiska aspekterna av interaktiva element användes vidare i analysen av resultaten. Ytterligare diskuterades detta i relation till teorier om design och konvergenskultur. Slutligen indikerade studien att Netflix Bandersnatch jämfördes med både analoga och digitalamedieprodukter. Filmens teknologiska aspekter ansågs förminska berättarupplevelsen som film, men skapade snarare en typ av nöje som återfanns i TV-spel. En osäkerhet om framtiden av film som en konstform uppdagades också, medan tittarens kontroll fortsatte att diskuteras, inte bara i relation till Bandersnatch, utan också i förhållande till helheten av det interaktiva och deltagande digitala medier-landskapet

Chronic pulmonary aspergillosis following pulmonary embolism

Chronic pulmonary aspergillosis (CPA) is predominantly found alongside cavitating or bullous lung diseases. Although pulmonary embolism may cause cavitation, an association with CPA has not been well described. We describe a case of CPA in a 79-year-old female following bilateral pulmonary emboli. The clinical implications are numerous, including the dilemma of anticoagulation. This link suggests that a lower threshold for suspecting CPA following pulmonary embolus is required, even in the absence of other respiratory disease. Keywords: Pulmonary, Embolism, Chronic, Aspergillosi

World Heritage List : does it make sense?

The UNESCO World Heritage List contains the 900 most treasured Sites of humanity’s culture and landscapes. This List is beneficial where heritage sites are undetected, disregarded by national decision-makers, not commercially exploitable, and where national financial resources, political control and technical knowledge for conservation are inadequate. Alternatives such as the market and reliance on national conservation list are more beneficial where the cultural and natural sites are already popular, markets work well, and where inclusion in the List does not raise the destruction potential by excessive tourism, and in times of war, or by terrorists

What Determines the World Heritage List? An Econometric Analysis

The official intention of the UNESCO World Heritage List is to protect the global heritage. However, the existing List is highly imbalanced according to countries and continents. Historical reasons, such as historical GDP, population, and number of years of high civilization, have a significant impact on being included on the List. In addition, economic and political factors unrelated to the value of heritage, such as rent seeking by bureaucrats and politicians, the size of the tourist sector, the importance of media, the degree of federalism, and membership in the UN Security Council, influence the composition of the List

Assessment, endoscopy, and treatment in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis during the COVID-19 pandemic (PROTECT-ASUC): a multicentre, observational, case-control study

BackgroundThere is a paucity of evidence to support safe and effective management of patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to identify alterations to established conventional evidence-based management of acute severe ulcerative colitis during the early COVID-19 pandemic, the effect on outcomes, and any associations with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes. MethodsThe PROTECT-ASUC study was a multicentre, observational, case-control study in 60 acute secondary care hospitals throughout the UK. We included adults (≥18 years) with either ulcerative colitis or inflammatory bowel disease unclassified, who presented with acute severe ulcerative colitis and fulfilled the Truelove and Witts criteria. Cases and controls were identified as either admitted or managed in emergency ambulatory care settings between March 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020 (COVID-19 pandemic period cohort), or between Jan 1, 2019, and June 30, 2019 (historical control cohort), respectively. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis receiving rescue therapy (including primary induction) or colectomy. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04411784. FindingsWe included 782 patients (398 in the pandemic period cohort and 384 in the historical control cohort) who met the Truelove and Witts criteria for acute severe ulcerative colitis. The proportion of patients receiving rescue therapy (including primary induction) or surgery was higher during the pandemic period than in the historical period (217 [55%] of 393 patients vs 159 [42%] of 380 patients; p=0·00024) and the time to rescue therapy was shorter in the pandemic cohort than in the historical cohort (p=0·0026). This difference was driven by a greater use of rescue and primary induction therapies with biologicals, ciclosporin, or tofacitinib in the COVID-19 pandemic period cohort than in the historical control period cohort (177 [46%] of 387 patients in the COVID-19 cohort vs 134 [36%] of 373 patients in the historical cohort; p=0·0064). During the pandemic, more patients received ambulatory (outpatient) intravenous steroids (51 [13%] of 385 patients vs 19 [5%] of 360 patients; p=0·00023). Fewer patients received thiopurines (29 [7%] of 398 patients vs 46 [12%] of 384; p=0·029) and 5-aminosalicylic acids (67 [17%] of 398 patients vs 98 [26%] of 384; p=0·0037) during the pandemic than in the historical control period. Colectomy rates were similar between the pandemic and historical control groups (64 [16%] of 389 vs 50 [13%] of 375; p=0·26); however, laparoscopic surgery was less frequently performed during the pandemic period (34 [53%] of 64] vs 38 [76%] of 50; p=0·018). Five (2%) of 253 patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during hospital treatment. Two (2%) of 103 patients re-tested for SARS-CoV-2 during the 3-month follow-up were positive 5 days and 12 days, respectively, after discharge from index admission. Both recovered without serious outcomes. InterpretationThe COVID-19 pandemic altered practice patterns of gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons in the management of acute severe ulcerative colitis but was associated with similar outcomes to a historical cohort. Despite continued use of high-dose corticosteroids and biologicals, the incidence of COVID-19 within 3 months was low and not associated with adverse COVID-19 outcomes