Lost opportunity?: An evaluation of the senate\u27s report on disaster management

The inability of the Australian federal governments to dominate the Senate has enhanced the Senate’s ability to review and make recommendations on public policy issues. In 1994, the Senate Standing Committee on Industry, Science, Technology, Transport, Communications and Infrastructure reviewed and made recommendations on Australia’s emergency management arrangements. Australian emergency management has developed in a complex environment where it has been heavily influenced by incremental development from its civil defence origins in the Second World War and by factors including international developments, federalism and the hazards impacting on Australia. The Senate Committee’s review was a unique opportunity for a high level investigation of the adequacy of the arrangements. The Review, although it produced forty five recommendations, failed to consider a range of significant issues in Australian emergency management. These omissions include federalism, the impact of economic rationalism, and the need for national emergency management legislation. The inquiry conducted by the Senate Committee failed to engage key stakeholders, notably local government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The inquiry also focused on administrative as opposed to policy issues. As a consequence of these deficiencies, it failed to result in significant change to Australia’s emergency management arrangements

New Technology for Managing the Formosan Subterranean Termite

Methods for discouraging termites include the basaltic termite barrier and metal mesh barriers under foundations, baiting systems, removable baseboards, and resistant building materials

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF 3D PRINTED FACIAL PROSTHESES COMPARED TO HANDMADE SILICONE POLYMER PROSTHESES

Purpose: To evaluate the mechanical properties of the 3D printed starch models infiltrated with maxillofacial silicone polymers used for fabrication of maxillofacial prostheses compared to the mechanical properties of pure silicone polymer models. Materials and methods: The test and control specimens were designed according to industry standards ASTM specifications using SolidWorks 2008 software for testing tensile strength tear strength, percentage elongation and hardness properties of starch infiltrated silicone polymer. Ten Dumbbell-shaped specimens and ten Trousershaped specimens with four hardness test specimens were printed by Zcorp 510 3D printer and infiltrated with Sil-25 maxillofacial silicone polymer. Whereas, control samples made from pure Sil-25 silicone polymers using a stainless steel mould and following a similar specification of test specimens. Lloyd LRX tensile instrument; load rating 100 N at a constant crosshead speed of 25 mm/min for testing tensile, tear strength and percentage elongation and Hardness Tester (England) was used to measure shore A durometer hardness. Results: Silicone polymer infiltrated starch (test) specimens demonstrated significantly lower tensile strength, tear strength and percentage elongation than the pure silicone polymer (control) samples (p<0.05). However, a significant increase (p<0.05) in the hardness of the printed specimens was recorded against the pure silicone samples. Conclusion: The 3D printed soft tissue prostheses – the final product showed significantly different mechanical properties compared to the handmade prostheses; they were significantly harder and reported lower mechanical properties

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF 3D PRINTED FACIAL PROSTHESES COMPARED TO HANDMADE SILICONE POLYMER PROSTHESES

Purpose: To evaluate the mechanical properties of the 3D printed starch models infiltrated with maxillofacial silicone polymers used for fabrication of maxillofacial prostheses compared to the mechanical properties of pure silicone polymer models. Materials and methods: The test and control specimens were designed according to industry standards ASTM specifications using SolidWorks 2008 software for testing tensile strength tear strength, percentage elongation and hardness properties of starch infiltrated silicone polymer. Ten Dumbbell-shaped specimens and ten Trousershaped specimens with four hardness test specimens were printed by Zcorp 510 3D printer and infiltrated with Sil-25 maxillofacial silicone polymer. Whereas, control samples made from pure Sil-25 silicone polymers using a stainless steel mould and following a similar specification of test specimens. Lloyd LRX tensile instrument; load rating 100 N at a constant crosshead speed of 25 mm/min for testing tensile, tear strength and percentage elongation and Hardness Tester (England) was used to measure shore A durometer hardness. Results: Silicone polymer infiltrated starch (test) specimens demonstrated significantly lower tensile strength, tear strength and percentage elongation than the pure silicone polymer (control) samples (p<0.05). However, a significant increase (p<0.05) in the hardness of the printed specimens was recorded against the pure silicone samples. Conclusion: The 3D printed soft tissue prostheses – the final product showed significantly different mechanical properties compared to the handmade prostheses; they were significantly harder and reported lower mechanical properties

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF 3D PRINTED FACIAL PROSTHESES COMPARED TO HANDMADE SILICONE POLYMER PROSTHESES

Purpose: To evaluate the mechanical properties of the 3D printed starch models infiltrated with maxillofacial silicone polymers used for fabrication of maxillofacial prostheses compared to the mechanical properties of pure silicone polymer models. Materials and methods: The test and control specimens were designed according to industry standards ASTM specifications using SolidWorks 2008 software for testing tensile strength tear strength, percentage elongation and hardness properties of starch infiltrated silicone polymer. Ten Dumbbell-shaped specimens and ten Trousershaped specimens with four hardness test specimens were printed by Zcorp 510 3D printer and infiltrated with Sil-25 maxillofacial silicone polymer. Whereas, control samples made from pure Sil-25 silicone polymers using a stainless steel mould and following a similar specification of test specimens. Lloyd LRX tensile instrument; load rating 100 N at a constant crosshead speed of 25 mm/min for testing tensile, tear strength and percentage elongation and Hardness Tester (England) was used to measure shore A durometer hardness. Results: Silicone polymer infiltrated starch (test) specimens demonstrated significantly lower tensile strength, tear strength and percentage elongation than the pure silicone polymer (control) samples (p<0.05). However, a significant increase (p<0.05) in the hardness of the printed specimens was recorded against the pure silicone samples. Conclusion: The 3D printed soft tissue prostheses – the final product showed significantly different mechanical properties compared to the handmade prostheses; they were significantly harder and reported lower mechanical properties