Looks Like Acquittal: Sex, Murder, and the Tampa Morning Tribune, 1895

On the morning of August 22, 1894, W.M. Hendley fished alone on a St. Petersburg, Florida dock. Sela P. Harrison approached the man from behind wielding a double-barreled shotgun, one barrel loaded with buck-shot and the other with slugs cut from a metal bar. Hendley was unaware of his assailant and no words were exchanged. Within ten feet of the victim, Sela fired both barrels striking Hendley in the torso and taking off the right side of his head. Sela remained calm. He did not attempt to flee the scene or dispose of the gun, rather, he walked slowly up the dock and eventually handed the weapon to Marshal Clarence Gill. Along with the gun, Sela produced a letter, handed it to Gill, and asked the arresting marshal for permission to go home and retrieve more letters. Gill refused his request. B.C. Kyle, who witnessed the killing, later testified that he asked Sela why he had murdered Hendley, and Sela replied, Because he has ruined my wife.

Politics, Technology, and Libertarianism

In recent years, technology has started to play a major role in the U.S. political climate. Specifically, it has created a platform for outside groups, such as libertarians, to have their voices heard. This brought forward an important research question: How has technology helped or hindered the ability of individually focused libertarians to organize for collective action? Through the exploration of previous research, two major findings are discovered: 1) technology and the growth of individualism in politics are intertwined and 2) technology and individualism both have ties to libertarianism. The implications of libertarianism are analyzed further through the study of various libertarian thinkers. Finally, a discussion section attempts to offer some insight on overcoming potential collective action problems that libertarians are tasked with facing

Ordovician Stratigraphy, and the Physiography of Part of Southeastern Indiana

Within recent years field conferences sponsored by the Geological Survey, Indiana Department of Conservation, and the Department of Geology, Indiana University, have reviewed outstanding exposures and of parts of the Silurian, Devonian, Mississippian, and Pennsylvanian systems in southern Indiana. This conference is concerned, in part, with the stratigraphy and paleontology of the Ordovician rocks exposed in southeastern Indiana

Ordovician Stratigraphy and the Physiography of Part of Southeastern Indiana

Indiana Geological Survey Guidebook 6This field trip guidebook discusses the stratigraphy and paleontology of the Ordovician rocks exposed in southeastern Indiana. Ordovician rocks in southern Indiana are exposed in a region that is stimulating to physiographers and Pleistocene geologist. Consequently, in addition to the stratigraphy and paleontology of the Ordovician bedrock, this conference directs attention to prominent physiographic features in this area, many of which owe their origin to Pleistocene glaciation, and to concepts regarding their development. Ordovician rocks in southern Indiana are paleontologically attractive because they are so richly fossiliferous. Well-preserved specimens maybe readily collected in weathered exposures and in the soft shales of the Cincinnatian (Upper Ordovician) series. Southeastern Indiana has not yielded mineral commodities as plentifully as other parts of the state. Nevertheless, two stops and several observation points along the route of the caravan draw attention to some of the industrial minerals found in this area. This conference is designed to present as coherent a view as time will permit of the geology of southeastern Indiana. The stops have been carefully selected to show features of stratigraphic, paleontologic, physiographic, or economic interest. Informal discussion among participants will contribute greatly to the success of the conference.Department of Geology, Indiana University; Indiana Geological Survey; Indiana Department of Conservatio

Using Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic Models to Incorporate Chemical and Non-Chemical Stressors into Cumulative Risk Assessment: A Case Study of Pesticide Exposures

Cumulative risk assessment has been proposed as an approach to evaluate the health risks associated with simultaneous exposure to multiple chemical and non-chemical stressors. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PBPK/PD) models can allow for the inclusion and evaluation of multiple stressors, including non-chemical stressors, but studies have not leveraged PBPK/PD models to jointly consider these disparate exposures in a cumulative risk context. In this study, we focused on exposures to organophosphate (OP) pesticides for children in urban low-income environments, where these children would be simultaneously exposed to other pesticides (including pyrethroids) and non-chemical stressors that may modify the effects of these exposures (including diet). We developed a methodological framework to evaluate chemical and non-chemical stressor impacts on OPs, utilizing an existing PBPK/PD model for chlorpyrifos. We evaluated population-specific stressors that would influence OP doses or acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibition, the relevant PD outcome. We incorporated the impact of simultaneous exposure to pyrethroids and dietary factors on OP dose through the compartments of metabolism and PD outcome within the PBPK model, and simulated combinations of stressors across multiple exposure ranges and potential body weights. Our analyses demonstrated that both chemical and non-chemical stressors can influence the health implications of OP exposures, with up to 5-fold variability in AChE inhibition across combinations of stressor values for a given OP dose. We demonstrate an approach for modeling OP risks in the presence of other population-specific environmental stressors, providing insight about co-exposures and variability factors that most impact OP health risks and contribute to children’s cumulative health risk from pesticides. More generally, this framework can be used to inform cumulative risk assessment for any compound impacted by chemical and non-chemical stressors through metabolism or PD outcomes

Science-based restoration monitoring of coastal habitats, Volume One: A framework for monitoring plans under the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000 (Public Law 160-457)

Executive Summary: The Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (ERA), Title I of the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000, was created to promote the restoration of habitats along the coast of the United States (including the US protectorates and the Great Lakes). The NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science was charged with the development of a guidance manual for monitoring plans under this Act. This guidance manual, titled Science-Based Restoration Monitoring of Coastal Habitats, is written in two volumes. It provides technical assistance, outlines necessary steps, and provides useful tools for the development and implementation of sound scientific monitoring of coastal restoration efforts. In addition, this manual offers a means to detect early warnings that the restoration is on track or not, to gauge how well a restoration site is functioning, to coordinate projects and efforts for consistent and successful restoration, and to evaluate the ecological health of specific coastal habitats both before and after project completion (Galatowitsch et al. 1998). The following habitats have been selected for discussion in this manual: water column, rock bottom, coral reefs, oyster reefs, soft bottom, kelp and other macroalgae, rocky shoreline, soft shoreline, submerged aquatic vegetation, marshes, mangrove swamps, deepwater swamps, and riverine forests. The classification of habitats used in this document is generally based on that of Cowardin et al. (1979) in their Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, as called for in the ERA Estuary Habitat Restoration Strategy. This manual is not intended to be a restoration monitoring “cookbook” that provides templates of monitoring plans for specific habitats. The interdependence of a large number of site-specific factors causes habitat types to vary in physical and biological structure within and between regions and geographic locations (Kusler and Kentula 1990). Monitoring approaches used should be tailored to these differences. However, even with the diversity of habitats that may need to be restored and the extreme geographic range across which these habitats occur, there are consistent principles and approaches that form a common basis for effective monitoring. Volume One, titled A Framework for Monitoring Plans under the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000, begins with definitions and background information. Topics such as restoration, restoration monitoring, estuaries, and the role of socioeconomics in restoration are discussed. In addition, the habitats selected for discussion in this manual are briefly described. (PDF contains 116 pages