Web-Based Interface for Command and Control of Network Sensors

This software allows for the visualization and control of a network of sensors through a Web browser interface. It is currently being deployed for a network of sensors monitoring Mt. Saint Helen s volcano; however, this innovation is generic enough that it can be deployed for any type of sensor Web. From this interface, the user is able to fully control and monitor the sensor Web. This includes, but is not limited to, sending "test" commands to individual sensors in the network, monitoring for real-world events, and reacting to those event

Automating Hyperspectral Data for Rapid Response in Volcanic Emergencies

In a volcanic emergency, time is of the essence. It is vital to quantify eruption parameters (thermal emission, effusion rate, location of activity) and distribute this information as quickly as possible to decision-makers in order to enable effective evaluation of eruption-related risk and hazard. The goal of this work was to automate and streamline processing of spacecraft hyperspectral data, automate product generation, and automate distribution of products. Visible and Short-Wave Infrared Images of volcanic eruption in Iceland in May 2010." class="caption" align="right">The software rapidly processes hyperspectral data, correcting for incident sunlight where necessary, and atmospheric transmission; detects thermally anomalous pixels; fits data with model black-body thermal emission spectra to determine radiant flux; calculates atmospheric convection thermal removal; and then calculates total heat loss. From these results, an estimation of effusion rate is made. Maps are generated of thermal emission and location (see figure). Products are posted online, and relevant parties notified. Effusion rate data are added to historical record and plotted to identify spikes in activity for persistently active eruptions. The entire process from start to end is autonomous. Future spacecraft, especially those in deep space, can react to detection of transient processes without the need to communicate with Earth, thus increasing science return. Terrestrially, this removes the need for human intervention

Change-Based Satellite Monitoring Using Broad Coverage and Targetable Sensing

A generic software framework analyzes data from broad coverage sweeps or general larger areas of interest. Change detection methods are used to extract subsets of directed swath areas that intersect areas of change. These areas are prioritized and allocated to targetable assets. This method is deployed in an automatic fashion, and has operated without human monitoring or intervention for sustained periods of time (months)

Global Ethics and Nanotechnology: A Comparison of the Nanoethics Environments of the EU and China

The following article offers a brief overview of current nanotechnology policy, regulation and ethics in Europe and The People’s Republic of China with the intent of noting (dis)similarities in approach, before focusing on the involvement of the public in science and technology policy (i.e. participatory Technology Assessment). The conclusions of this article are, that (a) in terms of nanosafety as expressed through policy and regulation, China PR and the EU have similar approaches towards, and concerns about, nanotoxicity—the official debate on benefits and risks is not markedly different in the two regions; (b) that there is a similar economic drive behind both regions’ approach to nanodevelopment, the difference being the degree of public concern admitted; and (c) participation in decision-making is fundamentally different in the two regions. Thus in China PR, the focus is on the responsibility of the scientist; in the EU, it is about government accountability to the public. The formulation of a Code of Conduct for scientists in both regions (China PR’s predicted for 2012) reveals both similarity and difference in approach to nanotechnology development. This may change, since individual responsibility alone cannot guide S&T development, and as public participation is increasingly seen globally as integral to governmental decision-making

Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces.

Background: Retention is the phase of orthodontic treatment that attempts to keep teeth in the corrected positions after treatment with orthodontic braces. Without a phase of retention, there is a tendency for teeth to return to their initial position (relapse). To prevent relapse, almost every person who has orthodontic treatment will require some type of retention. Objectives: To evaluate the effects of different retention strategies used to stabilise tooth position after orthodontic braces. Search methods: We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 26 January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 26 January 2016) and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 26 January 2016). We searched for ongoing trials in the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We applied no language or date restrictions in the searches of the electronic databases. We contacted authors of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to help identify any unpublished trials. Selection criteria: RCTs involving children and adults who had had retainers fitted or adjunctive procedures undertaken to prevent relapse following orthodontic treatment with braces. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened eligible studies, assessed the risk of bias in the trials and extracted data. The outcomes of interest were: how well the teeth were stabilised, failure of retainers, adverse effects on oral health and participant satisfaction. We calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous data and risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes. We conducted meta-analyses when studies with similar methodology reported the same outcome. We prioritised reporting of Little's Irregularity Index to measure relapse. Main results: We included 15 studies (1722 participants) in the review. There are also four ongoing studies and four studies await classification. The 15 included studies evaluated four comparisons: removable retainers versus fixed retainers (three studies); different types of fixed retainers (four studies); different types of removable retainers (eight studies); and one study compared a combination of upper thermoplastic and lower bonded versus upper thermoplastic with lower adjunctive procedures versus positioner. Four studies had a low risk of bias, four studies had an unclear risk of bias and seven studies had a high risk of bias. Removable versus fixed retainers Thermoplastic removable retainers provided slightly poorer stability in the lower arch than multistrand fixed retainers: MD (Little's Irregularity Index, 0 mm is stable) 0.6 mm (95% CI 0.17 to 1.03). This was based on one trial with 84 participants that was at high risk of bias; it was low quality evidence. Results on retainer failure were inconsistent. There was evidence of less gingival bleeding with removable retainers: RR 0.53 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.88; one trial, 84 participants, high risk of bias, low quality evidence), but participants found fixed retainers more acceptable to wear, with a mean difference on a visual analogue scale (VAS; 0 to 100; 100 being very satisfied) of -12.84 (95% CI -7.09 to -18.60). Fixed versus fixed retainers The studies did not report stability, adverse effects or participant satisfaction. It was possible to pool the data on retention failure from three trials that compared polyethylene ribbon bonded retainer versus multistrand retainer in the lower arch with an RR of 1.10 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.57; moderate heterogeneity; three trials, 228 participants, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in failure rates. It was also possible to pool the data from two trials that compared the same types of upper fixed retainers, with a similar finding: RR 1.25 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.78; low heterogeneity; two trials, 174 participants, low quality evidence). Removable versus removable retainers One study at low risk of bias comparing upper and lower part-time thermoplastic versus full-time thermoplastic retainer showed no evidence of a difference in relapse (graded moderate quality evidence). Another study, comparing part-time and full-time wear of lower Hawley retainers, found no evidence of any difference in relapse (low quality evidence). Two studies at high risk of bias suggested that stability was better in the lower arch for thermoplastic retainers versus Hawley, and for thermoplastic full-time versus Begg (full-time) (both low quality evidence). In one study, participants wearing Hawley retainers reported more embarrassment more often than participants wearing thermoplastic retainers: RR 2.42 (95% CI 1.30 to 4.49; one trial, 348 participants, high risk of bias, low quality evidence). They also found Hawley retainers harder to wear. There was conflicting evidence about survival rates of Hawley and thermoplastic retainers. Other retainer comparisons Another study with a low risk of bias looked at three different approaches to retention for people with crowding, but normal jaw relationships. The study found that there was no evidence of a difference in relapse between the combination of an upper thermoplastic and lower canine to canine bonded retainer and the combination of an upper thermoplastic retainer and lower interproximal stripping, without a lower retainer. Both these approaches are better than using a positioner as a retainer. Authors' conclusions: We did not find any evidence that wearing thermoplastic retainers full-time provides greater stability than wearing them part-time, but this was assessed in only a small number of participants. Overall, there is insufficient high quality evidence to make recommendations on retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces. Further high quality RCTs are needed

Autonomous Coordination of Science Observations Using Multiple Spacecraft

This software provides capabilities for autonomous cross-cueing and coordinated observations between multiple orbital and landed assets. Previous work has been done in re-tasking a single Earth orbiter or a Mars rover in response to that craft detecting a science event. This work enables multiple spacecraft to communicate (over a network designed for deep-space communications) and autonomously coordinate the characterization of such a science event. This work investigates a new paradigm of space science campaigns where opportunistic science observations are autonomously coordinated among multiple spacecraft. In this paradigm, opportunistic science detections can be cued by multiple assets where a second asset is requested to take additional observations characterizing the identified surface feature or event. To support this new paradigm, an autonomous science system for multiple spacecraft assets was integrated with the Interplanetary Network DTN (Delay Tolerant Network) to provide communication between spacecraft assets. This technology enables new mission concepts that are not feasible with current technology. The ability to rapidly coordinate activities across spacecraft without requiring ground in the loop enables rapid reaction to dynamic events across platforms, such as a survey instrument followed by a targeted high resolution instrument, as well as regular simultaneous observations

The Lore of Low Methane Livestock:Co-Producing Technology and Animals for Reduced Climate Change Impact

Methane emissions from sheep and cattle production have gained increasing profile in the context of climate change. Policy and scientific research communities have suggested a number of technological approaches to mitigate these emissions. This paper uses the concept of co-production as an analytical framework to understand farmers’ evaluation of a 'good animal’. It examines how technology and sheep and beef cattle are co-produced in the context of concerns about the climate change impact of methane. Drawing on 42 semi-structured interviews, this paper demonstrates that methane emissions are viewed as a natural and integral part of sheep and beef cattle by farmers, rather than as a pollutant. Sheep and beef cattle farmers in the UK are found to be an extremely heterogeneous group that need to be understood in their specific social, environmental and consumer contexts. Some are more amenable to appropriating methane reducing measures than others, but largely because animals are already co-constructed from the natural and the technical for reasons of increased production efficiency

The duality of ocean acidification as a resource and a stressor

Ecologically dominant species often define ecosystem states, but as human disturbances intensify, their subordinate counterparts increasingly displace them. We consider the duality of disturbance by examining how environmental drivers can simultaneously act as a stressor to dominant species and as a resource to subordinates. Using a model ecosystem, we demonstrate that CO2-driven interactions between species can account for such reversals in dominance; i.e., the displacement of dominants (kelp forests) by subordinates (turf algae). We established that CO2 enrichment had a direct positive effect on productivity of turfs, but a negligible effect on kelp. CO2 enrichment further suppressed the abundance and feeding rate of the primary grazer of turfs (sea urchins), but had an opposite effect on the minor grazer (gastropods). Thus, boosted production of subordinate producers, exacerbated by a net reduction in its consumption by primary grazers, accounts for community change (i.e., turf displacing kelp). Ecosystem collapse, therefore, is more likely when resource enrichment alters competitive dominance of producers, and consumers fail to compensate. By recognizing such duality in the responses of interacting species to disturbance, which may stabilize or exacerbate change, we can begin to understand how intensifying human disturbances determine whether or not ecosystems undergo phase shifts