Pesticides in Groundwater of the United States: Decadal-Scale Changes, 1993-2011

Ground Water ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 52 (S1) ◽  
pp. 112-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia L. Toccalino ◽  
Robert J. Gilliom ◽  
Bruce D. Lindsey ◽  
Michael G. Rupert
2009 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 21111-21164 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Chan ◽  
R. J. Vet

Abstract. Planetary boundary layer (PBL) ozone temporal variations were investigated on diurnal, seasonal and decadal scales in various regions across Canada and the United States for the period 1997–2006. Background ozone is difficult to quantify and define through observations. In light of the importance of its estimates for achievable policy targets, evaluation of health impacts and relationship with climate, background ozone mixing ratios were estimated. Principal Component Analyses (PCA) were performed using 97 non-urban ozone sites for each season to define contiguous regions. Backward air parcel trajectories were used to systematically select the cleanest background air cluster associated with the lowest May–September 95th percentile for each site. Decadal ozone trends were estimated by season for each PCA-derived region using a~generalized linear mixed model (GLMM). Background ozone mixing ratios were variable geographically and seasonally. For example, the mixing ratios annually ranged from 21 to 38, and 23 to 38 ppb for the continental Eastern Canada and Eastern US. The Pacific and Atlantic coastal regions typically had relatively low background levels ranging from 14 to 24, and 17 to 36 ppb, respectively. On the decadal scale, the direction and magnitude of trends are different in all seasons across the regions (−1.56 to +0.93 ppb/a). Trends increased in the Pacific region for all seasons. Background ozone decadal changes are shown to be masked by the much stronger regional signals in areas that have seen substantial reductions of ozone precursors since the early 2000s.


Author(s):  
A. Hakam ◽  
J.T. Gau ◽  
M.L. Grove ◽  
B.A. Evans ◽  
M. Shuman ◽  
...  

Prostate adenocarcinoma is the most common malignant tumor of men in the United States and is the third leading cause of death in men. Despite attempts at early detection, there will be 244,000 new cases and 44,000 deaths from the disease in the United States in 1995. Therapeutic progress against this disease is hindered by an incomplete understanding of prostate epithelial cell biology, the availability of human tissues for in vitro experimentation, slow dissemination of information between prostate cancer research teams and the increasing pressure to “ stretch” research dollars at the same time staff reductions are occurring.To meet these challenges, we have used the correlative microscopy (CM) and client/server (C/S) computing to increase productivity while decreasing costs. Critical elements of our program are as follows:1) Establishing the Western Pennsylvania Genitourinary (GU) Tissue Bank which includes >100 prostates from patients with prostate adenocarcinoma as well as >20 normal prostates from transplant organ donors.


Author(s):  
Vinod K. Berry ◽  
Xiao Zhang

In recent years it became apparent that we needed to improve productivity and efficiency in the Microscopy Laboratories in GE Plastics. It was realized that digital image acquisition, archiving, processing, analysis, and transmission over a network would be the best way to achieve this goal. Also, the capabilities of quantitative image analysis, image transmission etc. available with this approach would help us to increase our efficiency. Although the advantages of digital image acquisition, processing, archiving, etc. have been described and are being practiced in many SEM, laboratories, they have not been generally applied in microscopy laboratories (TEM, Optical, SEM and others) and impact on increased productivity has not been yet exploited as well.In order to attain our objective we have acquired a SEMICAPS imaging workstation for each of the GE Plastic sites in the United States. We have integrated the workstation with the microscopes and their peripherals as shown in Figure 1.


2001 ◽  
Vol 15 (01) ◽  
pp. 53-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Rehfeld

Every ten years, the United States “constructs” itself politically. On a decennial basis, U.S. Congressional districts are quite literally drawn, physically constructing political representation in the House of Representatives on the basis of where one lives. Why does the United States do it this way? What justifies domicile as the sole criteria of constituency construction? These are the questions raised in this article. Contrary to many contemporary understandings of representation at the founding, I argue that there were no principled reasons for using domicile as the method of organizing for political representation. Even in 1787, the Congressional district was expected to be far too large to map onto existing communities of interest. Instead, territory should be understood as forming a habit of mind for the founders, even while it was necessary to achieve other democratic aims of representative government.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document