Global Fracture: The New International Economic Order. By Michael Hudson. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1977. Pp. 296. $12.50
In: The journal of economic history, Band 38, Heft 4, S. 1007-1007
ISSN: 1471-6372
7 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: The journal of economic history, Band 38, Heft 4, S. 1007-1007
ISSN: 1471-6372
In: The journal of economic history, Band 38, Heft 3, S. 778-779
ISSN: 1471-6372
In: Military Affairs, Band 36, Heft 3, S. 110
On April 16, 1979, Massachusetts raised its legal drinking age from 18 to 20 years. Massachusetts was compared with New York State, exclusive of New York City and Nassau County. New York State retained an 18-year-old drinking age. Random telephone surveys with approximately 1,000 16-19 year olds in each state were undertaken prior to the law's enactment and twice at yearly intervals after the law to assess the law's impact on teenage drinking, driving after drinking, and non-fatal accident involvement. Fatal crash data reported to the US Department of Transportation by each state from April 16, 1976-April 15, 1981 were also analyzed. After the law, although the modes of procuring alcohol changed. No significant changes were observed in Massachusetts relative to New York in the proportion of surveyed teenagers who reported that they drank or in the volume of their consumption. The proportion of teenagers who drove after drinking heavily (six or more drinks at one time) did not decline in Massachusetts relative to New York. However, the frequency that teenagers reported driving after any drinking declined significantly in Massachusetts. Frequency of teenage driving after marijuana use and non-fatal teenage accidents declined at comparable rates in both states. The numbers of teenage nighttime single vehicle fatal accidents declined more in Massachusetts than New York, in the 18-19 year age group. Overall fatal accident trends among 16-19 year olds in the two states were similar.
BASE
The United States Environmental Protection Agency held an international two-day workshop in June 2018 to deliberate possible performance targets for non-regulatory fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone (O3) air sensors. The need for a workshop arose from the lack of any market-wide manufacturer requirement for Ozone documented sensor performance evaluations, the lack of any independent third party or government-based sensor performance certification program, and uncertainty among all users as to the general usability of air sensor data. A multi-sector subject matter expert panel was assembled to facilitate an open discussion on these issues with multiple stakeholders. This summary provides an overview of the workshop purpose, key findings from the deliberations, and considerations for future actions specific to sensors. Important findings concerning PM2.5 and O3 sensors included the lack of consistent performance indicators and statistical metrics as well as highly variable data quality requirements depending on the intended use. While the workshop did not attempt to yield consensus on any topic, a key message was that a number of possible future actions would be beneficial to all stakeholders regarding sensor technologies. These included documentation of best practices, sharing quality assurance results along with sensor data, and the development of a common performance target lexicon, performance targets, and test protocols.
BASE
The United States Environmental Protection Agency held an international two-day workshop in June 2018 to deliberate possible performance targets for non-regulatory fine particulate matter (PM(2.5)) and ozone (O(3)) air sensors. The need for a workshop arose from the lack of any market-wide manufacturer requirement for Ozone documented sensor performance evaluations, the lack of any independent third party or government-based sensor performance certification program, and uncertainty among all users as to the general usability of air sensor data. A multi-sector subject matter expert panel was assembled to facilitate an open discussion on these issues with multiple stakeholders. This summary provides an overview of the workshop purpose, key findings from the deliberations, and considerations for future actions specific to sensors. Important findings concerning PM(2.5) and O(3) sensors included the lack of consistent performance indicators and statistical metrics as well as highly variable data quality requirements depending on the intended use. While the workshop did not attempt to yield consensus on any topic, a key message was that a number of possible future actions would be beneficial to all stakeholders regarding sensor technologies. These included documentation of best practices, sharing quality assurance results along with sensor data, and the development of a common performance target lexicon, performance targets, and test protocols.
BASE
The United States Environmental Protection Agency held an international two-day workshop in June 2018 to deliberate possible performance targets for non-regulatory fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone (O3) air sensors. The need for a workshop arose from the lack of any market-wide manufacturer requirement for Ozone documented sensor performance evaluations, the lack of any independent third party or government-based sensor performance certification program, and uncertainty among all users as to the general usability of air sensor data. A multi-sector subject matter expert panel was assembled to facilitate an open discussion on these issues with multiple stakeholders. This summary provides an overview of the workshop purpose, key findings from the deliberations, and considerations for future actions specific to sensors. Important findings concerning PM2.5 and O3 sensors included the lack of consistent performance indicators and statistical metrics as well as highly variable data quality requirements depending on the intended use. While the workshop did not attempt to yield consensus on any topic, a key message was that a number of possible future actions would be beneficial to all stakeholders regarding sensor technologies. These included documentation of best practices, sharing quality assurance results along with sensor data, and the development of a common performance target lexicon, performance targets, and test protocols.
BASE