Suchergebnisse

The future of sustainable construction has its roots in the past and present steps we set and we will set according our (ethical) awareness concerning consequences of our acts and deeds. One of the current main goals of building should therefore be creating and maintaining a healthy built environment based on resource efficiency and ecological (human-ecoiogical) principles, One of the main questions is about the path that must be followed to a closer approach towards the ideals of sustainability in this sector. Decades passed already after we got the first serious signs about the large risks of our usual way to act in the fields of economy and politics generally and building specifically. The last one deals with theoretical (science and education) as well as practical (technological) items. Even Survival of humankind became an item. It is quite obvious that there 8CC barriers to sustainable construction from the wide range of actors affecting this movement, from public policy to the building supply chain nationally as well as globally. In this contribution we assume that the State of Art concerning the rather dangerous perspectives we face when we continue our way of life and way to build is well known. Nevertheless some attention will be paid to these circumstances. After this we focus on possibilities of how to gain, to work, and to collaborate for a (more) balanced (world) society, a society, which builds healthy and cnvironmentallysound. We will discuss necessarily: 1. the human health; 2. the natural environment; 3. the context, in which building takes place; and 4. the man made building. A lot of building research has been undertaken, but moreover previous civilizations show that humans had an awareness about optimal conditions concerning own desires and necessities on the one hand and possibilities and opportunities but also limits to be found in the environment on the other hand. Nowadays we can (re)search in the all around accepted and appreciated "methodological" way, but when there is (or was) no fundamental qualitative approach - we never can expect. that the results really will contribute to a higher quality of life. Based on various fundamental sources (beside bibliography, references, essential insights), supported by own research (and experiences from education), design practice and experience in the field, we give some suggestions for strategies and targets towards sustainable building and construction.

7‐11 November 2010, Tenth International Congress on Drug Therapy in HIV Infection, Glasgow, UK

Publisher's version (útgefin grein) ; Objectives There are currently few data on the long‐term risk of cancer and death in individuals taking raltegravir (RAL). The aim of this analysis was to evaluate whether there is evidence for an association. Methods The EuroSIDA cohort was divided into three groups: those starting RAL‐based combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) on or after 21 December 2007 (RAL); a historical cohort (HIST) of individuals adding a new antiretroviral (ARV) drug (not RAL) to their cART between 1 January 2005 and 20 December 2007, and a concurrent cohort (CONC) of individuals adding a new ARV drug (not RAL) to their cART on or after 21 December 2007. Baseline characteristics were compared using logistic regression. The incidences of newly diagnosed malignancies and death were compared using Poisson regression. Results The RAL cohort included 1470 individuals [with 4058 person‐years of follow‐up (PYFU)] compared with 3787 (4472 PYFU) and 4467 (10 691 PYFU) in the HIST and CONC cohorts, respectively. The prevalence of non‐AIDS‐related malignancies prior to baseline tended to be higher in the RAL cohort vs. the HIST cohort [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95–1.80] and vs. the CONC cohort (aOR 1.89; 95% CI 1.37–2.61). In intention‐to‐treat (ITT) analysis (events: RAL, 50; HIST, 45; CONC, 127), the incidence of all new malignancies was 1.11 (95% CI 0.84–1.46) per 100 PYFU in the RAL cohort vs. 1.20 (95% CI 0.90–1.61) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.70–0.99) in the HIST and CONC cohorts, respectively. After adjustment, there was no evidence for a difference in the risk of malignancies [adjusted rate ratio (RR) 0.73; 95% CI 0.47–1.14 for RALvs. HIST; RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.65–1.39 for RALvs. CONC] or mortality (adjusted RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.53–1.43 for RALvs. HIST; RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.76–1.72 for RALvs. CONC). Conclusions We found no evidence for an oncogenic risk or poorer survival associated with using RAL compared with control groups. ; EuroSIDA was supported by the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under EuroCoord grant agreement no. 260694. Current support includes unrestricted grants from Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Janssen R&D, Merck and Co. Inc. and Pfizer Inc. The participation of centres from Switzerland was supported by The Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant 108787). The study is also supported by a grant (grant number DNRF126) from the Danish National Research Foundation. ; Peer Reviewed