Platica politico-cristiana
Copia digital. Valladolid : Junta de Castilla y León. Consejería de Cultura y Turismo, 2013
10 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
Copia digital. Valladolid : Junta de Castilla y León. Consejería de Cultura y Turismo, 2013
BASE
In: Ediciones Turner 1
The paper declares itself to be a study of Spanish Noise Pollution legislation and the way the Spanish behaved in a recent case of the same. The author, the environmental advisor to a condominium in Fuentelareyna and president of neighbourhood association in Valdemarin and Monreal, analyses the noise abatement solutions adopted when completing Madrid's M-40 ring road. He concludes that while something was done to lower the traffic din impact on existing housing, the project itself has led to an increase in speculative housing projects which, in themselves, will off-set the noise amelioration measures taken. ; Un análisis de la normativa sobre ruido en España, y del comportamiento de la sociedad sobre este tema en un caso práctico reciente. El autor analiza, desde su doble vertiente de asesor medio ambiental de la Comunidad de Propietarios de Fuentelarreina, por un lado, y como Presidente de la Asociación de Vecinos de Valdemarín, y Monreal, por el otro, las soluciones adoptadas en el cierre del Tramo Norte de la autovía de circunvalación a Madrid, M-40. Se llega a la conclusión del desfase que hay entre unas actuaciones, que procuran disminuir el impacto sobre las edificaciones existentes, mientras en paralelo se produce una mayor presión urbanística, por razones especulativas, que crea puntos negros de ruido no deseados.
BASE
In: Historia Ser. v.229
submitted to Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews ; International audience ; Meeting future policy targets for bioenergy development worldwide poses major challenges for biomass feedstock supply chains in terms of competitiveness, reliability and sustainability. This paper reviews current knowledge on the sustainability of agricultural feedstock supply chains and emphasize future research needs. It covers annual and perennial feedstocks, and environmental, economic and social aspects. Knowledge gaps and technological options to assess and meet sustainability criteria are reviewed from plot to landscape and global scales. Bioenergy feedstocks present a wide range of dry matter yields, agricultural input requirements and environmental impacts, depending on crop type, management practices, and soil and climate conditions. Their integration into farmers' cropping systems poses specific challenges in terms of environmental impacts, but also opportunities for improvements via the use of grass-legume intercropping or residues from biomass conversion processes. Taking into account the spatial distribution of bioenergy crops is paramount to assessing their environmental impacts, in particular on biodiversity, or the food versus energy competition issue. However, few modelling frameworks convey the full complexity of the underlying processes and drivers, whether economic, social or biophysical. In particular, social impacts of bioenergy projects are seldom assessed and there is no methodological consensus. The main research areas identified involve: multi-crop and multi-site experiments, along with modelling, to optimise management practices and cropping systems producing bioenergy, possibly on alternative lands and under future climate changes; the design of innovative cropping systems using expert knowledge to ensure suitable integration into farmers' cropping systems; the collection of detailed data on the location of bioenergy crops to validate theoretical modelling frameworks and improve sustainability ...
BASE
submitted to Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews ; International audience ; Meeting future policy targets for bioenergy development worldwide poses major challenges for biomass feedstock supply chains in terms of competitiveness, reliability and sustainability. This paper reviews current knowledge on the sustainability of agricultural feedstock supply chains and emphasize future research needs. It covers annual and perennial feedstocks, and environmental, economic and social aspects. Knowledge gaps and technological options to assess and meet sustainability criteria are reviewed from plot to landscape and global scales. Bioenergy feedstocks present a wide range of dry matter yields, agricultural input requirements and environmental impacts, depending on crop type, management practices, and soil and climate conditions. Their integration into farmers' cropping systems poses specific challenges in terms of environmental impacts, but also opportunities for improvements via the use of grass-legume intercropping or residues from biomass conversion processes. Taking into account the spatial distribution of bioenergy crops is paramount to assessing their environmental impacts, in particular on biodiversity, or the food versus energy competition issue. However, few modelling frameworks convey the full complexity of the underlying processes and drivers, whether economic, social or biophysical. In particular, social impacts of bioenergy projects are seldom assessed and there is no methodological consensus. The main research areas identified involve: multi-crop and multi-site experiments, along with modelling, to optimise management practices and cropping systems producing bioenergy, possibly on alternative lands and under future climate changes; the design of innovative cropping systems using expert knowledge to ensure suitable integration into farmers' cropping systems; the collection of detailed data on the location of bioenergy crops to validate theoretical modelling frameworks and improve sustainability ...
BASE
submitted to Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews ; International audience ; Meeting future policy targets for bioenergy development worldwide poses major challenges for biomass feedstock supply chains in terms of competitiveness, reliability and sustainability. This paper reviews current knowledge on the sustainability of agricultural feedstock supply chains and emphasize future research needs. It covers annual and perennial feedstocks, and environmental, economic and social aspects. Knowledge gaps and technological options to assess and meet sustainability criteria are reviewed from plot to landscape and global scales. Bioenergy feedstocks present a wide range of dry matter yields, agricultural input requirements and environmental impacts, depending on crop type, management practices, and soil and climate conditions. Their integration into farmers' cropping systems poses specific challenges in terms of environmental impacts, but also opportunities for improvements via the use of grass-legume intercropping or residues from biomass conversion processes. Taking into account the spatial distribution of bioenergy crops is paramount to assessing their environmental impacts, in particular on biodiversity, or the food versus energy competition issue. However, few modelling frameworks convey the full complexity of the underlying processes and drivers, whether economic, social or biophysical. In particular, social impacts of bioenergy projects are seldom assessed and there is no methodological consensus. The main research areas identified involve: multi-crop and multi-site experiments, along with modelling, to optimise management practices and cropping systems producing bioenergy, possibly on alternative lands and under future climate changes; the design of innovative cropping systems using expert knowledge to ensure suitable integration into farmers' cropping systems; the collection of detailed data on the location of bioenergy crops to validate theoretical modelling frameworks and improve sustainability ...
BASE
Background: Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods: This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings: Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16-30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77-0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50-0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80-0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54-0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation: Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services.
BASE
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
BASE
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long- term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
BASE