Search

Abstract: This paper presents a summary of the main international and national regulations for geologic storage of carbon dioxide. The international group includes the EU Directives, London Convention, and OSPAR. For the national regulations, three countries were covered in this study: United States, Canada, and Australia. In addition to these regulations, a group of guidelines and best practice manuals were also included in this study. As discussion, although this paper recognizes that current legislations have contributed for the regulation of this technology, it is still necessary the development of new rules in other regions. Industry will not invest in large CCS plants without such regulations because of high CCS costs and large financial risks related to CCS. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: There is significant interest in comparing countries on many different indicators of social problems and policies. Cross-national comparisons of drug prevalence and policies are often hampered by differences in the approach used to reach respondents and the methods used to obtain information in national surveys. The paper explores how much these differences could affect cross-country comparisons.Methods: This study reports prevalence of drug use according to the most recent national household survey and then adjusts estimates as if all national surveys used the same methodology. The analysis focuses on European countries for which the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction reports data, the United States, Canada, and Australia. Adjustment factors are based on US data.Findings: Adjusting for modality differences appears likely to modestly affect the rankings of countries by prevalence, but to an extent that could be important for comparisons. For example, general population surveys suggest that the US had some of the highest cannabis and cocaine prevalence rates circa 2012, but this is partially driven by the use of a modality known to produce higher prevalence estimates. This analysis shows that country rankings are partly an artifact of the mode of interview used in national general population surveys.Conclusions: Our preliminary efforts suggest that cross-national prevalence comparisons, policy analyses and, other projects such as estimating the global burden of disease could be improved by adjusting estimates from drug use surveys for differences in modality. Research is needed to create more authoritative adjustment factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical trials for the treatment of schizophrenia now often include cognitive assessments in addition to clinical ratings of symptoms. Recently, these trials have included cross-national assessments. It is not clear if translated psychological tests produce consistent results across different languages. This paper presents the results of a study of the comparability of the results of cognitive assessments in different English-speaking countries and a number of countries where tests were translated into other languages. Performance on tests of executive functioning, verbal and visuo-spatial learning and memory, language skills, psychomotor speed, and vigilance was compared across the first episode patients with schizophrenia (n=301) assessed in six different languages (English, French, Finnish, German, Hebrew, and Afrikaans), including two different countries where patients were assessed in English and other languages: Canada (French) and South Africa (Afrikaans). The variance in performance across the sites tested in English was as large as the variance between English and non-English speakers when all tests were considered. Performance differences across English and other languages were found only for executive functions, vigilance, and psychomotor speed, with executive functioning differences nonsignificant when education was considered. No differences were found between English and non-English speakers in Canada. These results suggest that the translation of tests of memory and verbal skills can lead to consistent results across translated versions of the tests. Differences between countries were greater than differences between languages, suggesting the need to consider representativeness of patient samples in terms of local educational attainment. In general, these data support the validity of cross-national neuropsychological assessments. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]