Search

Supplementary material

This technical report has been developed for use in Canada in support of guidelines for improving the flood resistance of existing buildings. Currently, there are no national recommendations for assessing, evaluating, and mitigating the flood risk to existing buildings. The guidance and recommendations provided in this document are intended to assist in identifying the risk of flooding to individual buildings, and to evaluate potential mitigation techniques for implementation., Prepared by: Coulbourne Consulting for National Research Council Canada, NRC Contract No. 930582., Préparé par: Coulbourne Consulting pour National Research Council Canada, NRC Contract No. 930582.

This technical guidance document has been developed for use in Canada for the design of flood-resistant buildings. Currently the National Building Code (NBC) does not discuss how flood loads should be treated in Canada, including what conditions flood loads should consider, what formulas to use to determine flood loads, and how to combine flood loads with other loading conditions such as dead or live loads, wind loads, or rain or ice loads. Floodplain mapping and associated bylaws or ordinances currently are developed at the provincial level; there are no national standards that guide how flood loads should be determined and there is no uniform flood risk used in Canada since the flood risk is established at the provincial level. This guidance document is intended to address these issues at a national level., Prepared by: Coulbourne Consulting for National Research Council Canada, NRC Contract No. 930582., Préparé par: Coulbourne Consulting pour National Research Council Canada, NRC Contract No. 930582.

Im ESF geförderten Projekt E-PISA sind verschiedene, hoch innovative, von der globalen Forschungslandschaft ausgezeichnete und gleichzeitig industrierelevante technische Entwicklungen im Bereich der Mikrosystemtechnik, Medizintechnik und Industrie 4.0 vorangetrieben worden. Fokus der technischen Entwicklung waren zum einen Grundlagenforschung und zum anderen Applikationen von Mikrosystemen auf Basis piezoelektrischer Dünnschichten mit Aluminiumnitrid und Elektronik mit Carbon-Nano-Tubes.:Liebe LeserInnen, 5 E-PISA Team 6 Innovative Applikationen 11 Innovative Technologien 13 Regionaler Bezug 15 Wissenstransfer in Zahlen 17 Piezoelektrisches Dünnschicht-Aluminiumnitrid für Mikrosysteme 19 Mikro-opto-elektro-mechanische Systeme 23 Acoustic Emission Sensoren 29 Drucksensoren für medizinische Katheter 33 Kristallwachstum 37 Innovationssysteme, Märkte und Forschungsnetzwerke 45 Zuverlässigkeit piezoelektrischer Schichtsysteme der Mikrotechnologie 51 Veröffentlichungen und Auszeichnungen 53 Zukunftsfähigkeit 61 Danksagung 63

Additional file 1.

The Monographs produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) apply rigorous procedures for the scientific review and evaluation of carcinogenic hazards by independent experts. The Preamble to the IARC Monographs, which outlines these procedures, was updated in 2019, following recommendations of a 2018 expert advisory group. This article presents the key features of the updated Preamble, a major milestone that will enable IARC to take advantage of recent scientific and procedural advances made during the 12 years since the last Preamble amendments. The updated Preamble formalizes important developments already being pioneered in the Monographs program. These developments were taken forward in a clarified and strengthened process for identifying, reviewing, evaluating, and integrating evidence to identify causes of human cancer. The advancements adopted include the strengthening of systematic review methodologies; greater emphasis on mechanistic evidence, based on key characteristics of carcinogens; greater consideration of quality and informativeness in the critical evaluation of epidemiological studies, including their exposure assessment methods; improved harmonization of evaluation criteria for the different evidence streams; and a single-step process of integrating evidence on cancer in humans, cancer in experimental animals, and mechanisms for reaching overall evaluations. In all, the updated Preamble underpins a stronger and more transparent method for the identification of carcinogenic hazards, the essential first step in cancer prevention.

BackgroundRecently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also for the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that failures of IARC Working Groups to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans.ObjectivesThe authors of this Commentary are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We examined criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. Here, we present the results of that examination, review the history of IARC evaluations, and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.DiscussionWe concluded that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various disciplines and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed.ConclusionsThe IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public's health.

BACKGROUND: Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also for the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that failures of IARC Working Groups to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans. OBJECTIVES: The authors of this Commentary are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We examined criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. Here, we present the results of that examination, review the history of IARC evaluations, and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed. DISCUSSION: We concluded that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various disciplines and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed. CONCLUSIONS: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public’s health.

BACKGROUND: Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also for the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that failures of IARC Working Groups to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans.OBJECTIVES: The authors of this Commentary are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We examined criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. Here, we present the results of that examination, review the history of IARC evaluations, and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.DISCUSSION: We concluded that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various disciplines and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed.CONCLUSIONS: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public's health.CITATION: Pearce N, Blair A, Vineis P, Ahrens W, Andersen A, Anto JM, Armstrong BK, Baccarelli AA, Beland FA, Berrington A, Bertazzi PA, Birnbaum LS, Brownson RC, Bucher JR, Cantor KP, Cardis E, Cherrie JW, Christiani DC, Cocco P, Coggon D, Comba P, Demers PA, Dement JM, Douwes J, Eisen EA, Engel LS, Fenske RA, Fleming LE, Fletcher T, Fontham E, Forastiere F, Frentzel-Beyme R, Fritschi L, Gerin M, Goldberg M, Grandjean P, Grimsrud TK, Gustavsson P, Haines A, Hartge P, Hansen J, Hauptmann M, Heederik D, Hemminki K, Hemon D, Hertz-Picciotto I, Hoppin JA, Huff J, Jarvholm B, Kang D, Karagas MR, Kjaerheim K, Kjuus H, Kogevinas M, Kriebel D, Kristensen P, Kromhout H, Laden F, Lebailly P, LeMasters G, Lubin JH, Lynch CF, Lynge E, 't Mannetje A, McMichael AJ, McLaughlin JR, Marrett L, Martuzzi M, Merchant JA, Merler E, Merletti F, Miller A, Mirer FE, Monson R, Nordby KC, Olshan AF, Parent ME, Perera FP, Perry MJ, Pesatori AC, Pirastu R, Porta M, Pukkala E, Rice C, Richardson DB, Ritter L, Ritz B, Ronckers CM, Rushton L, Rusiecki JA, Rusyn I, Samet JM, Sandler DP, de Sanjose S, Schernhammer E, Seniori Costantini A, Seixas N, Shy C, Siemiatycki J, Silverman DT, Simonato L, Smith AH, Smith MT, Spinelli JJ, Spitz MR, Stallones L, Stayner LT, Steenland K, Stenzel M, Stewart BW, Stewart PA, Symanski E, Terracini B, Tolbert PE, Vainio H, Vena J, Vermeulen R, Victora CG, Ward EM, Weinberg CR, Weisenburger D, Wesseling C, Weiderpass E, Zahm SH. 2015. IARC Monographs: 40 years of evaluating carcinogenic hazards to humans. Environ Health Perspect 123:507-514; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409149.

BACKGROUND: As an observational science, epidemiology is regarded by some researchers as inherently flawed and open to false results. In a recent paper, Boffetta et al. [Boffetta P, McLaughlin JK, LaVecchia C, Tarone RE, Lipworth L, Blot WJ. False-positive results in cancer epidemiology: a plea for epistemological modesty. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:988-995 (2008)] argued that “epidemiology is particularly prone to the generation of false-positive results.” They also said “the tendency to emphasize and over-interpret what appear to be new findings is commonplace, perhaps in part because of a belief that the findings provide information that may ultimately improve public health” and that “this tendency to hype new findings increases the likelihood of downplaying inconsistencies within the data or any lack of concordance with other sources of evidence.” The authors supported these serious charges against epidemiology and epidemiologists with few examples. Although we acknowledge that false positives do occur, we view the position of Boffetta and colleagues on false positives as unbalanced and potentially harmful to public health. OBJECTIVE: We aim to provide a more balanced evaluation of epidemiology and its contribution to public health discourse. DISCUSSION: Boffetta and colleagues ignore the fact that false negatives may arise from the very processes that they tout as generating false-positive results. We further disagree with their proposition that false-positive results from a single study will lead to faulty decision making in matters of public health importance. In practice, such public health evaluations are based on all the data available from all relevant disciplines and never to our knowledge on a single study. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of balance by Boffetta and colleagues in their evaluation of die impact of false-positive findings on epidemiology, the charge that “methodological vigilance is often absent” in epidemiologists’ interpretation of their own results, and the false characterization of how epidemiologic findings are used in societal decision making all undermine a major source of information regarding disease risks. We reaffirm the importance of epidemiologic evidence as a critical component of the foundation of public health protection.

Com o objetivo de reunir informações sobre gonalgia entre trabalhadores e fatores ocupacionais associados, foi realizada uma revisão sistemática nas bases de dados MEDLINE, LILACS, SciELO, Free Medical Journals, entre outros, referentes ao período 1990-2006, usando-se os descritores gonalgia, knee, knee pain, knee joint, knee dislocation, knee injuries, work, workplace, workload, employment, occupations, industry, occupational, workers, arthrosis, osteoarthritis e seus equivalentes em português e espanhol. Dos 2.263 estudos inicialmente encontrados, somente 26 cumpriram os critérios necessários para permanecer na revisão. As prevalências de gonalgia nos últimos 12 meses variaram entre 11,2% e 60,9%, e os principais fatores associados foram: sexo feminino, idade avançada, índice de massa corporal elevado, trabalhar ajoelhado e carregar peso no trabalho. In order to collect information on knee pain and associated occupational factors, a systematic review was conducted using the MEDLINE, LILACS, SciELO, and Free Medical Journals databases, from 1990 to 2006. Key words were: gonalgia, knee, knee pain, knee joint, knee dislocation, knee injuries, work, workplace, workload, employment, occupations, industry, occupational, workers, arthrosis, and osteoarthritis. Equivalent terms in Portuguese and Spanish were also used. From the initial 2,263 studies gathered, only 26 met the review's inclusion criteria. Knee pain prevalence in the previous 12 months ranged from 11.2% to 60.9%. The main associated factors were: female gender, older age, high body mass index, kneeling working position, and lifting at work.

Com o objetivo de reunir informações sobre gonalgia entre trabalhadores e fatores ocupacionais associados, foi realizada uma revisão sistemática nas bases de dados MEDLINE, LILACS, SciELO, Free Medical Journals, entre outros, referentes ao período 1990-2006, usando-se os descritores gonalgia, knee, knee pain, knee joint, knee dislocation, knee injuries, work, workplace, workload, employment, occupations, industry, occupational, workers, arthrosis, osteoarthritis e seus equivalentes em português e espanhol. Dos 2.263 estudos inicialmente encontrados, somente 26 cumpriram os critérios necessários para permanecer na revisão. As prevalências de gonalgia nos últimos 12 meses variaram entre 11,2% e 60,9%, e os principais fatores associados foram: sexo feminino, idade avançada, índice de massa corporal elevado, trabalhar ajoelhado e carregar peso no trabalho.

Objectives To investigate the association between occupational lifting and the risk of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) using data from a large population of men. Methods We used data from a national cohort of 49 321 Swedish men conscripted for compulsory military service in 1969–1970. We collected information on surgically treated RRD from the National Patient Register and we followed up the cohort between 1991 and 2009 at ages 40–60 years. Exposure to occupational lifting was assessed by applying a job exposure matrix to occupational data from the 1990 census. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% CIs were estimated through Poisson regression models adjusted by degree of myopia, income and education level. Results We observed 217 cases of RRD in 7 80 166 person-years. In univariate analyses we did not observe an association between occupational lifting and RRD. However, after adjustment for myopia and socioeconomic factors, we found an increased risk of RRD (IRR 2.38, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.93) for subjects in the highest category of exposure compared with those in the lowest one. The incidence rate of RRD among subjects lifting heavy loads at least twice per week, aged between 50 years and 59 years, and affected by severe myopia was as high as 7.9 cases per 1000 person-years, compared with an overall rate of 0.28. Conclusions Our study supports the hypothesis that heavy occupational lifting is a risk factor for RRD. Information on myopia degree and socioeconomic status is necessary when studying the association between occupational lifting and RRD.

Background We aimed to investigate the role of vascular risk factors in the genesis of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) using data from a large cohort of Swedish conscripts. Methods We used data from a nationwide cohort of 49 321 Swedish men born during 1949–1951, conscripted for compulsory military service in 1969–1970 with nearly complete follow-up to 2009. Information on surgically treated RRD between 1973 and 2009 was collected from the National Patient Register. We fitted Cox regression models stratified on myopia degree and including blood pressure levels, body mass index and cigarette smoking. Population attributable fractions of RRD were estimated through maximum likelihood methods. Results We observed 262 cases of RRD in 1 725 770 person-years. At multivariate analysis, the number of cigarettes per day showed a reverse association with the risk of RRD (p for trend 0.01). Conscripts with obesity presented a higher risk compared with normal subjects (adjusted HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.02 to 6.13). We found weak evidence of an association between blood pressure and RRD (HR for men with hypertension compared with normotension 1.41, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.13). All the observed associations were stronger when the analysis was restricted to non-myopic conscripts. In particular, the HR for hypertension was 2.33 (95% CI 1.30 to 4.19) compared with normotension. If this association is causal, we estimated that 42.0% of RRD cases (95% CI 11.5% to 62.0%) occurring among non-myopics are attributable to elevated blood pressure. Conclusions Vascular risk factors may be important determinants of RRD, particularly among non-myopics. Further investigations on the role of hypertension and obesity are needed.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-08-20T13:58:01Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 MARCELO_COZZENSA_DA_SILVA_Tese.pdf: 3903973 bytes, checksum: 26d1830113da932096679982271bb286 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2006-12-08 Aiming to collect information on knee pain and associated occupational factors among workers, a systematic review was conducted using Medline, Lilacs, Scielo, Free Medical Journals databases, from 1990 to 2006. Keywords were: knee, knee pain, knee joint, knee dislocation, knee injuries, work, workplace, workload, employment, occupations, industry, occupational, workers, arthrosis and osteoarthritis. Equivalent terms in Portuguese and Spanish were also used. From the initial 2263 studies gathered, only 26 met the inclusion criteria of the review. Knee pain prevalence in the last 12 months ranged from 11.2% to 60.9%. Main associated factors were: female, older ages, high body mass index, kneeling working position and lifting at work. Com o objetivo de reunir informações sobre dor nos joelhos entre trabalhadores e fatores ocupacionais associados, foi realizada uma revisão sistemática nas bases de dados Medline, Lilacs, Scielo, Free Medical Journals, entre outros, referentes ao período 1990-2006, usando os descritores knee, knee pain, knee joint, knee dislocation, knee injuries, work, workplace, workload, employment, occupations, industry, occupational, workers, arthrosis, osteoarthritis e seus equivalentes em português e espanhol. Dos 2263 estudos inicialmente encontrados, somente 26 cumpriram os critérios necessários para permanecer na revisão. As prevalências de dor nos joelhos nos últimos 12 meses variaram entre 11,2% e 60,9% e os principais fatores associados foram: sexo feminino, idade avançada, IMC elevado, trabalhar ajoelhado e carregar peso no trabalho.