Harada House

The Harada House is a historic house in Riverside, California. The house was the focus of a critical application of the California Alien Land Law of 1913, which prevented foreigners who were ineligible for citizenship from owning property. The state of California attempted to seize the property from the family in "California v. Harada", but the Haradas ultimately won the case and retained ownership of the house. The house, created in 1884 and built upon by the Harada family, was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1990 and is currently overseen by the Museum of Riverside.
Description.
The Harada House is located near downtown Riverside, on the east side of Lemon Street between 3rd and 4th Streets. The house was built in 1884 as a single-story saltbox cottage with recessed shiplap wood siding and a wood shingle roof. The Haradas made a large improvement to the property in 1916 with the addition of a second story, complete with "four bedrooms, a bathroom, and an open front porch." It now stands as an unassuming, two-story frame structure with shiplap siding on its exterior. It is fronted by a two-story porch supported by heavy posts, with the second floor of the porch being enclosed. The original four square chamfered porch support posts have been exchanged with simple heavy posts and the original windows were redecorated by extending their frames. Due to the alterations of the house being used as evidence in the case of "California v. Harada", its historical integrity and a majority of its features such as its wallpaper, fixtures, and overall structural design have been preserved.
History.
Family.
During the early 1900s, Jukichi Harada emigrated from his native home of Japan alongside his wife, Ken, and their firstborn son, Masa Atsu. The Harada family settled in Riverside, California by leasing a boarding house as well as operating a restaurant, and they had three more children, Mine, Sumi, and Yoshizo, during this time. In 1913, the Harada family suffered the loss of their five-year-old son, Tadao, due to the bacterial infection diphtheria caused by their current confined living situation. Jukichi Harada then began searching for a new home that was close to the family's church and his children's school.
"California v. Harada".
The house was purchased in 1915 by Jukichi Harada in a transaction that formally placed ownership of the house in the hands of his three minor children, who were natural-born United States citizens. This was because Harada and his wife Ken were immigrants from Japan, and were prevented from owning property in California by the California Alien Land Law of 1913. After the purchase, neighboring property owners attempted to drive the Haradas out of the property, without success. State authorities then filed suit against the children (the named owners of the property) to bring it into state ownership in October 1916, and the hearings for the case of "California v. Harada" began in December 1916.
At issue in the case was the right of the American-born Japanese children of Japanese immigrants to own the house, with the case serving as an early constitutional test of the alien land law. During the hearings, the case drew international attention, as the current relations and Gentlemen's Agreement between the U.S. and Japan put a lot of eyes on the trial. The hearings ended in September 1918, with Judge Hugh Craig upholding the right of the children to own the house. Judge Craig stated that, as American citizens, the Harada children had the right to own property regardless of their race, and the state chose not to appeal this decision.
Despite the Haradas being allowed to keep the property, the principle of legislation preventing land ownership by aliens was also confirmed. This set the stage for further legal challenges, as foreigners ineligible for citizenship were still unable to own property.
Preservation.
During World War II, the Haradas were among those sent to Japanese internment camps, where both Ken and Jukichi Harada died. During their internment, a Caucasian friend of the family occupied the house, and the family was able to retain ownership. In the years after the war, Sumi Harada, one of the three children, took over the house and boarded other Japanese families who had lost their homes. It is during this period that the upstairs porch was enclosed to provide more living space.
Beginning in the 1970s, Mark Rawitsch, a graduate student from the University of California, begun researching the Harada house. Working alongside Sumi Harada, who was able to preserve a vast quantity of family records, the two were able to demonstrate the house's significance to the City of Riverside, and the house became an official landmark in 1977. In 1991, Sumi Harada received a letter from the National Park Service, “The Harada House has been found to possess national significance in the history of the United States. It has been declared a National Historical Landmark.” In 2004, four years after Sumi Harada died and ownership passed to her brother Harold, their house was donated to the Riverside Metropolitan Museum.
Restoration.
In November 2016, the American Alliance of Museums notified the Riverside Metropolitan Museum in a reaccreditation letter of the need to come together "to see measurable plans and evidence of concrete steps taken to address the urgent need to stabilize, then conserve, then open the Harada House." A comprehensive structural engineering assessment shall be performed to understand the house's full condition. There are more structural issues that have to be dealt with to fully stabilize it, even though the house has had previous structural work. Overall, the Harada House needs dismantling to understand its original structure and condition, then a full plan of procedures to fully restore the house can be developed.
Through the process of restoration, the house is currently being made into a cultural and educational site by the Museum of Riverside (formerly the Riverside Metropolitan Museum). To create an interpretive center for the site, the museum raised money through donations to purchase a neighboring house, referred to as the Robinson House.


Wen Qiang

Wen Qiang (, January 29, 1956 – July 7, 2010 in Zengjia town, Shapingba, Chongqing) was a Chinese judicial official who was arrested and executed during the Chongqing gang trials.
Career.
Wen Qiang was the most prominent among the officials charged in Bo Xilai's campaign against organized crime in the summer of 2009. He was the former Chongqing Public Security Bureau's executive deputy head for 16 years and head of the city's Judicial Bureau (Su Wei et al., 2011:26-27). He was also known as a crime-buster, having arrested notorious gang leader and bank stealer Zhang Jun in September 2000. Wen Qiang's home reportedly sat on a 20 mu lot and had a market value of 30 million yuan (“Chongqing dahei gushi,” 2009)
Prosecution.
Wen was charged with taking more than 12 million yuan ($1.76m) in bribes. He was also charged with repeatedly raping a university student.
He was tried in February 2010, along with his wife, Zhou Xiaoya, and three other senior Chongqing police officials.
He was convicted and sentenced to death. His appeal in May 2010 was overturned, and he was executed in July.
His wife and the three associates were jailed.


California Exposition and State Fair Police

The California Exposition and State Fair Police is the police department of the California Exposition and State Fair, responsible for policing the California Exposition, including most notably the California State Fair. The sworn personnel of the Department have statewide peace officer powers as provided by section 830.2(i) of the California Penal Code.
The State Fair historically had a reputation for violence and disorder; between 2009 and 2017, police made an average of 66 arrests each year. Police were accused of racially profiling black teenagers. A new Chief, Joseph Robillard, was appointed in 2018. Robillard has previously been a police officer with the Yuba City Police Department, an investigator with the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and deputy director of security for the California State Lottery. In 2018, following the introduction of a new approach to policing, including "teaching officers de-escalation techniques for arrests and encouraging a warm, constructive relationship between police officers and fair goers", the number of arrests reduced to 10. Police officers are now taught "to be more verbally communicative and calm when approaching someone with unruly conduct, instead of resorting to force."
The department maintains 200 CCTV cameras, and operates a booking facility with holding cells.


Terrorism financing

Terrorism financing is the provision of funds or providing financial support to individual terrorists or non-state actors.
Most countries have implemented measures to counter terrorism financing (CTF) often as part of their money laundering laws. Some countries and multinational organisations have created a list of organisations that they regard as terrorist organisations, though there is no consistency as to which organisations are designated as being terrorist by each country. The Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) has made recommendations to members relating to CTF. It has created a Blacklist and Greylist of countries that have not taken adequate CTF action. As of 24 October 2019, the FATF blacklist (Call for action nations) only listed two countries for terrorism financing: North Korea and Iran; while the FATF greylist (Other monitored jurisdictions) had 12 countries: Pakistan (Pakistan and state-sponsored terrorism), Bahamas, Botswana, Cambodia, Ghana, Iceland, Mongolia, Panama, Syria, Trinidad and Tobago, Yemen, and Zimbabwe. In general, the supply of funds to designated terrorist organisations is outlawed, though the enforcement varies.
Initially the focus of CTF efforts was on non-profit organizations, unregistered money services businesses (MSBs) (including so called underground banking or ‘Hawalas’) and the criminalisation of the act itself.
History.
After September 11 attacks.
The United States Patriot Act, passed after the September 11 attacks in 2001, gives the US government anti-money laundering powers to monitor financial institutions. The Patriot Act has generated a great deal of controversy in the United States since its enactment. The United States has also collaborated with the United Nations and other countries to create the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.
Many initiatives have stemmed from the USA PATRIOT Act such as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, which focuses specifically on money laundering and financial crimes.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 is a counter-terrorism measure intended to deny financing to terrorist organisations and individuals.
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, also known as USA PATRIOT Act, was also enacted in 2001. In 2009 the act aided in blocking around $20 million and another $280 million that came from State Sponsors of Terrorism.
In 2020, Veit Buetterlin, who conducted investigations on-site in more than 20 countries and who was kidnapped in course of his work, explained in an interview with CNN that the fight against terrorism financing will be an ongoing challenge (“it’s actually impossible to defeat a concept”). He noted that the world’s top 10 terrorist organizations have an estimated annual budget of USD 3.6 billion.
Methods used for terrorism funding.
A number of countries and multinational organisations maintain lists of organisations that they designate as terrorist organisations, though there is no consistency as to which organisations are so designated. In the United States, the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) maintains such a list. Financial transactions that benefit the designated terrorist organisations are usually outlawed.
Designated terrorist organisations may adopt a variety of strategies to get past efforts to prevent such funding. For example, they may make multiple smaller-value transfers in an attempt to bypass scrutiny; or they may use people who have no criminal backgrounds to complete financial transactions to try to make fund transfers harder to track. These transactions may also be disguised as donations to charities or as gifts to family members. Countries are not able to combat terrorism on their own, as corporate actors are needed to scan financial transactions themselves. If corporate actors do not comply with the state then penalties or regulatory sanctions may be applied.
Terrorists and terrorist organizations often use any resource of money they can have access to in order to fund themselves. This can range from the distribution of narcotics, black market oil, having businesses such as car dealerships, taxi companies, etc. ISIS is known to use black market oil distribution as a means of funding their terrorist activity.
The internet is a growing modern form of terrorist finance as it is able to protect the anonymity that it can provide to the donor and recipient. Terrorist organizations use propaganda in order to rally up financial support from those who follow them. They are also able to find funds through criminal activity on the internet such as stealing online banking information from people who are not correlated to these terrorist organizations. Terrorist organizations also use the front of being a charity to finance themselves. Al- Qaeda is a known terrorist organization that has used the internet in order to finance their organization, as through this platform they are able to reach a wider audience.
Money laundering.
Often linked in legislation and regulation, terrorism financing and money laundering are conceptual opposites. Money laundering is the process where cash raised from criminal activities is made to look legitimate for re-integration into the financial system, whereas terrorism financing cares little about the source of the funds, but it is what the funds are to be used for that defines its scope.
An in-depth study of the symbiotic relationship between organised crime and terrorist organizations detected within the United States and other countries referred to as crime-terror nexus points has been published in the forensic literature.
The Perri, Lichtenwald and MacKenzie article emphasizes the importance of multi-agency working groups and the tools that can be used to identify, infiltrate, and dismantle organizations operating along the crime-terror nexus points.
Bulk cash smuggling and placement through cash-intensive businesses is one typology. They are now also moving monies through the new online payment systems. They also use trade linked schemes to launder monies. Nonetheless, the older systems have not given way. Terrorists also continue to move monies through MSBs/Hawalas, and through international ATM transactions. Charities also continue to be used in countries where controls are not so stringent.
Said and Cherif Kouachi, before the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris, France in 2015, used transaction laundering to fund their activities. Examples included reselling counterfeit goods and drugs."This chain of funding shows a clear correlation between transaction laundering and terrorism, using legitimate marketplaces to conduct illegal activity (in this case, selling counterfeit shoes) and then using the proceeds to launder money for terrorists."
Preventing the funding of terrorism.
AML and CTF both carry the notion of Know Your Customer (KYC), this entails financial organizations to have in person identification and to observe the lawfulness of the transaction in question. Although this methodology is not favoured by banks, lawyers or other professionals who are able to see the transaction of money or legal aid occurring, because of the business and client relationship that can be hurt through the process of personal identification. This can damage relationships between long term clients who need to prove their identity, and respected members of society do not want to be asked for personal identification every time.
The FATF Blacklist (the Non-Cooperative Countries or Territories list) mechanism was used to coerce countries to bring about change.
Suspicious activity.
Operation Green Quest, a US multi-agency task force established in October 2001 with the official purpose of countering terrorism financing considers the following patterns of activity as indicators of the collection and movement of funds that could be associated with terrorism financing:
It would be difficult to determine by such activity alone whether the particular act was related to terrorism or to organized crime. For this reason, these activities must be examined in context with other factors in order to determine a terrorism financing connection. Simple transactions can be found to be suspect and money laundering derived from terrorism will typically involve instances in which simple operations had been performed (retail foreign exchange operations, international transfer of funds) revealing links with other countries including FATF blacklisted countries. Some of the customers may have police records, particularly for trafficking in narcotics and weapons and may be linked with foreign terrorist groups. The funds may have moved through a state sponsor of terrorism or a country where there is a terrorism problem. A link with a Politically exposed person (PEP) may ultimately link up to a terrorism financing transaction. A charity may be a link in the transaction. Accounts (especially student) that only receive periodic deposits withdrawn via ATM over two months and are dormant at other periods could indicate that they are becoming active to prepare for an attack.
Nation specific actions.
Pakistan.
As at 24 October 2019, Pakistan was on the FATF greylist for terrorism financing and has met only 5 of 27 action items, and it has been given four months to comply with the remaining action points for the prevention of terror financing.
Bahrain.
Bahrain has been regularly accused of doing very little to prevent the flow of funds for the terrorism financing in other nations.
Qatar.
Qatar interactions with militants includes financing Hamas, designated by the US as a terrorist organization.
Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia faces accusations of not doing enough to stop terrorism financing by private actors.
A recent report by FATF highlighted serious deficiencies in Saudi Arabia's efforts to counter terrorism. Terrorism financing budding in Saudi Arabia became an important source of funding for al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.
In a leaked classified memo, Hillary Clinton said that in 2009 the kingdom was a crucial source of funds to Sunni terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba pointing to its intelligence incompetence.
In 2019, the European Commission added Saudi Arabia, along with several other countries, to its blacklist list of states that have failed to control money laundering and terrorism financing. Saudi Arabia has been accused of not making enough effort to control the huge amounts of money being transferred to Islamist extremists and terrorist groups.
United Arab Emirates.
The United Arab Emirates had been accused of being a financial hub for terrorist organisations. The UAE banking system was found to be involved in the attacks on 11 September 2001 against the United States carried out by al-Qaeda. The 9/11 terrorists had bank accounts in the UAE. Executing the attack cost the terrorist group around $400,000–500,000, out of which $300,000 was transacted via one of the hijackers’ bank accounts in the US. The movement of funds took place with the help of both public banking systems and the Al Qaeda established Hawala networks.
According to the 9/11 Commission Report, in response to concerns that the UAE banking system had been used by 9/11 hijackers to launder funds, the UAE adopted legislation giving the Central Bank in 2002 the power to freeze suspect accounts for 7 days without prior legal authorisation. The report stated "banks have been advised to carefully monitor transactions passing through the UAE from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and are now subject to more stringent transaction and client reporting requirements." The UAE government has since affirmed its stance and policy of zero tolerance towards terrorism financing.
Australia.
Australian anti terrorism financing laws include:
These offences sanction persons and entities under Australian and international law. The responsibility of prosecuting these offences in Australia rests with the Australian Federal Police, State police forces and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.
Germany.
In July 2010, Germany outlawed the Internationale Humanitäre Hilfsorganisation (IHH), saying it has used donations to support projects in Gaza that are related to Hamas, which is considered by the European Union to be a terrorist organization, while presenting their activities to donors as humanitarian help. German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere said, "Donations to so-called social welfare groups belonging to Hamas, such as the millions given by IHH, actually support the terror organization Hamas as a whole."
According to a research conducted by the Abba Eban Institute as part of an initiative called Janus Initiative, Hezbollah is financed through non-profit organizations such as the “Orphans Project Lebanon”, a German-based charity for Lebanese orphans. It found that it had been donating portions of its contributions to a foundation which finances the families of Hezbollah members who commit suicide bombings.
The European Foundation for Democracy published that the “Orphans Project Lebanon” organization directly channels financial donations from Germany to the Lebanese Al-Shahid Association, which is part of the Hezbollah network and promotes suicide bombings in Lebanon, particularly among children. In Germany, financial donations to the Orphans Project Lebanon are tax-deductible and thus subsidized by the German State's tax policy.
In 2018, an investigation by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) called “Operation Cedar” led to the arrest of Hezbollah operatives involved in laundering millions of euros in South American drug money to Europe and Lebanon. One of the operatives arrested was Hassan Tarabolsi, a German citizen who manages a worldwide money laundering business. Tarabolsi represents the close connection between the criminal operation and the leaders of Hezbollah.
India.
India has campaign for linking of the IMF's macroprudential regulation and lending policies with key provisions of FATF's anti-money laundering (AML) and countering financing of terrorism (CFT) to significantly enhance its IMF member nation's compliance on these issues which cause threat to the global economy. India also seeks to link these IMF policies with the secrecy jurisdictions, cyber-risks and tax havens.
Spain.
In February 2019, the Spanish Treasury, through the Commission for the Prevention of Money Laundering and Monetary Offences (SEPBLAC), published their strategy for preventing the financing of terrorism.
United Kingdom.
In the UK, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, put in place in 1989, helped to prevent the financing of terrorism. This was more so to help shut down the funding of the Republican paramilitary in Northern Ireland. Income sources for the Republic paramilitary came from gambling machines, cab companies and charitable donations and terrorism funding.
Supranational organizations.
European Union.
European Union has undertaken several actions against money laundering and terror funding. This includes production of following reports and implementation of their corresponding recommendations: Supranational Risk Assessment Report (SNRA), Report on publicly known anti-money laundering cases involving EU banks, Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) report, interconnection of central bank account registries.
United Nations.
Article 2.1 of the 1999 Terrorist Financing Convention defines the crime of terrorist financing as the offense committed by "any person" who "by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and willfully, provides or collects funds with the intention that they should be used or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out" an act "intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act."
The UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1373 after the 9/11 attacks. This outlined that states were not allowed to provide financing to terrorist organizations, allow safe havens to them and that information regarding terrorist groups had to be shared with other governments.
A committee was formed in the United Nations that were in charge of gathering a list of organizations and people who had ties with terrorism or were suspected of terrorism whose financial accounts needed to be frozen and that no financial institutes would be able to do trade with them.
Evasive actions of terrorist organisations.
Al-Qassam Brigades appealing for Bitcoin.
In January 2019, the military wing of Hamas, known as the al-Qassam Brigades, began a campaign to get supporters to donate USD. Soon after announcing its intention to crowdfund through Bitcoin, the al-Qassam Brigades provided a Bitcoin address to which donors could send funds and posted infographics and tutorials about Bitcoin on social media.


Margaret Barr Fulton

Margaret Barr Fulton (14 February 1900 – 16 December 1989) was a Scottish occupational therapist. Fulton was the first qualified occupational therapist to work in the UK. She worked at the Aberdeen Royal Asylum (now Royal Cornhill Hospital) from 1925 until her retirement in 1963. Fulton was a founder of the World Federation of Occupational Therapists and its first president.
Early life and education.
Fulton was born on 14 February 1900 in Cheetham, Manchester, England to Dr. Andrew Boyd and Elizabeth (née Barr) Fulton. Her parents were Scottish. She was the youngest of their five children. Her father was a general practitioner. Fulton was privately educated at Manchester High School for Girls. After her father's death in 1919, she went on holiday to the US with her mother to visit relatives. On this holiday, she first learnt about occupational therapy, and decided to study at the Philadelphia School of Occupational Therapy between 1922 and 1923. After obtaining a diploma from the school, she completed a six-month placement at the Metropolitan Hospital Center in New York City where she fostered her interest in psychiatry.
Career.
Fulton returned to the UK and attempted to find a job for seven months before psychiatrist David Henderson, who had previously started the first occupational therapy department in the UK, arranged for her to meet Robert Dods Brown, the medical superintendent of the Aberdeen Royal Asylum (now Royal Cornhill Hospital). Fulton was appointed in 1925, therefore becoming the first qualified occupational therapist to work in the UK.
In her role, she instructed crafts lessons for patients, and in 1927 she organised an exhibition of their work, which was inaugurated by the Commissioner for Lunacy Sir Arthur Rose. By 1932, fifteen therapists had been appointed in Scottish mental health hospitals, and together they created the Scottish Association of Occupational Therapists with Fulton as secretary and treasurer. She went on to become elected as its chairwoman in 1946 and served on its council from 1949–1960 and 1964–1971.
Fulton was a founder of the World Federation of Occupational Therapists in 1952 and was elected as its first president. After the organisation held its first international congress in Edinburgh, Scotland in August 1954, she received an MBE in the 1955 New Year Honours for her contribution to the profession.
Retirement and legacy.
Fulton retired in 1963. She died on 16 December 1989 in Edinburgh. On 12 May 1995, Princess Anne, the patron of the Royal College of Occupational Therapists, inaugurated the Fulton Clinic and Memorial Garden at the Royal Cornhill Hospital in recognition of her work.


South African Police decorations

An overview of South African police decorations and medals, which form part of the South African honours system.
South African Police.
The South African Police was established in 1913 as a national police force. It had a secondary military role, which came to the fore in World War I and again in World War II.
1923-1963.
The SAP was eligible for the British King's Police Medal, which was awarded annually throughout the British Empire. This was discontinued in 1933, because South Africa had become independent as a member of the new British Commonwealth, and it was replaced in 1937 by a special South African issue of the medal. From 1923, the SAP also had its own long service medal, which doubled as a medal for gallantry. The medals available to the SAP between 1923 and 1963 were thus:
Long service medal.
Until 1952, they were incorporated into the British honours system. Thereafter they formed part of the new South African honours system.
1963-2003.
After South Africa became a republic (in 1961), the government instituted an entirely new series of decorations and medals for the SAP. It was added to several times over the years:
Long service medals.
In 1994, the SAP amalgamated with the police forces of the former "homelands" inside South Africa, to form the "South African Police Service".
South African Railways Police.
1934-1966.
The South African Railways Police was established in 1934, to police the country's railways and harbours. It was later responsible for air services too. The SARP was modeled on the SAP, and shared the King's/Queen's Police Medal with it. It also had its own long service medal: the Railways Police Good Service Medal (1934–66).
1966-1986.
An entirely new series of decorations and medals was instituted for the SARP in 1966, to match those established for the SAP in 1963. The series was enlarged in 1980, to correspond to the changes made to the SAP awards in 1979. The full range of honours was:
Long service medals.
The SARP was amalgamated into the SA Police on 1 October 1986, with all its personnel, assets and equipment transferred to the SAP.
South African Police Service.
The South African Police Service, which was formed in 1994 by amalgamating the SAP and the police forces of the former homelands, used the SAP decorations and medals until 2004, when a new series of decorations was instituted:
Municipal/Metropolitan Police Service.
In 1998, the municipal and metropolitan council police forces were brought under the auspices of the SA Police Service Act, and became collectively known as the Municipal/Metropolitan Police Service. A series of decorations and medals was instituted for them in 2008.


Viridicatumtoxin B

Viridicatumtoxin B is a fungus-derived tetracycline-like antibiotic discovered in 2008. It was isolated from small amounts of penicillium fungi. A synthetic structure matching that of natural viridicatumtoxin B makes possible synthetic variants that match or surpass its antibiotic potency.
Analogs lacking a hydroxyl group were even more effective than the original against Gram-positive bacteria.
Concerns about solubility, biodegradation, availability and other issues must be resolved before clinical development begins.
History.
The substance was first isolated from the mycelium of liquid fermentation cultures of "Penicillium" species FR11.
Structure.
Based on mass spectrometry and nuclear magnetic resonance data, the substance was originally thought to be the 11a',12'-epoxide, but the structure was later revised.
Effects.
Viridicatumtoxin B inhibited the growth of "Staphylococcus aureus", including methicillin resistant "S. aureus" and quinolone-resistant "S. aureus" with a minimum inhibitory concentration of 0.5 μg/ml. That effect is similar to that of vancomycin, but 8 to 64 times greater than that of tetracycline.
Total synthesis.
A complete total synthesis of viridicatumtoxin B, in racemic form, was completed in 2013 by the group of K. C. Nicolaou.


Marine policy of the Barack Obama administration

The Marine Policy of the Barack Obama administration comprises several significant environmental policy decisions for the oceans made during his two terms in office from 2009 to 2017. By executive action, President Obama increased fourfold the amount of protected marine space in waters under United States control, setting an important precedent for global ocean conservation. Using the U.S. president's authority under the Antiquities Act of 1906, he expanded to 200 nautical miles the seaward limits of Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in Hawaiʻi and the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument around the U.S. island possessions in the Central Pacific. In the Atlantic, President Obama created the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, the first marine monument in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Atlantic.
In the second year of his presidency, on July 19, 2010, Obama signed an executive order entitled "Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes." This order created a policy framework for integrated marine spatial planning at the sub-national (regional) level. It also created a council of cabinet-level officials to coordinate policy under the nation's domestic and international rules for the oceans. This executive order reflected many of the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy in its 2004 report to Congress. In 2014, the Obama administration inaugurated the "Our Ocean" series of annual conferences to build and promote international cooperation to protect the world's oceans. Members of the Obama administration testified on behalf of U.S. accession to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, to strengthen international norms respecting the freedom of navigation and for the sustainable development and use of marine resources. At the end of his second term in office, President Obama approved rules recommended by the National Ocean Council to combat illegal fishing on the high seas and seafood mislabeling through import traceability and catch certification requirements.
For fish stocks within the U.S. EEZ, administrators at NOAA Fisheries (also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service) oversaw implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act amendments of 2007 that required overfished or depleted stocks to be rebuilt to population levels that could provide a sustainable yield. By 2013, a number of important fish stocks within the eight fishery management regions had been rebuilt. Several regional fishery management councils began developing ecosystem-based plans in response to renewed emphasis on the ecosystem approach to fisheries. The Obama administration advanced a precautionary approach to marine resource development in the Arctic Ocean by leading the successful negotiation of an agreement upon a 16-year moratorium on industrial fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean as it becomes ice-free due to global warming. U.S. ocean diplomats also participated in preparatory conferences on a new United Nations agreement for the conservation of and sharing of benefits from marine biodiversity in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction. At the International Maritime Organization, the U.S. delegation successfully negotiated a new set of international rules governing shipping in polar regions.
Expansion of Marine National Monuments and National Marine Sanctuaries.
One of the main goals of the four-fold expansion of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument was to promote the conservation of marine biodiversity in the U.S. EEZ. Scientific studies have shown that underwater mountains, or seamounts, are rich in biodiversity as they provide a structure for animals to live on. Free-floating larvae lost on ocean currents are able to settle on seamounts from many distant areas. Seamounts cause comparatively strong currents that bring in phytoplankton and other nutrients and attract pelagic species. Sedentary animals like sponges, corals, and gorgonians propagate on the available space the seamount provides; they also benefit from incoming nutrients from the currents. These sedentary animals provide a structure and the basis of a thriving ecosystem. The original boundaries of Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, set in 2006 at 50 nautical miles around the coral atolls and reefs, did not include many seamounts, which the revised boundaries now do. The goal of the expansion was to protect these biodiversity hot spots from potential adverse effects of fishing, allowing them to function as fish refugia, places where fish populations can grow and maintain a natural age structure, especially the pelagic tuna and sharks. President Obama's proclamation effectuating this geographic expansion in 2016 also expanded the management philosophy of the Monument. The proclamation added the Office of Hawaiian Affairs as a full partner in the cooperative management agreement in recognition of the significance of the islands and coral reefs to living Native Hawaiian culture. This expanded the basis for protection to include indigenous principles and cultural knowledge. Archaeological sites and ancestral environments are located on the islands of Nihoa and Mokumanamana. Papahānaumokuākea was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List as a mixed natural and cultural site in July 2010. This inscription adds a layer of international protection to the Monument.
Another monument President Obama expanded for biodiversity preservation is the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, surrounding Wake, Baker, Howland, and Jarvis Islands, Johnston and Palmyra Atolls, and Kingman Reef. These marine areas are part of the Exclusive Economic Zone that was codified by the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Obama administration in 2012 expanded administratively the boundaries of the Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary from less than one square mile to 13,581 square miles. It also reestablished the sanctuary nomination process under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. Regulations calling for public nominations were published in the Federal Register in June, 2014. NOAA, however, rejected a nomination to establish the Aleutian Islands National Marine Sanctuary based on a lack of support from the communities that would be most affected by the designation.
Trump administration actions to rollback new and expanded marine reserves.
On 26 April 2017 President Trump signed Executive Order 13792, which directed the Secretary of the Interior to review certain National Monuments designated or expanded under the Antiquities Act. Section 2 of the Executive Order specifies that not all National Monuments are under review, only those that "were created after 1 January 1996, where the designation covers more than 100,000 acres, where the designation after expansion covers more than 100,000 acres, or where the Secretary determines that the designation or expansion was made without adequate public outreach and coordination with relevant stakeholders, to determine whether each designation or expansion conforms to the policy set forth in section 1 of the order." The Marine National Monuments being considered under this Executive Order include but are not limited to: the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument, the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, and the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument. Unlike Marine Sanctuary designation, Marine National Monument designation does not require a public comment period because National Monuments are established by means of the Antiquities Act and Marine Sanctuaries are created by an act of NOAA and Congress. Through this review process Trump and Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke hoped to "gain local input [which] is a critical component of federal land management." As of 19 December 2019 Zinke is no longer the Secretary of the Interior and the only National Monuments that have shrunk in size were terrestrial ones located in Utah, namely Bears Ears and Grand Staircase Escalante. In his report, Zinke advised Trump to allow commercial fishing within the Rose Atoll, Pacific Remote Islands, and Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monuments.
On June 6, 2020, former President Trump issued a proclamation reopening the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts to commercial fishing, arguing that the fish species protected by the monument (tuna, sharks, etc.) are not unique and are well-managed for sustainability under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. He further stated that as the Magnuson-Stevens act regulates commercial fishing, to "ensure long-term biological and economic sustainability for our Nation's marine fisheries", the prohibition on commercial fishing was not necessary to protecting the integrity of the monument. On the previous day, at a roundtable discussion of commercial fishing issues in Bangor, Maine, the president stated that the Obama proclamation creating the Monument, which had made a seven-year exception to the no-fishing rule for the offshore lobster and red crab industries, "was deeply unfair to Maine lobstermen," according to the Associated Press. According to the White House transcript of the roundtable, however, Maine lobstermen, who do not fish in waters as far south as the Monument, commented that the tariffs imposed by China on their lobster shipments, in retaliation for the U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports, had reduced their exports to zero. President Trump directed his trade advisor to look into the complaint. In further comment on his actions, which have been challenged in court by the Conservation Law Foundation. According to the trade magazine serving the fishing industry, a press release from the National Fisheries Institute applauded the Trump administration for withdrawing arbitrary fisheries restrictions on the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts National Monument off the coast of New England”. “We welcome efforts to refocus on fisheries regulation that are transparent, participatory and science-based, and in this case best achieved through the New England Fishery Management Council.” [98]
Biden administration actions on U.S. marine reserves.
On his first day in office, President Joe Biden, signed a number of executive orders and actions to restart U.S. efforts to address climate change. These actions included an order directing a whole-of-government approach to tackling the climate crisis by transitioning to a low-carbon economy, rejoining the Paris Agreement, and committing the Nation to a goal of conserving at least 30% of its lands and waters by 2030. The new president also ordered executive branch agencies to freeze approval reviews of oil and gas leasing on federal lands and restore environmental rules critical to combatting climate change, including increasing vehicle fuel efficiency standards and cutting greenhouse gas emissions from electricity-generating power plants. He directed the Secretary of Interior to review and revise if appropriate the previous administration's alterations of national monuments, including the marine national monuments created or expanded by President Obama in the Northwest Atlantic and the Pacific.
Science-Based Marine Conservation Policies.
Beyond the expansion of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, there were numerous agency policy decisions and actions which afforded protections for marine life. Each of these was explicitly based upon the "best available scientific data and information" as the marine conservation laws of the U.S. require. These policy decisions were taken under the authority delegated by Congress to the Executive Branch by the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The Marine Mammal Protection Act empowers the Marine Mammal Commission to review and comment upon policies adopted under that act to ensure their scientific integrity. The Hawaiian monk seal (HMS) is an endangered species which resides in both the Main Hawaiian Islands and the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI). This species is not only an endangered species, but also enjoys the protections provided by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Effective September 21, 2015, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a division of NOAA, issued a final rule to revise the critical habitat designation for the HMS. The changes made clarified the location and refined the boundaries of pupping, nursing, and haul-out areas. Essential foraging areas were updated to be "marine areas 0-200 meters in depth that support adequate prey availability and quantity for juvenile and adult monk seal foraging." In the NWHI, all terrestrial areas, except for Midway harbor and non-accessible and unused areas, are considered "critical habitat".
Other significant domestic marine policy actions carried over from previous administrations. Notable examples include the decision on reinstating Indian whaling by the Makah Tribe of western Washington state, broadly applying a strict U.S. definition of "dolphin-safe" label for canned tuna imports, denial of a permit to import beluga whales from Russia for public display and captive breeding by several prominent sea life parks and aquarium, rejecting a petition to list the Reef Manta Ray as a threatened distinct population segment, and adoption of regulations governing the import of fish and fish products from countries that do not effectively control by-catch of marine mammals in commercial fisheries that export their catches to the U.S., especially small, endemic populations such as the Vaquita porpoise in the Gulf of California and the Hector's dolphin in New Zealand.
The Obama administration also dealt with recurrent, politically sensitive decisions including approving incidental "take" permits for noise harassment by military training and readiness exercises using active sonar, and by-catch reduction regulations for US commercial fisheries that interact with endangered sea turtles, seabirds or cetaceans or that occur within designated critical habitat of whales such as the North Atlantic right whale. After designating critical habitat for threatened polar bear populations listed by the Bush administration, the Obama administration considered listing petitions for additional marine life species threatened by climate change, including ice-dependent seals in the U.S. Arctic, and reef-building corals. During the Obama years, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Deep Sea Coral Research and Technology Program made significant investments in research on deep-water corals. Connecting with this research, the U.S. delegation at the U.N. General Assembly supported resolutions calling for the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) from the adverse effects of high seas fisheries. NOAA also proposed regulations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act to protect Hawaiian spinner dolphins from harassment or other disturbance from dolphin-directed tourism and recreational use while they are resting in bays on the main Hawaiian Islands. The proposed rules prohibit any person, vessel, or aircraft from approaching closer than 50-yards spinner dolphins in the coastal waters of Hawaii either directly or through interception. The rule is intended to protect dolphins from disturbance by vessel noise and human interactions from commercial, swim-with-dolphins tours, spiritual retreats, and recreational users. Before proposing the rules, NOAA funded an extensive, interdisciplinary research program that resulted in many peer-reviewed publications.
Implementation of the 2007 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act required NOAA Fisheries to focus on improving the scientific basis for managing fisheries in U.S. waters. The amendments required the regional fishery management councils to rebuild fish stocks identified as overfished within ten years of their identification or in as short a time as possible. Science advisors to the regional fishery management councils had to determine with greater precision the population status and trends of exploited fish stocks in order to recommend annual catch limits that were based on fishing mortality rates that would allow fish populations to rebuild. NOAA revised the guidelines for National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to ensure that the councils adopted the science-based rebuilding plans and a policy on quantifying and controlling the discarding at sea of non-target species, i.e., by-catch. The agency also adopted a national policy on catch shares to encourage the regional management councils and their state agency partners to adopt some form of individual fishing rights in limited access fisheries in order to improve profitability and prevent a race to fish for the annual catch limit. NOAA's report to Congress on the status of U.S. fisheries at the end of 2016 reported that two fish stocks had been rebuilt and overfishing curtailed in a number of others. Despite positive signs of potential stock recovery in 2008 and the allocation of catch entitlements to voluntary fishery sectors in 2010, the historically significant New England cod stock collapsed in 2012 and was declared a fishery disaster in 2014. The owner of the largest fishing company in New England, Carlos Rafael, a member of a New Bedford groundfish sector, was convicted of falsifying catch and dealer reports on cod landings to the federal government. He was sentenced to four years in federal prison and required to sell dozens of fishing vessels and their limited-access permits and sector entitlements.
Offshore aquaculture policy.
In an effort to increase the production of seafood in the U.S. and address a serious imbalance of trade in fish products, the Obama administration's NOAA approved a plan for the governance of offshore aquaculture submitted by the Gulf of Mexico Regional Fishery Management Council. This action was called the Gulf Aquaculture Rule and final rules were published in the Federal Register. The rule was challenged in court by a coalition of environmental activists and a charter fishing industry association. In 2018, a federal district court in Louisiana ruled that the Magnuson-Stevens Act as currently written does not authorize NOAA to manage the cultivation of finfish in the U.S. EEZ nor issue permits to finfish farmers to grow a designated amount of fish (in this case, 64 million pounds). On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling. Members of Congress introduced and considered legislation, the AQUAA Act, that would give NOAA lead agency responsibilities for offshore aquaculture. This bill was not adopted before the end of the 116th Congress, in December 2020. While the bill was under consideration, President Trump issued an executive order in May 2020. The order directed all federal agencies to remove unnecessary regulations and to expedite offshore aquaculture permitting in order to increase the production of U.S. seafood and jobs in the seafood sector.
The Food and Drug Administration approved the application by AquaBounty Technologies to use genetically-modified Atlantic salmon in the U.S.
Offshore oil development policy.
High-profile events during the Obama presidency focused attention on the risks of deepwater oil drilling in the Exclusive Economic Zone of the U.S. The April 2010 explosion of the Macondo well, the resulting fire and sinking of the "Deepwater Horizon" drilling platform, and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico occurred shortly after the Interior Department released an ambitious five-year plan for oil and gas development of the U.S. outer continental shelf (OCS). President Obama ordered a moratorium on OCS drilling and appointed a bipartisan committee to determine the causes of the blowout and to recommend policies to prevent future disasters. The commission found major problems in the structure and implementation of the National Contingency Plan under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which was enacted following the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. The Department of Interior agencies responsible for overseeing OCS energy development were reorganized to separate leasing and revenues from safety regulation and enforcement.
In 2015, hundreds of kayakers, led by a Native American canoer from the Lummi Nation, protested plans to drill for oil and gas in the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea. They surrounded a drilling rig in waters off Seattle, Washington and prevented its departure. After a series of mishaps Shell Oil suspended its drilling operations in waters off Alaska. In December, 2016, under the authority of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, a new Arctic policy of Barack Obama included actions to remove almost all U.S. Arctic waters (as well as large portions of the NW Atlantic continental shelf) from the offshore oil program. Ten days after the 2016 presidential election, the Interior Department released its 2017-2022 plan for offshore oil and gas leasing. President Trump issued an order to repeal President Obama's ban on offshore drilling in the 120 million acres of the Arctic Ocean on April 28, 2017. This action was intended to reinstate Arctic OCS tracts into the five-year plan for offshore drilling and thereby revoke the protection of the Arctic Ocean as set forth by President Obama. But this repeal was then reversed when Judge Sharon L. Gleason of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska ruled that President Obama's 2015 and 2016 protection on the Arctic Ocean and portions of the NW Atlantic would remain in full effect until revoked by Congress. She ruled that President Trump's withdrawal of the protections exceeded the authority of the President.
Global shark fin trade.
Every year, an estimated 100 million sharks are killed globally. Sharks are an apex predator in the ocean, where they play a large role in maintaining balance in the ecosystem. Sharks are also especially susceptible to over fishing because of their low reproductive rates. The global shark fin trade contributes to the overfishing of sharks. Shark finning is not vital to maintaining or securing food security and overfishing of sharks has widespread effects across the whole ecosystem. To combat the unsustainable global shark fin trade, President Obama signed the Shark Conservation Act of 2009. This act replaced the pre-existing Shark Finning Prohibition Act, implemented in 2000 under the Clinton Administration. The Shark Conservation Act proposed provisions to eliminate a loophole exploited in the 2008 court case US vs Approx. 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins. The court identified that the SFPA failed to prohibit the transshipment of fins for delivery at a foreign port, outside of US jurisdiction. In response, the Shark Conservation Act of 2009 prohibited the landing, possession or transfer of fins not attached to the carcass between vessels.
In response to declining shark populations as a result of shark finning, the State of California enacted a Shark Fin Law, AB 376, in 2011 which banned the possession and sale of shark fins, making it illegal to sell or serve shark fin soup. In 2012, two Asian-American groups filed lawsuits claiming that the law discriminated against the ancient Chinese cultural uses of shark fin soup. The case was later dismissed by the superior court. In 2013, the U.S. Justice Department sparked controversy regarding the State of California's 2011 law when it filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit challenging the Shark Fin Law. In upholding the California law, the U.S. court of appeals did not agree that the state shark fin ban interfered with the purposes of the federal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, under which a small commercial shark fishery is authorized in the NW Atlantic. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act passed in the 1976 to help manage U.S. coastal fisheries to avoid exploitation and overfishing. In addition, the NOAA assistant administrator for fisheries later determined that state and territorial laws banning possession and trade in shark fins are consistent with, and not subject to federal preemption by, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which is designed to prevent overfishing and ensure a sustainable seafood supply. The Magnuson-Stevens Act's primary goal was to regulate foreign pressures on local fisheries, but does not account for the increased pressures of local recreational fishing. To enact major changes, the institution requires reform in order to achieve sustainability of commercial fisheries, including the shark fin industry.
Although the Shark Conservation Act of 2009 prohibited the removal of any shark fins including the tail while out at sea, it contained a major loophole. The language of the act specifies that it applies to vessels at sea, and does not directly ban the possession of shark fins still attached to the shark carcass on land. Under this act, fisherman are required to wait until they returned to land to de-fin the shark. This forced consumers to look to international markets for shark fins and allowed US fishermen to continue shark finning as long as they were on land. On January 23, 2019, Representatives Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan and Tulsi Gabbard introduced the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act of 2019 to the House of Representatives. After being passed and agreed to in the house, the bill has now been introduced to the Senate by Senator Cory Booker. This bill would correct the loophole exploited in the Shark Conservation Act by making it illegal to transport, possess, sell, offer for sale, or purchase shark fins or products containing shark fins. The Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act of 2019 is intended to eliminate the international market for shark fins into the US. There are a few exceptions to this bill; if shark fins are destroyed or discarded upon the separation of its carcass then that is a lawful practice, if the fins are used for noncommercial purposes as long as that practice is in accordance with state and federal laws, if fins are used for display at museums, universities, or under a person with a permit whose intentions are for research purposes, or if a person is to obtain a permit for noncommercial use. The penalty for this violation is a $100,000 fine or the market value of the fins, whichever is higher.
Shipping and marine protected species.
Major policy decisions enhancing the protection of marine mammals and endangered sea turtles in U.S. waters included the removal of sunset provision for vessel restrictions to reduce ship collisions with North Atlantic right whales and the listing of distinct population segments of threatened and endangered sea turtles. Loggerhead sea turtle policies of the Barack Obama Administration (2009-2017) included tightening of regulations to prevent by-catch or incidental takes in commercial fisheries due to mass fishing techniques like Long-line fishing. The speed restrictions were adopted previously under the U.S. Endangered Species Act to reduce death and injury by ship collision with endangered whales. This action made the restrictions permanent. With Barack Obama's Administration they have revamped the Endangered Species Act and added necessary steps to take on how a species is counted endangered. The Trump administration made changes to the Endangered Species Act that economic concerns under considerations before listing a species as endangered. In addition, species that are listed as "threatened" will no longer be under the same protections as endangered species as they were before and will instead be under a review on a case-by-case basis. The Coast Guard conducted a port access routing study (PARs) in the Chukchi Sea, Bering Strait and Bering Sea. The Administration's proposed expansion of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, however, was withdrawn due to opposition from the governor of Hawaii. After NOAA denied the Georgia Aquarium's application for a captive display permit for beluga whales, the State of California enacted the Orca Welfare and Safety Act. The ORCA effectively prohibited SeaWorld from continuing its killer whale captive breeding program.
In 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cancelled efforts to establish an experimental population of the southern sea otter in the offshore waters of the central California coast. The goal of the cancelled project was to ensure survival of the species, which is listed as threatened with extinction under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, in the event of a catastrophic oil spill from the increasing tanker operations along the California coast to and from oil terminals and refineries. The program included an otter exclusion zone, a marine area from which sea otters, who are in the process of reestablishing their historic range, would be moved in order to reduce conflicts with commercial shellfish fisheries.
Marine pollution and protected areas.
Modest steps were taken to address the problem of marine plastics through legislation and executive agency action. Congress enacted and President Obama signed the Microbead-Free Waters Act 2015, banning the use of micro-plastics in personal care products sold in the U.S. NOAA's marine debris program was active in raising awareness of the problem, supporting research on prevention and mitigation measures, and on retrieving lost and discarded fishing gear that is threatening the survival of endangered marine life through lethal entanglement.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration approved a proposal by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council to create the Senator Lautenberg Deep Sea Coral Protection Area. By presidential proclamation under the Antiquities Act of 1906, to protect Deep-water coral habitat in the NW Atlantic, President Obama created the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument in September, 2016. He also created a Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience Area by executive order. Ballast water regulation in the United States was pursued by the EPA, to prevent the introduction of aquatic invasive species into ports and estuaries.
Indigenous peoples' sovereign rights and environmental justice.
The companies installing the Keystone XL pipeline needed presidential approval before it could be used to bring oil sands from Canada to oil refineries on the Gulf of Mexico coastline. The Obama administration denied the permit in part because of the potential impact to waters on lands of the USA's First Nations. Under the Rivers and Harbors Act, the Army Corps of Engineers denied permits for expansion of coal export facilities near and pipelines crossing Native American lands. President Obama signed a proclamation returning ownership of the submerged lands of certain islands of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and approved regulations allowing traditional indigenous fishing in waters around the northern islands that are part of the Mariana Trench Marine National Monument.
Climate action and ocean renewable energy development.
In 2010, President Barack Obama signed an executive order whose purpose was to provide for utilization of ocean resources in an economic and sustainable way to better American lives and future lives. It calls upon states and federal agencies to develop integrated plans for protecting and restoring the resilience of fresh, marine and estuarine water resources, using the best science available to develop policy interventions for sustainability and productiveness, respecting social cultural, recreational and historical values, promoting public awareness, and bringing federal, state and non-governmental agencies together for action, all in a fiscally responsible manner.
Coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP) is a comprehensive system of science-based and adaptive strategies to identify, facilitate and design the changes needs to reduce conflict and preserve marine ecosystems. Marine spatial planning (MSP) is a process which is a respected part. Approaches differ among locations as well as implementation. Cost and benefits can delay the process. Most plans have several key components in common: a legal order with political capabilities, specifying plan with acute details, the properties supporting the plan should match fiscal and human resources, and revisions should be allowed with input from stakeholders and leniency for modifications.
Other countries have adopted CMSP but in the  United States, notably Massachusetts, Florida and Oregon. From June 2009, President Obama was developing an interagency task force to address public comment and outline policies. United States coastal areas were divided into 9 areas, each with a program to address local issues. Another goal was to map out biologically and ecologically important areas surrounding the United States that are necessary for science.
On June 19, 2018, President Donald Trump signed the executive order 13840, Ocean Policy to Advance the Economic, Security, and Environmental Interests of the United States. Its focus was the utilization of the nation's natural water resources in terms of economy, security and global competitiveness with public and federal support and to enhance benefits to both. Its policies include management of natural water resources for economic, security and environmental benefits, enforcement by United States Armed Forces and their right to exercise rights and jurisdiction with national and international law, American employment, use of American goods and enhance America's energy security, ensure policies do not prevent productive and sustainable use of natural resources, while maintaining consultation with state, federal, private, non-governmental agencies and foreign stakeholders.
As part of the Obama Administration's effort to combat global climate change (and climate change denial), the Department of Interior held an auction of wind energy leases off the State of New York in December, 2016. In April, 2016, President Obama and President Xi of China announced jointly that they were formally ratifying the Paris climate agreement, the first global agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
Additionally a development in offshore wind energy occurred during the Obama Administration and continued with President Trump support. In 2015 BOEM leased multiple plots of federal waters off the shores of many coastal states for commercial wind energy development. Currently projects in Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are proving beneficial while efforts in South Carolina, California and Hawaiʻi are projected areas of new development.
International Law of the Sea.
In addition to its essential role in shepherding the Paris Agreement on combatting climate change, the Obama administration was active in promoting decisions by the U.S. Congress and, through diplomatic negotiations, at U.N. agencies, the U.N. General Assembly, and other bodies that by international treaty have responsibilities for governing uses of the marine environment. These include the International Whaling Commission (IWC), the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and the Commission for the Conservation of Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR).
Promotion of UNCLOS accession
At a series of hearings before the [Senate Foreign Relations Committee] in May 2012, prominent members of President Obama's administration, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, testified in favor of U.S. ratification of UNCLOS. The U.S. is the only major industrialized nation not to be a party to this global agreement which provides the basis for world public order of the oceans. In 1994, UNCLOS was effectively amended by an U.N. agreement on the implementation of Part XI, the provisions setting forth the regulatory regime for [deep seabed mining]. This agreement, whose negotiations were led by the U.N. Secretary General, removed President Reagan's grounds for voting against UNCLOS when it was opened for signature in 1982.  With respect to implementation of the [high seas] provisions of UNCLOS, in June 2015, the U.S. delegation to the U.N. joined the unanimous vote in favor of a [General Assembly resolution] calling for negotiations of an international treaty to provide protection of [marine biodiversity] in [areas beyond national jurisdiction] of any nation, including the [high seas].
Seabed Mining
During the Obama Administration, an attempt in 2012 to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty was put forward to the US Senate by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. A successful ratification would change the process in which seabed mining licenses are issued for mining sites outside the US Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ). Under the treaty, license applications would be sent to the International Seabed Authority (ISA) for evaluation opposed to the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as it was under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act of 1980. However, the ratification was unable to successfully pass in the senate as Republican senators banded together to gain majority vote.
In 2012, a subsidiary of the Lockheed Martin Corporation requested an extension of their exploratory licenses from NOAA for two areas of the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, a stretch of Pacific seafloor rich in polymetallic nodules, so that it may be further investigated for potential deep seabed mining sites, which was then approved by NOAA. However, in May 2015, a lawsuit was filed against NOAA and US Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) for approving the extensions. The CBD claimed that NOAA failed to comply with federal laws regarding license extension by approving the extension request without having acquired the Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) from Lockheed Martin necessary to legally approve the extension. The court ruled in favor of the CBD, immediately nullifying the licenses extensions. In 2017, Lockheed Martin would once again request for a license extension for the same two sections of the zone, with NOAA again approving them, but having received the necessary EIS.
In September 2014, President Obama expanded the Pacific Remote Islands Monument, initially created by President George W. Bush, via the Antiquities Act of 1906. By doing this, the area for prospective seabed mining exploration in the Pacific Ocean was significantly reduced due to the new protections. Obama would repeat this process on a larger scale two years later with both the creation of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, and the expansion of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, further decreasing the possible mining areas in both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. Following the election of Donald J. Trump as president in 2017, attempts were made to rollback these protections by presidential action, while New England and Mid-Atlantic fishermen challenged Obama's use of the Antiquities Act to create the Atlantic marine national monument off Massachusetts. The federal courts, however, rejected the fishermen's argument that since the U.S. EEZ is subject only to sovereign rights and not national ownership under international law the Antiquities Act cannot be used to protect marine ecosystems from extractive activity.
In March 2018, research was published that concluded that deep seabed mining cannot be attained without significant net biodiversity loss, even with the strictest of measurements being in place. Eight months later, the Trump Administration released an ocean science and technology report summarizing the goals for ocean research over the next decade, including goals for deep seabed mining research. A year later, the Trump administration released a fact sheet and an presidential memorandum placing a focus on ocean exploration and seafloor mapping of the EEZ off the Alaskan coasts in order to examine the bathymetry for resources within the EEZ, including critical minerals for future potential seabed mining operations.
Freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea
In marine-related foreign relations, President Obama authorized additional operations, known as FONOPs, under the U.S. Navy's [Freedom of Navigation Program]. The U.S. Navy carries out FONOPs in maritime spaces that are subject to claims of jurisdiction or sovereign rights by coastal States which the U.S. believes are excessive and infringe upon the freedom of navigation and overflight. These excessive claims have often been based on the application of [straight baselines] that depart appreciably from the general direction of the claiming nation's coastline or that do not enclose locally used waters along a deeply indented or island-studded coastline.  FONOPs during the Obama Administration focused on the semi-enclosed [South China Sea] and China's broad but ambiguous maritime claims asserted through a series of nine, dashed lines. In the decades-long [Spratly Islands dispute], the U.S. has avoided taking a position on the [territorial disputes in the South China Sea]. Following China's 2009 submission of a "note verbale" to the [U.N. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf] opposing the joint submission of extended continental shelf claims filed by Malaysia and Vietnam and claiming "indisputable sovereignty" based upon historic rights within a [Nine-dashed line], the U.S. State Department published an analysis of this assertion in its [Limits in the Sea] series. The report concluded that China's claims were contrary to established principles of international law. In 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration released the long-awaited decision of the special arbitral tribunal established under UNCLOS's Annex VII upon the application of the Philippines. This case, [Philippines v. China], revolved around the actions by China to interfere with fishing activities in its EEZ in the area of submerged reefs and coral atolls that China built up into military bases through extensive land reclamation activities. The U.S. was not a party to the [South China Sea Arbitration], but the dispute concerned Chinese claims the U.S. has opposed through FONOPs by warships and overflight and through diplomatic protests. The Arbitral Tribunal found that the maritime features that China had reclaimed were not naturally formed islands entitled to an EEZ and continental shelf but had been "rocks" as that term is used in UNCLOS Article 121, paragraph 3, known as the [regime of islands]. In a much discussed decision, the tribunal concluded that there was no evidence that any of the features had supported a stable human community "without external additions."
Global Moratorium on Commercial Whaling
The Obama administration continued the diplomatic project of the George W. Bush administration to seek a compromise on the issue of scientific whaling by the Japanese whaling fleet operating in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. This sanctuary, as well as zero catch quotas for all large whales, was adopted by the International Whaling Commission (IWC). The goal of U.S. diplomacy was to keep Japan from renouncing the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) it had been a party to for many decades. Japan's efforts at the meetings of the IWC had failed, sometimes only narrowly, to remove the zero quotas from the ICRW's Schedule and to apply revised management procedures adopted by the IWC to set sustainable use quotas for Antarctic minke whale populations. US proposals for a compromise, for a 'future role of the IWC' in cetacean conservation, were debated at IWC meetings in 2010 and 2012.
In its 2014 decision in the case of Whaling in the Antarctic, Australia v. Japan: New Zealand Intervening [Japan whaling case] the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Japan's program of granting special permits for lethal research, known as JARPA II, pursuant to article VIII of the whaling convention (ICRW), was not whaling for purposes of scientific research. After the ICJ's decision, the U.S. opposed efforts by Japan to limit the impact of the decision on the consideration of future research programs conducted by Japan. Late in 2018, Japan announced its withdrawal from the IWC and plan to recommence commercial whaling in Japan's EEZ and territorial waters. Scholars noted that this action raised questions regarding the implications of [UNCLOS Article 65] on whaling in the EEZ. Article 65 states that "Nothing in this Part [on the EEZ regime] restricts the right of a coastal State or the competence of an international organization, as appropriate, to prohibit, limit or regulate the exploitation of marine mammals more strictly than provided for in this Part. States shall cooperate with a view to the conservation of marine mammals and in the case of cetaceans shall in particular work through appropriate international organizations for their conservation, management and study." In Article 62, the duty of the coastal State is to "promote optimum utilization of the living resources in the EEZ without prejudice to article 61." That article requires, inter alia, that the coastal State shall ensure, using the best scientific evidence available to it, that living resources are not endangered by over-exploitation, and cooperates with the appropriate international organizations to that end.
It is not known if members of the U.S. Congress considered resolutions in 2019 and 2020 calling on the then-present administration to invoke provisions of the Pelly Amendment. This U.S. law allows the levying of trade sanctions in the form of import bans against nations that undermine international conservation agreements. In the past, violations of agreements that have triggered certification and possible trade sanctions have included violations of the ICRW, which establishes the IWC and its schedule of quotas and regulations, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which bans trade between parties in whale meat or other products. During the Obama administration, Iceland started a new program of commercial whaling with a view towards sales to Japan, triggering calls from conservation groups for the U.S. to levy trade sanctions under the Pelly Amendment. In 2011, in a message to Congress, President Obama concluded that further diplomatic efforts would be undertaken to end [Icelandic whaling] before trade sanctions would be imposed against that Atlantic nation.
Marine Protected Areas in the EEZ
The Obama administration set an important international precedent for ocean conservation and protection of sensitive marine environments in the expansion of the no-take MPAs in the U.S. EEZs around the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands archipelago and Line Islands in the Pacific Ocean. The U.S. was then involved indirectly in the U.K.'s establishment of a vast marine protected area in the EEZ around the Chagos Islands archipelago in the Indian Ocean. The U.K.'s protected area excluded from the MPA the waters around Diego Garcia, an atoll that the U.S. leases from the U.K. government for use as a naval base. An UNCLOS tribunal ruled in Mauritius v. U.K. that the protected area was wrongly established in light of Britain's commitment to return the Chagos islands and their surrounding waters to Mauritius once they were no longer needed. Consultations with Mauritius prior to the Protected Area's creation were perfunctory and in violation of UNCLOS duties to consult and behave in good faith with respect to the rights of other coastal states.
The U.S. actively supported the creation of MPAs in the waters surrounding Antarctica at meetings of CCAMLR, the commission created by agreement to manage and protect the living resources of the Southern Ocean. Krill fisheries in the Southern Ocean have expanded in recent years as have fisheries for Antarctic toothfish.


Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation

The Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation (Meso Foundation, formerly MARF) is a privately funded nonprofit organization that funds mesothelioma research, provides services to patients, educates the public, and advocates in Washington, DC, for governmental funding for mesothelioma research. The organization's mission is to eradicate mesothelioma, a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos, as a life-ending disease.
Of its donors, 65% are individuals personally affected by mesothelioma. The remaining 35% include pharmaceutical companies, labor unions, plaintiff and defendant attorneys, and companies that have manufactured asbestos products.
To date, the foundation has funded over $10.5 million in clinical research and is the host of the annual "International Symposium on Malignant Mesothelioma". The organization was founded in 1999 and became tax-exempt in 2000. The organization's board of directors is composed by Marjorie Z. Zauderer, MD, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Chair; Jessica Blackford-Cleeton; Cheryl Bruner, Esq.; Keith Cengel, MD, PhD, University of Pennsylvania; Patrick Forde, MD, Johns Hopkins University; Jason Foster, MD, University of Nebraska; Randall Krocka, Sheet Metal Occupational Health Institute (SMOHIT); Aaron Mansfield, MD, Mayo Clinic; Shani Nembhard, Esq.; Sanjay Popat, MD, PhD, The Royal Marsden; R. Taylor Ripley, MD, Baylor University; Buerkley Rose, MSN, RN, University of Chicago; Boris Sepesi, MD, MD Anderson Cancer Center; Daniel Sterman, MD, New York University; James Stevenson, MD, Cleveland Clinic; Antoinette Wozniak, MD, University of Pittsburgh; Bill Ziegler.


Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court concerning whether federal law restricted the United States Navy's ability to use sonar during drills given the possibility of a harmful effect on marine mammals such as whales.
In balancing military preparedness against environmental concerns, the majority came down solidly on the side of national security. Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his opinion, “the most serious possible injury would be harm to an unknown number of marine mammals that they study and observe”. By contrast, he continued, “forcing the Navy to deploy an inadequately trained antisubmarine force jeopardizes the safety of the fleet”.
Background and procedural history.
The U.S. Navy had scheduled 14 training exercises through January 2009 off the coast of Southern California involving the use of “mid-frequency active sonar” to detect enemy submarines. Environmentalists argued that the sonar's high decibel levels may have a deafening effect on whales. They said studies conducted around the world have shown the piercing underwater sounds cause whales to flee in panic or to dive too deeply. Whales have been found beached in Greece, the Canary Islands, and in the Bahamas after sonar was used in the area, and necropsies showed signs of internal bleeding near the ears.
In February 2007, however, the U.S. Navy published an environmental impact assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that found that the use of mid-frequency active sonar would cause minimal harm to marine mammals. The Navy, represented by Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre, "highlight[ed] that there was an 'absence' of injury to marine mammals in Southern California despite forty years of Navy training in the area".
The petitioners were mostly environmental groups, including Natural Resources Defense Council and Jean-Michel Cousteau's Ocean Futures Society, among others. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the exercises on the ground that they violated NEPA and other environmental laws.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted a preliminary injunction barring conduct of the exercises. On remand from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the district court modified the preliminary injunction to allow the Navy to use sonar if it used mitigation measures. On the Navy’s second appeal, challenging two of the mitigation measures, the Ninth Circuit—"widely regarded as an environmentally friendly"—affirmed the modified injunction, noting that the plaintiffs (petitioners in the Supreme Court) had carried their burden of showing a “possibility” of irreparable injury and that the balance of hardships weighed in favor of plaintiffs.
Opinion of the court.
The majority opinion held that as an initial matter the Ninth Circuit’s “possibility” test for issuance of a preliminary injunction is too lenient; plaintiffs must show that irreparable injury is “likely” in the absence of an injunction. However, the Court continued, even if plaintiffs had shown irreparable injury (and, too, likelihood of success on the merits), it is “plainly outweighed” by the Navy’s interest in effective, realistic training of its sailors. That factor alone requires denial of the requested injunctive relief. For the plaintiffs, the most serious possible injury would be the loss of ability to observe an unknown number of marine mammals. In light of the foregoing, the Court reversed the decision below and vacated the preliminary injunction. The Court technically did not address the merits of the lawsuit—that is, whether the training exercises had violated NEPA or the other federal environmental laws.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent, joined by Justice David Souter, that sided with the Ninth Circuit. She found that despite the importance of the U.S. Navy’s training exercises, they did not trump the considerations of environmental harm mandated by NEPA.
Comments.
A report published in 2009 by the Congressional Research Service noted that the Supreme Court accepted the case "as a challenge to a preliminary injunction, rather than to the merits of petitioners’ statutory claims". However, the report observed that "the Court made clear, however, that its perception of an overriding national security interest in the challenged training exercises should lead the district court to reject a final injunction as well, in the event the military is found to have violated an environmental statute".
This was the first time the United States successfully got the judiciary to reject the Ninth Circuit’s “mere possibility” test for issuing injunctions.
Other commentators called it "a dangerous precedent" and "a troubling example of unquestioned deference to an invocation of military necessity at the expense of the environment" and said that it "signal[ed] a marked shift from lower courts’ treatment of NEPA injunctions, raising questions about the availability of restraining orders for NEPA violations in the future".


Polish American Immigration and Relief Committee

The Polish American Immigration and Relief Committee, or PAIRC, was formed in 1946 by Monsignor Feliks Burant. The purpose of this organization was to help create relief for the Polish refugees that were in Western Europe and helping them immigrate to the western countries.
History.
Reverend Monsignor Feliks Burant was a member of the Polish Roman Alliance, Polish Roman Catholic Union of America, the Polish Legion of American Veterans, and other such organizations. After the start of World War II and the involvement of America into the war, he then helped form a new organization with the help all of the positions that he had held within the Polish community. It was not until the year 1946 that he had come up with the idea of PAIRC to help the refugees. The first meeting help by Reverend Burant was held on December 1946, and they came up with these three basic goals for the organization.
PAIRC had received funds from various other organizations which lead up to around $66,500 in the months from February 1947 to October 1948. In the years from 1948-1949 they had received around $4,000 a month for helping the Polish immigrants.
As this organization continued to grow they had sure that each Polish immigrant that entered received a hot meal and a bed to sleep in upon arrival. But with the number of people that were coming over they had proposed a new tactic of organizing professional courses to help ease any of the uncertainty of any of the new immigrants that came over. As a result, this strengthen the Polish ethnic group that was beginning to form in the United States.
On February 6, 1951 an agreement was signed between the National Catholic Welfare Conference, the War Relief Services, and PAIRC; which was then called the American Commission for the Relief of Polish Immigrants. This allowed for the following procedures:
This had set the PAIRC to become a real asset to immigration within the United States, as they were even approved by NCWC, and this partnership would continue until the 1990s.


Operational instruments of the Royal Observer Corps

The Royal Observer Corps (ROC) was a civil defence organisation operating in the United Kingdom between October 1925 and 31 December 1995, when the Corps' civilian volunteers were stood down. (ROC headquarters staff at RAF Bentley Priory stood down on 31 March 1996). Composed mainly of civilian spare-time volunteers, ROC personnel wore a Royal Air Force (RAF) style uniform and latterly came under the administrative control of RAF Strike Command and the operational control of the Home Office. Civilian volunteers were trained and administered by a small cadre of professional full-time officers under the command of the Commandant Royal Observer Corps; a serving RAF Air Commodore.
This sub article lists and describes the instruments used by the ROC in their nuclear detection and reporting role during the Cold War period.
Initial detection of nuclear bursts on the UK.
Atomic Weapons Detection Recognition and Estimation of Yield known as AWDREY was a desk mounted automatic instrument, located at controls, that detected nuclear explosions and indicated the estimated size in megatons. Operating by measuring the intense flashes emitted by a nuclear explosion, together with a unit known as DIADEM which measured Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP), the instruments were tested daily by wholetime ROC officers and regularly reacted to the EMP from lightning strikes during thunderstorms. AWDREY was designed and built by the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston and tested for performance and accuracy on real nuclear explosions at the 1957 Kiritimati (or Christmas Island) nuclear bomb test (after being mounted on board a ship). Reports following a reading on AWDREY were prefixed with the codewords "Tocsin Bang".
The Bomb Power Indicator or BPI consisted of a peak overpressure gauge with a dial that would register when the pressure wave from a nuclear explosion passed over the post. When related to the distance of the explosion from the post this pressure would indicate the power of the explosion. Reports following a reading on the BPI were preceded by the codeword "Tocsin".
The Ground Zero Indicator, or GZI or shadowgraph, consisted of four horizontally mounted cardinal compass point pinhole cameras within a metal drum, each 'camera' contained a sheet of photosensitive paper on which were printed horizontal and vertical calibration lines. The flash from a nuclear explosion would produce a mark on one or two of the papers within the drum. The position of the mark enabled the bearing and height of the burst to be estimated. With triangulation between neighbouring posts these readings would give an accurate height and position. The altitude of the explosion was important because a ground or near ground burst would produce radioactive fallout, whereas an air burst would produce only short distance and short lived initial radiations (but no fallout).
Static measurement of ionising radiation.
The Radiac Survey Meter No 2 or RSM was a 1955-meter which used an ionisation chamber to measure gamma radiation, it could measure beta, by removing the base-plate and opening the beta shield. This meter suffered from a number of disadvantages: it required three different types of batteries, of which two were obsolete and had to be manufactured to special order, the circuit included a single electrometer valve or tube. These were favored as they had been tested on fallout in Australia after the Operation Buffalo nuclear tests, and remained in use until 1982 by commissioning a manufacturer to regularly produce special production runs of the obsolete batteries. Within the ROC the RSM was only used at post sites for three years when it was superseded in 1958 by the FSM and the RSM retained only for post attack mobile monitoring missions.
The Fixed Survey Meter or FSM was introduced in 1958. For the first time it was possible to operate the unit from within the Monitoring Post or Group HQ using an external Geiger Muller Probe connected via coaxial cable and mounted to a telescopic rod and protected on the surface by a polycarbonate dome. The FSM used the same obsolete high voltage batteries as the RSM.
In 1985 this instrument was replaced by the PDRM82(F). The PDRM82(F) was the fixed desktop version of the PDRM82. It gave more accurate readings and used standard 'C' cell torch batteries that lasted many times longer, up to 400 hours of operation. The compact and robust instruments were housed in sturdy orange coloured polycarbonate cases and had clear liquid crystal displays. The PDRM82(F) could also be operated from within the Monitoring Post or Group HQ as before, using an external Geiger Muller Probe connected via coaxial cable. The telescopic rod, mounting bracket and polycarbonate dome used by the earlier FSM remained in service and continued to be used with the PDRM82(F).
Portable measurement of radiation during Mobile Monitoring missions.
The Radiac Survey Meter No 2 or RSM was a 1955-meter which measured gamma and beta radiation. Having been superseded within the ROC by the Fixed Survey Meter the RSM remained in use only for post attack mobile monitoring missions in a post attack period. Image can be seen in ‘Static measurement of ionising radiation’ section.
The Radiac Survey Meter, Lightweight, MkVI, produced by the AVO company (The MkIII and MkIV were also available) were issued to the ROC in the mid-late 1960s, but were not regarded favourable due to using almost obsolete Mallory batteries and were ionisation type meters that measured gamma radiation.
The PDRM82 or Portable Dose Rate Meter was the standard portable version of the new meters, that were manufactured by Plessey and introduced during the 1980s, giving more accurate readings and using standard 'C' cell torch batteries that lasted many times longer, up to 400 hours of operation. The compact and robust instruments were housed in sturdy orange coloured polycarbonate cases and had clear liquid crystal displays. The Radiac sensor was self-contained within the casing.
Measurement of personal absorptions.
The Dosimeter pocket meters were issued to individual observers for measuring their personal levels of radiation absorption during operations. Three different grades of dosimeter were used, depending on ambient radiation levels. The original hand wound and temperamental dosimeter charging units (Charging Unit, Individual, Dosimeter No.1 & No.2) were replaced during the 1980s by a battery operated automatic charging unit (EAL Type N.105A).


Binapacryl

Binapacryl was used as a miticide and fungicide. Chemically, it is an ester derivative of dinoseb. Although binapacryl has low toxicity itself, it is readily metabolized to form dinoseb, which is highly toxic.
International trade in binapacryl is regulated by the Rotterdam Convention; it has been withdrawn as a pesticide, since products were highly toxic to mammals, fish and aquatic invertebrates.


Yfoundations

Yfoundations is a peak body organisation of youth homelessness services in New South Wales, Australia. For over 40 years, Yfoundations has served as the NSW peak body representing children and young people at risk of and experiencing homelessness, as well as the services that provide direct support to them.
We aim to create a future without youth homelessness by providing a voice for young people experiencing and at risk of homelessness. We work collaboratively with service providers, NGOs, government departments and community members to provide research, sector development and policy advice, health projects and services for young people.
Founding.
Yfoundations was founded in 1979 by eighteen youth homelessness services in New South Wales. The organisation was initially called Youth Refuge Action Group (YRAG), and changed its name several times over the years, including YRA, YRAA, YAA, and presently, Yfoundations. The organisation's founding members include Caretakers Cottage, Taldumande Youth Services, and Young People's Refuge, the first of the NSW youth refuges.


Catholic Legal Immigration Network

Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. "(commonly referred to as CLINIC)" is the USA’s largest network of non-profit immigration programs. In its 1986 pastoral statement “Together a New People,” the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) observed that the church’s ministry to immigrants reflects the “biblical understanding of the justice of God reaching out to all peoples and rectifying the situation of the poor, the orphans, the widows, the disadvantaged, and especially in the Old Testament, the alien and the stranger.” Two years later, USCCB established CLINIC as a legally distinct 501(c)(3) non-profit organization to support a rapidly growing need for community-based programs dedicated to serve indigent and low-income immigrants. CLINIC's network originally comprised seventeen diocesan affiliates and has since increased to over 200 Catholic and community-based immigration programs with 290 field offices in 47 states, Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico. In addition, the network affiliates employ roughly 1,200 Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) accredited attorneys who serve over 600,000 low-income immigrants each year. CLINIC affiliated agencies represent low-income immigrants without reference to their race, religion, gender, ethnic group, or other distinguishing characteristics.
Mission statement.
"Embracing the Gospel value of welcoming the stranger, CLINIC promotes the dignity and protects the rights of immigrants in partnership with a dedicated network of Catholic and community legal immigration programs."