Biosecurity, as conceptualized, is a set of preventive measures designed to reduce the risk of transmission of infectious diseases in crops and livestock, quarantined pests, invasive alien species, living modified organisms. The emerging nature of biosecurity threats means that small scale risks blow up thus an effective policy becomes a challenge for there are limitations on time and resources available for analysing threats and estimating the likelihood of their occurrence. Biosecurity is defined differently according to various disciplines; the term was first used by the environmental communities. Starting from the late 1990s in response to the threat of biological terrorism, biosecurity encompasses the prevention of the intentional removal of biological materials from research laboratories; these preventive measures are a combination of systems and practices put into its place at bioscience laboratories to prevent the use of dangerous pathogens and toxins for malicious use, as well as by customs agents and agricultural and natural resource managers to prevent the spread of these biological agents.
Advances in technology have meant that many civilian research projects in medicine have the potential to be used in military applications and biosecurity protocols are used to prevent dangerous biological materials from falling into the hands of malevolent parties. The National Academy of Sciences define biosecurity as "security against the inadvertent, inappropriate, or intentional malicious or malevolent use of dangerous biological agents or biotechnology, including the development, stockpiling, or use of biological weapons as well as outbreaks of newly emergent and epidemic disease". Biosecurity requires the cooperation of scientists, policy makers, security engineers, law enforcement officials. Controversial experiments in synthetic biology, including the synthesis of poliovirus from its genetic sequence, the modification of H5N1 for airborne transmission in mammals, led to calls for tighter controls on the materials and information used to perform similar feats. Ideas include better enforcement by national governments and private entities concerning shipments and downloads of such materials, registration or background check requirements for anyone handling such materials.
Health security or biosecurity issues have not been considered as an international security issue in the traditional view of international relations. However, some changes in trend have contributed to inclusion of biosecurity in discussions of security; as time progressed, there was a movement towards securitization. Non-traditional security issues such as climate change, organized crime and landmines came to be included in the definition of international security. There was a general realization that the actors in the international system not only involved nation-states but included international organizations and individuals, which ensured the security of various actors within each nation became an important agenda. Biosecurity is one of the issues to be securitized under this trend. On January 10, 2000, the UN Security Council convened to discuss HIV/AIDS as a security issue in Africa and designated it a threat in the following month; the UNDP Millennium Development Goals recognize health issues as international security issue.
Several instances of epidemics that followed such as SARS increased awareness of health security. Several factors have rendered biosecurity issues more severe. There is a continuing advancement of biotechnology which increases the possibility for malevolent use, evolution of infectious diseases, globalizing force, making the world more interdependent and more susceptible to spread of epidemics; some uncertainties about the policy implementation for biosecurity remain for future. In order to plan out preventive policies, policy makers need to be able to somewhat predict the probability and assess the risks; the policy choices they make to address an immediate threat could pose another threat in the future, facing an unintended trade-off. Policy makers are constantly looking for a more effective way to coordinate international actors- governmental organizations and NGOs- and actors from different nations so that they could tackle the problem of resource overlap. Components of a laboratory biosecurity program include: Physical security Personnel security Material control and accountability Transport security Information security Program management Animal biosecurity is the product of all actions undertaken by an entity to prevent introduction of disease agents into a specific area.
Animal biosecurity differs from biosecurity which are measures taken to reduce the risk of infectious agent theft and dispersal by means of bioterrorism. Animal biosecurity is a comprehensive approach, encompassing different means of prevention and containment. A critical element in animal biosecurity, biocontainment, is the control of disease agents present in a particular area, works to prevent novel transmissions. Animal biosecurity may protect organisms from infectious agents or noninfectious agents such as toxins or pollutants, can be executed in areas as large as a nation or as small as a local farm. Animal biosecurity takes into account the epidemiological triad for disease occurrence: the individual host, the disease, the environment in contributing to disease susceptibility, it aims to improve nonspecific immunity of the host to resist the introduct
Ketevan was a Georgian princess royal of the Bagrationi dynasty. She was a daughter of Teimuraz II and sister of Heraclius II and married the Afsharid Iranian royal Adil Shah in 1737. Ketevan was the eldest daughter of Teimuraz, of the royal house of Kakheti, by his second wife, Princess Tamar of Kartli. Teimuraz at war to secure his throne, was summoned by his suzerain Nader Shah, the Afsharid ruler of Iran, in 1737. In a show of loyalty, Teimuraz had to agree on Nader's terms, which included the marriage of Teimuraz's daughter Ketevan to Nader's nephew Ali-qoli Khan and summoning his son Heraclius to join Nader's campaign to India, the deal which Teimuraz would lament in his autobiographical poem; the marriage was celebrated at Mashhad, attended by Teimuraz and his entourage of 2,500. Ketevan's subsequent fate is unknown, her husband, Ali-qoli Khan, maintained friendly relations with Teimuraz and the Georgians. He relied on Sohrab Khan, a vizier of Georgian background, exchanged gifts with his father-in-law during his brief reign over the crumbling Afsharid empire as Adil Shah from 1747 to 1748.
Adil Shah was overthrown by his brother Ebrahim Khan and killed in 1749
A running bounce, or bounce, is a skill in the sport of Australian rules football when a player, while running, bounces the ball on the ground and back in their hands. Regarded as "the first distinctively Victorian rule" in the code of Victorian rules football, the running bounce was first trialed in 1865 and formalised on 8 May 1866 by a committee of Victorian club delegates chaired by H. C. A. Harrison as a way to slow down the player in possession of the ball and to create more opportunities for a turn over, thus helping to increase the number of disposals and encourage more dynamic team play. Harrison himself was one of the fastest runners in the game, known for his ability to evade opponents while running the length of the field ball-in-hand. Arthur Conan Doyle considered it "very sporting of... to introduce the bouncing rule, which robbed him of his advantage." The original 1866 rule stipulated that "no player shall run with the ball unless he strikes it against the ground every five of six yards".
The rule was well-received by players and spectators alike, considered attractive to watch. Football is played with an ellipsoidal ball, rather than a spherical one, so the technique for bouncing one back to oneself while running requires practice. To execute a running bounce, a player should: Hold the ball in his preferred hand. Executed properly by a player running at a normal pace, the ball should bounce directly back into their waiting hands. Players need to readjust the distance of their bounces; when running faster, the ball must be bounced further in front of the player, when running slower, the ball must be bounced closer. At slow or stationary paces, this correction is more difficult, because it is difficult to angle the ball for the return bounce at such a short distance. Australian children learn how to execute running bounces over a few years while they play at school and in junior levels, so to top-level players, the running bounce is a natural skill. Bouncing an oval-shaped ball is still a volatile skill.
Top level players will lose the ball while bouncing it, by accidentally bouncing the ball on its point, only to see it skid away from him or her. The rules of football state that a player running on the field with the ball must take a running bounce at least once every fifteen metres. If they run too far without taking a running bounce, the umpire pays a free kick for running too far to the opposition at the position where the player oversteps his limit; the umpire signals running too far by rolling their clenched fists around each other – similar to false starts in American football, or traveling in basketball. While the distance of 15 metres is explicit in the rules, the lack of markings on the ground makes it impossible for umpires to judge these free kicks. Regular watchers of football have a feel for the average time between running bounces which feels right, umpires penalise players when they exceed this by more than a few steps. Instead of executing a running bounce, players may touch the ball onto the ground.
It must be touched with both hands or a free kick will be rewarded to the opposing team. This has the disadvantage of taking much longer, increasing the risk of being tackled by an opponent, but it has the advantage of reducing the risk of making a bad bounce and dropping the ball; this technique is used on rainy days when the mud or water on the ground makes a regulation bounce much more difficult, but is used by some players in lower levels, who have yet to master the running bounce. Running bounces are most made by attacking half-back flankers known as link-men, or by outside/receiving midfielders, they accept the ball from a rebound, have wide space in front of them to run into, giving teammates time to create options at half-forward. Link-men Jason Gram of St Kilda and Kade Simpson of Carlton, midfielders Nathan Foley and Brett Deledio of Richmond were both in the AFL-wide top 5 for running bounces in 2007; the requirement that a player performs a specialist skill in order to be allowed to run with the ball is common and necessary in many sports.
Introducing these skills prevents players from taking the ball in hand and running the length of the field unchallenged. In this way, the running bounce is related to: dribbling in basketball; the running bounce should not be confused with the ball-up often referred to as a bounce. The ball-up is an unrelated umpiring skill used to restart play from a neutral contest
Helgi Skúlason was an Icelandic actor and stage director. Helgi was born in Keflavík and attended the district school at Laugarvatn, he began his career with the National Theatre. In 1959 he joined the Reykjavík Theatre Company, remaining with that company until 1976 as an actor and director and serving terms as its president and on its board, until he rejoined the National Theatre in 1976, he directed a number of productions for the RÚV Playhouse. In 1972 he was its first chairman. In 1964 he won the Silver Lamp Award for the best performance by an actor for his role as Franz in an adaptation of Jean-Paul Sartre's The Condemned of Altona, he played major roles in the Icelandic films When the Raven Flies and its sequels In the Shadow of the Raven and The White Viking and the 1987 Norwegian film Pathfinder. Helgi was married to Helga Bachmann an actor, they had two sons and a daughter together, Helgi had a stepdaughter from before his marriage to Helga. Their son Skúli Helgason has twice been elected as a representative in the Althing.
1984 - When the Raven Flies 1987 - Pathfinder 1988 - In the Shadow of the Raven 1991 - The White Viking 1992 - As In Heaven 1997 - A Legend to Ride aka 13th Rider / Pony Track Helgi Skúlason on IMDb Helgi Skúlason at the Swedish Film Database
Barney and Smith Car Company was a railroad car manufacturer in Dayton, Ohio. Founded in 1849 by Eliam Eliakim Barney and Ebenezer Thresher as Thresher, Packard & Company, it changed names as partners came and went: 1850: E. Thresher & Company 1854: Barney, Parker & Company - after Caleb Parker joined the firm 1867: The Barney & Smith Manufacturing Company - joined by E. E. Barney, Preserved Smith, J. D. Platt, E. J. Barney and A. E. E. Stevens 1892: The Barney & Smith Car Company Barney & Smith faced challenges from bigger railcar makers in the late 1890s and early 1900s and went into receivership in 1913, when the Great Dayton Flood damaged its facilities. Railway passenger cars electric street railways interurban railcars wooden cars for Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad in Chicago railroad chapel cars List of rolling stock manufacturers A History of the Barney & Smith Car Company Barney and Smith Company
The Battle of Bure was part of the Battle of the Bulge, which lasted from 3 to 5 January 1945 during the final months of the Second World War. The battle was fought as part of the allied counterattack to rid the German held ground of the'Bulge' which forced them on the defensive. British XXX Corps with British 6th Airborne Division attached was tasked with clearing the area East of Dinant, Rochefort and Bure. In a tough battle Bure was secured after nearly three days of heavy fighting whilst Gupont and Rochefort were both cleared with little resistance and the advance continued. In December 1944, the German armies launched a massive counter-attack through the forests of the Ardennes; the plan was to drive across the River Meuse and on to Antwerp to split the Allied armies and their lines of communication. As part of the First Allied Airborne Army, 6th Airborne Division was available as a component of the strategic reserve for the Allied forces in northwest Europe; the other two divisions available in reserve, the American 82nd and 101st Airborne, were at Rheims in northern France.
A the same time the 6th Airborne rested and re-trained after their success in Normandy was sent from England by sea to Belgium to assist in the defence. On Christmas Day the 6th Airborne Division moved up to take position in front of the spearhead of the German advance. By Boxing Day they had reached their allocated places in the defensive line between Dinant and Namur along the River Meuse. Soon after British XXX corps eliminated the most furthest Western German penetration and thus advanced; the 3rd Parachute Brigade were on the left, 5th Parachute Brigade on the right, the 6th Airlanding Brigade in reserve. By the time they arrived. Just before New Year's Day the brigades were ordered to advance against the tip of the German salient. On 2 January 1945, they were to capture the villages of Bure and Grupont supported by the Sherman tanks of the Fife and Forfar Yeomanry detached from the 11th Armoured Division. Once these had been captured, a crossing over the River Lomme would be seized in order to halt any German breakthrough and thus put them on the defensive.
The following day the 13th Parachute Battalion of the 5th Parachute Brigade left Resteigne on foot and at 13:00 started the attack on Bure. Supported by the tanks,'A' Company was to secure the village, while'B' Company secured the high ground and'C' Company was in reserve; the attack was met with sustained heavy mortar and machine gun fire, supported by German armour and casualties began to rise in both companies. After being repelled they regrouped and attacked again and this time'A' Company managed to gain a foothold in the village while'B' Company reached the high ground by which it was able to enter Bure. At 17:00'C' Company was sent in to reinforce'A' and'B' Companies, who were holding half the village with difficulty but this time they were supported by combined tank and artillery fire. German counterattacks now began but the battalion was able to form a tight perimeter around half the village and develop strong points in all occupied buildings; as a result, they carried out fighting patrols and fought off four German counterattacks with one on'A' Company, only defeated when they called down artillery fire on their own positions.
In the closeness of the fighting, the paratroopers used their fighting knives to avoid giving away their locations and casualties could not be evacuated nor could supplies be brought forward. On 4 January the battalion was subjected to a continuous artillery barrage, fought off another five German counterattacks knocking out tanks with their PIATS. At one stage in the battle an ambulance did get in to Bure from which stepped a Sergeant of the 225th Field Ambulance from the Regimental Aid Post accompanied by a padre, it stopped a few yards from a German Tiger tank which had moved up to it pointing its gun through the drivers window, a German officer appeared who agreed in perfect English that the wounded could be collected but the ambulance was not to return. By now the town of Bure was nearly a heap of rubble but the Germans clung to the houses and ruins, hid in cellars and catacombs and sniping to the end. Tiger tanks were still operating in the village which made mopping up difficult. In the evening'C' Company from 2nd Battalion and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry from 6th Airlanding Brigade joined the 13th Parachute Battalion as reinforcements, in the early hours of 5 January, a determined attack by the Battalion succeeded in pushing the bulk of the Germans out of the village although one Tiger tank remained despite repeated PIAT attacks on it.
However, by 21:00 the last German outpost was eliminated by"A Company and the village was secured and German resistance ceased. During the same time the 7th Parachute Battalion had captured Grupont with only light resistance and with 5th Parachute Brigades objectives now taken the battle came to an end. In the fight to capture Bure and the surrounding villages, the units sustained heavy casualties; the 13th Parachute Battalion lost about a third its strength: seven officers and 182 enlisted. The 2nd Battalion, Ox and Bucks, lost 20 enlisted; the Fife and Forfar Yeomanry and 23rd Hussars suffered heavy casualties including the loss of sixteen Sherman tanks. The Belgian SAS lost three men during the action whilst supporting the attack on Bure; the 13th Parachute Battalion was pulled back from Bure and replaced by troops from the 29th Armoured Brigade. The men of 6th Airborne went on to liberate Wavreille, Jemelle, On, Nassogne, Masbourg, Amberloup, Marloie and Roy. At Bande on