Mining Law in the United States

1998 ◽  
Vol 07 (04) ◽  
pp. 393-401
Author(s):  
Willam B. Prince
JOM ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 44-45
Author(s):  
Roderick G. Eggert

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 181
Author(s):  
Lusi Apriyani ◽  
Fahmi Yoesmar AR ◽  
Marta Erwandi

Indonesia is known as one of the richest countries for its biodiversity. Plants, animals, and forest are very diverse in every region in Indonesia. Unfortunately, from time to time the numbers of biodiversity have been decreased along with the development of Indonesia. Nowadays, numbers of Sumatera Tigers and Orang Utan are not more than 400 since they were traded, captured, and killed in the name of economic development. Even wildlife habitat, forest, were converted to non-forestry use. Theoretically, Indonesia has Conser-vation Act which is the Law Number 5 of 1990 on Conservation of Biodiversity and Ecosystem in which providing protection to the biodiversity. However, this law mostly talks about conservation system rather than providing legal protection to the wildlife and its habitat. In addition, the law seems to stand on its own, meaning only Biodiversity Law regulates protection to wildlife. Other acts like Forestry law, Environmental law, Plantation law, and Mining law do not provide wildlife protection. While both flora and fauna are the most vulnerable elements affected by activities which are regulated by those laws. The existence of the conditions above indicates that the legal protection of wildlife needs to be improved. One of the improvement efforts is to reform the Indonesian wildlife protection law. The law reform of Indonesia wildlife protection can be done through comparative approach toward legal framework of wildlife protection of Indonesian and United States.


Author(s):  
A. Hakam ◽  
J.T. Gau ◽  
M.L. Grove ◽  
B.A. Evans ◽  
M. Shuman ◽  
...  

Prostate adenocarcinoma is the most common malignant tumor of men in the United States and is the third leading cause of death in men. Despite attempts at early detection, there will be 244,000 new cases and 44,000 deaths from the disease in the United States in 1995. Therapeutic progress against this disease is hindered by an incomplete understanding of prostate epithelial cell biology, the availability of human tissues for in vitro experimentation, slow dissemination of information between prostate cancer research teams and the increasing pressure to “ stretch” research dollars at the same time staff reductions are occurring.To meet these challenges, we have used the correlative microscopy (CM) and client/server (C/S) computing to increase productivity while decreasing costs. Critical elements of our program are as follows:1) Establishing the Western Pennsylvania Genitourinary (GU) Tissue Bank which includes >100 prostates from patients with prostate adenocarcinoma as well as >20 normal prostates from transplant organ donors.


Author(s):  
Vinod K. Berry ◽  
Xiao Zhang

In recent years it became apparent that we needed to improve productivity and efficiency in the Microscopy Laboratories in GE Plastics. It was realized that digital image acquisition, archiving, processing, analysis, and transmission over a network would be the best way to achieve this goal. Also, the capabilities of quantitative image analysis, image transmission etc. available with this approach would help us to increase our efficiency. Although the advantages of digital image acquisition, processing, archiving, etc. have been described and are being practiced in many SEM, laboratories, they have not been generally applied in microscopy laboratories (TEM, Optical, SEM and others) and impact on increased productivity has not been yet exploited as well.In order to attain our objective we have acquired a SEMICAPS imaging workstation for each of the GE Plastic sites in the United States. We have integrated the workstation with the microscopes and their peripherals as shown in Figure 1.


2001 ◽  
Vol 15 (01) ◽  
pp. 53-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Rehfeld

Every ten years, the United States “constructs” itself politically. On a decennial basis, U.S. Congressional districts are quite literally drawn, physically constructing political representation in the House of Representatives on the basis of where one lives. Why does the United States do it this way? What justifies domicile as the sole criteria of constituency construction? These are the questions raised in this article. Contrary to many contemporary understandings of representation at the founding, I argue that there were no principled reasons for using domicile as the method of organizing for political representation. Even in 1787, the Congressional district was expected to be far too large to map onto existing communities of interest. Instead, territory should be understood as forming a habit of mind for the founders, even while it was necessary to achieve other democratic aims of representative government.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document