A Review ofForensic Toxicology: Proceedings of the 25th International Meeting of the International Association of Forensic Toxicologists

1990 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 12919J
Author(s):  
Randall C. Baselt
Keyword(s):  
International Association ◽  
International Meeting

scholarly journals Felix Andries Vening Meinesz, 1887-1966

1967 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 294-308 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
International Association ◽  
The Other ◽  
International Meeting ◽  
Mountainous Regions ◽  
The Earth ◽  
Gravity Measurements ◽  
Vening Meinesz ◽  
Technological University

Felix Andries Vening Meinesz was born at Scheveningen on 30 July 1887. He was one of the four children of Sjoerd Anne Vening Meinesz by his marriage to the Honourable Miss C. A. C. den Tex. His father was mayor of the towns of Rotterdam (1880-1890) and Amsterdam (1891-1901). Vening Meinesz attended primary and secondary schools at Amsterdam and in 1905 enrolled as a student at the Technological University of Delft, where he graduated in civil engineering in 1910. Vening Meinesz was at once offered employment by The Netherlands Geodetic Committee and was requested to take charge of the gravity measurements in the Netherlands. His appointment followed on 1 October 1910. Shortly before his death he recalled the accidental character of this decision which so much influenced his career. The significance of Vening Meinesz’s task with The Netherlands Geodetic Committee will be better understood if one keeps track of the discussions during the meetings of the International Association of Geodesy held between 1885 and 1910. As argued by Helmert, the role of the direction and the intensity of gravity in determining the shape of the earth was being stressed more and more. Helmert himself frequently reported on the pendulum observations contributed by different countries. However, he considered it desirable to determine the earth’s shape not only by means of arc measurements on the continents, but also by means of gravity measurements in the ocean areas. He had already noticed the relation between the intensity of gravity and the local constitution of the earth’s crust; on the other hand he suggested that the geologists should be careful not to draw premature conclusions. Thus according to The Netherlands Geodetic Committee in a report of 1889 concerning an international meeting in Paris: ‘Communications on the investigation of the intensity and the direction of gravity were very important. These could be used as an example of what could be performed in the Netherlands in this respect. For, although because of the minor differences in elevation and the uniformity of the landscape in this country, probably the results to be expected will not be as important as those obtained in more mountainous regions, observations of this kind are desirable in addition to the work accomplished in Germany and France.’

The First Half-Century of the International Association of Sedimentologists (IAS) 1952-2002

2004 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerald Friedman
Keyword(s):  
International Association ◽  
International Meeting ◽  
International Union ◽  
Half Century ◽  
Sedimentary Petrology ◽  
The Future ◽  
International Geological ◽  
International Geological Congress

"On 1 September 1948, directly after the closing of the 18th International Geological Congress in London, UK, the British sedimentary petrologists, headed by P. Allen, arranged a meeting for the sedimentary petrologists who had participated in the Congress. P. Allen raised the following points for discussion: (a) is some sort of a international union in sedimentary petrology desirable? (b) Should some kind of international meeting of sedimentary petrologists be held regularly in the future?"

A Historical Review of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome in the “Guides Library”

2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Robert J. Barth
Keyword(s):  
Differential Diagnosis ◽  
Complex Regional Pain Syndrome ◽  
Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy ◽  
International Association ◽  
Historical Review ◽  
Pain Syndrome ◽  
Sixth Edition

Abstract Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a controversial, ambiguous, unreliable, and unvalidated concept that, for these very reasons, has been justifiably ignored in the “AMA Guides Library” that includes the AMAGuides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), the AMA Guides Newsletter, and other publications in this suite. But because of the surge of CRPS-related medicolegal claims and the mission of the AMA Guides to assist those who adjudicate such claims, a discussion of CRPS is warranted, especially because of what some believe to be confusing recommendations regarding causation. In 1994, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) introduced a newly invented concept, CRPS, to replace the concepts of reflex sympathetic dystrophy (replaced by CRPS I) and causalgia (replaced by CRPS II). An article in the November/December 1997 issue of The Guides Newsletter introduced CRPS and presciently recommended that evaluators avoid the IASP protocol in favor of extensive differential diagnosis based on objective findings. A series of articles in The Guides Newsletter in 2006 extensively discussed the shortcomings of CRPS. The AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, notes that the inherent lack of injury-relatedness for the nonvalidated concept of CRPS creates a dilemma for impairment evaluators. Focusing on impairment evaluation and not on injury-relatedness would greatly simplify use of the AMA Guides.

Challenges in the Diagnostic Conceptualization of CRPS-1 (Formerly Conceptualized as RSD)

2006 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-3, 9-12
Author(s):  
Robert J. Barth ◽  
Tom W. Bohr
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Complex Regional Pain Syndrome ◽  
Somatoform Disorders ◽  
International Association ◽  
Pain Syndrome ◽  
Somatoform Disorder ◽  
Syndrome Type ◽  
Previous Issue

Abstract From the previous issue, this article continues a discussion of the potentially confusing aspects of the diagnostic formulation for complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS-1) proposed by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), the relevance of these issues for a proposed future protocol, and recommendations for clinical practice. IASP is working to resolve the contradictions in its approach to CRPS-1 diagnosis, but it continues to include the following criterion: “[c]ontinuing pain, which is disproportionate to any inciting event.” This language only perpetuates existing issues with current definitions, specifically the overlap between the IASP criteria for CRPS-1 and somatoform disorders, overlap with the guidelines for malingering, and self-contradiction with respect to the suggestion of injury-relatedness. The authors propose to overcome the last of these by revising the criterion: “[c]omplaints of pain in the absence of any identifiable injury that could credibly account for the complaints.” Similarly, the overlap with somatoform disorders could be reworded: “The possibility of a somatoform disorder has been thoroughly assessed, with the results of that assessment failing to produce any consistencies with a somatoform scenario.” The overlap with malingering could be addressed in this manner: “The possibility of malingering has been thoroughly assessed, with the results of that assessment failing to produce any consistencies with a malingering scenario.” The article concludes with six recommendations, and a sidebar discusses rating impairment for CRPS-1 (with explicit instructions not to use the pain chapter for this purpose).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document