Establishing a regional interdisciplinary resilience center: a bottom-up approach.

Both natural and manmade disasters have severely impacted the region of Southeast Texas over the past few decades, and this has negatively affected the socio-economic well-being of the region. The state of Texas has suffered 200-250 billion dollars in damages from natural and manmade disasters since 2010. Given the region's strategic importance to the nation's energy and security, developing resilience knowledge and multi-disaster resilience research focused on issues pertaining to the region is needed. This paper describes the structure and process of building a center for multi-disaster resilience at a regional public university. By utilizing a bottom-up approach, the Center's mission and design are broadly democratized through the participation of a variety of scholars and various stakeholders with whom they interact. Resilience needs specific to the Southeast Texas region are examined, as is the relationship between resilience and the academic disciplines of the stakeholders involved. The issues of resilience in the region are discussed as well as the future steps for the Center's continued growth and development for the study of resilience.

Social vulnerability and disaster: understanding the perspectives of practitioners.

This paper seeks to understand how local emergency managers perceive and define social vulnerability. There has been a significant increase recently in the amount of research on social vulnerability, yet little is known about the extent to which that knowledge is being translated into practice. To address this void, the authors conducted semi-structured interviews with a sample of local emergency managers (N=24), asking them to describe what social vulnerability means to them. The analysis identified four primary perspectives on social vulnerability prevalent in the sample, pertaining to: (i) culture and poverty; (ii) a moral imperative; (iii) a lack of security; and (iv) a lack of knowledge and awareness. Although these practitioner viewpoints may not align perfectly with the definitions of social vulnerability predominant in the hazards and disasters literature, the results of this study do suggest a possible narrowing of the gap between research and practice as it relates to social vulnerability.

Chemical and olfactory characterization of odorous compounds and their precursors in the parotoid gland secretion of the green tree frog, Litoria caerulea.

When stressed or challenged by a predator, the Australian green tree frog, Litoria caerulea, emits a characteristic nutty odor from its parotoid glands. This study identifies the source of the odor as the cyclic amide 2-pyrrolidone (2-PyrO). In addition, we demonstrate the presence of 2-PyrO's straight chain form, gamma-aminobutyric acid or GABA, in the frog's glandular secretion and propose an odorant-precursor relationship. What role both compounds play in the frog's defensive strategy remains unknown. Prolonged exposure to the odor is shown to result in adverse effects that may be attributed to a GABAergic mechanism. It is our hypothesis, however, that the odor acts as an aposematic signal, indicating the toxicity of the frog's nonvolatile secretion.

Is unenhanced CT sufficient for evaluation of acute abdominal pain?

BACKGROUND: To determine whether intravenous contrast improves the ability of radiologists to establish the cause of acute abdominal pain after nondiagnostic or normal unenhanced CT. METHODS: Out of 164 consecutive emergency department patients presenting with less than 48 h of nontraumatic, acute abdominal pain, a confident diagnosis for cause of pain was made prospectively in 71/164 (43%) patients on these unenhanced scans by the monitoring radiologist. In the other 93 patients, our study sample, intravenous contrast-enhanced CT was obtained. At a later date, retrospectively, two experienced abdominal CT radiologists independently evaluated unenhanced CT scans alone for potential causes of pain and diagnostic confidence level on a 1-3 scale. At least 2 weeks later, intravenous enhanced and unenhanced scans were read side-by-side for the same assessment. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in diagnostic confidence levels comparing unenhanced CT alone (2.59) vs. intravenous enhanced and unenhanced CT together (2.64). Chi-square analysis found no significant difference in finding a cause for pain when intravenous contrast was added compared to the initial unenhanced scan alone. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous contrast did not significantly improve the ability of CT to establish a cause of abdominal pain after a negative or nondiagnostic unenhanced CT.