Year book and ... annual report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, Commerce, and Industries of the state of South Carolina.

Report year ends Dec. 31.

Population crisis : hearings ... Eighty-ninth Congress, first session, on S. 1676, bill to reorganize the Department of State and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Pt. 4, Appendix; pt. 5, Index--1965.

Review of Two Issues at the Long-Term Commitment Facilities, Department of Juvenile Justice: 1)Safety Threat to Employees & Juveniles; and 2)Event Reporting Process Integrity Allegations

The Legislative Oversight Committee of the South Carolina House of Representatives, referred allegations pertaining to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) which were generated during its ongoing oversight study of DJJ. Specifically, the safety issues focused on lack of control; lack of trust; and lack of adequate staffing. This review’s scope and objectives were: Investigate specific complainant allegations of DJJ employees underreporting, misreporting, or destroying ERs; Review the efficiency and effectiveness of DJJ’s event reporting process and follow-up on anomalies or potential patterns of systemic underreporting, misreporting, or missing ERs; and Assess juvenile and employee safety conditions through interviewing a cross-section of relevant employees, record review, and possibly an employee survey.

An Overview of Racial Disproportionality in Juvenile Arrests and Offenses in South Carolina

This report attempts to examine a very narrow, yet vital, segment of the criminal justice process, racial disproportionality among juvenile arrest and offense rates. The purpose of this report was to demonstrate the utility of South Carolina's incident based crime data, the South Carolina Incident Based Reporting System, as an analytical tool to address matters of policy relevance.

The Natural history of Enewetak Atoll / edited by Dennis M. Devaney ... [et al.] ; prepared by Office of Scientific and Technical Information, U.S. Department of Energy.

1

IPH response to Department of Health (UK) Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products

Enhanced tobacco control policies and programmes are an important component of any strategic approach to improving population health and tackling health inequalities. The consultation on standardised packaging of tobacco products in the UK is particularly timely in view of the recent publication of the Ten Year Tobacco Strategy for Northern Ireland (DHSSPS, 2012). In this strategy the Department expressed its support for the introduction of further measures to reduce the influence of tobacco advertising and promotion upon children e.g. the introduction of plain packaging for cigarettes and hand rolling tobacco.  IPH key points •    The extent of tobacco-related harm across the island of Ireland and across the UK is unacceptable. Increasingly comprehensive and effective tobacco-control interventions are required. •    IPH recommends the adoption of option 2: require standardised packaging of tobacco products. •    IPH acknowledges that as plain packaging has not yet been introduced in any country, it is not possible at this time to accurately forecast the extent and nature of this intervention on population level health outcomes in the UK context. •    The proposed approach appears comprehensive in addressing the direct and indirect ways in which elements of tobacco packaging can promote brand appeal and can portray impressions in respect of tobacco-related harm. Consideration should be given to include specific provisions relating to roll-your-own (RYO) tobacco packaging. Any approach needs to be regularly reviewed to take into account attempts to bypass restrictions and evaluate responses in respect of consumer choices. •    IPH considers that the introduction of plain packaging has the potential to support the achievement of the goals set out in the Ten Year Tobacco Control Strategy for Northern Ireland ( DHSSPS, 2012). •    Among children in Northern Ireland who reported trying their first cigarette, around one quarter were aged 11 or under and three quarters were 14 or under when they did so (DHSSPS, 2012).  The very young age of these children is concerning on many levels including their susceptibility to sophisticated branding and marketing techniques linked to tobacco packaging.

IPH response to Your Health is Your Wealth – Health and Wellbeing Framework 2012- 2020 (Department of Health)

The remit of the Institute of Public Health in Ireland (IPH) is to promote cooperation for public health between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in the areas of research and information, capacity building and policy advice. Our approach is to support Departments of Health and their agencies in both jurisdictions, and maximise the benefits of all-island cooperation to achieve practical benefits for people in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The Department of Health is developing a Health and Wellbeing policy to improve the health of the population and reduce health inequalities by addressing causes of preventable illnesses. The Policy Framework is at an advanced stage with a number of background analytical documents prepared and published on the Department website to allow views to be incorporated into final drafts.  IPH responded to the consultation call in 2011 and we welcome the placement of these supporting documents on the Department website with the request for additional comments.

IPH response to the Joint Committee on Health and Children and members of the Northern Ireland Assembly on “Cross-border cooperation on healthcare”

The Institute of Public Health in Ireland were asked to submit a paper on 'Cross-border cooperation on healthcare' for a joint meeting between the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children and the Northern Ireland Assembly Health Committee which took place in Leinster House on 1 March 2012. Key points from the submission included: o    The Institute of Public Health in Ireland (IPH) is an all-island organisation which promotes cooperation between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland with the aim of improving population health on the island and tackling health inequalities. IPH work is focused on addressing the causes of ill health rather than the design and delivery of treatment services. o    North/South cooperation on health was mandated under the Belfast Agreement in 1998 in five domains, including health promotion. IPH has supported the North South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in respect of the health promotion strand since inception. o    The Department of Health and Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety North-South Feasibility Study (December 2011) states that mutual benefits are most evident from cooperation in the areas of (i) anticipating trends and illnesses in a collective manner (ii) public health issues (iii) specialised services where the population or activity required to sustain the service cannot be met by either jurisdiction alone and (iv) in relation to those areas adjacent to the border. o    The European Directive on Cross-Border Healthcare will be implemented in the next few years which will have implications in relation to patients travelling for healthcare across the Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland border. o    IPH is supporting the development of new public health strategies in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland which are both due for publication this year. o    There are tangible benefits from cross-border cooperation in the health sector, both in public health and in health service planning and delivery and there are many examples of successful initiatives. However, developments are not occurring in the context of an agreed plan or overall strategic context and tend to be project-based and concentrated in border counties. o    Successful cross-border cooperation requires high level support and integration into departmental policy cycles. The provision of data on an all-island basis supports cross-border cooperation as does the operation of sustainable all-island organisations which can support research, evaluations and programmes. o    In the future, cross-border cooperation in health will be more effective if developed with a strategic planning process intrinsically linked to Departmental priorities. o    North-South cooperation in the areas of alcohol, obesity, tobacco health surveys and rare diseases will be particularly beneficial.

NanoImpactNet - Stakeholders' knowledge needs for research on the health and environmental impact of nanomaterials

NanoImpactNet (NIN) is a multidisciplinary European Commission funded network on the environmental, health and safety (EHS) impact of nanomaterials. The 24 founding scientific institutes are leading European research groups active in the fields of nanosafety, nanorisk assessment and nanotoxicology. This 4−year project is the new focal point for information exchange within the research community. Contact with other stakeholders is vital and their needs are being surveyed. NIN is communicating with 100s of stakeholders: businesses; internet platforms; industry associations; regulators; policy makers; national ministries; international agencies; standard−setting bodies and NGOs concerned by labour rights, EHS or animal welfare. To improve this communication, internet research, a questionnaire distributed via partners and targeted phone calls were used to identify stakeholders' interests and needs. Knowledge gaps and the necessity for further data mentioned by representatives of all stakeholder groups in the targeted phone calls concerned: potential toxic and safety hazards of nanomaterials throughout their lifecycles; fate and persistence of nanoparticles in humans, animals and the environment; risks associated to nanoparticle exposure; participation in the preparation of nomenclature, standards, methodologies, protocols and benchmarks; development of best practice guidelines; voluntary schemes on responsibility; databases of materials, research topics and themes. Findings show that stakeholders and NIN researchers share very similar knowledge needs, and that open communication and free movement of knowledge will benefit both researchers and industry. Consequently NIN will encourage stakeholders to be active members. These survey findings will be used to improve NIN's communication tools to further build on interdisciplinary relationships towards a healthy future with nanotechnology.

Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety Service Delivery Agreement (SDA) 2002-03. (PDF 80 KB)

Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety Service Delivery Agreement (SDA) 2002-03.

NanoImpactNet - building a multi-stakeholder dialogue on the health and environmental impact of nanomaterials

NanoImpactNet (NIN) is a multidisciplinary European Commission funded network on the environmental, health and safety (EHS) impact of nanomaterials. The 24 founding scientific institutes are leading European research groups active in the fields of nanosafety, nanorisk assessment and nanotoxicology. This 4-year project is the new focal point for information exchange within the research community. Contact with other stakeholders is vital and their needs are being surveyed. NIN is communicating with 100s of stakeholders: businesses; internet platforms; industry associations; regulators; policy makers; national ministries; international agencies; standard-setting bodies and NGOs concerned by labour rights, EHS or animal welfare. To improve this communication, internet research, a questionnaire distributed via partners and targeted phone calls were used to identify stakeholders' interests and needs. Knowledge gaps and the necessity for further data mentioned by representatives of all stakeholder groups in the targeted phone calls concerned: • the potential toxic and safety hazards of nanomaterials throughout their lifecycles; • the fate and persistence of nanoparticles in humans, animals and the environment; • the associated risks of nanoparticle exposure; • greater participation in: the preparation of nomenclature, standards, methodologies, protocols and benchmarks; • the development of best practice guidelines; • voluntary schemes on responsibility; • databases of materials, research topics and themes, but also of expertise. These findings suggested that stakeholders and NIN researchers share very similar knowledge needs, and that open communication and free movement of knowledge will benefit both researchers and industry. Subsequently a workshop was organised by NIN focused on building a sustainable multi-stakeholder dialogue. Specific questions were asked to different stakeholder groups to encourage discussions and open communication. 1. What information do stakeholders need from researchers and why? The discussions about this question confirmed the needs identified in the targeted phone calls. 2. How to communicate information? While it was agreed that reporting should be enhanced, commercial confidentiality and economic competition were identified as major obstacles. It was recognised that expertise was needed in the areas of commercial law and economics for a wellinformed treatment of this communication issue. 3. Can engineered nanomaterials be used safely? The idea that nanomaterials are probably safe because some of them have been produced 'for a long time', was questioned, since many materials in common use have been proved to be unsafe. The question of safety is also about whether the public has confidence. New legislation like REACH could help with this issue. Hazards do not materialise if exposure can be avoided or at least significantly reduced. Thus, there is a need for information on what can be regarded as acceptable levels of exposure. Finally, it was noted that there is no such thing as a perfectly safe material but only boundaries. At this moment we do not know where these boundaries lie. The matter of labelling of products containing nanomaterials was raised, as in the public mind safety and labelling are connected. This may need to be addressed since the issue of nanomaterials in food, drink and food packaging may be the first safety issue to attract public and media attention, and this may have an impact on 'nanotechnology as a whole. 4. Do we need more or other regulation? Any decision making process should accommodate the changing level of uncertainty. To address the uncertainties, adaptations of frameworks such as REACH may be indicated for nanomaterials. Regulation is often needed even if voluntary measures are welcome because it mitigates the effects of competition between industries. Data cannot be collected on voluntary bases for example. NIN will continue with an active stakeholder dialogue to further build on interdisciplinary relationships towards a healthy future with nanotechnology.