黄河积石峡水电站库区泥石流危险度评价

在选取一次(可能)最大冲出物方量、泥石流发生频率、流域面积、主沟长度、流域相对高差、流域切割密度、泥沙补给段长度比7个因子为泥石流沟谷危险度划分的主要因子的基础上,对评价因子隶属度的确定作了分析和阐述,并运用模糊综合评判法对黄河上游积石峡水电站库区16条泥石流沟进行了危险度划分.     

陕西佛坪、宁陕"6.9"山地自然灾害考察研究

2002年6月9日,陕西南部佛坪、宁陕等地因特大暴雨引发了极其强烈的泥石流、山洪等山地自然灾害.本文考察研究了这次泥石流、山洪等山地自然灾害产生的条件,分布与活动特点以及未来发展变化的趋势.     

SARS与灾变心理初探

本文初步讨论了SARS发生前、发生时和发生后,社会个体和社会群体的不同心理变化过程,以及各种不同心理活动产生的原因,希冀能从中找出人们在灾变面前的特殊心理过程,为政府的防灾救灾和正确决策提供服务.     

略阳电厂后部山体边坡的稳定性评价与初步治理设计

在对略阳电厂后部山体地质条件分析的基础上,采用定性分析与定量数值计算相结合的方法评价了电厂后部山体在开挖前后的稳定性问题,并对开挖后的坡体提出了相应的工程治理措施.     

利用信息扩散模式对安徽及华东地区地震的风险分析

本文利用信息扩散模式,分别从年地震频次和年最大震级两个方面对安徽及华东地区的地震风险进行评估.结果显示:安徽地区ML≥3.0地震,年频次4次以上,约两年一遇;年发生ML≥3.9地震,则3年可能遇一次.而华东地区ML≥4.0地震,年频次4次以上,大约3年一遇;年发生ML≥4.9的地震,则可能2年遇一次.     

旅游灾害事件成灾模型的建立及解析

在我国旅游业蓬勃发展的今天,旅游灾害事件频发已引起了相关部门的高度重视和全社会的关注.根据灾害学原理和对旅游灾害事件成灾机制的研究,建立旅游灾害事件成灾模型,将在成功防范和减轻旅游灾害事件的损失方面发挥巨大作用.该模型主要就旅游灾害事件的基础条件、旅游灾害的诱发因素、旅游灾害的承灾体、旅游灾害损失类型、以及防灾减灾有效措施等方面的问题进行了分析和探讨.     

陕西石泉ML4.9级地震建筑物震害分析

2003年4月24日陕西省石泉县红卫乡一带发生ML4.9级地震.这次地震对石泉、汉阴等县建筑物特别是农村建筑物造成一定程度的破坏,本文统计了不同类型的房屋建筑破坏情况,并对此进行了分析和探讨.     

Unreliability of co‐occurrence‐based sediment quality guidelines for contaminated sediment evaluations at Superfund/hazardous chemical sites

Many Superfund/hazardous chemical sites include waterbodies whose sediments contain hazardous chemicals. With the need to assess, rank, and remediate contaminated sediments at such sites, as well as in other waterways, regulators seek a simple, quantitative assessment approach that feeds easily into a decision‐making scheme. Numeric, co‐occurrence‐based “sediment quality guidelines” have emerged with the appearance of administrative simplicity. However, the very foundation of the co‐occurrence approach, based on the total concentrations of a chemical(s) in sediment, is technically invalid; its application relies on additional technically invalid presumptions. Use of technically invalid evaluation approaches renders any assessment of the significance of sediment contamination unreliable. This article reviews the technical roots and assumptions of the co‐occurrence‐based SQGs, the fundamental flaws in the rationale behind their development and application, and their misapplication for sediment quality evaluation. It also reviews concepts and approaches for the more reliable evaluation, ranking, and cleanup assessment of contaminated sediments at Superfund sites and elsewhere. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Disposal of contaminated sediments/soils in MSW landfills: Need to consider the true cost

A disturbing trend among governmental agencies is the remediation of so‐called “nonhazardous” contaminated sediments/soils by deposition in minimum‐design Subtitle D municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills or landfills with equivalent design. This is done despite the fact that, in terms of protection of public health and environmental quality, the designation “nonhazardous” is misleading at best, and the fact that minimum‐design Subtitle D landfills as being allowed will not ensure protection of groundwater quality for as long as the buried wastes remain a threat. Although acknowledged in the regulatory documentation and exposed in the writings of a few in the scientific/engineering community, the environmental and public health issues that will inevitably be faced at minimum‐design Subtitle D landfills are underplayed, and even misrepresented, to the public. Discussion of relevant issues, as well as remarkable omissions, characterized the October 2004 United States Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE)/United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)/Sediment Management Work Group (SMWG) conference,” Addressing Uncertainty and Managing Risk at Contaminated Sediment Sites.” This article addresses many of those neglected issues. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Safety climate in Finnish- and Swedish-speaking companies.

The aim of this study was to compare assessments made by Finnish- and Swedish-speaking workers in Finland about the safety climate in their companies, because an earlier study showed that the accident frequency of Swedish-speaking workers was one third lower than that of Finnish-speaking workers. 148 Finnish-speaking and 138 Swedish-speaking workers from 14 small and medium-sized companies participated in this study. They filled out a Finnish safety climate questionnaire, the reliability of which was above the acceptable level. There were no differences between the language groups in the total variables of safety climate and safety action. Based on the differences in single items, we interpreted that Swedish-speaking workers stressed collective safety more, whereas Finnish-speaking workers put more emphasis on their personal responsibility for safety.