基于GIS的信息熵理论在滑坡危险性评价中的应用——以四川省青川县滑坡为例

滑坡危险性评价对滑坡的防灾减灾工作具有重要意义。基于信息熵理论建立了滑坡危险性评价模型,同时综合考虑影响滑坡演变的各种因素,在GIS下对四川省青川县滑坡的监测数据进行了分析和处理,获取了该研究区滑坡危险性区划结果,并将该区不稳定斜坡作为未来可能发生的滑坡进行验证,结果表明其评价结果基本符合实际情况。该评价模型可用于滑坡的危险性评价。     

发现和消除未遂事件保障装置安全生产——洛阳分公司2006年未遂事件、事故隐患统计分析

统计了洛阳分公司2006年度事故隐患情况,从未遂事件、事故隐患的时间段、后果、性质、直接原因等方面进行了深入细致的分析,找出影响洛阳分公司安全生产的主要隐患,提出了相应对策措施和建议.     

海上移动式平台安全信息预警与保护装置研制

介绍了一种基于海洋移动式平台应用的安全信息预警与保护装置的研制,实现具有移动式平台海上安全信息采集、记录、预警、保护及再现等功能。     

燃煤电厂锅炉PM2.5排放危害度评价模型建立及案例分析

为评价燃煤电厂锅炉PM2.5排放的危害度,根据颗粒的形成机制及对环境和人体健康的影响程度,将PM2.5进行了粒径分段,综合考虑不同粒径段颗粒物的质量浓度、粒数浓度、汞相对富集因子及汞元素在煤灰分中含量,建立了燃煤锅炉PM2.5排放危害度综合评价模型,最后利用已有文献现场实验测得的数据对评价模型进行了案例分析,并提出了危害度削减系数概念,可用于对除尘装置进行评价.     

南昌市移动源排放清单研究

根据收集的南昌市移动源活动水平数据,采用合适的估算方法、排放因子和GIS技术,建立了南昌市2007—2014年移动源排放清单,并对2014年移动源清单进行了空间化处理与分析,空间分辨率为1 km×1 km.结果表明,2007—2014年南昌市移动源共向大气排放CO、HC、NO_x、PM_(2.5)、PM_(10)、SO_2分别为18.26×10~4、5.07×10~4、18.46×10~4、0.99×10~4、1.08×10~4、3.31×10~4t.其中,2014年移动源向大气中排放的这6种污染物总量分别为2.14×10~4、0.76×10~4、1.97×10~4、0.08×10~4、0.09×10~4、0.55×10~4t.道路移动源中,汽油小型客车是CO、HC和SO_2最大的贡献源,排放量分别占机动车排放总量的55.1%、78.5%和56.1%;柴油重型货车是NO_x、PM_(2.5)和PM_(10)排放贡献率最大的车型,分别占43.2%、40%和40%.非道路移动源中,小型拖拉机对CO、HC、NO_x、PM_(2.5)和PM_(10)的贡献率均较大,分别占非道路移动源排放总量的29.9%、26.9%、23.4%、29.5%和29.8%;SO_2排放主要来源于船舶,占非道路移动源SO_2排放总量的45.1%.高污染排放集中的区域,主要是青山湖区、西湖区和东湖区.     

室内环境污染危害及防治

介绍了我国室内环境污染问题的现状和室内环境中的主要污染物及其来源, 分析了室内环境污染对人体健康的危害,提出了针对室内环境污染的防治措施.     

有机酸性腐蚀品生产危险性分析

目前我国化工生产中涉及大量有机酸性腐蚀品,通过对某市化工行业调查及分析,发现有机酸性腐蚀品生产普遍,而且生产原料易燃易爆,生产过程存在火灾爆炸危险,结合具体生产工艺,采用预先危险性分析法和作业条件的危险性评价法分析生产过程危险性,从而揭示并概括有机酸性腐蚀品生产危险性.为更好地促进我国安全生产,在此基础上探讨了一些针对性的安全措施.     

火源位置对L型管廊电缆火灾影响规律的数值模拟研究

选取某城市L型综合管廊电缆舱为研究对象,采用FDS数值模拟软件研究了不同火源位置对L型管廊电缆火灾温度纵向衰减规律、烟气浓度分布规律及烟气危害性的影响。研究结果表明,L型廊道构型影响了不同火源位置的管廊电缆火灾最高温度纵向衰减的连续性,基于热边界层理论提出了适用于L型管廊的二维平面最高温度纵向衰减模型。基于峰宽时间计算了L型管廊火灾的烟气总危害性参数,不同火源位置的烟气危害性总在靠近管廊节点位置处最低。这些结果可对综合管廊的消防设计与火灾防控提供参考。     

226Ra, 232Th and 40K analysis in soil samples from some areas of Malwa region, Punjab, India using gamma ray spectrometry

The activity concentrations of soil samples collected from thirty different locations of Malwa region of Punjab were determined by using HPGe detector based on high-resolution gamma spectrometry system. The range of activity concentrations of ²²⁶Ra, ²³²Th and ⁴⁰K in the soil from the studied areas varies from 18.37 Bq kg⁻¹ (Sangrur) to 53.11 Bq kg⁻¹ (Sitoguno), 57.28 Bq kg⁻¹ (Dhanola) to 148.28 Bq kg⁻¹ (Sitoguno) and 211.13 Bq kg⁻¹ (Sunam) to 413.27 Bq kg⁻¹ (Virk Khera) with overall mean values of 35 Bq kg⁻¹, 80 Bq kg⁻¹and 317 Bq kg⁻¹ respectively. The absorbed dose rate calculated from activity concentration of ²²⁶Ra, ²³²Th and ⁴⁰K ranges between 8.47 and 24.48, 35.68 and 92.38, and 8.74 and 17.11 nGy h⁻¹, respectively. The total absorbed dose in the study area ranges from 58.08 nGy h⁻¹ to 130.85 nGy h⁻¹ with an average value of 79.11 nGy h⁻¹. The calculated values of external hazard index (H_ex) for the soil samples of the study area range from 0.35 to 0.79. Since these values are lower than unity, therefore, according to the Radiation Protection 112 (European Commission. Radiation Protection 112 1999) report, soil from these regions is safe and can be used as a construction material without posing any significant radiological threat to population.     

Framing of Geoengineering Affects Support for Climate Change Mitigation

The growing recognition that climate change mitigation alone will be inadequate has led scientists and policymakers to discuss climate geoengineering. An experiment with a US sample found, contrary to previous research, that reading about geoengineering did not reduce conservatives’ skepticism about the existence of anthropogenic climate change. Moreover, depending on how it is framed, geoengineering can reduce support for mitigation among both conservatives and non-conservatives. When geoengineering is framed as a major solution, people worry less about climate change, leading to reduced mitigation support. When framed as disastrous, people perceived geoengineering as riskier, also leading to a decrease in mitigation support. A more moderate framing of geoengineering as a partial solution is less susceptible to moral hazard effects. Overall, results suggest that geoengineering will not lessen political polarization over anthropogenic climate change, and could undercut support for mitigation efforts. Instead, framing geoengineering as a small piece to solving a big puzzle seems to be the best strategy to weaken this potential moral hazard.