Academic literature on the topic 'Couche charbon'

In the Greek Classical period, the symposium—the social gathering at which male citizens gathered to drink wine and engage in conversation—was held in a room called the andron. From couches set up around the perimeter of the andron, symposiasts looked inward to the room’s center, which often was decorated with a pebble mosaic floor. These mosaics provided visual treats for the guests, presenting them with images of mythological scenes, exotic flora, dangerous beasts, hunting parties, or the specter of Dionysos, the god of wine, riding in his chariot or on the back of a panther. This book takes

Common symptoms of pulmonary disease include cough, sputum, hemoptysis, dyspnea, chest pain, cyanosis, and clubbing. A thorough history and physical examination, including palpation, auscultation, and percussion, are key to accurate diagnosis. The radiologic tests performed in the diagnosis of chest diseases include plain CXR, CT, magnetic resonance imaging, pulmonary angiography, and bronchial angiography. Simple microscopy with a "wet" slide preparation of sputum is helpful in assessing the degree of sputum eosinophilia and detecting the presence of Charcot-Leyden crystals. The major indicat

Most solutions to the problem of delivering course content supporting both student learning and assessment nowadays imply the use of computers, thanks to the continuous advances of information technology. According to Bull (1999), using computers to perform assessment is more contentious than using them to deliver content and to support student learning. In many papers, the terms computer-assisted assessment (CAA) and computer-based assessment (CBA) are often used interchangeably and somewhat inconsistently. The former refers to the use of computers in assessment. The term encompasses the uses of computers to deliver, mark, and analyze assignments or examinations. It also includes the collation and analysis of data gathered from optical mark readers. The latter (that will be used in this paper) addresses the use of computers for the entire process, including assessment delivery and feedback provision (Charman & Elmes, 1998).

The neurology section of the PACES examination is often the major cause of (unnecessary!) anxiety for MRCP candidates. The key is to approach the patient in a logical fashion. Some neurology cases are simply an exercise in pattern recognition – noticing the frontal balding and ptosis of myotonic dystrophy, the distal wasting and pes cavus of Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease, for example. However, in those cases without obvious clues to the underlying diagnosis, a clear systematic approach will usually pay dividends. When faced with a neurological problem, the first question that should be posed is the site of the lesion. During the course of the examination, identify signs that might help in localization: • Cortex: signs of dysfunction of higher cognitive function. • Subcortical: upper motor neuron (UMN) signs (hypertonia, pyramidal pattern of weakness, hyper-reflexia, extensor plantars), slowness of thought. • Basal ganglia: cogwheel rigidity, resting tremor, bradykinesia, postural instability, dyskinesias, dystonias. • Brainstem: cranial nerve abnormalities with contralateral UMN signs. • Cerebellum: gait ataxia, nystagmus, finger-nose ataxia, past-pointing. • Spinal cord: bilateral UMN signs, presence of a sensory level. • Nerve root: lower motor neuron (LMN) signs (wasting, weakness, hyporeflexia, sensory loss) in a myotomal or dermatomal distribution. • Single or multiple nerve/plexus: LMN signs that are focal, and are not consistent with a nerve root lesion. • Polyneuropathy: LMN signs, more pronounced distally, affecting the legs more than the hands, diminished reflexes, sensory signs. • Neuromuscular junction: weakness without sensory involvement or significant wasting, usually but not invariably proximal, which fluctuates (either with time of day or during the course of the examination). • Muscle: wasting and weakness with normal reflexes and sensation. Once the lesion has been localized, consider the disease processes that commonly affect that site. Clues may be obtained from the history, if you are permitted to ask questions. The most helpful aspect of the history is usually the speed of onset: • Seconds: electrical disturbance (i.e. epilepsy), trauma. • <5 minutes: infarction. • > 5 minutes: migraine, haemorrhage. • Minutes–hours: infection, inflammation, drugs. • Hours–days: infection, inflammation, nutritional, drugs.

To Professor Teilhard de Chardin the idea that either Dawson or Woodward was in any way wittingly implicated in this business is completely unthinkable. He holds both of these men in the greatest respect, and indeed is inclined to doubt whether a real hoax occurred at all. It seems to him not impossible that the pit at Barkham Manor was used as a rubbish dump where, over a course of years, all sorts of objects including bones from some discarded collection could have been deposited. The heavily iron-bearing water of the gravel would soon stain the bones dark brown (for Professor Teilhard says that fresh bone left in the water of the Weald does stain easily). To be sure, the queer accumulation must have come from some collector’s hoard! But this suggestion of a rubbish dump leaves, of course, too much unexplained and far too many coincidences. It would be an amazing accident that would bring together an, unusual cranium, the jaw, the remarkable canine, a bone implement of unique character, a number of flints of spurious workmanship (one of which is stained with chromate), and bones partly changed to gypsum and radio-active fossil teeth of a sort never found in England! That all this curious medley, this ‘accidental’ assemblage, should be uncovered in a particular sequence—as Sir Arthur Keith said to us, cas if to confute me personally!’—is straining our acceptance of coincidence too much. Miss Kenward, who lived at Barkham Manor for many years, is positive that the pit was not a general rubbish dump and that the gravel was being dug from an unbroken surface. Lady Smith Woodward, too, rules out the suggestion. There is nothing to commend this rubbish dump theory, for we have seen that hardly anything of the whole collection of material can with certainty be said to have come from gravel originally, although this does not rule out the possibility that at least the cranium, even stained as it is, may not have been genuinely found in the pit and that after treatment it was redeposited in the gravel pit.

During the first century B.C., Lucretius wrote, “Legend tells of one occasion when fire got the upper hand. The victory of fire when the earth felt its withering blast, occurred when the galloping steeds that draw the chariot of the sun swept Phaeton from the true course right out of the zone of the ether and far over all lands.” He knew about comets, which is why he said, “There is no lack of external bodies to rally out of infinite space and blast [the world] with a turbulent tornado or inflict some other mortal disaster.” This awareness made him think that the world was newly made, and perhaps in some sense it is. The wheel has come full circle. We now appreciate that the threat of comets and asteroids is real, although the distinction between comets and asteroids has grown blurred. What is no longer in doubt is that catastrophic impacts have occurred in the past, and that they will happen again. At the same time, the hypothesis that impacts and flood legends are related is beginning to experience a revival. A chink in the dam of prejudice against the idea actually began to appear in the 1940’s when two astronomers, Fletcher Watson and Ralph Baldwin, in separate books considered the implications of the discovery of near-earth asteroids (NEAs) and concluded that impacts were likely every million years or so. They were all but ignored. In 1942 H. H. Nininger, the famous meteorite researcher, gave a talk to the Society for Research on Meteorites entitled “Cataclysm and Evolution.” Because of his highly specialized forum, his remarks also went unheard in the wider astronomical community. He considered the danger following the close encounter with Hermes, the NEA discovered in October 1937 that passed within 670,000 kilometers of our planet, which can be compared with the moon’s distance of 384,000 kilometers. (Oddly, Hermes has never been found again. Its rediscovery is one of the prizes that asteroid hunters strive for.) If, instead, it had “smacked the earth in a single lump,” the consequences would “constitute a catastrophe of a magnitude never yet witnessed by man,” said Nininger.

The objective evidence for the deception at Piltdown was overwhelming. The frauds extended to every aspect of the discovery—geological, archaeological, anatomical, and chemical—so that proof could be adduced three or four times over. Moreover, every time a new line of investigation was applied, it confirmed, as we have seen, what all previous evidence had established. The two Piltdown ‘men’ were forgeries, the tools were falsifications, the animal remains had been planted. The skill of the deception should not be underestimated, and it is not at all difficult to understand why forty years should have elapsed before the exposure; for it needed all the new discoveries of palaeontology to arouse suspicion, and completely new chemical and X-ray techniques to prove the suspicion justified. Professor Le Gros Clark, Dr. Oakley, and I wrote in our report that ‘Those who took part in the excavation at Piltdown had been the victims of an elaborate and inexplicable deception’. Inexplicable, indeed, for the principals were known to us as men of acknowledged distinction and highly experienced in palaeontological investigation. Woodward, in 1912, was a man of established reputation. Dawson enjoyed a solid esteem. Teilhard de Chardin was, of course, only at the beginning of his palaeontological career. Knowing their place in the world of science, we felt sure that these investigators, whose integrity there was not the slightest reason to question, had been victims—like the scientific world at large—of the deception. Arthur Smith Woodward (who was of an age with Dawson) at the time of the discovery had been Keeper of the Department of Geology at the British Museum since 1901, the year of his election to the Royal Society, and had scores of papers of very great merit to his credit. His work on fossil reptiles and fishes was on a monumental scale, and he had also made discoveries in mammalian palaeontology. He was without doubt the leading authority in his own field. His position was abundantly recognized by many awards and by appointment to many high offices—for example, Secretary, and in the Piltdown years successively Vice-President and President, of the Geological Society.