Academic literature on the topic 'Rhodesia Medal'

Robert Millner Shackleton, who died peacefully in his sleep on 3 May 2001, was born on 30 December 1909 in Purley, Surrey, the son of John Millner Shackleton (an electrical engineer of Irish derivation who, at one time, worked for the Post Office telephones) and Agnes Mitford Shackleton (née Abraham). He was distantly related to the Antarctic explorer Sir Ernest Shackleton and was educated at the Quaker school of Sidcot, which profoundly influenced his subsequent life and career. He entered Liverpool University in January 1927 and graduated with a first–class honours BSc in geology in July 1930 under P. G. H. Boswell FRS, the first George Herdman Professor of Geology. He was only the fourth student in the history of the department to achieve a First. Shackleton's first visit to Africa was as an undergraduate in July to September 1929 to attend the 15th International Congress in Pretoria, South Africa. He always remembered Boswell's help and how he had persuaded him into going and even shared a cabin on the Union Castle ship to South Africa with him to reduce the cost at a time when most professors would not have done so. He saw the Karroo, the Kimberley diamond mine, the Witwatersrand mines, the Bushveld, Rhodesia, and the Drakensberg. This visit to Africa was to be the foundation of his love of Africa, its people and its geology. Shackleton went on to complete a PhD at Liverpool in December 1933 on the Moel Hebog area of North Wales, between Tremadoc and Nantlle, although some of the work was done while at Imperial College, London (IC), where he was Beit Research Fellow from 1932 to 1934, largely facilitated by Boswell, who was also an IC man and had moved back there to the Chair in 1930. The Moel Hebog mapping included examining some cliff faces never scaled by any geologist or, indeed, anyone before; it was part of a systematic re–survey of North Wales encouraged by Boswell, and followed the surveys of Snowdonia by David and Howell Williams. The Moel Hebog mapping was superb and, with his other field achievements, led to his receiving the Silver Medal of the Liverpool Geological Society in 1957. Shackleton was one of several Liverpool students, including one of us (B.E.L.), who from the 1920s onwards did part of their PhD work at IC. He had a petrological training, being taught silicate analysis by A. W. Groves at IC, but the petrological and palaeogeographic interpretation of his PhD area was hindered by the fact that ignimbrites had not yet been recognized and only a few chemical analyses could be completed. The published account (7) è did not appear until 1959 and then only because of the encouragement and devoted help given by Dr J. C. Harper.

The aim of this report is to describe a case of a triple dermoid sinus in the sacro-caudal region in an 11-month-old Rhodesian Rhidgeback dog. A clinical examination of the patient revealed a dermoid sinus in the sacro-caudal region. Neurological examination did not show any abnormalities. A blood test and a radiological examination were performed, but the owner refused to perform an MRI. A decision about surgical treatment was made. Two smaller lesions, located 2 cm and 4 cm caudally to the first one, were discovered during skin shaving. The skin around the lesions looked smoother and less pigmented than in the other parts of the body. All three lesions were resected up to the spinous process top or the supraspinous ligament. Histopathological examination showed a typical anatomy of the sinuses and anatomical changes in the skin between them: thinner epidermis and an abnormal shape of hair follicles. In the soft tissue between the ends of the sinus lumina and the supraspinous ligament there were no adnexal structures, such as hair or hair follicles. The sinus type was classified as IIIa. The surgical wound healed without complications. The owner was contacted 14 days and 6 months after surgery, and no signs of complications, pain or gait abnormalities were reported. Dermoid sinus diagnosis is based on medical history, clinical examination and diagnostic imaging. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging are regarded as the most valuable. In many cases, however, their results are inconsistent with those of intraoperative exploration, for example, when a fibrous strand cannot be seen or the depth of the sinus has been inaccurately assessed. Often the depth and type of the dermoid sinus can be exactly assessed only by surgical exploration, so in some cases advanced imaging techniques can be omitted. The most commonly described location of a dermoid sinus is the cervical segment, with multiple lesions present. Only one case of a double dermoid sinus in the sacro-caudal section has been described in the literature. To our knowledge, a triple dermoid sinus at this location and skin anatomy changes in the dorsal medial line between sinuses have not yet been reported.

Brown V2(p-S2)2(S2CNEt2)4 is produced upon reaction of [vs4]3- with (Et2NCS2)2, in a synthesis similar to that described for V2( �-S2)2(S2CNBui2)4 ( Halbert , T. R., Hutchings, L. L., Rhodes, R., and Stiefel , E. I., J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1986, 108, 6437). Crystals of V2( �;-S2)2(S2CNEt2)4.2CHBr3 are orthorhombic and belong to space group Pbca , with a 10.909(2), b 20.492(2), c 20.471(2) � , V 4576.2 �3, and Z 4 dimers . The structure was solved by Patterson and Fourier methods and refined by using 1189 reflections to final R 0.061 ( Rw 0.059). The vanadium(IV) atoms in the dimeric complex are bridged by two �-k2S,S′: k2S,S′-S22- ligands [S(1)-S(2) 2.00(1) �] and a metal-metal single bond [V-V 2.900(6) �]. Each vanadium atom is further coordinated by two bidentate dithiocarbamate ligands whose arrangement defines a meso isomer with Λ and Δ configurations at the vanadium centres. This Λ Δ diastereomer differs from the Λ Λ -ΔΔ racemate structurally characterized in the case of V2(�-S2)2(S2CNBui2)4 but is the same as that found for the molybdenum(v) dication in [Mo2( �S2)2(S2CNEt2)4] (BF4)2.2CHBr3 ( Kocaba, T., Young, C. G., and Tiekink , E. R. T., Inorg. Chim. Acta, 1990, 174, 143).

In order to investigate the effect of reclaimed wastewater (RWW) on soil chemical properties and heavy metal uptake of selected forages, an experiment was carried out at Dhaid Research Station, UAE during three growing seasons (2014-2016). Alfalfa, Rhodes and Buffel grass were irrigated by RWW and grown in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Composite soil samples were collected from the experimental site before starting the study and every six months from planting date to test the macro and heavy elements concentration in soil and forages tissues. Chemical analysis for soil, crops and wastewater were analyzed. RWW irrigation has significantly increased the soil salinity (1 to 8 dSm-1) in 2014 but soon these values were declined in 2015 and 2016 growing seasons due to the enhanced irrigation water quality and the use of good water management.Results revealed that UAE (Sharjah) domestic RWW is suitable to be reused for irrigate forages as its quality match international standards for RWW irrigation except its Na and Cl content. The results of the plants tissues analysis during 2014 season indicated a rise in the nutrients concentration, particularly nitrogen, potash, iron and boron, compared with the critical limits. While, the results have also shown a significant increase of zinc (Zn) and copper (Cu), especially in Buffel grass and Alfalfa tissues during the third season (2016) which exceeded the critical limits.The highest mean yearly dry weight yield during the study period were recorded for Buffel grass (50.5 ton ha-1) followed by Rhodes (44.5 ton ha-1) and Alfalfa (11.1 ton ha-1). It can be concluded that regular monitoring of recycled wastewater, soil and appropriate management are needed to mitigate the negative impacts of sodium and salts accumulations.

Colossus of Rhodes: Where It Stood and How It Was Made The author, just as Ursula Vedder, who has expressed the same opinion recently, has been long sure that the place where the Colossus of Rhodes was located was the acropolis of the town of Rhodes. The paper includes also some arguments that have not been presented by the German scholar. At first, some source information concerning the Colossus has been briefly summarized. For instance, the expression in APV, 171 (Overbeck 1543), ou gar hyper pelagos monon anthesan alla kai en ga, may be understood as confirming its location in the acropolis: “it stood not only close to the sea, but also on the earth.” In fact, there it would have loomed over the land and the sea, and, as big as it was, it could be seen from a distance. The text by Philo of Byzantium is not credible, as it was written quite late. Then the problem has been analyzed critically. As regards the legend of Colossus bestriding the entrance to the harbor, one may add to the already listed counterarguments that for static reasons a piece of sculpture shaped that way would have needed a third footing attached to the sea bottom at the harbor entrance, which would have made the ships’ access to the harbor difficult. Besides, such a pose of a god would have seemed a little indecent. A hypothesis that situates the Colossus at the end of a pier in the Mandraki Bay, preferred by many scholars, also has its weak points. Placed there, the construction site would have been too small, particularly that construction took at least twelve years, and it would have been difficult to move building materials along the narrow and long pier which under such circumstances could not be used as part of the harbor. According to Strabo (XIV, 2, 5) the harbor was accessible only to authorized personnel. Was it then a good location for a work of art intended to glorify the people of Rhodes? Even if the Colossus had been accessible there, it would have been visible only in a shortened perspective, in frog’s eye view. Still, the most important was the problem of proper display of the statue. Placed on the pier, it would have to turn its back either to the town, or to the sea, and in both cases connotations would have been unwelcome. Such details were essential for ancient Greeks. For static and constructional reasons, one must also reject a hypothesis that the Colossus put his palm over the eyes, as if examining the horizon. If it is true that the relics of the statue remained for several hundred years intact, they would have blocked access to the harbor since most probably they would have fallen into the sea. Besides, would the iron elements have resisted corrosion well enough to be recognizable? Placed on the pier, the Colossus would have been invisible to the crews of ships approaching the town from the west and the same would have been true had it been situated at the present location of the palace of the Great Masters of the Knights Hospitaller. The placement of the statue in the sanctuary of Helios at the present corner of Sofouli and Khimaras streets is also improbable, since the area is really small and the Colossus would not have made a prominent component of the town skyline. Hence, the acropolis must have been the most convenient place, just as in other Greek towns, particularly in Athens where it was the site of the city patron’s worship. Some scholars argue that the temple in the acropolis was dedicated to Apollo, but when the Colossus was constructed Apollo was commonly identified with Helios who was the most important patron of the island. The statue, with his face turned to the east – the town and the sea – might have stood near that temple (ill. 1-2), towering over it. From the west, the steep rock of the acropolis practically made it impossible to watch the Colossus from the western shore, while from the sea it was visible only as a silhouette, an orientation point for the approaching ships (ill. 3), particularly if it was gilded like the statue of Athena Promachos in Athens. This can actually be the origin of the legend that the Colossus of Rhodes was also a lighthouse. Situated in the acropolis, the statue would have been visible both from the town and the sea on both sides of the island. If the damaged Colossus remained intact for centuries, it was because removing it from the acropolis was much more difficult than removing from the wharf. The noun “colossus” originally meant “something towering” (cf. Colossae and Colophon, towns upon hills). The other part of the paper focuses on the technology of construction. Some scholars were too eager to draw from Philo’s description conclusions about the Colossus’ structure and the building methods applied. If the statue had stood at the end of the pier, most likely it would not have been hilled up since the area was too small. Due to the pressure of dirt, boarding such an embankment (A. Gabriel’s claim) would have required 40-45 meter long struts for which there was no room. Moreover, with each subsequent raising of the embankment the struts would have to be multiplied and made much longer, which would have been both costly and technologically challenging. With each new layer of dirt, founding furnaces would have to be removed (as, according to Gabriel, they were located on the embankment) and then put back. A high embankment would have required the use of gigantic ladders, unstable and dangerous. What is more, it would have made it impossible to control the form of the work in progress. All that would have been irrational, while ancient Greeks do not really deserve such a charge. In the author’s opinion, the Colossus was erected within a wooden scaffolding. Founding particular elements of the statue on site was rather unlikely. An external dirt coat would not have helped since there was no clay core inside it, which would have made the alloy’s cooling speed radically unequal. Partial casting is also unlikely as it would have required a 1:1 model (30-35 meters high). Had the model been smaller, errors in calculating detailed measurements would have been inevitable. The author believes that the Colossus of Rhodes was made of hammered bronze sheets riveted to the inner metal skeleton. Such a technique made vertical transportation easier and allowed the constructors to correct the process of montage by bending the sheets whenever necessary. It cannot be excluded that the heads of the rivets and lines of contact between the sheets were masked with solders that did not require much alloy, although in higher sections of the statue the wind would have cooled it quite rapidly. The noun “colossus” did not originally imply a gigantic size but only a slightly archaic look of the sculpture so that the Colossus of Rhodes might have been somewhat similar to very ancient and artistically primitive stiff statues of Helios. On the other hand, it might have alluded to the mythic Telchins who were the first to make statues of gods. (For static reasons, contrapposto was out of the question in the statues of that size, besides it would have been impossible to fill its interior with stones.) Another aspect of making the Colossus look archaic was the use of a modified technique of sphyrelaton. In the author’s opinion, the base of the statue and maybe its higher parts as well, up to the level of ankles, contained carefully sized and braced blocks of stone. They were drilled through to hold the lower ends of the metal internal skeleton made according to the schema of a spatial grid, perhaps used on that occasion for the first time in history. Such a fixture protected the Colossus from the wind pressure so effectively that it remained standing for dozens of years, being vulnerable to earthquakes. The fallen Colossus must have looked like a debris of rods and tin, while the stones from the fixture could be seen in the “abyss” (Plinius), below the level of the ankles, where the structure was actually bent (it must have been bent there rather than at the level of the knees, since looking inside the ruin was easy: the ankles were situated about two meters above the base.) The third footing point might have been camouflaged with some attribute (a spear or a torch). It cannot be excluded that originally Chares had been planning a statue half the final size, similar to the previously known colossal pieces of sculpture, but the pride of the people of Rhodes, emulating Athenians, made them want a Colossus twice as big (Sextus Empiricus, pros mathem., VII, 107 n.). Making the statue look archaic and using an old technology plus some innovations allowed Chares to make their extravagant wish come true. The archaic look might have been achieved thanks to a reference to some old statue of Helios, which perhaps could be found in the neighboring temple. The torso might have been topped with the head, cast separately, although the trouble with placing it so high makes one doubt it.

Environmental context. Nickel (Ni) may be present in soil at phytotoxic levels as a result of weathering of ultramafic (serpentine) minerals or activities such as mining and metal ore processing. We assessed the tolerance of two grasses to excess Ni and used electron microscopy to examine the distribution of the Ni within the root tissue. This study provides information on the influence of excess Ni on the growth of these two grasses with consideration to their suitability for the revegetation of areas contaminated with Ni. Abstract. Toxic effects of Nickel (Ni) in solution were evaluated in signal grass and Rhodes grass, two species commonly used for the revegetation of contaminated sites in the tropics and sub-tropics. Both grasses had a similar response to Ni, a Ni2+ activity ({Ni2+}) of 14 × 10–6 M, which reduced the fresh mass by 50%. The sub-cellular distribution of Ni in the roots was similar for both species, with Ni accumulating primarily as particles <5 nm in the vacuoles of rhizodermal and outer cortical cells. The reduction in growth at elevated {Ni2+} caused a loss of apical dominance in the roots and a Ni-induced Fe deficiency in the shoots. Root hair growth was not reduced by Ni2+ toxicity and was prolific even at the highest {Ni2+} (35 × 10–6 M). The translocation of Ni to the plant tops of both grasses resulted in concentrations that exceeded the guidelines for Ni toxicity to grazing animals (100 μg g–1) when grown with ≥11 × 10–6 M {Ni2+} in solution.

Background Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting are some of the most disturbing side effects in pediatric cancer patients. The standard recommendation is the use of 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist, such as ondansetron, to treat these symptoms. Despite this treatment, more than 50% of patients still experience nausea and vomiting.Objective To evaluate the effect of the addition of omeprazole to ondansetron in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.Methods A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial was conducted at Haji Adam Malik Hospital, Medan, North Sumatera, from March to May 2016. Subjects were children aged 1 to 18 years, diagnosed with cancer, and who received intravenous chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive either a single dose of ondansetron (0.5 mg/kg) plus placebo or ondansetron (0.5 mg/kg) plus omeprazole (0.5 mg/kg). The severity of nausea and vomiting were measured using the Rhodes index of nausea, vomiting, and retching during the 24 hours after initiation of emetogenic chemotherapy. The primary outcome of efficacy was the proportion of patients who achieved complete response (lack of nausea/vomiting). Statistical analysis was performed by Chi-square and Fischer’s exact tests.Results Seventy eligible pediatric patients were randomized into two groups: 32 subjects in the ondansetron + placebo group and 38 others in the ondansetron + omeprazole group. The therapy failed in 50% (16/32) of the ondansetron + placebo group and 18.4% (7/38) of the ondansetron + omeprazole group. There was a significant difference in the clinical response between groups (P=0.01).Conclusion The addition of omeprazole to ondansetron for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is more effective than administration of ondansetron alone.

Background Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting are some of the most disturbing side effects in pediatric cancer patients. The standard recommendation is the use of 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist, such as ondansetron, to treat these symptoms. Despite this treatment, more than 50% of patients still experience nausea and vomiting.Objective To evaluate the effect of the addition of omeprazole to ondansetron in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.Methods A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial was conducted at Haji Adam Malik Hospital, Medan, North Sumatera, from March to May 2016. Subjects were children aged 1 to 18 years, diagnosed with cancer, and who received intravenous chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive either a single dose of ondansetron (0.5 mg/kg) plus placebo or ondansetron (0.5 mg/kg) plus omeprazole (0.5 mg/kg). The severity of nausea and vomiting were measured using the Rhodes index of nausea, vomiting, and retching during the 24 hours after initiation of emetogenic chemotherapy. The primary outcome of efficacy was the proportion of patients who achieved complete response (lack of nausea/vomiting). Statistical analysis was performed by Chi-square and Fischer’s exact tests.Results Seventy eligible pediatric patients were randomized into two groups: 32 subjects in the ondansetron + placebo group and 38 others in the ondansetron + omeprazole group. The therapy failed in 50% (16/32) of the ondansetron + placebo group and 18.4% (7/38) of the ondansetron + omeprazole group. There was a significant difference in the clinical response between groups (P=0.01).Conclusion The addition of omeprazole to ondansetron for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is more effective than administration of ondansetron alone.