Plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) use in the United States (US) has doubled in recent years and is projected to continue increasing rapidly. This is especially true in California, which makes up nearly onethird of the current US PEV market. Planning and constructing the necessary infrastructure to support this projected increase requires insight into the optimal strategies for PEV battery recycling. Utilizing life-cycle perspectives in evaluating these supply chain networks is essential in fully understanding the environmental consequences of this infrastructure expansion. This study combined life-cycle assessment and geographic information systems (GIS) to analyze the energy, greenhouse gas (GHG), water use, and criteria air pollutant implications of end-of-life infrastructure networks for lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) in California. Multiple end-of-life scenarios were assessed, including hydrometallurgical and pyrometallurgical recycling processes. Using economic and environmental criteria, GIS modeling revealed optimal locations for battery dismantling and recycling facilities for in-state and out-of-state recycling scenarios. Results show that economic return on investment is likely to diminish if more than two in-state dismantling facilities are constructed. Using rail as well as truck transportation can substantially reduce transportation-related GHG emissions (23-45%) for both in-state and out-of-state recycling scenarios. The results revealed that material recovery from pyrometallurgy can offset environmental burdens associated with LIB production, namely a 6-56% reduction in primary energy demand and 23% reduction in GHG emissions, when compared to virgin production. Incorporating human health damages from air emissions into the model indicated that Los Angeles and Kern Counties are most at risk in the infrastructure scale-up for in-state recycling due to their population density and proximity to the optimal location.

No abstract

No abstract

Although Nepal has an epidemic of early-onset, aggressive, advanced breast cancer, breast cancer knowledge and screening practices of Nepalese women have not been assessed. This paper summarises the results of a physician-administrated survey of gynaecologic inpatients (n= 100) admitted between 1 December 2009 and 31 January 2010 at a Nepalese University. Mean knowledge score of the participants was 65%, significantly higher among highly educated women (P= 0.008), professionals (P= 0.014) and women counselled during medical visits (P= 0.030). Study participants, including highly educated women, had many misconceptions. This included lack of awareness of painless nature and non-lump symptoms of breast cancer as well as the belief that traditional health care can be curative. The majority of participants were unaware of clinical breast examination (68%) and mammography (56%). Only 10% of the participants had undergone breast evaluation in the last 2 years. The practice of breast evaluation was more common among Buddhists (P= 0.043), and women counselled during medical visits (P < 0.001), with high economic status (P= 0.022), higher education (P= 0.013) and a family history of breast cancer (P= 0.049). Counselling during medical visits and higher education level were associated with better knowledge of and screening practices for breast cancer in the studied population.

No abstract

While this document is believed to contain correct information, neither the Regents of the University of California, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by its trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the Regents of the University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of The Regents of the University of California.

No abstract

No abstract