text:
How Many RIPE Atlas Probes Believe They Have IPv6 (But Are Wrong)?
Stéphane Bortzmeyer — 11 Jun 2013
Based in Paris (France)
I work at AFNIC (the registry of .fr domain names), in the R&D department, on, among other things, DNS, security, statistics.
ipv6 measurements atlas
To check the connectivity of an IPv6 device with RIPE Atlas, one typically asks N probes to ping the target and deduces the reachability of the target from the percentage of failures. But RIPE Atlas probes, like many IPv6 devices, often believe they are IPv6-connected while they are not.
When you want to check the IPv6 connectivity of a device with RIPE Atlas, you typically request RIPE Atlas to send pings to your target from a given number of probes. The percentage of probes reporting a failure gives you a good idea of the reachability of your device. But IPv6 is not IPv4: it is quite common in the IPv6 world to have devices that believe they are connected to the IPv6 Internet while they are not. For instance, this problem can occur if a router on the local network advertises a global IPv6 prefix with Router Announcement (RA) packets while, in fact, the local network has no connection to the outside world.
The methodology we used is as follows: we chose a few well-connected targets, devices that most certainly have a stable and working IPv6 connectivity (www.afnic.fr, www.ietf.org, www.icann.org, www.freebsd.org and www.wikipedia.org). We then requested one-off measurements for these targets, using the address family 6. The set of probes for the first target is choosen at random by the RIPE Atlas system, but only among those probes that claim IPv6 connectivity (typically because they received an RA announcement with a global IPv6 prefix). All the other targets then reused the same set of probes (thanks to the option "type": "msm" in the measurement creation API). We then counted only the probes that cannot get even one reply from any of the targets. These probes are regarded as "without a real IPv6 connectivity".
With 1,000 probes worldwide, we see that 10% are "without a real IPv6 connectivity". Per target, we observed a percentage between 10 and 11. (See public measurements #1010569 to #1010579.) The practical consequence of this is that when you use RIPE Atlas to measure the connectivity of an IPv6 device, 90% success is the maximal reachability you'll get.
The results do not depend on the area (continent). For instance, in area West (North America in RIPE Atlas terminology) and in area North-Central (Europe), we observed the same (taking into account the confidence interval) ratio of 10%.
The problem is very specific to IPv6. When doing the tests with IPv4 on the same targets, only 0.4% of the 1,000 probes fail to ping any of the targets. (See public measurements #1010583 to #1010588.)
We also wanted to make a distinction between those probes that time-out and those that get an explicit error (typically "sendto failed: Network is unreachable", probably an explicit ICMP error received). We observed that around 2/3 of of the probes timed out which is unfortunately pretty annoying for actual users.
We might want to retry this study with longer measurements (instead of one-off measurements) to be sure we were not a victim of a general problem of the IPv6 Internet at the time of the measurement. But since these tests were repeated several times at different days, I believe they truly represent a permanent state of the network.
Conclusions & Solutions
A possible solution to this issue could be for the RIPE Atlas developers to do these tests periodically and to warn the owners of the probes. Or maybe to stop using these probes for IPv6 tests. The RIPE Atlas team confirmed that it is currently thinking about improving the probe selection process in this regard. For instance, RIPE Atlas could look at how successful the probes were in general doing IPv6 measurements, and exclude the ones that consistently fail. And perhaps later a knob could be added so that users can specify if they want this or not.
The source code to start the measurements that we used in this survey (and to analyse their results) is in the contrib repository under the name "survey-connectivity-v6.py").
As we see, the IPv6 Internet is still not on par with the IPv4 Internet. Please note that RIPE Atlas probes are typically installed by engineers on better-than-average local networks. The problem is probably worse for general devices, hence the "happy eyeballs" problem described in RFC 6556 .
Creating RIPE Atlas One-off Measurements with Blaeu
Quad9, a Public DNS Resolver - with Security
Processing RIPE Atlas Results with jq
Stéphane Bortzmeyer Based in Paris (France)
ludovic • 12 Jun 2013 09:59
why not send ipv6 measurement requests only ivre ipv6?
Stéphane Bortzmeyer • 12 Jun 2013 10:12
I'm not sure of the internals of the Atlas system but, as far as I know, the probe establishes a secure channel (remember many probes cannot receive unsollicited connections from the outside, because NAT or firewall) with its master (either with IPv4 or IPv6) and then uses this channel for everything (reports, measurement requests, responses).
Robert Kisteleki • 12 Jun 2013 13:08
The command channel can be on either v4 or v6. Regardless of this, if the probe indicates that it can do "the other" protocol too, we'll involve it in those measurements.
Val • 12 Jun 2013 15:55
Hello, I checked all "pingable" addresses from route6 object from RIPE database, and 10 (from 48) don't answer on pings.
Sebastian Castro • 12 Jun 2013 20:48
Thanks Stephane for this. My own experience shows similar perception of probes not being able to reach v6 destinations. We recently used ATLAS for testing reachability of a new DNS server and roughly 8% of the probes used couldn't reach it. In the process of finding out why, we ran a one-off traceroute measurement, and probes failed on the second hop.
Note there is also a interesting discussion about this article on the mailing list of the RIPE IPv6 Working Group http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/2013-June/002153.html
Phillip Remaker • 21 Jun 2013 23:54
Is there any way to get the source IPv6 address of the failing probes? Or at least the prefix? I am especially interested to know if the failing devices posses 6to4 or Teredo addresses, or are otherwise behind a router serviced by a poorly maintained or unpredictable IPv6 tunnel. I would suggest that any probes reporting 6to4 or Teredo addresses be prohibited from participating in IPv6 test measurements. It would be useful to conduct further research on the failing probes and adjust the probe firmware accordingly.
Dan Wing • 22 Jun 2013 03:41
I have a suspicion that many of these failures are IPv6 tunnels that have suffered bit rot. Could you analyze the IPv6 address that the Atlas probe thinks it has and split them into two categories: (a) known tunnels (e.g., Hurricane Electric, SixXS, 6to4, Teredo) versus (b) presumably "native" IPv6 addresses.
Stéphane Bortzmeyer • 04 Jul 2013 14:49
I don't have time right now for analyzing the addresses (these are public measurements so someone else may do it). But I don't think it would be a good idea to exclude probes based on the type of address. Global and "normal" IPv6 addresse may have connectivity problems, too. Exclusion from measurements should be based on actual tests (probing the Anchors), not on guesses.
I tried to answer your question but was not able to do so because, unfortunately, the JSON results do not contain the source IPv6 address of the probe when the ping failed. So, i cannot check it.
Behrooz Behzadfar • 25 Jul 2013 04:33
contain the source IPv6 address of the probe when the ping failed.
Isn't there something missing at the beginning of your message? What "contains the source IPv6 address"?


text:
OnePlus 8 vs. Samsung Galaxy S20: Which is better for you?
By Michael Archambault	 May 3, 2020
For quite a while now, Samsung has sat at the top of the smartphone food chain, presenting itself as one of the major players in the world of Android devices. OnePlus, a company that had initially positioned itself as an enthusiast budget brand, is now attempting to sit at the big kids' table with the OnePlus 8, but is it enough? We take a look at the new OnePlus 8 and how it stacks up to Samsung's Galaxy S20. If you're stuck on the fence deciding, our guide will help you make a final decision, selecting the smartphone best for you.
OnePlus 8 Samsung Galaxy S20
Size 160.2 x 72.9 x 8 mm (6.31 x 2.87 x 0.31 inches) 151.7 x 69.1 x 7.9 mm (5.97 x 2.72 x 0.31 inches)
Weight 180 grams (6.35 ounces) 163 grams (5.75 ounces)
Screen size 6.55-inch AMOLED (90 Hz) 6.3-inch AMOLED (120 Hz)
Screen resolution 2,400 x 1,080 pixels (402 pixels-per-inch) 2,400 x 1,080 pixel (563 pixels-per-inch)
Operating system Android 10 (under OxygenOS) Android 10
Storage space 128 GB / 256 GB 128 GB / 256 GB / 512 GB
MicroSD card slot No Yes
NFC Yes Yes
Processor Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
RAM 8 GB / 12 GB 8 GB / 12 GB / 16 GB
Camera 48MP f/1.75 Wide-angle, a 12MP f/2.2 Ultra-Wide, 2MP f/2.4 Macro 12MP f/2.2 Ultra-Wide, 12MP f/1.8 Wide-angle, 64MP f/2 telephoto
Video Up to 4K at 60 fps, 1080 at 340 fps 8K at 30 fps, 4K at 60 frames per second, 1080p at 240 fps, 720p at 960 fps
Bluetooth version 5.1 5.0
Ports USB-C USB-C
Fingerprint sensor Yes (under-display) Yes (ultrasonic under-display)
Water resistance IP68 IP68
Battery 4,300 mAh
Warp Charge fast charging (30W) 4,500 mAh
Fast charging (25W)
Fast Wireless Charging 2.0 (15W)
App marketplace Google Play Store Google Play Store
Network support Verizon, T-Mobile AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon
Colors Onyx Black, Glacial Green, Interstellar Glow, Polar Silver Cosmic Gray, Cloud Blue, Cloud Pink, Cloud White, Aura Red
Price $700 $1000
Buy from OnePlus Samsung
Review score 4 out of 5 stars 3.5 out of 5 stars
Design, display, and durability
John Velasco / Digital Trends
Samsung's Galaxy S20 continues forward with a familiar design; the only minute changes are to the rear camera assembly and position of the forward-facing camera. Constructed from metal and glass, the S20 comes in an assortment of three colors: Cosmic Gray, Cloud Blue, and Cloud Pink. Flip the device over, and you'll find one of the most beautiful 6.2-inch Quad HD+ displays, sporting AMOLED technology and HDR10+ certification for vibrant colors. The S20 sports a 120Hz refresh rate, making everything from video games to scroll-through menus appear butter-smooth. While the S20 is Samsung's smallest offering, we want to note that it is still quite large in the hand, but is indeed comfortable thanks to the 20:9 aspect ratio. One setback from the ratio is that some content will be displayed with black bars on either side, such as YouTube videos and even some games.
The OnePlus 8 has quite a muted design also constructed from metal and glass, sporting three color options: Glacial Green, Interstellar Glow (a purple-pink option), and Onyx Black. The back of the device proudly displays the OnePlus logo, and a stack of triple cameras sits atop the marking vertically. The 8 sports a slightly larger 6.55-inch display, also backed by AMOLED technology, providing an HDR experience. Somewhat slower than the Galaxy S20, the OnePlus 8 display sports a 90Hz refresh rate, but it still makes for a smooth graphical experience.
When it comes down to durability, both smartphones feature sturdy metal constructions but find themselves surrounded by glass. As with most modern smartphones, you'll likely want to throw a case on both devices to keep them safe. If you're looking to keep down on weight, the Galaxy S20 will be your best option with the device coming in at 163 grams, versus the OnePlus 8 at 180 grams.
Winner: Samsung Galaxy S20
Performance, battery life, and charging
Andy Boxall/DigitalTrends.com
When it comes to performance between the OnePlus 8 and Samsung Galaxy S20, there isn't much of a fight — it's an immediate tie. Both devices sport the top-of-the-line Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 processor and sport a minimum of 8GB of RAM. As we move up a tier, both Samsung and OnePlus provide the option to increase RAM up to 12GB for increased performance. With top-tier hardware, we don't believe you'll see much of a performance difference, as OnePlus has upped its game for its latest smartphone.
Battery life will require further testing on the OnePlus which includes a 4,300mAh battery, but for the Samsung Galaxy S20, which opts for a slightly smaller 4,000mAh option, we found it to last through a day with about 15% left by 11 PM. When it comes down to wired charging, there's a clear winner. Samsung's S20 includes fast 25W charging that we were able to charge from 0 to 55% in 30-minutes, but it's left in the dust by the OnePlus 8's 30W Warp Charge. Unfortunately though, the OnePlus 8 doesn't include wireless charging like the OnePlus 8 Pro, so it loses some points to the Galaxy S20. Based on that exclusion, this is a tie.
Many smartphones live or die depending on their included cameras, but both the OnePlus 8 and Samsung Galaxy S20 provide reliable options. Flip the S20 over and you'll find a triple camera array — a 12-megapixel f/2.2 ultra-wide, a 12-megapixel f/1.8 wide-angle, and a 64-megapixel f/2 telephoto. Optical image stabilization is on board to help in low-light situations, and the phones include Samsung's Super Resolution Zoom at up to 30x. On the front of the device, you'll find a small centered hole-punch featuring a 10-megapixel f/2.2 camera for selfies and video calls. As usual, portrait mode works well, but when it fails, it crashes.
The OnePlus 8 also brings forward a triple camera setup on its rear — a 48-megapixel f/1.75 wide-angle, a 12-megapixel f/2.2 ultra-wide, and a 2-megapixel f/2.4 macro option. You won't find any unique zoom technology here, but the OnePlus 8 stands out as a healthy option if macro photography is a particular hobby that you enjoy. Flipping around to the front camera, you'll find a left-centered hole-punch with a 16-megapixel f/2.45 camera.
When it comes down to video recording, the Samsung Galaxy S20 can capture 8K video at 24fps or 4K UHD video at 60fps — both include HDR10+ recording capabilities and video stabilization. The OnePlus 8 doesn't push into 8K territory, but can still capture a respectable 4K video at 60fps. Overall, both smartphones offer excellent camera performance with Samsung favoring more vivid color profiles; however, we would have liked to see more shadow detail from the OnePlus 8.
While the OnePlus 8 takes good photos, it's edged out by the Galaxy S20's improved camera.
Both the Samsung Galaxy S20 and OnePlus 8 are running Android 10, the latest variant of the mobile operating system. Onboard the Samsung device, you'll find the typical software expected from the technology giant, including Samsung Pay, the Bixby voice assistant, and an anti-virus suite powered by McAfee. We aren't fans of the Samsung Daily screen, which we didn't find extremely useful, but none the less, it is available.
The OnePlus 8 makes things a bit more interesting, however, with its OxygenOS, a skin developed by OnePlus that aims to make Android a bit friendlier. OnePlus even opted to include Amazon's Alexa voice assistant available straight out of the box. Overall, we like both interfaces, and the choice will be a personal preference ultimately.
Things aren't as personal when we move to updates though, and while both phones will undoubtedly get Android 11, update speed is likely to be quite different. Samsung is far from the fastest to update its phones, while OnePlus is much faster. OnePlus takes this round on the strength of its update speed.
Winner: OnePlus 8
Both the Samsung Galaxy S20 and OnePlus standardize on several features, such as including a built-in under-screen fingerprint sensor and 5G connectivity support. However, it's the unique features between these two devices that make them attractive. For Samsung, its ultimate showcase is the added camera array with a new ability, Single Take, that takes several photos over 10 seconds and then presents you with the best options. OnePlus stands out with its Warp Charge technology, but also makes an impression with its Smart Pet Capture mode, helping you snap the cutest picture of your little pals. Overall, both smartphones are packed full of features, but neither has any extreme standouts.
Samsung's Galaxy S20 comes in with a price tag of $1,000, although we have regularly seen it on sale for as low as $800 — you can also add on Samsung Premium Care for an additional $12 per month. OnePlus, on the other hand, offers the OnePlus 8 at a standard price of $800. Of course, these prices are for unlocked smartphones, and paying through your carrier could net you a discount. Currently, both smartphones are available internationally via a variety of primary and local cellular carriers.
Overall winner: Samsung Galaxy S20
Is a good camera good enough or do you need the best? That's one of the key questions you should be asking when choosing between the Samsung Galaxy S20 and OnePlus 8. Both devices feature beautiful designs, but neither leave us awe-struck. While each device offers a few minor software features over the other, nothing stands out as revolutionary between these two devices. We can say, however, that if you are looking for a small Samsung device, you might want to keep looking as the display here is still quite large.
The OnePlus 8 pulls ahead in its price tag and excellent fast-charging abilities, while the S20 offers a better display, impressive cameras, and wireless charging. In the end, OnePlus 8 flashes around an attractive price, but Samsung brings a better assortment of hardware and an excellent camera to the table, winning this battle.
The best Android phones for 2021
Samsung Galaxy A71 5G vs. OnePlus Nord: Midrange phone battle
Samsung Galaxy S21 vs. Galaxy S20: What difference does a year make?
Samsung Galaxy S21 Plus vs. iPhone 12 Pro: Go Plus or Pro?
The best cell phone plan deals for January 2021: Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and more
These are the best cheap Fitbit deals for January 2021
These are the best Google Pixel deals for January 2021
Best Google Pixel 4 deals for January 2021: Pixel 4 and Pixel 4 XL
The best Apple iPhone deals for January 2021
Best iPhone 11 deals for January 2021: iPhone 11 and iPhone 11 Pro

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
nml.fs-lnm.et@phac-aspc.gc.ca
The Field Studies section provides reference and diagnostic services for selected zoonotic disease agents including:
Babesia species including B. microti, B. duncani and B. divergens
Bartonella species including B. henselae and B. quintana
Borrelia burgdorferi (Lyme disease) sensu stricto and B. burgdorferi sensu lato including B. mayonii and European genospecies B. afzelii and B. garinii
Colorado tick fever virus*
Eastern equine encephalitis virus*
Ehrlichia chaffeensis
Francisella tularensis*
Leptospira species
Heartland J virus*
Hantaviruses including Sin Nombre virus and Seoul virus*
Powassan encephalitis virus including prototypic POWV and Deer tick virus (DTV)*
Relapsing Fever Borrelia including B. hermsii and B. miyamotoi
West Nile virus*
In addition, the section undertakes outbreak investigations, national surveillance and research studies related to these zoonotic disease agents. Research interests include field- and laboratory-based investigations on the factors determining the distribution and prevalence of zoonotic diseases in Canada with emphasis on tick-borne (e.g., Lyme disease), mosquito-borne (e.g., West Nile virus) and rodent-associated diseases (e.g., hantaviruses). Results of these activities are used to better inform interested parties (including the general public, non-governmental and governmental agencies) about the relative risks of contracting these zoonotic diseases in Canada and form the basis for recommendations about how best to prevent or minimize exposure to these pathogens. Applied research interests include development and optimization of assays to detect emerging tick and mosquito-borne pathogens. The section also performs a reference role by providing proficieny panels and technical expertise to external clients.
* The Field Studies section performs testing for these pathogens on samples collected from non-human sources such as ticks, mosquitoes and rodents
Detection of Tick-borne Pathogens by Real-time PCR Anaplasma phagocytophilum
Detection of Tick-borne Pathogens by Real-time PCR Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato
Detection of Tick-borne Pathogens by Real-time PCR Borrelia miyamotoi
Detection of Tick-borne Pathogens by Real-time PCR Ehrlichia chaffeensis
Detection of Tick-borne Pathogens by Real-time PCR Babesia spp.
Eastern Equine Encephalitis virus Detection in Mosquitoes by RT-PCR Eastern Equine Encephalitis virus (EEEV)
West Nile virus Detection in Mosquitoes by RT-PCR West Nile virus (WNV)
Molecular Testing for Selected Zoonotic Agents
12-Requisition-form-Field-Studies-Molecular-ENG.pdf
Serological Testing for Selected Zoonotic Agents
12-Requisition-form-Field-Studies-Serology-ENG.pdf
Sample Submission Guide
MG FS - Sample Submission Guide EN.xlsx
Anaplasma phagocytophilum Molecular Detection and Genotyping Molecular Detection
Anaplasma phagocytophilum Serology Indirect Immunofluorescent Assay (IFA) – IgG
Babesia spp. Molecular Detection and Genotyping Molecular Detection
Bartonella henselae Serology Indirect Immunofluorescent Assay (IFA) - IgG
Bartonella quintana Serology Indirect Immunofluorescence Assay (IFA) - IgG
Bartonella spp. Molecular Detection and Genotyping Detection of Bartonella species by PCR and sequencing
Borrelia burgdorferi Serology Immunoblot (Western blot) - IgG
Borrelia burgdorferi Serology Immunoblot (Line blot) - IgM
Borrelia burgdorferi Serology Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) on Serum
Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato Molecular Detection and Genotyping Molecular Detection by PCR and Sequencing
Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato Serology Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) on CSF
Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato Serology Immunoblot (Line blot) - IgG
Ehrlichia chaffeensis Molecular Detection Molecular Detection by PCR
Ehrlichia chaffeensis Serology Indirect Immunofluorescence Assay (IFA) – IgG
Francisella tularensis Serology Microagglutination Test (MAT) on Specimens from Non-Human Sources
Francisella tularensis Molecular Detection Molecular Detection and Typing of Francisella tularensis in Specimens from Non-Human Sources
Leptospira spp. Serology Microagglutination test (MAT)
Leptospira spp. Serology Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) -IgM
Leptospira spp. Molecular Detection and Genotyping Detection of Leptospira species by PCR and sequencing
Relapsing fever Borrelia Molecular Detection and Genotyping Molecular Detection by PCR and Sequencing


text:
EPA Analysis Shows Increased Toxic Chemical Releases in Vermont in 2015
Ten-year trend shows major reductions of emissions in New England
David Deegan (deegan.dave@epa.gov)
BOSTON - EPA's most recent Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data is now available for the reporting year of 2015. In Vermont, the reporting data show that overall releases of pollutants to the environment increased since the previous reporting year (2014). However, the analysis shows a 15.6 percent decrease of reported chemical releases in Vermont from 2005 to 2015.
During 2015, the latest year for which data are available, approximately 15.1 million pounds of chemicals were released in the six New England states, a reduction of about 1.3 million pounds (decreased by 8.3 percent) from 2014 (the previous reporting year). During this period, total air emissions in New England were reduced by 9.4 percent.
Between 2005 and 2015, New England facilities reduced their total on- & off-site disposals and other releases by 50.1 percent. During this span of 10 years, New England facilities reduced their air emissions by 70.9 percent – exceeding the national air trend of a 50 percent reduction.
In Vermont, 38 facilities reported in 2015 approximately 354,804 pounds (an increase of 45,679 pounds, or 14.8 percent). Since 2005, reporting facilities in Vermont have reduced their releases from 420,486 pounds, a reduction of 15.6 percent.
TRI information is a key part of EPA's efforts to provide greater access to environmental information and get information to the public as quickly as possible. TRI reporting provides Americans with vital information about their communities by publishing information on toxic chemical disposals and releases into the air, land and water, as well as information on waste management and pollution prevention activities in neighborhoods across the country. Data from the Toxic Release Inventory is an important tool for citizens to know what chemicals are used in their communities, and what companies are doing to prevent pollution.
"The trends that show steady declines of chemicals being released into New England's air, water and land show without any doubt that we can have a strong and growing economy while enjoying a clean, healthy and protected environment," said Curt Spalding, regional administrator of EPA's New England office. "It's also a testament to American ingenuity and know-how, to see our companies and citizens respond to the call to reduce harmful emissions while continuing to prosper."
Each year, EPA makes publicly available TRI data reported by industries throughout the United States regarding chemical releases to air, water and land by power plants, manufacturers and other facilities which employ ten or more workers, and which exceed thresholds for chemicals. Reporting includes information on chemicals released at a company's facility, as well as those transported to disposal facilities off site. TRI data do not reflect the relative toxicity of the chemicals emitted or potential exposure to people living in a community with reported releases.
Reporting under TRI does not indicate illegal discharges of pollutants to the environment. EPA works closely with states to provide regulatory oversight of facilities that generate pollution to the nation's air, land and water. Effective review and permitting programs work to ensure that the public and the environment are not subjected to unhealthful levels of pollution, even as agencies work to further reduce emissions of chemicals to the environment. Enforcement efforts by EPA and states ensure that facilities that violate their environmental permits are subject to penalties and corrective action. Yearly releases by individual facilities can vary due to factors such as power outages, production variability, lulls in the business cycle, etc., that do not reflect a facility's pollution prevention program(s).
The top ten chemicals released to the environment on- and off-site during 2014 in Vermont were:
NITRATE COMPOUNDS 209,815
NICKEL 31,927
ZINC COMPOUNDS 17,495
STYRENE 16,080
COPPER 14,370
ETHYLENE GLYCOL 14,031
LEAD 13,027
AMMONIA 12,673
CHROMIUM 10,235
HYDROGEN FLUORIDE 5,795
The ten facilities that reported the largest quantity of on- and off-site environmental releases in Vermont under TRI for 2015 were:
GLOBAL FOUNDRIES US 2 LLC, ESSEX JUNCTION 166,786
CABOT CREAMERY, CABOT 62,929
GE AVIATION PLANT, NORTH CLARENDON 39,662
US ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ETHAN ALLEN FIRING RANGE, JERICHO 26,008
MOORE CO FULFLEX OF VERMONT, BRATTLEBORO 18,720
TANSITOR ELECTRONICS INC., BENNINGTON 13,241
WEIDMANN ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY INC., ST JOHNSBURY 9,098
QUESTECH CORP., RUTLAND 6,982
GE AVIATION PLANT, RUTLAND 4,527
SWAN VALLEY CHEESE, SWANTON 1,660
TRI data are submitted annually to EPA, states, and tribes by facilities in industry sectors such as manufacturing, metal mining, electric utilities, and commercial hazardous waste. Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), facilities must report their toxic chemical releases for the prior year to EPA by July 1 of each year. The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 also requires facilities to submit information on pollution prevention and other waste management activities related to TRI chemicals. Nationwide, nearly 22,000 facilities submitted TRI data for calendar year 2015.
EPA will hold training workshops to assist facility managers to understand and comply with TRI reporting requirements during the spring of 2017 in each of the six New England states.
Toxic Release Inventory (www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program)
Further TRI Analysis for Vermont (go.usa.gov/x9Pqk)
TRI training workshop details will be posted at: www.epa.gov/aboutepa/epa-region-1-new-england


text:
You are at:Home»Posts Tagged "broken kneecap"
Browsing: broken kneecap
Dobbs chose Option 3, and other reasons he should be considered for Heisman
By on	 August 3, 2010 Football, Navy
CBSsports.com columnist Gregg Doyel has weighed in on the Ricky Dobbs For Heisman movement that has gained steam recently (there's even a Twitter account pushing for Dobbs). Turns out Doyel is onboard, although he has no illusion about how difficult it will be for Dobbs to garner serious consideration. "This is a long shot, of course. You know it. I know it. Even Dobbs knows it, " Doyel writes. "He's a confident sort — in his official bio at Navy he not only says he wants to be President of the United States, he tells us which year he wants…


text:
On the National Day of Hungarian Culture, Hungarian workers in the cultural sector demand better pay!
EPSU affiliates KKDSZ are holding a demonstration to protest the unacceptable low level of pay across the culture sector and the lack of any pay increase for their members for over 10 years.
All-Ukrainian Trade Union Forum Kiev
Update situation in Ukraine – unions united in rejection of labour reform
The All-Ukrainian trade union Forum, the body that has representatives of more than 60 thousand primary trade union organisations, mandated by five million trade union members, is calling for a wide range of actions.
Croatian public service unions supporting the Ukrainian trade union protests against labour law reform
Croatian unions: higher wages and stronger bargaining a key priority. Supporting the Ukrainian unions
EPSU's Croatian affiliates have a clear message for the European Commission and their government, now chairing the Council of Ministers.
ETUCE and EPSU show solidarity with Ukraine's Trade Unions
Europe's public service workers are concerned about the impact of the new labour legislation on workers in the Ukraine.
Large health sector strike in Northern Ireland
Healthcare services will be heavily disrupted today as paramedics, nurses, and other healthcare workers are going on strike.
Trade union movement raises concerns about the Labour Law in Ukraine
The Ukrainian government continues to push for a reform of the labour law without involving the trade unions.
Firefighters demonstration in Roma 12 December 2019 - EPSU General Secretary speaking
EPSU expresses solidarity with actions of the Italian public service unions
The Italian public service unions are organizing a series of actions to put pressure on the Italian government and the employers.
Update on the situation in Ukraine
Today, trade unions of Ukraine are facing many challenges related to reduction of state support for certain sectors of economy
Success of EPSU's actions for the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against women
On the occasion of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women on November 25, EPSU organized a campaign to promote a health and safe environment in the world of work, through the ratification of the Istanbul and the ILO 190 Conventions.
Protest pension reforms in France, 5 December 2019
Massive actions, demonstrations and strikes to protest pension reforms in France yesterday
The French government has proposed changes to the pension system in France. These changes face opposition of all French unions.
Success for Australian unions – solidarity works
For months, Australian trade unions have been fighting a piece of legislation that would make it very difficult for unions to organise themselves and represent workers.
Previous action Latvian health and care workers on 7 November
EPSU supports Latvian health workers in new protest for quality care
On 28 November Latvian health and care workers are staging a new protest in front of the Parliament (Saeima).
Podkrepa unions organising a national-wide protest rally on 27th November 2019
EPSU and EFBWW support for protests Bulgarian unions
Bulgarian unions are organising actions and protests to demand the government takes steps to ensure decent living and working conditions for workers and families in the country. Podkrepa unions are organising a national-wide protest rally on 27th November 2019.
EPSU solidarity with Dutch workers in hospitals on strike 20 November
Dutch workers in hospitals will be on strike demanding more staff to deal with high workloads, better conditions and respect for working time, and higher wages.
EPSU's senior vice-president Francoise Geng with the European delegation including representatives of UNITE and Unison (UK) as well as ITUC and leading unionists from Turkey
EPSU supports President Turkish confederation DISK in defence of free speech – drop the charges
The second public hearing in the trial of Arzu Çerkezoğlu, President of DISK took place 14 November in Sapanca, near Istanbul.
(-) Remove Solidarity filter Solidarity
--Choose--(-) Solidarity (482) Union Rights (317) Collective Bargaining (37) Health (31) Social Services (19) Equality (14) Central government (12) Health and Safety (12) Privatisation (12) Economic Policy (11) Migration (10) Energy (9) Local government (9) Quality employment (9) Strike (9) Tax justice (9) Company policy and EWCs (8) Low pay/minimum wages (8) Water (7) Social Dialogue (6) Childcare (5) Environment/Climate Change (5) Trade (5) Electricity (4) Outsourcing (4) Pensions/retirement (4) Transparency & Corruption (4) Waste (4) Working Time (4) Digitalisation (3) Precarious employment (3) Culture (2) Information & consultation (2) Work-life balance (2) Gas (1) Gender pay gap (1) PPPs (1) Recruitment & organising (1) Restructuring (1)
--Choose-- Health and Social Services (34) Utilities (14) Executive Committee (11) National and European Administration (11) Local and Regional Government (9)
--Choose-- Firefighters (10) EWCs (5) Women & Gender Equality (4) Prisons Services (3) Public Services (3) Youth (2)
--Choose-- Press Release (16) Papers and publications (9) Statement (6) Position paper (4) Resolution (3) Constituency (2) Briefing (1) Congress Briefing (1) Editorial (1)
--Choose-- Turkey (37) U.K. (18) France (15) Greece (13) Ukraine (12) Germany (9) Hungary (8) Spain (7) Belgium (6) Ireland (5) Italy (5) Croatia (4) Lithuania (3) Portugal (3) Romania (3) Russia (3) Slovenia (3) Australia (2) Austria (2) Denmark (2) Europe (2) Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (F.Y.R.O.M.) (2) Korea (2) Kosovo (2) Latvia (2) Norway (2) Serbia (2) Sweden (2) USA (2) Armenia (1) Bosnia and Herzegovina (1) Bulgaria (1) Czech Republic (1) Finland (1) Georgia (1) Kazakhstan (1) Montenegro (1) Slovak Republic (1) Switzerland (1) The Netherlands (1)
--Choose-- English (478) French (2) Greek (2)
Events to come
Working group on EPSU Vice-PresidentsRue du Marché aux Herbes 105 - ETF - Brussels [BE]
Working group on EPSU Vice-Presidents
EPSU Collective Bargaining Working GroupBoulevard du Roi Albert II 5 - Brussels [BE]
EPSU Collective Bargaining Working Group
CEMR - EPSU Project: "Localising the European Semester" - Final ConferenceCalle Larga Ragusei Dorsoduro 3489/E-C - NH Venezia Rio Novo - Venice [IT]
CEMR - EPSU Project: "Localising the European Semester" - Final Conference


text:
Maryland Humanities Awards Nearly $75,000 in Grants to 13 Maryland Nonprofits
(Baltimore) – Maryland Humanities is pleased to award $74,146 to 13 organizations based in or creating projects in Maryland. The grantees span six Maryland counties and Baltimore City: recipients are located in Anne Arundel County, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Howard County, Montgomery County, Prince George's County, and Wicomico County.
Maryland Humanities' major grants support up to $10,000 per recipient. Mini grants support up to $1,200 per recipient. Funding goes to nonprofit organizations that use the humanities (literature, philosophy, history, etc.) to inspire Marylanders to embrace lifelong learning, exchange ideas openly, and enrich their communities. Grant criteria encourage free public programming in many forms.
$69,547 in major grant funding will go to the following organizations: Accokeek Foundation, Baltimore School for the Arts Foundation, Banneker-Douglass Museum Foundation, Docs in Progress, The Lost Towns Project, Olney Theatre Corporation, The Peale Center for Baltimore History and Architecture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and Wicomico Public Libraries.
Blair Network Communications, Historic Hampton, Patapsco Heritage Greenway, and Salisbury Middle School will receive a combined total of $4,599 in mini grant funding from Maryland Humanities.
Projects funded in this most recent round of awards include a set of storytelling workshops about home and family; educational programming surrounding a public art project entitled The Black Vote Mural Exhibit; and a series of events, lectures, and exhibits commemorating the history and culture of the Patapsco Valley within the context of the nineteenth amendment.
Maryland Humanities' Grants Program is funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Maryland Historical Trust in the Maryland Department of Planning, and the Maryland Department of Labor.
Learn more about the recently funded projects here and learn more about our Grants Program, eligibility, and deadlines here.
Remembering Marilyn Hatza
Maryland Humanities Announces New Board Chair
Maryland Humanities Tour of Smithsonian Exhibition Travels to Western Maryland