Petitioner and two others were summoned to testify before a congressional investigating committee. One of them refused to say whether he was or had been a member of the Communist Party, basing his refusal on "the first and fifth amendments," as well as "the first amendment to the Constitution, supplemented by the fifth amendment." Petitioner adopted the other's statement as his own and refused to answer the same question. The committee did not ask him to state more specifically the ground for his refusal to answer and did not specifically overrule his objection or direct him to answer. Held: In his trial for contempt of Congress under 2 U.S.C. 192, the District Court should have entered a judgment of acquittal. Pp. 156-170.
1. Petitioner's references to the Fifth Amendment sufficiently invoked his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. Pp. 160-165.
(a) The constitutional guaranty against self-incrimination must be construed liberally in favor of the right it was intended to secure - especially in criminal trials for refusal to answer. Pp. 161-162.
(b) An answer to the question whether he was a member of the Communist Party might have tended to incriminate petitioner. Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 . P. 162.
(c) If an objection to a question is made in any language that a committee may reasonably be expected to understand as an attempt to invoke the privilege, it must be respected both by the committee and by a court in a prosecution under 192. Pp. 162-163.
(d) The mere fact that petitioner also relied on the First Amendment did not preclude his reliance on the Fifth Amendment as well. P. 163.
2. On the record in this case, there was not adequate proof of a deliberate intentional refusal to answer, which is an essential element of a violation of 2 U.S.C. 192. Pp. 165-170.
(a) This element of the offense, like any other, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. P. 165.
(b) Unless the witness is clearly apprised that the committee demands his answer notwithstanding his objection, there can be no conviction under 192 for his refusal to answer. Pp. 165-166.
(c) There is nothing in the record of the committee hearing from which petitioner could have determined with a reasonable degree of certainty that the committee demanded his answer despite his objection. Pp. 166-167.
(d) By the enactment of 2 U.S.C. 192, Congress did not intend to dispense with the traditional requirement that the witness must be clearly apprised that an answer is demanded notwithstanding his objection. Pp. 167-170.
91 U.S. App. D.C. 344, 203 F.2d 20, reversed.
David Scribner and Frank J. Donner argued the cause for petitioner. With them on the brief were Arthur Kinoy and Allan R. Rosenberg.
Robert W. Ginnane argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Sobeloff, Assistant Attorney General Olney, Beatrice Rosenberg and John R. Wilkins.
Pursuant to subpoena, petitioner appeared on August 10, 1949, before a subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives. Petitioner was then a member and field representative of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America. Also subpoenaed to appear on that day were Thomas J. Fitzpatrick and Frank Panzino, two officers of the same union. At the outset of the hearings, counsel for the committee announced that the purpose of the investigation was to inquire into "the question of Communist affiliation or association of certain members" of the union and "the advisability of tightening present security requirements in industrial plants working on certain Government contracts." 4 All three witnesses were asked questions concerning alleged membership in the Communist Party. All three declined to answer.
It is from that decision that this Court granted certiorari.
The privilege against self-incrimination is a right that was hard-earned by our forefathers. The reasons for its inclusion in the Constitution - and the necessities for its preservation - are to be found in the lessons of history. 26 As early as 1650, remembrance of the horror of Star Chamber proceedings a decade before had firmly established the privilege in the common law of England. Transplanted to this country as part of our legal heritage, it soon made its way into various state constitutions and ultimately in 1791 into the federal Bill of Rights. The privilege, this Court has stated, "was generally regarded then, as now, [349 U.S. 155, 162] as a privilege of great value, a protection to the innocent though a shelter to the guilty, and a safeguard against heedless, unfounded or tyrannical prosecutions." 27 Co-equally with our other constitutional guarantees, the Self-Incrimination Clause "must be accorded liberal construction in favor of the right it was intended to secure." 28 Such liberal construction is particularly warranted in a prosecution of a witness for a refusal to answer, since the respect normally accorded the privilege is then buttressed by the presumption of innocence accorded a defendant in a criminal trial. To apply the privilege narrowly or begrudgingly - to treat it as an historical relic, at most merely to be tolerated - is to ignore its development and purpose.
In the instant case petitioner was convicted for refusing to answer the committee's question as to his alleged membership in the Communist Party. Clearly an answer to the question might have tended to incriminate him. 29 As a consequence, petitioner was entitled to claim the privilege. The principal issue here is whether or not he did.
It is agreed by all that a claim of the privilege does not require any special combination of words. 30 Plainly a witness need not have the skill of a lawyer to invoke the protection of the Self-Incrimination Clause. If an objection [349 U.S. 155, 163] to a question is made in any language that a committee may reasonably be expected to understand as an attempt to invoke the privilege, it must be respected both by the committee and by a court in a prosecution under 192.
Here petitioner, by adopting the grounds relied upon by Fitzpatrick, based his refusal to answer on "the first and fifth amendments" and "the first amendment to the Constitution, supplemented by the fifth amendment." The Government concedes - as we think it must - that a witness may invoke the privilege by stating "I refuse to testify on the ground of the Fifth Amendment." Surely, in popular parlance and even in legal literature, the term "Fifth Amendment" in the context of our time is commonly regarded as being synonymous with the privilege against self-incrimination. The Government argues, however, that the references to the Fifth Amendment in the instant case were inadequate to invoke the privilege because Fitzpatrick's statements are more reasonably understood as invoking rights under the First Amendment. We find the Government's argument untenable. The mere fact that Fitzpatrick and petitioner also relied on the First Amendment does not preclude their reliance on the Fifth Amendment as well. 31 If a witness urges two constitutional objections to a committee's line of questioning, he is not bound at his peril to choose between them. By pressing both objections, he does not lose a privilege which would have been valid if he had only relied on one.
The Government, moreover, apparently concedes that petitioner intended to invoke the privilege. In its brief the Government points out "the probability that petitioner's ambiguous references to the Fifth Amendment [349 U.S. 155, 164] . . . were phrased deliberately in such vague terms so as to enable petitioner . . . to obtain the benefit of the privilege without incurring the popular opprobrium which often attaches to its exercise." 32 But the fact that a witness expresses his intention in vague terms is immaterial so long as the claim is sufficiently definite to apprise the committee of his intention. As everyone agrees, no ritualistic formula is necessary in order to invoke the privilege. In the instant case, Quinn's references to the Fifth Amendment were clearly sufficient to put the committee on notice of an apparent claim of the privilege. It then became incumbent on the committee either to accept the claim or to ask petitioner whether he was in fact invoking the privilege. Particularly is this so if it is true, as the Government contends, that petitioner feared the stigma that might result from a forthright claim of his constitutional right to refuse to testify. It is precisely at such times - when the privilege is under attack by those who wrongly conceive of it as merely a shield for the guilty - that governmental bodies must be most scrupulous in protecting its exercise.
This ruling by no means leaves a congressional committee defenseless at the hands of a scheming witness intent on deception. When a witness declines to answer a question because of constitutional objections and the language used is not free from doubt, the way is always open for the committee to inquire into the nature of the claim before making a ruling. If the witness unequivocally and intelligently waives any objection based on the Self-Incrimination Clause, or if the witness refuses a committee request to state whether he relies on the Self-Incrimination Clause, he cannot later invoke its protection [349 U.S. 155, 165] in a prosecution for contempt for refusing to answer that question. Here the committee made no attempt to have petitioner particularize his objection. Under these circumstances, we must hold that petitioner's references to the Fifth Amendment were sufficient to invoke the privilege and that the court below erred in failing to direct a judgment of acquittal.
There is yet a second ground for our decision.
Section 192, like the ordinary federal criminal statute, requires a criminal intent - in this instance, a deliberate, intentional refusal to answer. 33 This element of the offense, like any other, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Petitioner contends that such proof was not, and cannot be, made in this case.
Was petitioner so apprised here? At no time did the committee specifically overrule his objection based on the Fifth Amendment; nor did the committee indicate its overruling of the objection by specifically directing petitioner to answer. In the absence of such committee action, petitioner was never confronted with a clear-cut choice between compliance and noncompliance, between answering the question and risking prosecution for contempt. At best he was left to guess whether or not the committee had accepted his objection.
This ambiguity in the committee's position is apparent from the transcript of the hearing. 35 Immediately after petitioner stated that he was adopting Fitzpatrick's objection, the committee chairman asked petitioner: ". . . will you now answer the question whether you are now or ever have been a member of the Communist Party, or do you decline to answer?" In response to this, petitioner stated for the first time that he would not answer. [349 U.S. 155, 167] He said: "I decline to discuss with the committee questions of that nature." Committee counsel thereupon stated that further questioning "relating to those matters" was "not necessary" and proceeded upon a new line of inquiry. There is nothing in this colloquy from which petitioner could have determined with a reasonable degree of certainty that the committee demanded his answer despite his objection. Rather, the colloquy is wholly consistent with the hypothesis that the committee had in fact acquiesced in his objection.
Giving a witness a fair apprisal of the committee's ruling on an objection recognizes the legitimate interests of both the witness and the committee. Just as the witness need not use any particular form of words to present his objection, so also the committee is not required to resort to any fixed verbal formula to indicate its disposition of the objection. So long as the witness is not forced to guess the committee's ruling, he has no cause to complain. And adherence to this traditional practice can neither inflict hardship upon the committee nor abridge the proper scope of legislative investigation.
Petitioner also attacks his conviction on grounds involving novel constitutional issues. He contends that the House Resolution authorizing the committee's operations is invalid under the First Amendment. In addition, petitioner contends that the trial court erred in denying a hearing on the alleged bias of the indicting grand jury. Our disposition of the case makes it unnecessary to pass on these issues.
The judgment below is reversed and the case remanded to the District Court with directions to enter a judgment of acquittal.
[ Footnote 1 ] The section provides in full: "Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any [349 U.S. 155, 157] joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months."
[ Footnote 2 ] 91 U.S. App. D.C. 344, 203 F.2d 20.
[ Footnote 3 ] 347 U.S. 1008 .
[ Footnote 4 ] Hearings before House Committee on Un-American Activities Regarding Communist Infiltration of Labor Unions, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., Part I, 541-542.
[ Footnote 5 ] Id., at 602, 604.
[ Footnote 6 ] Id., at 608.
[ Footnote 7 ] Id., at 609.
[ Footnote 8 ] Id., at 634-635: "Mr. QUINN. I would like to make a statement along the lines that Mr. Fitzpatrick made yesterday in regard to a question of that nature. I feel that the political beliefs, opinions, and associations of the American people can be held secret if they so desire. "Mr. WOOD. And for those reasons do you decline to answer that question? "Mr. QUINN. I didn't say I was declining to answer the question. Before I do answer the question I should like to say that I support the position taken by Brother Fitzpatrick yesterday. "Mr. WOOD. Did you hear his statement yesterday? "Mr. QUINN. Yes; I did. "Mr. WOOD. Do you support it in its entirety? "Mr. QUINN. In its entirety. "Mr. WOOD. Is there anything else you want to add to it? "Mr. QUINN. No; I don't. "Mr. WOOD. Will you accept it as the expression of your views, then? "Mr. QUINN. You may. I may add I feel I have no other choice in this matter, because the defense of the Constitution, I hold sacred. I don't feel I am hiding behind the Constitution, but in this case I am standing before it, defending it, as small as I am. "Mr. WOOD. Having made that statement and subscribed to the sentiments expressed by the witness yesterday to whom you referred, [349 U.S. 155, 159] will you now answer the question whether you are now or have ever been a member of the Communist Party? "Mr. QUINN. I hold that the Constitution holds sacred the rights of people - "Mr. WOOD. You have stated your position. Having enunciated your sentiments and your position, will you now answer the question whether you are now or ever have been a member of the Communist Party, or do you decline to answer? "Mr. QUINN. I decline to discuss with the committee questions of that nature. "Mr. WOOD. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner. "Mr. TAVENNER. I believe in the light of that answer it is not necessary to ask you any further questions relating to those matters, so I will ask you this: Do you know Mr. James J. Matles? "Mr. QUINN. Yes."
[ Footnote 9 ] Petitioner's motion to dismiss the indictment were denied sub nom. United States v. Emspak, 95 F. Supp. 1010, 1012 (D. D.C.).
[ Footnote 10 ] United States v. Fitzpatrick, 96 F. Supp. 491 (D. D.C.).
[ Footnote 11 ] United States v. Panzino, unreported, Criminal No. 1747-50 (D. D.C.).
[ Footnote 12 ] United States v. Quinn, unreported, Criminal No. 1744-50 (D. D.C.).
[ Footnote 13 ] 91 U.S. App. D.C. 344, 347, 203 F.2d 20, 23.
[ Footnote 14 ] Id., at 347, 203 F.2d, at 23.
[ Footnote 15 ] Id., at 348, 203 F.2d, at 24.
[ Footnote 17 ] Id., at 349, 203 F.2d, at 25.
[ Footnote 19 ] Cf. Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204.
[ Footnote 20 ] In re Chapman, 166 U.S. 661 .
[ Footnote 21 ] See McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 175 .
[ Footnote 22 ] Id., at 173-174; Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190 .
[ Footnote 23 ] Compare United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41, 46 .
[ Footnote 24 ] Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 192 -193.
[ Footnote 25 ] The Amendment provides in pertinent part that "No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . . ."
[ Footnote 26 ] See Griswold, The Fifth Amendment Today, 2-7.
[ Footnote 27 ] Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 91 . See also Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 631 -632.
[ Footnote 28 ] Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 . Cf. Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 562 .
[ Footnote 29 ] Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 , specifically holding that such a question is protected by the privilege; Brunner v. United States, 343 U.S. 918 , reversing 190 F.2d 167 (C. A. 9th Cir.). See also Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 .
[ Footnote 30 ] Compare Smith v. United States, 337 U.S. 137 , where the Court characterized a witness' statement "I want to claim privilege as to anything that I say" (p. 142) as a "definite claim of general privilege against self-incrimination" (p. 151).
[ Footnote 31 ] As to the close relationship between the First Amendment and the privilege against self-incrimination, see Griswold, supra, note 26, at 8-9.
[ Footnote 32 ] Brief for United States, p. 33. The Government makes the same contention as to the petitioner in No. 9, Emspak v. United States, post, p. 190.
[ Footnote 33 ] Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263, 299 . See also In re Chapman, 166 U.S. 661, 672 , in which the Court, while upholding the constitutionality of the statute, recognized deliberateness as an element of the offense.
[ Footnote 34 ] See United States v. Kamp, 102 F. Supp. 757, 759 (D. D.C.): "Committees of Congress must conduct examinations in such a manner that it is clear to the witness that the Committee recognizes him as being in default, and anything short of a clear cut default on the part of the witness will not sustain a conviction for contempt of Congress. The transcript of the defendant Kamp's testimony fails to disclose such a clear cut default. The witness is not required to enter into a guessing game when called upon to appear before a committee. The burden is upon the presiding member to make clear the directions of the committee, to consider any reasonable explanations given by the witness, and then to rule on the witness' response." The defendant was accordingly acquitted. On similar grounds, an acquittal was directed in United States v. Browder, unreported, Criminal No. 1784-50 (D. D.C.).
[ Footnote 35 ] See note 8, supra.
[ Footnote 36 ] While of course not binding on Congress or its committees, the practice in the States and other English-speaking jurisdictions is at least worthy of note. For examples relating to recalcitrant witnesses before state legislative committees, see Ex parte McCarthy, 29 Cal. 395, 398; People v. Keeler, 99 N. Y. 463, 471, 2 N. E. 615, 617; Lowe v. Summers, 69 Mo. App. 637, 645. Recalcitrant witnesses before investigating committees of the British House of Commons have traditionally been apprised of the disposition of their objections and given subsequent opportunity to respond before being subjected to the contempt power of the legislature. The practice has been as follows: The committee reports the failure to answer to the House. The witness is questioned about the cause of the refusal to answer before the Bar of the House. The House then votes on the validity of the objection. If the claim is rejected, the witness is specifically directed to answer. Only after a subsequent refusal is punishment imposed. See 88 Journals of the House of Commons 212, 218 (Case of Elizabeth Robinson before Select Committee on Liverpool Bribery, 1833); 90 Journals of the House of Commons 501, 504, and 29 Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., 1249, 1279-1288 (Case of William Prentice before Select Committee on Great Yarmouth Bribery, 1835); 90 Journals of the House of Commons, 564, 571, 575 (Case of Lieutenant Colonel Fairman before Select Committee on the Orange Lodges, 1835); 152 Journals of the House of Commons 361, [349 U.S. 155, 168] 365 (Case of John Kirkwood before Select Committee on Money Lending, 1897). For Canadian practice, see the case of W. T. R. Preston before the Committee on Public Accounts, the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization, and the House of Commons. 41 Journals of the House of Commons, Canada, 298, 316, 323; 41 id., Appendix No. 2, 324-327; 41 id., Appendix No. 3, 250-251; 76 Debates, House of Commons, Canada, Session 1906, Vol. III, 4451-4535.
[ Footnote 37 ] See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 : "It is for the court to say whether his silence is justified . . . and to require him to answer if `it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken.'" See also Chief Justice Marshall in United States v. Burr, 25 Fed. Cas. 38, at 40, No. 14,692e: "When a question is propounded, it belongs to the court to consider and to decide whether any direct answer to it can implicate the witness." The cases, both federal and state, are collected in Wigmore, Evidence, 2271. See, e. g., Carlson v. United States, 209 F.2d 209, 214 (C. A. 1st Cir.), and Gendron v. Burnham, 146 Me. 387, 405-406, 82 A. 2d 773, 784-785.
[ Footnote 38 ] See, e. g., the resolution introduced by Congressman Orr proposing that one J. W. Simonton be haled before the bar of the House of Representatives for refusing to answer a question put to him by a duly-authorized committee of that body. Cong. Globe, 34th Cong., 3d Sess. 403-404 (1857). The resolution states in part: "The committee were impressed with the materiality of the testimony withheld by the witness, as it embraced the letter and spirit of the inquiry directed by the House to be made, but were anxious to avoid any controversy with the witness. They consequently waived the interrogatory that day, to give the witness time for reflection on the consequences of his refusal, and to afford him an opportunity to look into the law and the practice of the House in such cases, notifying him that he would, on some subsequent day, be recalled. This was the 15th of January instant. On Tuesday, the 20th instant, the said J. W. Simonton was recalled, and the identical [349 U.S. 155, 169] question first referred to was again propounded, after due notice to him that if he declined the committee would feel constrained to report his declination to the House, and ask that body to enforce all its powers in the premises to compel a full and complete response." Id., at 403. See also id., 31st Cong., 1st Sess. 1716 (1850).
[ Footnote 39 ] Act of Jan. 24, 1857, c. 19, 1, 11 Stat. 155.
[ Footnote 40 ] Cong. Globe, 34th Cong., 3d Sess. 427.
[ Footnote 41 ] Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204, 230-231.
[ Footnote 42 ] Cong. Globe, supra, note 40, at 405 et seq.
[ Footnote 43 ] See, e. g., Cong. Globe, 40th Cong., 3d Sess. 771-772 (1869); id., 42d Cong., 3d Sess. 952 (1873); 4 Cong. Rec. 1705 et seq. (1876) (citation of Hallet Kilbourn, involved in Kilbourn v. Thompson, supra, note 22); 26 Cong. Rec. 6143 et seq. (1894) (citation of Elverton R. Chapman, involved in In re Chapman, supra, note 20); 65 Cong. Rec. 4785 et seq. (1924) (citation of Harry F. Sinclair, involved in Sinclair v. United States, supra, note 33); 69 Cong. Rec. 2439, 5286, [349 U.S. 155, 170] 5353, 7239 (1928); 78 Cong. Rec. 1902, 1911-1914 (1934); 86 Cong. Rec. 3856 (1940); 90 Cong. Rec. 8163 (1944); 97 Cong. Rec. 499 et seq. (1951).
[ Footnote 44 ] See, e. g., the contempt citation of George Powers at 86 Cong. Rec. 3856-3857. See also the citation of James H. Dolsen, id., at 3694-3695.
I agree with the result reached by the Court in this case. But I must dissent from the holding made in part II of the majority opinion. The reasons for my position are stated in part II of my dissenting opinion in the Emspak case, decided herewith, post, p. 203, at p. 213. I consider those reasons equally applicable to what is shown by the record in this case.
The Court in these two cases refuses to punish petitioners, witnesses before the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives, for refusal to answer certain pertinent questions. Such refusal is declared to be a misdemeanor by 2 U.S.C. 192.
The separate opinions are based on the conclusion that the petitioners each properly claimed for himself the privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. The Court holds that questions concerning association with known communists or membership in the Party asked witnesses holding prominent positions in a local union, under investigation for communist infiltration directed at national security, might reasonably be feared as incriminatory by the witnesses. 1 For these cases I make that assumption, too. In both the cases, the Court directs remand to the trial court with directions to acquit. This disposition of the charges excludes any factual issues for decision by the trial court as to whether the witnesses did or did not claim their [349 U.S. 155, 172] privilege. It decides that, as a matter of law, the petitioners claimed their privilege by the words used by them in answer to the questions propounded by the Committee. Since the indictments contained numerous counts covering many questions asked and the evidence showed varying reasons for not answering, the conclusion that privilege was claimed blankets all questions. Since the sentences were less than the maximum penalty for one count, if the Court's determination is wrong as to any one question, its present judgments are wrong. 2 Normally the issue as to whether a claim of privilege was made would be a matter of fact for the trial court if reasonable men might reach either conclusion. See the discussion below in the opinion of Judge Prettyman in Quinn v. United States, 91 U.S. App. D.C. 344, 348, 203 F.2d 20, 24, and of Judge Bazelon, id., at 350 and 361-362, 203 F.2d, at 26 and 38. None of the judges of the Court of Appeals suggested approval of such action as this Court now takes in directing acquittal. See also Emspak v. United States, 91 U.S. App. D.C. 378, 203 F.2d 54, dissent, id., at 384, 203 F.2d ___, at 60. This Court at least should have followed that course here.
These sweeping decisions affect the conduct of all congressional inquiries and all courts, for from the opinions there emerges a legally enforceable rule for handling hearings or prosecutions when questions raise for the witness a problem of self-incrimination. The Court, Quinn opinion, p. 164, requires the interrogator, once the witness' claim though "vague . . . is sufficiently definite to apprise the committee of his intention" to claim his privilege, "either to accept the claim or to ask petitioner whether he was in fact invoking the privilege." Although this phrasing, particularly the last clause, carries for me probabilities of uncertainties in future applications that former decisions [349 U.S. 155, 173] avoided, 3 it is accepted for this case as the governing rule. My conclusion is that neither petitioner here apprised the Committee that he was claiming his privilege. As shown by the cases just cited, the privilege is personal to the witness. The reach of questions into matters that might lead to his prosecution for crime may be known only to him. Therefore the witness has the burden of doing something more than suggesting a question might incriminate him. At least, in the words of the Court, he must "apprise the committee of his intention" to claim his privilege.
The Court finds from the record before the Committee an apprisal by petitioners which the Committee should have understood as a claim of privilege against self-incrimination. In examining the record for this purpose, all the pertinent testimony must be considered and evaluated in the light of the purpose and abilities of the petitioners.
During an active period of national rearmament this Committee was investigating subversive and security situations in the sensitive electronic industry with a view to possible legislation. 5 The recalcitrant witnesses held important positions in the field. Mr. Quinn was a field organizer of the International Union of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers. Mr. Emspak was its General Secretary. The third witness, who is not a petitioner but whose testimony is hereafter referred to, was Mr. Fitzpatrick, chief steward of the Westinghouse Corporation local. There is nothing to indicate that the witnesses had mentalities of a quality less than one would expect from experienced officials holding such responsible positions.
While the trial and appellate courts each had only a printed record of the testimony, one group, the subcommittees themselves, had the best opportunity to appraise disinterestedly the fact of whether Messrs. Quinn and Emspak claimed the privilege. The questions and answers were both asked by the counsel and answered by the witnesses in the hearing of the Committee. In citations of Quinn and Emspak to the House for contempt, the Committee certified that the refusal of each "to answer the aforesaid questions deprived your committee of necessary and pertinent testimony . . . ." 7 It can hardly be contended that the Committee did not know a claim of privilege against answering incriminating questions would have excused the witnesses from answering.
In view of the basis of the Court's decision made on its own examination and appraisal of the record, I must necessarily set out for discussion much of the testimony to determine whether the witnesses claimed the privilege. 8 The pertinent evidence follows.
"Mr. Emspak. Everything I am, I owe to the rich heritage and tradition of this country. I do not [349 U.S. 155, 177] believe that a committee of this kind, especially in view of the recent record of this committee where it stooped to interfere in the partisan affairs of a local union, or any congressional committee, because of the rich tradition of this country which, if not perverted, will lead to a greater and better country - I don't think a committee like this or any subcommittee has a right to go into any question of my beliefs, my associations, or anything else. I have a couple of kids. They have a stake in this country, too.
"Mr. Moulder. If you have any explanation to make you will be permitted to do so after you answer the question.
"Mr. Travenner. Are you or are you not acquainted with Joseph Persily?
"Mr. Emspak. I have answered it to the best of my ability under the circumstances."
"Mr. Emspak. Mr. Chairman, on these questions, which are all essentially the same, of course, when this hearing was announced according to the press reports, at least, it was announced because this committee presumably was interested in finding out things with reference to individuals in our organization by using whatever means it has at its disposal, and for the purpose of trying to perhaps frame people for possible criminal prosecution.
"I don't see how or why any individual should be subjected to that kind of questioning here if he is going to maintain, you know, his feelings on these questions, and I tried to express the feeling before when you interrupted me. I just don't intend, as I said then, to be a party to any kangaroo court proceedings of this committee or any other congressional committee. I think I have the right to reserve whatever rights I have in that respect to whatever appropriate bodies may be set up to deal with questions that come up.
"Mr. Moulder. Do you mean to say you have people in your organization who have information that would subject you to criminal prosecution?
"Mr. Moulder. Do you know them or not?
"Mr. Emspak. That does not concern this committee at all.
"Mr. Moulder. Is it your feeling that to reveal your knowledge of them would subject you to criminal prosecution?
No more of the record is printed, as the excerpt shows the exchange between the Committee and petitioner upon which Count I of the indictment and the constitutional issues arising thereunder are based. This related to his acquaintanceship with Joseph Persily, a man who had been listed, according to a stipulation, as a person named as an official "of the UERMWA with Communist or Communist Front Affiliations." Nothing more favorable to petitioner's position appears on the questions examined or any other question.
As the Emspak case offers for me a clear example of failure to claim his privilege, I think it better not to encumber this opinion unnecessarily with quotations from the Quinn case.
"The Constitution of this country provides certain protection for minorities and gives the privilege for people to speak and think as they feel that they [349 U.S. 155, 181] should and want to. It also gives the privilege that people can have opinions or beliefs that may be unpopular. In my opinion, it gives them the right to hold those opinions secret if they so desire. This is a protection of the first amendment to the Constitution, supplemented by the fifth amendment.
"Mr. Fitzpatrick. The right of the people guaranteed by the Constitution."
"Mr. Fitzpatrick. I will answer the question. The Constitution guarantees the right to me and every other citizen to have beliefs, whether they are popular or unpopular, and to keep them to themselves if they see fit, and I have no intention of being a party to weakening or destroying that protection in the Constitution. I feel when I take this position that I am one of the real Americans, and not like some of the phonies who appear here."
"Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Chairman, do I have to give you my answer again?
"Mr. Wood. I just want to know whether you did that one thing.
"Mr. Wood. And for that reason do you decline to answer the question?
"Mr. Fitzpatrick. I stand on the protection of the Constitution, the first and fifth amendments.
"Mr. Wood. And for those reasons decline to answer the question further?
"Mr. Fitzpatrick. I have answered the question.
"Mr. Wood. I say, do you decline to answer it further?
"Mr. Fitzpatrick. I have no further comment on it."
The two references to the First and Fifth Amendments are the only phrases in the whole examination that could be thought to refer to a claim of immunity against self-incrimination.
From these vague statements of Messrs. Quinn and Emspak the Court draws the conclusion that they were sufficient to apprise the Committee of the witnesses' intention to claim the privilege against self-incrimination. The Court finds support for its theory of "intention" to claim privilege from a statement in the Government's brief in the Quinn case set out below. 9 With all respect, [349 U.S. 155, 183] I fail to see any concession by the Government of evidence that should apprise the Committee of a claim of privilege against self-incrimination. The first sentence of the quotation from the brief emphatically denies the Court's assumption.
The same attitude shows through Mr. Emspak's testimony. In addition there was a direct refusal by Mr. Emspak to claim privilege. See pp. 179-180, supra.
The Court suggests that this should not be construed as a waiver of the claim and cites Smith v. United States, 337 U.S. 137, 151 . I do not think the Smith case apposite. In that case there had been a clear claim of privilege for immunity. We held that required a definite, unambiguous waiver. Here there was, in my view, no claim of privilege.
The opinion of the trial court, printed only in the record, pp. 224-227, holds "The defendant failed to assert [the privilege]." Six of the nine members of the Court of Appeals held that Emspak had not claimed. Three did not reach that issue.
I concur with the Court in its assertions of the value of the self-incrimination clause - that it may be used as a shield by guilty and innocent alike - and that it should be construed liberally as it has been to cover more than the literal reading of the phrase "No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" would suggest. 11 This sympathetic attitude toward the clause should not lead us to intrude our ideas of propriety into the conduct of congressional hearings. [349 U.S. 155, 185] The rule laid down by the Court today merely adds another means for interference and delay in investigations and trials, without adding to the protection of the constitutional right of freedom from self-incrimination. This is contrary to the policy of Congress to get information from witnesses even with a claim of immunity, through the Compulsory Testimony Act of August 20, 1954, 68 Stat. 745.
The Court advances a second ground in the Quinn and Emspak cases for its direction that the District Court enter a judgment of acquittal. This is that a deliberate intent to refuse to answer the Committee's questions is required for the judgment of contempt. The Court explains, Quinn case, p. 166, that intent may be implied only when the witness is "clearly apprised that the committee demands his answer notwithstanding his objections," and, Emspak case, p. 202, "without such apprisal there is lacking the element of deliberateness necessary for a conviction under 192 for a refusal to answer." The Court concludes that the witness was not "specifically" directed to answer, or otherwise informed as to the disposition of his objections.
"The gist of the offense is refusal to answer pertinent questions. . . . Intentional violation is sufficient to constitute guilt."
"While undoubtedly the right of a witness to refuse to answer lest he incriminate himself may be tested in proceedings to compel answer, there is no support for the contention that there must be such a determination of that question before prosecution for the willful failure so denounced. By the very terms of the definition the offense is complete at the time of such failure." 284 U.S., at 148 .
There was no direction to answer in either case. While the point was not raised, their holding as to what establishes the offense does not include a specific direction to answer as one of the elements.
While the Court held in Sinclair that deliberate refusal was all that was required to consummate the offense under 2 U.S.C. 192, at the same time we were at pains to point out "There was no misapprehension" on the part of the witness "as to what was called for." P. 299. It is because the refusal must be intentional, that the witness [349 U.S. 155, 187] must know that his excuses for not answering have not been accepted by the Committee. When a witness interposes objections to testifying which are not frivolous, it is difficult to say he intentionally refused to answer when the interrogation continues without pause to some other question. I agree that the Committee cannot, in fairness to the witness, lull him into thinking that his refusal to answer is acceptable and then cite him for contempt. Refusal under such circumstances would not be deliberate. However, specific direction to answer is not necessary; only intentional refusal is.
The Court suggests, n. 36, Quinn case, that congressional committees follow the practice of other legislative bodies and determine first the validity of the witness' reason for failure to answer and then direct him to answer. The defect in that analogy is that the Court seems to assume in its note a formal vote and a specific direction to answer. I think such a specific direction is inconsistent with its page 170 admission that no ritualistic formula is required. No provision of the statute, nor of any rule of Congress is cited by the Court to support a requirement of specific direction. The Court of Appeals held direction to answer unnecessary so long as the witness knew that the Committee had not acceded to his refusal. 14 As I stated above, in my view it is sufficient if the witness knows his excuses are not acceptable to the Committee and that he is required to answer. Whether or not the witnesses knew this in these two cases is the question on this second point.
"Mr. Wood. You have stated your position. Having enunciated your sentiments and your position, will you now answer the question whether you are now or ever have been a member of the Communist Party, or do you decline to answer?
"Mr. Quinn. I decline to discuss with the committee questions of that nature."
This, I think, advised Mr. Quinn that the Committee refused to accept his reply as a satisfactory excuse and required him to proceed.
"Mr. Tavenner. Are you or are you not acquainted with Joseph Persily?
On continued questioning as to Mr. Persily, he continued, "I will give the same answer." I cannot but conclude, as did the lower courts, that the witness Emspak was adequately [349 U.S. 155, 189] informed that his objections were refused and that he must answer.
The Court directs acquittal of both petitioners on the grounds of claim of privilege and failure to specifically overrule their objections or direct them to answer. I disagree with both grounds. Confining expression of my views to those issues, I dissent.
MR. JUSTICE MINTON joins in so much of this opinion as applies to Emspak v. United States, post, p. 190.
[ Footnote 1 ] Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 ; Emspak v. United States, post, p. 190, at p. 199; see the Court's opinion in Quinn v. United States, supra, at p. 162.
[ Footnote 2 ] Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263, 299 (7).
[ Footnote 3 ] Vajtauer v. Commissioner, 273 U.S. 103, 113 ; United States v. Monia, 317 U.S. 424, 427 , dissent 439; Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367, 371 ; cf. Adams v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 179 .
[ Footnote 4 ] See McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 ; Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547 .
[ Footnote 5 ] Hearings before House Committee on Un-American Activities Regarding Communist Infiltration of Labor Unions, Part 1, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. 541.
[ Footnote 6 ] Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263, 299 .
[ Footnote 7 ] Proceedings against Julius Emspak, H. R. Rep. No. 2847, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., p. 10; same against Thomas Quinn, H. R. Rep. No. 2857, p. 3.
[ Footnote 8 ] Any person who desires to see the complete essential testimony may consult the Proceedings, cited in the preceding note. See also H. R. Rep. No. 2856.
[ Footnote 9 ] "Under these circumstances, we contend that petitioner did not adequately inform the Committee that he was claiming the protection of the privilege. "Moreover, we feel bound to point out the probability that petitioner's ambiguous references to the Fifth Amendment (and those of the petitioner Emspak in No. 9), which he now contends constituted a claim of privilege, were phrased deliberately in such vague terms so as to enable petitioner (and Emspak) to obtain the benefit of the privilege without incurring the popular opprobrium which often attaches to its exercise. This suggestion is not based merely upon the obvious fact that it would have been extremely easy for petitioner to have informed the Committee that answers to its questions might incriminate or endanger him. It is also based upon facts of record, and matters appropriate for judicial notice, which reveal that petitioner (and Fitzpatrick and Emspak) had compelling [349 U.S. 155, 183] and immediate reasons to refrain from making any public statements from which it might be inferred, properly or not, that they were Communists or Communist sympathizers." Govt. br., 33-34.
[ Footnote 10 ] See note 3, supra.
[ Footnote 11 ] See, for example, Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 562 ; Blau v. United States (two cases), 340 U.S. 159 and 332 (privilege available at grand jury proceedings); McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34, 40 , "The privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceedings in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is also a party defendant" (proceedings in bankruptcy); Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 , and see also Graham v. United States, 99 F.2d 746 (administrative proceedings); see also Wood v. United States, 75 U.S. App. D.C. 274, 128 F.2d 265 (preliminary hearings).
[ Footnote 12 ] Fields v. United States, 82 U.S. App. D.C. 354, 164 F.2d 97, 100; Bart v. United States, 91 U.S. App. D.C. 370, 372-373, 203 F.2d 45, 48; Emspak v. United States, 91 U.S. App. D.C. 378, 380-381, 203 F.2d 54, 56.
[ Footnote 13 ] Townsend v. United States, 68 App. D.C. 223, 229, 95 F.2d 352, 358; Fields v. United States, 82 U.S. App. D.C. 354, 357, 164 F.2d 97, 100.


text:
Bit by bit, Marissa Mayer's Yahoo strategy gets clearer
BYDan Mitchell
February 13, 2013, 1:48 PM UTC
FORTUNE — It's hard to blame Marissa Mayer for speaking in platitudes and vagaries, though she's now seven months into her reign as Yahoo's CEO. With apparently successful revamps of both email and the Flickr photo service already under her belt, she's now focused on strategies for other services, including search and mobile apps.
Much of her Q&A session during the Goldman Sachs (GS) Technology and Internet conference on Tuesday mirrored what she said during the company's fourth-quarter earnings call a couple of weeks ago: Her main areas of focus — the "big four" — are search, display ads, mobile, and video. About the only news she made was to say that Yahoo (YHOO) plans to reduce the number of mobile apps it offers down to 12 or 15 from about 60 now. The current, bloated offering makes for "a very scattered product portfolio," she said. Some apps will be merged together, others will continue to stand alone, and whatever remains will be discontinued.
While she reiterated that mobile will make up a big part of Yahoo's future, she made no pretense that she has the revenue model worked out. But she also noted that no other company has it figured out either. She operates on the (probably accurate) presumption that where users go, revenue will surely follow. For now, she said during the earnings call last month, revenues are "nascent." But with 200 million unique monthly users for Yahoo's mobile apps, there is enormous room for revenue growth. Most people, she guessed on Tuesday, will choose two to four apps "that matter most" to them.
MORE: The Google Guys grow up but not apart
She was less precise when discussing the other three of her "big four." Search and display ads, where Yahoo trails Google (GOOG) by a considerable margin, will be driven by "personalization," though she didn't outline a detailed strategy. Content is another driver, though Mayer has indicated that her main focus will be on services. "Overall," she said, "we have a commitment to bringing excellent content to users, that's what people have come to expect on the Yahoo homepage, sports, and others." She also mentioned content partnerships, which served to underline her emphasis on services. Don't expect any new original-content plays from the company.
In particular, don't expect any new forays into music, though partnerships are a possibility. "I don't think we're going to pursue music ourselves," she said. "As we look for the innovative and differentiable angle, I don't think that's an area [where] we see a lot of opportunity."
Opportunities lost (before she arrived) made up much of her presentation. She won't do music. She won't add much if any new content. She won't do maps ("because I know from my past life" — as a Google executive — "how expensive that is"). On the other hand, everybody had written off Flickr as a lost opportunity, but since the revamp, 25% more photos have been uploaded to the service.
MORE: What Tim Cook didn't say
Another opportunity blown by previous regimes is video. Here, though, Mayer seems to think the company has a shot — though details are scarce. It "is going to be very important to our strategy," she said. It might still take a miracle to turn Yahoo around, but she's at least made a good start, and investors seem to agree. The company's stock has risen by 36% since she took over last July.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Fast neutron imaging has a great potential as a nondestructive technique for testing large objects. The main factor limiting applications of this technique is detection technology, offering relatively poor spatial resolution of images and low detection efficiency, which results in very long exposure times. Therefore, research on development of scintillators for fast neutron imaging is of high importance. A comparison of the light output, gamma radiation sensitivity and spatial resolution of commercially available scintillator screens composed of PP/ZnS:Cu and PP/ZnS:Ag of different thicknesses are presented. The scintillators were provided by RC Tritec AG company and the test performed at the NECTAR facility located at the FRM II nuclear research reactor. It was shown that light output increases and the spatial resolution decreases with the scintillator thickness. Both compositions of the scintillating material provide similar light output, while the gamma sensitivity of PP/ZnS:Cu is significantly higher as compared to PP/ZnS:Ag-based scintillators. Moreover, we report which factors should be considered when choosing a scintillator and what are the limitations of the investigated types of scintillators.
Neutron imaging is a rapidly developing technique in non-destructive testing. At various large-scale neutron sources, neutron imaging beamlines are available for users offering cold or thermal neutron radiography and tomography. The most advanced imaging instruments ICON , CONRAD-2 , ANTARES , NIST Neutron Imaging Facility  and DINGO  are located at continuous neutron sources, the relatively new instruments, RADEN , IMAT  and soon available VENUS  and ODIN  at pulsed neutron sources. In contrast, there is only one beamline offering fission neutron 2D and 3D imaging in an official user program: the NECTAR (NEutron Computed Tomography And Radiography) facility, an instrument located at the FRM II research reactor at MLZ . Currently, an upgrade of the facility is being conducted aiming to enable usage of both fission and thermal spectra , which will give the unique possibility of combining thermal and fission neutron imaging on the same instrument even without moving the sample. The scheme of the current setup of the NECTAR instrument is presented in the Figure 1.
The larger interest in thermal and cold neutron imaging is mainly due to larger fields of applications related especially to the variety of techniques utilizing cold neutrons, e.g., radiography, tomography, energy resolved neutron imaging, dark field contrast and phase contrast imaging, and polarized neutron imaging [12,13]. On the other hand, these fields of applications are so broad also due to cold neutron detection technology, where the detection efficiency is tremendously higher and offers much higher spatial resolution as compared to the fission neutron imaging. The possibilities and applications of fission and fast neutron imaging are still very limited. This technique keeps gaining increasing interest due to the availability of small accelerator-based or D-D, D-T neutron generators providing acceptable neutron fluxes [14,15,16,17]. Therefore, there is a growing demand for development of fast neutron imaging technologies and, in particular, fast neutron detection.
Detection technology for neutron imaging has been rapidly developing in the last decades and different technologies are applied. The most common standard detector system is based on scintillator screens converting neutron radiation into electromagnetic radiation in the visible wavelength range, combined with a highly light sensitive CCD or CMOS camera acquiring light images. Such a system is additionally equipped with an optical lens system for focusing and adjusting the size of the field of view (FOV) and with mirrors preventing placing a camera directly in the neutron beam [18,19,20]. Detector technology of this type is well established and "ready to use" setups are already commercially available. The scintillators for thermal and cold neutron imaging are typically based on two main components: absorber and a luminescent material. The most common types are based on 6LiF/ZnS:Cu or 6LiF/ZnS:Ag and Gadox (Gd2O2S:Tb) materials . The light emission from the scintillator screens based on lithium fluoride and zinc sulfide activated with silver occurs in two steps: incoming neutrons are absorbed by 6Li-nuclei followed by emission of α and T (3H) particles. Zinc sulfide is a well-known inorganic phosphor and the energy of the product particles (α and T) transferred to the zinc sulfide particles leads to scintillation events. Image spatial resolution depends on the scintillator thickness and as a very rough approximation, the spatial resolution is comparable to the scintillator thickness. On the other hand, decreasing thickness lowers the number of the captured neutrons, resulting in longer exposure times. Thus, the thickness of the scintillator is always a compromise between detection efficiency and spatial resolution. Typical thicknesses of 6LiF/ZnS:Cu scintillators are in the range of 50–300 µm. For high resolution imaging, Gadox scintillators ranging from 5 µm to about 40 µm are used.
There are several technologies proposed for fast neutron imaging detectors reported in literature. A very interesting and promising alternative for using scintillator–camera-based systems are the detectors based on THick gaseous electron multiplier (THGEM) demonstrated in [21,22,23].
The detector setup implemented at the NECTAR facility is analogous to the above-described system for cold and thermal neutron imaging combining a scintillator and a CCD camera, but the scintillator screen must be optimized for fission neutron detection.
The mean energy of the fission neutron spectrum is about 1.9 MeV and these high energies result in a significantly larger penetration depth in materials. Furthermore, the cross sections for nuclear reactions are extremely low. Thus, the scintillator screens must be correspondingly thicker. Moreover, the attenuation coefficients of fission neutrons exhibit different dependence on the atomic number as compared to thermal neutrons. Consequently, different materials must be used for converting fission neutrons in visible light. Different types of scintillators for fast neutrons are investigated and proposed in the literature, e.g., plastic fiber screens used in [24,25], wavelength-shifting fiber (WSF) converters [26,27] and others . This work focuses on the results of a characterization of different screens based on polypropylene (PP) mixed with zinc sulfide (ZnS) phosphor rather than on alternative detection systems [20,22].
The scintillation in such composites is a two-step process. Fission neutrons induce proton recoil in PP, followed by the transfer of the recoil proton energy to the luminescent material. This energy is utilized for generating excited states in ZnS by transferring electrons from the valence band to the conduction band. In case of excitation with high energy particles, the electrons from deeper shells are excited (as compared to excitation by lower energy particles). Doping ZnS with Cu or Ag atoms creates acceptor levels in the bandgap, which can be occupied by the excited electrons. In Phosphors, such dopants are called activators. Transfer of the excited electrons to the free acceptor levels is accompanied by photon emission. The wavelength of the emitted photons depends on the difference between the ZnS conduction band and the energy level introduced by the activator atoms. Thus, by selecting an appropriate dopant element, the spectrum of the emitted light can be tuned to the desired wavelength .
Versatile scintillator screens for fast neutron imaging, among others, have been studied before in order to find an optimum screen thickness and composition. It has been demonstrated that depending on the screen type and application (aiming either for better detection efficiency or spatial resolution), the thickness should be in the range of 1.5–3 mm [28,30]. In this paper, the performance of commercial scintillator screens for fission neutrons produced by RC Tritec AG company  is reported.
Within this study, eight scintillator screens composed of polypropylene ((C3H6)n) with 30% of ZnS activated with Ag or Cu of different thicknesses (1.5 mm, 2.0 mm, 2.4 mm, 3.0 mm) provided by RC Tritec AG have been characterized in terms of light output, gamma radiation sensitivity and spatial resolution.
The testing of the scintillator screens was performed at the NECTAR facility utilizing its fission neutron beam, which is provided by the so-called converter facility installed at FRM II nuclear fission reactor. Neutrons produced in the reactor core travel through the heavy water moderator and reach the SR10 beam tube window in their thermal energy state. The fission neutron spectrum with its mean energy at about 1.9 MeV is obtained by moving converter plates in front of the entrance window of the beam tube. Full energy spectrum of the beam available at NECTAR was presented elsewhere . The plates consist of 2 slabs of highly enriched uranium (93% 235U)-silicide with a total weight of 540 g. During reactor operation they act as a secondary neutron source. The incoming thermal neutrons cause fission reactions in the converter plates, producing fission neutrons, which enter the beam tube without any further moderation. Via the fission reaction of enriched uranium, besides fission neutron beam, a significant amount of gamma radiation is produced. During one fission reaction of 235U approximately 2.44 neutrons and 6.6 gamma photons are produced on average.
At NECTAR, there are two permanently installed filters made of 10 mm B4C and 10 mm lead, suppressing the thermal neutron contribution and reducing the gamma radiation, respectively. Additional Pb and PE (polyethylene) filters of different thicknesses can be applied. It has been demonstrated that while using an additional Pb filter of 25 mm thickness, the fluxes of fission neutron and gamma radiation are of the same order of magnitude of 107 cm−2s−1 . Therefore, for fission neutron imaging experiments, implementing thicker lead filters is required to suppress the gamma radiation.
The L/D collimation ratio used during the experiments was about 130, which is a measured value . Additionally, to the 10 mm thick permanent Pb filter, different thicknesses of Pb in the range of 0–125 mm were used in the measurements of the gamma sensitivity of the investigated screens. For the light output measurements, as well as for the spatial resolution comparison, an additional Pb filter of 100 mm was applied (based on previous experience, about 100 mm lead is required to decrease gamma flux contributions to negligible amounts).
The used detector setup at NECTAR, besides a scintillator screen, consists of one mirror, a lens system and a CCD ANDOR camera iKon-L BV (ANDOR, Belfast, UK) cooled down to −100 °C . This camera type has 2048 × 2048 pixels of size 13.5 μm × 13.5 μm and an image area 27.6 mm × 27.6 mm. The field of view during the measurements was set to about 330 mm × 330 mm, resulting in an image pixel size of about 161 µm.
The studied scintillator screens exhibit significant light sensitivity and afterglow effects, which are especially well known for Cu-activated ZnS phosphors. Therefore, all screens were kept in the dark before and during testing. Moreover, they were covered with a 1.5 mm Al plate when integrated in the detector setup.
During the light output measurements an additional 100 mm lead filter was placed in the beam. The filter is used to minimize the gamma contribution in the beam, but it should be noted that it also affects the neutron flux (decreases the flux to approx. 13 ± 2% of the initial value) and its spectrum (shifting the mean neutron energy from 1.9 ± 0.1 MeV to about 1.3 ± 0.1 MeV ). For each of the investigated screens, five images with 120 s exposure time were acquired. The images were then corrected by the beforehand-measured dark current images of the CCD. After the corrections, the median of the five images was calculated, which was further used for light output calculations. Figure 1 presents mean count values calculated as the average over a small field of view in the center for different scintillators. The ratio of the counts to the number of incoming neutrons assuming the incident neutron flux value 4.7 cm−2s−1  is displayed in the graph above the bars. This plot shows that the light output increases approximately linearly with the scintillator thickness. It has been demonstrated before, in  for scintillators with similar compositions, that detection efficiency increases with thickness up to about 3 mm, but further increase of layer thickness does not improve the light output anymore, as the photons generated closer to the surface on the side, where the neutrons are entering, are not able to escape from the material. It is apparent that for the applied detector setup the Cu-activated scintillator screen is the better choice in terms of detection efficiency. The emission spectra of PP/ZnS:Cu and PP/ZnS:Ag scintillators can be found in  and wavelength dependence efficiency curves of the used camera iKonL in . Cu-activated scintillators emit green light with a peak wavelength of ~520 nm and Ag-activated ones emit blue light (~450 nm), which corresponds to about 96% and 80% of quantum efficiency of the camera sensor. This difference fits almost perfectly with the difference in the measured values presented in Figure 2, indicating that the neutron-to-photon conversion efficiency is approximately equal for both Ag- and Cu-activated scintillators. Therefore, when choosing an optimum scintillator screen, the properties of the camera should be considered.
As the fission neutron spectrum is contaminated with gamma radiation, an important parameter of scintillator screens for fission neutron imaging is gamma sensitivity. To investigate this property for the studied scintillators, a series of measurements were taken with different thicknesses of lead filters (0, 25, 50, 75, 100, 125 mm). For each filter thickness, five images with 20 s exposure time were recorded. After dark current correction, median images were calculated. Next, for each image, a small region of interest (ROI) was selected (illustrated in Figure 3) and the mean measured intensity was evaluated. It is expected that the beam profile for both neutron and gamma radiation should be similar. Nevertheless, to diminish the effect of any difference in beam profiles of the two kinds of radiation, the ROI was selected in the region where the beam appears to be approximately homogenous.
The measured intensity is a sum of two components corresponding to neutron beam intensity and gamma beam intensity; thus, the experimental data points were fitted by a function of two exponentials, according to Equation (1).
where y ( x ) is the number of counts measured, x stands for the thickness of the lead filter, the coefficients Σ 2 and Σ 1 correspond to the effective total macroscopic cross sections of lead for fission neutrons and the effective attenuation coefficient of gamma rays, respectively, and c and a correspond to the number of counts without lead filter for fission neutrons and gamma rays, respectively.
Figure 4 presents the fitted function for different scintillators (blue curves). The corresponding coefficients of determination (R-squared) were calculated to be 0.9999 or larger indicating perfect fits of the regression lines to the experimental data.
The yellow and red curves represent the exponent functions y 1 (Equation (2)) and y 2 (Equation (3), respectively, which are the summands of the function y (Equation (1)).
Thus, the functions y 2 (yellow curves) describe the attenuation of fission neutrons in lead and the functions y 1 (red curves) the attenuation of the gamma radiation in lead. Consequently, the coefficients Σ 2 and Σ 1 correspond to the total macroscopic cross sections of lead for fission neutrons and the attenuation coefficient of gamma rays, respectively. The total macroscopic neutron cross sections of lead evaluated based on these measurements were 0.1932 cm−1 and 0.2058 cm−1 for the neutron spectra at NECTAR for Cu- and Ag-activated scintillators, respectively. Calculating one attenuation coefficient value is, however, a simplification, as the attenuation of both neutrons and gamma rays depend on energy. When a lead filter is used, this can be especially significant for neutrons, as the NECTAR fission spectrum  includes the energy range, for which there are many nuclear resonances in lead. Moreover, the presence of a lead filter in the beam affects the energy spectrum; therefore, the measured values should be considered as the effective attenuation coefficients particularly for the beam available at NECTAR instrument. An interpretation of the discrepancy in the two values is given in the section "discussion".
Also, the attenuation coefficient for gamma radiation can be calculated from the evaluated functions. Interestingly, in both cases (for neutron and gamma radiation), the cross-section values appear to be slightly higher when calculated for data measured with Ag-doped scintillators than with Cu-doped scintillators.
For a thickness dPb of 25 mm of lead (corresponding to 35 mm including the permanent filter), the fluxes of gamma radiation and fission neutrons are of the same order of magnitude . Thus, without lead filtering (dPb = 0), the gamma flux is significantly higher than the neutron flux. For all the plots in Figure 4, the yellow curves corresponding to the measured neutron beam intensities show higher values than the curves for gamma radiation (red). Thus, the detection efficiency for neutrons for each of the measured PP/ZnS scintillators is significantly higher than for gamma radiation. However, the ratios of neutron and gamma sensitivities are different for PP/ZnS:Cu and PP/ZnS:Ag. Without lead filtering (dPb = 0), the differences between neutron (yellow) and gamma (red) attenuation curves are significantly larger for scintillators doped with Ag than for Cu-doped scintillators. This indicates a higher gamma sensitivity of the Cu-doped scintillators, which is most likely related to different excitation spectra of PP/ZnS:Cu and PP/ZnS:Ag scintillators for both, neutron and gamma radiation. A more detailed interpretation of these results will be given in Section 4.
It has been observed that in some cases, when images were measured in a series of five times 20 s, every subsequent recorded image had a slightly higher intensity than the previous one. Figure 5 presents two examples of different behavior of the scintillators showing different light outputs with time for both Ag- and Cu-activated scintillators of 1.5 mm thickness. Figure 5a shows the intensities averaged over a region of interest selected similarly as in Section 3.1 and calculated for five consecutively measured images with exposure time 20 s and with 125 mm lead filter in the beam. Figure 5b shows analogously evaluated values for measurements without additional lead filter. The red and blue curves correspond to the Cu- and Ag-activated scintillators, respectively. The light outputs of the scintillators increase with time in the example shown in Figure 5b, but remain constant in Figure 5a. It has been noticed that the effects of increasing light outputs were observed in cases when the measurements were performed after a longer break in exposure (more than 5 min). An interpretation of this effect will be given in the Section 4.
The determination of the spatial resolution of fission neutron images is more difficult than it is in case of thermal neutron imaging. In order to determine an intrinsic spatial resolution of the detector setup, the measured object should be placed as close as possible to the scintillator screen to minimize the influence of the beam divergence. This also means that the object must be as thin as possible, but at the same time attenuate the radiation sufficiently to provide good image contrast. In case of cold and thermal neutron imaging, a standard tool for the spatial resolution determination is the so-called Siemens Star covered with 6 µm thick gadolinium layer . Here, for this purpose, a 5-cm thick steel block with holes of diameters of 1 mm and larger and a slit of width 1 mm was used. Some of the holes in rows 1, 2 and 3 have depths lower than 5 cm, which is observed as the intensity drops from the left to the right (Figure 6).
For each screen, five images with 120 s exposure time were acquired. Each image was corrected by the dark current images. After the correction, the median of the five images was calculated, which was further normalized by the open beam image.
Figure 6 illustrates neutron images of the applied resolution mask acquired with scintillators of different thicknesses. All features of the mask can be easily resolved for all scintillators, but as expected, the best resolution seems to be achieved by the scintillator with a thickness of 1.5 mm. The differences are however very small and difficult to define by human eye.
A more quantitative comparison can be evaluated from the line profiles plotted across the 1 mm thick slit corresponding to the position indicated by the yellow lines marked in the inset images in Figure 7a,b. Figure 7a,b illustrate line spread functions (LSF) determined by fitting Gaussian functions to the measured line profiles. Full widths at half maximum of the LSF functions are presented in Table 1. Figure 7c,d present the modulation transfer functions (MTF) calculated as Fourier transforms of the LSFs. The spatial frequency at MTF 10% provides a direct measure of the achieved spatial resolution. Calculated values for the different scintillators are also summarized in Table 1.
In the presented study, light output, gamma radiation sensitivity and spatial resolution of scintillators with two different compositions (ZnS activated with Ag or Cu mixed in a high density and highly transparent PP) and four different thicknesses of each were investigated.
Based on conducted measurements, it was concluded that the neutron sensitivity of both Ag- and Cu-activated scintillators was similar, and the difference in the obtained light output was caused mainly due to the camera sensor sensitivity spectrum, slightly different than the emission spectrum of the scintillators. It is apparent that emission spectra of the scintillators based on Cu-activated ZnS match the used iKonL BV camera efficiency much better, resulting in higher detection efficiency as compared to the setup combining PP/ZnS:Ag and iKonL BV.
Gamma radiation presence in the beam, not only increases the measured intensity values, but also distorts contrast between different elements. Since the attenuation of gamma radiation increases and attenuation of fission neutrons decreases with atomic number, any contribution of the gamma radiation in the fission neutron beam will result in decreased contrast between different elements. Therefore gamma sensitivity is a crucial parameter for neutron scintillators.
During the gamma sensitivity tests, it was observed that Cu-activated screens combined with this particular camera type, result in higher light outputs for both neutron and gamma radiation as compared to Ag-activated screens; however, the contribution of gamma radiation in the detected beam is higher for PP/ZnS:Cu, which is a significant drawback. This means that for good image quality, thicker lead filters should be applied when using PP/ZnS:Cu scintillators. Table 2 summarizes the calculated thicknesses of lead filters (dPb) required to decrease the contribution of gamma rays in the detected beam to 1% and to 10%, respectively, as well as the ratio of the amount of detected neutrons to detected gamma rays (c/a) without using a lead filter.
The presented measurements allowed for the calculation of the effective attenuation coefficients of lead for the neutron and gamma spectra. The obtained values were slightly different for the two types of investigated scintillators. Attenuation in lead depends on the radiation energy only, thus the macroscopic cross section cannot depend on the detection technology. Therefore, the slightly different values of the obtained attenuation coefficients must be a consequence of different excitation spectra of ZnS:Ag and ZnS:Cu phosphors. Ag and Cu dopants introduce, in the ZnS electronic band structure, additional energy levels which are within the energy gap, due to which excitation by low energy radiation is possible (the order of eV). However, doping ZnS with Ag or Cu creates some additional Ag and Cu levels within or above the conduction band, to which excitation by high energy radiation can occur. Thus, the excitation spectra can also vary by different dopants for high energy radiation.
The fact of obtaining different attenuation coefficients for one material using different kinds of scintillators should be taken into account during image analysis, especially when comparing images measured with different scintillators. On the other hand, this feature could be advantageous, as for some objects, selecting the right scintillator material might potentially improve the contrast between different materials. However, this would be beneficial only in case if measurements with different scintillators would provide more significant differences in attenuation than what was observed here.
An interesting effect was observed during acquisition of several images with the same exposure time in a sequence. The light output was increasing with time while the scintillator was exposed to a beam after a break in exposure longer than several minutes. This period was not well-defined, but the described effect was not observed when the break in exposure was shorter than 1 min and was observed for more than 5 min with closed beam. This was interpreted as an afterglow effect, which after a short time reaches a saturation level and therefore, after several minutes of exposure the light output does not change anymore.
This effect should be considered during measurements and investigated in more detail for the used scintillators before the measurements. When possible, the data acquisition should be started after the time required for stabilization of the light output of the scintillator.
It has been demonstrated that the best spatial resolution can be achieved by the thinnest (1.5 mm) scintillators. Therefore, the choice of the scintillator must be carefully considered depending on the available neutron and gamma spectra, camera sensitivity and on the foreseen applications. Assuming the use of a camera with similar sensitivity as the one used in this studies, for dynamic experiments, where the light output is the most important factor, it is more reasonable to use thicker PP/ZnS:Cu scintillators, while for experiments aiming to achieve higher spatial resolution, thinner PP/ZnS:Ag screens might be better.
In any case, where the images should provide quantitative information, gamma radiation should be eliminated from the beam as much as possible, as it changes contrast and light output, and moreover, can cause the afterglow phenomenon distorting the information contained in the images.
Malgorzata G. Makowska, Christian Grünzweig and Thomas Bücherl conceived and designed the experiments; Malgorzata G. Makowska performed the experiments; Malgorzata G. Makowska, Bernhard Walfort, Christian Grünzweig and Thomas Bücherl analyzed the data; Bernhard Walfort and Albert Zeller provided the investigated samples; Malgorzata G. Makowska wrote the paper.
NIST Neutron Imaging Facility (NIF). Available online: https://www.nist.gov/laboratories/tools-instruments/neutron-imaging-facility-nif (accessed on 16 October 2017).
High Yield Neutron Generator—Phoenix Nuclear Labs. Available online: http://phoenixnuclearlabs.com/product/high-yield-neutron-generator/ (accessed on 18 October 2017).
Scintillators: RC TRITEC AG, Teufen AR. Available online: http://www.rctritec.com/en/scintillators.html (accessed on 16 October 2017).
Andor's iKon-L High Dynamic Range CCD Camera. Available online: http://www.andor.com/scientific-cameras/ikon-xl-and-ikon-large-ccd-series/ikon-l-936 (accessed on 16 October 2017).
Figure 1. Localization of the instrument NECTAR at the FRM II reactor and a photograph of the detection setup (adapted from ).
Figure 2. Dependence of the light output on the scintillator thickness (average over a small field of view, FOV, in the center of the scintillators for 120 s exposure time). The percentage numbers above the bars express the ratio of the measured counts to the number of incoming neutrons.
Figure 3. (a) Full acquired radiograph showing beam profile; (b) Region of interest (ROI) selected for evaluation.
Figure 4. Function fitted to the measured beam intensities for different lead thicknesses (dPb), (blue curves) together with plotted functions evaluated for the neutron (yelow curves) and gamma (red curves) beam components for PP/ZnS:Cu ((a,c,e) and PP/ZnS:Ag (b,d,f)).
Figure 5. Measured intensities averaged over a centrally selected ROI of the images taken consecutively every 20 s (a) with 125 mm lead filter and (b) without additional lead filters. Red and blue curves correspond to the Cu- and Ag-activated 1.5 mm-thick scintillators, respectively.
Figure 6. Test with resolution mask (5 cm steel block) for PP/ZnS:Cu scintillators mask.
Figure 7. (a,b) Line spread functions obtained for the line profiles across the slit in the resolution mask; (c,d) modulation transfer functions corresponding to LSF curves in (a,b), respectively.
Table 1. Calculated values of FWHM for the line spread functions presented in Figure 7a,b and spatial frequency values evaluated for MTF 10%.
Table 2. Ratios of the amount of detected neutrons to detected gamma rays (c/a) without lead filter and thicknesses of lead filters (dPb) required to limit the gamma contribution in the detected beam to less than 1% and 10%, respectively.


Hey Friends, welcome to the new metalthebrand dot com! It is fully updated with all new product and I'm excited that it will help me with a lot i've been having trouble with. Let me know what you think!
First things first, are you on my email list? Click here to sign up. It will help me tell you when new cool stuff comes out and when Metal The Store will open.
Metal The Store was to open sometime in November; however, construction has taken longer than expected. I can tell you that i've begun getting new art ready between my friends and I. It's going to be a stellar offering of what I consider to be really cool. The biggest undertaking of the store is Metal The Swamp, a 100 sqft art installation of a swamp with a ball pit but really a maggot pit. If you haven't followed me on Instagram or facebook lately, you haven't seen the moldings of my maggots. They will be here in time for opening and I'm really stoked to have it. My vision with it is to have people come in and get in the pool, having the maggots eat / rid you of badness.
Apart from the store, I have a lot of vending to do this holiday season. Check out my event dates page for more info so you can get all the cool stuff for your weird friends.
Again, please follow me on instagram, Facebook and sign up on my email list so you know what's up.


text:
Home » Cancer Topics » Skin Cancer
Predictive Utility of ctDNA in Melanoma Spurs Calls for Its Inclusion in Clinical Trials
Christina Bennett, MS
Detectable levels of ctDNA prior to surgery was an independent predictor of worse survival in 2 independent patient cohorts.
The detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) before surgery independently predicted survival outcomes among patients with high-risk stage III melanoma in a study recently published in the Annals of Oncology.1 Although further validation is required, the study findings, along with the growing body of evidence that shows the prognostic utility of ctDNA in melanoma, reinforce the need for ctDNA analysis to be included in clinical trial design.2,3
"Patients with melanoma that has spread to nearby lymph nodes undergo surgery to remove the cancer followed by systemic treatment to reduce the risk of cancer recurrence," explained Helen Rizos, PhD, faculty of medicine and health sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, during an interview with Cancer Therapy Advisor. "Selecting the best follow-up treatment for each patient — that is, an effective treatment with the fewest side effects — is particularly important, as some patients may be cured by surgery alone," she said.
To determine the predictive utility of ctDNA, blood samples were collected from 174 patients with stage III melanoma one month before complete lymph node dissection. In total, 119 patients were allocated to the discovery cohort and 55 to the validation cohort. Melanoma-specific survival (MSS) was assessed as the primary outcome measure.
BiTE Antibody Constructs and Treatment-Resistant Metastatic Melanoma
BRAF Plus MEK Inhibition Appears Less Well Tolerated Following Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Patients With Melanoma
Complete Lymphadenectomy in Melanoma: No OS Benefit Found
The percentage of patients with detectable ctDNA in each cohort was approximately one-third. A multivariate analysis revealed that the detection of ctDNA correlated with significantly worse MSS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.85; P =.04). MSS declined with each subsequent American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage (ie, IIIB to IIIC to IIID), and the detection of ctDNA-stratified patients within the AJCC stage III.
The most pronounced differentiation was among the 14 patients in the AJCC stage IIID group, for which detectable ctDNA significantly increased the likelihood of death (HR, 6.4; 95% CI, 1.63-25.04; P <.01).
For the 7 patients who had detectable ctDNA, all died; 4 of those deaths due to melanoma were within 6 months after surgery. In contrast, for the 7 patients with undetectable ctDNA, 4 remain alive at 18.5, 53.7, 60, and 80.2 months.
"Detectable levels of ctDNA prior to surgery was an independent predictor of worse survival in 2 independent patient cohorts," said Dr Rizos. "This means that ctDNA may help guide each patient's surgery and systemic treatment."
The study researchers showed that ctDNA correlates with the survival "really" well, said Diwakar Davar, MBBS, MSc, medical oncologist, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, during an interview with Cancer Therapy Advisor. Dr Davar, who was not involved in the study, noted that compared with radiographic assessment, ctDNA is a "far more" objective assessment of cancer growth.
"We have made an important first step in exploring the value of preoperative ctDNA in stage III melanoma, but there is much more to do," said Dr Rizos. "Improving the sensitivity of ctDNA is perhaps the most critical next step," she said. For example, ctDNA was not detected in patients enrolled in the study whose largest melanoma deposit was smaller than 10 mm in diameter. "We need to overcome this barrier if ctDNA is to become a personalized profiling tool for cancer patients," she said.
In addition, Dr Rizos and Dr Davar each expressed the need for ctDNA to be incorporated into clinical trial design for melanoma. "We suggest that ctDNA analysis, which is a very simple test requiring only a 10-milliliter blood sample, should be a standard test incorporated in all future clinical trials," said Dr Rizos. The incorporation of ctDNA in clinical trials would allow investigators to further establish the prognostic utility of ctDNA.
Lee JH, Saw RP, Thompson JF, et al. Pre-operative ctDNA predicts survival in high-risk stage III cutaneous melanoma patients. Ann Oncol. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz075
Santiago-Walker A, Gagnon R, Mazumdar J, et al. Correlation of BRAF mutation status in circulating-free DNA and tumor and association with clinical outcome across four BRAFi and MEKi clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(3):567-574.
Lee JH, Long GV, Boyd S, et al. Circulating tumour DNA predicts response to anti-PD1 antibodies in metastatic melanoma. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(5):1130-1136.
Melanoma Skin Cancer
Next post in Skin Cancer
Immunosuppression Tied to Poor Outcomes in Multiple Cutaneous SCC
Close more info about Predictive Utility of ctDNA in Melanoma Spurs Calls for Its Inclusion in Clinical Trials


Some people used to believe in races of humans. Some of those people thought that when people of different "races" had children, that was bad, so they called it miscegenation. Now, the idea of "races" and "miscegenation" has been discredited, but some people still believe.


A perfectly functional underground drainage system calls for the right tools but also the right set of skills and knowledge. Our wide selection of plumbing supplies is available for all jobs from gas engineering through to general plumbing. We supply all types of fittings including compression, soldered and push-fit fittings all available in a variety of sizes. We also stock a variety of copper and plastic pipes, available in various sizes and lengths for all jobs.
Sewage water – includes sewage and grey waste water from washing and cleaning.
Surface water – This is rainwater. A gully trap ensures that no foul air escapes from the sewage pipes.
When installing underground drainage, you must make sure that all the pipes you use are brown in colour, as per regulations.
Plain End Drain Pipes –it is always better to have underground drainage pipes that are chamfered on both ends.
Drain Couplers – Drain couplers are used to join two pipes or plain ended fittings together.
Standard Bends – these come as single or double socket and are used for change of direction. Double socket bends feature two blown ends with integral rubber seals to accept a plain ended drain pipe, and single socket models have one blown socket with seal and one plain end.
Rest Bends –underground drains are connected to soil stacks, and ground floor sanitary appliances with rest bends. It is a piece of equipment that allows anything coming from the toilet pan to pass through to the drains.
Pipe Lubricant – formulated when fitting underground pipes and no other lubricant should be used as this can damage pipes.
Gullies – It's important that the gully you install can withstand foot and vehicular traffic. You may need rising pieces for greater depth as well as sealed lids if you do want the gully to accept rainwater from the open top grating.
Besides the above, you may also require fittings like P-traps, hoppers and rainwater and waste pipe adaptors. And also safety equipment like safety boots, goggles, a hi-visibility jacket and safety barriers.
Also, you need channel gratings, brackets, grids, elbows, manhole covers, Tees and other accessories for a fully functional drainage system. These are brought to you by reliable manufacturers like Polypipe and Clark Drain.


St. Paul, Minn. — Artist Dougie Padilla is known for his loud and raucous paintings. He's exhibited his work at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts and in museums from Fargo, North Dakota, to Paris, France.
But Padilla himself is attracted to the calm and quiet.
The Minneapolis painter is as passionate about meditation as he is about art. A visit to his studio shows what happens when these two disciplines collide.
Beef bones hang from the ceiling like beaded curtains and plastic dolls' heads peek out from a potted plant. There's a faded picture of Jesus on the table and a mound of seashells on the floor. In the middle of it all is artist Dougie Padilla. He's meditating, but in his own special way. When Padilla quiets his mind, it can get pretty noisy. Today he's pounding nails into a four-foot-long section of a downed pine tree.
Eventually, all that meditating will produce a sculpture called a Prayer Tree. Thousands of nails will sprout from its trunk like metal fungi.
"I've been meditating for 45 years and these sculptures are my attempt to overtly combine my spiritual discipline and my art practice," he said.
To Padilla, meditation is the experience you have after your conscious thoughts stop and before they begin again. It's not a time to think; it's a time to be. And it's not much different from the way he approaches painting.
The studio, or Dougieland as it's better known, echoes with music sung in Spanish. The room explodes with color – bright yellows, metallic purples and blues that can't possibly exist anywhere but here.
While Padilla's process may be shaped by Buddhist teachings, his style screams "south of the border." This self-taught artist is part Norwegian, part Mexican. But it's clearly his Latino side that comes out on the canvas.
"When I go to Mexico and come back to Minneapolis, I paint with pinks and turquoises and lime greens for like six, eight months because the colors in Mexico make me go nuts," he said.
That mixing of Minnesotan and Mexico can produce some startling pieces. He points to a piece on the studio wall.
Padilla begins working on a new piece. Across from a collection of clay skulls and next to some rice cakes he's covered with day-glow paint, Padilla's creating a sculpture from wooden saltshakers and angel figurines. He doesn't have a plan for the piece. He'll just go where the art takes him.
"It's more like sailing and trying to catch a certain wind, to get some good wind in your sails and head off over there," he said with a grin.
And in Dougieland, an artistic journey can lead just about anywhere.
This is a huge insult from a wannabe "Artist".


text:
Q: Can this type of association be built via has_many :through? I want a.items to return all Items from all Projects.
But it returns nothing...
I can gain items with a.projects.first.items, a.projects.second.items queries and so on, but I don't like this approach to list individual projects...
Is it possible to create such association with has_many :though (or other keywords) to return all items from all projects?
a = Account.first
a.items <---- return nothing via has_many :through

Here's generated SQL for a.items

SELECT "items".* FROM "items" INNER JOIN "projects" ON "items"."id" =
  "projects"."item_id" WHERE "projects"."account_id" = ?
  [["account_id", 1]]

Judging from SQL statement I think the problem occurs because Project model has item_id field. But this is because a Project is a special type of an Item.
account.rb
# == Schema Information
#
# Table name: accounts
#
#  id         :integer          not null, primary key
#

class Account < ActiveRecord::Base
    has_many :projects
    has_many :items, :through => :projects
end

project.rb
# == Schema Information
#
# Table name: projects
#
#  id         :integer          not null, primary key
#  account_id :integer
#  item_id    :integer
#

class Project < ActiveRecord::Base
    belongs_to :account
    belongs_to :item
    has_many :items
end

item.rb
# == Schema Information
#
# Table name: items
#
#  id               :integer          not null, primary key
#  name             :string
#  project_id       :integer
#

class Item < ActiveRecord::Base
    belongs_to :project
end

A: Thanks to Brian Tompsett. His recommendation was correct.
After I removed cyclic belongs_to dependency Item <--> Project code starts to work as I wanted.
Here's working code:
class Project < ActiveRecord::Base
    belongs_to :account
    # belongs_to :item <---- Comment this line
    has_many :items
end

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Charcoal Might Be The Wellness Trend Of 2019, But This Is When To Avoid It
by Rebecca Fearn
Health care fads come and go, but some seem to stick around. Activated charcoal is one such trend. Activated charcoal — a type of carbon that has been treated so its particles become porous at the surface — has been spotted in everything from lattes to face masks, but what does it actually do? And is charcoal in food and drink actually bad for you? What about skincare and toothpaste? Here's what you need to know about how to use charcoal safely.
There has been a noticeable rise in popularity when it comes to charcoal in our food and drink. From trendy cafés serving charcoal lattes to health foods stores with charcoal water, it seems like we can't get away from the stuff. So just why has it become so popular?
"In my opinion, the rise in the use of activated charcoal in foods and drinks is coincidental with the rise in awareness of how toxic our world has become," explains Lisa Borg, nutritionist at pulselightclinic.co.uk. "Activated Charcoal has an enormous capacity to absorb toxins and is therefore useful in cases of poisoning."
Lisa also attributes the rise in popularity of charcoal with "the culture of quick-fix remedies" that we have become so accustomed to.
The main benefit of eating or drinking charcoal occurs in the digestive system, particularly if you are prone to bloating. "Taking activated charcoal during periods of digestive upset (e.g. bloating, acid reflux, food poisoning, nausea caused by excess alcohol intake etc.) can be helpful as a one-off remedy," says Borg.
But are there any potential drawbacks when it comes to ingesting charcoal? Borg warns that charcoal should only ever be used as a short-term fix, rather than a long-term remedy. In the long run, charcoal can "cause dehydration and subsequent constipation, absorb nutrients if taken within a couple of hours of food intake, and, in rare cases, can cause a blockage in the bowel." It also has the ability to interfere with certain medications, so it's definitely worth checking with a doctor first.
One fairly common use for charcoal in recent years has been to clean teeth. Borg believes "it has a high capacity for absorption, and can help prevent tooth decay, tooth discolouration, bad breath, and gum disease." But others would disagree.
While potentially effective for reducing surface stains on teeth, charcoal can actually cause more harm than good in some cases. The British Dental Journal found that charcoal fails to provide protection from tooth decay. The review also struggled to find much scientific evidence that charcoal has healthy benefits in toothpaste.
For this reason, it's probably best to stick to regular toothpaste, and tag in your charcoal toothpaste every now and again. "Activated charcoal can be used as a supplement to brushing with regular toothpaste for people who are seeking a whiter smile, but it cannot be used in place of it," cosmetic dentist Gregg Lituchy told Harper's Bazaar. "Regular toothpaste gives us the fluoride we need to fight dental decay so it's necessary to keep it as part of a daily regimen."
While ingesting charcoal and using it on your teeth may have potential to create more harm than good, skincare appears to be one way you can use charcoal relatively risk-free. Charcoal is particularly excellent for oily or acne prone skin, as it absorbs oil and dries breakouts. It acts as a detoxifying treatment for skin, and gives an extra hit of TLC.
Activated charcoal is essentially carbon, which acts like a magnet to draw out impurities from skin. "When dirt and oil in your pores come in contact with the carbon, they stick to it and then get washed away when you rinse," cosmetic chemist Ni'Kita Wilson told Allure. In short, charcoal is an excellent skincare ingredient, and masks like the ones by Boscia are worth a try. Just be careful if you have sensitive skin, and stick to charcoal wash off masks rather than peel-off ones, which can be harsh on skin.
Wavy Hair Girlies Rejoice, Rhyme & Reason's Wave Revival Regime Is Here
By Darshita Goyal
Sephora's First IRL Store In The UK Is *Finally* Confirmed
By Justine Knight
Ruka Founder Tendai Moyo On How She's Making Haircare Joyful Again
TikTok Is Obsessed With This Controversial Manicure
Get The Very Best Of Bustle/UK
Sign up for Bustle UK's twice-weekly newsletter, featuring the latest must-watch TV, moving personal stories, and expert advice on the hottest viral buys.


Adak has a population of approximately 100 residents. Eastern Aleutian Tribes operates a Community Health Center in Adak. Adak has one store, the 100 Knot Stop, which sells groceries and general merchandise throughout the week from Monday through Friday 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm and Saturday and Sunday from 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm. Bay Five, open in the summertime, and Blue Bird Café are the two restaurants in Adak. Adak can be your destination by flying on Alaska Airlines from Anchorage.


Church's trust clause: Critical amid struggle?
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (UMNS) — John Wesley was thinking about church property when he wrote the first trust clause in 1750. Gracious exit plan petitions going to the 2019 General Conference ask for a temporary halt to the trust clause if local churches decide to leave The United Methodist Church. Kathy L. Gilbert has the story.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (UMNS) — Two plans to be considered at the special General Conference would continue to restrict the role of LGBTQ persons in the church. The Traditional Plan and Modified Traditional Plan provide penalties for those who act against the Discipline's guidelines on sexuality. This is the final in a four-part series explaining the most prominent proposals. Jim Patterson has the story.
NYADIRE, Zimbabwe (UMNS) — Walking across a dark campus at night now is safer at the Nyadire United Methodist Mission, thanks to recently installed solar lights. The lighting project is part of a five-year partnership with Engineers Without Borders USA. Chenayi Kumuterera has the story.
HIGH POINT, N.C. — United Methodist-related Bennett College has received financial lifeline from a fellow United Methodist school. High Point University on Feb. 1 announced a gift of $1 million to Bennett, a historically black women's college that is also in Guilford County. This is the biggest donation Bennett has received since it began its aggressive fundraising effort two months ago in an attempt to hold onto its accreditation. Bennett also receives support through the United Methodist Black College Fund. John Newsom reports.
WASHINGTON — Students at United Methodist Wesley Theological Seminary spent a recent term focused on ministering to people with addictions. Part of the course work focused on how clergy are among those susceptible to addiction problems. The Rev. Leo Yates Jr. has the story.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (UMNS) — Spokespersons for four proposals on the future of The United Methodist Church gathered for a panel discussion that will be streamed at 11 a.m. Central Time on Feb. 6 on UMNews.org. The panel, "Perspectives on a Way Forward," comprised the Rev. Mark Holland, One Church Plan; the Rev. Rob Renfroe, Traditional and Modified Traditional Plans; the Rev. Chris Ritter, Connectional Conference Plan; and the Rev. Althea Spencer-Miller, Simple Plan. The panel discussion will be archived on UMNews.org after the streaming.
MIAMI (UMNS) — Kipp Nelson writes about why he stays with The United Methodist Church even amid the painful debate over the place he and other LGBTQ people have in the denomination. "It's always been home," he writes.