• Journal of the Korean Society of Food Science and Nutrition
• /
• v.43 no.10
• /
• pp.1594-1606
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this study was to examine safety accidents related to school foodservice, working and operating environments of school foodservice, status and awareness of safety education, educational needs, and information on qualitative improvement of school foodservice. The subjects in this study were 234 cooks in charge of cooking at elementary and secondary schools in Chungbuk. A survey was conducted from July 30 to August 8, 2012, and among 202 questionnaires gathered, 194 completed questionnaires were analyzed. Statistical analyses were performed on data utilizing the SPSS version 19.0. The main results of this study were as follows: 44.3% of workers experienced safety accidents. The most frequent safety accident was 'once' (60.5%), and most safety accidents took place between June and August (31.4%). The time at which most safety accidents happened was between 8 and 11 am. Most safety accidents happened during cooking (52.3%) and while using a soup pot or frying pot (52.4%). The most common accidents were 'burns', 'wrist and arm pain', and 'slips and falls'. Respondents who experienced safety accidents replied that 57.6% of employees dealt with injuries at their own expense, and only 35.3% utilized industrial accident insurance. In terms of the operating environment, the score for 'offering information and application' was highest (3.76 points), whereas that for 'security of budget' was lowest (1.77 points). As for accident education, employees received safety education approximately 3.45 times and 5.10 hours per year. Improving the working environment of school foodservice cooks requires administrative and financial support. Furthermore, educational materials and guidelines based on the working environment and safety accident status of school foodservice cooks are required in order to minimize potential risk factors and control safety accidents in school foodservice.

• Journal of Environmental Policy
• /
• v.13 no.4
• /
• pp.3-49
• /
• 2014

Growing interest of stakeholders on corporate responsibilities for environment and tightening environmental regulations are highlighting the importance of environmental management more than ever. However, companies' awareness of the importance of environment is still falling behind, and related academic works have not shown consistent conclusions on the relationship between environmental performance and economic performance. One of the reasons is different ways of measuring these two performances. The evaluation scope of economic performance is relatively narrow and the performance can be measured by a unified unit such as price, while the scope of environmental performance is diverse and a wide range of units are used for measuring environmental performances instead of using a single unified unit. Therefore, the results of works can be different depending on the performance indicators selected. In order to resolve this problem, generalized and standardized performance indicators should be developed. In particular, the performance indicators should be able to cover the concepts of both environmental and economic performances because the recent idea of environmental management has expanded to encompass the concept of sustainability. Another reason is that most of the current researches tend to focus on the motive of environmental investments and environmental performance, and do not offer a guideline for an effective implementation strategy for environmental management. For example, a process improvement strategy or a market discrimination strategy can be deployed through comparing the environment competitiveness among the companies in the same or similar industries, so that a virtuous cyclical relationship between environmental and economic performances can be secured. A novel method for measuring eco-efficiency by utilizing Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), which is able to combine multiple environmental and economic performances, is proposed in this report. Based on the eco-efficiencies, the environmental competitiveness is analyzed and the optimal combination of inputs and outputs are recommended for improving the eco-efficiencies of inefficient firms. Furthermore, the panel analysis is applied to the causal relationship between eco-efficiency and economic performance, and the pooled regression model is used to investigate the relationship between eco-efficiency and economic performance. The four-year eco-efficiencies between 2010 and 2013 of 23 companies are obtained from the DEA analysis; a comparison of efficiencies among 23 companies is carried out in terms of technical efficiency(TE), pure technical efficiency(PTE) and scale efficiency(SE), and then a set of recommendations for optimal combination of inputs and outputs are suggested for the inefficient companies. Furthermore, the experimental results with the panel analysis have demonstrated the causality from eco-efficiency to economic performance. The results of the pooled regression have shown that eco-efficiency positively affect financial perform ances(ROA and ROS) of the companies, as well as firm values(Tobin Q, stock price, and stock returns). This report proposes a novel approach for generating standardized performance indicators obtained from multiple environmental and economic performances, so that it is able to enhance the generality of relevant researches and provide a deep insight into the sustainability of environmental management. Furthermore, using efficiency indicators obtained from the DEA model, the cause of change in eco-efficiency can be investigated and an effective strategy for environmental management can be suggested. Finally, this report can be a motive for environmental management by providing empirical evidence that environmental investments can improve economic performance.

• Maritime Security
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.1-53
• /
• 2022

One manifestation of the contemporary era of renewed great power competition has been the deepening relationship between China and Russia. Their strengthening military ties, notwithstanding their lack of a formal defense alliance, have been especially striking. Since China and Russia deploy two of the world's most powerful navies, their growing maritime cooperation has been one of the most significant international security developments of recent years. The Sino-Russian naval exercises, involving varying platforms and locations, have built on years of high-level personnel exchanges, large Russian weapons sales to China, the Sino-Russia Treaty of Friendship, and other forms of cooperation. Though the joint Sino-Russian naval drills began soon after Beijing and Moscow ended their Cold War confrontation, these exercises have become much more important during the last decade, essentially becoming a core pillar of their expanding defense partnership. China and Russia now conduct more naval exercises in more places and with more types of weapons systems than ever before. In the future, Chinese and Russian maritime drills will likely encompass new locations, capabilities, and partners-including possibly the Arctic, hypersonic delivery systems, and novel African, Asian, and Middle East partners-as well as continue such recent innovations as conducting joint naval patrols and combined arms maritime drills. China and Russia pursue several objectives through their bilateral naval cooperation. The Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation Between the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation lacks a mutual defense clause, but does provide for consultations about common threats. The naval exercises, which rehearse non-traditional along with traditional missions (e.g., counter-piracy and humanitarian relief as well as with high-end warfighting), provide a means to enhance their response to such mutual challenges through coordinated military activities. Though the exercises may not realize substantial interoperability gains regarding combat capabilities, the drills do highlight to foreign audiences the Sino-Russian capacity to project coordinated naval power globally. This messaging is important given the reliance of China and Russia on the world's oceans for trade and the two countries' maritime territorial disputes with other countries. The exercises can also improve their national military capabilities as well as help them learn more about the tactics, techniques, and procedures of each other. The rising Chinese Navy especially benefits from working with the Russian armed forces, which have more experience conducting maritime missions, particularly in combat operations involving multiple combat arms, than the People's Liberation Army (PLA). On the negative side, these exercises, by enhancing their combat capabilities, may make Chinese and Russian policymakers more willing to employ military force or run escalatory risks in confrontations with other states. All these impacts are amplified in Northeast Asia, where the Chinese and Russian navies conduct most of their joint exercises. Northeast Asia has become an area of intensifying maritime confrontations involving China and Russia against the United States and Japan, with South Korea situated uneasily between them. The growing ties between the Chinese and Russian navies have complicated South Korean-U.S. military planning, diverted resources from concentrating against North Korea, and worsened the regional security environment. Naval planners in the United States, South Korea, and Japan will increasingly need to consider scenarios involving both the Chinese and Russian navies. For example, South Korean and U.S. policymakers need to prepare for situations in which coordinated Chinese and Russian military aggression overtaxes the Pentagon, obligating the South Korean Navy to rapidly backfill for any U.S.-allied security gaps that arise on the Korean Peninsula. Potentially reinforcing Chinese and Russian naval support to North Korea in a maritime confrontation with South Korea and its allies would present another serious challenge. Building on the commitment of Japan and South Korea to strengthen security ties, future exercises involving Japan, South Korea, and the United States should expand to consider these potential contingencies.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.171-178
• /
• 2016

Purpose : In order to minimize the dose of femoral head as an appropriate treatment plan for rectal cancer radiation therapy, we compare and evaluate the usefulness of 3-field 3D conformal radiation therapy(below 3fCRT), which is a universal treatment method, and 5-field 3D conformal radiation therapy(below 5fCRT), and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT). Materials and Methods : The 10 cases of rectal cancer that treated with 21EX were enrolled. Those cases were planned by Eclipse(Ver. 10.0.42, Varian, USA), PRO3(Progressive Resolution Optimizer 10.0.28) and AAA(Anisotropic Analytic Algorithm Ver. 10.0.28). 3fCRT and 5fCRT plan has $0^{\circ}$, $270^{\circ}$, $90^{\circ}$ and $0^{\circ}$, $95^{\circ}$, $45^{\circ}$, $315^{\circ}$, $265^{\circ}$ gantry angle, respectively. VMAT plan parameters consisted of 15MV coplanar $360^{\circ}$ 1 arac. Treatment prescription was employed delivering 54Gy to recum in 30 fractions. To minimize the dose difference that shows up randomly on optimizing, VMAT plans were optimized and calculated twice, and normalized to the target V100%=95%. The indexes of evaluation are D of Both femoral head and aceta fossa, total MU, H.I.(Homogeneity index) and C.I.(Conformity index) of the PTV. All VMAT plans were verified by gamma test with portal dosimetry using EPID. Results : D of Rt. femoral head was 53.08 Gy, 50.27 Gy, and 30.92 Gy, respectively, in the order of 3fCRT, 5fCRT, and VMAT treatment plan. Likewise, Lt. Femoral head showed average 53.68 Gy, 51.01 Gy and 29.23 Gy in the same order. D of Rt. aceta fossa was 54.86 Gy, 52.40 Gy, 30.37 Gy, respectively, in the order of 3fCRT, 5fCRT, and VMAT treatment plan. Likewise, Lt. Femoral head showed average 53.68 Gy, 51.01 Gy and 29.23 Gy in the same order. The maximum dose of both femoral head and aceta fossa was higher in the order of 3fCRT, 5fCRT, and VMAT treatment plan. C.I. showed the lowest VMAT treatment plan with an average of 1.64, 1.48, and 0.99 in the order of 3fCRT, 5fCRT, and VMAT treatment plan. There was no significant difference on H.I. of the PTV among three plans. Total MU showed that the VMAT treatment plan used 124.4MU and 299MU more than the 3fCRT and 5fCRT treatment plan, respectively. IMRT verification gamma test results for the VMAT plan passed over 90.0% at 2mm/2%. Conclusion : In rectal cancer treatment, the VMAT plan was shown to be advantageous in most of the evaluation indexes compared to the 3D plan, and the dose of the femoral head was greatly reduced. However, because of practical limitations there may be a case where it is difficult to select a VMAT treatment plan. 5fCRT has the advantage of reducing the dose of the femoral head as compared to the existing 3fCRT, without regard to additional problems. Therefore, not only would it extend survival time but the quality of life in general, if hospitals improved radiation therapy efficiency by selecting the treatment plan in accordance with the hospital's situation.