Share LinkedIn The researchers showed the children a series of short videos in which childlike puppets either told the truth or lied. The variable was the outcome of the puppets’ words: Sometimes what they said caused harm to someone else (e.g., blaming an innocent person for their own misdeeds). In other scenarios, the speaker’s words harmed themselves while helping someone else (e.g., a false confession to a misdeed in order to spare the real perpetrator from punishment). The videos also portrayed puppets telling truths, such as “tattling,” could harm someone else.A marker of moral and social developmentAfter watching the videos, the children were asked to decide whether the characters were being honest or deceitful. They were also asked to decide whether the puppets’ behaviours should be rewarded or condemned.“Looking at how children see honesty and deceit is a way of gaining insight into different stages of moral and social development,” explains Professor Talwar.“Children get a lot of messages from their parents saying that lying is always bad, but at the same time they see their parents telling ‘white’ lies to make life easier. Depending on their age, this is likely to be a bit confusing for children. We were interested in gaining a more nuanced picture of children’s perceptions of truth and lies – since not all lies have negative consequences for the other person, and not all truths have positive consequences for someone else. We were curious to know at what age children start to understand this.”Tattling is tough for kids to understandThe researchers discovered that the children had no difficulty, no matter what their age, in distinguishing truth from lies. They were also adept at deciding which behaviours to reward or condemn – with two notable differences between younger and older kids.False confessions to help someone else were difficult to assess; younger children saw these as being more negative than older ones did. Tattling was also problematic. Younger children were less concerned by truth-telling that had negative consequences for someone else, whereas older children were more conflicted about tattling. “What we were seeing is children’s confusion around particular kinds of truths and lies,” says Shanna Mary Williams, who recently completed her PhD at McGill and did much of the research on this study. “Younger children see things more starkly – truths are good and lies are bad. But by the time they are 10-12 years old, children become more aware that truth and lies are less binary. The older they are, the more interested children are in the consequences of these actions. They are also more able to start looking at the intentions behind the speech.”A need for more nuanced conversations around truth-tellingThe takeaway? Children’s moral evaluations of both lies and truths is influenced by their understanding of whether the speakers’ intention is to harm another or themselves. While younger children may be reflecting what is taught by parents and caregivers when it comes to tattling (i.e. that honesty in all forms is virtuous), the researchers believe that older children may be less likely to reward tattling because they are concerned with how their peers will perceive this behaviour. In both cases, what is clear, according to the researchers, is that parents and teachers need to have a much more involved conversation about truth-telling or lie-telling with children starting as early as the age six.The study was published in International Review of Pragmatics. Pinterest Parents don’t like it when children lie. But what do the kids themselves think about it? New research suggests truth telling isn’t black and white.As children get older, their moral evaluations of both lies and truths is increasingly influenced by whether they think this behaviour will cause harm to either others or themselves.Victoria Talwar, a Canada Research Chair in McGill’s Dept. of Educational and Counselling Psychology, led a research team that was interested in how a child’s moral understanding develops. They studied the behaviour of close to 100 children, aged six to 12. Email Share on Twitter Share on Facebook
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) today released a Salmonella Action Plan to curb levels of the pathogen in meat and poultry products, one of its top food safety priorities in light of the 1.3 million illnesses linked to Salmonella each year.A centerpiece of the plan is a strategy that would modernize and streamline federal food safety inspections at poultry processing plants by freeing up inspectors to spend less time on visual inspection of carcasses and more time on exploring other safety issues at the facilities.Salmonella is a top cause of foodborne illness, and the federal government’s new strategy comes amid a Salmonella Heidelberg outbreak linked to two Foster Farms poultry production facilities in California that has so far sickened 389 patients in 23 states.”Far too many American are sickened by Salmonella every year. The aggressive and comprehensive steps detailed in the Salmonella Action Plan will protect consumers by making meat and poultry products safer,” said Elisabeth Hagen, MD, undersecretary for food safety, in a press release from the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).In mid November Hagen announced that she will resign from the USDA in the middle of December. She has worked for nearly 4 years as USDA undersecretary,The FSIS estimates that the plan’s steps to modernize the poultry slaughter inspection system could prevent at least 5,000 illnesses each year.Controversy around the planToday’s action plan announcement caps working group efforts that have been under way since 2011. The announcement of the proposed steps for streamlining poultry processing inspections has drawn criticism from consumer and union groups. They have aired concerns about data the FSIS used to justify the performance of a pilot program that tested the new system at poultry plants and the safety consequences of increased production line speeds under the new system.In September the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report that said the USDA cut corners in evaluating the poultry inspection part of the plan, but added that it appears to gives plants more flexibility and responsibility for ensuring food safety and inspectors more opportunities to focus on other additional food safety activities.The GAO report triggered a response from FSIS head Alfred Almanza, who wrote in a Food Safety News editorial that the agency was already working on the GAO’s two recommendations and that the GAO authors seemed to overlook the FSIS’s food safety rationale for advancing the plan.Steps for poultry, pork safetyOther features of the plan are aimed at giving inspectors more information to identify possible food safety problems, such as details about a plant’s performance history. Other items on the 10-step plan include ensuring that sampling activities are in line with foodborne illness trends, considering modification of how FSIS posts poultry facilities on Salmonella performance lists, completing risk assessments for comminuted poultry products and poultry parts, exploring the role of lymph nodes in Salmonella contamination, and gathering more information on preharvest contamination.Some of the steps also touch on pork production. For example, one is aimed at decreasing sanitary dressing problems in hog slaughter establishments and possibly developing performance standards for hog carcass and pork product sampling programs.Another of the plan’s steps would order new approaches for providing Salmonella-related food safety information to consumers, such as adding more detailed explanations for recommendations or practices.CSPI responseIn response to today’s FSIS announcement, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) released a statement from its senior food safety attorney, Sarah Klein, who said the FSIS Salmonella Action Plan makes some important improvements that allow it to respond more nimbly and gather more useful data.She addeed, however, that the plan ignores the critical issue of antibiotic-resistant Salmonella. CSPI has petitioned the agency to add antibiotic-resistant Salmonella as adulterants.Klein also said the FSIS should go further and test each poultry and beef plant weekly for Salmonella. “This would increase consumer protection, as it would give FSIS real-time data on plant performance and allow the agency to take prompt action if a plant veers off course,” she said in the statement.See also:Dec 4 FSIS press releaseText of action planSep 4 CIDRAP News story “GAO: USDA took shortcuts in poultry inspection plan”Sep 6 CIDRAP News scan “FSIS head rebuts GAO report on poultry inspections”Dec 4 CSPI statement
By RANDALL RYTI Vice ChairLos Alamos County CouncilI was one of the three members of the Board of Appeals convened for the UnQuarked appeal of the stop work order (red tag) placed Nov. 22, 2019. UnQuarked was required to present substantial evidence that the County Chief Building Official (Michael Arellano) application of the red tag was arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with the law.The Board unanimously denied the appeal on July 14 and we had a meeting on July 27 to approve the final minutes of the hearings. UnQuarked has appealed this decision to County Council. Given that I was member of the Board of Appeals I will be recusing myself from hearing this appeal to Council.The Board of Appeals hearings lasted about 29 hours, and while a few people may have had the time to listen to the full hearings I wanted to provide a short summary. The following are some but not all of the reasons why I voted to deny the appeal.The work in question was a commercial remodel, and all such work requires a design professional and a licensed general contractor (GB98). Los Alamos County has a commercial permit application checklist that specifically states that a design professional is required. During the hearings it was clarified that the design professional could be a professional engineer (PE) or an architect. In most cases the design professional is an architect. The reason for requiring these types of professionals is to ensure that public health and safety is maintained while the project is underway and when the project is completed.UnQuarked’s question has been, “What work were we doing that required a permit?” The answer is UnQuarked was doing commercial remodeling work that required a permit.The following is a relevant snip from the County Code regarding permits: It is unlawful for any person to construct, alter, repair, remove, demolish or to commence the construction, alteration, removal or demolition of a building or structure without first filing with the building official an application in writing and obtaining from him a building permit authorizing such work. (Sec. 10-73.(a) – Building permit; application; deposit.)It was clear from the evidence presented at the hearing that UnQuarked had moved beyond changing light bulbs or doing some interior painting, and had started a commercial remodel including the remodel of a commercial kitchen without the required permits. The evidence submitted to the Board indicating that UnQuarked had commenced this level of work included, but was not limited to, documents and testimony showing that UnQuarked was building a long and heavy bar-like structure that would require electrical permitting, and placement of numerous additional pieces of commercial kitchen equipment moved to the premises since the lease started.UnQuarked appeared to miss the point that when a commercial remodel commences a permit must be obtained for the whole scope of the project. This is not only required by applicable building codes but stands to reason—if a commercial kitchen is being remodeled with new appliances it is wholly appropriate to first determine whether they as well as other elements of the overall design will function safely within the scope of the project. Will the addition of these appliances overwhelm the existing electrical system? Is the gas and associated plumbing sufficient to safely operate a commercial wok in the context of the whole project? Is the existing hood and fire suppression system sufficient for the changes being made in the kitchen? Is the construction of a lengthy and heavy bar-like structure in the premises going to cause ingress/issues under relevant fire codes? Although the whole project is included in the permit application, it was stated by the Building Official that the work could be completed in phases.A permit application was submitted on Nov. 15, 2019. The application included a drawing of the structure being built for the front of the business and the equipment being planned for the back of the business (kitchen). The permit application followed a site visit and inspection by the Building Official on Nov. 12, 2019. When the red tag was placed on Nov. 22, 2019, work was in progress on the structure in the front of the house and no valid permit was in effect. The purpose of the red tag is to stop work on the project and have the responsible party come to the Community Development Department and resolve the deficiencies. We were told that red tags are removed typically within two days to two weeks. UnQuarked was informed of deficiencies in their permit application on Nov. 18 and Nov. 22, 2019. A licensed general contractor was not named on the permit application. A PE stamped the drawings, but the application did not list any other design professional. The PE who stamped the drawings was not a witness for the Board of Appeals and therefore we did not know their qualifications as a design professional for commercial remodel work.While it was not in the Board of Appeals’ scope to comment on processes for applying for commercial work permits or other improvements to support our local businesses, the Board did comment on some areas that should be improved. For example, while the Building Official has the authority to modify the value of the work being planned, it should be transparent who made the change and the applicant should be made aware of the change.However, none of these administrative issues are relevant to the issue that was before the Board, which was whether the Stop Work Order issued by the Building Official was appropriate. The answer to that question was an overwhelming yes, and the reason for that is because UnQuarked was doing work far beyond cosmetic work and had, in fact, started commercial remodel including the kitchen in a premises that has been vacant for several years triggering a permitting process imposed by state and local law that insures health and safety requirements are met.
To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week. Would you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters
Get instant access to must-read content today!To access hundreds of features, subscribe today! At a time when the world is forced to go digital more than ever before just to stay connected, discover the in-depth content our subscribers receive every month by subscribing to gasworld.Don’t just stay connected, stay at the forefront – join gasworld and become a subscriber to access all of our must-read content online from just $270. Subscribe
Public Works and Government Services on behalf of Department of Fisheries and Oceans has a requirement that includes harbor dredging (basin and channel) in Little Harbor (L’Ardoise), Richmond County, NS. The project work is to include the dredging of Class “B” material in the basin and channel to a dredge grade of -2.0 meters.All elements of the work must be completed on or before September 30, 2016, according to the Public Works and Government Services Canada.This cleanup scheme will provide a safer and more efficient working environment for harbor users and local fishermen.The closing date for applications is February 9, 2016, 14:00 Atlantic Standard Time (AST).[mappress mapid=”21860″]
City firm SJ Berwin, in conjunction with law school BPP, will introduce a new business programme for future trainees from September 2009. On qualification, trainees will receive an MA in law and business. Top university law faculties have begun talks with City law firms asking for fresh injections of cash to plug funding gaps, the Gazette has learned. It is understood that law faculties are making special requests for donations beyond firms’ usual contributions. Professor David Ibbetson, chair of Cambridge University’s faculty of law, said the ‘fundamental problem’ for many law faculties is a ‘financial squeeze’. He said he needs to expand the faculty’s postgraduate corporate and commercial law programme because of ‘unmet demand’, and to find extra funding for the faculty’s European law programme. Maureen O’Neill, director of development at Oxford University’s faculty of law, said the faculty has had to increase the share of its income from City firms from 8% of its total budget to 12% over the past five years. She said the faculty is ‘always seeking to increase that margin’, although it is not involved in emergency discussions with firms at present. Professor Timothy Endicott, dean of Oxford University’s faculty of law, said: ‘The government has always been our largest supporter, but it’s been 20 years since they assessed funding.’ Cambridge’s Ibbetson praised the faculty’s existing City benefactors, and said that law firms have taken educational funding ‘very seriously’ over the last few years.
Subscribe now for unlimited access Subscribe to Building today and you will benefit from:Unlimited access to all stories including expert analysis and comment from industry leadersOur league tables, cost models and economics dataOur online archive of over 10,000 articlesBuilding magazine digital editionsBuilding magazine print editionsPrinted/digital supplementsSubscribe now for unlimited access.View our subscription options and join our community Get your free guest access SIGN UP TODAY Stay at the forefront of thought leadership with news and analysis from award-winning journalists. Enjoy company features, CEO interviews, architectural reviews, technical project know-how and the latest innovations.Limited access to building.co.ukBreaking industry news as it happensBreaking, daily and weekly e-newsletters To continue enjoying Building.co.uk, sign up for free guest accessExisting subscriber? LOGIN
During the northern hemisphere winter months from mid/late December to mid/late April, the Great Lakes are closed for large seagoing vessels due to maintenance work on the complex locks and waterways. From Brake, Fednav typically carries cargoes such as iron and steel products, project cargoes and wind power components. Fednav operates a fleet of 33 modern ships which are adapted to suit the flow of goods to and from the Great Lakes. Another 21 units will be delivered by 2018. In Brake, the Fednav service calls at the Niedersachsenkai, which is operated by J. Müller Group. The terminal covers an area of 150,000 sq m and is characterised by its particular suitability for general and project cargoes, as it has a special quay for over-dimensional components and is regularly used for assembly work. www.jmueller.dewww.seaports.de
Given that hybrid airships did not fit within existing FAA regulations, Lockheed Martin has created a new set of criteria allowing non-rigid hybrid airships to safely operate in a commercial capacity. Transport Canada was involved in the development of these criteria to ensure safety concerns unique to Canada were included.Lockheed Martin and the FAA have been working together for more than a decade to define the criteria to certify hybrid airships for the transport category. The FAA approved these criteria in April 2013.Since that approval, Lockheed Martin has been developing the project specific certification plan, which details how it will accomplish everything outlined in the hybrid certification criteria.”The approval of the certification plan represents an important risk reduction milestone for our customers,” said programme manager, Dr. Robert Boyd. “Completing this step took dedication from both the Lockheed Martin system experts and the FAA, who worked meticulously through thousands of detailed items to achieve consistent and accurate verification statements covering the entire aircraft.”According to Lockheed Martin, hybrid airships can affordably transport heavy cargo to and from remote locations due to their unique shape and air cushion landing system. They require little to no fixed ground infrastructure and burn significantly less fuel compared to conventional aircraft making them an environmentally friendly solution for remote cargo delivery, added the company.Earlier this year Lockheed Martin, along with Hybrid Enterprises, kicked off sales for the 20-tonne variety of the hybrid airship. The delivery of operational airships is on track for as early as 2018. Watch a video about Lockheed Martin’s hybrid airship below: www.lockheedmartin.comwww.hydridhe.com