3D Cone Beam Imaging in Dental Practices

3D Cone Beam Imaging in Dental Practices Abstract Cone Beam Imaging is increasingly being considered as an important source of three dimensional (3D) imaging in orthodontics ever since it was introduced back in 1998. This manuscript has been designed to highlight the applications of cone beam imaging, its background, efficiency and its scope over the years. Although its advantages are more over the routine radiography cases, and its ever increasing popularity, there are a few disadvantages that exist under the surface and this manuscript tends to explore that as well. Similarly, there are some dentists who use it frequently while some refuse to use it in the office. All such scenarios have been evaluated in this research manuscript. Keywords: radiography, orthodontics, cone beam CT, computed, tomography, dental practices, instrumentation 3D Cone Beam Imaging in Dental Practices For quite a while now, the use of advanced imaging for most dental practitioners has been limited due to the considerations of radiation doses, availability and cost. However, after the introduction of Cone Beam Imaging with the help of Computed Tomography, the opportunities for multi-planar imaging have made their way for applications in maxillofacial regions. Introduction to 3D Cone Beam Imaging Cone beam imaging is based on volumetric tomography, in which an extended two-dimensional digital array is used in combination with a three-dimensional x-ray beam and an area detector. The technology uses a single scan of 360 degrees in which the detector and x-ray source move around the head of the patient in a synchronization, which is fixed in a stable position with the help of a head holder. At specific intervals of degrees, basis images or the single projection images are acquired by the device. These basis images resemble the lateral cephalometric radiographic pictures, and the series of these images is termed as the projection data (Lofthag-Hansen, Thilander-Klang, Kerstin, 2011). Different software are then used to employ back-filtered projection to these images in order to generate a 3D set of volumetric data, which is then used to provide reconstruction images in the coronal, sagittal and axial planes (Noo, 2010). Although the principle of cone beam imaging has been into applications for the last two decades, the recent availability of powerful computers, high-quality detector systems and affordable x-ray tubes have given way to more commercial usage of this technology. Ever since the introduction of first cone beam imaging back in 2001 as NewTom QR DVT 9000 (Benavides, et al., 2012), a lot of systems have been introduced in the market. All of these systems can be categorized on the basis of their detection system. For maxillofacial applications, most of these units used a charge-coupled device and an image intensifier tube. Only recently, a flat panel imager was brought into applications which consisted of a scintillator made up of cesium iodide and an amorphous silicon thin film transistor (Shah, Mann, Tornai, Richmond, Zentai, 2014; Stratemann, Huang, Maki, Miller, Hatcher, 2014). These systems generated lesser noise and did not need the preprocessing for the reductions of geometric disto rtions present in the configuration of detectors. Applications of Cone Beam Imaging in Clinical Dental Practice Cone beam imaging technology is suitable for usage in clinical dental practice due to its size, unlike the conventional computed tomography scanners that are expensive and large to maintain and purchase (Poeschl, et al., 2013). In dental practices where space is at a premium, dose considerations and costs are taken under consideration and the scanning scope is limited to the head, cone beam imaging systems become quite popular. All cone beam imaging technology units provide sagittal, coronal and axial images, with basic enhancement options of magnification, zoom and visual adjustments, have the capability of cursor-driven measurement and annotation additions. Other enhancements include color ranges and contrast levels within the frame window. Values of cone beam imaging technology imaging in post-operative assessment of craniofacial fractures (Wortche, et al., 2014; Mischkowski, et al., 2014), TMJ assessments (Honda, et al., 2014; Tsiklakis, Syriopoulos, Stamatakis, 2014; Kijima, et al., 2014), surgical assessment of pathology and implant planning (Weitz, et al., 2011; Maret, et al., 2014; Liang, et al., 2010) have been evaluated into applications. Similarly, cone beam imaging technology has also been found into popular applications in the field of orthodontics for the assessment of development and growths (Stratemann S. , Huang, Maki, Hatcher, Miller, 2011), with popularity increasing evermore at the Wes t Coast of the United States. Advantages of Cone Beam Imaging Cone beam imaging technology is highly suitable for the craniofacial area as it provides clear images of bones and contrasted structures. There are a number of advantages for cone beam imaging technology over the conventional computed tomography which include: Limitation of X-Ray Beam With the reduction of the size of irradiated area to the area of interest by the collimation of primary x-ray beam, the amount of radiation dose is greatly reduced. Most units can be adjusted to scan the beam perfectly allowing the scan of entire craniofacial complex whenever necessary. Accuracy of Images In the conventional computed tomography, the voxels are rectangular and anisotropic, whereas the voxels in cone beam imaging are square and isotropic. This allows the units to produce high quality images varying from as high as 0.4mm down to as few as 0.125mm of resolution. Rapid Scan Time Since all the images are acquired within a single rotation, the scan time is rapid and comparable to the medical spiral systems ranging from 10 seconds to 70 seconds. The reduction in scan time also reduces the probability of motion artifacts (Suomalainen, Vehmas, Kortesniemi, Robinson, Peltola, 2014). Reduction in Doses Different reports indicate that the effective radiation dose is reduced greatly in conic beam imaging systems as compared to conventional computed tomographic systems. The average dosage of the conventional systems is reduced up to 98% in the cone beam imaging systems (Tyndall Kohltfarber, 2012; Pauwels, et al., 2012; Tyndall, et al., 2012). Reduced Image Artifacts Cone beam imaging technology images produce low image artifacts due to the suppressed algorithms and increased number of projections, especially in the reconstructions designed secondarily for observing teeth and jaws (Miles, 2013). Conclusion The rapid commercialization and development of cone beam imaging technology has undoubtedly increased the access of dental practitioners to 3D radiographic procedures dedicated to imaging the maxillofacial region in the clinical dental practice. Cone beam imaging technology imaging provides sub-millimeter, high quality images with spatial resolution and short scanning times ranging between ten seconds to a minute, defining it as a convenient source of diagnostic procedures. References Benavides, E., Rios, H. F., Ganz, S. D., An, C. H., Resnik, R., Reardon, G. T., Wang, H. L. (2012). Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists consensus report. Implant dentistry, 78-86. Honda, K., Matumoto, K., Kashima, M., Takano, Y., Kawashima, S., Arai, Y. (2014). Single air contrast arthrography for temporomandibular joint disorder using limited cone beam computed tomography for dental use. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. Kijima, N., Honda, K., Kuroki, Y., Sakabe, J., Ejima, K., Nakajima, I. (2014). Relationship between patient characteristics, mandibular head morphology and thickness of the roof of the glenoid fossa in symptomatic temporomandibular joints. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. Liang, X., Jacobs, R., Hassan, B., Li, L., Pauwels, R., Corpas, L., Lambrichts, I. (2010). A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT): Part I. On subjective image quality. European journal of radiology, 2(75), 265-269. Lofthag-Hansen, S., Thilander-Klang, A., Grà ¶ndahl, K. (2011). Evaluation of subjective image quality in relation to diagnostic task for cone beam computed tomography with different fields of view.European journal of radiology,80(2), 483-488. Maret, D., Peters, O. A., Galibourg, A., Dumoncel, J., Esclassan, R., Kahn, J. L., Telmon, N. (2014). Comparison of the Accuracy of 3-dimensional Cone-beam Computed Tomography and Micro-Computed Tomography Reconstructions by Using Different Voxel Sizes. Journal of endodontics, 9(40), 1321-1326. Miles, D. A. (2013). Atlas of cone beam imaging for dental applications. Quintessence Pub. Mischkowski, R. A., Scherer, P., Ritter, L., Neugebauer, J., Keeve, E., Zoller, J. E. (2014). Diagnostic quality of multiplanar reformations obtained with a newly developed cone beam device for maxillofacial imaging. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. Noo, F. (2010, March). X-ray cone-beam computed tomography: principles, applications, challenges and solutions. In APS March Meeting Abstracts , 1, 5003. Pauwels, R., Beinsberger, J., Collaert, B., Theodorakou, C., Rogers, J., Walker, A., Horner, K. (2012). Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. European journal of radiology, 2(81), 267-271. Poeschl, P. W., Schmidt, N., Guevara-Rojas, G., Seemann, R., Ewers, R., Zipko, H. T., Schicho, K. (2013). Comparison of cone-beam and conventional multislice computed tomography for image-guided dental implant planning.Clinical oral investigations,17(1), 317-324. Shah, J., Mann, S. D., Tornai, M. P., Richmond, M., Zentai, G. (2014, March). MTF characterization in 2D and 3D for a high resolution, large field of view flat panel imager for cone beam CT. In SPIE Medical Imaging. Stratemann, S. A., Huang, J. C., Maki, K., Miller, A. J., Hatcher, D. C. (2014). Comparison of cone beam computed tomography imaging with physical measures. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. Stratemann, S., Huang, J. C., Maki, K., Hatcher, D., Miller, A. J. (2011). Three-dimensional analysis of the airway with cone-beam computed tomography. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 5(140), 607-615. Suomalainen, A., Vehmas, T., Kortesniemi, M., Robinson, S., Peltola, J. (2014). Accuracy of linear measurements using dental cone beam and conventional multislice computed tomography. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. Tsiklakis, K., Syriopoulos, K., Stamatakis, H. C. (2014). Radiographic examination of the temporomandibular joint using cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. Tyndall, D. A., Price, J. B., Tetradis, S., Ganz, S. D., Hildebolt, C., Scarfe, W. C. (2012). Position statement of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology on selection criteria for the use of radiology in dental implantology with emphasis on cone beam computed tomography. Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology, 6(113), 817-826. Tyndall, D., Kohltfarber, H. (2012). Application of cone beam volumetric tomography in endodontics. Australian Dental Journal(57), 72-81. doi:10.1111/j.1834-7819.2011.01654.x Weitz, J., Deppe, H., Stopp, S., Lueth, T., Mueller, S., Hohlweg-Majert, B. (2011). Accuracy of templates for navigated implantation made by rapid prototyping with DICOM datasets of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Clinical Oral Investigations, 6(15), 1001-1006. Wortche, R., Hassfeld, S., Lux, C. J., Mussig, E., Hensley, F. W., Krempien, R., Hofele, C. (2014). Clinical application of cone beam digital volume tomography in children with cleft lip and palate. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology.

Comparison of Indirect Cost Multipliers for Vehicle Manufacturing Essay

Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor The University of Chicago, nor any of their employees or officers, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of document authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof, Argonne National Laboratory, or The University of Chicago. COMPARISON OF INDIRECT COST MULTIPLIERS FOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURING INTRODUCTION In the process of manufacturing and selling vehicles, a manufacturer incurs certain costs. Among these costs are those incurred directly as a part of manufacturing operations and those incurred indirectly in the processes of manufacturing and selling. The indirect costs may be productionrelated, such as R&D and engineering; business-related, such as corporate staff salaries and pensions; or retail-sales-related, such as dealer support and marketing. These indirect costs are recovered by allocating them to each vehicle. Under a stable, high-volume production process, the allocation of these indirect costs can be approximated as multipliers (or factors) applied to the direct cost of manufacturing. A manufacturer usually allocates indirect costs to finished vehicles according to a corporation-specific pricing strategy. Because the volumes of sales and production vary widely by model within a corporation, the internal corporate percent allocation of various accounting categories (such as profit or corporate overhead) can vary widely among individual models. Approaches also vary across corporations. For our purposes, an average value is constructed, by means of a generic representative method, for vehicle models produced at high volume. To accomplish this, staff at Argonne National Laboratory’s (ANL’s) Center for Transportation Research analyzed the conventional vehicle cost structure and developed indirect cost multipliers for passenger vehicles. This memorandum summarizes the results of an effort to compare and put on a common basis the cost multipliers used in ANL’s electric and hybrid electric vehicle cost estimation procedures with those resulting from two other methodologies. One of the two compared methodologies is derived from a 1996 presentation by Dr. Chris Borroni-Bird of Chrysler Corporation, the other is by Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. (EEA), as described in a 1995 report by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), Congress of the United States. The cost multipliers are used for scaling the component costs to retail prices. ANL METHODOLOGY The ANL methodology described here is based on an analysis concerned with electric vehicle production and operating costs (Cuenca et al. 2000; Vyas et al. 1998). The analysis evaluated the cost structure for conventional vehicle manufacturing and retailing and assigned shares of the manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) to various cost contributors. Multipliers developed from the ANL methodology are applied to the manufacturing cost of an individual component in order to scale the component cost to the retail price. Several cost contributors are included in the methodology, as summarized in Table 1. Some of the vehicle components for electric and hybrid electric vehicles would be procured from outside suppliers. This assumption is applied to electric drive components, excluding the battery; the vehicle manufacturer would produce the rest. Thus, two cost multipliers, one for the components manufactured internally and the other for outsourced components, are necessary to estimate the price of electric and hybrid electric vehicles. Outside suppliers would incur some of the costs normally borne by the vehicle manufacturer. In the ANL methodology, we assume that the costs of â€Å"Warranty,† â€Å"R&D/Engineering,† and â€Å"Depreciation and Amortization† are borne by the Page 1 suppliers of outsourced components. The outside suppliers would include these costs in their prices. The following two cost multipliers are computed by using â€Å"Cost of Manufacture† as the base: Cost multiplier for components manufactured internally = 100/50 = 2. 00. Cost multiplier for outsourced components = 100/(50 + 6. 5 + 5. 5 + 5) = 1. 50. Table 1 Contributors to Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price in ANL Methodology Cost Category Cost Contributor Relative to Share of Cost of Vehicle MSRP Manufacturing (%) Vehicle Manufacturing Cost of Manufacture 1. 00 50. 0 Production Overhead Warranty 0. 10 5. 0 R&D/Engineering 0. 13 6. 5 Depreciation and Amortization 0. 11 5. 5 Corporate Overhead Corporate Overhead, Retirement and 0. 14 7. 0 Health Selling Distribution, Marketing, Dealer 0. 47 23. 5 Support, and Dealer Discount Sum of Costs 1. 95 97. 5 Profit Profit 0. 05 2. 5 Total Contribution to 2. 00 100. 0 MSRP METHODOLOGY DERIVED FROM BORRONI-BIRD PRESENTATION In his presentation, entitled â€Å"Automotive Fuel Cell Requirements,† at the 1996 Automotive Technology Development Customers’ Coordination Meeting, Borroni-Bird included charts on the â€Å"Typical American Automobile: Price/Cost Breakdown. † The charts provided a graphical breakdown of vehicle price, showing cost contributors and profit. We used the charts to arrive at percentage shares of vehicle price by various contributors. Table 2 shows the resulting allocation. Page 2 Table 2 Price/Cost Breakdown Based on Borroni-Bird Presentation Cost Category Cost Contributor a Vehicle Manufacturing Fixed Cost Selling Sum of Costs Profit MSRP a Material Cost Assembly Labor and Other Manufacturing a Costs Transportation/Warranty Amortization and Depreciation, Engineering R&D, Pension and Health Care, Advertising, and Overhead Price Discounts Dealer Markup Automobile Profit. Relative to Cost of Vehicle Manufacturing 0. 87 0. 13 0. 09 0. 44 Share of MSRP (%) 42. 5 6. 5 4. 5 21. 5 0. 10 0. 36 1. 99 0. 06 2. 05 5. 0 17. 5 97. 5 2. 5 100. 0 These two contributors are scaled to sum to 1 in the third column, as in Table 1. In his presentation, Borroni-Bird did not evaluate the treatment of in-house or outsourced components. His methodology does not lend itself to easy computation of cost multipliers comparable with those in the ANL methodology, unless we make a few assumptions. We have assumed that â€Å"Material Cost,† taken together with â€Å"Assembly Labor and Other Manufacturing Costs,† would form the â€Å"Vehicle Manufacturing† base for the in-house components. The costs of â€Å"Transportation/Warranty,† â€Å"Amortization and Depreciation,† and â€Å"Engineering R&D† would be borne by the suppliers of outsourced components. However, â€Å"Amortization and Depreciation† and â€Å"Engineering R&D† costs were merged with â€Å"Pension and Health Care,† â€Å"Advertising,† and â€Å"Overhead† costs by Borroni-Bird. We assumed that half of the costs under this category would be borne by the suppliers of outsourced components. Our assumptions led to the following cost multipliers: Cost multiplier for components manufactured internally = 100/(42. 5 + 6. 5) = 2. 05. Cost multiplier for outsourced components = 100/(42. 5 + 6. 5 + 4. 5 + 10. 75) = 1. 56. These cost multipliers are very similar to those computed with the ANL methodology. Comparison of ANL and Borroni-Bird Methodologies The information from Tables 1 and 2 is shown in terms of cost categories in Table 3. Both methodologies use vehicle manufacturing cost as the base and add other costs to it. The share of MSRP attributable to â€Å"Vehicle Manufacturing† is 50% in the ANL methodology, compared with 49% in the Borroni-Bird Methodology. Borroni-Bird combined several cost contributors under â€Å"Fixed Cost. † These contributors include (see Table 2) â€Å"Amortization and Depreciation,† â€Å"Engineering R&D,† â€Å"Pension and Health Care,† â€Å"Advertising,† and â€Å"Overhead. † Except for the inclusion of â€Å"Advertising,† â€Å"Production Overhead† and â€Å"Corporate Overhead† in the ANL methodology can be combined to form an equivalent category. ANL’s total of 24% by production Page 3 and corporate overheads is slightly lower than the total of 26% by Borroni-Bird. The ANL category of â€Å"Selling,† which includes â€Å"Distribution,† â€Å"Marketing,† â€Å"Dealer Support,† and â€Å"Dealer Discount,† is broader than that of â€Å"Price Discounts† and â€Å"Dealer Markup† specified by BorroniBird, and this category’s contribution is understandably slightly higher in the ANL methodology. The share of MSRP by â€Å"Profit† is the same in both methodologies. The absolute differences, computed as ANL value minus Borroni-Bird value, are 1% for â€Å"Vehicle Manufacturing,† –2% for â€Å"Fixed Cost,† and 1% for â€Å"Selling† cost. Table 3 Comparison of Vehicle Price/Cost Allocation by ANL and Borroni-Bird Methodologies ANL Methodology Cost Contributor or Category Vehicle Manufacturing Production Overhead Corporate Overhead Selling Sum of Costs Profit MSRP EEA METHODOLOGY The methodology of Energy and Environmental Analysis is summarized in the OTA report OTAETI-638, entitled Advanced Automotive Technology: Visions of a Super-Efficient Family Car, published in September 1995. The values of some cost contributors are not listed in the report. Moreover, depreciation, amortization, and tooling expenses are assumed to be case-specific and therefore must be computed for each case. In order to make the EEA and ANL methodologies comparable, some assumptions were necessary. These assumptions are described in the summary below. The EEA cost equations can be simplified as follows: Cost of Manufacture = Division Cost ? [1 + Division Overhead] Manufacturer Cost = [Cost of Manufacture + Assembly Labor + Assembly Overhead] ? [1 + Manufacturing Overhead + Manufacturing Profit] + Engineering Expense + Tooling Expense + Facilities Expense Retail Price Equivalent = Manufacturer Cost ? [1 + Dealer Margin] Borroni-Bird Methodology Share of Cost Contributor or Category Share of MSRP (%) MSRP (%) 50. 0 Vehicle Manufacturing 49. 0 17. 0 Fixed Cost 26. 0 7. 0 23. 5 Selling 22. 5 97. 5 Sum of Costs 97. 5 2. 5 Automobile Profit 2. 5 100. 0 MSRP 100. 0 Page 4 The report lists the following values for overhead, profit, and dealer margin: Division Overhead = Supplier Overhead = 0. 20 (We assume that division and supplier overheads are equal; only the supplier overhead is given in the report. ) Manufacturing Overhead = 0. 25 Manufacturing Profit = 0. 20 Dealer Margin = 0. 25 Because the documentation in the OTA report does not provide values for â€Å"Assembly Labor,† â€Å"Assembly Overhead,† â€Å"Engineering Expense,† â€Å"Tooling Expense,† and â€Å"Facilities Expense,† cost multipliers cannot be computed directly from these data. The â€Å"Assembly Labor† and â€Å"Assembly Overhead† share of MSRP is 6. 5% in Borroni-Bird’s presentation. The engineering, tooling, and facilities expenses can be taken as the sum of â€Å"R&D/Engineering† and â€Å"Depreciation and Amortization† from the ANL methodology, at 12% of the MSRP. In deriving the division cost and price relationship below, we use the term Retail Price Equivalent (RPE) from the OTA report instead of MSRP. The RPE can be computed as follows: RPE = = = {[Division Cost ? 1. 2 + 0. 065 RPE] ? 1. 45 + 0. 12 RPE} ? 1. 25 Division Cost ? 2. 175 + 0. 268 RPE Division Cost ? 2. 175/(1 – 0. 268) = Division Cost ? 2. 97 Putting ANL and EEA Methodologies on a Common Basis As it was described in the OTA report, the EEA methodology did not provide enough data to compute the cost multipliers. We assumed some cost shares to be the same between the EEA, Borroni-Bird, and ANL methodologies while developing the above relationship between Division Cost and RPE. The EEA methodology is based on the material and labor costs of a division of the vehicle manufacturer, with other costs added on. The ANL methodology evaluates an assembled vehicle, using the vehicle manufacturing cost as the base cost. The ANL methodology also assigns additional costs to the outsourced components, whereas the treatment of such components is not clear in the EEA methodology. We have attempted to develop a common basis for the ANL and EEA methodologies by assigning shares of the final vehicle price, RPE in the EEA methodology, to individual cost categories similar to those listed in Table 1. Table 4 presents such a summary for the EEA methodology. Three cost contributors, â€Å"Division Cost,† â€Å"Division Overhead,† and â€Å"Assembly Labor and Overhead,† are combined under the â€Å"Vehicle Manufacturing† category. Two cost contributors, â€Å"Manufacturing Overhead† and â€Å"Engineering, Tooling, and Facilities Expenses,† combine to form the â€Å"Overhead† category. The â€Å"Dealer Margin† in the EEA methodology represents a factor applied to all manufacturer costs and profit. We assumed that this factor represents all costs of selling the vehicle. Although the profit is computed at the manufacturing level by EEA, we moved the profit to the bottom of the table to be consistent with prior tables. The cost allocation in Table 4 allows us to compute the in-house components cost multiplier as follows: Cost multiplier for in-house components = 100/(33. 7 + 6. 7 + 6. 5) = 2. 14 Page 5 To compute the cost multiplier for an outsourced component, one more assumption is necessary. In the ANL methodology, we assumed that the supplier will bear the costs of â€Å"Warranty,† â€Å"R&D Engineering,† and â€Å"Depreciation and Amortization. † However, the EEA methodology does not identify the warranty cost separately. We assumed it to be half of â€Å"Manufacturing Overhead† at 5. 05%. This, with the earlier assumption related to â€Å"Engineering, Tooling, and Facilities Expenses,† led to the following computation: Cost multiplier for outsourced components = 100/(33. 7 + 6. 7 + 6. 5 + 5. 05 + 12) = 1. 56. These multipliers, adapted from our extension of theE EA information on vehicle costs, are very close to those derived from the ANL and Borroni-Bird methodologies. Table 4 Contributors to Retail Price Equivalent in EEA Methodology Cost Category Cost Contributor a Vehicle Manufacturing Overhead Selling Sum of Costs Profit Manufacturing Profit Total Contribution to RPE a Division Cost a Division Overhead Assembly Labor and a Overhead Manufacturing Overhead Engineering, Tooling, and Facilities Expenses Dealer Margin Relative to Cost of Vehicle Manufacturing 0. 72 0. 14 0. 14 0. 22 0. 26 0. 49 1. 97 0. 17 2. 14 Share of RPE (%) 33. 7 6. 7 6. 5 10. 1 12. 0 22. 9 91. 9 8. 1 100. 0 These three cost contributors are scaled to sum to 1 in the third column, as in Table 1. Comparison of ANL and EEA Methodologies The information from Tables 1 and 4 is presented in terms of cost categories in Table 5 for easy comparison. The â€Å"Vehicle Manufacturing† cost share is 46. 9% in the EEA methodology, compared with 50% in the ANL methodology. EEA’s RPE share of 22. 1% by overhead is lower than the ANL value of 24%. The cost of selling is 22. 9% in the EEA methodology, which is close to the ANL value of 23. 5%. The largest difference is in the RPE share by profit, which is 8. 1% in the EEA methodology, more than three times the ANL value of 2. 5%. According to Economic Indicators: The Motor Vehicle’s Role in the U. S. Economy (American Automobile Manufacturers Association 1998), the average net income before taxes for the three domestic manufacturers was 3. 9% during 1994-1997. Aside from vehicle sales, this value (3. 9%) includes income from spare parts sales and vehicle financing. Thus, the profit share appears very high in the EEA methodology. The absolute differences – computed as ANL value minus EEA value – are 3. 1% for component/material cost, 1. 9% for overhead, 0. 6% for selling, and –5. 6% for profit. Page 6 Table 5 Comparison of Price Allocation by ANL and EEA Methodologies ANL Methodology Cost Contributor or Category Vehicle Manufacturing Production Overhead Corporate Overhead Selling Sum of Costs Profit MSRP SUMMARY An attempt to put three methodologies for automobile cost allocation on a common basis is presented in this technical memorandum. This comparison was carried out to verify the reasonableness of the cost multipliers used in ANL’s cost models for electric vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles. When put into a common format, by means of certain assumptions, the three approaches yielded the cost multipliers provided in Table 6. Table 6 Summary of Cost Multipliers Computed on a Common Basis Multiplier for In-House Components Outsourced Components ACKNOWLEDGMENT Funding for the analysis presented here was provided by the Planning and Assessment function of the Office of Transportation Technologies of the U. S. Department of Energy, managed by Dr. Philip Patterson. This technical memorandum is produced under U. S. Government contract No. W-31-109-Eng-38. REFERENCES American Automobile Manufacturers Association, 1998, Economic Indicators: The Motor Vehicle’s Role in the U. S. Economy, Detroit, Mich. Borroni-Bird, C. , 1996, â€Å"Automotive Fuel Cell Requirements,† Proceedings of the 1996 Automotive Technology Development Customers’ Coordination Meeting, U. S. Department of Energy, Office of Transportation Technologies, Washington, D. C. ANL 2. 00 1. 50 Borroni-Bird 2. 05 1. 56 EEA 2. 14 1. 56 EEA Methodology Share of Cost Contributor or Category MSRP (%) 50. 0 Vehicle Manufacturing 17. 0 Overhead 7. 0 23. 5 Selling 97. 5 Sum of Costs 2. 5 Profit 100. 0 RPE Share of RPE (%) 46. 9 22. 1 22. 9 91. 9 8. 1 100. 0 Page 7 Cuenca, R. M. , L. L. Gaines, and A. D. Vyas, 2000, Evaluation of Electric Vehicle Production and Operating Costs, Argonne National Laboratory Report ANL/ESD-41, Argonne, Ill. (to be published). Vyas, A. , R. Cuenca, and L. Gaines, 1998, â€Å"An Assessment of Electric Vehicle Life Cycle Costs to Consumers,† Proceedings of the 1998 Total Life Cycle Conference, SAE International Report P339, Warrendale, Penn. , pp. 161-172.

Eating Disorders And Athletic Participation - 2416 Words

Eating Disorders and Athletic Participation Over the past twenty years, there has been a great increase of anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa which have come out as major psychological and health problems. This increase in eating disorders has resulted from the intense societal pressure to diet and conform to an unrealistic weight and body size. For the general population of women, the lifetime number of anorexia nervosa is approximately 0.7%, and that of bulimia nervosa is as high as 10.3% ( Taub Blinde, 1992). Since many athletes contain almost the same behaviors to those with eating disorders, there has also been an increase in interest in whether athletes are at a risk for eating disorders. An increase risk of eating disorders†¦show more content†¦Although these characteristics may lead athletes to eating disorders, some of these behaviors can also be helpful to their sport. For example, the drive for perfectionism can help increase athletic performance and success. It may also help in other areas of their live such as school and in social relationships. Studies Several of the early studies which attempted to guess the number of eating disorders among athletes produced many mixed results. Some studies labeled college athletes as high risk, whereas others have found no support for such a label. The guesses widely varied going from 1% in anorexia and up to 30% in bulimia. In 1993, Sundgot-Borden and Larsen compared eating disorder related things across sport categories with female college students and a female medical-based population. Their results showed that athletes involved in endurance and ball game sports did not differ on eating disorder related things, and were not at risk for eating disorder related things. Unfortunately, these early studies were not properly managed, for there existed a variety of methodological limits such as sampling procedure problems as well as small sample sizes which cannot be representative of a whole population. A more difficult 1994 study by Sundgot-Borgen, used a self-report combined with an interview, whi ch questioned 522 elite female athletes. His results indicated that

Dolphin Safe Tuna

Environmental and animal welfare groups promote dolphin-safe tuna, but the dolphin-safe label is in danger of being weakened in the U.S. and some animal protection groups do not support dolphin-safe tuna. Do Some Cans of Tuna Contain Dolphin Meat? No, cans of tuna do not contain dolphin meat. While dolphins are sometimes killed in tuna fishing (see below), the dolphins do not end up in the cans with the tuna. How are Dolphins Harmed in Tuna Fishing? Two types of tuna fishing are notorious for killing dolphins: Purse seine nets and driftnets. Purse seine nets: Dolphins and yellowfin tuna often swim together in large schools, and because dolphins are more visible and closer to the surface than tuna, the fishing boats will look for dolphins to find the tuna. The boats will then set a purse seine net in a circle around both species and capture dolphins along with the tuna. Purse seine nets are giant nets, typically 1,500 - 2,500 meters long and 150-250 meters deep, with a drawstring at the bottom and floats at the top. Some nets are equipped with fish aggregating devices that attract fish and help prevent the fish from escaping before the net can be closed. In addition to dolphins, the animals who are caught unintentionally - the incidental catch, can include sea turtles, sharks, and other fish. The crew is ususally able to release sea turtles back to the ocean unharmed, but the fish usually die. The problem with dolphins being killed in purse seine nets occurs mainly in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimates that between 1959 and 1976, over 6 million dolphins were killed in purse seine nets in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Driftnets: EarthTrust, an environmental NGO, calls driftnets the most destructive fishing technology ever devised by humankind. Driftnets are giant nylon nets that drift behind a boat. The nets have floats on top and may or may not have weights on the bottom, to keep the net hanging vertically in the water. Driftnets come in a variety of mesh sizes, depending on the target species, but they are a wall of death, killing everyone who gets caught in them. The United Nations banned driftnets over 2.5 kilometers long in 1991. Previously, driftnets up to 60 km long were in use and legal. According to EarthTrust, before the ban, driftnets killed over a hundred thousand dolphins and small cetaceans every year, along with millions of seabirds, tens of thousands of seals, thousands of sea turtles and great whales, and untold numbers of non-target fish. Pirate fisheries still use giant, illegal driftnets and will sometimes cut the nets loose to avoid getting caught, leaving these walls of death to continue drifting and killing indiscriminately for centuries to come. Although dolphin deaths from both methods has been greatly reduced, a 2005 study titled, Non-recovery of two spotted and spinner dolphin populations in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean found that dolphin populations have been slow to recover. Can Tuna be Caught Without Harming Dolphins? Yes, a purse seine net can be made to release dolphins. After encircling both the tuna and dolphins, the boat can conduct a backdown operation in which a portion of the net is lowered enough for dolphins to escape. While this technique does save dolphins, it does not address other incidental catch issues, such as sharks and sea turtles. Another way to catch fish without harming dolphins is long line fishing. Long line fishing uses a fishing line that is typically 250-700 meters long, with several branches and hundreds or thousands of baited hooks. While longline fishing does not kill dolphins, the incidental catch includes sharks, sea turtles and seabirds like albatross. The Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act In 1990, the U.S. Congress passed the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act, 16 U.S.C. 1385, which charges the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with regulating dolphin-safe tuna claims. The dolphin-safe claim means that the tuna were not caught with drift nets, and that â€Å"no tuna were caught on the trip in which such tuna were harvested using a purse seine net intentionally deployed on or to encircle dolphins, and that no dolphins were killed or seriously injured in the sets in which the tuna were caught.† Not all tuna sold in the U.S. is dolphin-safe. To summarize: If the tuna were caught without driftnets and without chasing, encircling or killing dolphins, it can be sold in the US and is dolphin-safe.If the tuna were caught by chasing and encircling dolphins, but no dolphins were killed or seriously injured (and other requirements are met), the tuna can be sold in the U.S. but cannot be called dolphin-safe.If the tuna was caught by chasing and encircling dolphins, and dolphins were killed, it cannot be sold in the U.S. Of course, the above is a simplification of the law, which also requires tuna canners to file monthly reports and requires large tuna purse seine vessels must carry an observer. NOAA also conducts spot-checks to verify dolphin-safe claims. For more details on the NOAAs tuna tracking and verification program, click here. You can also read the full text of the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act here International Law International law also applies to the tuna/dolphin issue. In 1999, the United States signed the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP). The other signatories include Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, European Union, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Vanuatu, and Venezuela. The AIDCP seeks to eliminate dolphin mortality in tuna fishing. Congress then amended the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to effct the AIDCP in the United States. The AIDCP definition of dolphin-safe allows dolphins to be chased and encircled with nets, as long as dolphins are not killed or seriously injured. This definition differs from the U.S. definition, which does not permit the chasing or encircling of dolphins under the dolphin-safe label. According to the AIDCP, 93% of the sets made by chasing dolphins resulted in no deaths or serious injuries to dolphins. Challeges to the Dolphin-Safe Label Despite the dolphin-safe label being voluntary, and the fact that a fishery need not attain the dolphin-safe label in order to export tuna to the U.S., Mexico has twice challenged the U.S. dolphin-safe label as an unfair restriction on trade. In May of 2012, the World Trade Organization found that the current U.S. dolphin-safe label is inconsistent with the United States obligations under the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. In September, 2012, the U.S. and Mexico agreed that the U.S. would bring its dolphin-safe label in line with the WTOs recommendations and rulings by July of 2013.   To some, this is yet another example of how environmental and animal protection are sacrificed in the name of free trade. Todd Tucker, research director for Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, states, â€Å"This latest ruling makes truth-in-labeling the latest casualty of so-called ‘trade’ pacts, which are more about pushing deregulation than actual trade . . . Members of Congress and the public will be very concerned that even voluntary standards can be deemed trade barriers.† Whats Wrong with Dolphin-Safe Tuna? The UK-based Ethical Consumer site calls the dolphin-safe label somewhat of a red herring for several reasons. First, the vast majority of canned tuna is skipjack tuna, not yellowfin tuna. Skipjack tuna do not swim with dolphins, so they are never caught using dolphins. Also, the site points out that, It has been estimated that saving one dolphin, by using (fish aggregating devices), costs 16,000 smaller or juvenile tuna, 380 mahimahi, 190 wahoo, 20 sharks and rays, 1200 triggerfish and other small fish, one marlin and ‘other’ animals. The very strong implication that dolphin-safe tuna is sustainable or more humane makes the label problematic. Some animal protection groups object to dolphin-safe tuna because of the impact on tuna. Tuna and other fish populations are threatened by overfishing and from an animal rights perspective, eating tuna hurts tuna. According to Sea Shepherd, bluefin tuna populations have fallen 85% since industrial fishing began, and current quotas are too high to be sustainable. Environmentalists and animal advocates were disappointed in 2010 when the parties to CITES refused to protect tuna. In September of 2012, conservation experts called for better protections for tuna. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, five of the worlds eight tuna species are threatened or nearly threatened. Amanda Nickson, Director of Global Tuna Conservation at the Pew Environment Group stated, There is sufficient science available to set precautionary limits . . . If we wait five, 10 years for the science to be perfect, in the case of some species we may not have anything left to manage. Aside from concerns about extinction and overfishing, fish are sentient beings. From an animal rights perspective, fish have a right to be free of human use and exploitation. Even if there were no danger of overfishing, each individual fish has certain inherent rights, just as dolphins, seabirds and sea turtles do. Buying dolphin-safe tuna recognizes the dolphins rights, but fails to recognize the tunas rights, which is why many animal protection groups do not support dolphin-safe tuna.