Time filter

Source Type

Bloomington, IN, United States

Hasse J.S.,Purdue University | Park C.H.,Schnabel Engineering | Nowack R.L.,Purdue University | Hill J.R.,Indiana Geological Survey
Environmental and Engineering Geoscience | Year: 2010

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has published probabilistic earthquake hazard maps for the United States based on current knowledge of past earthquake activity and geological constraints on earthquake potential. These maps for the central and eastern United States assume standard site conditions with Swave velocities of 760 m/s in the top 30 m. For urban and infrastructure planning and long-term budgeting, the public is interested in similar probabilistic seismic hazard maps that take into account near-surface geological materials. We have implemented a probabilistic method for incorporating site effects into the USGS seismic hazard analysis that takes into account the first-order effects of the surface geologic conditions. The thicknesses of sediments, which play a large role in amplification, were derived from a P-wave refraction database with over 13, 000 profiles, and a preliminary geology-based velocity model was constructed from available information on S-wave velocities. An interesting feature of the preliminary hazard maps incorporating site effects is the approximate factor of two increases in the 1-Hz spectral acceleration with 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years for parts of the greater Indianapolis metropolitan region and surrounding parts of central Indiana. This effect is primarily due to the relatively thick sequence of sediments infilling ancient bedrock topography that has been deposited since the Pleistocene Epoch. As expected, the Late Pleistocene and Holocene depositional systems of the Wabash and Ohio Rivers produce additional amplification in the southwestern part of Indiana. Ground motions decrease, as would be expected, toward the bedrock units in south-central Indiana, where motions are significantly lower than the values on the USGS maps. Source

Blieck A.,Lille University of Science and Technology | Turner S.,Monash University | Burrow C.J.,Queensland Museum | Schultze H.-P.,University of Kansas | And 3 more authors.
Episodes | Year: 2014

The term vertebrate is generally viewed by systematists in two contexts, either as Craniata (myxinoids or hagfishes + vertebrates s.s., i.e. basically, animals possessing a stiff backbone) or as Vertebrata (lampreys + other vertebrae-bearing animals, which we propose to call here Euvertebrata). Craniates are characterized by a skull; vertebrates by vertebrae (arcualia); euvertebrates are vertebrates with hard phosphatised tissues in the skeleton. The earliest known possible craniate is Myllokunmingia (syn. Haikouichthys) from the Lower Cambrian of Chengjiang, south China. Euvertebrates appear in the Ordovician. C. H. Pander is sometimes thought to have been the first to propose that conodonts are vertebrates, but he did have doubts about the fish affinities of conodonts. This proposal was revived in the 30s and especially in the 80s of the 20th century and given elevated status in 2000 through a cladistic analysis based upon interpretation of conodont mineralized tissues as homologous to those of vertebrates. This analysis resolved conodonts within the clade Vertebrata s.s., and incorporated a 'Total Group Concept' (TGC), including conodonts in the TG Gnathostomes (= jawed vertebrates). This resulted in the unusual scenario in which "teeth" appear before jaws. We reject the TGC nomenclature as applied to early vertebrates. In addition, based on all existing evidence, we consider that conodont hard tissues and several other anatomical structures in conodonts are not homologous with those of vertebrates. Making a revised cladistic analysis, eliminating characters unknown in fossils, conodonts appear stemward (i.e. more basal) to craniates and are thus interpreted as basal chordates at best. To help resolve the phylogenetic relationships of conodonts and chordates, the analysis should be extended to include non-chordate taxa. Source

Krause R.M.,University of Kansas | Carley S.R.,Indiana University | Warren D.C.,Indiana University | Rupp J.A.,Indiana Geological Survey | Graham J.D.,Indiana University
Risk Analysis | Year: 2014

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an innovative technical approach to mitigate the problem of climate change by capturing carbon dioxide emissions and injecting them underground for permanent geological storage. CCS has been perceived both positively, as an innovative approach to facilitate a more environmentally benign use of fossil fuels while also generating local economic benefits, and negatively, as a technology that prolongs the use of carbon-intensive energy sources and burdens local communities with prohibitive costs and ecological and human health risks. This article extends existing research on the "not in my backyard" (NIMBY) phenomenon in a direction that explores the public acceptance of CCS. We utilize survey data collected from 1,001 residents of the coal-intensive U.S. state of Indiana. Over 80% of respondents express support for the general use of CCS technology. However, 20% of these initial supporters exhibit a NIMBY-like reaction and switch to opposition as a CCS facility is proposed close to their communities. Respondents' worldviews, their beliefs about the local economic benefits that CCS will generate, and their concerns about its safety have the greatest impact on increasing or decreasing the acceptance of nearby facilities. These results lend valuable insights into the perceived risks associated with CCS technology and the possibilities for its public acceptance at both a national and local scale. They may be extended further to provide initial insights into likely public reactions to other technologies that share a similar underground dimension, such as hydraulic fracturing. © 2013 Society for Risk Analysis. Source

Turner S.,Monash University | Burrow C.J.,Queensland Museum | Schultze H.-L.,University of Kansas | Blieck A.,Lille University of Science and Technology | And 4 more authors.
Geodiversitas | Year: 2010

An evidence-based reassessment of the phylogenetic relationships of conodonts shows that they are not "stem" gnathostomes, nor vertebrates, and not even craniates. A signifi cant group of conodont workers have proposed or accepted a craniate designation for the conodont animal, an interpretation that is increasingly becoming established as accepted "fact". Against this prevailing trend, our conclusion is based on a revised analysis of traditional morphological features of both discrete conodont elements and apparatuses, histological investigation and a revised cladistic analysis modifying that used in the keystone publication promoted as proof of the hypothesis that conodonts are vertebrates. Our study suggests that conodonts possibly were not even chordates but demonstration of this is beyond the scope of this paper. To summarize, in conodonts there is low cephalization; presence of simple V-shaped trunk musculature and unique large-crystal albid material in the elements; lack of a dermal skeleton including characteristic vertebrate hard tissues of bone, dentine and enamel; lack of odontodes with bone of attachment and a unique pulp system; lack of segmentally-arranged paraxial elements and dermal elements in median fins, all of which supports neither a vertebrate nor a craniate relationship for conodonts. Publications © Scientifiques du Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris. Source

Carley S.R.,Indiana University Bloomington | Krause R.M.,University of Texas at El Paso | Warren D.C.,Indiana University Bloomington | Rupp J.A.,Indiana Geological Survey | Graham J.D.,Indiana University Bloomington
Environmental Science and Technology | Year: 2012

While carbon capture and storage (CCS) is considered to be critical to achieving long-term climate-protection goals, public concerns about the CCS practice could pose significant obstacles to its deployment. This study reports findings from the first state-wide survey of public perceptions of CCS in a coal-intensive state, with an analysis of which factors predict early attitudes toward CCS. Nearly three-quarters of an Indiana sample (N = 1001) agree that storing carbon underground is a good approach to protecting the environment, despite 80% of the sample being unaware of CCS prior to participation in the two-wave survey. The majority of respondents do not hold strong opinions about CCS technology. Multivariate analyses indicate that support for CCS is predicted by a belief that humankind contributes to climate change, a preference for increased use of renewable energy, and egalitarian and individualistic worldviews, while opposition to CCS is predicted by self-identified political conservatism and by selective attitudes regarding energy and climate change. Knowledge about early impressions of CCS can help inform near-term technology decisions at state regulatory agencies, utilities, and pipeline companies, but follow-up surveys are necessary to assess how public sentiments evolve in response to image-building efforts with different positions on coal and CCS. © 2012 American Chemical Society. Source

Discover hidden collaborations