We model landslide initiation as slip surface growth driven by locally elevated pore pressure, with particular reference to submarine slides. Assuming an elastic medium and friction that weakens with slip, solutions exist in which the slip surface may dynamically grow, without further pore pressure increases, at a rate of the order of the sediment shear wave speed, a situation comparable to earthquake nucleation. The size of the rupture at this transition point depends weakly on the imposed pore pressure profile; however, the amount of slip at the transition depends strongly on whether the pore pressure was broadly or sharply elevated. Sharper profiles may result in pore pressures reaching the total slope‐normal stress before dynamic rupture is nucleated. While we do not account for modes of failure other than pure slip on a failure surface, this may be an indication that additional modes involving liquefaction or hydraulic cracking may be factors in the initiation of shallow slope failure. We identify two length scales, one geometrical ( h , depth below the free surface) and one material (ℓ, determined by the frictional weakening rate) and a transition in nucleation behavior between effectively “deep” and “shallow” limits dependent on their ratio. Whether dynamic propagation of failure is indefinite or arresting depends largely on whether the background shear stress is closer to nominal peak or residual frictional strength. This is determined in part by background pore pressures, and to consider the submarine case we simplify a common sedimentation/consolidation approach to reflect interest in near‐seafloor conditions.
Our data indicate that among women, history of diabetes is associated with dramatically increased risks of death from all causes and fatal CHD. The combination of diabetes and prior CHD identifies particularly high-risk women.
We read with interest the Burden of Proof (BoP) studies [1][2][3][4][5] in which the authors conducted meta-analyses of epidemiological studies to provide an overall conservative quantitative assessment for several important public health questions.For ease of interpretation, they transformed the overall assessment into a star rating (1-5 stars).Examples include five stars for smoking and lung cancer, two stars for low vegetable intake and ischemic heart disease (IHD) and two stars for unprocessed red meat and type 2 diabetes (T2D), colorectal cancer and IHD 6 .They used this same method to assign just three stars to smoking in relation to IHD and one or two stars to other well-established relationships [1][2][3][4] .However, we believe there are serious methodological issues with their meta-analyses 5 ; the star rating of evidence strength is overly simplistic and could cast doubt on existing recommendations and policies intended to prevent chronic disease and treat illnesses.In the BoP analyses, the estimated uncertainty intervals (UIs) were several times wider than the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) generated by existing methods that account for heterogeneity among methods 7 .As an example of the BoP analyses 1 , for unprocessed red meat and T2D 15 studies were included in the meta-analysis, many of which were large and without evidence of small study bias.With what the authors described as a conventional analysis, there is a highly statistically significant and approximately linear positive association and the relative risk for 100 g per day of red meat intake versus no consumption was approximately 1.24.However, due to an
ADVERTISEMENT RETURN TO ISSUEPREVArticleNEXTSynthesis of pure 13C60 and determination of the isotope effect for fullerene superconductorsChia Chun Chen and Charles M. LieberCite this: J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1992, 114, 8, 3141–3142Publication Date (Print):April 1, 1992Publication History Published online1 May 2002Published inissue 1 April 1992https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ja00034a072https://doi.org/10.1021/ja00034a072research-articleACS PublicationsRequest reuse permissionsArticle Views258Altmetric-Citations130LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICSArticle Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated. Share Add toView InAdd Full Text with ReferenceAdd Description ExportRISCitationCitation and abstractCitation and referencesMore Options Share onFacebookTwitterWechatLinked InRedditEmail Other access optionsGet e-Alertsclose Get e-Alerts