Jump to content

User:Keeperofthemoose/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To Do List

[edit]

Edit/fully rewrite roller mill - should we remove and incorporate into gristmill? https://civileats.com/2024/11/20/the-craft-milling-movement-gears-up/ https://civileats.com/2020/08/28/op-ed-will-the-real-whole-grain-please-stand-up/

rework parts of Zoning in the United States incorporate Nectow v. City of Cambridge and Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas add parts of Agricultural zoning rather than just having it at the end as an addition. find better sources

make new section called supreme court decisions? or redo the legal section to make it court cases or smth and remove euclid from history i think.

Exhaustion of remedies isn't good

Prior to 2011, all states and territories of Australia independently regulated occupational health and safety in that state, including forklift licensing. Whilst the Occupational Health and Safety laws of the different states were based on similar underlying principles, there were differences between the various jurisdictions in the detail and application of those Occupational Health and Safety laws.

In 2008 the Inter-Governmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in Occupational Health and Safety was formed between the Commonwealth of Australia and the six states and two territories of Australia to formalize cooperation between these jurisdictions on the harmonization of Occupational Health and Safety legislation.[1] As a result, the national Model Work Health and Safety Act (WHS) was enacted following a review of work health and safety laws across Australia; said review involved significant public consultations effort. This act was finalized in June 2011.[2]

This act formed a framework for the individual jurisdictions to enact supporting legislation, as the individual jurisdictions are tasked with managing State and Territory Occupational Health and Safety laws, including the issue of licences coming under the legislation. Each individual state and territory issue licences in their own jurisdiction, including what is known as "high-risk work licences" for high-risk work.


Forklift safety

[edit]

Driver safety

[edit]

Operating a forklift can be dangerous. In the United States, approximately 7,500 workers annually are reported injured in forklift-related incidents, while nearly 100 are killed.[3]

In many countries, forklift truck operators must be trained and certified to operate forklift trucks. Certification may be required for each individual class of lift that an operator would use.[4] This training must adhere to federal or national standards.

Health care providers do not recommend that workers who drive or use heavy equipment such as forklifts treat chronic or acute pain with opioids.[5]

Drivers are recommended to use a spotter if placing a large load that obstructs their view while driving forwards.

Safety products

[edit]

A number of products are available to reduce occupational hazards caused by forklifts. Forklift safety features include high-visibility seat belts, lighting to warns pedestrians that a forklift is coming and sensors that slow the vehicle to prevent collisions.[3]

Pedestrian detection systems

[edit]
A pedestrian detection system.

These are proximity sensors that detect objects and pedestrians from a few centimeters to several meters. The sensor makes the difference between a person and an object and alerts the driver without useless alarms. Based on stereovision, an algorithm analyses on real time if a person is in a blind zone of the forklift.

Ultrasound radars

[edit]

Ultrasonic sensors are proximity sensors that detect objects at distances ranging from a few centimeters to several meters. The sensor beeps and measures the time it takes for the signal to return. It does not discriminate between people and objects. Any obstacle located behind the truck will be detected. Normally, this type of sensor is used only for detection in rear areas.

RF systems

[edit]

These are devices that alert forklift drivers of the people in the forklift's vicinity. Pedestrians must carry a radio frequency device (electronic tags) which emit a signal when a truck detects them, alerting the forklift driver of their presence. It detects both in the front and at the back and it differentiates between people and the usual obstacles found in warehouses. For this reason, the driver is only alerted when there is a pedestrian near the truck.

Standards

[edit]

Forklift safety is subject to a variety of standards worldwide. The most important standard is the ANSI B56—of which stewardship has now been passed from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to the Industrial Truck Standards Development Foundation (ITSDF) after multi-year negotiations. ITSDF is a non-profit organization whose only purpose is the promulgation and modernization of the B56 standard.[6]

Other forklift safety standards have been implemented in the United States by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and in the United Kingdom by the Health and Safety Executive.[7]

United States

[edit]

In the United States, workplace forklift training is governed federally by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). In 1999, OSHA updated its 29 CFR 1910.178 regulations governing "Powered Industrial Trucks" (the term OSHA uses to include forklifts among other types of industrial vehicles). A major component of these regulations deals with forklift operator training. The standard requires employers to develop and implement a training program based on the general principles of safe truck operation, the types of vehicle(s) being used in the workplace,[8] the hazards of the workplace created by the use of the vehicle(s), and the general safety requirements of the OSHA standard. OSHA believes that trained operators must know how to do the job properly and do it safely as demonstrated by workplace evaluation. Formal (lecture, video, etc.) and practical (demonstration and practical exercises) training must be provided. Employers must also certify that each operator has received the training and evaluate each operator at least once every three years. Prior to operating the truck in the workplace, the employer must evaluate the operator's performance and determine the operator to be competent to operate a powered industrial truck safely. Refresher training is needed whenever an operator demonstrates a deficiency in the safe operation of the truck.[9]

United Kingdom

[edit]

In the UK, the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations state that operators of forklift trucks must be adequately trained; the general standards of that training and good operating practice are found in the HSE Code of Practice 117 (Third edition)[10] issued in 2013. Third-party organisations have developed de facto 'best practice' standards for forklift training, commonly referred to in the UK as a 'forklift licence'; these are no longer recognised as proof of training as defined in the COP 117 (third edition) and as such training is not a legal requirement as is commonly believed.[11] Organised training however helps to demonstrate that an employer has taken steps to ensure its 'duty of care' in the event of an accident.

In the UK, forklift training is carried out by a number of different voluntary standard training organisations, They can be directly recognised by the HSE who have formed a new organisation known as "Accrediting Body Association Work place transport 2012".[12] In all cases qualified forklift instructors must be registered with at least one of the voluntary training organisations. Although RTITB operators are registered on a database which has to be a 3 yearly basis, the amount of time determined between refresher courses is subject to the H&S Executive, Insurance companies or company policies. The H&S Executive (HSG136 Workplace Transport Safety) does recommend re-training or testing every three to five years.[13]

Forklift instructors throughout the UK tend to operate either as small independent training companies or as a part of a larger training provider. Training is delivered in one of two ways: on-site (sometimes referred to as in-house training), where training is delivered to a client's premises making use of their own equipment, or off-site (public courses) at a training centre. Training centres offer the opportunity for the unemployed with little or no forklift operating experience to achieve a certificate of competence and increase their employment opportunities. Training certification standards at schools tend to follow closely the standard required by their individual Training Standards Accrediting Body to which they are affiliated. It is not unusual for a Training school to be registered with more than one body at any one time.[citation needed]

The British Industrial Truck Association (BITA) categorises the different forklift truck types into groups and assigned a unique identifier to each classification. Known as the "BITA List", it has become accepted as a standard in the UK. Forklift training certificates display the appropriate BITA classification to clearly identify the confines of the certification.[14]

Australia

[edit]

As of the 2011 health and safety harmonization agreement, forklift licences are classed as "high-risk work licences" and are issued by individual states and territories, while still governed by a federal framework.[15] To obtain a forklift licence an applicant must complete a training course with an approved training organisation. There are two possible certifications: the National High Risk Licence Unit of Competence TLILIC2001 – Licence to Operate a Forklift Truck, or a Unit of Competence TLILIC2002 – Licence to Operate an Order Picking Forklift Truck.

New Zealand

[edit]

Forklift operator training is divided into operator's certificates and forklift (F) driver license endorsements.[16]

The operator's certificate is based on the Approved Code of Practice for Training Operators and Instructors of Powered Industrial Lift Trucks ('ACOP')[17] published in 1995 by the then Department of Labour. It gives permission for operators to operate a forklift in a private space.

To use a forklift on a public road, the operator must obtain a forklift (F) endorsement on their driver licence. Operators with a class 1 (car) licence and an F endorsement may only operate forklifts up to 18,000 kg gross laden weight, while those holding a class 2 (medium rigid) licence and an F endorsement can operate a forklift of any gross laden weight.

The ACOP is a set of best practices, guidelines and recommendations for training a forklift operator. However, training can be tailored to the operator's specific needs and the attachments they use, as required under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.[18] The ACOP deals specifically with a forklift operator using only the standard forks. Forklift attachments, such as barrel clamps, fork extensions, rotators and personnel cages are covered under a separate unit standard.



20th century

[edit]

Global Overview

[edit]

The modern history of hydropower begins in the 1900s, with large dams built not simply to power neighboring mills or factories[19] but provide extensive electricity for increasingly distant groups of people. Competition drove much of the global hydroelectric craze: Europe competed amongst itself to electrify first, and the United States’ hydroelectric plants in Niagara Falls and the Sierra Nevada inspired bigger and bolder creations across the globe.[20] American and USSR financers and hydropower experts also spread the gospel of dams and hydroelectricity across the globe during the Cold War, contributing to projects such as the Three Gorges Dam and the Aswan High Dam.[21] Feeding desire for large scale electrification with water inherently required large dams across powerful rivers,[22] which impacted public and private interests downstream and in flood zones.[23] Inevitably smaller communities and marginalized groups suffered. They were unable to successfully resist companies flooding them out of their homes or blocking traditional salmon passages.[24] The stagnant water created by hydroelectric dams provides breeding ground for pests and pathogens, leading to local epidemics.[25] However, in some cases, a mutual need for hydropower could lead to cooperation between otherwise adversarial nations.[26]

Hydropower technology and attitude began to shift in the second half of the 20th century. While countries had largely abandoned their small hydropower systems by the 1930s, the smaller hydropower plants began to make a comeback in the 1970s, boosted by government subsidies and a push for more independent energy producers.[22] Some politicians who once advocated for large hydropower projects in the first half of the 20th century began to speak out against them, and citizen groups organizing against dam projects increased.[27] In the 1980s and 90s the international anti-dam movement had made finding government or private investors for new large hydropower projects incredibly difficult, and given rise to NGOs devoted to fighting dams.[28] Additionally, while the cost of other energy sources fell, the cost of building new hydroelectric dams increased 4% annually between 1965 and 1990, due both to the increasing costs of construction and to the decrease in high quality building sites.[29] In the 1990s, only 18% of the world’s electricity came from hydropower.[30] Tidal power production also emerged in the 1960s as a burgeoning alternative hydropower system, though still has not taken hold as a strong energy contender.[31]

United States

[edit]

Especially at the start of the American hydropower experiment, engineers and politicians began major hydroelectricity projects to solve a problem of ‘wasted potential’ rather than to power a population that needed the electricity. When the Niagara Falls Power Company began looking into damming Niagara, the first major hydroelectric project in the United States, in the 1890s they struggled to transport electricity from the falls far enough away to actually reach enough people and justify installation. The project succeeded in large part due to Nikola Tesla’s invention of the alternating current motor.[32][33] On the other side of the country, San Francisco engineers, the Sierra Club, and the federal government fought over acceptable use of the Hetch Hetchy Valley. Despite ostensible protection within a national park, city engineers successfully won the rights to both water and power in the Hetch Hetchy Valley in 1913. After their victory they delivered Hetch Hetchy hydropower and water to San Francisco a decade later and at twice the promised cost, selling power to PG&E which resold to San Francisco residents at a profit.[34][35][36]

The American West, with its mountain rivers and lack of coal, turned to hydropower early and often, especially along the Columbia River and its tributaries. The Bureau of Reclamation built the Hoover Dam in 1931, symbolically linking the job creation and economic growth priorities of the New Deal.[37] The federal government quickly followed Hoover with the Shasta Dam and Grand Coulee Dam. Power demand in Oregon did not justify damming the Columbia until WWI revealed the weaknesses of a coal-based energy economy. The federal government then began prioritizing interconnected power—and lots of it.[38] Electricity from all three dams poured into war production during WWII.[39] After the war, the Grand Coulee Dam and accompanying hydroelectric projects electrified almost all of the rural Columbia Basin, but failed to improve the lives of those living and farming there the way its boosters had promised and also damaged the river ecosystem and migrating salmon populations. In the 1940s as well, the federal government took advantage of the sheer amount of unused power and flowing water from the Grand Coulee to build a nuclear site placed on the banks of the Columbia. The nuclear site leaked radioactive matter into the river, contaminating the entire area.[40]

Post-WWII Americans, especially engineers from the Tennessee Valley Authority, refocused from simply building domestic dams to promoting hydropower abroad.[41][42] While domestic dam building continued well into the 1970s, with the Reclamation Bureau and Army Corps of Engineers building more than 150 new dams across the American West,[41] organized opposition to hydroelectric dams sparked up in the 1950s and 60s based on environmental concerns. Environmental movements successfully shut down proposed hydropower dams in Dinosaur National Monument and the Grand Canyon, and gained more hydropower-fighting tools with 1970s environmental legislation. As nuclear and fossil fuels grew in the 70s and 80s and environmental activists push for river restoration, hydropower gradually faded in American importance.[43]

Africa

[edit]

Foreign powers and IGOs have frequently used hydropower projects in Africa as a tool to interfere in the economic development of African countries, such as the World Bank with the Kariba and Akosombo Dams, and the Soviet Union with the Aswan Dam.[44] The Nile River especially has borne the consequences of countries both along the Nile and distant foreign actors using the river to expand their economic power or national force. After the British occupation of Egypt in 1882, the British worked with Egypt to construct the first Aswan Dam,[45] which they heightened in 1912 and 1934 to try to hold back the Nile floods. Egyptian engineer Adriano Daninos developed a plan for the Aswan High Dam, inspired by the Tennessee Valley Authority’s multipurpose dam.

When Gamal Abdel Nasser took power in the 1950s, his government decided to undertake the High Dam project, publicizing it as an economic development project.[46] After American refusal to help fund the dam, and anti-British sentiment in Egypt and British interests in neighboring Sudan combined to make the United Kingdom pull out as well, the Soviet Union funded the Aswan High Dam.[47] Between 1977 and 1990 the dam’s turbines generated one third of Egypt’s electricity.[48] The building of the Aswan Dam triggered a dispute between Sudan and Egypt over the sharing of the Nile, especially since the dam flooded part of Sudan and decreased the volume of water available to them. Ethiopia, also located on the Nile, took advantage of the Cold War tensions to request assistance from the United States for their own irrigation and hydropower investments in the 1960s.[49] While progress stalled due to the coup d'état of 1974 and following 17-year-long Ethiopian Civil War Ethiopia began construction on the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam in 2011.[50]

Beyond the Nile, hydroelectric projects cover the rivers and lakes of Africa. The Inga powerplant on the Congo River had been discussed since Belgian colonization in the late 19th century, and was successfully built after independence. Mobutu’s government failed to regularly maintain the plants and their capacity declined until the 1995 formation of the Southern African Power Pool created a multi-national power grid and plant maintenance program.[51] States with an abundance of hydropower, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Ghana, frequently sell excess power to neighboring countries.[52] Foreign actors such as Chinese hydropower companies have proposed a significant amount of new hydropower projects in Africa,[53] and already funded and consulted on many others in countries like Mozambique and Ghana.[52]

Small hydropower also played an important role in early 20th century electrification across Africa. In South Africa, small turbines powered gold mines and the first electric railway in the 1890s, and Zimbabwean farmers installed small hydropower stations in the 1930s. While interest faded as national grids improved in the second half of the century, 21st century national governments in countries including South Africa and Mozambique, as well as NGOs serving countries like Zimbabwe, have begun re-exploring small-scale hydropower to diversify power sources and improve rural electrification. [54]

Europe

[edit]

In the early 20th century, two major factors motivated the expansion of hydropower in Europe: in the northern countries of Norway and Sweden high rainfall and mountains proved exceptional resources for abundant hydropower, and in the south coal shortages pushed governments and utility companies to seek alternative power sources.[55]

Early on, Switzerland dammed the Alpine rivers and the Swiss Rhine, creating, along with Italy and Scandinavia, a Southern Europe hydropower race.[56] In Italy’s Po Valley, the main 20th century transition was not the creation of hydropower but the transition from mechanical to electrical hydropower. 12,000 watermills churned in the Po watershed in the 1890s, but the first commercial hydroelectric plant, completed in 1898, signaled the end of the mechanical reign.[57] These new large plants moved power away from rural mountainous areas to urban centers in the lower plain. Italy prioritized early near-nationwide electrification, almost entirely from hydropower, which powered their rise as a dominant European and imperial force. However, they failed to reach any conclusive standard for determining water rights before WWI.[58][57]

Modern German hydropower dam construction built off a history of small dams powering mines and mills going back to the 15th century. Some parts of Germany industry even relied more on waterwheels than steam until the 1870s.[59] The German government did not set out building large dams such as the prewar Urft, Mohne, and Eder dams to expand hydropower: they mostly wanted to reduce flooding and improve navigation.[60] However, hydropower quickly emerged as an added bonus for all these dams, especially in the coal-poor south. Bavaria even achieved a statewide power grid by damming the Walchensee in 1924, inspired in part by loss of coal reserves after WWI.[61] Hydropower became a symbol of regional pride and distaste for northern ‘coal barons’, although the north also held strong enthusiasm for hydropower.[62] Dam building rapidly increased after WWII, this time with the express purpose of increasing hydropower.[63] However, conflict accompanied the dam building and spread of hydropower: agrarian interests suffered from decreased irrigation, small mills lost water flow, and different interest groups fought over where dams should be located, controlling who benefited and whose homes they drowned.[64]

  1. ^ "Inter-Governmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in Occupational Health and Safety" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 March 2015.
  2. ^ Model Work Health and Safety Act(WHS) Archived 28 March 2014 at the Wayback Machine
  3. ^ a b Keilman, John (5 January 2025). "Forklifts Hurt Thousands of Workers Each Year. Factories Are Seeking Alternatives". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 6 January 2025.
  4. ^ "Forklift Certification Hub". Archived from the original on 17 December 2014.
  5. ^ American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (February 2014), "Five Things Physicians and Patients Should Question", Choosing Wisely: an initiative of the ABIM Foundation, American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, archived from the original on 11 September 2014, retrieved 24 February 2014, which cites
    • Weiss, MS; Bowden, K; Branco, F; et al. (2011). "Opioids Guideline". In Kurt T., Hegmann (ed.). Occupational medicine practice guidelines: evaluation and management of common health problems and functional recovery in workers (online March 2014) (3rd ed.). Elk Grove Village, IL: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. p. 11. ISBN 978-0615452272.
  6. ^ "Industrial Truck Standards Development Foundation". Archived from the original on 14 March 2008. Retrieved 2008-01-23.
  7. ^ "OSHA Standards: Powered Industrial Trucks". Archived from the original on 22 December 2007. Retrieved 2008-01-23.
  8. ^ OSHA Interpretation on Forklift Training – http://www.oshainterpretations.com/1910_Occupational_Safety_and_Health_Standards/?url=/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS~p_id=22751&n=Powered%20industrial%20truck%20training:%20%20different%20types%20of%20trucks Archived 28 September 2017 at the Wayback Machine.
  9. ^ OSHA' Website – Frequently Asked Questions about Powered Industrial Truck Operator Training – "Training and Reference Materials Library | Occupational Safety and Health Administration". Archived from the original on 6 April 2015. Retrieved 2015-09-02.
  10. ^ http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l117.pdf [bare URL PDF]
  11. ^ "Fork Lift Truck Association factsheet "How long does a forklift licence last?"" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 July 2019. Retrieved 25 July 2019.
  12. ^ "ABA – Workplace Transport". ABA – Workplace Transport. Archived from the original on 28 July 2014.
  13. ^ "Refresher Training". Health and Safety Executive. Archived from the original on 9 December 2012. Retrieved 5 December 2012.
  14. ^ "Forklift Certification – BITA List Classification". Didac Ltd Industrial Training Services. Didac Ltd. Archived from the original on 3 November 2012. Retrieved 6 December 2012.
  15. ^ High Risk Work Licences Archived 31 March 2014 at the Wayback Machine
  16. ^ "Forklift training in New Zealand". 5 December 2016. Archived from the original on 27 March 2017.
  17. ^ "Approved Code of Practice for Training Operators and Instructors of Powered Industrial Lift Trucks" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 10 February 2018.
  18. ^ "Health and Safety at Work Act 2015". 21 September 2017. Archived from the original on 16 April 2018.
  19. ^ Montrie, C., Water Power, Industrial Manufacturing, and Environmental Transformation in 19th-Century New England, retrieved 7 May 2022
  20. ^ Blackbourn, D. (2006). The conquest of nature: water, landscape, and the making of modern Germany. Norton. p. 217-18. ISBN 978-0-393-06212-0.
  21. ^ McCully, P. (2001). Silenced rivers: the ecology and politics of large dams. Zed Books. p. 18-19. ISBN 978-1-85649-901-9.
  22. ^ a b McCully 2001, p. 227.
  23. ^ Blackbourn 2006, p. 222–24.
  24. ^ DamNation, Patagonia Films, Felt Soul Media, Stoecker Ecological, 2014
  25. ^ McCully 2001, p. 93.
  26. ^ Frey, F. (7 August 2020). "A Fluid Iron Curtain". Scandinavian Journal of History. 45 (4). Routledge: 506–526. doi:10.1080/03468755.2019.1629336. ISSN 0346-8755.
  27. ^ D’Souza, R. (7 July 2008). "Framing India's Hydraulic Crisis: The Politics of the Modern Large Dam". Monthly Review: 112–124. doi:10.14452/MR-060-03-2008-07_7. ISSN 0027-0520.
  28. ^ Gocking, R. (June 2021). "Ghana's Bui Dam and the Contestation over Hydro Power in Africa". African Studies Review. 64 (2). Cambridge University Press: 339–362. doi:10.1017/asr.2020.41.
  29. ^ McCully 2001, p. 274.
  30. ^ McCully 2001, p. 134.
  31. ^ Charlier, R. H. (1 December 2007). "Forty candles for the Rance River TPP tides provide renewable and sustainable power generation". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 11 (9): 2032–2057. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2006.03.015. ISSN 1364-0321.
  32. ^ Berton, P. (2009). Niagara: A History of the Falls. State University of New York Press. p. 203-9. ISBN 978-1-4384-2930-4.
  33. ^ Berton 2009, p. 216.
  34. ^ Sinclair, B. (2006). "The Battle over Hetch Hetchy: America's Most Controversial Dam and the Birth of Modern Environmentalism (review)". Technology and Culture. 47 (2). Johns Hopkins University Press: 444–445. doi:10.1353/tech.2006.0153. ISSN 1097-3729.
  35. ^ Hetch Hetchy, 2020, retrieved 8 May 2022
  36. ^ Blackbourn 2006, p. 218.
  37. ^ Lee, G., The Big Dam Era, retrieved 8 May 2022
  38. ^ White, R. (1995). The Organic Machine. Hill and Wang. p. 48-58. ISBN 978-0-8090-3559-5.
  39. ^ McCully 2001, p. 16.
  40. ^ White 1995, p. 71-72, 85, 89-111.
  41. ^ a b Lee, G., The Big Dam Era, retrieved 8 May 2022
  42. ^ Shokr, A. (2009). "Hydropolitics, Economy, and the Aswan High Dam in Mid-Century Egypt". The Arab Studies Journal. 17 (1). [Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, Arab Studies Journal, Arab Studies Institute]: 9–31. ISSN 1083-4753.
  43. ^ Lee, G., The End of the Big Dam Era, retrieved 8 May 2022
  44. ^ Gocking, R. (June 2021). "Ghana's Bui Dam and the Contestation over Hydro Power in Africa". African Studies Review. 64 (2). Cambridge University Press: 339–362. doi:10.1017/asr.2020.41. ISSN 1555-2462 0002-0206, 1555-2462. {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help)
  45. ^ Ross, C. (2017). Ecology and power in the age of empire: Europe and the transformation of the tropical world. Oxford University Press. p. 37-38. ISBN 978-0-19-182990-1.
  46. ^ Shokr, A. (2009). "Hydropolitics, Economy, and the Aswan High Dam in Mid-Century Egypt". The Arab Studies Journal. 17 (1). [Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, Arab Studies Journal, Arab Studies Institute]: 9–31. ISSN 1083-4753.
  47. ^ Dougherty, J. E. (1959). "The Aswan Decision in Perspective". Political Science Quarterly. 74 (1). [Academy of Political Science, Wiley]: 21–45. doi:10.2307/2145939. ISSN 0032-3195.
  48. ^ McNeill, J. R. (2000). Something new under the sun: an environmental history of the twentieth-century world. W.W. Norton & Company. p. 169-170. ISBN 978-0-393-32183-8.
  49. ^ Swain, A. (1997). "Ethiopia, the Sudan, and Egypt: The Nile River Dispute". The Journal of Modern African Studies. 35 (4). Cambridge University Press: 675–694. ISSN 0022-278X.
  50. ^ Gebreluel, G. (3 April 2014). "Ethiopia's Grand Renaissance Dam: Ending Africa's Oldest Geopolitical Rivalry?". The Washington Quarterly. 37 (2). Routledge: 25–37. doi:10.1080/0163660X.2014.926207. ISSN 0163-660X.
  51. ^ Gottschalk, K. (3 May 2016). "Hydro-politics and hydro-power: the century-long saga of the Inga project". Canadian Journal of African Studies / Revue canadienne des études africaines. 50 (2). Routledge: 279–294. doi:10.1080/00083968.2016.1222297. ISSN 0008-3968.
  52. ^ a b Adovor Tsikudo, K. (2 January 2021). "Ghana's Bui Hydropower Dam and Linkage Creation Challenges". Forum for Development Studies. 48 (1). Routledge: 153–174. doi:10.1080/08039410.2020.1858953. ISSN 0803-9410.
  53. ^ Gocking, R. (June 2021). "Ghana's Bui Dam and the Contestation over Hydro Power in Africa". African Studies Review. 64 (2). Cambridge University Press: 339–362. doi:10.1017/asr.2020.41.
  54. ^ Klunne, Q. J. (1 August 2013). "Small hydropower in Southern Africa – an overview of five countries in the region". Journal of Energy in Southern Africa. 24 (3): 14–25. doi:10.17159/2413-3051/2013/v24i3a3138. ISSN 2413-3051.
  55. ^ Rodríguez, I. B. (30 December 2011). "¿Fue el sector eléctrico un gran beneficiario de «la política hidráulica» anterior a la Guerra Civil? (1911-1936)". Hispania. 71 (239): 789–818. doi:10.3989/hispania.2011.v71.i239.360. ISSN 1988-8368.
  56. ^ Blackbourn 2006, p. 217.
  57. ^ a b Parrinello, G. (2018). "Systems of Power: A Spatial Envirotechnical Approach to Water Power and Industrialization in the Po Valley of Italy, ca.1880–1970". Technology and Culture. 59 (3). Johns Hopkins University Press: 652–688. doi:10.1353/tech.2018.0062. ISSN 1097-3729.
  58. ^ McNeill 2000, p. 174-175.
  59. ^ Blackbourn 2006, p. 198-207.
  60. ^ Blackbourn 2006, p. 212-213.
  61. ^ Landry, M. (2015). "Environmental Consequences of the Peace: The Great War, Dammed Lakes, and Hydraulic History in the Eastern Alps". Environmental History. 20 (3). [Oxford University Press, Forest History Society, American Society for Environmental History]: 422–448. ISSN 1084-5453.
  62. ^ Blackbourn 2006, p. 219.
  63. ^ Blackbourn 2006, p. 327.
  64. ^ Blackbourn 2006, p. 222-236.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Keeperofthemoose/sandbox&oldid=1267689148"