Call us: 07894 032982 - Free Design & Quote

E-mail: info@future-kitchens.co.uk

Huntington Ingalls Takes $78M Army Inspection System Support Order -

78.4 million task order to help maintain and repair inspection systems used by the Army to scan vehicles, cargo and personnel entering its facilities. HII’s technical solutions division - https://www.Peo-radiation-technology.com/en/industry-transport/security-... will perform the work through its mission driven innovative solutions - https://Travel.stackexchange.com/questions/80488/how-can-one-travel-with... group, the company said Monday. Services will include maintenance, repair, supply support, fielding, engineering, configuration management and training for the Army’s Non-Intrusive Inspection System Support systems. NIIS equipment works to utilize nuclear source and X-ray technologies in order to detect explosives and other contraband. Ross Wilkers - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMqq2XDJLU8 is a senior staff writer for Washington Technology. He can be reached at rwilkers@washingtontechnology.com. Follow him on Twitter: @rosswilkers. Also find and connect with him on LinkedIn.

Recently, for example, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) told Yahoo News - https://www.eaglepi.com/solutions/x-ray-machines/ - unequivocally - that the U.S. ] to prepare for combat operations in Yemen." While CENTCOM admitted to providing "training" to the coalition, it called that assistance " limited non-combat - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh7i5YYYGxU support." Internal military documents, obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, told an entirely different story however. Yemen is just one of the many countries where the U.S. So where else is the U.S. Let TomDispatch regular Stephanie Savell, co-director of the invaluable Costs of War Project, provide the answer by way of a tour of the scores of nations where U.S. Navy SEALs to the weekend warriors of the National Guard - are conducting counterterrorism training and assistance about which we know little, that sometimes turns deadly, and can be almost indistinguishable from combat.

In September 2001, the Bush administration launched the "Global War on Terror." Though "global" has long since been dropped from the name, as it turns out, they weren’t kidding. When I first set out to map all the places in the world where the United States is still fighting terrorism so many years later, I didn’t think it would be that hard to do. This was before the 2017 incident in Niger in which four American soldiers were killed on a counterterror mission and Americans were given an inkling of how far-reaching the war on terrorism might really be. As co-director of the Costs of War Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, I’m all too aware of the costs that accompany such a sprawling overseas presence. Our project’s research shows that, since 2001, the U.S. Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan alone.

5.9 trillion already spent and in commitments to caring for veterans of the war throughout their lifetimes. In general, the American public has largely ignored these post-9/11 wars and their costs. But the vastness of Washington’s counterterror activities suggests, now more than ever, that it’s time to pay attention. Recently, the Trump administration has been talking of withdrawing from Syria and negotiating peace with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Yet, unbeknownst to many Americans, the war on terror reaches far beyond such lands and under Trump is actually ramping up in a number of places. That our counterterror missions are so extensive and their costs so staggeringly high should prompt Americans to demand answers to a few obvious and urgent questions: Is this global war truly making Americans safer?

Is it reducing violence against civilians in the U.S. If, as I believe, the answer to both those questions is no, then isn’t there a more effective way to accomplish such goals? Combat or "Training" and "Assisting"? The major obstacle to creating our database, my research team would discover, was that the U.S. The Constitution gives Congress the right and responsibility to declare war, offering the citizens of this country, at least in theory, some means of input. And yet, in the name of operational security, the military classifies most information about its counterterror activities abroad. This is particularly true of missions in which there are American boots on the ground engaging in direct action against militants, a reality, my team and I found, in 14 different countries in the last two years.

The list includes Afghanistan and Syria, of course, but also some lesser known and unexpected places like Libya, Tunisia, Somalia, Mali, and Kenya. Officially, many of these are labeled "train, advise, and assist" missions, in which the U.S. Washington labels terrorist organizations. Unofficially, the line between "assistance" and combat turns out to be, at best, blurry. Some outstanding investigative journalists have documented the way this shadow war has been playing out, predominantly in Africa. In Niger in October 2017, as journalists subsequently revealed, what was officially a training mission proved to be a "kill or capture" operation directed at a suspected terrorist.

Such missions occur regularly. In Kenya, for instance, American service members are actively hunting the militants of al-Shabaab, a US-designated terrorist group. In Tunisia, there was at least one outright battle between joint U.S.-Tunisian forces and al-Qaeda militants. Indeed, two U.S. service members were later awarded medals of valor for their actions there, a clue that led journalists to discover that there had been a battle in the first place. In yet other African countries, U.S. Special Operations forces have planned and controlled missions, operating in "cooperation with" - but actually in charge of - their African counterparts. In creating our database, we erred on the side of caution, only documenting combat in countries where we had at least two credible sources of proof, and checking in with experts and journalists who could provide us with additional information.

In other words, American troops have undoubtedly been engaged in combat in even more places than we’ve been able to document. Another striking finding in our research was just how many countries there were - 65 in all - in which the U.S. "trains" and/or "assists" local security forces in counterterrorism. While the military does much of this training, the State Department is also surprisingly heavily involved, funding and training police, military, and border patrol agents in many countries. It also donates equipment, including vehicle X-ray detection machines and contraband inspection kits. Such training and assistance occurs across the Middle East and Africa, as well as in some places in Asia and Latin America. American "law enforcement entities" trained security forces in Brazil to monitor terrorist threats in advance of the 2016 Summer Olympics, for example (and continued the partnership in 2017). Similarly, U.S.

Argentina to crack down on suspected money laundering by terrorist groups in the illicit marketplaces of the tri-border region that lies between Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay. To many Americans, all of this may sound relatively innocuous - like little more than generous, neighborly help with policing or a sensibly self-interested fighting-them-over-there-before-they-get-here set of policies. But shouldn’t we know better after all these years of hearing such claims in places like Iraq and Afghanistan where the results were anything but harmless or effective? Such training has often fed into, or been used for, the grimmest of purposes in the many countries involved.

In Nigeria, for instance, the U.S. In the Philippines, it has conducted large-scale joint military exercises in cooperation with President Rodrigo Duterte’s military, even as the police at his command continue to inflict horrific violence on that country’s citizenry. The government of Djibouti, which for years has hosted the largest U.S. Africa, Camp Lemonnier, also uses its anti-terrorism laws to prosecute internal dissidents. The State Department has not attempted to hide the way its own training programs have fed into a larger kind of repression in that country (and others). In that country and many other allied nations, Washington’s terror-training programs feed into or reinforce human-rights abuses by local forces as authoritarian governments adopt "anti-terrorism" as the latest excuse for repressive practices of all sorts. As we were trying to document those 65 training-and-assistance locations of the U.S.

State Department reports proved an important source of information, even if they were often ambiguous about what was really going on. They regularly relied on loose terms like " security - https://Www.Linkedin.com/jobs/view/astrophysics-x-ray-astronomy-at-nasa-... forces," while failing to directly address the role played by our military in each of those countries. Sometimes, as I read them and tried to figure out what was happening in distant lands, I had a nagging feeling that what the American military was doing, rather than coming into focus, was eternally receding from view. In part, that was because I realized that the U.S. After all, these are intended to display the country’s global military might, deter enemies (in this case, terrorists), and bolster alliances with strategically chosen allies.

To sum up: our completed map indicates that, in 2017 and 2018, seven countries were targeted by U.S. How often in the last 17 years has Congress or the American public debated the expansion of the war on terror to such a staggering range of places? The answer is: seldom indeed. After so many years of silence and inactivity here at home, recent media and congressional attention to American wars in Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen represents a new trend. Members of Congress have finally begun calling for discussion of parts of the war on terror. Last Wednesday, for instance, the House of Representatives voted to end U.S. Saudi-led war in Yemen, and the Senate has passed legislation requiring Congress to vote on the same issue sometime in the coming months.

With potential shifts afoot in Trump administration policy on Syria and Afghanistan, isn’t it finally time to assess in the broadest possible way the necessity and efficacy of extending the war on terror to so many different places? Research has shown that using war to address terror tactics is a fruitless approach. Quite the opposite of achieving this country’s goals, from Libya to Syria, Niger to Afghanistan, the U.S. In the name of the war on terror in countries like Somalia, diplomatic activities, aid, and support for human rights have dwindled in favor of an ever more militarized American stance.

Yet research shows that, in the long term, it is far more effective and sustainable to address the underlying grievances that fuel terrorist violence than to answer them on the battlefield. All told, it should be clear that another kind of grand plan is needed to deal with the threat of terrorism both globally and to Americans - one that relies on a far smaller U.S. It’s also high time to put this threat in context and acknowledge that other developments, like climate change, may pose a far greater danger to our country. Stephanie Savell, a TomDispatch regular, is co-director of the Costs of War Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs. An anthropologist, she conducts research on security and activism in the U.S. Brazil. She co-authored The Civic Imagination: Making a Difference in American Political Life. Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook.

Los Angeles, CA -- (SBWIRE) -- 02/17/2019 -- X-ray Inspection Machines as one of the most promising methods of non-destructive testing (NDT). The systems are also viewed as important screening tools for quality control and risk management, with their ability to detect contaminants, defects and inconsistencies in products. X-ray imaging offers superior precision, repeatability and high-speed capabilities. In the coming years there is an increasing demand for x-ray inspection machines in the regions of North America and Europe that is expected to drive the market for more advanced x-ray inspection machines. Increasing of automotive fields expenditures, more-intense competition, launches in introducing new products, increasing of spending on general industry, retrofitting and renovation of old technology, increasing adoption of x-ray inspection machines will drive growth in China markets.

Globally, the x-ray inspection machines industry market is low concentrated as the manufacturing technology of x-ray inspection machines is relatively matures than some high-tech equipment. And some enterprises, like YXLON International, Nikon Metrology, Nordson, GE Measurement & Control, etc. are well-known for the wonderful performance of their x-ray inspection machines and related services. At the same time, Europe, occupied 32.99% production market share in 2017, is remarkable in the global x-ray inspection machines industry because of their market share and technology status of x-ray inspection machines. This report focuses on X-ray screening equipment and inspection equipment - https://www.wittsec.com/ Inspection Machines volume and value at global level, regional level and company level. From a global perspective, this report represents overall X-ray Inspection Machines market size by analyzing historical data and future prospect. Regionally, this report focuses on several key regions: North America, Europe, China and Japan. At company level, this report focuses on the production capacity, ex-factory price, revenue and market share for each manufacturer covered in this report. QYResearch established in 2007, focus on custom research, management consulting, IPO consulting, industry chain research, data base and seminar services.

Phil Brown, Managing Director at Fortress Technology Europe discusses metal, the biggest and most likely contaminant risk within food processing and packing plants today. Additionally, allergen and pathogen related food safety incidents on the rise. Fortress Technology has recently unveiled its latest ultra-hygienic gravity unit for snacks and dry food and pipeline liquid line metal detectors. Both systems feature fewer flat surfaces to overcome product spillage building up, and easy access reject systems for quicker, more thorough high-pressurised washdowns. Why is metal the most common contaminant? In the raw ingredient phase, food is exposed to different processes - from cutting meat, filleting fish, grinding spice or mixing dry and wet baking ingredients.

Later down the line, cutting larger quantities into more convenient single serve portions or preparing ready-cut vegetables can again introduce a possible metal contaminant into the food supply chain. How has the rapid uptake of automation impacted food safety on food processing lines? Introducing automated processes has helped to improve efficiencies, and product costs in some situations. However, having fewer manual workers on a line means there are fewer eyes to visually inspect wear of machine parts and this can increase the risk of metal contaminants. Installing a metal detection system is the first line of defence. However, it is equally important to use metal detection in conjunction with a quality assurance programme to control rejects and determine the source of any contaminants.

Equipped with this information, appropriate actions can be taken to protect against costly product recalls and damage to brand reputation. How have retailer requirements impacted food safety standards? In recent years, retailers have become more risk-averse when it comes to food safety and quality, imposing their own - increasingly stringent - protocols and standards on suppliers. Food processors can feel overwhelmed by the sheer extent of choices, food safety initiatives and third-party audits that they must contend with. Companies need to ensure that the required form of inspection and necessary specifications are in place. A retailer ‘safety net’ will also often include assurances about regular system checks to ensure that all QA systems - including metal detection - are functioning correctly. Some retailers may put pressure on suppliers to invest in x-ray contaminant detection.

Being able to demonstrate the reliability and improved sensitivity of metal detectors can help offset this pressure. Why choose metal detectors over x-ray? Cost is usually a major reason why processors choose metal detectors over x-ray. X-ray remains far more expensive, both in terms of capital cost and running costs. Expect to pay in the region of £35,000 to £80,000 to install an x-ray machine, compared to £4,000 to £18,000 for metal detection, depending on the size and complexity of the application. Additionally, the price differential between metal detectors and x-ray systems increases incrementally according to the size of the aperture.

Before selecting the type of inspection equipment, buyers should first determine the potential sources of contamination on the particular product line and manufacturing process. If the most common contaminant is metal, or mostly metal, it makes sense to consider metal detection as a first option. If a processor needs to detect physical contaminants on free-falling products, they should use metal detectors rather than X-ray due to the inconsistent density within the falling product stream. For manufacturers constrained by limited line space, the larger size of x-ray units may also be a decisive factor. Does in-foil packaging rule out metal detectors?

city & guilds qualified

created by SEO web design