Emergency Medical Services (EMS) first response personnel treat urgent and immediate

illnesses and injuries in prehospital settings, and transport patients to definitive care if needed. EMS originated during warfare. The practice of rescuing wounded soldiers started during the Byzantine Empire, and developed along with other medical advances to the present day. Civilian EMS in the United States grew rapidly starting in the 1960s. Following the landmark National Research Council white paper of “Accidental Death and Disability: The Neglected Disease of Modern Society”, the nation addressed the key issues and problems faced in delivering emergency medical services. Today, colleges and universities often sponsor EMS organizations to serve populations concentrated in complex campuses. These are collectively known as Collegiate-Based Emergency Medical Services (CBEMS). By September 2018, there were 252 registered CBEMS organizations in the United States. Most are affiliated with the National Collegiate Emergency Medical Services Foundation (NCEMSF), which advocates, encourages, and provides support for CBEMS organizations. A survey repeating prior work (1996 and 2005) was sent to all NCEMSF registered CBEMS organizations, and 24 responded. The survey included questions on demographics, response capacities, coverage, organization, and logistics information. Locally, Arizona State University Student Emergency Medical Services (SEMS at ASU) began as an all-student-run volunteer organization in 2008. In 2018, SEMS at ASU became ASU EMS, as an official subdivision of the ASU Environmental Health Safety (EH&S) Department. This study summarizes the history of EMS, investigates the current status of CBEMS organizations and traces the history of ASU EMS from a volunteer group to an official department.

Professional environmental scientists are increasingly under pressure to inform and even shape policy. Scientists engage policy effectively when they act within the bounds of objectivity, credibility, and authority, yet significant portions of the scientific community condemn such acts as advocacy. They argue that it is nonobjective, that it risks damaging the credibility of science, and that it is an abuse of authority. This means objectivity, credibility, and authority deserve direct attention before the policy advocacy quagmire can be reasonably understood. I investigate the meaning of objectivity in science and that necessarily brings the roles of values in science into question. This thesis is a sociological study of the roles environmental values play in the decisions of environmental scientists working in the institution of academia. I argue that the gridlocked nature of the environmental policy advocacy debates can be traced to what seems to be a deep tension and perhaps confusion among these scientists. I provide empirical evidence of this tension and confusion through the use of in depth semi-structured interviews among a sampling of academic environmental scientists (AES). I show that there is a struggle for these AES to reconcile their support for environmentalist values and goals with their commitment to scientific objectivity and their concerns about being credible scientists in the academy. Additionally, I supplemented my data collection with environmental sociology and history, plus philosophy and sociology of science literatures. With this, I developed a system for understanding values in science (of which environmental values are a subset) with respect to the limits of my sample and study. This examination of respondent behavior provides support that it is possible for AES to act on their environmental values without compromising their objectivity, credibility, and authority. These scientists were not likely to practice this in conversations with colleagues and policy-makers, but were likely to behave this way with students. The legitimate extension of this behavior is a viable route for continuing to integrate the human and social dimensions of environmental science into its practice, its training, and its relationship with policy.

Coal bed natural gas (CBNG) production has become a significant contribution to the nation's energy supply. Large volumes of water are generated as a byproduct of CBNG extraction, of which this "product water" is relatively high in sodium. High sodicity reduces water quality and limits environmentally compliant disposal options for producers. Crop irrigation with CBNG product water complies with state and federal laws and is a disposal method that also provides a beneficial use to private landowners. However, this disposal method typically requires gypsum and sulfur soil amendments due to the high levels of sodium in the water, which can reduce soil infiltration and hydraulic conductivity. In this study, I tested a new product called Salt Extractor that was marketed to CBNG producers to ameliorate the negative effects of high sodicity. The experiment was conducted in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming. I used a random block design to compare the soil and vegetation properties of plots following application with CBNG product water and treatments of either Salt Extractor, gypsum and sulfur (conventional), or no treatment (control). Data was analyzed by comparing the amount of change between treatments after watering. Results demonstrated the known ability of gypsum and sulfur to lower the relative sodicity of the soil. Plots treated with Salt Extractor, however, did not improve relative levels of sodicity and exhibited no favorable benefits to vegetation.