Less-Lethal Weapons, including electric Tasers, velocity-reduction bullet-capture projectiles, rubber bullets, beanbag rounds, and other less-lethal projectiles used in police departments, federal and local law enforcement agencies, and military policing operations, as well as for private use, are topics of significant debate in recent years. These weapons can reduce collateral damage, reputational risk, and legal exposure while preventing wrongful and unnecessary deaths caused by conventional bullet wounds. Yet, opponents have highlighted concerns regarding the safety and effectiveness of these weapons, as well as their potential to cause injury or even death. While the primary duty of law enforcement officials is to preserve order and execute the law while protecting individual rights, they ultimately achieve these goals by exercising their coercive authority. Society expects police officers to rely on their professional training and judgment when using physical force to defend citizens and themselves or to apprehend criminal suspects. Because police officers must occasionally participate in physical acts of coercion, it is unavoidable that some of these interactions may result in bodily injuries to individuals, including the officers themselves. These injuries have real costs, such as medical treatment, lost wages, municipal liability, court claims and settlements, riots, and legal or even criminal exposure, as well as less-tangible collateral costs, such as the erosion of police legitimacy and public trust, which are more difficult to quantify but arguably more influential in shaping long-term public perceptions than personal injuries alone. Less lethal technology eliminates some of the concerns raised by lethal weaponry. This study reviews the advantages and disadvantages of these less-lethal weapon technologies versus traditional firearms for use by the police force, federal agencies, and military police while also performing advanced analytics to model the valuation and return on investment for a law enforcement organization implementing such technologies.

The rapid growth of renewable solar and wind energy necessitates extensive, long-term energy storage solutions to stabilize the electric grid and address the intermittent nature of these sources. In the absence of cost-effective long-duration, large-scale (LDLS) energy storage, there is a risk of increased disruptive blackouts and brownouts as intermittent energy sources approach 50% of electricity generation. Our analysis underscores volumetric energy density as a pivotal determinant in LDLS energy storage solutions, which is particularly crucial during periods of diminished renewable resource availability, such as the rainy season. Despite emphasis on conventional electric batteries and mechanical storage technologies such as compressed air and pumped hydro for LDLS, their costs pose a significant obstacle to widespread adoption, especially in emerging economies. In this study, we present a groundbreaking approach to LDLS: on-demand electricity generation from carbon-neutral renewable oil, known as "green oil," leveraging Reliance’s innovative catalytic hydrothermal liquefaction (R-CAT-HTL) technology. Our investigation evaluated two distinct sources of green oil production: organic waste streams (e.g., municipal solid waste, agricultural-waste, etc.) and on purpose production of algal biomass. We demonstrate that burning renewable green oil to produce electricity offers a cost-effective solution for large-scale (GWh) long-duration (many days) energy storage, ensuring the stability, reliability, and resiliency of the electric grid. We also demonstrate that minimum 14 days, ideally 30 days energy storage is needed for continuous uninterrupted service, especially critical for manufacturing facilities. Through a meticulous levelized cost of storage (LCOS) analysis comparing green oil with other LDLS technologies reported in literature, we demonstrate the cost effectiveness of green oil. In this model, green oil serves as stored energy, functions akin to a battery and is efficiently converted into electricity through conventional reciprocating engines or next-generation more efficient turbines. Our findings suggest that green oil derived from diverse organic sources is the most economically viable option for GWh-scale storage, particularly when storage requirements extend beyond a single day. This research thus presents a transformative cost-effective solution to the pressing challenge of LDLS energy storage, accelerating a sustainable and resilient energy future.

Approximately 28 million individuals in the United States face the risk of developing precancerous colonic adenomas (polyps) and potentially progressing to colorectal cancer (CRC). While a promising strategy for CRC prevention involves pharmacological intervention, such as cancer chemoprevention or interception, currently, there are no FDA-approved drugs capable of preventing the formation or progression of adenomas to adenocarcinoma. Numerous clinical, epidemiological, and preclinical studies have offered compelling evidence supporting the efficacy of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in CRC chemoprevention. However, the prolonged use of NSAIDs is not FDA-approved due to potential life-threatening toxicities resulting from cyclooxygenase (COX) inhibition and the depletion of physiological prostaglandins. Despite indications that the COX inhibitory activity of NSAIDs may not be essential for their antineoplastic effects, the absence of a well-defined target impeded the development of derivatives that do not inhibit COX. Earlier research suggests that the inhibition of cyclic guanosine monophosphate phosphodiesterase (cGMP PDE) may be responsible, at least in part, for the antineoplastic activity of the NSAID sulindac. This could potentially offer a novel target for CRC chemoprevention. To identify the cGMP PDE isozyme(s) contributing to the antineoplastic activity of sulindac, we synthesized a chemically diverse library of over 1500 compounds, all sharing the indene scaffold of sulindac. Subsequently, we screened these compounds for their impact on cancer cell growth and PDE inhibitory activity. From this screening, a series of lead compounds emerged. These compounds lacked COX-1 and COX-2 inhibitory activity, surpassing sulindac in potency to inhibit CRC cell growth. Importantly, they demonstrated greater selectivity by not affecting normal cell growth. Through chemical optimization, we identified several development candidates that selectively inhibit PDE5 and/or PDE10. These compounds activate cGMP/PKG signaling, suppressing Wnt/β-catenin transcription. This action counters the growth advantages resulting from APC or CTNNB1 mutations, which are responsible for most human CRCs. This review delves into the scientific literature supporting PDE5 and/or PDE10 as potential targets for CRC chemoprevention or interception. Our findings suggest a promising avenue for developing drugs that may effectively intervene in the progression of colorectal cancer, offering hope for improved preventive strategies in the future.