Wednesday, 9 May 2018

Ebola, other infectious diseases and Personal Protection Equipment (PPE face masks etc.)

WARNING: consult an appropriately qualified agent with any safety concerns, not blogs posts or opinions found on the Internet.

TL:DR; test and check Personal Protection Equipment before deployment or use. Don't just trust PPE to work as expected even if it says it should.

Ebola and similar contagious diseases are universally considered Class 4  Biohazards. That's the highest hazard level. Ebola in particular carries risk of high mortality rates and easy air and contact transmission and contamination which means dental or surgical masks and face guards are completely useless as personal protection (PPE), especially for prolonged exposure.

Or put more simply, Class 1 PPE items (dental/surgical masks and open face shields) will not in any way protect the wearer from Class 4 contaminants. This is equivalent to clearing a sewer in little more than a boiler suit and science goggles.

Class 4 Biohazards require positive-pressure equipment, self-contained or fed suits that are inflated like balloons so there is constant outward force that prevents ingress of contaminants through any gaps or openings.

For Ebola, Class 3 PPE should be considered the absolute minimum requirement, at least for initial response where time and mobility is crucial, not Class 1 - it may be cheap, but it's certainly not worth the risk.

When buying this type of personal protection equipment make sure it fits properly and check it functions as intended, make 'valved' or 'vented' masks for example have silicone or other flexible membranes that mitigate moisture build-up during exhale.

Upon investigation however, such baffles can often be found to not sit correctly, or might be slightly malformed - when worn a cool breeze will be felt highlighting the issue, the baffle doesn't fully close during intake as it should. This is particularly common on cheap masks and equipment, even though they may be marked PP2 or PP3.

Monday, 7 May 2018

Trump doesn't care about the "little people"

This was originally written early in 2017 but never published. Little has changed it seems with an antagonistic media then, and still, moving from topic to topic trying to get something to stick to Trumps Teflon suits so he can be forcibly removed from office.

Does Trump really care about the "little people"? It's a question of measure, "how much does Trump care", and whose determining the qualifier, the "how much" aspect of the equation.

Reviewing the 'liberal' leaning press, that's your Times, Time, Guardian, Independent, BBC, CBC, Vox, Buzzfeed, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, etc., etc., basically any outlet considered part of Mainstream Media complex, the answer is "very little if at all", assuming ones able to navigate past calls for impeachment, assassination, or his otherwise removal from Office, and that's notwithstanding him and his support being "actual, like, Nazis, no, like, real Nazis".

Which can be broken down into two parts; "how much" and "care". The first can be defined by a quantitative value, i.e., how many times has Trump done "X", which in this case is "care".

And a qualitative value, again "care", far more difficult to define but does require some outward sign of some kind, i.e., Trump showing he cares by addressing "the little people" through meet and greets perhaps, the number of campaign stops, although perceptions may differ here (Trump appears to have made more stops only because news reporting was so fixated on him activities) as the numbers tend to indicate Trump and Clinton made, more or less the same roughly similar numbers of campaign stops.

Wednesday, 11 January 2017

AR-15, the terrorists weapon of choice (according to the Book of Hollywood)

It's not really, that honour befalls to the AK-47 for all sorts of reasons (cheap, hardy, available).

Hollywood however, thinks otherwise and wants movie go-ers to associate the AR-15 with terrorists, or at least "the enemy" or "bad guy/s".

How so?

Captain America: Civil War.

About 5 minutes into the opening sequence as some of the Avengers engage "The Terrorists" (attacking a subsidiary of the UN), Captain America makes an assessment of the situation after knocking a few heads together with the following;
Captain America: "Body armour, AR-15's"
He doesn't say; "Body armour ... assault rifles", " ... assault weapons", "... custom weapons", or some other fancy but generic term meaning 'high-tech weaponry'. (which would make more sense considering who they happen to be fighting - not an 'off-the-shelf combat unit).

No, the script writers have Captain America specifically say "AR-15's".


There's only one reason that oddly specific detail appears, especially when just about anything else, or nothing at all, would make just as much sense (the viewer only needs to understand the scenario as 'bad guys firing machine guns at good guys'), and that's as a 'subliminal', a not-so-subtle but intentionally placed message, in this instance one that reinforces the politicised narrative that "AR-15 is a weapon of terror", that "only bad guys use AR-15's", or more generally 'guns' are (a message that's more than a wink and nod to Obama's 'Town Hall' comments on keeping "assault weapons" out of criminals hands).

P.S. only caught this the second time round watching the movie.

Thursday, 13 October 2016

Narrative over Facts Part Deux! (the flying chicken)

Sigh, okay, here's another one;

1995: Hillary delivers a historic speech in front of the UN, announcing: "human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights once and for all."
Contrasting claim
After becoming owner of the Miss Universe Organization, Trump says that he will make contestants' "bathing suits... smaller" and "heels... higher."
The first point to note on this particular comparison is the overt misandry on display; that Clintons "fight" for "women's rights" is not at all comparable to a beauty pageant. The comparison implies Trump is at least sexist, if not an outright misogynist, for his comments being seen to be an objectification of the contestants. And worse yet, that the contestants, by participating, were/are not the right kind of women, they're not women like Clinton, i.e., women that don't pander to men, making her 'fight' all the more difficult for other women.

A bit of a stretch perhaps, but the basic premise is there, not even implied, or to be read between the lines, that Miss Universe contestants do nothing to advance the cause of women's rights, whilst Clinton was/has/is/does [delete appropriate responses].

This is outright misandry as it denies the pageant participants their agency, their personhood, their ability to make individual choices, decisions, actions for themselves and by themselves, with their own goals and motivations. In essence the rhetoric denies the individualism of each womAn in favour of womEn.

Fact Checking as a False Narrative

Aside from outright political propaganda (to use that word), its all a game of semantics, of misrepresenting facts and information, of 'spin' and the creation of a favourable impression or presentation. The 'truth' as it is said, is usually the first casualty...
"2002: Hillary passes legislation in the aftermath of 9/11 to help first responders receive the care they deserved. She pushed the EPA and Bush Administration to investigate the health impacts of air quality downtown."
Mostly True

Hillary Clinton, then New York Senator "took a leading role in investigating the health issues faced by 9/22 first responders, ultimately winning the first federal appropriations for medical monitoring of 9/11 Responders". She did not in fact "help first responders receive the care they deserved", but instead secured funding to put a monitoring network in place ostensibly for keeping track of concerns associated with dust inhalation from the 'pile'.

Whilst this may seem a sematic rebuttal (argument over differences in wording), the original statement nonetheless still misrepresents the facts.

The reality of the situation was one of a relatively newly appointed New York Senator (sworn in Jan 2001) looking to establish herself as a progressive leader, one, well before 9/11, already determined to make her way to the Whitehouse, some going so far as to suggest, reading between the lines, the 'help' offered in the form of the Legislation may have been a smokescreen for having Wall Streets' back.

The initiative is also in stark contrast to the support her career and now campaign is said to have received from Saudi Arabia through the Clinton Foundation, one of the leading Nations alleged to have been behind the 9/11 attacks, whilst simultaneously being critical of the Country and others similarly donating funds.

• • •

"Trump hires an architect for Trump National Golf Club’s clubhouse—who he would go on to stiff out of more than $100,000, despite saying he was extremely pleased with the work."
Mostly True

The facts are that after the job was completed Trump engaged in "after-the-fact renegotiations" to cut costs associated with the project, not at all uncommon in business, construction especially - "Tesoro: Although I resent that he shorted me a huge amount of money, his organization does that to everybody. At the time I could see [...] all subjected to an after-the-fact renegotiation challenge. I didn’t take it personally."

Whilst this again is a sematic rebuttal it's important to recognise the tone impugned by the quoted statement, that Trump is just a bad person. Which further speaks to the themes used as a contrast and compare, that Clinton is caring and emotive (health, concerns after tragedy), Trump cold and business like (money, stiff, unfair).

Not doing any more of these, as can be seen from just this single entry from, the rabbit hole each of these compare and contrast 'cards' opens up is a bottomless pit of manipulation, of fact spinning and misdirection of the highest order.

Sunday, 31 July 2016

Zika 'outbreak' in Miami, Florida

The Florida Department of Health has gathered enough information as part of its ongoing investigation into non-travel related cases of Zika in Miami-Dade and Broward counties to conclude that a high likelihood exists that four cases are the result of local transmission.