Split (1)

train · 19.4M rows

text stringlengths 9 94.9k
In general, boron nitride is rated for kiln use only to around 1550F/840C. Some varieties of the product will claim higher rated temperatures, but usually this refers to the product's use in a reducing atmosphere, rather than in the oxidizing atmosphere typical of most kilns.
Tomorrow's tip will contain specific information about using boron nitride on slumping molds.
The Magnificent 7 Variety Show is one of the best Branson shows that features incredible singers and dancers on a musical extravaganza with the tunes of the 40s to today. Playing at Hamners’ Variety Theater that is beautifully located at the Shepherd of the Hills Expressway, the show is complete with drama, comedy, singing, side splitting, dancing, and more. This two-hour variety show provides wholesome fun and excellent entertainment for the whole family with Country, Gospel, Swing, Rock, Motown, Disco, Broadway, and more. Joe and Tamra Tinoco together with their ten-year-old daughter Talya, as well as a cast of talented singers and dancers, perform on stage for a unique variety show like no other.
The Tinoco’s, the cast and crew of the Magnificent 7 Variety Show are back in Branson celebrating 12 Award Winning Years. Known for their amazing versatility, outstanding vocals, amazing dancing, comedy and drama, they are sure to astound you with favorite hits from the last seven decades. The 7 awe-inspiring entertainers perform 75 awesome production numbers for unbelievable fun of exciting and entertaining show from beginning to end. This awesome variety show is one of the most spectacular Branson shows that the whole family can enjoy!
This family-friendly show brings you dramatic performances, Big Band Swing, 50s and 60s Rock ‘n Roll, and scintillating country vocals. The Tinoco family and the Magnificent 7 cast have performed for two years with the world famous Osmond Brothers showing their award winning act back to Branson. The incredible performances in this variety show by a whopping 75 production numbers are complemented by a load of laughs and 200 rapid-fire costume changes. The last seven decades of great music with varying musical genres, and everything else brings a sensational variety show, and it can all be enjoyed in Branson.
The stars of Magnificent 7, Joe and Tamra Tinoco are accompanied by brilliant slate of performers that help make this awesome variety show explodes with energy. The dynamic team of seasoned artists that consists of Cameron Hansen, Bethany Hansen, Cassie Sears, and Dusty Wooldridge brings a unique experience for everyone from ballet to Broadway. The youngest member of the wonderful line-up is ten-year-old Tayla Tinoco who already has years of experience in entertainment.
The Magnificent 7 Variety Show in Branson just keeps getting better, faster and entertaining than ever. From the moment the variety show begins, you will feel a different level of energy as the entertainers start their incredible performances. Regardless of your age, you are sure to take a trip down the memory lane, going back to the swing and disco era. In this show, you will enjoy a different kind of fun from the past with the best of country, pop, rock ‘n roll, nostalgia, disco, patriotic, gospel and much more.
If you are looking for a variety show that features a musical extravaganza with the tunes from the last 7 decades, watch the Magnificent 7 Variety Show in Branson that offers wholesome fun for the whole family.
The courts don’t expect your company’s OHS program to be perfect. To make out a due diligence defence, your company must prove only that it made reasonable efforts to comply with the law and protect workers’ health and safety. But the courts do expect you to take all reasonable steps toward compliance—not just some steps.
> Institute a formal hazard assessment for any work or activity in the areas where asbestos was present [R. v. Della Valle]. .
The OHS laws only require companies to protect workers from reasonably foreseeable hazards. The standard for determining whether a hazard was foreseeable is not what risks the company actually did foresee but what a reasonably prudent person in the same situation would have foreseen. If a safety incident or violation was foreseeable, the company will be held liable if it didn’t take all reasonable steps to prevent the incident or violation.
Example: A backhoe operator snagged a natural gas riser, causing gas to seep into a nearby butcher shop. The shop exploded, killing two people, seriously injuring five others and causing extensive property damage. The operator was convicted of two OHS violations. The court pointed out that the operator knew the risk of working around live gas lines and the potentially serious consequences of hitting a gas line with his backhoe. So doing so was clearly a foreseeable hazard. But the operator, who had plenty of time, didn’t take reasonable steps to avoid snagging a gas line, such as carefully digging with a shovel to expose the riser. In short, the court called the operator’s actions incredibly risky and the incident “entirely foreseeable” [R. v. Riemer]. .
If a hazard was not only foreseeable but actually known to the company, failing to address it is fatal to successfully arguing that you exercised due diligence.
Example #1: During blasting for a roadway construction project, flyrock showered a nearby trailer court, destroying a shed, crashing through a trailer’s roof and forcing a tenant to run for safety. The contractor and a supervisor were convicted of OHS violations and appealed. In upholding their convictions, the court noted that they knew damage from blasting was foreseeable because a prior blast during this project had caused flyrock to reach the same trailer court, thus demonstrating what could happen if proper safety precautions weren’t followed. The practical wisdom from that prior incident should’ve “informed reasonableness and safe practice,” said the court. It added, “Past experience can be a reliable predictor of future incidents or damage” [R. v. Government of Yukon].
Example #2: A technology company held a customer appreciation event that featured a mechanical calf roping machine operated by the company’s employees. The machine had a faulty spring. So the operator had to reach into it to manually release a hook. While a worker was doing so, he was hit in the back of the head by a steel lever and died. The appeals court pointed out that before the fatality, another worker operating the machine had been hit on the shoulder by the lever. So although the specific type of injury the worker who died suffered may not have been foreseen, the potential danger of being struck by this lever while reaching into the machine was a “reasonable prospect,” explained the court. Once this hazard was detected, a reasonable employer would have discontinued use of the machine and not permitted untrained workers to operate it. But despite being aware of the potential dangers associated with the machine, the company allowed the continued use of this equipment [R. v. XI Technologies Inc.]. .
Your company’s safety rules and procedures must be in writing. Verbal safety procedures are too easily misunderstood, which can have serious—and often fatal—consequences. Written safety procedures that spell out exactly what’s required and when are less likely to be misunderstood. As a result, courts will typically rule that due diligence requires written safety procedures.
Yes, your OHS program must include thorough, written safety rules and procedures. But that’s not enough to prove due diligence. You must also properly train workers on those rules and procedures. And that training must be adequate.
Example #1: In the Linamar case discussed above, the court ruled that the employer needed to develop not only a written policy on troubleshooting but also a related program for training workers on that policy.
Example #2: A flagger working along a highway was run over by an excavator operated by a co-worker and crushed to death. His employer was convicted of, among other things, failing to provide proper training to workers at the site. The court found that although the employer provided some instruction and training to workers, it was minimal and not to the extent required to prove due diligence [R. v. Concord Paving Ltd.].
Providing adequate training to workers isn’t going to help you prove due diligence if you can’t demonstrate that you provided such training. So you must document the nature and extent of the training the company provides its workers.
Example #1: In the Concord Paving case discussed above, the court noted that the employer’s OHS program manual contained a form for documenting the safety courses that workers took. But at trial, it didn’t produce any such forms for the workers involved in the incident to prove that they’d taken any safety courses.
Example #2: A temporary worker for a salvage company fell approximately three metres from an opening in a wall onto a pile of pipe, suffering a broken leg and three broken ribs. The company was convicted of several safety violations. Among other factors that led to a finding of no due diligence, the court said that although the company claimed that it provided workers with a safety orientation, it had no documentation to prove that claim [R. v. Canadian Consolidated Salvage Ltd. (Clearway Recycling)].
As important as adequate training is, you must also ensure that workers are appropriately supervised while on the job in order to prove due diligence. That’s because proper supervision is the best way to ensure workers are actually applying their training.
Example: At a bridge construction project, a safety inspector saw workers working 20 to 50 feet above the ground without adequate fall protection in the form of guardrails or handrails. In addition, the workers were attached to a horizontal lifeline that wasn’t properly engineered. The employer appealed its conviction for violating the fall protection and supervision requirements, pointing to the training it provided to workers on fall protection. But the Tribunal explained, “Training alone does not meet the requirements of due diligence, if there is not adequate supervision to ensure that the knowledge provided through training is being correctly and consistently applied” [WCAT-2012-00224].
And the need for appropriate supervision applies to all workers—even those who are experienced.
Example: During an inspection of a residential construction project, a safety officer saw an experienced journeyman carpenter working about 18 feet above the ground without his fall protection harness attached to a lifeline. The construction company was penalized for fall protection violations, which it appealed. The Tribunal acknowledged that the carpenter had more than 20 years’ experience and was familiar with the fall protection requirements. In fact, he admitted that he should’ve attached his harness to a lifeline. But the Tribunal noted that there was no evidence that he was properly supervised to ensure he complied with these requirements. It appears that the company simply opted to rely on his experience, training and knowledge [WCAT-2012-00416].
Companies have a duty to ensure that workers follow safety rules and procedures and comply with the OHS laws. To that end, you should take steps to convey to workers the importance of safety compliance—and the ramifications of safety infractions. For example, when workers violate safety rules, you must discipline them.
Example #1: At a residential construction site, a safety officer saw two workers, who were approximately 18 feet above the ground, not wearing fall protection harnesses. And there was no fall protection equipment on the roof. The construction company was penalized for a fall protection violation and appealed. The employer argued that it provided extensive training on fall protection requirements. But the Tribunal said the company’s training and education efforts weren’t sufficient for workers to understand the importance of complying with those requirements or the consequences of non-compliance. For example, the company didn’t implement a progressive discipline program for safety infractions until after this incident [WCAT-2011-02413].
Example #2: A safety officer inspecting a roofing project saw a worker and supervisor on a roof about 24 feet above the ground when neither was connected to a lifeline. During an inspection of another company worksite, two workers on a roof weren’t connected to lifelines. The company was penalized for failing to comply with the fall protection requirements and provide adequate training and supervision. It appealed. The Tribunal said that although the company provided fall protection training and had a progressive discipline program for safety infractions, it knew that workers were ignoring the fall protection requirements. So it should’ve realized that its efforts weren’t preventing or deterring fall protection violations and done more, such as providing bonuses for safety compliance [WCAT-2011-02507].
When a company is charged with a safety offence, it may try to point the finger at the workers involved, arguing that it took all reasonable steps and the workers simply disregarded safety protocol. Such an argument is unlikely to convince a court.
Example #1: In WCAT-2011-02413 discussed above, the company argued that it was the independent actions of the workers that led to the violations, saying they forgot to put their fall protection equipment back on after their lunch break. The Tribunal noted that although the workers themselves could’ve been hit with violations for their actions, their failure doesn’t relieve the company of its duties under the OHS laws.
Example #2: In Linamar, which was previously discussed, the employer argued that the worker got injured because he didn’t use a spotter as required. But the court noted that the training wasn’t clear as to the proper use of a spotter.
Because supervisors are responsible for ensuring that workers follow safety rules and comply with the OHS law, they should be held to a higher standard when it comes to safety infractions. So when a supervisor violates a safety rule, the consequences should be more severe than if a worker had committed the same infraction.
Example: In WCAT-2011-02507 mentioned above, a worker and supervisor were seen by a safety inspector not wearing fall protection equipment when required. But the Tribunal said it wasn’t apparent that the company held the supervisor more accountable for his actions than the worker, noting “the supervisor is responsible for setting an example to workers.” In fact, the employer simply gave both a verbal warning.
You must ensure that workers are supervised by actual supervisors and not leave that responsibility to their co-workers.
Example: A 22-year-old sawmill worker got caught in the pinchpoint of a canter machine and died. The sawmill was convicted of violating the supervision requirements. The Tribunal noted that the worker was young and had been on the job for less than a year. A supervisor had warned him before this incident about performing duties that weren’t his own. Under these circumstances, he should’ve been closely supervised but he wasn’t. The fact that there were experienced and knowledgeable co-workers working in the same area as this worker wasn’t a substitute for the presence of an actual supervisor. So the Tribunal concluded that the sawmill failed to satisfy its duty to provide adequate supervision [WCAT-2011-02783].
In general, employers can’t avoid fulfilling their OHS duties by delegating them to someone else, such as a contractor or subcontractor.
Example #1: In Canadian Consolidated Salvage, previously discussed, the company argued that the prime contractor was responsible for supervising all workers—including the company’s—and complying with all safety requirements. So it had no duty to ensure the safety of its workers at that site. But the court said because the company was the injured worker’s employer under the OHS laws, it was responsible for ensuring his safety at the site. And there was no evidence that the company took “any steps whatsoever” to protect its workers.
Example #2: The contractor and supervisor in the Yukon case argued that hiring an experienced blaster relieved them of their duties under the OHS law. The court explained that the OHS law has “overlapping obligations” that mean everyone had a duty to ensure a safe blast. And there was no evidence that the contractor had a system in place to ensure that all blasting was done safely.
The same rule applies to suppliers who provide you with equipment and materials.
Example: In the XI Technologies case, the company argued that it wasn’t foreseeable that the supplier would provide it with an unsafe machine. In essence, the company assumed that the equipment would be safe to use. But the appeals court explained that the OHS law required the company, as an employer, to take reasonable steps to ensure that such equipment was, in fact, safe to operate as intended. And there were “rudimentary steps” the company could’ve taken to do so. For example, the company should’ve asked the supplier for adequate operating instructions or a demonstration of the machine’s proper use, especially considering that it was completely unfamiliar with this equipment. This relatively simple step would’ve alerted operators to the fact that the machine wasn’t working properly. But instead of getting instructions or a demonstration from the supplier, the company chose to rely on its untrained employees to figure out how to safely run the machine.
Companies must give workers the information they need to perform their jobs safely, such as MSDSs and safety signage. If that information is inaccurate, it’s almost as bad as—if not worse than—not providing the information at all.
Example: A safety officer discovered that there were stickers posted in areas on a seagoing vessel that said the areas were “asbestos-free” even though materials containing asbestos were present. In ruling that the company didn’t exercise due diligence, the Tribunal pointed out that the company couldn’t explain how inaccurate decals had been put up. And it didn’t have a system in place for double-checking or otherwise ensuring the accuracy of such signage [WCAT-2012-00145].
Companies are composed of human beings and humans make mistakes. But courts are unlikely to buy that argument that because a safety violation was simply the product of human error, the company should be excused from liability.
Example: A safety officer inspecting a construction site found that the company hadn’t gotten an underground locate of all utility services before starting excavation work. The company’s excuse for this oversight was that it was “due to human error.” But the Tribunal rejected this excuse as non-responsive. It pointed out that “accidents are usually due to human error.” The issue here was whether the company took steps to prevent this particular human error from occurring, which it hadn’t [WCAT-2012-00070].
Most safety violations are the result of flaws in the OHS program of a company that’s genuinely trying to comply but fell short. But if the violations are particularly egregious, say, because they’re the result of wanton disregard for safety or the failure to take simple and inexpensive steps, the company will not only get convicted but likely face an especially high fine.
Example: A truck driver was killed when a 15-metre-high wall of dirt and rock fell on him. Two companies were convicted of multiple safety violations. That two experienced construction companies could leave a sheer 50-foot wall without any shoring whatsoever was shocking, said the court. It described their conduct as “egregious and outrageous,” noting that the wall could’ve been properly supported for a relatively small amount of money. As a result, the court imposed record fines totally $2,472,500 on the companies [R. v. Perera Development Corp.].
As explained in Part 1, there’s no formula for establishing due diligence, no checklist of steps or actions that, if taken, would guarantee a successful due diligence defence. The best you can do is learn from other companies’ experiences in safety prosecutions. The cases in which the due diligence defence failed illustrate what not to do and which omissions will undercut due diligence. The successful cases can provide a sort of blueprint or guide for the steps and actions your company should be taking.
3. Anyone charged with a violation of the OHS laws, including companies and individuals, can raise a due diligence defence.
4. The due diligence defence applies to most violations of so-called “regulatory” laws, such as OHS and environmental laws.
5. Although due diligence isn’t technically a defence to criminal negligence or “C-45” charges, proving that you exercised due diligence makes it impossible to be convicted of criminal negligence.
This week I went to the library and got the book I ordered. The book was called was Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. When we got home I started reading it. I kept moving to make my position more comfortable. Mama got afternoon tea, morning tea and and a drink for me. At eleven that night I had only just finished the book. I found the book good to read and could not stop.
This recipe is from the lovely Pam Corbin who we had the pleasure of meeting to sign my preserves book at River Cottage. I’ve used this one (minus the walnuts) a few times as I’ve been lucky to be given plums and apples in the Autumn so it’s practically free!
Wash the plums, halve and stone then cook gently with orange juice until tender about 15 minutes. Push through a sieve – should make about 700 ml purée.
Put the purée into a large bowl and add all the other ingredients, except the brandy.
Mix thoroughly, then cover and leave for 12 hours.
Preheat the oven to 130 C/gas mark 1/2.
Put the mincemeat in a large baking dish and bake uncovered for 2 hours.
Seal and store in a dry, dark, cool place until Christmas and use within 12 months.
It's been an interesting few months for us which has been consumed by something called GDPR. We've been "working" on this for a while, making sure we are compliant and certain that everything we need to do is dealt with by the May 25th deadline. We spend hours, no days, working through an Impact Assessment and whilst it appeared to be an insurmountable task, it was in fact a good exercise . Revisiting processes and procedures relating to all things "data" was quite therapeutic. Considering the way we all work has changed so much over the last 20 years, it was good to take stock of email etiquette, telephone protocol, how we secure and protect data. When the impact assessment was finished, compiled after writing work flows on 30 sheets of flip chart paper, we decided it might be useful to give the Impact Assessment to GLM members and all letting agents attending our courses.
We tailored the Impact Assessment specifically for the Lettings, property management and sales processes. We mapped every single element of data collection, data use, data protection and deletion then along with privacy policies and up to date GDPR compliant documents, gave it to our clients.
We are known for being customer focused. We ensure that our clients are taken care of but the reaction to what we did was quite overwhelming and sometimes amusing- messages of thanks and gratitude flowed in; clients who were panicking felt relieved and prepared; we have received cakes, cookies, flowers, chocolates and thank you cards. We've had more new Guild members in the last quarter than ever before because of the work we have done.
Our focus was not really GDPR, it was finding a way to ease the burden for our clients and it worked. And we are so glad we did it.
Kaboodle’s U-shaped kitchens can be designed for small or large spaces. They provide plenty of storage space and surround you with benchtops on three sides, which gives you plenty of room to prepare and cook. They’re easy to install, come in a range of colours and styles and with a little bit of creativity allow you to create the perfect kitchen for your home.
If you spend any time on the web you know that today is the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11’s moon landing and the first steps of humans on the lunar surface. There’s been some great coverage from We Choose The Moon, to the live Twitter feed “replay”, to Kottke’s (now-finished) real-time TV coverage playback, to the Google graphic that actually has changed to follow the progression of the landing (and earthrise)!
The commemoration has caused me to reflect personally on the impact of the moon landing. Despite what you may have heard, the name of this blog references the upper half of the lunar lander, the stage that ascends to rendezvous with the command module for the journey home. My choice of that term came from a period of my life of intense interest in spaceflight* partially because of the sheer thrill of it, partially because of the series From The Earth To The Moon, but mostly because, at the time, I was a young project manager in a massive organization who saw in the moonshots the attempt to do something amazing with lots of smart people, cutting-edge technology, and a common goal. I didn’t want to be Neil Armstrong so much as Gene Kranz.
In the tributes, you’re not hearing a lot about the thousands of private contractors who helped plop the 12 guys on the moon. But the organization of that many people to do something of that magnitude in just a little more than 7 years may be as remarkable as the outcome.
IBM, the company that I work for, was a large part of this effort and I admit that this is a source of pride for me. I’ve had this photo of mission control taped to my cube for as long as I can remember.
These are my people. Practitioners of a timeless nerdiness that I think of often when I confront organizational bureaucracy or technical hurdles in my own job — one which ain’t, after all, rocket science. IBM has a great subsite up on our contribution to the space race.
Closer to home, I have the memory of my wife’s grandfather, William Boulet, who went to work as an engineer for Boeing after leaving the Army Air Corps after WWII (where he survived a year as a Nazi prisoner). At Boeing Grandpa Boulet designed a particular bolt that was used inside the fuselage of the Saturn V rocket and for his service he was given a commemorative medal — a keepsake I was given by his family when he passed away in 2005. I grabbed it before I left for work today. Not exactly sure why, but I felt like having it with me.
It isn’t nostalgia, of course, for I was not alive for any but the very last landing — and only a newborn then. For me, the Apollo program is equal parts inspirational and aspirational. Whether you agree with the purely political motives that set us on the course to the moon or not, my feeling is that what the effort itself represents is the very best of what humans can do when given a massive challenge packaged in a disheveled box of constraint.
We certainly have freighters full of that particular parcel today. Let’s get unwrapping.
* An interest, it should be noted, that has not so much waned as been tempered by the seeming lack of grand purpose that NASA has fallen into as an orbital trucking company.
— Joseph G. Gavin, Jr., discussing the design of the lunar module* that landed NASA astronauts on the moon.
Yeah, boss. That’s why we’re late and over budget. You don’t want to be obsolete, do you?
[*] The upper half of which is called, ahem, an ascent stage. We’re all about inspirations to innovation around here.
We can nowadays easily recognise the threat of the profit-first principle of capitalism by reading the newspapers.
Media question why TEPCO did not immediately inject seawater into the reactors in order to try to cool them. They blame the delay of the utility’s response for worsening the situation. Some reports say that TEPCO could not make an immediate decision since it knew that once seawater was poured into the reactors they could no longer be used. This illustrates the profit-first principle, the intention to keep using the reactors even after the serious accident occurred.
Also in Japan, why are many nuclear reactors located in the same place? Since it costs a lot of money and time to obtain land for a nuclear power plant, they want to build as many reactors as possible once the land is secured. So the answer is simple: to cut costs.
However, earthquakes frequently occur in Japan. It would be disastrous if a major quake hits in an area where nuclear reactors are concentrated. Of course nuclear plant promoters are aware of this, but they continue to build nuclear facilities even in earthquake zones just because they can save money that way.
Moreover, our nuclear reactors are very old. Out of the 54 reactors in this nation, 20 were built over 30 years ago. There is no set life span internationally recognised for nuclear plants, but of course, the longer they are in operation the more they are weakened by age.
One thing we know for sure is that property taxes are levied on nuclear plants for their depreciation period of 16 years. In other words, utilities do not have to pay property taxes after the 16 years of their plants’ operation. That is why they want to continue to use their facilities for as long as they can. Although all six reactors at the Fukushima No.1 plant are old, operating since the 1970s, TEPCO still hesitated to inject seawater into them. This shows how deep seated the profit-first principle is.
This profit-first policy is driving the present nuclear power industry. Successive governments have also left the entire question of people’s safety up to industry, thus what we are witnessing now in the Fukushima accident is the worst-ever case of “capitalism without rules”. We need to think about whether we can afford to keep the situation as it is or not.
The LDP is now eagerly challenging the DPJ. It is true that the Kan Cabinet is guilty of unreliable politics, but who is really to blame for the present situation? When I was a Dietmember (MP), I took up the question of nuclear power risks several times in Diet deliberations.
In the 2000s, JCP representative Yoshii Hidekatsu pointed out the concrete risks by predicting what disaster could occur at Fukushima’s nuclear reactors in the event of a major earthquake and tsunami. In his Diet questions, he called for certain measures to be taken, stating that the Fukushima plant is highly vulnerable to a disaster.
However, all the cabinets, from LDP’s Koizumi and Abe to DPJ’s Hatoyama, ignored his warning. Although the LDP is the party that had promoted the nuclear energy policy and is to blame for the present catastrophe, it is forgetting its own role and pointing their finger at the DPJ. Of course, the DPJ is irresponsible as a governing party, but the LDP should also be held responsible for the ongoing crisis.
The JCP will try its best to make a success of the current major efforts to constrain the nuclear disaster and revive the stricken area by demanding that the DPJ-led government do what we think is necessary and pointing out its neglectful and irresponsible behaviour.
Together with reconstruction-related issues, the Japanese people now have to consider other major questions.
That is, the Japanese people should squarely address the issues of nuclear energy and what energy policy to choose, and find a reasonable solution with bright prospects for a sustainable future.
In this effort the following two points are significant.
(1) As a strategic approach, we should decide to withdraw from Japan’s present energy policy dependent on nuclear power. Of course it will take a certain period of time to achieve this change. But what we need is to implement the decision now and establish a national strategy for achieving it.
(2) As an urgent near-term approach, it is essential to establish a structure to control and inspect nuclear facilities with priority on safety by clearly breaking away from “capitalism without rules” scheme created in the nuclear energy field based on the nuclear “safety myth”.
In Japan, we have plenty of nuclear scientists and engineers with no direct relations with electric power companies. We also have the Science Council of Japan, a public organisation of socially-responsible scientists. In addition, some people once involved in nuclear energy projects have recognised the collapse of the “safety myth” and are beginning to raise their voices against the blind promotion of nuclear energy. Utilising the expertise of these people, we should establish the best safety system for nuclear energy in the world to control nuclear facilities with safety truly prioritised while at the same time decommissioning the plants.
Without this system, withdrawal from nuclear power will fail to be achieved because abolishing nuclear plants involves a number of stages. After operations come to halt, spent nuclear fuel should be taken out from reactors and disposed of. Since reactors without the spent fuel still give off a significant amount of radiation, this radiation should be removed. Then the reactors have to be dismantled. Measures are also needed to dispose of decommissioned reactors and their nuclear waste. In addition, we should consider how to use the sites after the reactors are removed. These processes will take at least 20 years. And all the stages should be carried out under a strict control system placing priority on safety.
These two points – strategically deciding to break away from nuclear power generation and urgently creating a framework to control and regulate nuclear energy with a mandate and responsibility putting great significance on safety – should be discussed nationwide. In the national political arena, these two issues will probably become major topics of discussion.
By Rachele Baker, DVM – One morning this past week at the veterinary hospital where I was working as a relief veterinarian, a six-month-old Jack Russell Terrier puppy named Bitsy was brought in for diarrhea and vomiting. When I saw Bitsy’s appointment on the appointment calendar, the possibility of parvovirus infection was the first thing that came to my mind.
I went into the exam room to talk with Bitsy’s parent, Steve. Steve had just adopted Bitsy from a private party. He did not know whether Bitsy had received any vaccinations. He had just assumed that Bitsy had been vaccinated and had not requested any vaccine records from the previous owner.
I asked one of the nurses to collect a small sample of stool from Bitsy to run an in-house parvovirus test. While we were waiting for the results of the test, I examined Bitsy. She was depressed and slightly dehydrated. She had some diarrhea around her rectal area which had the characteristic foul smell of parvovirus diarrhea. Steve informed me that he had seen blood in Bitsy’s vomit and in her diarrhea. In about ten minutes, I had the parvovirus test results. Bitsy’s test was positive for parvovirus infection.
I explained to Steve that Bitsy was very sick and would need to be hospitalized with an IV (intravenous) catheter in place, IV fluids, IV antibiotics, and other medications as indicated. I told Steve that I would need to obtain a blood sample from Bitsy and run an in-house blood chemistry profile, a complete blood count (CBC), and an electrolyte panel right away. In addition, I would need to repeat those blood tests on a daily basis to monitor Bitsy’s response to treatment as well as to guide me in adjusting medications as needed.
Steve understood the seriousness of Bitsy’s disease and he agreed to my treatment recommendations. I had the nurses collect a blood sample from Bitsy for the in-house blood tests and had them place an IV catheter in Bitsy’s front leg. I started Bitsy on aggressive IV fluid therapy.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.