Hazardous Waste Managment | Seminar Report, PPT, PDF for

hazardous waste management report pdf

hazardous waste management report pdf - win

Lupine Publishers | Water Quality Assessment in Sindh, Pakistan: A Review

Lupine Publishers | Water Quality Assessment in Sindh, Pakistan: A Review
​
Lupine Publishers | Open Access Journal of Environmental and Soil Sciences
Abstract
Increasing detrimental impacts of water pollution on environment and serious health issues, this review aims to investigate water quality status of Sindh, Pakistan.it also help us to determine current and future water demand of the province as well as adverse impact on human health in regards with water borne disease. To conclude, some recommendations are also outlined.
Keywords: Water borne disease; Quality assessment; Water supply; Water contamination; Sindh; Pakistan
Introduction
Although surplus amount of water is available on the planet of earth, but only small portion is available for human utilization. Overall population wholly depend upon the water sources mainly consist on groundwater and surface water. Currently, countries around the world are facing water pollution as well as water scarcity problems. Following the report of UN, the total populace increases exponentially while accessibility of water decline with time. WHO announced that by 2025, half of the total populace will live in water-stressed zones? Unfortunately, water pollution stresses the remaining small portion. During last decades, Urbanization and industrialization further added burden on water resources around the globe. Quality of water around the world has been deteriorated with chemicals discharged into water bodies directly and improper dumping of solid waste. According to Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) report 2017 on “Progress on drinking water, sanitation and hygiene” 2.1 billion people lack access to safe drinking water at home. Globally, 448 million lack to have basic drinking water services from which 159 million individuals are those who rely upon surface water. According to speech of UNO secretory on world water day 2002, each year 5 million people died of water disease i.e.10 times more than people died in war. Furthermore, several studies have documented various contaminants such as organic (Pesticides), inorganic (heavy metals), minerals (arsenic and chromium) and microbial (pathogens) are responsible for water pollution. Recently, water contaminated with arsenic has been documented around the world, especially in Asian countries including Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Taiwan, Hungary, Chile and Argentina [1-4].
Pakistan has been blessed by natural resources i.e. surface as well as groundwater resources. Sudden rise in population, industrialization and urbanization have brought huge stress on water resources of country. The country once has surplus amount of water is not including in water stressed zone. Most of the population belong to different cities of country rely upon groundwater for survival. While, current water supply is about 79% in Pakistan. Pakistan has experienced six noteworthy floods between 2000- 2015, which killed many people and posed negative impact on groundwater through salinization CRED [5]. Furthermore, Per capita availability of water has been decreased from 5,600 cubic meters in 1947 to 1,038 cubic meters in 2010. It is expected to decrease further to 575 cubic feet in 2050 [6,7]. In addition to this, quality of water resources has been declined due to intermixing of municipal sewage with water supply line and direct release of industrial wastewater into water bodies. Pollutants such as heavy metals, pathogens and other dangerous chemicals have been found in different regions of the country. Only 20% of the population have accessibility to safe drinking water while 80% is compelled to consume unsafe water for drinking. Each year 2.5 million deaths from endemic diarrheal disease has been reported [8-13]. Pakistan ranks 80th, out of 122 nations of the world, on the basis of water quality [14-16]. According to a Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) report titled, “Pakistan’s Waters at Risk”20-40% health centers are filled with the patients of water borne disease which include diarrhea, gastroenteritis, typhoid, cryptosporidium infections, giardiasis intestinal worms, and some strains of hepatitis [17].
Quality of drinking water in Sindh province is unfit like other provinces of Pakistan. Large portion of water available is contaminated with pathogens, chemicals and toxic materials. Several studies have documented that the four major contaminants are responsible for water quality deterioration in Sindh i.e.69% bacteria, 24% arsenic, 14% nitrate and 5% fluoride. According to the report of Inquiry commission appointed by Supreme Court of Pakistan “78.1 % of all water sample tested were found unsafe for drinking”. The aim of this review is to analyses the status of water quality in different divisions of Sindh, Pakistan. It also describes the impacts of water quality on human health as well as outline some recommendations.
Study Area
Sindh is second most populated province (Figure 1) with population of 30.44 million situated in south-eastern part of Pakistan. It is stretched from 66°8’ East Longitude to 71°, lies between 24°4›N to 28°7’N and covers about 46,569 miles2 . Province is bounded by the Thar Desert to east, the Kirthar Mountains to the west, and the Arabian Sea in the south. It is divided into six divisions namely Karachi, Hyderabad, Sukkur, Shaheed Benazirabad, Mirpurkhas and Larkana. Karachi i.e. the capital of Sindh province ranked at the top with 14.91 million and Hyderabad ranked the 8th most populated with 1.73 million population among the list of 10 most populated cities of Pakistan. Large number of populations of the province depend upon the fresh water for domestic and irrigation purpose. Indus basin is the major source of water provision in the area. In Sindh Province, only 10 % of land area had availability of fresh groundwater and occurs in shallow aquifers [18]. Following high average annual temperatures, semi-arid climate, sea water intrusion and high rate of evapotranspiration shallow aquifers are highly saline [19]. Irrigated land i.e. almost 78% of the province rely on saline groundwater which is not fit for irrigation. As the ground water is saline in most areas, rural population is also depending on supplies from the canal system. According to the survey conducted by Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR) in 22 districts of Sindh province out of 1247 surveyed water supply schemes only 529 (42%) were functional with average duration supply of 5 hrs/day. From which only 25% water samples were fit for drinking while remaining are contaminated with microorganisms and arsenic.
Current Demand and Future Requirement of Sindh
In next 20 years, Province will undergo demographic change. Current population of 33 million is expected to increase to 52.6 million and urbanization will increase from 50% to 64% in 2025. Currently, Karachi’s demand for water supply is about 1,220 MGD against which has an allocation of 34,000 l/s (1,200 cusecs) from the Indus water which is expected to increase 65,460 l/s (2,320 cusecs), with increased population to about 23 million in 2025. Likewise, water demand for other urban cities will also increase which will put burden on water resources. In addition to this, rural population of about 18.8 million will need an additional about 7,125 l/s (250 cusecs) for drinking purposes. Hence, total municipal water requirement of the province in 2025 will be of the order of 94,000 l/s (about 3.300 cusecs). Besides municipal water requirement, water requirements for agriculture would also increase by about 50%. Current water use is about 52.6 Bm3 (42.6 MAF) which means an additional 26.3 Bm3 (about 21.3 MAF) required to meet the future demand of agriculture products (FAO).
Water Quality
Alarming increase in population is the single important driving force affecting the water sector and cause water scarcity problem in the province. Water pollution is another major problem which is deteriorating the quality of remaining small portion of water. According to Director General of Sindh Environmental Agency Baqa Ullah Unar “every day almost 500 million gallons of industrial waste and human consumption falls into Arabian Sea”. 80% samples from 14 different districts of Sindh are not safe for drinking as well as 78% of water used in hospitals is above standard limits. 90% of water had bacterial contamination and not fit for drinking in Karachi only (PCRWR). Several studies have been conducted in different cities of Sindh, Pakistan (Table 1) [20-29].
Abdul Hussain Shar [30] analysed the samples from Rohri for the presence of total coliform (TC), E. coli (Ec) and heterotrophic plate count (HPC) which result the contamination of all samples with TC (100%), Ec (41.6%) and with HPC (100%). In Hyderabad bacteriological tests on drinking water has been conducted by PCRWR found that 15 monitored sources as unfit for drinking mainly due to bacteriological contamination (93pc), excessive levels of iron (47pc) and turbidity (93pc). Mashiatullah [31] carried out a study on Malir and Lyari rivers, he analysed different Physiochemical and biological parameters. The coliform contamination i.e.156-542 per 100 ml in high tide and 132- 974 per 100 ml in low tide were observed which exceeded WHO guidelines. Aziz et al. [32] reported a study for drinking water quality in Pakistan including both urban and rural areas which results that total coliform and fecal coliform were 150–2400/100 ml and 15–460/100 ml respectively. The investigation reported the presence of anthropogenic activities which resulted.
Mahmood et al. [33] measured the physical, chemical and microbiological parameters for the different groundwater samples collected from Thatta in pre-monsoon and post-monsoon seasons, respectively. It was observed that concentration of heavy metals were; As (0.0045 to 0.0055 mg/l), Cd (0.15-0.22 mg/L), Zn (0.040 to 0.046 mg/l), Pb (1.40-1.49 mg/l) and Cu (0.001- 0.87 mg/L) in both the seasons and were in order of Pb > Cu > Cd > Zn > As in premonsoon and Pb> Cd > Cu > Zn > As in post- monsoon respectively. Other parameters Electrical conductivity (233-987 μs/cm), pH (6.9-8.9), TDS (161.1-690.9 ppm), Temperature (24-33°C), chloride (81.79-131.78 ppm), total hardness as CaCO3 (124.40-188.81 ppm), nitrate (2.10-5.20 ppm) were within prescribed standard limits. Some common diseases were found to be nausea, vomiting and kidney damage.
Suresh Kumar Panjwani [34] collected Thirty-five groundwater samples and analysed for 22 different parameters including physicochemical parameters and bacteriological contamination. Three drinking water samples (9%) contain Fluoride as 1.83 mg/l to 0.44 mg/l which exceeds WHO limits. Two water samples (5%) were contaminated with nitrate–nitrogen i.e. 23.61 mg/l to 0.97 mg/l. (45%) 16 water samples were contaminated with E. coli ranges from 01-too numerous to count CFU/ml exceeding the prescribed limit by WHO (0/100ml). None of the drinking water samples (0%) were found bacteriological safe for drinking purpose. In 2014, another study examined water quality in Thatta, Karachi and Hyderabad found presence of heavy metals that exceeded the WHO drinking water guidelines [35].
Outbreak of Water Borne Disease
Improper treatment and dumping of waste in water bodies accounted for rise in water borne disease. Deteriorated quality of water in Sindh province had badly affected the human health. More than 20,000 children die annually in Karachi only, from which majority of deaths caused by drinking contaminated water. Outbreak of water borne disease have been noticed in different parts of Sindh including typhoid, cholera and diarrhea. According to Zahid J [36] areas surrounded by poor households, children with mothers married in early ages, children having small size at birth and ages less than 24 months and children belonging to uneducated mothers are found most vulnerable where prevalence of diarrhea found non-ignorable. In Sindh, Tando Allahyar (46%), Matiati (50%), Hyderabad(44%), Badin (40%), Mirpur Khas (40%) Karachi East (40%) and Karachi South (52%) have highest rate of cases while lowest rate found in children from rich house holds’ of Larakana (6%) and Jacobabad (8%). In some areas including Gadap, Kathore and coastal areas 30-35% of people have been found infected with viral hepatitis. While 20-25% of the population is infected with the deadly viral disease said by Dr Shahid Ahmed, consultant gastroenterologist and patron of the PGLDS on World Digestive Health Day 2018 (WDHD 18).
Recently, a drug-resistant typhoid strain identified first in Hyderabad, spread from the city to various parts of the country. 5,274 cases of XDR typhoid have been reported by Provincial Disease Surveillance and Response Unit (PDSRU) from 1 November 2016 through 9 December 2018.69 % (3658) of cases were reported in Karachi only, following 27% (1405) in Hyderabad, and 4% (211) in other districts of the province. On 9th July 2017, outbreak of acute watery diarrhea and abdominal pain in village Mir Khan Otho, District Shaheed Benazirabad were reported to the DG Health Office Sindh in Hyderabad. A total of 30 cases were identified (22 through active case finding) and n=16 (53.7%) were females. Mean age was 25.3 years (range: 1-50 years). Overall attack rate was 23%. People aged 21-30 years were the most affected (n=10; AR 43.5%). Apart from diarrhea, abdominal cramps (n=28; 93%) was the most common symptom. On bivariate analysis, consumption of water from the hand-pump near the swamp was significantly associated with the disease (OR=8.4, 95% CI: 3.1-22.7) [37].
In 2016, 22,000children have been hospitalized and more than 190 have died in Tharparkar district due to drought-related waterborne and viral diseases. According to the Joint UN Needs Assessment, water scarcity has been severely affected several districts (62% in Jamshoro and 100% in Tharparkar) which resulted in reduced harvest by 34-53% and livestock by 48% UNICEF [38]. According to local media, the total under- 5 deaths were rising from 173 in 2011, 188 in 2012, 234 in 2013, 326 in 2014, and 398 in 2015. According to the provincial health secretary, 450 children lost their lives in 2017, 479 died in 2016 and 398 in 2015 while reasons for the deaths vary. Furthermore, According to authorities in Tharparkar district, Sindh province, 99 children and 67 adults (43 men and 24 women) have reportedly died in Tharparkar since the beginning of 2014 as well as an outbreak of sheep pox occurred which has killed thousands of small animals (Pakistan: Drought - 2014-2017) [39]. Furthermore, three months after floods began in Pakistan, 99 cases of cholera were reported from across the floodaffected areas of the country (WHO).
In 1994, first ever case of dengue has been reported in Pakistan, sudden rise in cases first occurred in Karachi in November 2005. Since 2010, Pakistan has been encountering dengue fever that has caused 16 580 affirmed cases and 257 deaths in Lahore only also about 5000 cases and 60 death confirmed from other parts of the country (WHO) [40]. The three provinces have faced the epidemic are Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab and Sindh. In Sindh province, 2088 dengue positive cases had been reported as well as two people had died of dengue in Karachi city in 2018. Currently, according to the weekly report issued by Prevention and Control Programmed for Dengue (PCPD) in Sindh, from January 1 to January 7, 2019 a total of 38 dengue positive cases were detected. From which 36 were reported in Karachi only while two were in other districts of Sindh (PPI).
Contamination Sources
Climate Change
For water resources, climate change is a long term and unmitigated risk. Water demands is expected to increase up by 5 percent to 15 percent by 2047 due to climatic change. In the upper Indus Basin, climate change will increase the risk of flood outbreak by accelerate glacial melting while in the lower Indus Basin, sea level rise and increases intensity of coastal storms also exacerbate seawater intrusion into the delta and into coastal groundwater. Furthermore, in coastal Sindh, groundwater quality will further be deteriorated and also impact the ecosystems, and irrigation productivity of the province. In addition to this, Sediment dynamics in the Indus sourcing, transport, and deposition have been significantly altered by water resources development. Past floods in Pakistan not only posed physical damage but also affected human lives in terms of flood-related death and illness as well as clean water and sanitation facilities. The flood destroyed 54.8% of homes and caused 86.8% households to move, with 46.9% living in an IDP camp. Lack of electricity increased from 18.8% to 32.9% (p = 0.000), lack of toilet facilities from 29.0% to 40.4% (p=0.000). Access to protected water remained unchanged (96.8%); however, the sources changed (p=0.000) [41].
Since 2013, Tharparkar has been influenced by a drought‐like circumstance affecting employments, nourishment and wellbeing conditions. In south-eastern Sindh, low rain fall throughout 2016 in districts including Tharparkar, Umerkot and Sanghar sharply reduced the cereal production also causes loss of small animals due to diseases and severe shortages of fodder and water. Moreover, it has aggravated food insecurity and caused acute malnutrition [42].
Poor Water Supply and Sanitation
USAID reported that in Pakistan about 60% of the total number of child mortality cases are caused by water and sanitation-related diseases. Pakistan Strategic Environmental Assessment of the World Bank, 2006 stated that about 2,000 mgd of wastewater is discharged to surface water bodies in Pakistan. 13,000 tons of municipal waste daily generated in Karachi only, following 3,581 in Hyderabad while 48 million tons a year around the country. Water and sanitation sector have the highest financial cost to Pakistan from environmental degradation at Rs112bn a year as reported by WB. This is based on health cost of only diarrhea and typhoid and accounts for 1.81 per cent of the GDP. While figures for Sindh are not available. According to the media (The news) “More than 50 per cent of the people were suffering from diseases related to water and sanitation due to the lack of proper sanitation in the Sindh province” speakers told on‘ World Toilet Day with the 2018 theme ‘Toilets and Nature, the Pathway to Neat and Clean Sindh’. In Karachi, 42 percent of the city’s total population have no access to a proper toilet and appropriate sanitation system and live in 539 slums. Furthermore, Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and Cantonment boards have public toilets at only 13 places.
Poor Water Management
According to Rubina Jaffri, the general manager of Health and Nutrition Development Society (Hands), only 440 MGD is being filtered out of 640 MGD of water supplied to Karachiat seven filtration plants. A recent survey accounted that 40% water samples collected from different parts of Karachi were not properly chlorinated. In Karachi, long transmission route also causes leakages and water thefts problems which account for the loss of almost 30% of the city’s water supply, said by Jawed Shamim, former chief engineer at KWSB (The Karachi Water and Sewerage Board).Moreover, Parallel water supply and sewage pipes currently lead to cross contamination and corrosion. Chief Minister Syed Murad Ali Shah, in Sindh there were 2,109 water filtration plants, including 1,620 RO plants, and 818 of them were non-functional. He also added that there were 5,091 water supply and drainage schemes and 2,494 of them were non-functional and 244 of them had been abandoned (PPI).
Agriculture sector consumes up to 90% of the available fresh water of the country. About 70% of the canal water is lost from river to the end user. The larger portion of canal water (35%) is wasted at field level which needs proper attention of the policy makers. furthermore, 30 MAF is equal to 10 trillion gallons which can feed a population of more than 500 million people has been dumped into Arabian sea instead of storage. Problem is the absence of efficient conservation, storage and usage of water [43-50].
Recommendations
a) Basic filtrations units and 24 hours water quality monitoring stations should be established
b) Proper usage, efficient storage and conservation strategies are utmost practices to deal with water scarcity problem
c) Rearranging of water supply line to deal mixing of municipal sewage into water supply
d) Latest and technical irrigation strategies to use water efficiently such as drip irrigation and sprinkling.
e) Proper waste management system and treatment of industrial effluent should strictly implement
f) Institutional capacity management in order to operate and maintain the water supply schemes
g) Proper design of water distribution network to deal with the water loss.
h) Education on the water conservation and utilization practice should be provided to people by arranging seminars and utilizing media
i) Water thief and corrupted people should be deal according to law and regulations
j) Construction of new water reservoirs and proper check in balance on old ones to enhance storage capability by resolving siltation problem
k) Encouragement of new polices and proper implementation as well as check in balance
l) Awareness campaign should be encouraged about water quality and water borne disease
m) Basic health care and relief facilities should be provided at doorsteps when needed to reduce death related to water borne disease
n) Involvement of community to reduce water pollution by providing basic knowledge and changing lifestyle.
o) Proper check in balance on water filtration plants to provide safe drinking water to communities.
p) Mitigation strategies to improve the response to climate change-induced effects on health and agriculture
Conclusion
Conclusively, water quality status of Sindh Pakistan has been reviewed. Most of the water in different areas of the province is contaminated with bacteria which causes outbreak of waterborne disease including, diarrhea, cholera, hepatitis and typhoid in many cities and caused millions of deaths simultaneously. Arsenic is the second hazardous chemical found in water of Sindh mostly in coastal areas. Fluoride and nitrite are other metal which pose threat to human lives in Sindh Pakistan. Thus, many policies have been established and many schemes were organized by provincial government to deal with the water crisis but still some gaps related to implementation exist that needs to be executed. Moreover, new reservoirs and flow distribution line should be constructed to deal with water scarcity and water loss problem of the province.
https://lupinepublishers.com/environmental-soil-science-journal/pdf/OAJESS.MS.ID.000156.pdf
https://lupinepublishers.com/environmental-soil-science-journal/fulltext/water-quality-assessment-in-sindh-pakistan-a-review.ID.000156.php
For more Lupine Publishers Open Access Journals Please visit our website: https://lupinepublishersgroup.com/
For more Open Access Journal on Environmental and Soil Sciences articles Please
Click Here: https://lupinepublishers.com/environmental-soil-science-journal/
To Know More About Open Access Publishers Please Click on Lupine Publishers
Follow on Twitter : https://twitter.com/lupine_online
Follow on Blogger : https://lupinepublishers.blogspot.com/
submitted by Lupinepublishers-ESS to u/Lupinepublishers-ESS [link] [comments]

$BLGO, a play for wastewater & odor treatment, cannabis partnership, PFAS contamination remediation, and PPE disinfectant (baby's first DD, math warning)

BLGO (BioLargo) popped up on OTCMarkets for me today, so I decided to do some research today. This company also got some attention here before (short post from a couple weeks ago). Their odor remediation technologies are the most mature, but other solutions coming to market this year and last target wastewater treatment and PFAS ("forever chemical") remediation.
BioLargo is an environmental engineering company that focuses on water & wastewater treatment, odor elimination, and remediation of PFAS (poly-fluoro-alkyl substances) contamination. BioLargo also holds a minority stake in Clyra Medical (which manufactures PPE disinfectant Clyraguard and wound care products). One mature & active product (CupriDyne Clean) has made strides into the market this year, and two more major products (microcontaminant & PFAS remediation technologies) are scaling up from pilots into larger-scale rollouts.
What's below isn't intended to be exhaustive, just the items that popped out at me. This ended up longer than I originally intended, but I was bored and there's a lot of reading material.
Some Numbers:
[Sources: OTCM, Fintel, slide deck]
Some Non-Numbers:
Recent Developments:
Possible Future Developments & Analysis:
I have shallow pockets, but since I think they have potential to grow revenue during the next year, I'm in today for 500 @ .205. This is not investment advice, just my observations: this stock could progress nicely, or it could disappear entirely.
I'm also happy to hear critiques of this DD from people with more experience, or counterpoints/discussion.
submitted by letstalkphysics to pennystocks [link] [comments]

DD for $BLGO: wastewater treatment, PFAS remediation, PPE & cannabis deodorizing (x-post from /r/pennystocks)

BLGO (BioLargo) popped up on OTCMarkets for me today, so I decided to do some research today. This company also got some attention here before (short post from a couple weeks ago). Their odor remediation technologies are the most mature, but other solutions coming to market this year and last target wastewater treatment and PFAS ("forever chemical") remediation. I posted this DD on /pennystocks earlier today, and was asked to also put it here. I hope this is useful, and sparks some discussion.
BioLargo is an environmental engineering company that focuses on water & wastewater treatment, odor elimination, and remediation of PFAS (poly-fluoro-alkyl substances) contamination. BioLargo also holds a minority stake in Clyra Medical (which manufactures PPE disinfectant Clyraguard and wound care products). One mature & active product (CupriDyne Clean) has made strides into the market this year, and two more major products (microcontaminant & PFAS remediation technologies) are scaling up from pilots into larger-scale rollouts.
What's below isn't intended to be exhaustive, just the items that popped out at me. This ended up longer than I originally intended, but I was bored and there's a lot of reading material.
Some Numbers:
[Sources: OTCM, Fintel, slide deck]
Some Non-Numbers:
Recent Developments:
Possible Future Developments & Analysis:
I have shallow pockets, but since I think they have potential to grow revenue during the next year, I'm in today for 500 @ .205. This is not investment advice, just my observations: this stock could progress nicely, or it could disappear entirely.
I'm also happy to hear critiques of this DD from people with more experience, or counterpoints/discussion.
submitted by letstalkphysics to TheDailyDD [link] [comments]

TPC Scottsdale Primer

TPC Scottsdale
Built on the arid sands within the city limits of Scottsdale, Arizona sits one of the great stadiums of golf and host to this week’s tournament, TPC Scottsdale.
Constructed with the intent of expanding the then “Phoenix Open” to become a pillar of the tour, Tom Weiskopf and Jay Morrish were brought in by the commissioner of the PGA tour at the time, Deane Beman to construct a stadium course like the one in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. Situated on approximately 400 acres of land, the property includes resort lodging, and two courses, the Champions and the Stadium. The stadium course, affectionately referred to as “The Greatest Show on Grass” when it plays host to the Waste Management Phoenix Open is a desert classic. And while arguments can be made for whether or not the tournament is a spectacle or a sideshow during the four days when it opens its doors to over 500,000 spectators (in a normal year), it’s hard to deny the celebration that ensues when shots land close to the pin on the 16th hole.
TPC Scottsdale was brought about through a contract between the Bureau of Reclamation, the City of Scottsdale, and the PGA Tour Inc. The land continues to be leased to the TPC to this day, and even though the “rent” is around $1,000,000, the impact of the course and the tournament are enormous. A report from 2012 estimated that the tournament alone brings in over $220 million for the valley through lodging, food, and other tourism expenditures.
Building a course in the desert is not easy. It requires extra dedication to irrigation and fertility to fight the harsh climate a desert sees throughout the year. To do this, TCP Scottsdale deploys a few techniques to maintain a tour-level experience. Many desert courses use a tremendous amount of water for both general irrigation as well as “flushes” to clear our accumulated salts in the soil profile. Some courses can use upwards of 300 million gallons a year just to keep the Bermuda & ryegrass beyond the brink of wilt. TPC Scottsdale uses a sophisticated irrigation system that allows control of individual heads to hit hot spots and limits overseeding (planting ryegrass into Bermuda in this case) to just the playing surfaces. This means less area to water and more effective control over which areas need it the most. They also use effluent water (reclaimed from wastewater treatment) and have minimized nearly any intrusion into the desert habitats beyond the playable property.
Players coming to the Scottsdale area this weekend should enjoy a warm welcome with bouncy fairways, smooth greens, and tricky lies when their shots stray into the hazards. Enjoy the tournament!
https://tpc.com/scottsdale/history/
https://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/Asset48890.aspx
https://www.gcsaa.org/docs/default-source/tournament-fact-sheets/pga-tou2019-pga/1-31-waste-management-pgae.pdf?sfvrsn=1d90e23e_2
submitted by ractotel to golf [link] [comments]

The Racist Origins and Painful Legacy of Atlanta's Zoning

I'm going to start this post off with a few disclaimers:
  1. A good amount of my information comes from The Color of Law, by Richard Rothstein. I tried to find as many direct sources for the relevant topics brought up in the book as I could, but they weren't always readily availible. I highly encourage you to read the book itself if you want more details and his sources.
  2. While I am going to try to use Atlanta-specific information as much as possible, there are some things that I can only provide evidence for in general, not to mention that I have to discuss this with the wider national historical context as well since Atlanta was but one part of a massive racist horror show.
  3. I am by no means claiming to be an expert on this material. It's just what I have the most supporting information already at had for. Again, if you want to read more details from someone who spent much more time researching than I have, pick up a copy of The Color of Law.
  4. I am by no means claiming that fixing zoning will be the end-all-be-all of segregation legacy, nor that it will singularly solve disparities for minority populations compared to white populations within the city. Undoing the sheer scale of bullshit put in place to codify segregation and racial suppression as it manifests today is an undertaking requiring effort on par with something like the Green New Deal (coincidentally, there can be quite a lot of overlap in with a GND, and that's why climate and social justice are so often packaged with various versions of a GND). Fixing the legacy of racist zoning's impacts is just one part to an incredibly complex system, but it's still one worthy of doing. Gotta start somewhere, right?
Alright, on to the main content... Buckle up kiddos, we're going for a fuckin ride!

Why the Fuck are you Talking About Zoning Right Now‽

The country is, to use an incredible amount of understatement, in a bit of a pickle right now. We're in the midst of a global pandemic that's surging, and resurging within our borders. We're reeling at a seemingly never ending parade of tragedy and failure of composure from the very police forces sworn to protect us. We're dealing with an ever escalating push back and response from a federal government that is attempting to label protesters as terrorists. We've had impeachments, assassinations of foreign political operatives, the emboldenment of out-and-loud racists, foreign bounties on our military, historic Supreme Court decisions, and record stock market crashes. We're staring down the barrel of a depression, and there's a looming climate catastrophe that's been burning in the background of all of this.
So why, in the middle of all of this, am I bringing up zoning of all things? How could that possibly be relevant to any of this?
Well... as it turns out... quite a bit. See, zoning is one of those core functions of government, generally on the local level but not always, that just kinda exists. It's a long, boring, complicated mess of legal code that just doesn't come up all that often in our every day discussions (unless you're a nerd like me who keeps trying to shove it into every conversation... ahem...).
No matter how innocuous or intangible or boring zoning may feel, though, it actually has massive ramifications for how our build environment is shaped. That is literally its job, after all: codifying what is and isn't allowed to be built, where, and how. That build environment then has massive ramifications on a whole pile of social, economic, and environmental issues.
A good zoning code balances public desires for safety, health, and environmental protections, while also helping to ensure various amenities are provided, ideally outweighing any downsides of development with benefits to the community at large. Unfortunately, most zoning systems fail at this balance, often focusing on the wrong components as perceived negatives when they're actually benefits, while codifying build requirements that actively make things worse for the communities around them. A bad zoning code can make housing more expensive, make it harder to meet climate and environmental goals, make the general population more sickly, impede the ability of persons to generate generational wealth, and horrendously damage the tax base, making it harder to fund public projects.
As it turns out, most of these issues trace back to a few core ideas of the initial model zoning systems, and were originally put in as features of the codes. The intent at the time was mainly focused on creating a few specific negative outcomes, with many of the others having taken decades to fully manifest and be recognized. Yet, the original structure of the codes remain, bureaucratic momentum and an incomplete understanding of justice keeping them in place, dragging out the problems for years and years and years.
So what were those features, and what specific negative outcomes were they trying to achieve?

Setting the Stage for Segregation

First, we have to step back, and take a bit of a historical run up to provide proper context.
In 1877, Reconstruction ended. Federal troops, who had defeated the Confederacy, packed up and left the south after 12 years of postbellum occupation (14 if you include overlap years of occupation before the war's end). Reconstruction, though certainly not perfect, had been a time of relative empowerment for black Americans. Backed by federal troops, integration and political power was actually in reach. It wasn't 40-acres and a mule, but it was an incredible leap forward as the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were enforced in about as blunt a way as possible: at the muzzle of a rifle. That all came to a painful and tragic end with the election of Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, who had promised southern Democrats the end of occupation in exchange for electoral support.
Almost immediately, black Americans suffered a bloody, violent resurgence of oppression, with segregation becoming standard practice, and enforced both at the hands of local law enforcement and mobs of white Americans. Worse yet, as Jim Crow laws and their efforts anchored themselves across the south, previously diverse and inclusive (relatively speaking) parts of the country began to follow suit. All over, towns and cities undertook the effort of removing, or isolating their black populations, using similar tactics learned from the southern states.
Like a cancer, segregation spread far and wide, becoming more and more recognized and acceptable. By 1913, freshly elected president Woodrow Wilson and his cabinet approved the implementation of segregation in federal offices, marking about as drastic a change in federal priority as you could take over the course of three and a half decades.
It is in this atmosphere of invigorated racist bullshit that zoning rises within the policy consciousness.

The Original Sin of Zoning

As a concept, zoning ordinances within the U.S. were rather new, with the 1908 Los Angeles municipal zoning ordinances being the first of their kind. The LA laws were a formalizing of existing nuisance laws, meant to create separations of land use and buffers between the harmful effects of industries and residences. Though specific business classifications (such as unnecessary prohibition of laundries, which were predominantly owned by Chinese immigrants at the time, in certain areas) did come with racial issues, they were quite tame by the standards of the time, as we're about to see.
Prior to the rise of zoning as a popular government effort, it was fairly rare to see actual legal code dedicated towards segregation, instead focusing efforts on government-endorsed vigilantism and governments not enforcing equality laws already in place. This began to change, however. In 1910, a few years before the federal government would make official its office segregation, and two years after the LA zoning system was established, Baltimore became the first city in the nation, (as stated by the New York Times), to create an explicit law mandating the segregation of city areas. The city ordinance dictated that blacks could not buy homes on blocks where whites were the majority, and vice versa. The law was... horribly broken, and judges had to grapple with the complex, integrated reality of the city, trying to adjudicate who could and couldn't live where, or buy property where, creating an incredible mess of legal issues across the city.
The practical problems with the law did not stop other cities from copying the effort, though. Invigorated by Baltimore's example, Birmingham, Dade County (Miami), Charleston, Dallas, Louisville, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Richmond, St. Louis, and others all made their own version of racial segregaition mandates within landuse. Amungst this list was, in fact, the City of Atlanta, whose ordinance virtually copied the Baltimore law, with the added provision that a person of one color occupying a house in a mixed block could object to one of another color moving next door.
Unlike the initial LA zoning laws, the systems put in place following Baltimore's example were specifically racially focused, with more familiar zoning laws taking shape in the years to come. These initial racist laws would persist until the 1917 Supreme Court decision that such laws were unconstitutional in Buchanan v. Warley. However... the decision was based around the freedom of individuals to buy and sell property to whomever they wished, rather than a denunciation of segregation within law itself. Many cities simply ignored the Supreme Court ruling, and moved ahead with their segregationist laws, while others claimed that slight variations in the ordinances, such as the difference between block level and larger zoning styles, meant they didn't have to follow the ruling.
The City of Atlanta was, once again, one of these cities. In The Atlanta Zone Plan: Report Outlining a Tentative Zone Plan for Atlanta (1922), written by Robert H. Whitten as a consultant for the the City Planning Commission, explicit residential districts were outlined by racial makeup, with R1 as "white residence district", R2 as "colored residence district", and R3 as "undetermined race district". It was nice enough to allow servants' quarters remain open to either race. The plan justifies this by saying:
the above race zoning is essential in the interest of the public peace, order and security and will promote the welfare and prosperity of both the white and colored race.
Additionally, Whitten defended his zoning plan in professional publications by saying that "[e]stablishing colored residence districts has removed one of the most potent causes of race conflict." This, he added, was "a sufficient justification for race zoning.... A reasonable segregation is normal, inevitable and desirable."
Here is a map of the proposed zoning system within the then city limits. You can get an idea of just how limited housing areas for blacks were, just how much of the city was to be dedicated to single family housing compared to apartments, and how relegated commercial uses would be. Incidentally enough, this is where the City of Atlanta begins to see a zoning code similar to modern codes. We'll get to that in a moment. For now, note how closely this map matches some of the racial demographics of the city today, oh, and (just coincidentally I'm sure) how the largest 'Colored District' in the city was to be essentially bordered on three sides by industrial areas. Other zoning maps from the same time would go further with encroaching industrial zones, limiting colored areas, and limiting apartment areas.
Can I just take a moment to say how much I fucking love the Atlanta History Center and its archives? Okay, moving on.
At the same time that Atlanta was ignoring its constitutional duty to not segregate its people, the federal government was stepping into the zoning game. In 1921, then Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover organized an Advisory Committee on Zoning to develop a manual explaining why every municipality should develop a zoning ordinance, with an eventual goal of developing model legislation that could be easily adopted. This committee had such members as Frederick Law Olmsted, who argued in 1918 that not only were certain housing types "coincident with racial divisions", and, since it was undesirable to "force the mingling of people who are not yet ready to mingle", great care should be take not to mix housing types, and Irving B. Hiett, who was the president of the National Association of Real Estate Boards, an organization who would produce a code of realtor ethics stating that "A Realtor should never be instrumental in introducing into a neighborhood... members of any race or nationality... detrimental to property values" just a few years later. By 1922, the committee had developed A Zoning Primer, which argued that zoning was required to preserve property values, and which was widely distributed across the country. The policies would push out wide and far across the nation, following the federal government's example.

Pretending as if Racist Plans Aren't

In 1924, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down the City of Atlanta zoning code due to its racial components. Despite this, the underlying plan and map developed with segregation in mind, would act as the basis for future plans. Indeed, there are many overlaps with the 1922 plan, and even zoning designations today.
Keep Whitten's and the Zoning Commission's mentalities concerning the importance of racial segregation when looking back through the rest of the initial Atlanta zoning proposal. It provides leading anecdotes (without apparent supporting evidence beyond some photographs that don't really seem to match the narrative) of the dangers of mixing small stores, and low-rise multi-family housing with lower densities, primarily focusing on the perceived loss of value of adjacent properties, while framing the persons who make such developments as greedy speculators only out for a quick buck (rather than look at the economic benefit to the store owner, the new access to the store that surrounding areas get, and the housing relief the apartment dwellers experience).
Still without apparent evidence, the proposal makes sweeping, generalized statements about the need to preserve neighborhoods' character, and preserve property values. It proposes to do this by dividing the city into use, height, area, and race categories, with each mixing with the others to dictate specific allowances. The racial categories were removed, yet the remainder of the plan's suggestions would persist.
Even in 1917 it was understood that density was a major component of affordability. Special City Plan Adviser for the City Plan Commission of Cleveland Ohio Robert H. Whitten's essay The Zoning of Residence Sections, where Olmsted argued the merits of preventing the mixing of people and their racially pre-dis-positioned housing preferences, outright states:
We want to distribute the population as much as practicable, but at the same time we do not wish to force people who for business or other reasons need to live close to the central business sections either to pay very high rents or to go to much less convenient locations. As a city reaches metropolitan size, the demand for housing space near the central area becomes so great that the only way to make that location available to any but the wealthy is to permit a more intensive utilization of the land. Were it not for the ability to pile one dwelling on top of another, rents would be prohibitive in these central locations for the great mass of the people.
Even while expounding on the virtues of low-density housing, Whitten takes effort to acknowledge the economic need for multi-family housing to maintain affordability. Yeah, it's done in a condescending way where he can only imagine a case where being adjacent to the central business district is a legitimate reason for housing density, but he at least still accepts it as reality.
Yet, dwelling house districts, from which apartment houses would be excluded, were to include the larger portion of the area of Atlanta, and were to primarily be made up of the largest area class, requiring at least 5000 sqft per family of lot area. The code outright targets 2-3 story buildings with families living over a store (generally which they would operate) as being undesirable, and thus is explicitly designed to prevent such outcomes. All of these things drove up the per-house price, requiring a family to pay for a significant amount of land, as well as an individual house, in the majority of the city's residential area. In the maps I linked above, you can see just how few areas were allowed to have apartments compared to the wider single-family zones.
The federal zoning primer includes similar sentiments, telling an anecdote of how an apartment house built next to a home would destroy values by becoming 'a giant airless hive, housing human beings like crowded bees', as well as lumping 'sporadic stores' in with 'factories or junk yards' as a contributing factor of blight within a residential neighborhood.
It's important to note that none of these codes tried to make improvements to living conditions through legislation like building codes, which could have helped prevent the squalor conditions that were so readily associated with apartments, and which had been present in the U.S. since at least 1859, in Baltimore, choosing instead to essentially quarantine apartments to prevent their spread into single family areas.
As I laid out above, these are all value judgements made by people who viewed the mixing of races as something to avoid, as something that itself would contribute to a loss of property values (rather than recognize that self-fulfilling white panic, was the actual source of value drop, and that the constrained black populations were willing to pay higher prices because there were so few homes they could even get into, actually raising prices), and even made racial connections to types of housing to keep separated. But, because of the insistence of the courts, their policies were forced to take on an air of race neutrality. Thus, explicit race-based zoning was stripped from the codes, and the far more familiar forms of space and use based zoning were established. Those forms just so happen to harshly restrict the kinds of housing openly accepted as being affordable to the masses, and, in particular, the demographics of people who were least economically able to choose elsewhere.
As the federal zoning primer said: Zoning Is Legal
This is not to say that exclusionary zoning was not without its legal challenges, of course. In the 1926 Supreme Court case of Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, the court upheld the constitutionality of exclusionary zoning, using as part of its opinion the argument that "very often the apartment house is a mere parasite", and that, if allowed to mix with single-family houses, "come very near to being nuisances". The case was brought to the Supreme Court as an appeal to a U.S. District Court of Ohio ruling against the constitutionality of exclusionary zoning, stating that "the blighting of property values and the congesting of the population, whenever the colored or certain foreign races invade a residential section, are so well known as to be within the judicial cognizance." Essentially, while the Supreme Court decided that exclusionary zoning was based on inherit issues with mixing building types (even though 1) the issues aren't inherit, and 2) the exclusion argument is based on a slippery slope fallacy), the District Court had (correctly) identified an underlying racial motivation for preventing mixing.

When the Pretending Becomes More Overt

Were all else equal, we might be able to ignore the initial racial components of exclusionary zoning, and merely call the resulting codes classist (the reality is that racism and classism were/are tightly intertwined, with each giving perceived justification to the other), but things weren't equal. The median household income for a black family in 1947 (the earliest year I could actually find data) was just 51% of a white household (it was only up to ~63% in 2018). Even though modern discussion around apartments tends to bemoan the 'luxury' branding, and how accurate it may or may not be, the hard reality is that living in an apartment is cheaper than buying a house, at least in the immediate. For lower income people, it's pretty much the only option. For poor, and thus disproportionately black, people, the primary need for housing affordability was in the form of apartment buildings and residential density, even if that was only desired as a stepping stone. But that's not what the zoning system provided.
Overwhelmingly, the city's land was designated for single family homes. Large lots, and individual homes drive up the per-unit costs of housing, locking poorer people out of being able to buy into neighborhoods. Worse yet would be the zoning systems of suburban and smaller towns, which would eliminate the ability to build apartments all together, essentially locking lower income, and thus disproportionately black, persons from being able to relocate there at all. This lead to crowding in the limited apartments, and, since the building codes hadn't been adequately updated to actually prevent it, the very slum conditions used as a justification for preventing apartments in the first place became self-fulfilling.
Of course, not all black people were so poor that they couldn't afford to buy a single-family home, and quite a few did look to leave the limited availability of apartments. They were not met well, and indeed, in the years following the installation of exclusionary zoning systems, the federal government would essentially codify black exclusion from single-family neighborhoods, with cities clinging to the federal policies as justification for blocking black and integrated housing.
Property (particularly home) mortgages used to be very, very different than how we think of them today, which locked many people out of the ability to get them. High-interest rates, huge down-payments, interest-only payments, and short (5-7 year) payback periods. These terms kept middle and low class persons (of all races) from being able to afford to buy property. As part of the New Deal, the Home Owners' Loan Corporation was established. The loan system was restructured to be closer to the lower rates, lower down-payments, overall payment, and long-term periods we're more familiar with today. Additionally, many existing mortgages were bought and restructured to save property owners from foreclosure.
In the process of this, though, HOLC wanted an inventory of risk across the nation, so it could manage these new loan terms without crippling itself financially. This is where the kinda okay policy stopped. The risk inventory was carried out by local real estate agencies, who had national ethics codes and local policies for their agents to explicitly consider race when evaluating risk. So much so that they were actually under direction to maintain community segregation when otherwise selling properties. The inventory took the form of color-coded maps, where red sections on the map represented high-risk (don't loan people money / bail them out here). Many, many of these red areas were based on racial prejudice, with even wealthy / middle class integrated or black communities being rated far worse than equivalent income white areas.
Here is a database of maps across the U.S., overlaid against modern areas. Here's a fun game: compare the Redlining Map for Atlanta to the initial racial zoning map! No it's not a 1-1 match, but it gets awfully close, particularly if you start to include initially designated areas for apartment buildings.
This entire mess was made even worse with the establishment of the Federal Housing Authority, which was intended to insure private bank loans to first-time home buyers. Even though the FHA had its own auditing system separate from the HOLC, it still had direct segregation and whites-only policies. Additionally the FHA very specifically did not insure mortgages within urban centers. This meant that both HOLC and FHA services were denied to nearly the same areas: black or integrated neighborhoods, most often in urban centers.
The FHA justified its racial rules by claiming that black people ruined property values. This was actually backwards, as the limited options available to black people meant that black and integrated properties were in high demand, and thus could be sold at a much higher price. What did happen, though, was 'block-busting'. So, because the FHA (and other organizations) continuously sold the idea that black people ruined property values, as well as the base-level racism, this left white neighborhoods vulnerable to manipulation. Speculators would buy up properties in blocks on the border of black / integrated and white areas, and then rent / sell them to black people. These speculators would also hire black people to walk around white neighborhoods asking about home sales, and looking like they lived there. Then the speculators would go around warning white property owners that their housing values would tank with all the black people moving in, and make stupidly low offers, buying out white properties well below the actual value (this is where the FHA was getting its data). Then the speculators would turn around and, because there were so few other options, sell the same properties above their actual value to black people at bad rates. This drove up costs for black people who otherwise just wanted a home, and the high prices contributed to perpetuating poverty and again creating self-fulfilling slum conditions.
Many cities, private lenders, and other government agencies (like Veterans Affairs) anchored their lending and development approval processes on the FHA backing of home loans, which meant that blacks were barred from even the opportunity to really leave parts of the city within which they lived.
It's worth reiterating that the HOLC and FHA policies were targeted directly at owning private homes, working off of a national policy that private homes were less communist than apartments. No, I'm not kidding. The U.S. Department of Labor distributed pamphlets entitled We Own Our Own Home to schoolchildren stating that it was a "patriotic duty" to cease renting, and to buy a house. Millions of posters were printed, and hung in factories and other businesses, while newspaper ads were run throughout the country. This national housing direction propped up single-family residences, and the infrastructure to support them, while leaving pretty much everything else to languish.
Then there were the racial covenants, where individual properties were made unavailable to black people by deed restrictions, and which were often implimented on neighborhood scales.
Then there was the New-Deal, where the Civilian Conservation Corps abided by local segregation policies for its camps and worker housing, further entrenching local segregation.
Then there was the issue of cities targeting black and low-income areas overwhelmingly with zoning variances for industry and toxic waste disposal sites, exposing those persons to much higher quantities of toxins and pollutants.
Then there was public housing which eliminated mixed-income tenants, was often explicitly segregated, often resisted adding housing for black people, and, when they did add housing open to blacks, located overwhelmingly in already black and poor neighborhoods, effectively concentrating poverty and increasing segregation.
Then there were Interstate Highways, which were explicitly used for 'slum clearing' in many cities (including defining slum based on racial makeup rather than socioeconomic status of the persons living there), which were massive transportation subsidies to the very same segregated low-density suburbs already built with federal loan backing while public transportation languished, and which were actually used as physical barriers between parts of the city.
Frankly, the list kinda just keeps going, and so I'm not going to try and fit it all. Seriously, go read the Color of Law for more explicit details. My main point with all of these is that, when you combine the initial versions of the zoning codes, the opinions of the people who made them, and the wider reactions and policies that came after the codes proved not to 100% segregate black people from white people, it becomes clear that a major component of the zoning system was established not actually to prevent health or value issues, but rather to maintain the separation of races.

That was a lot of words...

Right, so here's the summary:
  1. After a decade of relative progress, the federal government abandons Reconstruction
  2. Almost immediately, communities, including previously inclusive ones, begin to force their black populations out in a renewed effort of segregation
  3. At first this is done outside of the law, but eventually cities get the idea to literally codify segregation through ordinances
  4. That codified segregation was struck down in the Supreme Court, so cities are forced to find a proxy method of enforcing segregation
  5. Cities used the separating of mixed-use developments and multi-family apartment buildings to create racial segregation through the proxy of economic segregation
  6. When this doesn't work 100%, the federal government established home mortgage support systems that directly excluded black people, preventing them from buying into single-family neighborhoods even if they could afford it
  7. There was a lot of other shit that happened to basically show that zoning was not the unbiased system it was pretending to be

Persistence of bad policy

Even though many of the explicitly racist policies have been removed or overturned, and what progress there has been in raising the wealth of black persons has helped with some racial mixing, it's clear that the proxy methods for discrimination persist to this day, with visible segregaition outcomes. Even when we do see integration, it is often in the form of wealthy white people moving into the limited new developments allowed in previously majority black areas (AKA 'Gentrification').
Today, Atlanta is still overwhelmingly zoned for low-density, single-family residential, even if some of those zones allow up to Accessory Dwelling Units (such density, much urban). Lot sizes in much of the city are still mandated to be quite large, and height planes still overly limit the number of stories buildings can be. What apartment buildings are allowed are constrained by cumbersome parking requirements (both codified and required by private lenders), and property setbacks. Mixed uses are often restrained on individual properties, requiring a specific zoning designation to be allowed. Even the city's plan for handling future growth still relegates nearly 75% of the area to relatively low-density housing as 'conservation' areas.
Metro-wide, not nearly as many homes are being built as were pre-recession. While home prices are increasing back to pre-recessionary levels, housing inventory in metro Atlanta is constrained – partially due to a lag in residential construction. Prior to the recession, it was not uncommon for residential building permits to exceed 5,000 per month (in some cases, reaching over 7,000). After May 2007, the region experienced a steep decline in residential building permits, which persisted into early 2012, when the region began seeing modest increases. Though residential permits have trended upward since 2012, they have yet to reach pre-recessional levels, hovering instead between 2,000 and 3,000 permits per month. Because of this, all counties in metro Atlanta are experiencing the a decline in housing inventory. One of the main summary points of that report was: "Home prices rising significantly – faster than wages – due in large part to dwindling supply" ARC Regional Snapshot: Affordable Housing While the metro itself has been pretty easy to build new housing within (atleast from 2000 to 2015) compared to other metros, the parts of the city and close-in suburbs tend to be the hardest within which to add new supplly (of the 10 hardest zipcodes to build, the top 3 were partially in the city, and another three were in or partly in the city).
Indeed, inflation-adjusted housing prices are rising quite quickly in the Atlanta Metro, even including months during this pandemic. Prices are looking to pass pre-2008 peak in 2023ish. Only, this time, vacancy rates for both renters and homeowners have been nearly at all-time lows for the metro (Source: Census Bureau). Many of the most intense price increases happening within the core city.
At the same time, affordable housing initiatives are proving to be far too few to handle the rising costs, with recent 'Inclusionary Zoning' rules, as well as the wider public housing program failing to close the need. We're talking programs considering themselves successful at a few thousand units, when the demand for affordable housing (let alone total housing) is in the hundreds of thousands.
The simple reality is that the racism of our past is leading to an over-all affordability crisis today. While, as usual, the hardest hit are African Americans, this affordability crisis has far reaching impacts across the demographic spectrum, including poor whites, and, particularly, poor Latino populations as well, locking out a wide variety of people who would otherwise want to live in the kinds of dense, walkable, urban areas the City of Atlanta uniquely offers within the metro.
Not only that, but the very types of low-density developments so widely codified across the city and nation do not generate enough economic activity to actually pay for the infrastructure needed to support them, propped up by piles of hidden subsidies, all resulting in cities being effectively bankrupt. (Here's another real-world example) Even some of the most 'wealthy' of towns are having to seriously reconsider their historic development patterns to close out financial gaps. In Atlanta, this leads to things like a massive backlog of maintenance issues that even recent bonds and tax increases can't fully handle. Again, policies of a racist past are hurting everyone today. Undoing those policies, and transitioning back to tried-and-true development styles would greatly help fix financial issues.
Additionally, as we work to overcome challenges with climate as a whole, we need to be seriously looking at our build environments, and just how much low-density development contributes to emissions compared to higher-density parts of the metro, and even the city itself. At the same time, moving away from cars would help reduce respiratory issues for poor and minority persons who are disproportionately affected by road-pollution, and generally moving to cleaner industries while cleaning up legacy pollution sites can help undo the years of inequality through industrial exposure..

Okay, so what do we do?

We need to have a hard discussion about zoning policies: their origins, their purposes, and their effects. We need to be prepared to recognize when policies were built on hate, and where they have lead to harm, just as much as we need to be ready to recognize that not every aspect of the zoning system is bad. We need to be willing to change, and be proactive about fixing the failings of previous generations. Ideally for the net benefit of all of us.
As part of this discussion, though, we are going to have to really, truly consider what 'character' of this city are valuable. What are tangible goals, what are the potential negative outcomes, and what can be done to mitigate those outcomes, ideally while actually adding to the 'character' of the city. Again, we needs to be willing to change here. Not everything wrapped under the broad umbrella of 'character' is actually worth keeping, particularly given how I could probably copy and paste some of the 'neighborhood character' arguments from the initial racial zoning codes into places like NextDoor or Facebook or even here on Reddit without anyone suspecting they are nearly 100 years old.

The End!

Holy shit! You made it to the end! Thanks for putting up with so, so many words... Here's a video of a little girl way too excited to get on a train as a reward.
submitted by killroy200 to Atlanta [link] [comments]

Solvent Recycling Market Size, Share, Global Industry Analysis and Competitive Landscape

Overview for “Solvent Recycling Market” Helps in providing scope and definitions, Key Findings, Growth Drivers, and Various Dynamics.
The study of Solvent Recycling market is a compilation of the market of Solvent Recycling broken down into its entirety on the basis of types, application, trends and opportunities, mergers and acquisitions, drivers and restraints, and a global outreach. The detailed study also offers a board interpretation of the Solvent Recycling industry from a variety of data points that are collected through reputable and verified sources. Furthermore, the study sheds a lights on a market interpretations on a global scale which is further distributed through distribution channels, generated incomes sources and a marginalized market space where most trade occurs.
Along with a generalized market study, the report also consists of the risks that are often neglected when it comes to the Solvent Recycling industry in a comprehensive manner. The study is also divided in an analytical space where the forecast is predicted through a primary and secondary research methodologies along with an in-house model.
Download PDF Sample of Solvent Recycling Market report @ https://hongchunresearch.com/request-a-sample/113477
Key players in the global Solvent Recycling market covered in Chapter 4: Clean Harbors Quanzhou Tianlong Maratek Environmental CBG Technologies IST Pure Tradebe Solvent Recycling Veolia CycleSolv US Ecology Gage Products Company Clean Planet Chemical Pegex (Hazardous Waste Experts)
In Chapter 11 and 13.3, on the basis of types, the Solvent Recycling market from 2015 to 2026 is primarily split into: Off-site Solvent Recycling On-site Solvent Recycling
In Chapter 12 and 13.4, on the basis of applications, the Solvent Recycling market from 2015 to 2026 covers: Pharmaceuticals Industry Oil & Chemical Industry Painting & Coating Industry Printing Industry Others
Geographically, the detailed analysis of consumption, revenue, market share and growth rate, historic and forecast (2015-2026) of the following regions are covered in Chapter 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13: North America (Covered in Chapter 6 and 13) United States Canada Mexico Europe (Covered in Chapter 7 and 13) Germany UK France Italy Spain Russia Others Asia-Pacific (Covered in Chapter 8 and 13) China Japan South Korea Australia India Southeast Asia Others Middle East and Africa (Covered in Chapter 9 and 13) Saudi Arabia UAE Egypt Nigeria South Africa Others South America (Covered in Chapter 10 and 13) Brazil Argentina Columbia Chile Others Regional scope can be customized
For a global outreach, the Solvent Recycling study also classifies the market into a global distribution where key market demographics are established based on the majority of the market share. The following markets that are often considered for establishing a global outreach are North America, Europe, Asia, and the Rest of the World. Depending on the study, the following markets are often interchanged, added, or excluded as certain markets only adhere to certain products and needs.
Here is a short glance at what the study actually encompasses: Study includes strategic developments, latest product launches, regional growth markers and mergers & acquisitions Revenue, cost price, capacity & utilizations, import/export rates and market share Forecast predictions are generated from analytical data sources and calculated through a series of in-house processes.
However, based on requirements, this report could be customized for specific regions and countries.
Brief about Solvent Recycling Market Report with TOC@ https://hongchunresearch.com/report/solvent-recycling-market-size-2020-113477
Some Point of Table of Content:
Chapter One: Report Overview
Chapter Two: Global Market Growth Trends
Chapter Three: Value Chain of Solvent Recycling Market
Chapter Four: Players Profiles
Chapter Five: Global Solvent Recycling Market Analysis by Regions
Chapter Six: North America Solvent Recycling Market Analysis by Countries
Chapter Seven: Europe Solvent Recycling Market Analysis by Countries
Chapter Eight: Asia-Pacific Solvent Recycling Market Analysis by Countries
Chapter Nine: Middle East and Africa Solvent Recycling Market Analysis by Countries
Chapter Ten: South America Solvent Recycling Market Analysis by Countries
Chapter Eleven: Global Solvent Recycling Market Segment by Types
Chapter Twelve: Global Solvent Recycling Market Segment by Applications 12.1 Global Solvent Recycling Sales, Revenue and Market Share by Applications (2015-2020) 12.1.1 Global Solvent Recycling Sales and Market Share by Applications (2015-2020) 12.1.2 Global Solvent Recycling Revenue and Market Share by Applications (2015-2020) 12.2 Pharmaceuticals Industry Sales, Revenue and Growth Rate (2015-2020) 12.3 Oil & Chemical Industry Sales, Revenue and Growth Rate (2015-2020) 12.4 Painting & Coating Industry Sales, Revenue and Growth Rate (2015-2020) 12.5 Printing Industry Sales, Revenue and Growth Rate (2015-2020) 12.6 Others Sales, Revenue and Growth Rate (2015-2020)
Chapter Thirteen: Solvent Recycling Market Forecast by Regions (2020-2026) continued…
Check Discount@ https://hongchunresearch.com/check-discount/113477
List of tables List of Tables and Figures Table Global Solvent Recycling Market Size Growth Rate by Type (2020-2026) Figure Global Solvent Recycling Market Share by Type in 2019 & 2026 Figure Off-site Solvent Recycling Features Figure On-site Solvent Recycling Features Table Global Solvent Recycling Market Size Growth by Application (2020-2026) Figure Global Solvent Recycling Market Share by Application in 2019 & 2026 Figure Pharmaceuticals Industry Description Figure Oil & Chemical Industry Description Figure Painting & Coating Industry Description Figure Printing Industry Description Figure Others Description Figure Global COVID-19 Status Overview Table Influence of COVID-19 Outbreak on Solvent Recycling Industry Development Table SWOT Analysis Figure Porter's Five Forces Analysis Figure Global Solvent Recycling Market Size and Growth Rate 2015-2026 Table Industry News Table Industry Policies Figure Value Chain Status of Solvent Recycling Figure Production Process of Solvent Recycling Figure Manufacturing Cost Structure of Solvent Recycling Figure Major Company Analysis (by Business Distribution Base, by Product Type) Table Downstream Major Customer Analysis (by Region) Table Clean Harbors Profile Table Clean Harbors Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020 Table Quanzhou Tianlong Profile Table Quanzhou Tianlong Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020 Table Maratek Environmental Profile Table Maratek Environmental Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020 Table CBG Technologies Profile Table CBG Technologies Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020 Table IST Pure Profile Table IST Pure Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020 Table Tradebe Solvent Recycling Profile Table Tradebe Solvent Recycling Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020 Table Veolia Profile Table Veolia Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020 Table CycleSolv Profile Table CycleSolv Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020 Table US Ecology Profile Table US Ecology Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020 Table Gage Products Company Profile Table Gage Products Company Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020 Table Clean Planet Chemical Profile Table Clean Planet Chemical Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020 Table Pegex (Hazardous Waste Experts) Profile Table Pegex (Hazardous Waste Experts) Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020 Figure Global Solvent Recycling Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020) Figure Global Solvent Recycling Revenue ($) and Growth (2015-2020) Table Global Solvent Recycling Sales by Regions (2015-2020) Table Global Solvent Recycling Sales Market Share by Regions (2015-2020) Table Global Solvent Recycling Revenue ($) by Regions (2015-2020) Table Global Solvent Recycling Revenue Market Share by Regions (2015-2020) Table Global Solvent Recycling Revenue Market Share by Regions in 2015 Table Global Solvent Recycling Revenue Market Share by Regions in 2019 Figure North America Solvent Recycling Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020) Figure Europe Solvent Recycling Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020) Figure Asia-Pacific Solvent Recycling Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020) Figure Middle East and Africa Solvent Recycling Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020) Figure South America Solvent Recycling Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020) Figure North America Solvent Recycling Revenue ($) and Growth (2015-2020) Table North America Solvent Recycling Sales by Countries (2015-2020) Table North America Solvent Recycling Sales Market Share by Countries (2015-2020) Figure North America Solvent Recycling Sales Market Share by Countries in 2015 Figure North America Solvent Recycling Sales Market Share by Countries in 2019 Table North America Solvent Recycling Revenue ($) by Countries (2015-2020) Table North America Solvent Recycling Revenue Market Share by Countries (2015-2020) Figure North America Solvent Recycling Revenue Market Share by Countries in 2015 Figure North America Solvent Recycling Revenue Market Share by Countries in 2019 Figure United States Solvent Recycling Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020) Figure Canada Solvent Recycling Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020) Figure Mexico Solvent Recycling Sales and Growth (2015-2020) Figure Europe Solvent Recycling Revenue ($) Growth (2015-2020) Table Europe Solvent Recycling Sales by Countries (2015-2020) Table Europe Solvent Recycling Sales Market Share by Countries (2015-2020) Figure Europe Solvent Recycling Sales Market Share by Countries in 2015 Figure Europe Solvent Recycling Sales Market Share by Countries in 2019 Table Europe Solvent Recycling Revenue ($) by Countries (2015-2020) Table Europe Solvent Recycling Revenue Market Share by Countries (2015-2020) Figure Europe Solvent Recycling Revenue Market Share by Countries in 2015 Figure Europe Solvent Recycling Revenue Market Share by Countries in 2019 Figure Germany Solvent Recycling Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020) Figure UK Solvent Recycling Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020) Figure France Solvent Recycling Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020) Figure Italy Solvent Recycling Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020) Figure Spain Solvent Recycling Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020) Figure Russia Solvent Recycling Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020) Figure Asia-Pacific Solvent Recycling Revenue ($) and Growth (2015-2020) Table Asia-Pacific Solvent Recycling Sales by Countries (2015-2020) Table Asia-Pacific Solvent Recycling Sales Market Share by Countries (2015-2020) Figure Asia-Pacific Solvent Recycling Sales Market Share by Countries in 2015 Figure Asia-Pacific Solvent Recycling Sales Market Share by Countries in 2019 Table Asia-Pacific Solvent Recycling Revenue ($) by Countries (2015-2020) Table Asia-Pacific Solvent Recycling Revenue Market Share by Countries (2015-2020) Figure Asia-Pacific Solvent Recycling Revenue Market Share by Countries in 2015 Figure Asia-Pacific Solvent Recycling Revenue Market Share by Countries in 2019 Figure China Solvent Recycling Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020) Figure Japan Solvent Recycling Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020) Figure South Korea Solvent Recycling Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020) Figure Australia Solvent Recycling Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020) Figure India Solvent Recycling Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020) Figure Southeast Asia Solvent Recycling Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020) Figure Middle East and Africa Solvent Recycling Revenue ($) and Growth (2015-2020) continued…
About HongChun Research: HongChun Research main aim is to assist our clients in order to give a detailed perspective on the current market trends and build long-lasting connections with our clientele. Our studies are designed to provide solid quantitative facts combined with strategic industrial insights that are acquired from proprietary sources and an in-house model.
Contact Details: Jennifer Gray Manager - Global Sales + 852 8170 0792 [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])
NOTE: Our report does take into account the impact of coronavirus pandemic and dedicates qualitative as well as quantitative sections of information within the report that emphasizes the impact of COVID-19.
As this pandemic is ongoing and leading to dynamic shifts in stocks and businesses worldwide, we take into account the current condition and forecast the market data taking into consideration the micro and macroeconomic factors that will be affected by the pandemic.
submitted by mayurpande6990 to u/mayurpande6990 [link] [comments]

TLDR insanity these days on length of job descriptions when most time you just end up following direction???

This job description is for a f****** park supervisor at a reasonably large state park in Ohio, like 1.5M revenue
Plans & manages all operations of Class A park &, if assigned, oversees one (1) or more Class B park(s): coordinates & monitors complex budgetary & fiscal operations (e.g., develops annual & biennial budget requests relevant to operations, monitors approved budget for assigned park(s), reviews/approves timekeeping information, approves daily expenditures, participates in audits, reviews & analyzes park revenue including complex funding sources & multiple revenue streams); establishes goals & priorities (e.g., park development & facility utilization, preventative maintenance, human resources & strategic planning, land & water based recreational amenities, park & watercraft opportunities & programs, recommends &/or develops park & watercraft rules & regulations, develops & implements park & watercraft shoreline management plan); coordinates work performed in park & supervises assigned staff (e.g., prepares schedules, assigns job tasks, conducts performance reviews, participates in administrative investigations, disciplinary &/or grievance matters, conducts coaching &/or corrective counseling, approves leave, conducts training). Manages facilities & equipment (e.g., monitors facility cleanliness, oversees fleet & equipment management, monitors infrastructure, conducts inventory (e.g., equipment, marinas, buildings, campsites), inspects or assists in inspection of park & watercraft infrastructure) & manages park & watercraft resources (e.g., schedules complex maintenance operations (e.g., watewaste water plants, lift stations, electrical issues, high volume of full-hook up campsites); monitors consumables, monitors boundaries for encroachments, purchases support services, oversees beach & lake management, over-sees pesticide application); oversees revenue generating operations including year-round overnight facilities (e.g., campgrounds, cabins, pools, concessions, marinas, boating registrations) & oversees contract compliance; coordinates with concession partners (e.g., ensures concessionaires are contractually compliant (e.g., properties, items & services), monitors all maintenance/repaireplacement items purchased/inventoried, assists with visitor complaints or concerns); coordinates capital projects at assigned location & updates stakeholders on park improvements; ensures public & employee safety (e.g., participates in concession reviews or inspections to ensure health & safety standards are in place, routinely liaises with law enforcement personnel due to in-creased volume of criminal complaints & personal injury incidents, identifies & mitigates safety hazards, participates in the development of emergency action plans, conducts safety meetings, implements & promotes safety procedures, con-firms compliance with regulatory requirements, provides visitor assistance as needed, monitors special event safety, facilitates weather emergencies, identifies need for temporary closure); operates equipment (e.g., state vehicle, watercraft, hand & power tools, personal protective equipment, tractors, mowers, all-terrain vehicles) to conduct work throughout park(s) & demonstrate equipment use & maintenance to staff. Manages customer service (e.g., addresses visitor concerns &/or issues, manages employee interaction with public, resolves park & water use conflicts, solicits & implements customer feedback & recommendations, provides information & education); manages stakeholder relationships (e.g., concessionaires &/or contractors, interacts with friends groups, partners with local communities & organizations, oversees community projects, monitors volunteer activities, interacts with government agencies, cooperates with sister agencies, participates in community outreach); coordinates with concession partners in organizing most complex park & watercraft activities & special events (e.g., firework shows, trail &/or boat races, triathlons, hikes, permitted activities); tracks visitor attendance both day use & overnight; develops new customer programs, educational programs & special events; coordinates public relations & communications duties (e.g., participates in public speaking engagements, develops informational materials, conducts public information meetings, researches & develops marketing strategies, maintains website & social media, addresses media at local level). Performs administrative duties (e.g., reviews reports, develops & solicits competitive bids, applies for grants & tracks grant spending, selects vendors, participates in recruitment & selection of employees, conducts staff meetings & attends department meetings, participates in in-service training seminars &/or conferences, represents chief at meetings, coordinates park & watercraft activities with other districts & /or divisions & offices; serves on agency committees). TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT REQUIRED TO REMAIN IN THE CLASSIFICATION AFTER EMPLOYMENT: Positions operating watercraft must complete boat operator education course per Ohio Revised Code 1547.05. UNUSUAL WORKING CONDITIONS: May be called 24 hours per day, 7 days per week; may work evenings, weekends &/or holidays; may be exposed to chemical spray, dirt, dust fumes & noise, unpleasant odors, human & animal waste; may be exposed to dangerous machinery; may work in or near water; works outside to include walking long & short distances, climbing & navigating rough terrain, steep slopes & embankments & exposure to outdoor elements (e.g., inclement weather, animals, insects, poison ivy); may be exposed to unsafe conditions. QualificationsCompletion of graduate core program in natural resources management, parks & recreation management, facility management, hospitality management, business or public administration; 12 mos. supervisory exp.; valid driver’s license. -Or completion of undergraduate core program in natural resources management, parks & recreation management, facility management, hospitality management, business or public administration; 12 mos. exp. in natural resources management, parks & recreation management, facility management, hospitality management, business or public administration; 12 mos. supervisory exp.; valid driver’s license. -Or 36 mos. trg. or exp. in natural resources management, parks & watercraft management, facility management, hospitality management, business or public administration; 12 mos. supervisory exp.; valid driver’s license. -Or 12 mos. exp. as Park & Watercraft Manager 1, 22516; valid driver’s license. -Or equivalent of Minimum Class Qualifications for Employment noted above. Knowledge of business development & administration; management science or public administration; project management; recreation management; facility management; hospitality management; event management; budgeting; supervision; employee training & development; public relations; interviewing; computer software & hardware (e.g., ERP systems); applicable agency, state &/or federal laws, policies, procedures & standards; skilled & semi-skilled trade procedures (e.g., watewastewater management, carpentry, plumbing, heating, electrical); safety practices & procedures (e.g., employee safety, equipment operations). Skill in communicating with park visitors; conflict resolution; equipment maintenance & operation as assigned (e.g., facilities management (maintenance & repair of infrastructure); related skilled & semi-skilled trades (e.g., lock administration, water quality & management); use of office equipment (e.g., telephone, photocopier, fax machine, cash register, calculator, personal computer). Ability to plan, assign, supervise & evaluate the work of staff &/or contractors; plan & coordinate special events; apply laws, policy, procedures & standards pertaining to agency operations; define problems, collect data, establish facts & draw valid conclusions to make operational decisions; maintain accurate records; prepare & deliver speeches before general public; respond to questions regarding outdoor recreation; handle routine &/or sensitive inquiries from general public; establish & maintain working relationships; demonstrate professionalism & exceptional customer service; engage in physical activities (e.g., walking, climbing, navigating uneven or rough terrain). (*) Developed after employment. Competencies: Organizing, Planning & Prioritizing Work; Monitor Processes; Making Decisions & Problem Solving. The State of Ohio is diverse, inclusive, and Equal Opportunity Employer. Under the Americans with Disability Act as Amended (ADAAA), if reasonable accommodation is required, please contact the Office of Human Resources at 614-265-6981 Effective July 1, 2015 applicants must apply online for positions at all state agencies except the Department of Developmental Disabilities (DODD). Apply online at careers.ohio.gov The final candidate selected for the position will be required to undergo a criminal background check. Criminal convictions do not necessarily preclude an applicant from consideration for a position. An individual assessment of an applicant's prior criminal convictions will be made before excluding an applicant from consideration. STATUS OF POSTED POSITIONS: Applicants can view the status of this position by logging into their user profile on the Ohio Hiring Management System [OHMS] Home page at the following link careers.ohio.gov, and selecting "My Profile". NOTES: Selection devices, proficiency testing and/or assessments may be used to determine if an applicant meets and is proficient in the minimum qualifications for this position. Applicants may attach the following document types:
Microsoft Word (.doc and .docx)
PDF (.pdf), * Plain Text (.txt)
Rich Text (.rtf)
Please do not upload attachments that have an anomaly or are password protected. VERIFIFABLE INFORMATION: All information pertaining to education, training and/or experience must be verifiable on your State of Ohio Civil Service Employment Application and/or attached resume, transcript or licensure(s) for the information to be considered
submitted by labor_anoymous to jobs [link] [comments]

Rant on why "why don't they use nukes in Mass Effect" is stupid, and why judging weapons by total energy is stupider

This post was originally just for Mass Effect, but the information within is valuable for pretty much any sci-fi that uses omnidirectional energy burst weapons in space warfare.
Basically I keep seeing something along the lines of this:
**"Dreadnoughts only shoot out double digit kilotons per second (38.72 kt every two seconds). Scaling by length, cruisers and frigates should only output single digit kilotons per second; by volume they'd have even less, single digit kilotons to triple digit tons per second. So why don't they just use nukes instead? Our standard missiles are in the 300-500 kiloton range today, and we can build ones in the double digit megaton range pretty easily. We were doing it in the 1960s. Man, everyone in the universe must be so dumb!"**
...and I'm compelled to write. There's a few things to note here.
Point number one. GARDIAN point-defense turrets largely renders missiles unusable within their envelope, bar mass-spamming at point-blank range. Chris L'Etoile, who wrote for ME1 and ME2 and wrote almost all of the codex, actually weighed in on this subject specifically ten years back on the old Bioware forums, which have now been deleted (dead link). Fortunately, his comment has been preserved on various sci-fi forums. I will quote it here:
"1) Why don't the disruptor torpedos have nuclear warheads so that they can destroy or disable ships on their own?"
>They probably do use nuclear warheads, but not very large ones. The idea behind a torpedo is to crank up its mass so the target's kinetic barriers can't deflect it. They don't carry a lot of payload - they're mostly mass effect core and thrusters. The latter because increasing mass makes the torpedo more difficult to accelerate, as FTL drive fields make ships easier to accelerate.
>So torpedo payload space is at a premium. You use a very small tactical fusion warhead to get optimal bang for minimum buck, where "buck" is defined as volume/weight of warhead.
Taking it outside the box...
In terms of IP design, we want fighters and warships form a combined arms force - neither able to achieve victory without the other. If fighter-launched torps always trumped warship shields/armor, who in their right mind would build those giant warships everyone loves to look at? (Conversely, people really like space fighters because they allow individual heroism - as Star Wars capably proved.)
"2) What would the the likely outcome if one force tried a "missile spam" technique with nukes? (I know nukes in space aren't all that useful but the suggested yields in ME suggest that close misses would have an effect)"
A very expensive, ineffective alpha strike, followed by the ship blowing up. **Dozens or hundreds of missiles will be downed by GARDIAN at range, dozens more repulsed or absorbed by kinetic barriers**.
For spam attacks, you want your projectiles to be cheap. **Figuring that 90% of them will just be fodder for the target's defenses**, you probably give them smallish warheads (kilotons of yield max).It would work, yes. But as expensive as element zero is, slow torpedoes carried by fast fighters are probably going to be a more cost-effective solution. Mind you, I haven't done any hard core number crunching on that. I haven't done the research to figure how much fusion warheads might cost.
The krogan might try it. Probably no one else.
Emphasis mine. This tells us a few interesting things:
  1. "Hundreds" of missiles are required to overload the average ship's point-defense system.
  2. Parts of the nuke are actually blocked by kinetic barriers. Likely alpha/beta particles and fusion products, as they have mass.
  3. It would take dozens of direct nuke hits to destroy a standard ship, despite barriers explicitly not blocking extremes of heat or radiation. Those parts of the nuke just aren't interacting with them at all.
"Wait," you may be asking, "that doesn't make any sense. If the barrier didn't block the primary damage mechanism, how would the ship survive?". Simple. We see multiple times that barriers can be projected a good distance from their emitters. They're simply mass effect fields programmed to repulse things; there is nothing about the tech that necessitates it hugging the hull any more than the mass effect "bubble" that they project around themselves to travel at FTL. The Derelict Reaper is a particularly extreme example of this function in action, with several seconds passing between the Normandy entering its mass effect field envelope and touching down on the surface- indicating that barriers were projected dozens if not hundreds of kilometers from the hull, consistent with the cutscene. The exact distance of the barriers from the emitters (projecting them further means they need to cover more surface area and are thus weaker to pure kinetic impacts) would logically be adjusted on the spot for the threat and controlled by an on-site VI. This brings us to:
Point number two, the most important one. There is something called the inverse square law, and it's a complete bitch for explosives. The inverse square law is a basic scientific law stating that a specified physical quantity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. When applied to explosions, this basically means that they get much weaker the further you get from the epicenter. Take the Tsar Bomba, the most powerful thermonuclear device ever detonated. It had a yield of 50 megatons, 50,000,000 tons of TNT. Let's say that you managed to detonate this thing at "knife-fight" ranges for a ME ship, that is 10 kilometers. The inverse square law is helpfully modeled with Eric Rozier's calculator on nuclear weapon effects. From this we can see that a 50 megaton blast at 10 km would have the following stats:
1,256,600,000 m^2 surface area
166.48 megajoules per m^2
Or in other words: a 50 megaton bomb detonated at 10 kilometers has the same intensity as a half-ton bomb detonated at 1 meter. It will scrub a 3.71 cm thickness of titanium armor and a much lesser thickness of anything tougher (like the specially designed ablative plates that cover every Mass Effect ship). In other words it's basically harmless to a space warship with thick armor. MIT's nuke calculator specifies that, at that distance, a 50 megaton bomb would "only" be reduced to severely damaging reinforced buildings, destroying less reinforced ones, and killing the vast majority (but not 100%) of people. Definitely devastating, and roughly what you'd expect with the above figures, but far removed from the outright vaporization of everything that occurs at the bomb's epicenter. Applying the far closer distance of 1 kilometer, at which point it may as well be touching the ship's hull in space warfare terms:
12,566,000 m^2 surface area
16.648 gigajoules per m^2
To give a real-world example of the inverse square law in action, at a mere 320 meters from the blast, a WWII-era tank was able to survive a 9 kiloton nuke. Result: damaged, but salvageable.
I feel like I should emphasize just how CLOSE even 1 kilometer is in space terms. We constantly see ships in the series pulling dozens or hundreds of gees of acceleration both in and out of combat. A dinky shuttle was able to go from nearly 100,000 kilometers distant from Habitat 7 (comparing Apollo 7's image of Earth and noting Habitat 7's smaller diameter) to starting deceleration inside the atmosphere in under 14 seconds during the opening scene of Andromeda, an event that would require it pulling tens of thousands of gees of straight line acceleration. But you don't even have to go that far. At a mere 10 gees of acceleration, glacially slow by ME standards, a ship would be able to clear a kilometer within four and a half seconds. A few kilometers distant in any direction, all but the biggest nukes are useless, and it only takes slightly more for the latter.
Point number three, the second most important: nukes are omnidirectional. A nuclear explosion is essentially a rapidly-expanding sphere. Thus even when detonated at point-blank range, only a fraction of its energy is actually being transferred to the target. On top of that, what energy is transferred is being transferred along the target's whole surface area, as opposed to a hypervelocity impact, which concentrates its energy on an area thousands of times smaller. The disparity in intensity is going to be ludicrous.
Eric Rozier's calculator is again helpful here. At a distance of merely 1 kilometer, a fairly large megaton explosion is only dealing 333 gigajoules per square meter. That's definitely a lot, but when you compare it to a mass accelerator round you start to see why no one bothers. A frigate-scale mass accelerator round that concentrates, say, 1 kiloton of kinetic energy (4,184 gigajoules) on an area of 100 cm^2 (this is very likely larger than the surface area of a typical mass accelerator round judging by the size of that dreadnought shot the gunnery sergeant was holding) is packing 100 kilotons or 418,400 gigajoules per square meter - literally over a thousand times as much as the point-blank megaton nuke. It's like the difference between a concussion grenade (typically around 1 megajoule, can be protected against by class III-A armor at a meter and is not lethal past a few meters) and an assault rifle round (typically around 0.002 megajoules, will go through class III-A armor like it's not there). At any appreciable distance this problem becomes far worse. At 10 kilometers, that megaton explosion is now down to 3.3 GJ/m2. Keep this in mind for when any franchise has their ships threatened by proximity detonations.
(I blame the common conception of sci-fi shields as video game health bars that crap out universally all over the ship if they take an arbitrary number of joules applied in any way distributed by any means, even though that's not how any real world damage mechanic works and pretty much no franchise actually has them acting like that.)
Point number four, nukes in space kinda... suck. NASA has a page on this. A nuclear bomb detonated in space would entirely lose its blast wave (40-50% of the explosion's energy) in the absence of an atmosphere, as well as the bulk of its thermal radiation as there is is no longer any air for the blast wave to heat. The vacuum of space is a fantastically shitty medium for any heat-based weapon system to propagate through. All of the calculations I made previously were simply modeling an explosion's fall off over distance, they didn't account for the effects of a vacuum on a nuclear detonation at all.
*"But wait, what about nuclear shaped charges, like the Casaba howitzer? I read an article about those once, and they'd focus all the energy of a nuke to power a jet of molten metal. Wouldn't that be a way better choice than a kiloton railgun?"*
Point number five. Nuclear shaped charges are popular among war nerds. Substantially less so among physicists. The website Atomic Rockets has an extensively-cited article about plausible near-future weapons which includes a section about nuclear shaped charges. Several tests on their viability were done in the 1980s and subsequently analyzed. Here's are excerpts:
The difficulty is in transmitting this thermal energy to the propellant, and keeping the particle cone focused.[...]It would be reasonable to use a lower figure when calculating the amount of energy delivered to the propellant. Scott Lowther gave a 50% figure for small fission charges. An SDI nuclear weapons study, Project Prometheus, experimentally tested Casaba Howitzer weapons using plastic propellants. It achieved 10% efficiency.
A Princeton University study from 1990 on third-generation nuclear weapons cited 5% instead, but for fusion devices with ten times better beam focus. Despite the reduction in cone spread, the stream of particles produced by by Casaba Howitzer dissipates much more quickly than an electro-magnetically accelerated particle beam or a laser.**
It is possible to reduce the beam angle to 0.006 degrees in width, as reported by the third-generation nuclear weapons study. 0.057 degrees has been experimentally achieved by project Prometheus. The trade-off is much lower efficiency than propulsive units (5-10% vs 80-85%).**
The theoretical maximal performance of a thermonuclear device is 25TJ/kg. Modern weapons are able to achieve 2.5TJ/kg, but this figure is for large weapons that have better scaling. Smaller warheads such as those tested for project Prometheus are likely to be in the kiloton range, and mass about 100kg. Better understanding of fission ignition has reduced the nuclear material requirement down to a kilogram or less.A nuclear detonation only lasts a microsecond, so we can assume that the entire energy of the unit is delivered to the target in a single pulse of duration 10-6 seconds. As the particles produced expand in a cone with an angle θ, we can use the following equation to calculate the destructive potential at various distances:
Intensity = (Yield * Efficiency * 10^6) / (3.14 * (tan(θ) * Distance) ^2)
Irradiance = (Yield * Efficiency) / (3.14 * (tan(θ) * Distance) ^2)
Intensity is measured in watts per square meter. Irradiance is joules per square meter. Yield is how much energy the nuclear charge delivers, converted to joules. Efficiency ranges from the 0.85 of a propulsion unit to the 0.05 of a Casaba Howitzer. θ is the cone angle. Distance is between the nuclear detonation and the target, in meters.
Let us calculate some examples:
Small Casaba Howitzer (50kg)
0.01 radian directivity (0.057 degrees)
5kt yield, 10% efficiency: 2.09TJ
Distance
1km: Irradiance = 673GJ/m^2
Distance 10km: Irradiance = 6.7GJ/m^2
Distance 100km: Irradiance = 67.2MJ/m^2
Distance 1000km: Irradiance = 672kJ/m^2
Large Casaba Howitzer (1000kg)
0.001 radian directivity (0.0057 degrees)
1Mt yield, 5% efficiency: 209TJ
Distance 1km: Irradiance = 6728TJ/m^2
Distance 10km: Irradiance = 67.3GJ/m^2
Distance 100km: Irradiance = 672MJ/m^2
Distance 1000km: Irradiance = 6.7MJ/m^2
Based on the efficiency of a Casaba howitzer in converting nuclear energy to kinetic energy (5%, in very optimistic scenarios), as well as the beam's spread over distance, even a megaton-grade warhead is reduced to dozens to hundreds of gigajoules per square meter at 10 kilometers, and in the tiny megajoule range at 100 km- both of these being "knife-fight" range for space warfare. This is also going with the author's optimistic projections rather than actual results (I actually can't find some of the figures he cited in the original documents). To my knowledge, there has only been one NKEW test, that being Chamita. It had 0.007% efficiency using a small nuclear warhead.
But I digress. If we go with Atomic Rockets' made-up numbers and assume you pull a miracle and manage to ignite the missile ON the enemy's shield without it getting intercepted, thus making beam spread irrelevant, you can transfer a maximum of 5% of the bomb yield as kinetic energy (~50 kilotons), at which point you basically just have a slower railgun that can only be used on contact and can only be used one time. More likely it gets intercepted before it gets anywhere close. This is the absolute best case scenario for it, by the way. Atomic Rockets made these calculations assuming scaling this weapon system up to megatons was even feasible. A Princeton physicist who analyzed the tests highly doubted it could scale past 50 kilotons or so due to blackbody x-ray emissions killing efficiency. From the same page, quoting said physicist:
SPARTA Workshop, 1986. This scaling [of efficiency] presumably holds up to about 50 kilotons but, due to blackbody x-ray emission, decreases to about 1 percent for larger yields.
Further:
"There is also a fundamental problem with both the Casaba and Prometheus concepts that becomes relevant at higher yields. Despite the alleged success in directing 5 percent of the energy of a small nuclear explosion into flying debris, a good portion of the remaining energy inevitably becomes blackbody radiation, which would quickly overtake the pellets. Even at 1 kiloton with optimistic assumptions, this poses the risk that most of the particles will be vaporized or even ionized, rendering them ineffective: The NKEW concept is thus one that may require subkiloton explosives to be feasible. If its feasibility also depends on employing shaped thermonuclear explosives to help direct the pellets or dust more efficiently, then the concept is further burdened by the difficulty of designing thermonuclear devices with yields less than 1 kiloton. Whatever the case may be, it is clear that demonstrating a rush of hypervelocity pellets from a nuclear blast, while perhaps impressive, in no way guarantees that a useful weapon will ever be derived from this concept."
The concept hasn't been extensively tested (at least that we know of), the tests that we do have don't paint a good picture, and there's no guarantee of the concept ever bearing fruit. Some are optimistic and some are skeptical. But even in the best case scenario, it's not a super weapon and is largely inferior to a mass accelerator.
"But what about bomb-pumped lasers? Those aren't kinetic, so they'd entirely bypass kinetic barriers. You wouldn't need kilotons."
Point number six. Bomb-pumped lasers are also discussed in the page. The author quickly dismisses them by citing research that shows their efficiency would be something like one-hundred thousandth of one percent.
The concept has many problems that prevent it from being a useful replacement for conventional lasers. You first need to expend a nuclear warhead, which is a terribly wasteful use of fissile material. Only a tiny fraction of the warhead’s X-rays, which are emitted in all directions, are intercepted by the metal tube. From those, a tiny fraction of its energy is converted into coherent X-rays. If you multiply both fractions, you find an exceedinglylow conversion ratio.Further research has revealed this to be on the order of <0.00001%. It also works for just a microsecond, each shot destroys its surroundings and its effective range is limited by relatively poor divergence of the beam. These downsides are acceptable for a system meant to take down a sudden and massive wave of ICBMs at ranges of 100 to 1000 kilometers, but not much else.
You can get a nifty long-range point-defense laser for shooting down thin-skinned ICBMs out of this. Not much else. Even completely ignoring beam divergence, which would be significant, at that point the ship's ablative armor could handle such a low-yield threat without too much trouble. On top of that, it works for just a microsecond, wastes an expensive nuclear bomb, and each shot destroys its surroundings by detonating. If you have fusion reactor-powered lasers, as the civilizations in ME do, you have no use for this.
"Okay. But even if they weren't useful as the primary weapons for space warfare, they still have other uses. So why don't they use them?"
Point number seven: they DO. First there's L'Etoile's quote. Disruptor torpedoes are nukes, on top of warp bombs. He specifies that they have small warheads, but "small" in the context of a fusion warhead must be taken in context. Today, we can practically get around 6 kilotons per kilogram of bomb mass out of our fusion weapons. Assuming the ME races can obtain ratios no better than this (despite their mastery of helium-3-deuterium fusion power, which should logically allow them to build fusion bombs with an order of magnitude superior yield to weight ratio to ours), even a tiny missile warhead like those mounted an AMRAAM (24 kilograms) would get you yields in the hundreds of kilotons. A 5 kg RPG-7/LAW sized warhead would get you 30 kilotons. Of course, at 2 km away a 30 kt device would have an intensity of ~5 MJ/m^2, not enough to melt a cubic meter of iron. Negligible even before you factor in mitigation.
Second there is the planet description for Illium and the codex entry for the Miracle of Palaven, both of which indicate wide employment of nukes, including man-portable ones.
Third, there are various stories that reference their use in Cerberus Daily News. They have lots of nukes and no compunctions about using them where they're effective (read: not in space warfare).
Fourth, there are scenes in the games where their usage is implied but not explicitly stated. The example that comes to mind right now is Jack's loyalty mission. A fringe terrorist group on a shadow budget gives you an apparently man-portable bomb for no reason other than to make one of their mercenaries feel better. This bomb causes a fireball that persists for eight seconds and visibly rocks a large aircraft that was probably dozens of kilometers away (it had been accelerating in the opposite direction for nearly thirty seconds on-screen and had been doing so for an unknown but significant amount of time off-screen), putting its yield in the low megatons. They think nothing of just throwing these kinds of weapons away for no reason.
But they mainly use nukes for cost-cutting reasons. Because, and this deserves some emphasis:
Point number eight:
THE MASS EFFECT POWERS HAVE FUCKING ANTIMATTER WARHEADS.
Gianna Parasini: He called in a Code Omega. If there is no all clear, the Executive Board votes on whether or not to destroy the facility. One antimatter warhead from the battlestations vaporizes all contaminants.
...and they're common enough that private corporations can deploy them en masse in their battle stations orbiting a single backwater planet. If a small private corporation can install and maintain orbital based antimatter warheads for the purpose of scrubbing bio-hazards, and a military thousands of years ago could blow hundreds of tons of it in secret (see below), there is clearly sufficient industrialization of antimatter that the cost/benefit of generating, transporting and suspending it is vastly superseded by its commercial availability - so much so that it can be sold to private entities as opposed to more commonly available fusion weapons. Not exactly surprising when matter-antimatter annihilation is the main source of military starship fuel. One half kilogram of antimatter reacting with one half kilogram of normal matter would produce a 43 megaton explosion, orders of magnitude above the energy efficiency of even pure fusion weapons. The main issue with using antimatter as a weapon is containment, a problem that clearly has been solved in ME to the point that antimatter is the power source for every warship. Mass-altering fields make containment easy-peasy.
Of course, antimatter warheads have all the problems of nukes while also being far more expensive, so it's no wonder that no one's jumping at the chance to waste hundreds of them just for the chance to kill a shitbox frigate.
"Even if they didn't use them in space warfare, wouldn't nukes still be good for planetary bombardment?"
Not unless you want to just kill everything on the planet, in which case it's a wonder why you're even attacking it. To rule a rock? Most any mass accelerator of warship scale can kill anything you need killed (enemy formations, armored units, supply depots, communications nodes, orbital battle stations, ground to space batteries, etc.) and reduce the ground-side resistance to dispersed light infantry and technicals without you even needing to get within 100,000 kilometers of the planet.
But they can do it if they want to. The turian bomb on Tuchanka was likely an antimatter bomb (makes sense given that the Citadel Conventions indicate that antimatter warheads existed as far back as the Krogan Rebellions), given its demonstrably impossible energy densities even for pure fusion weapons. Even H3-DT reactions "only" produce about 353 terajoules [85 kilotons] per kilogram. If it goes off, it kills every living thing in a 500 kilometer radius, which going by MIT's nuke calculator equates to a 14.5 teraton (14,500,000,000 kilotons) explosion assuming that the denizens of Tuchanka are no more durable than humans (they are). This would require hundreds of tons of antimatter.
The turians built this as a precaution. In secret. 1,400 years ago.
So yeah, building big bombs is not an issue for a population that considers H3-DT fusion quaint civilian-grade stuff and which has a population measured in the trillions with an effectively post-scarcity level of wealth, where middle class citizens can plausibly buy thousand-ton starships, where multi-billion ton spacecraft can be built as vanity projects by single billionaires, where planet-encircling structures are not notable, and where a single mining operation on a backwater world can shift hundreds of millions of tons of material per day. Building huge bombs wouldn't be an issue even without antimatter or DT-H3 fusion with this level of industry. It wouldn't be an issue with OUR tech base, in fact. Physicist Edward Teller noted the possibility of building 10-gigaton bombs decades ago just by scaling up regular nukes. There's no reason it can't be done. The ME powers (and us, for that matter) just don't do it because why the fuck would they do that? If you attached thrusters to it you'd essentially just get a comically over-sized and slow one-shot starship that is useless at hitting anything more mobile than a space station or planet, given the ease with which any warship could accelerate away (their thrust/weight ratios are going to be higher by definition). And if you've obtained the space superiority necessary to casually deorbit thousands of tons of fusion material/antimatter into the enemy's static position out of spite without retaliation, you're in a position where you can accomplish more damage on the cheap just by throwing an asteroid the size of a small moon at the object of your oddly specific hatred. Kenson and Balak demonstrated this using jury-rigged civilian equipment.
Let's talk about those asteroids for a minute, on the subject of strategic weaponry. Dialogue indicates that X57 is 22km long, as the lead engineer tells you:
"X57 is 22 kilometers long. Twice the size of the asteroid that wiped out the Earth's dinosaurs."
X57 appears to be an ellipsoid shape, slightly more than half as wide & tall as it is long, hence:
V = (4/3)*pi*a*b*cV = (4/3)*pi*11000*6000*6000V = 1.66*10^12 m^3
X57 is a metallic asteroid, and was put into Terra Nova's orbit to be mined, as such it is likely rather dense. Pulling from this paper, it appears that metallic asteroids - while composed of materials with density in the ranges of 7000kg/m^3, have overall densities of 4000kg/m^3. Therefore, X57 likely masses in excess of 6.64e+15 kg, or 6.64 Trillion tons
X57 was put into orbit around Terra Nova before being hijacked by batarian terrorists who planned to crash the asteroid into the planet. During the introductory cutscene, the Normandy VI states that at the current rate of acceleration, the asteroid will hit in 4 hours. Comparing the size of Terra Nova against Earth in Google Earth, X57 appears to be ~20,000 km away from the planet. We arrive shortly after the asteroid has been taken. Taking 4 hours to cross 20,000km would suggest a constant acceleration of 0.1929m/s^2. With the asteroid massing in excess of 6.64 Trillion tons, that would result in the effective force the 3 engines applying being 1.28086E+15 Newtons. This results in the three engines producing a total of 6.12 teratons of energy over their 4 hour burn, with a power of 1.7 exawatts (conservatively, as text entries found in the missions suggest it's actually 300,000 km from Terra Nova). This is consistent with the lead engineer describing the results of the asteroid crashing into the Earth-like planet of Terra Nova, which seem consistent with a planetary extinction event in the high teraton range:
X-57 is twice the size of the asteroid that wiped out the Earth's dinosaurs. It would be like millions of fusion bombs striking at once. With the heat of the blast, a thousand kilometers away, clothes would ignite. There'd be global wildfires. Air shock will flatten everything for hundreds of kilometers. Terra Nova will die, Shepard- not just our colony, the planet. There'll be a climate shift, mass extinctions, the ecosystem won't recover for thousands of years. Millions maybe.
tl;dr
  1. Most missiles are intercepted by point-defense.
  2. Even if they were not intercepted by point-defense, nukes are terrible weapons for space warfare.
  3. Mass Effect warship barriers and accelerations compound the issues with using omni-directional energy burst weapons against them.
  4. An energy burst weapon with thousands of times the yield of a mass accelerator round would be lucky to get even a thousandth of its intensity, therefore the mass accelerator round is actually much better for destroying durable things.
  5. Nuclear shaped charges are slightly less terrible weapons for space warfare, but beam dispersion and inefficiencies render them basically just an (extremely) poor man's mass accelerator, except they only have one shot and can only be used at point-blank range.
  6. Bomb-pumped lasers are specialized weapons with extremely low efficiencies that would be useless for anything other than a very specific type of point-defense.
  7. The Mass Effect races do use nukes, just not usually in space warfare (because they're terrible).
  8. The Mass Effect races have antimatter warheads which do everything objectively better than nukes.
  9. They don't use nucleaantimatter missiles against each other for very specific reasons; they're still fully capable of mass-producing them cheaply for use against civilizations that DON'T have their level of point-defense and speed (i.e., any civilization in sci-fi where small numbers of slow-moving missiles are presented as relevant in space warfare).
  10. Building an oversized bomb that releases gigatons on detonation can be done even by Earth circa the 1990s. It's not a big feat for any civilization that has discovered fusion weapons. The turians built a big bomb that released teratons on detonation. In ME's own context that wasn't a big feat either. In the ME3 trailers, and on the approach to Menae in ME3, we even see multiple large fireballs taking up non-negligible percentages of planetary surfaces (complete with muffled explosion sound effects), indicating that not only do they have the ability to build these weapons easily, they're already keeping stockpiles of them.
Thank you to anyone who made it this far.
submitted by Nihlus11 to CharacterRant [link] [comments]

Did a Military Experimental Vaccine in 1918 Kill 50-100 Million People Blamed as "Spanish Flu"?

The 1918-19 bacterial vaccine experiment may have killed 50-100 million people

by Kevin Barry, President First Freedoms, Inc.
The “Spanish Flu” killed an estimated 50-100 million people during a pandemic 1918-19. What if the story we have been told about this pandemic isn’t true?
What if, instead, the killer infection was neither the flu nor Spanish in origin?
Newly analyzed documents reveal that the “Spanish Flu” may have been a military vaccine experiment gone awry.
In looking back on the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I, we need to delve deeper to solve this mystery.

Summary

​
During the pandemic of 1918-19, the so-called “Spanish Flu” killed 50-100 million people, including many soldiers.
Many people do not realize that disease killed far more soldiers on all sides than machine guns or mustard gas or anything else typically associated with WWI.
I have a personal connection to the Spanish Flu. Among those killed by disease in 1918-19 are members of both of my parents’ families.
On my father’s side, his grandmother Sadie Hoyt died from pneumonia in 1918. Sadie was a Chief Yeoman in the Navy. Her death left my grandmother Rosemary and her sister Anita to be raised by their aunt. Sadie’s sister Marian also joined the Navy. She died from “the influenza” in 1919.
On my mother’s side, two of her father’s sisters died in childhood. All of the family members who died lived in New York City.
I suspect many American families, and many families worldwide, were impacted in similar ways by the mysterious Spanish Flu.
In 1918, “influenza” or flu was a catchall term for disease of unknown origin. It didn’t carry the specific meaning it does today.
It meant some mystery disease which dropped out of the sky. In fact, influenza is from the Medieval Latin “influential” in an astrological sense, meaning a visitation under the influence of the stars.

WHY IS WHAT HAPPENED 100 YEARS AGO IMPORTANT NOW?

Between 1900-1920, there were enormous efforts underway in the industrialized world to build a better society. I will use New York as an example to discuss three major changes to society which occurred in NY during that time and their impact on mortality from infectious diseases.

1. Clean Water and Sanitation

In the late 19th century through the early 20th century, New York built an extraordinary system to bring clean water to the city from the Catskills, a system still in use today. New York City also built over 6000 miles of sewer to take away and treat waste, which protects the drinking water. The World Health Organization acknowledges the importance of clean water and sanitation in combating infectious diseases. (2)

2. Electricity

In the late 19th century through the early 20th century, New York built a power grid and wired the city so power was available in every home. Electricity allows for refrigeration. Refrigeration is an unsung hero as a public health benefit. When food is refrigerated from farm to table, the public is protected from potential infectious diseases. Cheap renewable energy is important for many reasons, including combating infectious diseases.

3. Pharmaceutical

In the late 19th century through the early 20th century, New York became the home of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (now Rockefeller University). The Institute is where the modern pharmaceutical industry was born. The Institute pioneered many of the approaches the pharmaceutical industry uses today, including the preparation of vaccine serums, for better or worse. The vaccine used in the Fort Riley experiment on soldiers was made in horses.
US Mortality Rates data from the turn of the 20th century to 1965 clearly indicates that clean water, flushing toilets, effective sewer systems and refrigerated foods all combined to effectively reduce mortality from infectious diseases BEFORE vaccines for those diseases became available.
Have doctors and the pharmaceutical manufacturers taken credit for reducing mortality from infectious disease which rightfully belongs to sandhogs, plumbers, electricians and engineers?
If hubris at the Rockefeller Institute in 1918 led to a pandemic disease which killed millions of people, what lessons can we learn and apply to 2018?

THE DISEASE WAS NOT SPANISH

While watching an episode of American Experience on PBS a few months ago, I was surprised to hear that the first cases of “Spanish Flu” occurred at Fort Riley, Kansas in 1918. I thought, how is it possible this historically important event could be so badly misnamed 100 years ago and never corrected?
Why “Spanish”?
Spain was one of a few countries not involved in World War I. Most of the countries involved in the war censored their press.
Free from censorship concerns, the earliest press reports of people dying from disease in large numbers came from Spain. The warring countries did not want to additionally frighten the troops, so they were content to scapegoat Spain. Soldiers on all sides would be asked to cross no man’s land into machine gun fire, which was frightening enough without knowing that the trenches were a disease breeding ground.
One hundred years later, it’s long past time to drop “Spanish” from all discussion of this pandemic. If the flu started at a United States military base in Kansas, then the disease could and should be more aptly named.
In order to prevent future disasters, the US (and the rest of the world) must take a hard look at what really caused the pandemic.
It is possible that one of the reasons the Spanish Flu has never been corrected is that it helps disguise the origin of the pandemic.
If the origin of the pandemic involved a vaccine experiment on US soldiers, then the US may prefer calling it Spanish Flu instead of The Fort Riley Bacteria of 1918, or something similar. The Spanish Flu started at the location this experimental bacterial vaccine was given making it the prime suspect as the source of the bacterial infections which killed so many.
It would be much more difficult to maintain the marketing mantra of “vaccines save lives” if a vaccine experiment originating in the United States during the years of primitive manufacturing caused the deaths of 50-100 million people.
“Vaccines save lives … except we may have killed 50-100 million people in 1918-19” is a far less effective sales slogan than the overly simplistic “vaccines save lives.”

THE DISEASE WHICH KILLED SO MANY WAS NOT FLU OR A VIRUS. IT WAS BACTERIAL.

During the mid-2000’s there was much talk about “pandemic preparedness.” Influenza vaccine manufacturers in the United States received billions of taxpayer dollars to develop vaccines to make sure that we don’t have another lethal pandemic “flu,” like the one in 1918-19.
Capitalizing on the “flu” part of Spanish flu helped vaccine manufacturers procure billion dollar checks from governments, even though scientists knew at the time that bacterial pneumonia was the real killer.
It is not my opinion that bacterial pneumonia was the real killer – thousands of autopsies confirm this fact.
According to a 2008 National Institute of Health paper, bacterial pneumonia was the killer in a minimum of 92.7% of the 1918-19 autopsies reviewed. It is likely higher than 92.7%.
The researchers looked at more than 9000 autopsies, and “there were no negative (bacterial) lung culture results.”
“… In the 68 higher-quality autopsy series, in which the possibility of unreported negative cultures could be excluded, 92.7% of autopsy lung cultures were positive for ≥1 bacterium. … in one study of approximately 9000 subjects who were followed from clinical presentation with influenza to resolution or autopsy, researchers obtained, with sterile technique, cultures of either pneumococci or streptococci from 164 of 167 lung tissue samples. There were 89 pure cultures of pneumococci; 19 cultures from which only streptococci were recovered; 34 that yielded mixtures of pneumococci and/or streptococci; 22 that yielded a mixture of pneumococci, streptococci, and other organisms (prominently pneumococci and nonhemolytic streptococci); and 3 that yielded nonhemolytic streptococci alone. There were no negative lung culture results.” (3)
Pneumococci or streptococci were found in “164 of (the) 167 lung tissue samples” autopsied. That is 98.2%. Bacteria was the killer.

WHERE DID THE SPANISH FLU BACTERIAL PNEUMONIA OF 1918-19 ORIGINATE?

When the United States declared war in April 1917, the fledgling Pharmaceutical industry had something they had never had before – a large supply of human test subjects in the form of the US military’s first draft.
Pre-war in 1917, the US Army was 286,000 men. Post-war in 1920, the US army disbanded, and had 296,000 men.
During the war years 1918-19, the US Army ballooned to 6,000,000 men, with 2,000,000 men being sent overseas. The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research took advantage of this new pool of human guinea pigs to conduct vaccine experiments.
A REPORT ON ANTIMENINGITIS VACCINATION AND OBSERVATIONS ON AGGLUTININS IN THE BLOOD OF CHRONIC MENINGOCOCCUS CARRIERS by Frederick L. Gates
From the Base Hospital, Fort Riley, Kansas, and The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York. Received 1918 Jul 20
​
(Author note: Please read the Fort Riley paper in its entirety so you can appreciate the carelessness of the experiments conducted on these troops.)
Between January 21st and June 4th of 1918, Dr. Gates reports on an experiment where soldiers were given 3 doses of a bacterial meningitis vaccine. Those conducting the experiment on the soldiers were just spitballing dosages of a vaccine serum made in horses.
The vaccination regime was designed to be 3 doses. 4,792 men received the first dose, but only 4,257 got the 2nd dose (down 11%), and only 3702 received all three doses (down 22.7%).
A total of 1,090 men were not there for the 3rd dose. What happened to these soldiers? Were they shipped East by train from Kansas to board a ship to Europe? Were they in the Fort Riley hospital? Dr. Gates’ report doesn’t tell us.
An article accompanying the American Experience broadcast I watched sheds some light on where these 1,090 men might be. Gates began his experiments in January 1918.
By March of that year, “100 men a day” were entering the infirmary at Fort Riley.
Are some of these the men missing from Dr. Gates’ report – the ones who did not get the 2nd or 3rd dose?
“… Shortly before breakfast on Monday, March 11, the first domino would fall signaling the commencement of the first wave of the 1918 influenza. Company cook Albert Gitchell reported to the camp infirmary with complaints of a “bad cold.” Right behind him came Corporal Lee W. Drake voicing similar complaints. By noon, camp surgeon Edward R. Schreiner had over 100 sick men on his hands, all apparently suffering from the same malady…” (5)
Gates does report that several of the men in the experiment had flu-like symptoms: coughs, vomiting and diarrhea after receiving the vaccine.
These symptoms are a disaster for men living in barracks, travelling on trains to the Atlantic coast, sailing to Europe, and living and fighting in trenches.
The unsanitary conditions at each step of the journey are an ideal environment for a contagious disease like bacterial pneumonia to spread.
From Dr. Gates’ report:
“Reactions.– … Several cases of looseness of the bowels or transient diarrhea were noted. This symptom had not been encountered before. Careful inquiry in individual cases often elicited the information that men who complained of the effects of vaccination were suffering from mild coryza, bronchitis, etc., at the time of injection.” “Sometimes the reaction was initiated by a chill or chilly sensation, and a number of men complained of fever or feverish sensations during the following night. Next in frequency came nausea (occasionally vomiting), dizziness, and general “aches and pains” in the joints and muscles, which in a few instances were especially localized in the neck or lumbar region, causing stiff neck or stiff back. A few injections were followed by diarrhea. The reactions, therefore, occasionally simulated the onset of epidemic meningitis and several vaccinated men were sent as suspects to the Base Hospital for diagnosis.”(4)
According to Gates, they injected random dosages of an experimental bacterial meningitis vaccine into soldiers. Afterwards, some of the soldiers had symptoms which “simulated” meningitis, but Dr. Gates advances the fantastical claim that it wasn’t actual meningitis.
The soldiers developed flu-like symptoms. Bacterial meningitis, then and now, is known to mimic flu-like symptoms. (6)
Perhaps the similarity of early symptoms of bacterial meningitis and bacterial pneumonia to symptoms of flu is why the vaccine experiments at Fort Riley have been able to escape scrutiny as a potential cause of the Spanish Flu for 100 years and counting.

HOW DID THE “SPANISH FLU” SPREAD SO WIDELY SO QUICKLY?

There is an element of a perfect storm in how the Gates bacteria spread. WWI ended only 10 months after the first injections. Unfortunately for the 50-100 million who died, those soldiers injected with horse-infused bacteria moved quickly during those 10 months.
An article from 2008 on the CDC’s website describes how sick WWI soldiers could pass along the bacteria to others by becoming “cloud adults.”
“Finally, for brief periods and to varying degrees, affected hosts became “cloud adults” who increased the aerosolization of colonizing strains of bacteria, particularly pneumococci, hemolytic streptococci, H. influenzae, and S. aureus. For several days during local epidemics—particularly in crowded settings such as hospital wards, military camps, troop ships, and mines (and trenches)—some persons were immunologically susceptible to, infected with, or recovering from infections with influenza virus. Persons with active infections were aerosolizing the bacteria that colonized their noses and throats, while others—often, in the same “breathing spaces”—were profoundly susceptible to invasion of and rapid spread through their lungs by their own or others’ colonizing bacteria.” (1)
Three times in his report on the Fort Riley vaccine experiment, Dr. Gates states that some soldiers had a “severe reaction” indicating “an unusual individual susceptibility to the vaccine”.
While the vaccine made many sick, it only killed those who were susceptible to it. Those who became sick and survived became “cloud adults” who spread the bacteria to others, which created more cloud adults, spreading to others where it killed the susceptible, repeating the cycle until there were no longer wartime unsanitary conditions, and there were no longer millions of soldiers to experiment on.
The toll on US troops was enormous and it is well documented. Dr. Carol Byerly describes how the “influenza” traveled like wildfire through the US military. (substitute “bacteria” for Dr. Byerly’s “influenza” or “virus”):
“… Fourteen of the largest training camps had reported influenza outbreaks in March, April, or May, and some of the infected troops carried the virus with them aboard ships to France … As soldiers in the trenches became sick, the military evacuated them from the front lines and replaced them with healthy men. This process continuously brought the virus into contact with new hosts—young, healthy soldiers in which it could adapt, reproduce, and become extremely virulent without danger of burning out. … Before any travel ban could be imposed, a contingent of replacement troops departed Camp Devens (outside of Boston) for Camp Upton, Long Island, the Army’s debarkation point for France, and took influenza with them. Medical officers at Upton said it arrived “abruptly” on September 13, 1918, with 38 hospital admissions, followed by 86 the next day, and 193 the next. Hospital admissions peaked on October 4 with 483, and within 40 days, Camp Upton sent 6,131 men to the hospital for influenza. Some developed pneumonia so quickly that physicians diagnosed it simply by observing the patient rather than listening to the lungs…” (7) The United States was not the only country in possession of the Rockefeller Institute’s experimental bacterial vaccine. A 1919 report from the Institute states: “Reference should be made that before the United States entered the war (in April 1917) the Institute had resumed the preparation of antimeningococcic serum, in order to meet the requests of England, France, Belgium Italy and other countries.” The same report states: “In order to meet the suddenly increased demand for the curative serums worked out at the Institute, a special stable for horses was quickly erected …” (8)
An experimental antimeningoccic serum made in horses and injected into soldiers who would be entering the cramped and unsanitary living conditions of war … what could possibly go wrong?
Is the bacterial serum made in horses at the Rockefeller Institute which was injected into US soldiers and distributed to numerous other countries responsible for the 50-100 million people killed by bacterial lung infections in 1918-19?
The Institute says it distributed the bacterial serum to England, France, Belgium, Italy and other countries during WWI. Not enough is known about how these countries experimented on their soldiers.
I hope independent researchers will take an honest look at these questions.

THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS

I do not believe that anyone involved in these vaccine experiments was trying to harm anyone.
Some will see the name Rockefeller and yell. “Illuminati!” or “culling the herd!”
I do not believe that’s what happened.
I believe standard medical hubris is responsible – doctors “playing God”, thinking they can tame nature without creating unanticipated problems.
With medical hubris, I do not think the situation has changed materially over the past 100 years.

WHAT NOW?

The vaccine industry is always looking for human test subjects. They have the most success when they are able to find populations who not in a position to refuse.
Soldiers (9), infants, the disabled, prisoners, those in developing nations – anyone not in a position to refuse.
Vaccine experimentation on vulnerable populations is not an issue of the past. Watch this video clip of Dr. Stanley Plotkin where he describes using experimental vaccines on orphans, the mentally retarded, prisoners, and those under colonial rule.
The deposition was in January 2018. The hubris of the medical community is the same or worse now than it was 100 years ago.
Watch as Dr. Plotkin admits to writing:
“The question is whether we are to have experiments performed on fully functioning adults and on children who are potentially contributors to society or to perform initial studies in children and adults who are human in form but not in social potential.”
Please watch the horrifying video clip. (10)
In part because the global community is well aware of medical hubris and well aware of the poor record of medical ethics, the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights developed international standards regarding the right to informed consent to preventative medical procedures like vaccination.
The international community is well aware that the pharmaceutical industry makes mistakes and is always on the lookout for human test subjects. The Declaration states that individuals have the human right to consent to any preventative medical intervention like vaccination.

Article 3 – Human dignity and human rights

  1. Human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms are to be fully respected.
    1. The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.

Article 6 – Consent

  1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. T
he consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice. (11)
Clean water, sanitation, flushing toilets, refrigerated foods and healthy diets have done and still do far more to protect humanity from infectious diseases than any vaccine program.
Doctor and the vaccine industry have usurped credit which rightfully belongs to plumbers, electricians, sandhogs, engineers and city planners.
For these reasons, policy makers at all levels of government should protect the human rights and individual liberties of individuals to opt out of vaccine programs via exemptions.
The hubris of the medical community will never go away. Policy makers need to know that vaccines like all medical interventions are not infallible.
Vaccines are not magic. We all have different susceptibility to disease. Human beings are not one size fits all.
In 1918-19, the vaccine industry experimented on soldiers, likely with disastrous results.
In 2018, the vaccine industry experiments on infants every day. The vaccine schedule has never been tested as it is given. The results of the experiment are in: 1 in 7 American children is in some form of special education and over 50% have some form of chronic illness. (12)
In 1918-19, there was no safety follow up after vaccines were delivered.
In 2018, there is virtually no safety follow up after a vaccine is delivered.
Who exactly gave you that flu shot at Rite Aid? Do you have their cell number of the store employee if something goes wrong?
In 1918-19, there was no liability to the manufacturer for injuries or death caused by vaccines.
In 2018, there is no liability for vaccine manufacturers for injuries or death caused by vaccines, which was formalized in 1986. (13)
In 1918-19, there was no independent investigative follow up challenging the official story that “Spanish Flu” was some mystery illness which dropped from the sky. I suspect that many of those at the Rockefeller Institute knew what happened, and that many of the doctors who administered the vaccines to the troops knew what happened, but those people are long dead.
In 2018, the Pharmaceutical industry is the largest campaign donor to politicians and the largest advertiser in all forms of media, so not much has changed over 100 years.
This story will likely be ignored by mainstream media because their salaries are paid by pharmaceutical advertising.
The next time you hear someone say “vaccines save lives” please remember that the true story of the cost/benefit of vaccines is much more complicated than their three word slogan. Also remember that vaccines may have killed 50-100 million people in 1918-19. If true, those costs greatly outweighed any benefit, especially considering that plumbers, electricians, sandhogs and engineers did, and continue to do, the real work which reduces mortality from disease.
Vaccines are not magic. Human rights and bioethics are critically important. Policy makers should understand the history of medical hubris and protect individual and parental human rights as described in the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights.
​

References

  1. Deaths from Bacterial Pneumonia during 1918–19 Influenza Pandemic John F. Brundage* and G. Dennis Shanks† Author affiliations: *Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA; †Australian Army Malaria Institute, Enoggera, Queensland, Australia https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/14/8/07-1313_article
2. World Health Organization: Unsafe drinking water, sanitation and waste management http://www.who.int/sustainable-development/cities/health-risks/water-sanitation/en/
  1. J Infect Dis. 2008 Oct 1; 198(7): 962–970. Predominant Role of Bacterial Pneumonia as a Cause of Death in Pandemic Influenza: Implications for Pandemic Influenza Preparedness David M. Morens, Jeffery K. Taubenberger, and Anthony S. Fauci https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2599911/
  2. PDF of Fort Riley Study (1918) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2126288/pdf/449.pdf
  3. American Experience, “The First Wave”, PBS https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/influenza-first-wave/
  4. Mayo Clinic: Meningitis www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/meningitis/symptoms-causes/syc-20350508
  5. Public Health Rep. 2010; 125(Suppl 3): 82–91. The U.S. Military and the Influenza Pandemic of 1918–1919 Carol R. Byerly, PhD https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862337/
  6. Rockefeller Institute pamphlet PDF (1919) https://digitalcommons.rockefeller.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=rockefeller-institute-descriptive-pamphlet
  7. Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans’ Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century, A Staff Report Prepared for the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, United States Senate, December 1994 https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=438835
  8. Dr. Stanley Plotkin: vaccine experiments on orphans, the mentally retarded, and others (January 2018) https://youtu.be/yevV_slu7Dw
  9. Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (19 October 2005) http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
  10. CDC Offers New Stats On Disability Prevalence https://www.disabilityscoop.com/2016/03/14/cdc-disability-prevalence/22034/
  11. 1986 Vaccine Injury Compensation Act https://worldmercuryproject.org/news/childhood-vaccine-injury-act-protect/
  12. https://vaccineimpact.com/2018/did-military-experimental-vaccine-in-1918-kill-50-100-million-people-blamed-as-spanish-flu/
submitted by PrestigiousProof to conspiracy [link] [comments]

hazardous waste management report pdf video

ADV HAZARDOUS WASTE INSPECTOR TRAINING (Part 2 of 2) Hazardous Waste Overview - YouTube BASICS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TRAINING FOR INDUSTRY - YouTube ISYS Waste Management Software - YouTube Solid Waste Management - YouTube Solid Waste Management English - YouTube Household Hazardous Waste Project All About Town, NRPC Hazardous Waste Disposal Solid Waste Management - Environmental Studies - YouTube Household Hazardous Waste Depot

Explore Hazardous Waste Managment with Free Download of Seminar Report and PPT in PDF and DOC Format. Also Explore the Seminar Topics Paper on Hazardous Waste Managment with Abstract or Synopsis, Documentation on Advantages and Disadvantages, Base Paper Presentation Slides for IEEE Final Year Civil Engineering CE or IEEE Civil Construction BTech, BE, MTech Students for the year 2015 2016. Hazardous Waste Report Forms; You may need a PDF reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA’s About PDF page to learn more. Hazardous Waste Report: Instructions and Form (PDF) (73 pp, 826 K, OMB #2050-0024; Expires 05/31/2020) Hazardous Waste Management (HWM) is a very important issue and is assuming significance globally. There is no proper secured landfill facility available in India to dispose of Hazardous Waste (HW The Study on Mater Plan for Hazardous Waste Management in Romania Final Report Japan International Cooperation Agency Volume 1 Main Report: Strategy and Action Plan 5. Treatment and Disposal of Hazardous Waste 5.1 Current Conditions Hazardous waste management is variable in Romania, management of organic wastes from the oil sector and organic chemicals sector has in the past been fairly good hazardous waste management activity (i.e., containers, tank systems, drip pads, surface impoundments, waste piles, land treatment, landfills, containment buildings, and incinerators). As a subset to each category of hazardous waste management activity, the user will find additional bookmarks If yes, has all hazardous waste been removed from area or unit: Yes No Describe the area and its location, types of waste(s) and method(s) of storage: . . . . Have hazardous waste management unit(s) been decontaminated and/or equipment, structures, and soil been removed for proper disposal: Yes No Comments: . . Hazardous Waste Management in Japan: A report. January 2016; Authors: Luís Paulo Sant'ana. Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri; Download full-text PDF Read full-text Hazardous Waste Management Performance Report Guidance Manual Chapter 6 . Pollution Prevention and Hazardous Waste Source Reduction and Management Review Act . Purpose Document generators’ current hazardous waste management efforts. Discuss generators’ approaches to managing hazardous waste over last 4 years (2010-2014). Share what worked and what didn’t work with agencies and the public Hazardous waste management plans are some of the lengthier and more detailed 'forms' used in the industries, but they are incredibly important for the general functioning of a project and project logistics. Poorly managed hazardous waste poses a constant danger to people, equipment and assets, and late or last-minute waste collection can also end up costing your company additional money in report prepared by the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA). The report was then revised, benefiting from stakeholder perspectives and input. The views expressed in the report remain those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Environment Programme or the individuals and organisations that participated in the consultation. Waste Management

hazardous waste management report pdf top

[index] [3992] [8631] [8997] [240] [8902] [952] [7222] [8671] [7215] [5]

ADV HAZARDOUS WASTE INSPECTOR TRAINING (Part 2 of 2)

LCC used their household hazardous waste guide as a springboard for this work. The project was facilitated by a Tidy Towns committee and LCC now plans to roll it out to as many TT groups as they ... Local Pelham, New Hampshire Show with Host Bill McDevitt involving Hazardous Waste Disposal Day in Nashua New Hampshire sponsored by the N.R.P.C. (Nashua Reg... Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. This session will focus on Land Disposal Restrictions, management of Universal Waste, and shipping hazardous waste. Participants will learn what the LDRs are and how to determine significant waste ... -- Created using PowToon -- Free sign up at http://www.powtoon.com/youtube/ -- Create animated videos and animated presentations for free. PowToon is a free... Lecture Notes: http://www.edmerls.com/index.php/Environmental%20Studies/For Unedited raw footage ask in comment box. http://www.stjohns.ca The Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Depot at Robin Hood Bay Waste Management Facility at 340 East White Hills Road is open two days a w... An animation all about ISYS Interactive Systems software solutions that are available. Training will introduce hazardous waste generators to Federal and State regulations applicable to hazardous waste generators. Determining generator status (L... Welcome to Boulder County, surrounded by over 98,000 acres of recreational open spaces, and home to Colorado's’ largest state university, Boulder County is a...

hazardous waste management report pdf

Copyright © 2024 top.onlinerealmoneygame.xyz