damage,damages,storm damage,storm damage,hurricane damage,water damage houston,water damage miami,fire damage restoration,fire damage,brain damage,flood damage,damage video,fire smoke damage,property damage,the damage done,hurricane damages
April 11, 1965 is still remembered by many: that day a brutal string of tornados hit the states of Iowa, Indiana, and Michigan with wind gusts as high as 318 miles per hour, killing 250 people and injuring some 1500 others. The first funnel cloud hit the ground at 1 p.m. With others following at varying intervals, up to 5:30 pm. The storms intensified as they day progressed. An F4 storm hit Koontz Lake, Indiana and 2 other twisters hit Wakarusa, and Goshen, doing massive damage to homes, and local infrastructure.
More storms continued to found over the course of that same day. The worst of the tornados, an F5 storm with winds reaching speeds of up to 318 miles per hour landed at Elkhart Indiana and destroyed the Sunnyside subdivision killing over 30 people. One of the funnel clouds was a ample eight hundred yards wide, leaving a trail of devastation in its path. Telephone and electrical lines where knocked out by the high winds. The phone system was down and, as a result, local city officials where unable to warn others in the path of the storm of the severe danger. The day progressed and tornados hit many other counties. The damage from all these rapidly occurring storms was devastating.
The impact that these storms had on the area was huge. The U.S. Weather bureau conducted a full investigation after the storm and established the need for better methods to delineate warnings to residents and officials in other areas of approaching storms. It was just a diminutive while after this that the Weather service started to put out announcements indicating that tornados where likely to form and where they were traveling once they had hit the ground.
The economic consequences of these storms were felt in all three states. Houses where completely destroyed, and all the major utilities took damage. Local businesses had to close and supervene repairs and millions of dollars had to be spent to clean up the mess that was left by the roving storms. The loss of company and personal facts alone can hardly be calculated.
Once again local residents and company across the three states where caught by surprise and hurt or killed as a result. Tornados by there very natures are very hard to forecast. Unlike other storms that can be seen as they approach, a tornado can, in effect, form right on top of you and hit you when you least expect it. The need to take proper precautions is essential to ensuring the protection of local residents and businesses. Yet even that may not be enough. Protecting your own company infrastructure, records and facts can be an essential component to your own salvage process in the event a major disaster strikes.
Some Of The Worst Tornados In Us History supervene In massive DamageProtecting your home against flood damage is far less costly than repairing damage, and after the nation witnessed and/or experienced the nightmare left in the path of Hurricane Katrina, most are quicker to be preventative, and though in levee failure situation of that natural disaster, even the most detailed arresting would not have halted the tragedy, most situations are not catastrophic, and a few relatively inexpensive hazard mitigations can save your home and your belongings in the event of flood conditions.
Start on the face of your home with the intent of stopping water from even getting into your residence. If we are in the midst of an additional one Deity invoked great flood or an additional one Hurricane Katrina, an ounce of arresting is worth nothing, but in most circumstances, some minor adjustments can be made to combat the water.
Beginning with the most minor repair, be sure to take observation of leaks, cracks, and incurring water damage to your home, fix it promptly. Water spots on the ceiling, cracks in the foundation, and cracks of any sort everywhere in the home are open places for water to flow. Water is a natural force that will find entry, and allowing these things to go without repair are open invitations for entry into your home.
Moving on to the face of your home, make safe bet that you enounce your gutters. Check them annually, especially before the rainy season in your area, for cracks, holes, missing connectors, or just plain wear and tear. Replace all needed parts, and periodically clean out debris. Clogged gutters will prevent them from doing their job and can lead to flood damage, creating a run off of water from your roof that can literally saturate your yard, especially the area close to your house.
Once the area is saturated around the house, nature will force itself into areas that can hold moisture, and that area will be inside of your home. It is also leading to check your neighborhood's storm drains. If they are filled with debris, water will back up on your streets and then, guess where? Even though the city is ultimately responsible for the storm drains, do yourself and your neighbors the favor of keeping an eye on them.
If flooding is a major concern on and around your land, consider building a flood wall. This wall will keep runoff water from flowing into your house, and even though it may seem costly, it surly is less costly than repairing flood damage and rebuilding repeatedly.
Flood Damage stoppage MethodsThe 22-year history of breast implant litigation provides us with a most important lesson. Specifically, scientific study must precede manufactures and marketing. Even if the scientific data is provided after the fact, it does not stop a legal disaster from unfolding. The lack of this data in the 1990s led to a 14-year ban on silicone gel implants, billions spent in two class performance suits, over 20,000 personel lawsuits, and the temporary collapse of an whole industry. The following attempts to summarize this story:
1977: A Houston attorney won the first breast implant lawsuit for a Cleveland woman who claimed her implants had caused pain and suffering. She received a 0,000 settlement from Dow Corning and the case received itsybitsy publicity.
1980s: Raph Naders communal people study Group sent out warnings that silicone breast implants cause cancer.
1984: A California attorney won a case for Maria Stern who claimed that her autoimmune disease was caused by her breast implants. Evidence was introduced from Dow Cornings own internal documents that they had been aware of high rupture rates and gel bleed with the second-generation implants. Expert witnesses theorized the siliconeimmune link for the first time. The San Francisco court awarded 1,000 in compensatory damages and .5 million in punitive damages.
1990: A television program, Face to Face with Connie Chung aired, discussing the dangers of silicone gel-filled breast implants. communal concern mounted, and a Congressional hearing was held on the security of breast implants.
July, 1991: Dow Corning released 329 studies to the Fda. In a separate lawsuit against Baxter/Heyer-Schulte, an Alabama court awarded a .4 million settlement to Brenda Toole, who showed only introductory symptoms of systemic autoimmune disease, but had silicone in her lymph nodes. Expert witnesses stated that she was thus at increased risk of developing autoimmune disease.
December, 1991: Attorney Dan Bolton, who won the case for Maria Stern, won someone else case for Mariann Hopkins who claimed that her mixed connective tissue disease was associated to her ruptured silicone breast implants.
February, 1992: A class performance lawsuit was filed in Cincinnati by Stan Chesley. The hope was to compensate women at a faster rate than filing personel lawsuits. The Fda Panel recommended that the added use of silicone implants be itsybitsy for reconstruction only. The panel also finished that no causal link has yet been established between auto-immune disease and silicone breast implants.
March, 1992: Dow Corning, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Bioplasty all left the breast implant business. Dow Corning set up a fund for added study into the security of breast implants.
April, 1992: The Fda located a ban on the use of silicone breast implants surface of an Fda-approved study study. The only women allowed to receive implants were those undergoing breast reconstruction. All of the implant recipients must come to be part of a scientific protocol.
March, 1994: A class performance lawsuit was finalized by the manufacturers, including Dow Corning, Baxter, Bristol-Meyers Squibb/Mec, and 3M. At .4 billion, it was then the largest class performance lawsuit in history. Women would be allowed to drop out of the settlement if they choose. Companies could also opt out if too few women register claims.
June, 1994: Mayo Clinic epidemiologists published a record in the New England Journal of medicine which finds no increased risk of connective tissue disease in women with silicone breast implants.
1995: The American College of Rheumatology issued a statement that the evidence is compelling that implants do not cause systemic disease.
May, 1995: Dow Corning filed for lesson 11 Bankruptcy, with over 20,000 personel lawsuits pending. Over 410,000 have filed claims in the class performance settlement. The bankruptcy essentially halted all litigation.
November, 1995: A new global settlement was advanced without Dow Corning.
December, 1995: More than 20 scientific studies and abstracts have been published showing no causal connection between silicone implants and a variety of auto-immune diseases.
September, 1996: The California Court of Appeals upheld a decision dismissing Dow Corning from 1,800 lawsuits.
December, 1996: An Oregon Federal Judge ruled that plaintiffs lawyers cannot present evidence that silicone implants caused disease because it is scientifically invalid. Seventy claims were dismissed.
January, 1997: The American Academy of Neurology reviewed existing studies and reported that there is no link between silicone breast implants and neurological disease.
March, 1997: A Michigan Judge ruled that Dow Corning is not liable for hundreds of women in the state.
September, 1997: The Journal of the National Cancer manufacture published a present of scores of medical studies that concludes breast implants do not cause breast cancer. The researchers described the evidence for linking implants to any other disease as "borderline."
April, 1998: Two large scientific studies failed to show that silicone implants are associated to neurological disease.
December, 1998: After two years and 0,000, a panel of four independent experts appointed by Judge Sam C. Pointer, overseer of implant lawsuits in the Federal courts, finished that scientific evidence so far has failed to show that silicone breast implants cause disease.
June, 1999: The manufacture of medicine released a 400-page record prepared by an independent committee of 13 scientists. They finished that although silicone breast implants may be responsible for localized problems such as hardening or scarring of breast tissue, implants do not cause any major diseases such as lupus or rheumatoid arthritis. The manufacture of medicine is part of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation's most prestigious scientific organization. Congress had asked the manufacture to set up the committee.
August, 2004: August of 2004 was the deadline for registering for the re-negotiated global settlement with Dow Corning, which they established after coming out of lesson 13 bankruptcy. By this time, most all personel lawsuits against Dow Corning had been thrown out or dropped. The breast implant litigation era ended with itsybitsy media fanfare.
November, 2006: The Fda lifted the ban on silicone gel filled implants, 14? years later. By now, silicone implants sold are fourth generation implants which are much improved over the second generation implants with the thin walls and high gel bleed that led to all the media attention. The added improved fifth generation implants are still not Fda approved, but are ready in other countries.
History of Breast Silicone Implant Litigation - 1977-1999Norway is the place where rainscreen cladding had its birth. It was not a scientific breakthrough, however, but more a gradual discovery that happened centuries ago in a largely intuitive way. Norwegian builders, probably through trial and error, found a way to utilise drained and back-ventilated cladding with joints that were both accomplished and open.
The first structure to have this type of cladding were large barns. This is why they called it "the open-jointed barn technique." The timber cladding had accomplished joints with opening at the top and at the bottom of the timber to allow for water drainage, and also for the evaporation of any rain moisture that managed to jab inside.
Scientific research of the basic law of a rainscreen didn't start until as late as the 1940s. It was fast recognised that the law complex in rainscreen cladding was vastly classic to anyone else in use at the time. That still holds true today.
The early research accomplished that it is unwise to allow walls made of brick or cement to be exposed to rain over a long period of time without having anyone to preclude the porous nature of the materials from animated water in a way that is similar to blotting paper.
The idea of fitting an outer screen wall to porous brick and cement walls that could repel rainwater was adopted. It was also easy to make this screen aesthetically pleasing at the same time. Just because its former purpose is to serve as a rainscreen, there is no presume why it can't look good too.
The outer screen also needs to have strength qualities and it needs to have an acceptably low cost. The compose also needs to be such that it can, through proper ventilation, remove any water vapour that finds its way into the space between the wall and the cladding.
The Alcoa building in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania was one of the first very large structure to utilise contemporary rainscreen cladding. The 30-story building was built with large baffled aluminium panels. The baffling provided resistance to penetration from water and the ventilation to dry and water moisture was provided in the airspace between the cladding and the main wall.
In the early 1960s the Norwegian building research compose published the idea of equalising the air pressure between the screen and the wall with the air pressure on the outside. This has the effect of preventing water penetrating into the wall. The rainscreen prevents the actual wall becoming excessively wet.
The terms "rainscreen principle" and "open rainscreen" were first used in 1963 by the National research Council of Canada. research continued through the 1960s and 1970s with refinements being made principally in Canada and in Europe.
By the 1980s the law of rainscreen cladding was well understood. Its use has proliferated, especially in Europe, and experimentation with varied distinct materials is ongoing. Today, the potential problems that may arise through the effects of global warming is now being taken into observation in building techniques and business standards about rainscreen systems.
A Potted History of Rainscreen CladdingI have written this report so that employers can understand their general duties under the CoShh regulations (2002). It will also be beneficial to security people, condition and security professionals and other that are curious in condition and security yielding pertaining to the safe use of dangerous substances.
CoShh stands for the control of Substances dangerous to condition which is a regulation that applies to every enterprise in the United Kingdom. Some businesses believe that if they have less than five employees? they do not have to abide by the CoShh regulations, however this is not the case.
Your enterprise will inevitably be using some products that include substances. These products can be thinners, air fresheners, washing up liquid, lubricants and much much more. If you do use these then you need to bind to the CoShh regulations. The guess for this is because you may subject not only your employee but the social to any one of these substances and therefore there Must be arresting of damage to condition put in place.
As a basic example, dream a decorator who is painting a home working as a sub contractor for a larger enterprise. The decorator mixes white spirits with the paint he is using to help thin the paint before application. This is a relatively lowly and every day process for a decorator.
Here are the potential risks to condition from this process:
1. Dermatitis caused by the decorator not wearing suitable hand security (gloves) from white spirits. The security Data Sheet for paint may say that it is non-hazardous; however the constructor and provider of the Sds did not take into catalogue the use of the thinners and has no legal enforcement to do so.
2. The decorator may leave white spirits or paint lying about the home of the customer and this may come into the hands of a child.
3. White spirits is highly flammable and the white spirits or paint clarification may become exposed to a naked flame and cause a fire. Does the decorator smoke?
For this guess we must carry out CoShh risk appraisal and not just risk assessment. CoShh risk appraisal is unique and must be treated separately from all other forms of risk appraisal that a enterprise would do under the requirements of the condition and security at Work Act. This is why chemical risk appraisal has its own regulation so that it can be treated as a separate animal.
There is no requirement to be considerable to yield a CoShh assessment. In fact there is no legal quality acceptable that a CoShh appraisal must follow. The guess for this is because if you have a CoShh appraisal and an accident occurs then is has failed and it wasn't good enough. Thereafter there will be repercussions the extent of which will be decided on the cheap controls that where put in place to preclude the incident occurring.
So the facility is that if you yield a CoShh assessment, you must yield the best CoShh appraisal you can. If you do not you may receive heavy fines both to the enterprise and personally with the potential of imprisonment for severe breaches of the regulation for Directors' or the offending party.
Remember ignorance will not be tolerated by the condition and security Executive! If you are going to take on the accountability of producing CoShh assessments for your enterprise then you must understand both the task that is being performed by the operator and the substance that is being used. The substance and the environment it is used in must be considered when production the task safe through CoShh risk assessment. I suggest that you at least take a basic risk appraisal policy so that you can become well-known with assessment. This will help you so understand not only the risk posed but also that control mechanisms that can be put in place as prevention.
If you have many chemicals and many processes that are being carried out Do Not be tempted to download template assessments from appraisal vendors. This is not only frowned upon by the condition and security executive but is a valuable risk to the operator who may be carrying out a task differently. The man who produced the appraisal you downloaded may not know that the decorator was using white spirits as a thinner or perhaps any of the other substances the use during their working day or even at home. This is why the risk assessor must have seen the process, must have spoken with the operator so that all risks can be assessed as they are and not as they are assumed to be.
Do Not let a straightforward clarification land you with heavy fines, damage the condition of your workers or land you behind bars. Whether yield your own assessments of bring a condition and security consultant onto your site to carry out the CoShh assessments.
It is advisable that you find a CoShh management clarification to help control your CoShh assessments and to remind to you to periodically recite each of your assessments. If something in the process changes then a CoShh appraisal needs to be reviewed. If a security Data Sheet is updated by a constructor then you Must have the newest copy and you Must recite your CoShh assessment.
There are online assistance providers that can supply management solutions to help you control your CoShh compliance. CoShh is a scholar subject to it is advisable that if you don't know, then ask!
If you have read this report and you do not have CoShh assessments in place and they have not been provided to your workers, then take it from me that you are doing something very wrong. If you think that your enterprise does not use dangerous substances then think again, even in an office products are used that include chemicals and you would be surprised what your workers can get up to with them!
The condition and security executive are seldom surprised because they've seen it and heard it all before. Did you know that flour dust and poor ventilation led to a school chef developing severe asthma? No? Well you probably wouldn't have plan of that unless you'd carried out an appraisal and this claim would have cost you £200,000 in compensation.
So, please think again, do you literally use dangerous substances?
A Brief History of CoShh estimation
RSS Feed (xml)