All Healthy News

Clean Air. Pure Water. Healthy Home.

HEALTH BEGINS WITH:
Clean Air. Pure Water. Healthy Homes.

Staff Reporter

Masks optional for Kent School District students, staff

by

Masks will be optional in the Kent School District as it follows guidelines set by the state Department of Health for K-12 schools.

The state Department of Health released new requirements and recommendations to control COVID-19 and risk exposure in educational and child care settings as the number of cases drop across the state and the nation.

“The DOH requirements and the additional mitigation strategies KSD (Kent School District) has chosen to continue to require, effective March 12, 2022, will continue to support the health and safety of students and staff,” said Israel Vela, Kent School District interim superintendent, in a March 11 update to district families. “As the data continues to change, we will continue to review our practices and adjust our strategies accordingly in alignment with public health guidance.”

Key areas of focus for the new guidance in effect March 12:

• The new guidance is lifting one mitigating factor (masks) that was in place to control and minimize the spread of COVID-19.

• Other mitigating factors are still in place; some have been modified and need to be applied so that our community can remain at a low transmission rate level that will allow us to continue to remove interventions and progress toward “normal” community activity levels.

• If your student is immunocompromised, medically fragile, or otherwise at high risk for severe infection, please contact your school nurse to ensure that if your student is exposed to COVID-19, you will receive direct notification of the exposure.

• As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to change, please be prepared for guidance to continue to change. As soon as we are notified of changes or modify our strategies, we will get that information out to you.

Summary of COVID-19 safety strategies:

• Masks are optional and welcome but are not required in Kent School District buildings or on buses for all students, staff, visitors, and volunteers, except in the health room and isolation room per department of health requirements.

• Students, children, and staff who are immunocompromised, medically fragile, and/or otherwise at high risk for severe disease should consult their health care provider about whether or not to continue wearing well-fitted masks.

• Anyone who chooses to wear a mask in KSD will not be required to remove it. We expect kindness and acceptance for individual mask-wearing decisions and will not tolerate bullying or harassment.

• Masks will continue to be available in buildings and buses, including higher-level PPE for staff aligned with L&I guidance.

• Students and staff need to stay home when sick.

• Students and staff with symptoms of COVID-19 are required to isolate, and can return to school or care following the options within the guidance.

• Students and staff who test positive for COVID-19 must isolate for at least 5 days and can return to school or work on day 6 if symptoms have improved, or they are asymptomatic, and are without a fever for the past 24 hours without the use of fever-reducing medications and either wear a well-fitting mask or receive a negative antigen test.

• KSD will continue to maximize physical distancing, encourage frequent hand washing, and ensure daily cleaning and disinfecting are aligned to public health guidance.

• KSD contract tracers will continue to support all schools, following updated guidance from DOH.

• If an outbreak or local surge of COVID occurs, public health may direct a classroom, school, or district to follow higher-level mitigation strategies.

• When a positive case is identified in the classroom or on a KSD sports team, families will be notified. Staff will continue to be notified of positive case exposure.

• The KSD COVID Dashboard will be updated on Tuesdays and Fridays on the district website.

Talk to us

Please share your story tips by emailing [email protected].

To share your opinion for publication, submit a letter through our website https://www.kentreporter.com/submit-letter/. Include your name,
address and daytime phone number. (We’ll only publish your name and hometown.) Please keep letters to 300 words or less.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

EPA Uptick in Clean Air Act

by

In light of EPA’s bold regulatory agenda, data reflecting a decades-long enforcement decline, and recent NGO calls for EPA to step up that enforcement, industry should be prepared for an uptick in Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 114 information requests. CAA 114 broadly authorizes EPA to require a company to provide information it may reasonably require for purposes of: (1) developing a State Implementation Plan (SIP) or promulgating a rule, such as a National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) or a New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); (2) determining compliance; or (3) carrying out a provision the CAA. 42 U.S.C. 7414(a). Information provided in response to a 114 request can be used in an enforcement action and may also be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to NGOs, members of the public, plaintiff’s attorneys, state and local agencies, and industry competitors.

We offer ten strategic considerations in responding to a 114 request. While these considerations are tailored to CAA 114’s, many apply to information requests more generally and can be considered for responding to information requests issued under other statutes as well.

1. Involve Legal Immediately.

Responding to a 114 request can have significant ramifications on the Company, up to and including criminal prosecution for false statements in the response, and many key legal decisions – such as whether to issue a legal hold and whether to conduct the review under privilege – must be made expeditiously. The company should have a process to ensure that 114 requests are delivered immediately to its legal division.

2. Discern whether the company has received a “rulemaking” or “enforcement” 114.

EPA typically uses its 114 authority to collect information from a company either for determining compliance or for developing policies and rules. The type of 114 can be gleaned from the EPA cover letter describing the purpose of the request and its signatory. Pay close attention to the “purpose” EPA describes because that can help determine how aggressively to assert objections. Requests from enforcement personnel usually lead to Notices of Violation and penalty demands; requests from program and policy personnel will typically be used to support a new or revised rule, although information obtained from a rulemaking 114 can be shared with enforcement staff.

3. Respond by the deadline provided in the 114 – even if the response is not complete.

The 114 is effectively a government subpoena – even when it is a request for information for purposes of rulemaking – and can be enforced if the Company chooses not to comply or replies after the deadline provided. If EPA’s deadlines for response and production cannot be met, inform EPA when the Company can reasonably respond and respond by that deadline. A company can also set forth reasonable rolling deadlines – i.e., providing answers to some questions by the deadline, and other questions later. Alternatively, the Company can choose to negotiate an alternate schedule in advance. In most cases, EPA will accept or agree to reasonable alternative schedules.

4. Carefully review and make efforts to comply with instructions – but object or clarify any interpretive assumptions.

EPA’s authority to seek information is bound by a standard of reasonableness. See, e.g., United States v. Xcel Energy, Inc., 759 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 1114-15 (D. Minn. 2010). Although a successful legal challenge to a 114 is quite difficult (courts have not viewed information requests as final agency actions), it is important to create an administrative record that preserves objections in the event of litigation. Objections are not sufficient in themselves to shield against enforcement or refuse to respond, but they can be used to circumscribe the Company’s reasonable interpretation of the request; outline a reasonable approach and limits to its response; inform EPA of the flaws and ambiguities in its request; negotiate a more reasonable scope; and convey to the Agency that litigation, even if remote, is a possibility. The preparation of objections and interpretive assumptions is akin to preparing a response to discovery responses to interrogatories and requests for production (which is, in essence, what they are). The Company should reserve its right to provide additional objections and explicitly state that it is not waiving any objections.

5. Describe the Company’s scope of review.

Describe the efforts and approach that the Company took to develop its response, for example, where files were searched, what files were reviewed, who (titles or departments) were involved. Just as importantly, be clear about what files were not reviewed and what files were not searched (for example, third parties, public agencies, non-EHS files). Describing the scope of work provides notice to EPA that while the search was robust, it may not have been as wide as EPA might assume was undertaken. This also provides grounds for supplementing documents that may not have been found as part of a more limited search and avoids the perception that documents that are supplemented were intentionally omitted.

6. Reserve the Company’s rights to supplement, amend, withdraw, and correct information.

The 114 likely requests a substantial amount of information in a short period of time and it is likely that the Company (even where it uses outside consultants) will not be able to conduct a QAQC; errors or omissions are possible. Although not within its 114 authority, EPA frequently seeks information that is not kept in the ordinary course of business and will ask the Company to develop new data, prepare complex spreadsheets, calculations, and analyses, or conduct monitoring or testing – in addition to providing documents and responding to narrative questions. The Company can object that the CAA does not require the development of new information the Company is not required to keep or does not maintain in the ordinary course of business. The Company should keep copies of what it has provided to EPA and reserve its rights to withdraw, revise, supplement, and amend its response at any time.

7. Mark all Confidential Business Information (CBI).

Make sure that all company confidential information is marked as CBI at the time of submitting the response. The Company’s 114 response is subject to FOIA. However, only documents that are marked CBI at the time of submission are subject to EPA’s CBI determination procedures (40 C.F.R. Part 2). In some recent 114s, EPA has taken the position that the Company must substantiate its confidentiality claims at the time of submission, or even predesignate some types of information as non-confidential. Companies should object to EPA’s efforts to limit or waive these important procedural rights. CBI claims should focus on specific confidential information and exclude all publicly available information. The Company should also be prepared to support its CBI claim when EPA asks it to do so, as it must in response to a FOIA request by a third party.

8. Be mindful of how information is conveyed and avoid making legal representations.

The Company should avoid or qualify its response to questions that seek legal opinions or compliance representations. For example, a 114 might seek information about whether a certain rule applies, or may use innocuous-sounding terms that have specific defined meanings under the regulations (e.g., “modification”) – and any response to these requests could be viewed as admissions in any subsequent enforcement action. The Company should be careful to clarify that it is not making or waiving representations about applicability or compliance with CAA rules. Where a request is ambiguous, could have multiple interpretations, or calls for judgment, the Company should state specifically how it is interpreting the question, and how it is responding.

9. Carefully evaluate whether signing the certification statement is viable – usually, it is not.

Most 114 requests demand certification by a responsible corporate official as to the truth, accuracy, and completeness of the submission. CAA 114 does not require this certification, and in many instances, there is simply no reasonable way to certify the veracity or completeness of all of the information provided. A general statement that the information is true and accurate to the best of the Company’s knowledge should suffice.

10. Evaluate the information the Company provided in response to the 114.

In the rush to meet the 114 deadlines, it is not always feasible to analyze the implications of what was produced. It is important – while the information is still fresh and before EPA provides additional follow-up – to evaluate what information was provided, where there may be vulnerabilities in the Company’s data, anticipate EPA’s likely questions, and determine whether the data should be corrected or supplemented or whether mitigating actions are appropriate. The Company should also consider potential risks in connection with citizen’s suits or enforcement litigation.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Alpha Restoration and Remodeling Expands Their Mold Remediation Service Area To Cover South Florida

by

Alpha Restoration and Remodeling, a company located in the south Florida area, has announced that they will be offering mold remediation services throughout South Florida. The company helps homeowners with any type of water damage or flooding issue.

Since most flood situations can create mold growth due to wetness in the air, it is important for homes in South Florida to have their indoor air quality checked regularly by a trained professional. The discovery of mold has increasingly become an issue for South Florida homes in recent years.

Alpha Restoration and Remodeling has responded to growing customer demands and expanded its service area from Miami all the way to West Palm Beach for its mold remediation services. The team is IICRC certified and carries the appropriate licenses and insurances needed to perform mold remediation within the state of Florida.

Alpha Restoration and Remodeling is located in Pompano Beach and is willing to travel to any job site in South Florida. With recent upgrades to their systems, their inspectors now have advanced technology to read airflow to ensure there are no airflow concerns.

Contact Information

Alpha Restoration and Remodeling

750 S Dixie Hwy W

Pompano Beach, FL 33060

(561) 556-9691

[email protected]

About Alpha Restoration and Remodeling

Alpha Restoration and Remodeling is a Florida licensed mold remediation company

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Faculty Campus Safety Protocols | CNM

by

Vaccine Policy / Requirement 

Please read CNM’s vaccine policy/requirement, effective Oct. 1, 2021.

Face Masks

Though CNM recommends face masks, we do not require face masks to be worn indoors or outdoors at CNM locations.

To help keep everyone at CNM safe, faculty is required to strictly follow the COVID-19 safety guidelines below.

COVID-19 Symptom Checking

  • Stay home and make alternative plans to provide instruction to your students if you are feeling sick.
  • Complete the Health Self-Assessment Checklist each day before coming on campus. If you were scheduled to be on campus and are experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, you must complete the Health Self-Assessment Checklist, even if you do not come on campus that day. This will trigger the COVID Case Team to perform contact tracing. This is required even if you believe your symptoms have a cause other than COVID-19.
  • Ensure students have completed the student Health Self-Assessment Checklist and have received notice that they are approved to come on campus before each in-person class. If a student tests positive or has symptoms in class they should contact the COVID Case Team immediately at [email protected]. Make sure the student does not come to class or goes home as soon as possible and follows all the steps provided by the COVID Case Team.

Attendance

Take attendance each class. Create a seating chart if any students in your classroom are within six feet of each other, in case there’s a need for contact tracing.

Face Coverings

CNM has 3-ply, surgical-style masks available for free. Individuals can pick up a maximum of five masks per visit. For extra protection, the Centers for Disease Control recommends wearing a 3-ply mask under a cloth mask. Locations for pickup of masks are below. For departments that need larger supplies of masks, they can be ordered via Footprints. 

  • Main Campus, Student Services Center Welcome Desk
  • Main Campus, Max Salazar Hall, 5th Floor
  • Main Campus, Ted Chavez Hall, Marketing & Communications Office
  • Westside Campus, Security Office
  • Montoya Campus, Richard Barr Hall, Room 101
  • Rio Rancho & South Valley Campuses – Call Security at 224-3002 if you need masks and they’ll deliver to you.

Cleanliness and Sanitation

Remind students to disinfect any shared or loaned tools before and after each class. Ensure there are disposable face masks, hand sanitizer and disinfectant wipes available; order more through Footprints if needed.

Additional Signage

Contact your administration or the Physical Plant Department if signage for safety practices (handwashing, face covering, COVID-19 symptom list, social distancing, etc.) is needed.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Meet our newest advertiser: Rick Ogden Heating & Air Conditioning

by

Beat the heat 24/7, call Rick today!

Rick’s been there for his customers for 40-years!

Rick Ogden Heating & Air Conditioning has been providing Loveland and the Tri-State area with quality heating and cooling solutions since 1982. During this time, they have built a well-deserved reputation for honesty, professionalism, and friendly service. Whether you need emergency air conditioning service, heat pump installation, or just want to improve your indoor air quality, their trained technicians have the experience and expertise to take care of all your HVAC needs.

Poorly maintained heating and cooling systems are costly and can leave your home uncomfortable throughout the year. It’s important to find an HVAC contractor that is reliable and friendly, and with Rick Ogden Heating & Air Conditioning, you can rest easy knowing your home is in good hands.

The expert team has experience servicing a wide variety of systems, including:

  • Gas Furnaces
  • Electric Furnaces
  • Oil Furnaces
  • Boilers
  • Air Conditioning
  • Humidifiers
  • Heat Pumps
  • Hot Water Heaters

Aside from impeccable service and thorough knowledge, Rick Ogden Heating & Air Conditioning carries only the very best in HVAC products. They offer items from Comfortmaker, Aprilaire, and Honeywell, all top brands in the industry. They will always treat you like you’re part of the family, only recommending the best for your heating and cooling system installations and repair.

Finding a reliable HVAC contractor is vital to the maintenance and quality of your heating and cooling systems. If you’re located in Hamilton or Clermont county or the southern areas of Butler and Warren counties, your search is over. When you trust the professionals at Rick Ogden Heating & Air Conditioning, you will receive 24-hour emergency services, high-quality products, on-going maintenance, and unbeatable HVAC installation and repair.

Give them a call at (513) 683-3714 today for a free estimate. You can also visit them online to view a comprehensive list of their heating and cooling services.

Like this:

Like Loading…


[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

David Y. Ige | DOH News Release: DOH declares Navy drinking water distribution system Zones F1, F2, H2 & H3 safe

by

DOH News Release: DOH declares Navy drinking water distribution system Zones F1, F2, H2 & H3 safe

Posted on Mar 11, 2022 in Latest Department News, Newsroom

WHAT:                                Hawaii State Department of Health (DOH) Declares Drinking Water Distribution System Recovery Plan Zones F1, F2, H2, and H3 Safe; Health Advisory Amended; Residents Allowed to Drink Tap Water

WHERE:                            Zone F1, NEX, Moanalua Terrace

Click here to view the completed checklist that supports DOH’s health advisory amendment for Zone F1.

Zone F2, Catlin Park, Maloelap, Dorris Miller, Halsey Terrace, Radford Terrace

Click here to view the completed checklist that supports DOH’s health advisory amendment for Zone F2.

Zone H2, Aliamanu Military Reservation

Click here to view the completed checklist that supports DOH’s health advisory amendment for Zone H2.

Zone H3, Aliamanu Military Reservation

Click here to view the completed checklist that supports DOH’s health advisory amendment for Zone H3.

Click here for an updated map on zone status.

WHEN:                               March 11, 2022

BACKGROUND:           All Navy water system users in Zones F1, F2, H2, and H3 may now use water for all purposes including drinking, cooking, and oral hygiene. This includes consumption by pets.

The Navy water system’s source water is coming from the Navy’s Waiawa Shaft. The Waiawa Shaft water has been tested to verify that it is safe to drink. The Navy’s Red Hill Shaft, which is contaminated, has been disconnected from the water system.

DOH and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) subject matter experts completed a final review of all sample data and how the Navy water system maintains operations to ensure safe drinking water.

DOH and EPA oversaw months of work to provide individuals and families in Zones F1, F2, H2, and H3 with assurance of safe drinking water. This included overseeing flushing operations to confirm that the Navy followed flushing and testing protocol to verify that contamination was removed from the drinking water system.

One sample collected from an outdoor sink at a school in Zone F1 initially tested above the DOH Incident Specific Parameter for beryllium. The fixture was re-flushed and re-sampled. Subsequently, all sampled homes and buildings meet DOH’s beryllium screening level of four parts per billion.

Samples collected from one home in Zone F2 initially tested above the TPH screening level set by DOH. The home was re-flushed and re-tested. Subsequently, all sampled homes and buildings meet DOH’s TPH screening level.

An independent, third-party laboratory incorrectly reported the presence of bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (BCEE) in samples in Zones F2, H2, and H3. The Interagency Drinking Water System Team (IDWST) investigation determined, in agreement with the laboratory, that the initial BCEE results were a false-positive. As members of the IDWST, EPA and DOH concur with this conclusion. The IDWST resampled all locations where BCEE was initially detected. The laboratory reviewed the original samples and the new samples and did not detect BCEE in any of them.

The IDWST’s joint plan to draw samples from more than 900, or at least 10% of homes, and 100% of schools and child development centers on the overall Navy water system provides accurate data in determining that the water in all homes and buildings is safe. Additional homes and buildings will be sampled as part of a long-term monitoring plan.

The decision to amend the health advisory and declare the water in Zones F1, F2, H2, and H3 safe was made after DOH’s multiple lines of evidence confirmed that no contamination is entering the Navy water system and no contamination remains in Zones F1, F2, H2, and H3. DOH’s investigation showed:

Reported sources of contamination are contained

  • The Navy’s Red Hill Shaft is physically disconnected from the Navy water system.

Source water from the Waiawa Shaft is safe to drink

  • Sample results show the water meets State and Federal regulations and project screening levels of the incident specific parameters.

No additional contamination is occurring in the water system

  • A Cross Connection Control investigation shows the distribution system is protected, resulting in no additional sources of contamination.

Water within the distribution system is safe to drink

  • The completion of the zone flushing plan implementation demonstrates the entire zone is flushed.
  • Sample results show the water in the distribution system meets State and Federal regulations and project screening levels of the incident specific parameters.
  • Drinking water does not show sheen, olfactory evidence, or other qualitative methods of petroleum.

Water in homes/building plumbing is safe to drink

  • The Flushing Plan includes procedures to ensure no service connections will re-contaminate the distribution system.
  • Samples were collected from homes and buildings three days after flushing. This stagnation period was built in to detect possible leaching of contaminants from pipes or other plumbing.
  • Sample results show water in premise plumbing of homes/buildings meet State and Federal regulations and project screening levels of the incident specific parameters.

If Navy water system users have a question or concern about the quality of their water, please contact DOH at [email protected] or 808-586-4258.

RESOURCES:           Click here for a full list of DOH’s screening criteria.

Click here to view validated testing results.

Click here for a one pager on how to read laboratory results.

Click here to view the full data package for Zone F1 that led DOH to issue this amendment.

Click here to view the full data package for Zone F2 that led DOH to issue this amendment.

Click here to view the full data package for Zone H2 that led DOH to issue this amendment.

Click here to view the full data package for Zone H3 that led DOH to issue this amendment.

 

# # #

 

 

Media Contact:

Katie Arita-Chang

Acting Communications Director

Email: [email protected]

Phone: (808) 286-4806

 

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Aria, Park MGM get top rating in Las Vegas Strip casinos indoor air quality survey

by

Unidentified casino far worse than 27 other casinos surveyed

LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — A company that sells air purification products says there’s a major hotel-casino on the Las Vegas Strip where indoor air quality is at least four times worse than any of the other 27 resorts where measurements were taken.

Wynd, the company that published the report in late January, doesn’t name the property, but says it had air quality that was 80 times worse than the air inside Aria Resort & Casino, the property that received the top rating. Park MGM — the Strip’s only smoke-free hotel-casino — had the second-highest air quality in the survey, and Wynn Las Vegas was third.

The study suggests that air inside a quarter of the casinos in the survey was worse than an average day in Beijing.

Raymond Wu, CEO and founder of Wynd, said the company’s intention was not to single out the worst properties, but instead to celebrate the resorts that were doing a good job with air quality. The list of properties where air quality was measured was not available from Wynd.

So why did Wynd do the survey?

Wu said, “We wanted to produce the study as people get back to indoor settings.” He said his company has no business relationships with any of the properties that are named.

“In some ways, it took a pandemic for people to realize that indoor air quality is essential to their health, their productivity and their safety,” he said.

But to others, the thought that any filtration system protects people from second-hand smoke is worse than a joke — it’s irresponsible.

Chris Moyer, head of communications for Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights, questioned the motives behind a study by a for-profit air purification company that is likely looking for customers in the casino industry. He points to documentation put together by engineers that dispels claims that HVAC systems do anything more than deodorize the air.

Moyer is currently in the midst of a full-scale effort to close loopholes in New Jersey laws to prevent casinos there from allowing smoking after they had gone smoke-free after the COVID-19 pandemic. Moyer is highly critical of statements by casinos that believe they are protecting workers with improvements to their air circulation systems.

“The casinos are clinging to outdated business practices in 2022, and they are knowingly exposing these employees to second-hand smoke,” Moyer said on Friday.

anti_smoking_rally__1443566349958.jpgA June, 2019 protest. (KLAS)

In Nevada, there’s not even a whisper of any similar effort on behalf of non-smokers or casino employees.

A spokesperson for the American Lung Association told 8 News Now earlier this week that legislation might be the only way the situation ever changes. Park MGM remains the only smoke-free hotel-casino on the Las Vegas Strip. Nevada is one of 22 states with no comprehensive statewide smoke-free law.

Park MGM remains Strip’s lone smoke-free resort-casino

“The American Lung Association will continue to advocate for strong smoke-free laws and policies. We strongly urge other casinos in Nevada to adopt a similar smoke-free policy for the health and safety of casino workers and patrons alike,” said JoAnna Strother, senior director of advocacy.

Air quality is not a workplace issue unless Nevada OSHA receives a formal complaint. There is no existing standard for enforcement.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Builder sells out of 25 homes in million-dollar plus Sarasota neighborhood | Business Observer

by

SARASOTA — An up-and-coming green development situated between North Siesta and Oyster Bay  in Sarasota recently announced that all homes have been sold. 

Vertical | Design+Build, a Sarasota-based custom homebuilder, made the announcement regarding Granada Park. The area was originally planned to be a high-density residential development. But that plan changed when it was rezoned. Now it’s home to 25 houses with price points that ranged between $1 million to $1.4 million. The project is expected to be complete by December 2022. 

The property will feature homes under the gold standard set by the National Green Building Standard, as well as being 100% Florida Green Building Coalition certified under both the development and home standards, according to a statement. FGBC is a nonprofit with a focus on promoting environmental, economic and social benefits sustainability through education and certification. 

The development is gated with single-family homes that are similar to town homes. The community is targeted for those relocating to the area. 

“After years of the development sitting idle, the Vertical team collaborated our thoughtful and green-minded consultants, subcontractors and material suppliers to design bright, open, and airy homes with low-impact footprints, energy efficiency, resource conservation, and improved indoor air and water quality in mind,” Vertical | Design+Build President Grant Castilow says in a statement. “All built with care and quality that clearly resonated with homebuyers. With the help of Sotheby’s Peter G Laughlin Group, we sold them all.”

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Community members, hospitals reflect on 2 years of COVID-19

by

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Friday marks two years since the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic.

The date marked the beginning of a lot of uncertainty for people all over the world. Stay-at-home orders would soon follow, as well as a major shift in business models, virtual schooling and many questions about the new virus.

Local hospitals have faced numerous challenges since the start of the pandemic, such as a lack of PPE, crowded ICUs, staffing shortages and a population of people not willing to get vaccinated.

The last two years have been a whirlwind for health care workers at hospitals like University Health.

President/CEO Charlie Shields said there was a significant lack of information about the virus at the very start.

“We didn’t know how transmissible it was, we didn’t know how to treat it, we didn’t have the supplies we needed, we were actually disinfecting masks overnight so we could re-use them,” Shields said.

Shields said the two hospitals part of University Health have come a long way in the last two years.

“Our therapeutics are much better, we obviously have a vaccine that has made a tremendous difference in this, we’ve done 210,000 Covid-19 tests, and almost 140,000 vaccines,” Shields said.

University Health was the first hospital in the Kansas City metro to receive the COVID-19 vaccine as well as take testing and the vaccine out into the community by partnering with churches, faith groups and community centers.

Currently, COVID-19 patient numbers at both hospitals are much lower than earlier this year. There are 35 COVID-19 patients between the two hospitals, which is down from a high of close to 180 in January.

Shields said the vast majority of patients do not have COVID-19 as their primary diagnosis for being in the hospital.

“Obviously we are headed in the right direction, and I think people feel very good about that,” Shields said.

Shields wanted to stress the importance of staying vigilant and accepting that the virus will be around for some time.

Many municipalities have done away with mask mandates and other restrictions for the time being.

“If the next variant comes out and it looks like masking is appropriate, the faster we get back into that and provide that protection the faster we will beat that next variant, that’s very important to remember,” Shields said.

Shields is encouraging anyone who has delayed care over the last two years to get it scheduled to prevent a bad health outcome. He also wants people to think of the health care workers that have stayed on the front lines since the pandemic began.

“Remember how scary this was two years ago and how far we have come, and particularly think of those health care workers that were in that very scary position two years ago and all the work they have done in the last two years to get us past this,” Shields said.

For community members like 13-year-old Aidan Langton, the last two years brought about a challenge he never thought he’d face: virtual learning.

“I’ve always been a straight A student, but when the pandemic started I started doing really bad in school because it was online and it was harder that way for me,” Langton said.

He’s glad to be back in school now and said he continues to wear his mask in public and has also received a COVID-19 vaccine like his father, Chris Langton.

“I trust the science, I feel like that is the most responsible thing to do for myself, my family and for my community,” Chris Langton said.

He said the pandemic has meant spending more time at home with his family, but it also meant missing out on many things in Kansas City he loves.

“The Big 12 Tournament, the Royals, the Chiefs, going out there and sitting apart from people and doing all that it just wasn’t the same,” Chris Langton said.

—
We want to hear from you on what resources Kansas City families might benefit from to help us all through the pandemic. If you have five minutes, feel free to fill out this survey to help guide our coverage: KSHB COVID Survey.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Ecological remediation strategy for urban brownfield renewal in Sichuan Province, China: a health risk evaluation perspective

by

Study area

The Mianyang thermal power plant, which is located in Mianyang City, Sichuan Province, was selected as the study area (Fig. 1a). It currently faces pressures in relation to soil pollution and urban renewal. The examined region has an area of 569,100 m2, of which 20.06% makes up industrial land, 13.61% is agricultural, 5.47% is traffic land. The rest of the region is considered residential/commercial land. Furthermore, the industrial area may be divided into office, production, power, storage, and other types of spaces (Fig. 1b). The Mianyang thermal power plant area is representative of brownfield renewal in China. Mianyang City is the second largest city in Sichuan Province, with a strong industrial foundation. It is currently included in the Chinese government’s transformation plan of old industrial bases6. The city’s thermal power plant was established in the 1970s, providing heat and electricity for 70% of urban residents and had an irreplaceable role in urban industrial activities. However, the power plant was decommissioned in 2016 and the resulting brownfield site is presently faced with a number of serious environmental problems. As this area was included in the urban renewal projects of local government in 202022, there is an urgent need for the evaluation of soil pollution, as it is a prerequisite for brownfield renewal.

Figure 1

The study area: (a) Location of the study area; (b) Functional layout of the industrial area. (Note: The base map was designed by the author through referring to Baidu Map, https://map.baidu.com and painting the City boundary and urban road network with Adobe Photoshop CS6.)

Sampling and analysis

In order to analyze heavy metal soil contamination across the area, soil samples were collected from different land use types. The sampling points were arranged as shown in Fig. 1. The soil samples collected were mainly collected those representing different production activities in the industrial area. It should be noted that a few samples from the residential/commercial, traffic and agricultural areas were collected as well. Therefore, the spatial distribution of samples was balanced out. Despite limited accessibility to some sites, a total of 87 soil samples were collected in January 2021. Due to increased heating in winter, contaminants in the thermal power plant and its surrounding areas may have increased with seasonal change. After the sampling points were recorded by the GPS measuring instrument, the stainless steel soil sampler was used to collect the soil. Moreover, a composite topsoil sample was mixed by 5 samples nearby (depth = 0–20 cm). The samples were stored in Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) packages with sample information labels. They were brought to the laboratory on the day of sampling.

The soil samples were initially air-dried for 24 h, before being passed through a 2-mm sieve that removed stones and plant debris. Afterward, the samples were mechanically mixed, packed into PVC packages, and labeled with sample information to ensure the uniformity of subsequent analyses. Lead (Pb), chromium (Cr), zinc (Zn), nickel (Ni), and cuprum (Cu) concentrations were determined using flame atomic absorption spectrophotometry (PinAAcle 900H, PerkinElmer). In addition, arsenic (As) concentrations were determined using atomic fluorescence spectrometry (BOEN-35851, Fairborn). Duplicate samples were simultaneously analyzed for approximately 20% of soil samples in the assays, using a standard deviation range of 5%.

The validity and accuracy of the data have been ensured by the self-check of the instrument system and the measurement of standard soil samples. The determination results of the standard material for soil composition analysis, purchased from the Institute of Geophysical and Geochemical Exploration, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences (IGGE) showed that the recovery of each element was 90–120%.

Risk evaluation

The six heavy metals Pb, As, Cr, Zn, Ni, and Cu selected in this experiment have the features of persistence, latency, migration, and accumulation in soli. Due to the fact that the heavy metal pollution of soil is harmful to animals, plants, and humans, it is necessary to understand the environmental status through the evaluation of soil contamination using single factor index method, geo-accumulation index method and HHRE. This will provide a basis for the reuse of land resources as well as soil pollution control. In addition, the combination of Factor Analysis and geo-statistics can compensate the shortcomings of statistical methods in the study on soil pollution using spatial differences.

Single factor index method

The single factor index ((P_{i})) is a commonly used method for calculating the health quality of soil. This index was calculated as:

$$p_{i} = frac{{C_{i} }}{{S_{i} }}$$

(1)

In the above formula, Ci represents the measured concentration of element i (mg kg−1), while Si is the standard value of element i in the soil (mg kg−1) according to the Chinese standard23. The evaluation standard of the single factor index method is shown in Supplementary Table S1. Furthermore, (P_{i}) ≤ 1 represents soil without pollution, while (P_{i}) > 5 represents severely polluted soil. The larger the value of (P_{i}), the more serious the soil pollution.

Geo-accumulation index method

The geo-accumulation index ((I_{geo})) is used to quantitatively examine the degree of heavy metal pollution in sediments and soil24. This index was calculated as:

$$I_{geo} = log_{2} left( {frac{{C_{n} }}{{1.5B_{n} }}} right)$$

(2)

In the above formula, (C_{n}) represents the measured concentration of element n (mg kg−1), while (B_{n}) is the geochemical background value of heavy metals in the soil (mg kg−1) according to the standard value of Sichuan Province, China25. Furthermore, (I_{geo}) < 0 indicates soil without pollution, while 5 < (I_{geo}) ≤ 6 represents severely polluted soil. Therefore, the larger the value of (I_{geo}), the greater level of soil pollution.

Human health risk evaluation (HHRE)

The HHRE was formulated to explore the potential risk levels of human exposure to soil pollutants. In this study, the focus has been placed on evaluating the Hazard Quotient (HQ) and Carcinogenic Risk (CR) of heavy metals in the soil. HQ is used to characterize the level of harm caused by non-carcinogenic pollutants through a single or multiple pathways26. CR is used to examine the probability of carcinogenic diseases or injury caused by carcinogenic pollutants26. Firstly, the corresponding land risk coefficient was identified according to land use types. Secondly, by considering the actual situation of the study area, HQ and CR of oral ingestion ((HQ_{ois})), dermal contact ((HQ_{dcs})), and particulate inhalation ((HQ_{pis})) were calculated. Finally, in accordance with the acceptability level of CR of a single heavy metal in soil being ≤ 10–6, and the acceptability level HQ being ≤ 1, the possible health risk of the site was evaluated27. According to the Technical Guidelines for Risk Assessment of Contaminated Sites25, the three exposure pathways were calculated as:

$$HQ_{ois} = frac{{OSIR times ED times EF times C_{sur} times ABS_{o} times 10^{ – 6} }}{{RfD_{o} times BW times AT_{nc} times SAF}}$$

(3)

In formula (3), (HQ_{ois}) represents the hazard quotient from oral ingestion of soil, while (OSIR) is the daily oral ingestion rate of soils (children (100 mg d−1), adults (200 mg d−1)); (ED) is the exposure duration (children (6a), adults (24a)), while (EF) is the exposure frequency, children (350 ({text{d}};{text{a}}^{ – 1})), adults (350 ({text{d}};{text{a}}^{ – 1}) ). Moreover, the symbol (C_{{{text{su}}r}}) stands for the measured concentration of contaminants in the surface soil (mg kg−1) derived from the site investigation and (ABS_{O}) is the absorption factor of oral ingestion (1). The symbol (BW) is the average body weight (children (15.9 kg), adults (56.8 kg)), while (RfD_{o}) represents the reference dose for oral ingestion (mg kg−1 d−1), (RfD_{o}) of As is 3.00E-04 mg kg−1 d−1, (RfD_{o}) of Cr is 3.00E-03 mg kg−1 d−1, (RfD_{o}) of Zn is 3.00E-01 mg kg−1 d−1, (RfD_{o}) of Pb is 3.50E-03 mg kg−1 d−1, (RfD_{o}) of Cu is 4.00E-02 mg kg−1 d−1, (RfD_{o}) of Ni is 2.00E-02 mg kg−1 d−1. Lastly, (AT{}_{nc}) is the average time for non-carcinogenic effect, (children (2190 d), adults (8760 d)) and SAF is the distribution coefficient of the reference dose (0.20).

$$HQ_{dcs} = frac{{239 times H^{0.417} times BW^{0.517} times SER times SSAR times EF times E_{v} times C_{sur} times ABS_{d} times 10^{ – 6} }}{{RfD_{o} times BW times AT_{nc} times ABS_{gi} times SAF}}$$

(4)

Within the above formula, (HQ_{dcs}) is the hazard quotient of dermal contact with a soil and (H) is the average height (children (99.4 cm), adults (156.3 cm)). Additionally, the symbol ({text{SER}}) represents the skin exposure ratio (children (0.36), adults (0.32)), while ({text{SSAR}}) stands for the adherence rate of soil on skin (children (0.2 mg cm−2), adults (0.07 mg cm−2)). (E_{v}) is the daily exposure frequency of dermal contact (1 time d−1 ) and (ABS_{d}) is the absorption factor of dermal contact (chemically specific), (ABS_{d}) of As is 3.00E-02, (ABS_{d}) of Pb is 3.52E-03, (ABS_{d}) of Zn is 1.00E-03, (ABS_{d}) of Cr is 1.00E-03, (ABS_{d}) of Ni is 2.00E-02. Finally, (ABS_{gi}) represents the absorption factor of the digestive tract (chemically specific), (ABS_{gi}) of As is 1, (ABS_{gi}) of Cr is 0.013, (ABS_{gi}) of Ni is 0.04.

$$HQ_{pis} = frac{{PM_{10} times DAIR_{c} times ED times PIAF times left( {fspo times EFO + fspi times EFI} right) times C_{sur} times BW_{a} times 10^{ – 6} }}{{RfC times DAIR_{a} times AT_{nc} times SAF times BW_{c} }}$$

(5)

Within Formula (5), (HQ_{pis}) is the hazard quotient of inhaled soil particulates and (PM_{10}) is the content of inhalable particulates in ambient air (0.15 mg m−3). Furthermore, (DAIR) is the daily air inhalation rate (children (7.5 m3 d−1), adults (14.5 m3 d−1)), while (PLAF) represents the retention fraction of inhaled particulates in body (0.75). The ({text{fspo}}) represents the fraction of soil-bome particulates in outdoor air (0.5), while (fspi) is the fraction of soil-bome particulates in indoor air (0.8). Lastly, (EFO) symbolizes the outdoor exposure frequency (children (87.5 d a−1), adults (87.5 d a−1)), while (EFI) is the indoor exposure frequency (children (262.5 d a−1), adults (262.5 d a−1)) and (RfC) is the reference concentration of respiratory inhalation (mg m−3), (RfC) of As is 1.50E-05 mg m−3, (RfC) of Cr is 1.00E-04 mg m−3, (RfC) of Ni is 9.00E-05 mg m−3.

$$CR = OISER times C_{sur} times SF$$

(6)

Finally, in Formula (6), (CR) stands for the carcinogenic risk from soil ingestion (oral ingestion, dermal contact, or inhalation), while OISER is the exposed quantity of soil exposure through oral ingestion, dermal contact, or inhalation (mg kg−1 d−1). OISER (oral ingestion) is 1.568E-06, OISER (dermal contact) is 4.459E-06, and OISER (inhalation) is 9.729E-09. Lastly, SF is the carcinogenic slope factor (kg d mg−1), SF of As is 1.50E +00 kg d mg−1, SF of Ni is 1.02E +00 kg d mg−1 and SF of Cr is 5.00E-01 kg d mg−1.

Geospatial distribution

The use of geo-statistics

Geo-statistics28 provides a theoretical basis for studying the geospatial distribution of heavy metals in soil. Although this method is currently employed in environmental research to determine the characteristics of contaminated sites29, combining it with landscape planning and ecological remediation in urban brownfield sites requires further consideration. In the present paper, a soil database was constructed using the GIS (ArcGIS, Version 10.3, ESRI), into which geographical coordinates of soil samples, heavy metals concentrations, and potential health risks were input (Supplementary Table S2, Supplementary Table S5). The possible distribution of heavy metal concentrations and of potential health risks in the study area were determined using the Inverse Distance Weighting method.

Factor analysis method

Factor Analysis30 is a method used for determining the correlation and principal components of heavy metals in soil. This analysis can calculate the weight of heavy metals in contaminated soil and the weight is used for the superposition of spatial information of human health risk evaluation of various heavy metals. Moreover, factor analysis is the practice of condensing many variables into only a few because it groups together highly related variables into a single category. In comparison to Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Factor Analysis has the benefit of taking the strength of the correlation into account. Thus, it solves the computation obstacle of PCA through the rotation of the factor axis. In this study, the weight of heavy metals was calculated using the following steps:

Step 1: Data standardization was obtained as:

$$y_{ij} = frac{{x_{ij} – overline{x}_{j} }}{{s_{j} }}$$

(7)

where (x_{ij}) represents the (i)th data of the (j)th factor, where (j) = 1,2…(n), (overline{x}_{j} = frac{1}{n}sumlimits_{{{text{j}} = 1}}^{n} {x_{ij} }), (s_{j} = sqrt {frac{1}{n – 1}sumlimits_{j = 1}^{n} {left( {x_{ij} – overline{x}_{ij} } right)^{2} } }).

Step 2: The variance contribution rate of the common factor Fm was calculated as:

$$F_{{text{m}}} = u{}_{1m}x_{1} + u_{2m} x_{2} + cdots + u_{jm} x_{j}$$

(8)

where Fm is (m) represents the common factors obtained according to the principle that the cumulative variance proportion is greater than 60%. Furthermore, (u_{jm}) symbolizes the coefficient vector in the decision matrix, (u_{jm} = frac{{f_{jm} }}{{sqrt {lambda_{m} } }}), in which (f_{jm}) stands for the factor loading and (lambda_{m}) is the eigenvalue corresponding to the mth common factor.

Step 3: The score coefficient (x_{j}) of factors was determined as:

$$x_{j} = frac{{sum {F_{m} cdot u_{jm} } }}{{sum {F_{m} } }}$$

(9)

Step 4: The factor weight was then normalized to obtain (w_{j}), as:

$$w_{{text{j}}} = frac{{x_{j} }}{{sum {x_{j} } }}$$

(10)

Ethics statement

Our study is based on open source data, so there are no ethical issues and other conflicts of interest.

Consent to participate

Written informed consent for participation was obtained from all participants.

Consent to publish

Written informed consent for publication was obtained from all participants.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here