The second nurse airlifted to Emory you aren't going to believe your eyes

[Zoom-boing]

PPE is taks specific........PERIOD..............

In this case, they were following CDC protocol.........Unless someone can cite a different protocol, aka verifiable data then he was following the procedures set for this task...................

These guys are experts in this field.........They don't want to catch Ebola, and the nurse was contained in a bio suit. He acted as a safety observer and by the CDC guidelines he was legal to the task.

Head of the CDC also said you can't catch ebola if someone sitting next to you on a bus has it but if you (suspect) you have ebola don't get on a bus so you don't give it to anyone else.

CDC told the second nurse "sure, go ahead, get on that plane! No worries that you've had extensive contact/exposure to ebola and you're running a fever."

Feel free to trust the CDC.

If I were clipboard guy, I'd have put on basic PPE. PPE for clipboard guy might be overkill according to CDC protocol ... and? Better to have the thing and not need it than to need the thing and not have it. It's ebola, be over cautious.

 

[Ravi]

Damn, I'm on the same continent with two people that have Ebola and even though they are completely shut off from me I better put on a hazmat suit.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

TRell you what, go on a construction site and wait for OSHA DON'T WEAR YOUR PPE I have seen guys fined They weren't working but was on the job site.

They would have ONLY been fined by OSHA if they did not have PPE on and there was a hazard present or likely to be present. Otherwise, the rule is by the company.

I dare you but you've never step foot on a construction site.
OH one more thing You never mentioned this
"The employer shall ensure" OSHA is telling the employer that it is a requirement and another reason is that OSHA isn't always on a job site but they can do a spot inspection.

I have been on work sites all over the eastern half of this country. So please spare me the nonsense.

Yes, the employer "shall insure", but the requirement for PPE is based on whether a hazard is present or likely to be present.

As directed by OSHA, I really doubt you have you can easily read something on the internet, but you are acting as if you don't understand what it is you are saying.

What you believe really doesn't matter to me. Nor does it change the facts.

OSHA bases the requirements on the hazards present or likely to be present.

Frankly I don't give a damn about how wrong you are either.

 

[WinterBorn]

They would have ONLY been fined by OSHA if they did not have PPE on and there was a hazard present or likely to be present. Otherwise, the rule is by the company.

I dare you but you've never step foot on a construction site.
OH one more thing You never mentioned this
"The employer shall ensure" OSHA is telling the employer that it is a requirement and another reason is that OSHA isn't always on a job site but they can do a spot inspection.

I have been on work sites all over the eastern half of this country. So please spare me the nonsense.

Yes, the employer "shall insure", but the requirement for PPE is based on whether a hazard is present or likely to be present.

As directed by OSHA, I really doubt you have you can easily read something on the internet, but you are acting as if you don't understand what it is you are saying.

What you believe really doesn't matter to me. Nor does it change the facts.

OSHA bases the requirements on the hazards present or likely to be present.

Frankly I don't give a damn about how wrong you are either.

And where, pray tell, am I wrong? Was I wrong when I quoted the OSHA standard?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I dare you but you've never step foot on a construction site.
OH one more thing You never mentioned this
"The employer shall ensure" OSHA is telling the employer that it is a requirement and another reason is that OSHA isn't always on a job site but they can do a spot inspection.

I have been on work sites all over the eastern half of this country. So please spare me the nonsense.

Yes, the employer "shall insure", but the requirement for PPE is based on whether a hazard is present or likely to be present.

As directed by OSHA, I really doubt you have you can easily read something on the internet, but you are acting as if you don't understand what it is you are saying.

What you believe really doesn't matter to me. Nor does it change the facts.

OSHA bases the requirements on the hazards present or likely to be present.

Frankly I don't give a damn about how wrong you are either.

And where, pray tell, am I wrong? Was I wrong when I quoted the OSHA standard?

You've been wrong from the beginning.
How much do you know about PPE without goggling I'll give you one minute to answer 6:23pm

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Times up 6:25

 

[WinterBorn]

I have been on work sites all over the eastern half of this country. So please spare me the nonsense.

Yes, the employer "shall insure", but the requirement for PPE is based on whether a hazard is present or likely to be present.

As directed by OSHA, I really doubt you have you can easily read something on the internet, but you are acting as if you don't understand what it is you are saying.

What you believe really doesn't matter to me. Nor does it change the facts.

OSHA bases the requirements on the hazards present or likely to be present.

Frankly I don't give a damn about how wrong you are either.

And where, pray tell, am I wrong? Was I wrong when I quoted the OSHA standard?

You've been wrong from the beginning.
How much do you know about PPE without goggling I'll give you one minute to answer 6:23pm

I know enough to teach a class to utility workers. And no, I am not playing a game on here.

 

[WinterBorn]

Times up 6:25

I was enjoying the evening walk with my girlfriend. 7:17

The fundamental fact is that OSHA requires PPE only when there is a hazard. There was no hazard for the medical protocol officer. So he did not need to be in a hazmat suit.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Times up 6:25

I was enjoying the evening walk with my girlfriend. 7:17

The fundamental fact is that OSHA requires PPE only when there is a hazard. There was no hazard for the medical protocol officer. So he did not need to be in a hazmat suit.

to late you're done

 

[bigrebnc1775]

As directed by OSHA, I really doubt you have you can easily read something on the internet, but you are acting as if you don't understand what it is you are saying.

What you believe really doesn't matter to me. Nor does it change the facts.

OSHA bases the requirements on the hazards present or likely to be present.

Frankly I don't give a damn about how wrong you are either.

And where, pray tell, am I wrong? Was I wrong when I quoted the OSHA standard?

You've been wrong from the beginning.
How much do you know about PPE without goggling I'll give you one minute to answer 6:23pm

I know enough to teach a class to utility workers. And no, I am not playing a game on here.

cough cough cough bull shit.cough cough cough.

 

[WinterBorn]

Times up 6:25

I was enjoying the evening walk with my girlfriend. 7:17

The fundamental fact is that OSHA requires PPE only when there is a hazard. There was no hazard for the medical protocol officer. So he did not need to be in a hazmat suit.

to late you're done

No, not too late. Not playing silly games. I have stated my qualifications. Whether you choose to believe them or not is up to you. Playing a safety version of "20 Questions" is ridiculous.

I have also provided quotes from the OSHA Standard. That alone proves my point. Your admission that you do not wear your hazmat gear all the time does the same.

So you see, I was done proving my point before 6:25.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Times up 6:25

I was enjoying the evening walk with my girlfriend. 7:17

The fundamental fact is that OSHA requires PPE only when there is a hazard. There was no hazard for the medical protocol officer. So he did not need to be in a hazmat suit.

to late you're done

No, not too late. Not playing silly games. I have stated my qualifications. Whether you choose to believe them or not is up to you. Playing a safety version of "20 Questions" is ridiculous.

I have also provided quotes from the OSHA Standard. That alone proves my point. Your admission that you do not wear your hazmat gear all the time does the same.

So you see, I was done proving my point before 6:25.

YOU'RE DONE

 

[WinterBorn]

Times up 6:25

I was enjoying the evening walk with my girlfriend. 7:17

The fundamental fact is that OSHA requires PPE only when there is a hazard. There was no hazard for the medical protocol officer. So he did not need to be in a hazmat suit.

to late you're done

No, not too late. Not playing silly games. I have stated my qualifications. Whether you choose to believe them or not is up to you. Playing a safety version of "20 Questions" is ridiculous.

I have also provided quotes from the OSHA Standard. That alone proves my point. Your admission that you do not wear your hazmat gear all the time does the same.

So you see, I was done proving my point before 6:25.

YOU'RE DONE

Yep, I made my point and there is no need to do more.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Times up 6:25

I was enjoying the evening walk with my girlfriend. 7:17

The fundamental fact is that OSHA requires PPE only when there is a hazard. There was no hazard for the medical protocol officer. So he did not need to be in a hazmat suit.

to late you're done

No, not too late. Not playing silly games. I have stated my qualifications. Whether you choose to believe them or not is up to you. Playing a safety version of "20 Questions" is ridiculous.

I have also provided quotes from the OSHA Standard. That alone proves my point. Your admission that you do not wear your hazmat gear all the time does the same.

So you see, I was done proving my point before 6:25.

YOU'RE DONE

Yep, I made my point and there is no need to do more.

Sorry you were dismissed talking out of your ass isn't making a point.It's just down right stupid.

 

[eagle1462010]

PPE is taks specific........PERIOD..............

In this case, they were following CDC protocol.........Unless someone can cite a different protocol, aka verifiable data then he was following the procedures set for this task...................

These guys are experts in this field.........They don't want to catch Ebola, and the nurse was contained in a bio suit. He acted as a safety observer and by the CDC guidelines he was legal to the task.

Head of the CDC also said you can't catch ebola if someone sitting next to you on a bus has it but if you (suspect) you have ebola don't get on a bus so you don't give it to anyone else.

CDC told the second nurse "sure, go ahead, get on that plane! No worries that you've had extensive contact/exposure to ebola and you're running a fever."

Feel free to trust the CDC.

If I were clipboard guy, I'd have put on basic PPE. PPE for clipboard guy might be overkill according to CDC protocol ... and? Better to have the thing and not need it than to need the thing and not have it. It's ebola, be over cautious.

I've posted many times the possibility of limited airborne spread via the Canadian study. Even though that study was with pigs to chimps. As a sneeze can carry liquids for a short space.

I don't see this here when the infected was in a suit.

 

[WinterBorn]

I was enjoying the evening walk with my girlfriend. 7:17

The fundamental fact is that OSHA requires PPE only when there is a hazard. There was no hazard for the medical protocol officer. So he did not need to be in a hazmat suit.

to late you're done

No, not too late. Not playing silly games. I have stated my qualifications. Whether you choose to believe them or not is up to you. Playing a safety version of "20 Questions" is ridiculous.

I have also provided quotes from the OSHA Standard. That alone proves my point. Your admission that you do not wear your hazmat gear all the time does the same.

So you see, I was done proving my point before 6:25.

YOU'RE DONE

Yep, I made my point and there is no need to do more.

Sorry you were dismissed talking out of your ass isn't making a point.It's just down right stupid.

If I had done that you might have a point. But I posted the regulations from the governing body, and added my own experience as an extra bit.

Your are butthurt. I get that. But unless you can point to something specific that I said that was inaccurate, you have no argument.

 

[jon_berzerk]

PPE is taks specific........PERIOD..............

In this case, they were following CDC protocol.........Unless someone can cite a different protocol, aka verifiable data then he was following the procedures set for this task...................

These guys are experts in this field.........They don't want to catch Ebola, and the nurse was contained in a bio suit. He acted as a safety observer and by the CDC guidelines he was legal to the task.

Head of the CDC also said you can't catch ebola if someone sitting next to you on a bus has it but if you (suspect) you have ebola don't get on a bus so you don't give it to anyone else.

CDC told the second nurse "sure, go ahead, get on that plane! No worries that you've had extensive contact/exposure to ebola and you're running a fever."

Feel free to trust the CDC.

If I were clipboard guy, I'd have put on basic PPE. PPE for clipboard guy might be overkill according to CDC protocol ... and? Better to have the thing and not need it than to need the thing and not have it. It's ebola, be over cautious.

I've posted many times the possibility of limited airborne spread via the Canadian study. Even though that study was with pigs to chimps. As a sneeze can carry liquids for a short space.

I don't see this here when the infected was in a suit.

the infectious rate of Ebola is 1 to 10 organisms

 

[bigrebnc1775]

to late you're done

No, not too late. Not playing silly games. I have stated my qualifications. Whether you choose to believe them or not is up to you. Playing a safety version of "20 Questions" is ridiculous.

I have also provided quotes from the OSHA Standard. That alone proves my point. Your admission that you do not wear your hazmat gear all the time does the same.

So you see, I was done proving my point before 6:25.

YOU'RE DONE

Yep, I made my point and there is no need to do more.

Sorry you were dismissed talking out of your ass isn't making a point.It's just down right stupid.

If I had done that you might have a point. But I posted the regulations from the governing body, and added my own experience as an extra bit.

Your are butthurt. I get that. But unless you can point to something specific that I said that was inaccurate, you have no argument.

You're done bye bye I gave you a chance you took to long.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, not too late. Not playing silly games. I have stated my qualifications. Whether you choose to believe them or not is up to you. Playing a safety version of "20 Questions" is ridiculous.

I have also provided quotes from the OSHA Standard. That alone proves my point. Your admission that you do not wear your hazmat gear all the time does the same.

So you see, I was done proving my point before 6:25.

YOU'RE DONE

Yep, I made my point and there is no need to do more.

Sorry you were dismissed talking out of your ass isn't making a point.It's just down right stupid.

If I had done that you might have a point. But I posted the regulations from the governing body, and added my own experience as an extra bit.

Your are butthurt. I get that. But unless you can point to something specific that I said that was inaccurate, you have no argument.

You're done bye bye I gave you a chance you took to long.

Junior, I don't jump thru hoops for anyone on these forums. If you want to pretend that crap with the time mattered, that is on you. But it didn't. I proved my point. If you want to discuss the topic, I have no problem with that. If you want to point out what it was that I said that you take issue with, I have no problem with that. But if you think I put my life on hold to answer questions to prove I know what I have already proven to be accurate, you are nuts.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

YOU'RE DONE

Yep, I made my point and there is no need to do more.

Sorry you were dismissed talking out of your ass isn't making a point.It's just down right stupid.

If I had done that you might have a point. But I posted the regulations from the governing body, and added my own experience as an extra bit.

Your are butthurt. I get that. But unless you can point to something specific that I said that was inaccurate, you have no argument.

You're done bye bye I gave you a chance you took to long.

Junior, I don't jump thru hoops for anyone on these forums. If you want to pretend that crap with the time mattered, that is on you. But it didn't. I proved my point. If you want to discuss the topic, I have no problem with that. If you want to point out what it was that I said that you take issue with, I have no problem with that. But if you think I put my life on hold to answer questions to prove I know what I have already proven to be accurate, you are nuts.

I don't care I gave you a chance you failed to meet the requirement
]HAVE A GREAT DAY.