I met Alison and Rob Cornilles today. They are running for Congress. Yes, I say "they" as a spouse is as much a part of this type of effort as the name candidate. No, it's not like a pregnancy. It annoys the hell out of me when men say "we're having a baby." I've seen my wife having three of them and I can guarantee there was no "we" at the critical moment of delivery. But, I digress.
Here's why I think you should consider Mr. Cornilles more closely in the primary match up in May against incumbent Congressman, David Wu:
1. Rob seems motivated to win. You can see it in his eyes and hear it in his voice. He wants to replace Rep. Wu and believes that he can do that. He knows that to win he's going to have to put up with a certain depth of bullshit that may find him holding his nose. But, his skin is apparently thick enough. David's a lawyer and is masterful with the king's english. David's a marketing guy and a CEO. So, it will be interesting to see these two debate.
2. He seems like a really nice fella. No, really. Just a nice guy. He's direct. Looks you right in the eye. Shakes your hand firmly. And, he knows how to control a room full of overfed, overpaid, over-educated white guys. Those are the guys who write big checks. Alison is equally charming, but in a more pragmatic way. She seems hesitant about this new journey, but you can see the resolve in her eyes.
3. He admits he's learning and has a lot to learn. Self-deprecation comes easy to him. There is a humility to Rob that reveals itself in his smile when you first meet him. I found myself looking for reasons not to like his views. Couldn't find any. Not yet at least. I do think he, like a lot of politicians, either misunderstands the difference between debt and spending or they use them interchangeably to confuse the voters. Either way, it's wrong. I'd like to see him bone up on these distinctly different notions.
4. He seems to know that this is not going to easy. Alison seems to know that even better. She has to be the one, after all, who sits for uncounted hours listening to the same speech over and over and over again. She will need to be mistress of the living room, dutifully sitting, hands folded in her lap with a pasted on smile no matter what she's feeling from one moment to the next. I think the job of a political spouse has to be one of the worst jobs in the world. Yet, she seems to have an athletes' focus for it. Watch her closely, she's Rob's ace in the hole.
5. Finally, Rob will bring something Oregon SORELY needs to Congress. A self-made business person. Oregon's representation in Washington is far too unbalanced toward gentlemen who have had no experience running small businesses -- or any businesses for that matter. There is something uniquely useful about a small business man who has, as Rob says, "signed the front of a paycheck." Career politicians and lawyers like David Wu can never understand what that simple little notion really means no matter how hard they try.
I don't have a dog in this fight, really. I don't live in his district. Besides, politics makes me sick -- literally. The last time I had my own ass handed to me in politics, I threw up and could not get out of bed for days. And I worked for Marion Barry! You'd think I'd have an iron stomach. So, I hung up any notion of being a part of anything political four years ago. I've been a lot happier since. I do, however, still marvel at people's desire to enter the arena. Getting to know them is a little like knowing a death row inmate. There's something fascinating about them as they prepare to take that long walk. They are, for a short moment, at the mercy of fate. And I can't seem to turn away from what could happen.
Good luck, Rob and Alison. Hope your last meal is a good one.
Portland, Oregon
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Will the U.S. Residential Construction Industry Embrace Energy Efficieny Before It's Too Late?
Since January of this year, I have been helping a Canadian-based structural concrete wall panel manufacturer get its second North American factory up and running in Alberta. We have pushed very hard to secure the financing and, thus far, have successfully met many challenging milestones. But, we are not done yet. It is my expectation that the Canadian manufacturer will have an Alberta-based plant operational by sometime in Spring 2010.
Each plant costs about $30M to launch, so it's a pretty massive undertaking. My role has been helping the licensees in Alberta work through the relationship with the manufacturer. Part negotiator. Part facilitator. Part strategist. With a little bit of pyscho-analyst thrown in for good measure. I have also been the go-to person for questions from investors, insurers, builders, government officials, etc.
My focus has, and will continue to be, on developing technologies and techniques that allow communities to build durable, sustainable, modestly-priced homes for average income earners worldwide, not just in the U.S. To that end, I am currently working on a project that will allow for the construction of structural wall panel plants in Iraq. A long story, but an important one. They need 3 million units of housing. In the past 25 years, they've only managed to get less than 20,000 units constructed, according to the United Nations. Lack of adequate housing fuels the cycle of poverty and the resulting after-affects which includes terrorism. A story not being told by the mainstream media.
I have a team of experts now assembled who can rapidly build thousands of units of housing per year anywhere in the world. A welcome, though unintended, consequence of the work we've done over the past three years. If you need housing for your country, call us. :-)
Another part of my work has found me helping raise money for two home builders in modestly-priced residential housing markets in the U.S. and Canada. Since May, I have helped to raise over $6M in construction loans. It's not been easy, but we've done it. Over 50 modestly-priced homes are being built in the these markets this year as a result.
What's frustrating, though, is that I am struggling to get anyone to pay much attention to me on the energy efficiency issue. The many builders I am working with see no compelling reason to change what they are doing. From Nova Scotia, to Alberta to Louisiana, Virginia, Oregon and beyond, there is simply no driving imperative to do anything different. For all of the talk of a green revolution in this critical industry, the realities are FAR from close to what organizations like the USGBC desires. In fact, I'd argue that it will take another 20+ years or more to see any noticeable change in how homes are built.
Yet, I am determined to get through to the people I work with. These are smart, motivated people. But right now they need to make money. Everyone is suffering in one form or another. I wonder if there is not a small baby step anyone could recommend these folks take to bring home building into a more modern era? What's the one simple thing you'd advise on the issue of increasing the energy efficiency of a modestly-priced home?
Each plant costs about $30M to launch, so it's a pretty massive undertaking. My role has been helping the licensees in Alberta work through the relationship with the manufacturer. Part negotiator. Part facilitator. Part strategist. With a little bit of pyscho-analyst thrown in for good measure. I have also been the go-to person for questions from investors, insurers, builders, government officials, etc.
My focus has, and will continue to be, on developing technologies and techniques that allow communities to build durable, sustainable, modestly-priced homes for average income earners worldwide, not just in the U.S. To that end, I am currently working on a project that will allow for the construction of structural wall panel plants in Iraq. A long story, but an important one. They need 3 million units of housing. In the past 25 years, they've only managed to get less than 20,000 units constructed, according to the United Nations. Lack of adequate housing fuels the cycle of poverty and the resulting after-affects which includes terrorism. A story not being told by the mainstream media.
I have a team of experts now assembled who can rapidly build thousands of units of housing per year anywhere in the world. A welcome, though unintended, consequence of the work we've done over the past three years. If you need housing for your country, call us. :-)
Another part of my work has found me helping raise money for two home builders in modestly-priced residential housing markets in the U.S. and Canada. Since May, I have helped to raise over $6M in construction loans. It's not been easy, but we've done it. Over 50 modestly-priced homes are being built in the these markets this year as a result.
What's frustrating, though, is that I am struggling to get anyone to pay much attention to me on the energy efficiency issue. The many builders I am working with see no compelling reason to change what they are doing. From Nova Scotia, to Alberta to Louisiana, Virginia, Oregon and beyond, there is simply no driving imperative to do anything different. For all of the talk of a green revolution in this critical industry, the realities are FAR from close to what organizations like the USGBC desires. In fact, I'd argue that it will take another 20+ years or more to see any noticeable change in how homes are built.
Yet, I am determined to get through to the people I work with. These are smart, motivated people. But right now they need to make money. Everyone is suffering in one form or another. I wonder if there is not a small baby step anyone could recommend these folks take to bring home building into a more modern era? What's the one simple thing you'd advise on the issue of increasing the energy efficiency of a modestly-priced home?
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Stun Gun Darts and the Potential for Needlestick-like Injuries to Emergency Responders
Did you know...
Stun Gun devices, while reportedly responsible for improving public safety and the safety of police officers in the past several years, have a largely under-reported safety flaw which puts emergency medical workers at increasing risk of life-threatening injuries occurring during the removal of expended darts.
Prior to the development of the D.A.R.T. Pro tool and X-TRACTOR Tips, there were no tools on the market specifically designed to prevent needlestick-type injuries incurred when police officers or medical personnel handle stun-gun darts. Often workers must pull the darts out by hand or use pliers or forceps to remove them from unruly subjects, heightening the risk of a blood infection to the workers. The darts have been sometimes stored in a plastic bag, again putting handlers at risk.
The cost to public agencies to test and treat personnel who may have been infected by bloodborne pathogens could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. The use of the D.A.R.T. Pro with the attached X-TRACTOR Tip eliminates the risk.
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) bloodborne pathogens standard specifies the engineering controls, such as safer medical devices, which must be used to reduce or eliminate worker exposure.
A recent revision includes new requirements regarding an employer's Exposure Control Plan, including an annual review and update to reflect changes in technology that eliminate or reduce exposure to bloodborne pathogens.
The employer must:
1. take into account innovations in medical procedure and technological developments that reduce the risk of exposure (e.g., newly available medical devices designed to reduce needlesticks) and
2. document consideration and use of appropriate, commercially-available, and effective safer devices (e.g., describe the devices identified as candidates for use, the method(s) used to evaluate those devices, and justification for the eventual selection
No one medical device is considered appropriate or effective for all circumstances. Employers must select devices that, based on reasonable judgment will not jeopardize patient or employee safety or be medically inadvisable, and will make an exposure incident involving a contaminated sharp less likely to occur.
Employers must solicit input from non-managerial employees responsible for direct patient care regarding the identification, evaluation, and selection of effective engineering controls, including safer medical devices. Employees selected should represent the range of exposure situations encountered in the workplace, such as those in geriatric, pediatric, or nuclear medicine, and others involved in direct care of patients.
OSHA will check for compliance with this provision during inspections by questioning a representative number of employees to determine if and how their input was requested.
Employers are required to document, in the Exposure Control Plan, how they received input from employees. This obligation can be met by listing the employees involved and describing the process by which input was requested or presenting other documentation, including references to the minutes of meetings, copies of documents used to request employee participation, or records of responses received from employees.
Employers who have employees who are occupationally exposed to blood or other potentially infectious materials, and who are required to maintain a log of occupational injuries and illnesses under existing recordkeeping rules, must also maintain a sharps injury log. That log will be maintained in a manner that protects the privacy of employees. At a minimum, the log will contain the following: the type and brand of device involved in the incident, location of the incident (e.g., department or work area), and description of the incident. The sharps injury log may include additional information as long as an employee's privacy is protected. The format of the log can be determined by the employer.
At any given time, almost 10 percent of the emergency medical technicians (EMTs) and paramedics in the United States miss work because of injuries and illnesses they suffered on the job.
In one year, an estimated 8.1 of every 100 emergency responders will suffer an injury or illness forcing them to miss work. Compared to data compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of injuries requiring work absence among these first responders far exceeds the national average of 1.3 per 100 lost-work injury cases reported in 2006.
About 900,000 certified emergency medical services professionals responded to more than 17 million calls in 2005. The most common injuries these professionals suffer are exposure to blood-borne pathogens from needle sticks
It is estimated a thousand health care professionals are injured each day as the result of hospital accidents involving needles or other sharp objects, according to the Center of Disease Control (CDC). Source: American Nurses Association.
Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of U.S. nurses say needlestick injuries and blood borne infections remain major concerns.
Sixty-four percent of nurses report being accidentally stuck by a needle while working.
Among those nurses reporting needlestick injuries, a staggering 74 percent have been stuck by a contaminated needle while working. In 2008, more than one-third (35 percent) reported two or more contaminated needlesticks over the course of their career.
While the overwhelming majority of nurses (91 percent) are familiar with their workplace’s protocol regarding needlestick injuries, 79 percent of those accidentally stuck by a needle while working say they reported the incident, compared to 83 percent in 2006.
Nearly half (46 percent) of those who have been stuck say, during their most recent needlestick injury, they received an evaluation or were treated within one to two hours; yet more than one- third (39 percent) state they were not evaluated or treated at all.
Ninety-five percent of nurses report taking a Hepatitis B vaccine to protect them from Hepatitis B infection due to occupational exposure.
Only the D.A.R.T. Pro complies with OSHA regulations promulgated to reduce the risk of needlestick injuries. According to OSHA, devices designed to reduce needlestick injuries must have …
• A fixed safety feature to provide a barrier between the hands and the needle after use; the feature should allow or require the worker's hands to remain behind the needle at all times.
• The safety feature as an integral part of the device, and not an accessory.
• The safety feature in effect before disassembly and remaining in effect after disposal, to protect users and trash handlers, and for environmental safety.
• The safety feature as simple as possible, and requiring little or no training to use effectively.
For more information, please contact nathanielclevenger@gmail.com, 503.753.2120. Provided by Global Pathogen Solutions. All Rights Reserved. www.globalpathogensolutions.com.
Stun Gun devices, while reportedly responsible for improving public safety and the safety of police officers in the past several years, have a largely under-reported safety flaw which puts emergency medical workers at increasing risk of life-threatening injuries occurring during the removal of expended darts.
Prior to the development of the D.A.R.T. Pro tool and X-TRACTOR Tips, there were no tools on the market specifically designed to prevent needlestick-type injuries incurred when police officers or medical personnel handle stun-gun darts. Often workers must pull the darts out by hand or use pliers or forceps to remove them from unruly subjects, heightening the risk of a blood infection to the workers. The darts have been sometimes stored in a plastic bag, again putting handlers at risk.
The cost to public agencies to test and treat personnel who may have been infected by bloodborne pathogens could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. The use of the D.A.R.T. Pro with the attached X-TRACTOR Tip eliminates the risk.
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) bloodborne pathogens standard specifies the engineering controls, such as safer medical devices, which must be used to reduce or eliminate worker exposure.
A recent revision includes new requirements regarding an employer's Exposure Control Plan, including an annual review and update to reflect changes in technology that eliminate or reduce exposure to bloodborne pathogens.
The employer must:
1. take into account innovations in medical procedure and technological developments that reduce the risk of exposure (e.g., newly available medical devices designed to reduce needlesticks) and
2. document consideration and use of appropriate, commercially-available, and effective safer devices (e.g., describe the devices identified as candidates for use, the method(s) used to evaluate those devices, and justification for the eventual selection
No one medical device is considered appropriate or effective for all circumstances. Employers must select devices that, based on reasonable judgment will not jeopardize patient or employee safety or be medically inadvisable, and will make an exposure incident involving a contaminated sharp less likely to occur.
Employers must solicit input from non-managerial employees responsible for direct patient care regarding the identification, evaluation, and selection of effective engineering controls, including safer medical devices. Employees selected should represent the range of exposure situations encountered in the workplace, such as those in geriatric, pediatric, or nuclear medicine, and others involved in direct care of patients.
OSHA will check for compliance with this provision during inspections by questioning a representative number of employees to determine if and how their input was requested.
Employers are required to document, in the Exposure Control Plan, how they received input from employees. This obligation can be met by listing the employees involved and describing the process by which input was requested or presenting other documentation, including references to the minutes of meetings, copies of documents used to request employee participation, or records of responses received from employees.
Employers who have employees who are occupationally exposed to blood or other potentially infectious materials, and who are required to maintain a log of occupational injuries and illnesses under existing recordkeeping rules, must also maintain a sharps injury log. That log will be maintained in a manner that protects the privacy of employees. At a minimum, the log will contain the following: the type and brand of device involved in the incident, location of the incident (e.g., department or work area), and description of the incident. The sharps injury log may include additional information as long as an employee's privacy is protected. The format of the log can be determined by the employer.
At any given time, almost 10 percent of the emergency medical technicians (EMTs) and paramedics in the United States miss work because of injuries and illnesses they suffered on the job.
In one year, an estimated 8.1 of every 100 emergency responders will suffer an injury or illness forcing them to miss work. Compared to data compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of injuries requiring work absence among these first responders far exceeds the national average of 1.3 per 100 lost-work injury cases reported in 2006.
About 900,000 certified emergency medical services professionals responded to more than 17 million calls in 2005. The most common injuries these professionals suffer are exposure to blood-borne pathogens from needle sticks
It is estimated a thousand health care professionals are injured each day as the result of hospital accidents involving needles or other sharp objects, according to the Center of Disease Control (CDC). Source: American Nurses Association.
Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of U.S. nurses say needlestick injuries and blood borne infections remain major concerns.
Sixty-four percent of nurses report being accidentally stuck by a needle while working.
Among those nurses reporting needlestick injuries, a staggering 74 percent have been stuck by a contaminated needle while working. In 2008, more than one-third (35 percent) reported two or more contaminated needlesticks over the course of their career.
While the overwhelming majority of nurses (91 percent) are familiar with their workplace’s protocol regarding needlestick injuries, 79 percent of those accidentally stuck by a needle while working say they reported the incident, compared to 83 percent in 2006.
Nearly half (46 percent) of those who have been stuck say, during their most recent needlestick injury, they received an evaluation or were treated within one to two hours; yet more than one- third (39 percent) state they were not evaluated or treated at all.
Ninety-five percent of nurses report taking a Hepatitis B vaccine to protect them from Hepatitis B infection due to occupational exposure.
Only the D.A.R.T. Pro complies with OSHA regulations promulgated to reduce the risk of needlestick injuries. According to OSHA, devices designed to reduce needlestick injuries must have …
• A fixed safety feature to provide a barrier between the hands and the needle after use; the feature should allow or require the worker's hands to remain behind the needle at all times.
• The safety feature as an integral part of the device, and not an accessory.
• The safety feature in effect before disassembly and remaining in effect after disposal, to protect users and trash handlers, and for environmental safety.
• The safety feature as simple as possible, and requiring little or no training to use effectively.
For more information, please contact nathanielclevenger@gmail.com, 503.753.2120. Provided by Global Pathogen Solutions. All Rights Reserved. www.globalpathogensolutions.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
