keskiviikko 23. joulukuuta 2020

What U.S. Intelligence Thought 2020 Would Look Like


Warning; The Statement Video and the Qanon timestamps may upset you.

  • The result, a 119-page report by the National Intelligence Council titled “Mapping the Global Future,” is an eerie and illuminating read with 2020 now upon us.
  • Statement by Donald J. Trump, The President of the United States | Full Video | Dec 23, 2020


POLITICS

What U.S. Intelligence Thought 2020 Would Look Like


A 2004 National Intelligence Council report was eerily prescient in some ways, and totally off in others.

URI FRIEDMAN


The president and first lady arrive for a signing ceremony on the National Defense Authorization Act at Joint Base Andrews.LEAH MILLIS / REUTERS 

In 2004, Mark Zuckerberg launched Facebook. George W. Bush was reelected president of the United States. And American intelligence analysts consulted with hundreds of experts across five continents to try to predict what the world would look like in 2020.

The result, a 119-page report by the National Intelligence Council titled “Mapping the Global Future,” is an eerie and illuminating read with 2020 now upon us.

The authors, led by Mathew Burrows, then a top official at the council, sensed that the world was approaching an inflection point, even if they didn’t yet know what role the United States would play in it. “At no time since the formation of the Western alliance system in 1949 have the shape and nature of international alignments been in such a state of flux,” they wrote.

As with most expert predictions, the intelligence officials got plenty wrong about our present era. But they got a lot at least partially right, an indication that not everything about the world today is as unpredictable as it might seem. While the analysts at the National Intelligence Council may not have seen President Donald Trump coming 15 years ago, they anticipated Trumpism. They didn’t expect the United States to voluntarily reduce its presence in the world, but they grasped that its clout was eroding. They missed the Islamic State, but foresaw the conditions in which ISIS arose.

Here’s a rundown of the key things they got right, somewhat right, and totally wrong.

What They Got Right


  • The unraveling of U.S. alliances:     The fraying of America’s post–World War II alliances is often attributed to Trump’s rough treatment of traditional partners, but U.S. intelligence officials predicted the president’s underlying grievances. The report’s authors wrote that a trend to “bank on” was “dramatically altered alliances and relationships with Europe and Asia,” as European allies prioritized the European Union over NATO and Asian allies adjusted to the rise of China and India. The intelligence analysts predicted that by 2020, the United States would have to calculate the “acceptable cost” of maintaining alliances with European, Asian, and Middle Eastern countries no longer united by a common threat as they were during the Cold War. Trump’s answer has been that the current cost is way too high.
  • An ascendant “America first” movement: In one scenario in the report, a fictitious United Nations secretary-general writes in her diary in September 2020 that “a lot of Americans are getting tired of playing the world’s policeman” and shouldering the burden of securing allies, convinced that Pax Americana is a rotten deal. (Yes, her: The UN chief, along with the American president, are depicted as women. The latter would have come true in 2016 if not for the Electoral College.) The UN leader notes that she is struggling to keep the UN headquarters in New York in part because there are “‘America Firster’ groups calling for the UN’s removal.” What the authors didn’t expect is that the American president himself would be an “America Firster.”
  • The decline of international institutions: Foreshadowing the impotence of organizations such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization in the face of climate change, trade wars, and other challenges, intelligence officials predicted that “some of the institutions that are charged with managing global problems may be overwhelmed by them” and that “such post-World War II creations as the United Nations and the international financial institutions risk sliding into obsolescence” unless they adapted to shifting global power dynamics. That adaptation never really happened.

  • The impulse to make America great again:     Intelligence analysts rightly anticipated that while the United States would remain the world’s preeminent power in 2020, Americans would see their country’s influence diminish relative to emerging powers. In other words, they envisioned at least one dimension of the coming anxiety about making America great again, if not the slogan itself. In 2004, this observation about the relative diminution of the United States was considered one of the report’s most heretical findings. As Fred Kaplan inquired in Slate after the study was released, “Who will be the first politician brave enough to declare publicly that the United States is a declining power?”
  • Escalating competition between the U.S. and China: American intelligence officials didn’t envision the trade war or the Washington buzzword of great-power competition, but the report’s authors predicted that “rising nationalism in China and fears in the U.S. of China as an emerging strategic competitor could fuel an increasingly antagonistic relationship.” And they presciently pointed to the ripple effects, noting that the United States would have to design a vision of “security and order” in Asia to rival China—what Trump has sought to do with his Indo-Pacific Strategy—and that countries such as Japan would feel compelled to “choose between ‘balancing’ against or ‘bandwagoning’ with China.” So far, Tokyo has picked balancing.
  • The North Korean nuclear crisis: Writing before North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon, intelligence officials foresaw that “the crisis over North Korea” would “come to a head sometime over the next 15 years.” They predicted that it would involve Pyongyang developing nuclear-capable missiles that could reach the United States “well before 2020,” deterring the U.S. from using military force against the country and prompting America’s allies in the region to consider developing their own nuclear weapons. These are the very factors that led Trump to first threaten war and then pivot to diplomacy with Kim Jong Un.

What They Got Partially Right

  • The populist backlash to globalization, but not in the West: The report’s authors thought that “charismatic, self-styled populist leaders” playing “on popular concerns over inequities between ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’” would “emerge as a potent political and social force” in reaction to the dislocations of globalization. But they thought these figures would primarily arise in developing countries in Latin America and Asia, not in advanced democracies such as the United States and the United Kingdom.

  • The declaration of a caliphate, but not by a terrorist group: The analysts forecasted that al-Qaeda, the dominant jihadist group in 2004, would be eclipsed by more decentralized groups that used the internet to reach alienated young Muslims. They even posited one scenario that must have seemed outlandish at the time: the declaration of a new caliphate that gains traction online and in ungoverned spaces in the Muslim world, attracting pledges of allegiance from followers ranging from Olympic athletes to an American senator’s daughter. But the report’s authors didn’t foresee a terrorist group like ISIS establishing the Islamic state—instead, they imagined it being founded by a young preacher moderate enough to elicit outreach from the pope.

  • The ascent of China and India, but not enough emphasis on China: Intelligence officials described the rapid rise of China and India as twin phenomena, noting that these developments “would transform the geopolitical landscape” in a manner reminiscent of “the advent of a united Germany in the 19th century and a powerful United States in the early 20th century.” The report’s authors accurately forecasted the economic and population growth of both emerging powers, but they missed the fact that it would be China’s rise far more than India’s that would define international affairs heading into 2020.

What They Got Wrong

  • A clash between the U.S. and China over the political status of Taiwan: The  intelligence officials sketched out one scenario involving a military confrontation between China and Taiwan over a Taiwanese proclamation of independence, which would likely draw in the United States as Taiwan’s top ally. That hasn’t happened—well, at least not yet.
  • The establishment of a Palestinian state: The report refers (if rather obscurely) to a sovereign state of Palestine, with Jerusalem as a city shared by Israelis and Palestinians. Such an outcome has arguably never seemed more remote than it does today, despite the fact that the Trump administration claims to still be working on a peace plan.
  • Russia as a down-and-out power: Intelligence officials didn’t foresee the systematic challenge Russia would pose to the West, arguing that the country’s demographic and public-health challenges would “limit the extent to which Russia can be a major global player.” They failed to envision Russia’s interference in U.S. and European elections, and its invasion of Ukraine, noting that “the prospect of Moscow reasserting control” over former Soviet states “seems improbable.” The analysts did, however, recognize that Vladimir Putin was stoking nationalism, and that his “successors” would persist in tapping into nostalgia for Russia’s imperialist past. Imagine the authors’ surprise when they learned that Putin himself would still be the Russian leader carrying out this effort in 2020.
  • The inevitability of globalization: The study’s authors recognized that catastrophic events such as a pandemic or major terrorist attack could slow or stop globalization, but they generally wrote about growing interconnectedness as irreversible. They characterized globalization as “a force so ubiquitous that it will substantially shape all the other major trends in the world of 2020.” At the onset of the new year, it’s clear that global interconnectedness is far more vulnerable to being reversed than U.S. intelligence officials thought a decade and a half ago.

URI FRIEDMAN is the managing editor at the Atlantic Council and a contributing writer at The Atlantic. He was previously a staff writer and the Global editor at The Atlantic, and the deputy managing editor at Foreign Policy magazine.
 
Connect | Twitter

___

 ___

 

___

https://twitter.com/i/status/1341565405509394440

___
eof


 

 

Lähettänyt klo Ei kommentteja:
Tunnisteet: ,

tiistai 22. joulukuuta 2020

Comprehensive analysis of 50 states shows greater spread with mask mandates

An analysis of all 50 states divided by those that had mask mandates and those that did not.

That Mask Is Giving You Lung Cancer

  • The Human Studies Cited by the CDC’s Recent Scientific Brief do not Support Community Masking.
  • The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies ethylene oxide into group 1, meaning it is a proven carcinogen.
  • Masks are “sterilized” with Ethylene Oxide - a known carcinogen
  • The masks contain (not sprayed with) PTFE which makes up Teflon along with other chemicals


Comprehensive analysis of 50 states shows greater spread with mask mandates

OP-ED DECEMBER 21, 2020 | DANIEL HOROWITZ


How long do our politicians get to ignore the results?

For months, we've been lectured to by the political elites that cases of coronavirus are spreading too quickly and that we must wear masks to stop the spread. The obvious fault with their act of desperation is that they can no longer mask the fact that most parts of the country have already been fully masked for months — long before the ubiquitous spread this fall.

Researchers at RationalGround.com, a clearinghouse of COVID-19 data trends run by a grassroots group of data analysts, computer scientists, and actuaries, did an analysis of all 50 states divided by those that had mask mandates and those that did not. Justin Hart, co-founder of the website, posted the results in a Twitter thread and shared with me the data analysis:

 


They studied the number of cases over a 229-day period from May 1 through Dec. 15 and divided the results of the two study groups by days with mask mandates and days without mask mandates. The non-mandate data group includes both states that never had a mandate and those that did at some point, but data set included only the days they did not have a mask mandate.

The results: 

When comparing states with mandates vs. those without, or periods of times within a state with a mandate vs. without, there is absolutely no evidence the mask mandate worked to slow the spread one iota. In total, in the states that had a mandate in effect, there were 9,605,256 confirmed COVID cases over 5,907 total days, an average of 27 cases per 100,000 per day. 

When states did not have a statewide order (which includes the states that never had them and the period of time masking states did not have the mandate in place) there were 5,781,716 cases over 5,772 total days, averaging 17 cases per 100,000 people per day.

 

The reverse correlation between periods of masking and non-masking is remarkable.

 

The 15 states that did not have a statewide mask mandate for the duration of this analysis were Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming.

Importantly, for purposes of this study, the analysts gave the mask mandate states a 14-day grace period from the time of implementation in order to begin counting cases against mask efficacy. This gives time for the existing spread from the original policy to become obsolete, in order to more accurately assess the efficacy of the mandate. Proponents of the mask mandate might suggest that mask mandates were often imposed once cases already spread quickly, so there is a negative bias of increased cases in those areas (or times) that had mandates in place. 

However, there was no evidence of any reduction in cases or even better outcomes many weeks later.  

In fact, Ian Miller, one of the researchers at RationalGround.com, found that three counties in Florida (Manatee, Martin, and Nassau) that allowed the mandate to expire after having implemented it had fewer cases per capita than those counties that kept the mandate.

 


Nor has the mandate worked in states where it was implemented long before the surge in cases began.


California is the ultimate example of a state that had a mask mandate in place forever — long before its turn for spread hit in earnest.

The simple reality is that there is no legitimate data showing the mandates worked.

My first question when reading this analysis was that perhaps there is a bias in case counts against those areas with mask mandates because, by definition, most areas without them are more conservative and tend to have lower population density. After all, dense areas seem to be associated with more spread, and therefore, those areas must be judged by a different standard.

First, it's important to recognize that over the past few months, as the virus has spread rapidly to the low-population states and counties, the gap between the urban and rural areas has really closed as the virus appears to be giving everyone equal treatment. Also, included in the top-line number of 17 cases per 100,000 in the non-mask states are also the larger states that did eventually adopt a mandate, but had prior days without the mandate in which the cases were counted among the non-mandate data set. Thus, the study is more apples-to-apples than simply taking places that never had a mandate vs. those that always did over the entire study period.

More fundamentally, this study analyzed Florida by county data and shows no correlation between mask mandates and fewer cases, even adjusting for population density. Gov. Ron DeSantis has notoriously declined to issue a statewide mandate in the Sunshine State; however, of the 67 total counties in Florida, 22 have implemented an executive mask order at some point during the study period. Two of them (Miami-Dade and Osceola) were in effect for the entire period, while the other 20 began in the spring, summer, or fall.


What are the results?

When counties did have a mandate in effect, there were 667,239 cases over 3,137 days with an average of 23 cases per 100,000 per day. When counties did not have a countywide order, there were 438,687 cases over 12,139 days with an average of 22 cases per 100,000 per day.

Did population density play a role?

When you isolate only the top 12 most populous counties in the state (>500,000), eight of them had effective mask orders implemented at some point during the study period, and four never had a countywide order (Brevard, Lee, Polk, and Volusia). When the eight did have an order in effect, there were 24 cases per 100,000 a day. On the other hand, during the days when mandates were not in place (which is never in four counties, and some weeks in seven of the other eight except for Miami-Dade), there were 17 cases per 100,000 per day.

We can turn the numbers upside down and inside out, but no matter how we examine them, there is no evidence of masks correlating with reduced spread. If anything, the opposite is true. And it sure as heck is not because of a lack of compliance.


It's self-evident that the virus does what it does naturally and follows a very mechanical pattern regardless of state policies.


Here’s New Mexico, Colorado & Utah which all followed the exact same curve regardless of when they mandated masks


https://twitter.com/ianmSC/status/1339984576106483712?s=20



Same thing in Alabama & Mississippi. Same curve, regardless

https://twitter.com/ianmSC/status/1339984704582213632?s=20

 

Here’s North Dakota and South Dakota roughly two weeks after North Dakota mandated masks and South Dakota didn’t. South Dakota had actually declined more! And North Dakota’s mandate came after cases had already peaked, meaning it was too late to matter anyway.


https://twitter.com/ianmSC/status/1339985052986433536?s=20


But of course, simpletons like you will credit the masks for bringing the curve down there, just like you will in Wyoming. Because you guys are truly, incomprehensibly incapable of seeing reality.


https://twitter.com/ianmSC/status/1339985287821152256?s=20 

 

I also went into similarly sized counties in Arizona with and without mandates and found that masks didn’t work there either.

https://twitter.com/ianmSC/status/1339987378912432129?s=20 

 

 

Here’s Florida with no statewide mask mandate after the state said counties could no longer enforce mask mandates vs. the other science following major states with mask mandates. 


https://twitter.com/ianmSC/status/1339983913704255488?s=20

 

The Mid-Atlantic region also has a tremendous collective mindset, where people of all backgrounds, rich and poor alike…all across the region come together to listen, then stop listening, then listen again to mask mandates & guidance.Truly a triumph of the collective spirit


https://twitter.com/ianmSC/status/1340369604967759872?s=20 


Is there a Facebook group where the exact same pop. adjusted amount of people in Pennsylvania and Delaware got together and collectively decided to ignore mask mandates & have big family gatherings all at once in mid-October? I guess they all changed their mind about a week ago.Isthere a Facebook group where the exact same pop. adjusted amount of people in Pennsylvania and Delaware got together and collectively decided to ignore mask mandates & have big family gatherings all at once in mid-October? I guess they all changed their mind about a week ago

 
https://twitter.com/ianmSC/status/1340361186072690688?s=20 h2690688?s=20


While Denmark already had a mask mandate for public transit, they expanded mask requirements on 10/29 to cover all indoor public spaces, so let’s see how it’s working out for them!  


https://twitter.com/ianmSC/status/1339397217791045632?s=20 



The burden is on those who want to violate the Constitution with such a draconian mandate for the rest of our lives to present affirmative evidence that their religious symbol works. The phony "fact checkers" will always find ways to show that we can't prove beyond a shadow of doubt that masks will never work. But while they force us to prove 100% that they don't work, mandaters don't have to prove any efficacy at all, even as 2-year-olds are forced to have their faces covered on planes.

We used to all scoff at the Islamic fundamentalist for believing that if they just waged jihad a little harder, they'd earn their 72 virgins. Well, those people can learn a thing or two about faith from the mask fundamentalists who believe it's never too late for masks to magically stop a virus after months of failure.

https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-comprehensive-analysis-of-50-states-shows-greater-spread-with-mask-mandates


___



Mask charts | Posted on October 4th, 2020
Have you been looking for charts that show the (lack of) correlation be
tween mask mandates and cases or hospitalizations? Your wish is our command!




https://rationalground.com/mask-charts/


___

 

More mask charts | Posted on October 20th, 2020
More mask charts that show the (lack of) correlation between mask mandates and cases or hospitalizations




https://rationalground.com/more-mask-charts/


___

 

The Human Studies Cited by the CDC’s Recent Scientific Brief do not Support Community Masking 

OPINION | BY KARL DIERENBACH

On November 10, the CDC published a Scientific Brief arguing the efficacy of cloth masks to control the spread of COVID. The brief was divided into three parts: source control (exhaling), personal protection (inhaling), and mask studies. Megan Mansell at RationalGround addressed the first two parts.  

Here, I’ll address the mask studies.


 

Another study referenced by the CDC’s brief in support of mask mandates describes COVID in Arizona after implementing a mask mandate. The study includes this graph showing a June 17 mask mandate.


 

The study observed, “In Arizona, decreases in daily COVID-19 cases were observed after … mandated and enforced mask wearing,”among a host of other mitigation efforts. This statement was followed by, “the relationship between mitigation measures and changes in case counts are temporal correlations and should not be interpreted to infer causality.” 

Which makes one wonder: what’s the point of the study?

Anyhow, if the CDC is going to use such temporal evidence to support the idea of mask effectiveness, they have an ethical duty to also consider the opposite, where mask mandates do not have a temporal relationship to a decline in cases.  

https://rationalground.com/the-human-studies-cited-by-the-cdcs-recent-scientific-brief-do-not-support-community-masking/


___


That Mask Is Giving You Lung Cancer

From Guy Crittenden, who, for 25 years, edited the trade journal HazMat Management.
(This was posted on Facebook.)

By Guy Crittenden
Global Research, November 04, 2020
News from Underground 23 October 2020





I happen to know a thing or two about masks and safety. 

Why? 

Because for 25 years I was the editor of an award-winning trade magazine called HazMat Management that covered such topics as pollution prevention and compliance with health & safety laws. We routinely published articles on masks, gloves, respirators and other forms of personal protective equipment (PPE). 

Now let me tell you a few things about that mask you’re wearing. And please note that what I’m about to share was also stated in the most recent edition of Del Bigtree’s program The Highwire when two OSHA mask experts spoke to the fact that the kinds of masks people are wearing were never (never!) designed to be worn for long periods and doing so is very harmful.

 

The blue typical mask depicted in the photograph contain Teflon and other chemicals. 

A Facebook friend reminds us:

1. Masks are “sterilized” with Ethylene Oxide — a known carcinogen. Many teachers in various school boards have been experiencing significant symptoms as a direct result of the effects of this chemical.
2. The masks contain (not sprayed with) PTFE which makes up Teflon along with other chemicals. I found and have posted the US patent to allow manufacturers to use PTFE as a filter in commercial masks… “breathing these for extended periods can lead to lung cancer.”

Don’t agree?
Argue with the experts at OSHA, which is the main US agency, i.e., its Occupational Health & Safety Agency. 

These masks are meant to be worn only for short periods, like say if you’re sanding a table for an hour and don’t want to inhale sawdust. They don’t do anything whatsoever to stop the spread of any virus, and the emerging science of virology now understands that viruses aren’t even passed person to person. 

I know that sounds incredible, but it’s the case that the virus is in the air, you breath it in, there’s no way to prevent that short of living in an oxygen tent, and if you have a strong immune system you’ll be fine, and if you have a weak immune system you may have to deal with the effects of your immune system working to restore balance within your metabolism.

So let’s say you don’t wear the blue packaged masks, and instead wear a homemade cloth mask — the kind people wear over and over and hang on their rearview mirror and so on. Those masks are completely useless against a virus, and are also very dangerous. 

OSHA would never condone a person wearing a mask of this kind for anything more than the shortest time. Re-breathing your own viral debris is dangerous to health, and the oxygen deprivation children suffer wearing such masks all day will certainly cause brain damage. I’m not making this up. Again, you might say, well, Guy, you’re not a doctor. True, but I did edit that magazine for 25 years. That’s a long time and many articles on masks and PPE. 

I’ve attended numerous OH&S conferences and listened to experts discussing these matters.

You may hear people saying that surgeons and nurses wear masks like this all day. Um, no. No they don’t. They’re trained in the proper use of masks, which is to wear them in the OR, then dispose of the mask when they leave that room.

 Are you aware that operating rooms are actually supplied extra oxygen, to compensate for the reduction in oxygen flow from mask wearing? 

To my mind, it’s criminal (not hyperbole) to force children to wear masks all day. Setting aside the very real psychological effects, we’re going to have a generation of brain damaged children. Ever heard the expression, “Not enough oxygen at birth?” That’s a joke at the expense of a mentally challenged person, but that’s literally what we’re doing. And we’re told it’s to “keep us safe”! We’re told this by doctors who actually don’t know about PPE and laypeople who have no clue.

So, you can choose to believe me or not, but I was the editor for a quarter century of a magazine that had a strong occupational health and safety mandate, and I can tell you that the mask wearing currently mandated by governments and private businesses offers no health benefit whatsoever, in no way protects you or anyone else from any virus, and actually does you damage beyond wearing it for a few minutes.

Got that? Good. Now please share this message and get the conversation going with parents, who must end this masking of children immediately. 

This is a very serious matter. And related to that, let me just state this doesn’t end for me when the lockdown ends or the masking ends. No, this ends for me when every politician and bureaucrat who inflicted this travesty, this crime against humanity, on the population of Canada (and other affected countries) is in the dock, and faces their misdeeds in a court of law.

And as for those of you who have put masks on young children, I will have a long memory on that score. A very long memory.

END NOTE: The CDC and WHO have acknowledged that asymptomatic people do not spread the virus, so the case for masks for such people is moot in the first place.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/mask-giving-lung-cancer/5728541

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from howstuffworks

___


Ethylene oxide

Ethylene oxide is an alkylating agent; it has irritating, sensitizing and narcotic effects.[125] Chronic exposure to ethylene oxide is also mutagenic. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies ethylene oxide into group 1, meaning it is a proven carcinogen.[126][127] 
Ethylene oxide is classified as a class 2 carcinogen by the German MAK commission and as a class A2 carcinogen by the ACGIH. A 2003 study of 7,576 women exposed while at work in commercial sterilization facilities in the US suggests ethylene oxide is associated with breast cancer incidence.[128] A 2004 follow up study analyzing 18,235 men and women workers exposed to ethylene oxide from 1987 to 1998 concluded "There was little evidence of any excess cancer mortality for the cohort as a whole, with the exception of bone cancer based on small numbers. Positive exposure-response trends for lymphoid tumors were found for males only. Reasons for the sex specificity of this effect are not known. 

There was also some evidence of a positive exposure-response for breast cancer mortality."[129] An increased incidence of brain tumors and mononuclear cell leukemia was found in rats that had inhaled ethylene oxide at concentrations of 10, 33 or 100 mL/m3 (0.0100, 0.0329 or 0.0997 imp fl oz/cu ft) over a period of two years.[130]  

An increased incidence of peritoneal mesotheliomas was also observed in the animals exposed to concentrations of 33 and 100 mL/m3 (0.0329 and 0.0997 imp fl oz/cu ft). Results of human epidemiological studies on workers exposed to ethylene oxide differ. There is evidence from both human and animal studies that inhalation exposure to ethylene oxide can result in a wide range of carcinogenic effects.

Ethylene oxide is toxic by inhalation, with a US OSHA permissible exposure limit calculated as a TWA (time weighted average) over 8 hours of 1 ppm, and a short term exposure limit (excursion limit) calculated as a TWA over 15 minutes of 5 ppm.[131] At concentrations in the air about 200 parts per million, ethylene oxide irritates mucous membranes of the nose and throat; higher contents cause damage to the trachea and bronchi, progressing into the partial collapse of the lungs. High concentrations can cause pulmonary edema and damage the cardiovascular system; the damaging effect of ethylene oxide may occur only after 72 hours after exposure.[24] The maximum content of ethylene oxide in the air according to the US standards (ACGIH) is 1.8 mg/m3 (0.00079 gr/cu ft).[132] NIOSH has determined that the Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health level (IDLH) is 800 ppm.[133]

Because the odor threshold for ethylene oxide varies between 250 and 700 ppm, the gas is already at toxic concentrations when it can be smelled. Even then, the odor of ethylene oxide is sweet, aromatic, and can easily be mistaken for the pleasant aroma of diethyl ether, a common laboratory solvent of very low toxicity. In view of these insidious warning properties, continuous electrochemical monitors are standard practice, and it is forbidden to use ethylene oxide to fumigate building interiors in the EU and some other jurisdictions.[134]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylene_oxide

http://graviolateam.blogspot.com/2020/11/that-mask-is-giving-you-lung-cancer.html
__

eof


Lähettänyt klo Ei kommentteja:
Tunnisteet: ,
Tilaa: Kommentit (Atom)