What is asbestos?
Asbestos is a set of six naturally appearing silicate minerals used commercially for their desirable physical properties
Their names are
- actinolite
- amosite
- chrysotile
- anthophyllite
- crocidolite
- tremolite
The principal forms of asbestos are white asbestos (chrysotile) and blue asbestos (crocidolite).
Crocidolite and amosite are the most dangerous of the asbestos minerals set because of their long persistence in the lungs of exposed people. Chrysotile is often contaminated with tremolite asbestos, thus creating an additional hazard. Chrysotile asbestos, can produced tumors in animals, like all other forms of asbestos minerals.
Asbestos crystals structure, make him
different from most other crystalline minerals. Asbestos crystals
become flexible, long, silky fibres, so it can be made into a wide
variety of forms. Because it is resistant of high temperatures, his
extraordinary tensile strength, and relative resistance to chemical
attack, asbestos is used commercially for insulation in buildings and as
an ingredient in a number of products, such as fire blankets, medical
packing, plastic fillers, roofing shingles, and water supply lines, as
well as clutches and brake linings, gaskets and pads in automotive industry.
In nature asbestos can be found in the air outdoors, indoors and in some drinkable water, including water from natural sources. Actual indoor and outdoor concentrations in the air range from below one hundred to several thousand fibres per m3.
Why is asbestos a serious problem - Asbestos and Health?
Raw asbestos crystals will split into individual fibers which are large enough to be seen, but they can split even further into microscopic fibers. These small fibers are flying in the air, and can even pass through some respiratory dust filters.
Why is asbestos a serious problem - Asbestos and Health?
Raw asbestos crystals will split into individual fibers which are large enough to be seen, but they can split even further into microscopic fibers. These small fibers are flying in the air, and can even pass through some respiratory dust filters.
When asbestos fibres are inhaled , they may cause scars in the lung tissue, cancer of the bronchial tree (lung cancer) and sometimes cancer in the pleura and peritoneum. If asbestos fibers are inhaled in a high concentration over a long time period of time it is more likely to cause some serious health problems. This is most common among asbestos miners, because these workers have the longest exposure to it.
To humans, all
forms of asbestos are carcinogenic, and may cause mesothelioma, lung
cancer, larynx and ovary cancer. Asbestos exposure is also responsible
for other diseases, such as pleural plaques, asbestosis, thickening and
effusions.
Patients who become ill from inhaling asbestos fibers are often those who are exposed on a day-to-day basis in a job where they worked directly with the asbestos materials. As a person's exposure to fibers increases, then that person's risk of the disease also increases,
because of being exposed to higher concentrations of fibers and/or by
being exposed for a longer time. Mesothelioma cancer and other asbestos related diseases are very unlikely to result from a short period of exposure to lower levels or from a single, high-level exposure.
Mesotheliomas have been observed on people who were occupationally exposed to white asbestos (chrysotile), population
who lived close to asbestos mines and factories, and family members of
the occupationally exposed. According to the NCI, "A history of asbestos
exposure at work is reported in about 70 percent to 80 percent of all
cases. Asbestosis has been reported primarily in asbestos workers, and
appears to require exposure to a high concentration over a long time
period for the development of the clinical disease. There is also a long
latency period of over 12 years. Some studies have shown an increased risk of lung cancer among smokers who are exposed to asbestos compared to nonsmokers.
Health Canada states that the asbestos content of a product does not indicate its health risk. Asbestos is hazardous to health only when asbestos fibres are in the air that people breathe.
The evidence that ingested asbestos causes gastrointestinal or other cancers is insufficiently proven.
The carcinogenic properties of asbestos are most probably due to its
fibre geometry and remarkable integrity; other fibres with the same
characteristics may also be carcinogenic.
Current
environmental concentrations of asbestos are not considered a hazard
with respect to asbestosis. A risk of mesothelioma and lung cancer from
the current concentrations can't be excluded.
Studies also shown
that members of the general (non-occupationally exposed) population
have tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of asbestos fibers in
each gram of dry lung tissue, which translates in millions of fibers and
tens of thousands of asbestos bodies in every person's lungs. Health
risks associated with exposure to NOA (naturally occurring asbestos) are
not yet fully understood, and current US federal regulations do not
address exposure from NOA.
Has the use of asbestos containing products changed during the years?
After
it became evident that regular exposure to asbestos products on the job
involved health risks, the public became more concerned about exposure
to asbestos in offices and schools, and, eventually, about all asbestos
products. This concern has led to a dramatic decline in asbestos
products use since the early 1980s. The use of asbestos insulation products in heating systems and buildings has practically disappeared. Using asbestos products for roofing, appliances and flooring, also continues to decrease.
Today Hazardous Products Act regulates the sale of asbestos containing products. Asbestos is now better closed and sealed to reduce the escape of fibres. Asbestos is still valuable
in many applications because it has been difficult to find comparable
substitute materials. For example, it is an important component of
clutch facings and brake lining.
The Differences between Criminal and Civil Law
Most people don't differentiate between civil law and criminal law,
partly because the majority of news coverage in the media is dedicated
to criminal law cases. Most people have heard of a civil lawsuit, but
they aren't literally sure how the two are different. Civil cases aren't
as widely publicized because they don't ever have the same dramatic
punch that often comes with a big criminal case.
It may come as a surprise to many people just how distinct the two types of suits are - here are some of the biggest differences between criminal and civil law cases.
The Verdict and Subsequent Ruling
This is the major calculate why criminal cases are so much more publicized and advertised in the media. The defendant in a criminal case runs much more of a risk - a guilty verdict can bring with it some distinct forms of punishment depending upon the severity of the crime committed.
Crimes are broken down into two sub categories - first are the felonies, which are the larger offenses and which will most likely result in more severe punishments. Second are misdemeanors, which are the smaller offenses and will likely yield sentences that are not quite as harsh.
A someone charged with first degree murder, which is the top of the ladder as far as felonies are concerned, could receive life in prison without parole - or even the death penalty depending upon the state in which the crime was committed. Lesser felony offenses may still yield large amounts of jail time, depending upon the nature of the crime; whether there was pre-meditation, or if the someone has been complicated in similar criminal activity before.
Misdemeanor charges with convictions often result in one of or a compound of the following - fines, probation, community assistance and in some cases jail time. Again depending on the circumstances surrounding the crime, the punishment may be whether more or less severe.
The defendants complicated in a civil case will never, under any circumstances - regardless of the crime charged, be branch to the same forms of punishment as those convicted in criminal cases. In fact, regardless of the nature of the crime committed defendants convicted in civil cases will never do any time in prison. Defendants who are on the losing side of the verdict in a civil case are often responsible to reimburse the plaintiff or plaintiffs of the case in an estimate carefully by the judge or jury to be comparable to the loss that they may have suffered due directly as a result of the defendants actions. The actual monetary estimate awarded in the verdicts of these cases is often hard to come to, especially in cases when more than just property is lost or damaged as a result of the defendant's actions.
Making the Case
In a criminal case, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. It's is the responsibility of the side of the plaintiff to build a case that shows beyond a uncostly doubt that the defendant did, in fact commit the crime in question. If the defense can inject even the smallest shadow of doubt on the plaintiffs case the verdict in the case will (or should) return not guilty. If the jury is not very close to one hundred percent definite that the defendant committed the crime in question, then there is no conviction.
The proof required to get the desired verdict in a civil case is not nearly as high as that of a criminal case. If the plaintiff can initially convince the jury that it's reasonably potential that the defendant is responsible, the burden for proving their innocence falls on the defense. If the evidence shows more than fifty percent probability that the defendant is responsible a guilty verdict can be returned and the defendant then becomes responsible for reparations.
Even if the defendant is convicted of the charges and ordered to pay, it still doesn't mean that the plaintiff will receive a financial windfall as a result of the conviction. Often if the defendant has nothing to give, then the plaintiff won't receive the judgment awarded.
Even if the charges are exactly the same, the results and subsequent penalties handed down can be drastically distinct in criminal cases and civil cases. Civil cases, while not nearly as dramatic to the media as criminal cases and even when a sum can't be awarded, can furnish true closure for the plaintiff if the defendant is convicted.
It may come as a surprise to many people just how distinct the two types of suits are - here are some of the biggest differences between criminal and civil law cases.
The Verdict and Subsequent Ruling
This is the major calculate why criminal cases are so much more publicized and advertised in the media. The defendant in a criminal case runs much more of a risk - a guilty verdict can bring with it some distinct forms of punishment depending upon the severity of the crime committed.
Crimes are broken down into two sub categories - first are the felonies, which are the larger offenses and which will most likely result in more severe punishments. Second are misdemeanors, which are the smaller offenses and will likely yield sentences that are not quite as harsh.
A someone charged with first degree murder, which is the top of the ladder as far as felonies are concerned, could receive life in prison without parole - or even the death penalty depending upon the state in which the crime was committed. Lesser felony offenses may still yield large amounts of jail time, depending upon the nature of the crime; whether there was pre-meditation, or if the someone has been complicated in similar criminal activity before.
Misdemeanor charges with convictions often result in one of or a compound of the following - fines, probation, community assistance and in some cases jail time. Again depending on the circumstances surrounding the crime, the punishment may be whether more or less severe.
The defendants complicated in a civil case will never, under any circumstances - regardless of the crime charged, be branch to the same forms of punishment as those convicted in criminal cases. In fact, regardless of the nature of the crime committed defendants convicted in civil cases will never do any time in prison. Defendants who are on the losing side of the verdict in a civil case are often responsible to reimburse the plaintiff or plaintiffs of the case in an estimate carefully by the judge or jury to be comparable to the loss that they may have suffered due directly as a result of the defendants actions. The actual monetary estimate awarded in the verdicts of these cases is often hard to come to, especially in cases when more than just property is lost or damaged as a result of the defendant's actions.
Making the Case
In a criminal case, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. It's is the responsibility of the side of the plaintiff to build a case that shows beyond a uncostly doubt that the defendant did, in fact commit the crime in question. If the defense can inject even the smallest shadow of doubt on the plaintiffs case the verdict in the case will (or should) return not guilty. If the jury is not very close to one hundred percent definite that the defendant committed the crime in question, then there is no conviction.
The proof required to get the desired verdict in a civil case is not nearly as high as that of a criminal case. If the plaintiff can initially convince the jury that it's reasonably potential that the defendant is responsible, the burden for proving their innocence falls on the defense. If the evidence shows more than fifty percent probability that the defendant is responsible a guilty verdict can be returned and the defendant then becomes responsible for reparations.
Even if the defendant is convicted of the charges and ordered to pay, it still doesn't mean that the plaintiff will receive a financial windfall as a result of the conviction. Often if the defendant has nothing to give, then the plaintiff won't receive the judgment awarded.
Even if the charges are exactly the same, the results and subsequent penalties handed down can be drastically distinct in criminal cases and civil cases. Civil cases, while not nearly as dramatic to the media as criminal cases and even when a sum can't be awarded, can furnish true closure for the plaintiff if the defendant is convicted.
To Kill a Mockingbird - A Book impart
To Kill a Mockingbird - A Book impart-The Verdict Of The Attorneys
The novel To Kill A Mockingbird revolves around a young girl named Jean Louise Finch who goes by the nicknamed "Scout". Scout experiences dissimilar events in her life that dramatically turn her life. Scout and her brother Jem are being raised by their father, a lawyer named Atticus and a housekeeper named Calpumia in a small town in the south. At this point in time in the South racism and discriminations towards black was a big issue . The story begins when Scout is 6 years old, and her brother is about to enter the 5th grade. That summer Scout and her brother meet a young boy named Dill who comes from Mississippi to spend the summers there. They come to be fascinated with a man named "Boo" Radley, a man in his thirties who has not been seen face of his home in years, in general because of his suppressed upbringing. They have an impression of Mr. Radley as being this large ugly and evil man. Then comes the trial. Scout's father becomes a defense attorney for a black man, Tom Robinson, who is falsely accused of raping a white women. This has a big sway on Scout. During this trial she gets teased by friends because her father was helping this black man. Scout starts to see the racism that exist. During the trial Scout and her brother and close friend Dill scrutinize the trial. Even though they are young they can see that Mr. Robinson is innocent. Even though Mr. Robinson's innocence was clear even in the eyes of kids, Mr. Robinson was still found guilty. Later in an effort to escape, Mr. Robinson is shot dead. Scout is extremely disappointed at the verdict and even more at the death of Mr. Robinson and realizes the injustice that exist. Later in a cowardly effort by the alleged rape victims father, tries to kill Scout and her brother in order to get even with her father for production him look back in court. This is when Mr.Radley makes an appearance again an stabs their attacker. Even though Mr. Radley kills a man he is not tried for murder because he was defending the Scout and her brother. Ultimately some justice. This gives Scout some hope that is a chance for improvement in this unjust world.The Verdict Of The Attorneys
(Discussion of main themes in To Kill A Mockingbird)There are many dissimilar themes present in To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. The first theme which I will discuss is "Prejudice". The whole story revolved around the prejudice views of this Southern community. The whole suspect why the trial was going on was because of habitancy views towards blacks in the south. Since the alleged rape victim's father has such a prejudice view towards black, he is embarrassed that his daughter was admittedly flirting with a black man. To combat this he falsely accuses the innocent Mr. Robinson of rape. If it wasn't for the prejudice view which existed in the south the accusation would had never been brought against Mr. Robinson. These prejudice views in the south created a duplicate approved of justice. With all the negative points that can be found in the story in respect to prejudice, there was a absorbing spot when it came to the prejudice issue. This "ray of light" came in the form of Scout's father Atticus. Atticus represented hope. Hope that good habitancy still exist. Even in a society filled with hate. Atticus represented the hope that one day things can change
The "Prejudice" theme also ties in well with the title of the book "To Kill A Mocking Bird." In episode 10, Scout and Jem Finch get air rifles for Christmas. Scouts father tells her and her brother that it is a sin to kill a mockingbird because mockingbirds are secure creatures who do nothing but sing for our enjoyment. In the story To Kill a Mockingbird Mr. Robinson is clearly the "Mocking Bird". He is a good man who has never harmed anyone and is figuratively and admittedly shot by society because of prejudice. The jurors sentence him to death not because he did anyone wrong but because of prejudice. He is then later shot for trying to escape this unjust ruling. Mr. Robinson just like a mockingbird is shot for no suspect at all.
The second theme which I will discuss is "coming of age". The "Coming of age" theme basically entails a character who evolves to a new level of self awareness straight through his or her experiences in life. This is clearly the case with Scout in To Kill a Mockingbird. An example of Scout's "coming of age" can be seen when she meets her friend Dill. Dill comes from a broken home and lives somewhere beyond Alabama. Scout who comes from a good home is awaken to the dissimilar quality of life that exist and is able to come to a conclusion that life exist beyond the world she knows. straight through these experiences she grows more tolerant of others, learning how to "climb into an additional one person's skin and walk around in it." On her first day of school she finds that just like with Dill there are both communal and poor classes in society, some are respectable and others not. She also learns that her father is an extra-ordinary man, fighting for a Negro's proprietary in court. During the trial of Tom Robinson Scout learns about equality and inequality and Ultimately about racial prejudice. By the final chapters of the novel, Scout goes to an additional one "coming of age experience." She learns that good habitancy can still suffer injustice. She realizes this when she see's Tom Robinson suffer injustice even though they did nothing to deserve it. She scrutinize that the courts does not always corollary in justice. In the end after all of Scout's experiences and discoveries we get the sense that she will not corollary the prejudice views which her society upholds. In the end Scout had matured and grown more as a kid, than many adults will do in there lifetime.
The third and final theme which I will discuss is "Justice". In the story To Kill a Mockingbird I feel,the author, Ms. Lee portrays true justice as being best seen straight through the eyes of the innocent. In the story Scout and her brother, being the innocent,can clearly see the injustice being done to Mr. Robinson. In contrary to Scout and her brother other habitancy in society more specifically the older habitancy in the town, the habitancy who have lived straight through dissimilar experiences, come to be blinded when it comes to true justice. Or maybe they are not blinded but just pick to ignore it. This is clearly seen when they sentence an innocent man to death. This ignorance of justice can be blamed on the prejudice views which are present and eventually instilled in society in the south. So I feel that Harper Lee is connecting justice with innocence to a positive extent. In my opinion Harper Lee portrays justice as being admittedly detected. The suspect I say this is even the young justice. The qoute is society can instill beliefs that can act as a veil and blind the habitancy from justice. The only way to locate this veil is straight through habitancy like Atticus who can pass his morality and nobility to the young and the "blinded"
(Would I advise this book?)
I would absolutely advise habitancy to read the book To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. I found it to be an absorbing and powerful book. I feel the book does a great job in portraying the ultimate prejudice that existed in the south at that time. I feel this book makes a powerful statement on how justice can be altered straight through racism. I also think that the themes found in the book are themes which can still be found in our current society and that makes it the more interesting. You can even make a case that prejudice still has an corollary in our legal principles today. So if you are looking for a powerful book of "coming of age" and the battle for justice I would extremely advise To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee.