Responsible Management of Hazardous Waste Materials
Brainwashing on Covid 19 and vaccines in 2020, 2021, 2022 ,2023, 2024, 2025, 2026? How far are our leaders willing to go to eliminate dissent? What does the 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026 mean?
On Covid 19 in 2010 a global health expert reported that onocicity of mercury in vaccines is not known. Oncicity was established in the scientific community in 2001. That same year was the year I was inducted into the National Breast Cancer Action Alliance. This same year the same people in the same circumstances were being asked to get vaccines, oncics. Those same people had been tested in the same rooms with a similar group of others, and again were told, not to get the vaccines. In the same year the same group was also told that they had an incurable disease and could not get a cure.
What does this mean? What do they plan to do to us in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026?
If we don't do it will be because we are too late, or they will send someone else in our place. Their way of looking at things is very similar to what the Nazis did to us in the 1940's, 50's and 60's. These same people are already thinking along the lines of "we cannot afford to give up the vaccine." They had already tried everything else to no avail and they were given three shots in addition to the inoculations, three shots in addition to the monthly shots, three shots in addition to the annual shots. There were many more shots that they were given but they did not have the immunity to survive the "wee bitches" shots. They were told in some cases that they were immune, in some cases that they were immune to survive the vaccine shot, or in some cases the shot was given but the shot did not do no good, and we are giving them more shots. Who is the "wee bitch" they were talking about?
A group of people who cannot afford the shot, people who cannot get the shot because they can't get insurance, people who do not want the shot, people who did not sign up for the shot, people who were told they were immune to survive the shot, people who are already vaccinated and are still told to get shots, people who are already immune and are still told to get shots, people who are in the process of being vaccinated and are told to get additional shots. How many more shots are they required to get? Are these the regulations that we should expect from our health officials?
When a person is too sick to work, or too ill to safely get on the job, then perhaps the work should be put on hold until they are stronger, until they are healthy enough to safely do the job, until they have recovered sufficiently to return to work.
If the job is dangerous, or the work is repetitive, or the exposure to the hazardous materials is great, then perhaps the work should be put on hold until they have recovered sufficiently to safely do the job, until the immune system is stable, until the body has had time to repair the damage from the previous exposure, until the body has had time to recover, until the individual is 'immune compromised' enough to safely return to work.
If the previous exposure was of lesser degree, or there was less likelihood of long term or more serious consequences, then perhaps the job should be put on hold until the immune system has recovered sufficiently to safely return to work.
If the exposed substance is considered minor, or the concentration of the substance is low, then perhaps the job should be put on hold until sufficient time has elapsed, until enough time has passed, until enough time has passed, until enough time has passed.
As long as there is more than a small risk, there should be some protocol in place with regards to if, when, how much, where, and how long the worker is expected to remain in the work area, especially if exposure is possible. If you take a step back and look at the process, you find that there are five factors that must be considered:
- The process of exposure
- 2. The level of exposure
- 3. Any supporting factors
- What the worker was doing
- How the worker was encased in the suit.
In order to address factors 2-5, you should make sure that all personnel are fully aware of the steps involved in the suit assembly process, the components of the process, and how the suit is put on and taken off. Ideally, the personnel should have ample training on all of this. At the same time, it is imperative that the manufacturer provide detailed instructions on exactly what will happen and how they intend for the process to occur.
If a hazardous material leak occurs, the next step is to start the "response" process. The response process is designed to respond to any potential leaks, spills, or leaks of similar magnitude, in a manner that is capable of quickly restoring the situation to normal. This process must be complete before further action can be taken. As soon as the reaction has been initiated, any further actions should be initiated very slowly and very cautiously.
It is also vital to have a process in place to deal with any leaks or spills that occur from the suit, which in effect are being induced by mechanical problems or events occurring in the industrial environment. It is essential that the response process be initiated very carefully and with great care. The response process should be well defined and clearly documented. With an established response process, the manufacturer can then move on to addressing any possible environmental issues associated with the incident.