3rd-Party Services:

Unattended Death and Traumatic Environments Cleaning

Environments that arise from biohazardous events such as suicides, murders or homicides, crime or trauma scenes, and accidents produce medical waste.  Our fully-compliant trauma scene decontamination technicians are experienced in remediation and will respond with the sensitivity and capability needed to resolve the issues inherent to environments affected by biohazardous medical waste.  

 

We clean property such as apartment and homes affected by methamphetamine (meth) lab residue and/or include blood from a suicide or crime scene. Our processes will restore use to the environment.  We also offer safe needle disposal (Biohazard Waste Disposal) for doctors, dentists, clinics, and funeral homes. 

 

Once the emergency responders such as the police and coroners leave the scene of the crime or traumatic event, the family or property owner is facing the responsibility of the remediation of the affected environment.  The police and the coroner are not responsible for the biological material left behind.  The task assigned to these first responders is to perform the investigation protocol and remove the deceased should a death be involved.  

 

Trauma Scene Biohazard Remediation

Depending on the violence associated with the event, the remaining biological material will vary in concentration and distribution.  Not only are the biological factors important but also factors such as the length of clandestine methamphetamine manufacturing or the amount of tear gas canisters that penetrated the area.  

 

We understand the challenges that are inherent, emotional and physical, to these biohazardous environments.   

 

Safe, Compliant Processes and Disposal

Obviously, this task is for a professional company who specializes in these OSHA and EPA compliant services related to regulated medical waste.  This service is not just a part of a wide collection of diversified services.  Biological and meth residue remediation and safe needle disposal are our primary business....Request a Quote.  

Continued...

Status of the 

State Public Health Law

 

“The mission of public health is fulfilling society’s interest in assuring the conditions in which people can be healthy.”  

National Academy of Sciences, 1988

 

One of the most important goals of government is the preservation of the public health.  Public health law encompasses the prevention of injury and chronic illness, improvement of the environment, protection of the food and water supply, better housing, sanitation, hygiene, and the control of infectious disease.  Even though the role of the federal government has increased in matters of public health, the states remain the primary public health authority.  The inherent power of the state as a sovereign government preserves this authority. 

 

Under these state governments, health authorities at the local level, municipal and county, often have delegated authority to monitor, implement, and enforce these objectives.  Public health officials at the local level are often the first to identify and respond to health threats through county or ordinances and regulations.  

 

At the very least, public health law should ensure that public health agencies are fully capable of responding to current and coming health threats.  

Due to the limits to the legislative approach, many problems are addressed through improved leadership and training, improved infrastructure for surveillance, and innovative prevention strategies.

 

The law is only one factor that guides public officials, first responders, and the companies contracted to treat and dispose of health threats.  Public health law statutes are not standardized from state to state and it is difficult to deduct generalizations for a group statute for comparison and compliance.  

 

These statutes evolved independently, leading to significant variations in the structure and substance.  The process for detecting, controlling, and preventing communicable diseases varies between states .

 

The majority of communicable disease law in the United States has been passed in reaction to specific disease threats.  Communicable disease statutes focused on smallpox, yellow fever, and the plague in the 1700’s.  In the 1800’s, the communicable disease statutes focused primarily on combating cholera and tuberculosis.  

 

Epidemics of poliomyelitis, influenza, and venereal disease in the early to middle 1900’s forced the legislatures to react with disease-specific laws.  In the later 1900’s, legislatures passed HIV/AIDS-specific law that added another layer to the piecemeal public health law.  The scientific understanding of diseases was very different from today 100 years ago.  

 

The concept of communicable disease was established, but the technology to identify the most common infectious agents is relatively new.  Public health laws that have been passed down from generation to generation may lack the adoption of more technically advanced tools used for diagnosis, treatment, and epidemiological review of the spread of disease.  

 

Older statutes may fail to distinguish between methods of disease transmission such as casual contact, prolonged contact, or contact with blood or other bodily fluids.  For example, a South Dakota statute passed in the late nineteenth century last amended in 1977 made it a misdemeanor for a person infected with a communicable disease to “intentionally expose himself in any public place or thoroughfare.”  

 

We now know, through our updated understanding of disease transmission, that this statute is inappropriate for diseases that are transmitted through blood or other bodily fluids.  Modern developments in constitutional law may not reconcile with existing public health law.  

 

Evolving standards in disability discrimination were not even contemplated when some of these statutes were enacted.  For instance, federal disability law prohibits discrimination against individuals with infectious diseases.  

 

This conflict between the individual and the protection of the public health may require officials to adopt statutes based on “significant risk” when addressing persons with infectious diseases in employment, public services, and public accommodations.  Each individual state possesses the police power to produce laws that protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens.  This power can be enforced provided that the states do not act in an unreasonable manner, but there isn’t a national standard that dictates the scope of the states police power in protecting the public health.  

 

Some states due address, through detailed statutes, an individual’s right to travel, privacy, and the right to associate freely when applying these restrictions due to the risk to public health.  Still, other states leave this type of power within the discretion of the public health officials. 

 

Ebola infection hit the continental United States in Fall of 2014.  Before his trip to the U.S., Thomas Eric Duncan’s temperature was screened 3 times and had a consistent reading of 97.3 degrees Fahrenheit (CNN.com).  Mr. Duncan then boarded a flight in Liberia to Brussels.  His trip continued from Brussels to Washington and arriving to his destination visiting family in Dallas, TX.  

 

Questionnaires are given to those taking flights out of Liberia to combat infection by segregating those with a higher risk of infection.  Those with a higher risk of infection would include those who cared for Ebola patients or handled the bodies of those who passed away from the disease.  

 

The obvious risk is that the one being questioned is honest in their answers and lack of honesty puts scores at risk.  The Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf condemned Mr. Duncan’s actions directly when it was uncovered that Mr. Duncan cared for Ebola patients and failed to be honest in his questionnaire.

 

“The fact that he knew (he was exposed to the virus) and he left the country is unpardonable, quite frankly.” 

Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (Canadian news service CBC)

 

California authorized its department of health to “quarantine, isolate, inspect and disinfect persons, animals, houses, rooms, other property, places, cities or 

localities, whenever in its judgment such action is necessary to protect or preserve the public health.”  Texas quarantined dozens in relation to Mr. Duncan and those he came in contact with.   

 

The hospital where Mr. Duncan received treatment, Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, felt like a “ghost town” according to a local health care vendor.  Before the Ebola infection, average wait times were 52 minutes but for a short time after Mr. Duncan was treated there was no wait time. (abcnews.com) 

 

Traffic to this state-of-the-art hospital had virtually stopped.  This fear spread beyond the hospital building to 

adjoining buildings on the campus in the form of 40% to 60% appointment cancellations in doctor’s private offices.  Confidence was quickly restored and fear subsided once healthcare workers stopped testing positive for Ebola. 

 

Of course, in writing public health legislation, legislators must afford health authorities discretion because:

•    Legislators are not necessarily medical or scientific experts and will not be able to project every possible scenario that the statute will apply to.

•    Statutes must be flexible to be effective over time.

 

This flexibility does not omit the use of scientific discretion, but statutes must hold health officials accountable by requiring them to justify their decisions based on science and the need to protect public health.  

 

In the legislative development process, the subject matter experts with direct knowledge of field activities must be consulted in order to produce useful statutes with the flexibility to be useful over time.  In addition to statutes, official guidelines offer a quick outline to organize a review of infection control policies across the spectrum of healthcare in facilities, providers, and outbreak response.  

 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has produced guidelines that for Ebola and pandemic preparedness that cover a vast ecosystem of controls to review in topics such as laboratory safety, evaluating patients, and disinfecting healthcare environments...More...

Alabama

Kansas City – Kansas City with a population of 143,867 in 2010 had an overall reduction in crime rates from 2009 to 2010. The most significant reduction was in Kansas City’s violent crimes from 2009 with 940 and falling to 823 in 2010 a 12.5% drop. To follow this decrease in crime rates was Kansas City’s aggravated assault with an 11.8% reduction and robbery incidents with a decrease of 9.12%.

 

Wichita – Wichita in 2010 had a population of 376,880 saw majority of their crime rates reduce, the most significant decrease was in the Robbery incidents in 2009 with 527 and dropped to 482 in 2010. This 8.5% reduction was not far ahead from property crimes and violent crimes both near a 7.5% reduction. Wichita did see an increase in the crime rates of Burglary in 2009 with a 4,054 and rose to 4,238 in 2010.

 

Overland Park – Overland Park had a population of 178,669 in 2010 and saw the robbery rates go from 51 incidents in 2009 to 36 in 2010, the largest reduction out of all of their crime rates a near 30%. Overland Park witnessed all of their crime rates drop from 2009 to 2010 burglary reducing 8%, property crime 7%, and violent crime a decrease of about 6%.

 

Huntsville – Huntsville in 2010 had a population of 183,357 saw the property crime rates decrease by 1%. The largest increase was in the robbery crime rates, which was 433 in 2009 and rose to 463 in 2010, which was a near 7% spike. Alongside this spike were Huntsville’s burglary incidents of 6.3% and the violent crime rates of 2%.

 

Mobile – Mobile with a population of 255,178 in 2010 witnessed their robberies incidents reduce in 2009 rates were as high as 857 and fell to 653 in 2010. The closest reduction to this 24% decrease was Mobile’s violent crime rates that fell 15% in the year comparison. Also the aggravated assault rates decreased by 11%. Mobile did see an increase in the two crime rate categories of property crime of 1% and burglary of 4.3%.

 

Montgomery – Montgomery with a 2010 population of 203,966, did a comparison from 2009 to 2010 crime rates, and witnessed a decrease in the robbery rates of 12% starting with 453 in 2009 and falling to 401 in 2010. The only other crime rate reduction the Montgomery community saw were the violent crime rates dropping a near 9%.

 

The city of Birmingham had a population of 212,178 in 2017 and experienced changes in crime rates such as murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, property crime, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson.  Birmingham, AL saw the murder rate increase by 12% and aggravated assault rose by 18% in 2018.

The city of Mobile had a population of 248,431 in 2017 and experienced changes in crime rates such as murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, property crime, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson.  Mobile, AL saw the murder rate drop by 32% and reported rape increase by 28% in 2018.

 

The city of Montgomery had a population of 199,099 in 2017 and experienced changes in crime rates such as murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, property crime, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson.  Montgomery, AL saw a 37% drop in both the murder rate and reported rape in 2018.

3rd-Party Advertisement:

JohnsCBD Photo Banner.jpg
LEVEL OF EXTRACTION.jpeg