-- Scotts Contracting - StLouis Renewable Energy

Search This Blog

10.18.2010

Do CPR the right way: 5 things everyone needs to know

The American Heart Association announced today new recommendations for the way CPR is performed. The small change could make a big difference in the lives of people suffering from cardiac arrest, the organization says.

For nearly 40 years, CPR guidelines have trained people to follow these simple A-B-C instructions—tilt the victim's head back to open the airway, then pinch their nose and do a succession of breaths into their mouth, and finally perform chest compressions.

But now, the AHA says starting with the C of chest compressions will help oxygen-rich blood circulate throughout the body sooner, which is critical for people who have had a heart attack. With this shift, rescuers and responding emergency personnel should now follow a C-A-B process—begin with chest compression, then move on to address the airway and breaths. This change applies to adults, children, and babies, but does not apply to newborns.

The revision is a part of the 2010 emergency cardiovascular care report published by the AHA., an organization that reviews its guidelines every five years, taking into account new science and literature. Although the changed procedure will take some time to reach what Monica Kleinman, the vice chair of the AHA's Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee, calls "front-line people", there is a plan in place to implement the recommendations as soon as possible to their training network, medical staffs, and first-responders.

"The sooner chest compressions are started, the more likely there will be a better outcome," Kleinman announced. "Studies performed in labs as well as large-population studies have shown that people do better if they get chest compressions within four minutes."

That four minutes is the amount of time it could take for emergency crews to rapidly respond, Chicago firefighter and CPR instructor Kelly Burns notes.  Until then, he stresses that any CPR bystanders perform can make a difference.

"Early activation is critical," Burns says, especially in cities where traffic and walk-up buildings can slow even the fastest respondents during a trauma where every minute counts.

When someone needs CPR, the very best reaction is a quick one, he says.

"In a perfect world, someone else calls 911 while you start chest compressions on the person in need," he advises. According to Kleinman, however, only about one-third of victims of cardiac arrest get assistance from bystanders.

Despite changing guidelines, outdated training, or any confusion in the moment, Burns says that no one who tries CPR is faltering.

"People are reluctant to jump in and help, especially if the person is not a family member or friend," Burns observes on a weekly basis. "The only mistake a civilian can make in these situations is waiting and not doing anything at all."

To that end, the new AHA guidelines are meant to help anyone who encounters this kind of emergency—the idea being, if they know better, they will do better.

5 potentially life-saving notes to remember about the new C-A-B method of CPR:

1. There are no mistakes when you perform CPR.
"One thing most people don't know, " Kleinman says, "is that there is almost nothing you can do [during CPR] to harm a person in cardiac arrest except delay responding."

Starting with chest compressions is now viewed by the AHA as the most effective procedure, and all immediate assistance will increase the chances the victim will survive with a good quality of life.

If one person calls 911 while another administers CPR, as Burns recommends, emergency operators will give informed instructions over the phone as well as dispatch aid to the scene.

2. All victims in cardiac arrest need chest compressions.
The AHA asserts that people having a heart attack still have oxygen remaining in their lungs and bloodstream in the first few minutes of cardiac arrest. Starting chest compressions first thing pumps blood to the victim's brain and heart sooner, delivering needed oxygen. This new method saves the 30 seconds that people performing CPR used to take to open the airway and begin breathing under the old guidelines.

3. It's a myth that only older, overweight men are at risk for a heart attack.
"Equal numbers of women and men have heart attacks," Kleinman reports. Sufferers are primarily adults.

Although infants and children are far more likely to require CPR due to accidents than cardiac arrest, it is important to know how administer care to them. (You can learn how to perform CPR on infants and children with this kit produced by the AHA  or by signing up for one of their training sessions.)

4.  Nearly all cardiac emergencies occur at home.
"Ninety percent of events take place at home. If you perform CPR in your lifetime, it's probably going to be for someone you love," Kleinman reveals.

5. Training is simpler and more accessible than you think.

Learning CPR has never been hard, Kleinman says, but guideline changes in the last ten years have reduced the number of steps and simplified the process even more.

Traditional CPR classes (listed here on the AHA website) are accessible for many people at local schools and hospitals.

Kits are also available to complete in the privacy of your own home or workplace. Kits available through the AHA include inflatable, disposable mannequins and a training DVD.

"Anybody can learn to do CPR. It's clearly important for saving lives, and now it is easier than ever," Kleinman asserts.


Have you ever administered or received CPR? Would you jump in to the C-A-B method if you saw a person in need?



--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

The Fed's Plan -Masquerading as a Jobs Program

Robert Reich

Robert Reich

Posted: October 16, 2010 02:52 PM

The latest jobs bill coming out of Washington isn't really a bill at all. It's the Fed's attempt to keep long-term interest rates low by pumping even more money into the economy ("quantitative easing" in Fed-speak).

The idea is to buy up lots of Treasury bills and other long-term debt to reduce long-term interest rates. It's assumed that low long-term rates will push more businesses to expand capacity and hire workers; push the dollar downward and make American exports more competitive and therefore generate more jobs; and allow more Americans to refinance their homes at low rates, thereby giving them more cash to spend and thereby stimulate more jobs.

Problem is, it won't work. Businesses won't expand capacity and jobs because there aren't enough consumers to buy additional goods and services.

The dollar's drop won't spur more exports. It will fuel more competitive devaluations by other nations determined not to lose export shares to the US and thereby drive up their own unemployment.

And middle-class and working-class Americans won't be able to refinance their homes at low rates because banks are now under strict lending standards. They won't lend to families whose overall incomes have dropped, whose debts have risen, or who owe more on their homes than the homes are worth -- that is, most families.

So where will the easy money go? Into another stock-market bubble.

It's already started. Stocks are up even though the rest of the economy is still down because of money is already so cheap. Bondholders (who can't get much of any return from their loans) are shifting their portfolios into stocks. Companies are buying back more shares of their own stock. And Wall Street is making more bets in the stock market with money it can borrow at almost zero percent interest.

When our elected representatives can't and won't come up with a real jobs program, the Fed feels pressed to come up with a fake one that blows another financial bubble. And we know what happens when financial bubbles get too big.

Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.

Click here to find out more!


--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

10.17.2010

Americans Flunk Climate Test

According to a new Yale study, most Americans are aware of climate change, but have no idea why it is happening. The Yale team claims that only 8 percent of Americans have knowledge equivalent to an A or B grade, while 52% would get an F. The grading was done by a school where grade inflation is an issue, and Dubya carried a C+ average, so these numbers are even worse than they sound. 

Americans Flunk Climate Test
The study found a generally poor level of understanding of such issues as how much greenhouse gas concentrations have increased in the last 100 years (a lot), the impact of livestock on global warming (quite large), and  how long greenhouse asses stay in the atmosphere (a very long time.) The last item is particularly alarming, since our near term inability to reverse the impact of emissions is what drives the urgency to take action now.  Slowing climate change is more like stopping an aircraft carrier than turning a speedboat.

But most concerning is that most in the survey admitted that they don't know all that much about the issue. The Yale team reports that only 1 in 10 say that they are "very well informed" about climate change, and 75 percent say they would like to know more. What exactly are people waiting for? The truth is out there.

I suppose one could argue that as long as scientists are on top of the issue, we'll all be informed at the depth we need to, in order to make collectively prudent decisions. But I have started reading Naomi Oreskes new book (The Merchants of Doubt), which documents how frequently (and easily) science is undercut by manipulating popular opinion. It only takes a few influential deniers to mislead the public.

Perhaps instead of "no child left behind" we need a policy of "no planet left behind?"


posted by: Dave R.
--
Scott's Contracting

US Militarys Green Oil Saving Ideas

U.S. military, Ask America voters see green future

Pentagon going green, because it has to AFP – A hybrid solar-wind generator by Solar Stik, a company that makes portable renewable energy systems, …

Improving energy efficiency has become a top priority for Pentagon brass as insurgents increase attacks on oil convoys in Iraq and Afghanistan. Officials say the U.S. military's dependence on oil has proven to be a dangerous liability, costing billions of dollars and the lives of those who supply and transport it.

The military's push to go green could also impact the domestic energy agenda. Military research and development has lead to technological breakthroughs before, including the computer network predecessor to the Internet.

Informal polling in the Yahoo! News Ask America forum indicates that most Americans want to see a wider variety of energy sources. We asked if people thought the U.S. should invest more to spur a green tech revolution at home. Of the 26,000 people who responded, 67 percent voted yes.

But military leaders say they're trying to go green to save lives. Six Marines have been wounded while guarding fuel convoys in the past three months, and a 2009 Army report found that for every 24 convoys delivering fuel to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, one soldier or civilian was killed in the process.

Attacks on trucks bringing fuel to NATO troops in Afghanistan earlier this month highlighted how vulnerable the convoys can be. Dozens of trucks were destroyed and thousands left stranded as Pakistani officials shut down the Khyber Pass — the suppliers' main route to coalition bases.

While a comprehensive energy bill has been put on the back burner in Congress, the military is making renewable power a priority for sensitive areas of deployment around the world.

The Ask America van arrived Saturday in Santa Fe, part of the Southwest region in the U.S. that promises to lead the way in solar energy. We've been collecting peoples' thoughts on energy and the environment through the Yahoo! News informal polling forum. With nearly 300,000 responses in this category, it seems most people would like to see a wider variety of energy sources on the mainland as well.

With energy legislation in a congressional logjam, can the U.S. military lead the way to a green revolution?

Top military and civilian officials met at the Pentagon this week to discuss different ways to improve energy efficiency .

"We're not going green just for green's sake," Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, said at one of the panel discussions at the Pentagon, according to AFP. "Energy reform…is about protecting the lives of our troops. It's about making our country more secure and more independent. That's why we are doing this, that's why we have to change."

Mabus says he wants the Navy and Marines to be using 50 percent renewable energy by 2020.

The military has already made some advances in using more renewable energy technology in its efforts to go green. According to The New York Times, the Air Force's entire fleet will be certified to fly on biofuels by next year and has already done test flights using a fuel mix that is 50 percent plant-based biofuel and 50 percent jet fuel.

Researchers for CNA's Military Advisory Board argue in a recent study that "By harnessing the leadership characteristics inherent in its military culture, leveraging its organizational discipline, fine-tuning technology development and energy acquisition processes...[the Defense Department] can be a key player in moving America forward in the clean energy technology revolution."

On an organizational level, the Pentagon has created a new office for the Defense Department's Operational Energy Plans and Programs. Sharon Burke, the director of the new office, will come up with a strategy by the end of the year to meet the Pentagon's goals for increased energy efficiency.

Ask America users seem to also want more energy efficiency outside the military. The forum's "Energy and Environment" section addresses many alternative energy options, including high-speed rails, wind farms, solar energy, nuclear power and electric cars. Each of these questions had a majority of 70 percent or more in favor of developing these parts of the industry.

But that's not to say that people want to abandon oil altogether. Fifty-five percent of responses to a question on oil versus alternative energy said they still want to see oil drilling continue while we develop other sources of renewable energy.

Most comments on both sides of the issue echoed the sentiment of Yahoo! user Shane S, who commented: "Keep drilling to keep oil prices down and keep us off mid-east oil. But we need to invest in clean energy for long-term growth and environmental health."

User Bradley continued in that vein saying, "'Clean Energy Now' is at least a decade away. In the meantime, let's drill our own oil, providing jobs here."

One user, R, who says he works in the industry commented: "The push toward new cleaner energy creates jobs and makes the world a better place to live. That's a win-win."

What do you think? Cast your vote now.

Keep up with Ask America: Follow our "video ninja" on the Ask America blog and on Twitter: http://twitter.com/askamericavan.



--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Connect with Scotts Contracting

FB FB Twitter LinkedIn Blog Blog Blog Blog Pinterest

Featured Post

Perfect Aircrete, Kitchen Ingredients.