2023.05.28 06:52 031are Buying a 2016 GMC Sierra 1500- Should I be worried about the reliability?
2023.05.26 20:38 patriot122 Deciding between 12th Gen hybrid/6MT. Any long term owners 100k+ miles?
2023.05.25 17:42 Muuhammed 2016 Honda Civic AC (blue interior light does not turn on)
2023.05.25 03:02 13velo 2016 Acura ILX no start issue
2023.05.25 01:17 rh_az Breaker Replacement Question
2023.05.24 20:17 davethebear612 BioLargo (OTCQB:BLGO) - Environmental Solutions and Engineering Services
![]() | BioLargo – OTCQB:BLGOBLGO represents the majority of my portfolio. My first shares were purchased on March 1, 2021 and I have consistently bought shares throughout the last 27 months.BioLargo is an environmental engineering company. There are 5 divisions of the company. 2 of them (BLEST and BioLargo Water) focus primarily on water treatment. ONM Environmental focuses on odoVOC control in both the industrial sector and as a wholesale distributor for a consumer pet odor control product. BETI is new in 2023 and is developing sodium-sulfur battery technology. Clyra is a medical subsidiary that develops products based on a copper-iodine chemistry that has safe but incredibly powerful oxidation capabilities for infection control in surgical settings. Currently pushed up against the \"ceiling\" of the Oct 2022-Present compression. Still have to shake the 2019-Present compression (top red line). 2008-September 2022 \"Ceiling\" was broken out of. Green floor has been firm and rising since 2021. 2023 Q1 10-Q Filing 2023 Q1 Earnings Call Recording Market Cap: $55M ($0.19/share) Total Outstanding Shares: 284M Outstanding Options: 30M options outstanding ($0.12-$0.43 exercise price, $0.19 average price) Outstanding Warrants: 52M warrants ($0.13-$1.00 exercise price, $0.26 average price) 2022 Revenue: $5.88M (132% YoY growth) 2023 Q1 Revenue: $3.74M (78% QoQ growth vs. Q4 ’22) 2023 Q1 Losses: ($494k) Cash on Hand: $3.26M Debt: Roughly $500k CEO: Dennis Calvert Losses are decreasing. Growth is primarily from ONM Environmental. ONM Environmental generating more cash-flow, bringing company close to profitability despite being the only division with positive cash flow. Debt is basically gone. SG&A has remained consistent as revenue has grown across recent years. Net Stockholder’s Equity has steadily risen. $5M net stockholder equity is required for listing on the Nasdaq. ONM Environmental – VOC/Odor ControlONM Environmental Website - CupriDyne WebsiteONM Environmental (“Odor No More) is the original division of the company. The flagship product is CupriDyne Clean which is a copper-iodine complex that oxidizes odor and VOC. It is sold in the industrial sector to landfills, waste transfer stations, US Air Force Bases, wastewater treatment plants, automotive manufacturers, marijuana growing facilities, animal processors etc. Overall, industrial sales of CupriDyne have been underwhelming from my POV, but the underlying technology has found homes elsewhere, making the asset and the division successful for BioLargo. ONM Environmental has partnered with an advertising firm (Ikigai Holdings) and launched a consumer pet odor control product (POOPH) for household use. Pooph Website/Commercial. One of selling points for CupriDyne/POOPH is its safety. In the commercial, the product is sprayed directly into the host’s mouth to demonstrate its safety. The product uses the same baseline chemistry as CupriDyne Clean. BioLargo serves as manufacturing and wholesaler for Ikigai who is in control of the marketing and selling of the product. BioLargo receives a 6% royalty on Ikigai’s sales of Pooph and receives revenue from acting as the supplier for Pooph. Overall, BioLargo receives about 25% of Pooph’s total sales. POOPH is being sold direct-to-consumer, on Amazon, on Chewy.com (largest online pet supply), and is stocked in about 60% of Walmart locations. POOPH is consistently in the top-50 for pet products on Amazon. https://preview.redd.it/cmkc1g1tns1b1.png?width=686&format=png&auto=webp&s=e3147dbdb754d65c815c26d3ec545ff3019dc2bf From the LinkedIn page of Jordan Stanley, one of Ikigai’s co-founders: “Over the following 10 years, I earned the reputation of an undisputed leader in Direct Response TV, producing such well-known campaigns as Billy Mays’ OxiClean, Procter& Gamble’s Tide, Febreze, and Downy brands. Throughout that time I have continued writing and producing winning commercials through Blue Moon Studios and Concepts for Doggie Steps (Telebrands), Finishing Touch (IdeaVillage), and Snuggies (Allstar). Out of 45,000 commercials in the Procter & Gamble database dating back over 60 years, the commercials I have written, directed and produced have achieved "highest-scoring, best-performing commercials" for Downy, Febreze, Dryel, Ivory Snow laundry products and have the distinction of being the "#1 best-performing 2-minute spot". I have the distinction of having 2 spots in the top 10 as measured by ASI/Ipsos. Using my method, about $3 Billion of revenue has been generated to date.”Ikigai’s goal is to generate $100M+ in annual sales and then seek a brand sale of 3x-7x of annual sales ($300M-$700M). Ikigai has done this before with products like Finishing Touch/Flawless, which is a beauty-care product line that they sold for $900M. That brand sale was valued at 5x annual sales. Flawless/Finishing Touch Brand Sale The estimated payout to BioLargo if/when the brand sells is $100M. As of Q1 2023, BioLargo is receiving roughly $1M/month from Pooph sales. That means Ikigai is at roughly $50M in annual sales rate after less than 18 months since first sales of the product. Ikigai has stated their expectations for 20% QoQ growth for POOPH. If that holds true, they will be at a $100M annual run-rate by Q1 2024. ONM Environmental was the only profitable division in 2022, generating $1.13M in operating income from $4.37M total revenue. This was primarily revenue generated from POOPH, with 86% of total BioLargo 2023 Q1 revenue being POOPH revenue. BioLargo Engineering, Science, and Technologies Inc. (BLEST)BLEST is the most diverse and exciting part of the company to me. The core of the group is a half dozen engineers who were brought on in 2017 after CB&I laid off their entire unit during some turmoil for the company. They were working with BLGO at the time, and Dennis pitched to them that they form BLEST and continue working as the unit that they had been for 20-30 years in their previous role, but with more freedom and flexibility working for an emerging company rather than a giant company like CB&I. They agreed and are based out of Oak Ridge, Tennessee.BLEST is led by Randall Moore. Randall has a 30+ year career in environmental engineering, leading over 1000 employees at times in his career. He has done 1000s of projects. Randall assisted the US Post Office during the Anthrax Crisis. He helped to design and implement the efforts to pump out New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. He helped during the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico. He worked on the aftermath of the Fukushima Disaster. He designed and built the largest dioxin remediation facility in the world. Randall has worked professionally on a diverse set of projects at the highest caliber. He and the rest of the BLEST team are essential to the ability to execute stated goals, continue product development, and complete project design work. BLEST serves 3 roles. They are here to invent new technologies. They are here to support the engineering and design work for other divisions. They are here to complete engineering work for clients. BLEST Technologies and Projects: Aqueous Electrostatic Concentrator (AEC) for PFAS remediation, Minimal Liquid Discharge (MLD) Systems via Garratt Callahan partnership, engineering and design work for what (if goes to full scale) will be the largest waste-to-energy facility in the world, engineering and design work for Ultra Safe Nuclear Company (USNC) for their fuel production system for micro-modular reactors. The above technologies will be discussed later. AEC, Waste-to-Energy, and USNC projects have all been engaged by clients, with the initial phases completed and the second phases scoped . Each have a proposal in the client’s hands, awaiting approval. Many technologies or projects seem very close to strong adoption or progression to future stages, but none of them have really gotten fully there. If the technologies gain more consistent traction, BLEST’s headcount will have to grow, as will their revenues. BLEST incurred a loss of $425k in 2022 on total revenue of $1.94M. BioLargo WaterBioLargo Water does research and development of the Advanced Oxidation System (AOS) which is a water disinfection and micropollutant destruction technology. The division is headquartered in Edmonton, Alberta and gets quite a bit of their funding and support via the Canadian government.AOS has been used in pilot projects for stormwater treatment, brewery wastewater treatment, poultry water treatment, pharmaceutical/micropollutant removal in Montreal’s municipal facility. They have submitted a proposal to the Alberta EPA to validate the technology for use in poultry water treatment in the province, however, not much has been said since that was made public in June 2022. AOS provides disinfection of E coli and other microorganisms. AOS also destroys tough contaminants like pharmaceuticals and micropollutants like benzene. AOS is hard to pin down. Technically, it’s unique and very capable It has been in development for almost a decade and is yet to find a reliably commercial home. For now, it’s just been pilots and peer-reviewed journal articles published in scientific journals. My science brain loves AOS. My finance brain hates it. The company isn't churning through resources to try to commercialize, so it's not killing the company, but the combination of duration of development, unique and high level technical function, and lack of commercial success is a confusing one. AOS Product Brochure - Quebec Pilot - Sunworks Poultry Pilot BioLargo Water did not generate revenue in 2022 and incurred $714k in losses in 2022, which was primarily R&D budget. BioLargo Energy Technologies Inc. (BETI)BETI is a new subsidiary in 2023. BioLargo owns 97% of BETI with a small group of investors holding the remaining 3% of shares. The capital was raised at a valuation of $20M for BETI.Its purpose is to commercialize sodium-sulfur battery technology. One of the original inventors (Mario Caja) of the technology has been brought on to see that through as a member of the BETI team. He has been working on molten salt battery technology for 30 years. Presently, the company is putting the capital that they raised into building small manufacturing capabilities in their Oak Ridge, Tennessee facility. https://preview.redd.it/e8650mzpps1b1.png?width=783&format=png&auto=webp&s=d0be1405bf2ba2145e888b3edd92d09139ce6349 May 9, 2023 Interview Transcript Regarding lithium and sodium ion batteries, Dennis Calvert – CEO: “Those are exotics, lithium, cobalt, nickel, those are rare earth elements that are really mined in offshore. So foreign supply's a big problem. That's one issue. The other is, of course, they're rare, so the price is going crazy, and then the other is efficiency. Lithium has efficiency issues. It only lasts 6, 7, 8 years. Everybody's working on that. They get 80-20% efficiencies, they can't charge to 100%, it builds up dendrites. So the world's looking for a better battery for certain locations.On the last quarterly call (May 18), Dennis stated that they expect to be able to sell any and all batteries that they bring to market that meet the claims they have made. He said that within 4-6 months, they expect to have built a small battery facility in Oak Ridge and prototypes. On May 24, 2023 (Sequire Presentation) Dennis stated that revenue can start to be substantial in 6-9 months. In late 2022, BioLargo added Christina Bray to their board of directors. She is the CEO of an electric vehicle charging company (BlueDot Energies). Christina Bray PR BETI is very new and the available proven details are relatively sparse compared to some of the other parts of BioLargo's portfolio. Seems like a lot of potential, but more must be shown. Clyra MedicalClyra Medical is a bit surprising on the surface. What is an environmental engineering company doing in the medical field? The original inventor at the company (Kenneth Code) sought to create a chemistry that would help be helpful in infection control, as that was something his father was struggling with at the time. The result was a copper-iodine complex, which is very similar to the baseline chemistry that ONM Environmental uses for CupriDyne Clean in the ONM Environmental division.Clyra Medical was formed so that the subsidiary could raise its own capital, independently of BioLargo. It is an asset that is 58% owned by BioLargo. Recently, Clyra has been selling shares to fund production of their first product that has 510k clearance from the FDA, BioClynse. BioClynse Product Brochure https://preview.redd.it/zk8qgnl3qs1b1.png?width=697&format=png&auto=webp&s=a0192692321eb6a3a68013b7fc0861dfd5f3ecb6 BioClynse produces a very strong oxidation reaction, much like how CupriDyne does for odoVOC control. BioClynse is for use during surgery for infection control and can be used after the fact if a knee or hip replacement gets infected following a procedure. The product is gentle enough to be left in the body when the patient is sewn up and provides lasting infection control, including disruption of biofilm. No rinse is required, which is unique. Other products that came to market and were successful across the last decade are starting to come into question because of toxicity concerns to tissue. The company believes that not only has the wound irrigation market expanded dramatically and will continue to, but that it is no longer being met by incumbent products. Regarding BioClynse Efficacy and FDA Point-Of-View: "The questions they asked us were 'You must be lying, because this has never happened before.' When we finally got through, it took us another $1.8M and about 2 years from that first moment, the reviewer said 'This is the lowest concentration of antimicrobial at this level of performance that the agency has ever seen.' And therein lies the special thing that we've been talking about since we started this company (Clyra), and it's now finally positioned to be in a very significant commercial role."https://preview.redd.it/bbo6s81bqs1b1.png?width=846&format=png&auto=webp&s=387eee83e060b6523a257939a9addfeb93b7a606 BioClynse is expected to begin selling more substantially to orthopedic surgeons in Q2 and Q3. They have entered into a production agreement and are in negotiations with distribution partners (Clyra Production Agreement). Capital is being used to fund production. They have spent 2022 and the first parts of 2023 building out a sales rep network and “showing off” the product at industry events with significant positive response according to the company. https://preview.redd.it/jf3eqdfeqs1b1.png?width=618&format=png&auto=webp&s=8a6b6858f2b871c71e9407d0189b32dd5dd5a8d2 Clyra Medical’s goal is to build up the company and to be spun off with the sale of Clyra to a larger medical company. Recently, capital has been raised around a $32M valuation (Reported during Q2 2022 Earnings Call, so may have changed a bit since then). As a subsidiary with just the very beginnings of commercial activity, I don’t anticipate that any spin-off would happen anytime soon, but if 2023 is the year they go commercial with a high margin product like BioClynse, that clock should begin and become less of a theory than it has been. Regarding Future Product Development and Coronavirus Allowance: "We were given notice of allowance for use of Clyra against coronavirus. Coronavirus is a very broad category, not just Covid, it's Middle-Eastern, SARS, it's everything, probably 300 different variations of upper respritory infections and lung disease. That opens up the pathway for us to pursue drug applications for nebulizer therapy, inhalant therapy, nasal sprays, throat sprays, and have good IP coverage. This is good IP coverage. We were denied 4 times. We kept going back and fighting for this, and finally the patent office said: You know what, you got it. They gave us a very broad allowance, and we're going to continue to expand on that. That has major implications in a drug pathway for these Clyra products, which we've always believed the tough part wasgetting the patent done, but we have that."Clyra Medical added 2 members to their board in 2022. Clyra Board Additions. Nick Valeriani spent 34 years at Johnson and Johnson, particularly with wound control (Neosporin). Nick serves on the board of $50B-valued Edwards Lifesciences ($EW). Linda Park is the Senior Vice President, Associate General Counsel, and Corporate Secretary for Edwards Lifesciences. She also joined as a member of the BioLargo board. It has been stated that Linda has been brought on partially for her expertise and guidance as BioLargo seeks to uplist in future to a national market like the Nasdaq. Clyra Medical incurred a loss of $1.38M in 2022, bringing in just $56k what was essentially a few initial users of BioClynse in a professional setting. BLEST Technologies and ProjectsGarratt-Callahan – Minimal Liquid Discharge (MLD) DevicesIn 2021, BioLargo announced that Garratt Callahan (largest private water company in North America) approached them to ask for help finalizing the design of their Minimal Liquid Discharge technology. GC MLD Announcement BioLargo helped them finish the design and will serve as the manufacturer of the product. The product has patent coverage through Garratt Callahan. GC MLD Patent The MLD systems are water reuse devices that take the mineral content out of water streams for use in things like cooling towers. The devices allow for an industrial water user to stretch their water budget significantly further, bringing value to clients in both reducing their water costs, but also allowing them to continue their planned operations in an environment where water availability may fluctuate based on hydrologic/drought conditions. Potential clients would be data centers, energy generation, and industrial water users. BioLargo will make money from the manufacturing and sale of the unit (approximately $500k per unit), while Garratt Callahan will make their money from the operation of the machines. It was expected that these units would begin being sold in 2022, however that did not happen. A factory acceptance test was successfully completed in February of 2022 ("FAT" Acceptance) , however contracts have not been announced BioLargo maintains confidence in the future of these devices and states that they are involved with a dozen or more negotiations and design work for potential projects. If those projects are confirmed, GC MLD devices can be a strong revenue stream through an established water treatment company. GC maintains that 30-50 units can be moved annually, but that is hard to predict when the first one will be sold and if 30-50 per year is a reasonable expectation given the delayed rollout. If they can accomplish that, however, it would bring in $15M-$25M annually. https://preview.redd.it/ra8cj3emqs1b1.png?width=975&format=png&auto=webp&s=90fa9a91bab9ff455d88bafea6089d419df5f038 Garratt Callahan has also agreed to sell AEC for PFAS remediation (discussed below). BioLargo has stated that a few of their potential PFAS remediation projects expected to move forward soon are ones that GC brought to the table. Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation – Fuel Production Design Work Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation (USNC) is designing micro-modular nuclear reactors. Part of that design is a new fuel system (FCM/TRISO-fuel). They have contracted BioLargo Engineering to help design their fuel production facility in Oak Ridge, Tennesse (also where BLEST is headquartered) which opened in August 2022. Fuel Production Facility - USNC/BLEST Collaboration - Pilot Fuel Manufacturing Facility Opens - FCM/TRISO Fuel Information https://preview.redd.it/2dasi4sqqs1b1.png?width=931&format=png&auto=webp&s=18d66bd7b496d857ab80b3b247b2aa62faa6ee25 Phase 1 of the project was completed. Phase 2 has gotten a verbal “yes”, but a signed contract has not been announced officially yet. April 24, 2023 Prospectus "In the second quarter of 2022, BLEST was contracted by Ultra Safe Nuclear to assist in producing the first prototype fuel production systems for their new nuclear reactor called the Micro Modular Reactor (MMR®). Ultra Safe Nuclear is a Seattle-based nuclear energy company that has invented a “fission battery” - a fourth generation modular nuclear reactor – that can deliver safe, zero-carbon, cost-effective energy anywhere. The MMR® uses ceramic-encapsulated nuclear fuel – Fully Ceramic Micro-encapsulated (FCM+++) – an extremely rugged and stable fuel with high temperature stability. BioLargo has been retained to provide engineering design support, fabrication, and integration for the company’s prototype fuel production systems. Because of the success of the early phase of the project, this project is expected to expand over the coming months in scope and significance to BioLargo, making them an important customer for BLEST." Waste to Energy – Design Work BioLargo was contracted to begin design work on a waste to energy conversion project in South America. The facility being designed would be the largest waste-to-energy conversion plant in the world if it goes to its full scale. The project has 10 years of planning and preparation behind it. The project would be 6 phases, and the company has estimated that all 6 phases would be around $50M in design work. Waste to Energy PR The first phase was a feasibility study and was completed. BioLargo has given a proposal for Phase 2 and is awaiting the green light from the client. The timeline to begin Phase 2 has been slower than originally expected (as seen in June 2022 image below). On the last call, there was mention of political instability in South America giving some pause to decision-making at this time, but the BioLargo continues to maintain that they are in good standing with the client and the project is in good standing overall. The client has brought 4 more projects to BioLargo in Southeast Asia. “This developer has actually brought us 4 more projects. This one has moved from Phase 1 to Phase 2. Phase 2 will push over $1 million. Phase 3 will probably be in the $7.5 million range.” “In April 2022, our engineering subsidiary was hired by a Southern California based sustainable energy services company to conduct a comprehensive project plan (i.e., “feasibility study”) for a waste-to-energy (WTE) conversion plant in South America – one of multiple projects in planning stages by the company. Our engineers completed the initial feasibility study and have delivered a proposal for the next phase of the project (front end engineering design, aka FEED). The client has also requested feasibility studies and a FEED proposal for WTE plants in Asia.”From June 2022 Annual Shareholder's Meeting - note: Stage 1 is complete. Stage 2 has not begun. PFAS Remediation:The Aqueous Electrostatic Concentrator (AEC) is likely the biggest opportunity in the BLEST portfolio. BioLargo has one active project that has been contracted for PFAS remediation. They are awaiting approval from the client to begin the next phase and scale towards a full installation. During a May 24, 2023 (day of making this post) presentation with Sequire, Dennis mentioned that Phase 1 is complete and they are expecting to move to Phase 2 in the near future. Phase 2 would be $500k-$1M and would take 6-9 months. Phase 3 to go to full scale would be a $15M-$20M in expected revenue. It would also provide a full-scale installation to lean on for proof of function and scaling for clients to have confidence in.AEC is a PFAS collection technology. PFAS “Forever Chemicals” are compounds that are designed to not break down through natural processes. The EPA is in the process of setting drinking water standards for PFAS that would impact 65,000 drinking water systems across the country. Incumbent technologies (Granular Activated Carbon and Ion Exchange Resin) face performance and regulatory challenges moving forward as the EPA’s proposed regulations come closer to taking effect. In March 2023, they proposed federal drinking water standards of 4ppt for PFOS and PFOA (the two main compounds), and a combined weighted limit for 4 other PFAS compounds based on their health advisories. The regulations are expected to firm up in the coming months after necessary comment periods and EPA process etc. Federal Proposal PFAS waste is on a trajectory to be designated as HazMat under CERCLA (HazMat Classification). When used for municipal drinking water remediation, incumbent technologies produce several tons of PFAS-laden carbon or PFAS-laden resin. Recently, Cape Fear removed almost 200 tons of PFAS-laden carbon waste from their facility (Cape Fear Waste). Cape Fear is a very large system, but even a mid-size municipal system ends up having to consider the liability of that amount of HazMat waste on a recurring basis. That “changeout period” becomes more frequent when the drinking water standards get lower. At 9.6ng/L, the data in the right column has too high PFAS concentration to pass proposed federal limits. 4ng/L and the detection limit are very similar levels of PFAS contamination (1-2ng/L is consistent detection limit usually). 2.7-7.1 Month range for GAC and IX technologies (standard incumbents). Lower regulatory standards will require more frequent changeout of media. The media used for GAC projects can be regenerated. Ion exchange media cannot be regenerated. GAC waste can only be regenerated for future use in some parts of the United States. The legality of that process has come into question due to concerns about releasing PFAS emissions into the air (DoD Incineration/Regeneration Ban). Some users continue to regenerate the material while the EPA goes through the process to regulate PFAS. If regeneration is not allowed, the material will end up requiring HazMat landfilling and not be able to be regenerated for future use. That will make remediation with GAC much more complicated and expensive. It will increase the total cost of changing out carbon material by requiring more new material to be used, but also increasing disposal costs of waste. Several tons of waste (200 tons in Cape Fear) now need to be sent to a HazMat landfill. How Many Municipal Drinking Water PFAS Remediation Projects Will be Necessary?: West Virginia recently tested 37 water systems. 19 of them would be out of federal compliance if the proposed federal standards were implemented (WV PFAS Testing). 37 systems is not a huge sample size, but this is reasonable when compared to what I have found when looking at other state-level data across the country. If 50% of systems require remediation, that is around 32k projects just for drinking water. For reference, if there are 32k projects for half of the US population that require remediation, the average number of residents served by a system is just over 5,000, though that number will have quite a large range with some water systems serving hundreds of thousand residents.. PFAS Remediation Project Examples: In Dover, New Hampshire, a 1.1M gallon per day facility was approved for $13.9M. This was for the treatment of half of the water supply for a population of 33,000 residents. (Dover Project Details) The project for Wausau has a cost estimate of $23M (Wausau Cost Estimate). Wausau Water serves 16000 customers (40,000 residents) and treats just over 4M gallons of water per day (Wausau Customer and Daily Flow). Cape Fear, NC has $43M up front costs with $5M annual costs to operate (Cape Fear Costs). The facility is 44M gallons per day (Cape Fear - Size). Municipal Water PFAS Remediation Cost Estimate: Municipal drinking water projects are generally $5-$50M caliber projects. Small town projects can be $1M-$5M, and the largest projects will end up being over $100M. Before the federal Orange County Water District (1% of the population of the United States) estimates a total of $1B will be required for the remediation of their water systems (OCWD Estimate). That is a figure from 2020 and is expected to have increased since then. If you use Orange County’s estimate across the United States, it will cost over $100B for municipal drinking water. The EPA estimates that PFAS remediation will cost between $769M and $1.2B annually (EPA Estimate). American Water Works Association (AWWA) estimates up to $2.9B annually (AWWA Estimate). What About PFAS Remediation Outside of Municipal Drinking Water? I won’t attempt to do the same thing for other water treatment sectors. You'd probably stop reading if you don't already want to. It is important to note that drinking water is only part of what will require PFAS remediation projects. Industrial water users (landfills, oil/gas, papepulp production, metal processing/finishing, wastewater treatment facilities) will require remediation equipment. Groundwater remediation takes place when there is a contaminated aquifer due to a spill or through things like spreading biosolids from wastewater treatment plants on farmland. If the biosolids have PFAS in them (which many do), then the groundwater is contaminated because the PFAS has been applied across the soils. Surface water remediation can be required if high levels of PFAS are found. It isn’t clear what the EPA is planning to do with surface water, but some states have attempted to set concentration limits. Many of the specifics still need to be firmed up by the EPA, but in general it is safe to assume that the estimated $769M-$2.9B that is estimated for PFAS remediation of municipal drinking water annually will not begin to represent the total cost of PFAS remediation in the United States. Any company that has leading PFAS remediation technology has the opportunity to tap into a gigantic emerging market that is going to be backed by federally enforceable drinking water standards. Aqueous Electrostatic Concentrator (AEC):AEC Product Video - BioLargo's PFAS Website - AEC Product BrochureAEC functions by running water across (not through) a membrane while applying electric charge. PFAS compounds are fused to the membrane and removed from the water supply. AEC only removes the PFAS compounds, which is unique for collection technologies. Materials like granular activated carbon remove all contaminants, meaning that it is very inefficient for PFAS removal since PFAS is found in such low concentrations. This is important because remediation using GAC will produce much more waste than it will with AEC (up to 1000x depending on specific water chemistry). A user of AEC doesn’t have to worry about managing several dozen tons of waste every changeout period. Tonya Chandler on AEC Footprint and Waste Production vs. Incumbent Technologies: How do we measure up size-wise? Well, fairly similar to a GAC system. The difference is that when you see all of our frames, I don’t need to be skidded. I could line the walls with those frames. I can drop those frames – we’ve got one customer that wants to drop them into a pit that’s in their system that they don’t use anymore. I can stack them on top of each other to create space. As long as I have maintenance room around them, I’m pretty flexible on the layout. But you’ll see I produce much less spent (media). Now, also note that that GAC number that I’m giving you there is a single pass. I’m not considering a lead-lag in that number.GAC vs AEC Waste and Footprint Comparison – note: AEC changeout period is expected to be longer than GAC changeout period. Disposal when spent does not represent the same period of time. Orange County Water District - AEC can produce \"Non-Detect\" results all 27 tested PFAS compounds. Tonya Chandler on AEC Origin, Design and Function: “The AEC stands for the Aqueous Electrostatic Concentrator, and they decided that they wanted to use the polarity of the PFAS against it. The hypothesis was that if they created some chambers that had a series of electrodes and some specialized membranes, they might be able to pull the PFAS out and create a concentrated stream. The goal was to produce a stream that met the standards. They thought, ‘well if we did multiple stages, we could probably create DI-water. They wanted to stay low energy, and they wanted the cost to be affordable. From September 2022 Tonya Chandler Presentation to Wisconsin Engineers From 2023 10-Q Report: “We have successfully validated the AEC as an effective system to selectively extract and collect PFAS chemicals from contaminated water including performance testing that shows “non-detect” levels of removal, which meets new EPA standards. We have demonstrated more than nine months of continuous operation showing no materially significant degradation of the AEC system’s components or performance over time. As a modular system, we believe the AEC is scalable to a commercial scale, and we believe that our engineering team has the experience to deliver systems to meet the needs of a commercial installation." Dennis on Small Commercial-Scale AEC units: "These are new – we have three of these. We just got – just built and what will happen with these machines is they go out into the field where we go through early testing program. We identify a spot, where we can work with a client the customer, and we say, let's as an additional step just to make sure, let's bring one of these out, park it into their location for three or four weeks, run some samples, run some tests and show our customer, our prospective customer that says that, the device can be well suited for the custom circumstances that surround that customer's water source.” https://preview.redd.it/k1mkmv680t1b1.png?width=975&format=png&auto=webp&s=dca6291bd1bfb510ffabffbe3b1dcbdaab0dea37 |
2023.05.23 23:37 BigHomieCed_ Element 3 installation > 2022 GMC Sierra AT4x. Help ...!
2023.05.22 04:31 MechE_22 Saturn Ion Wiring Question
![]() | Hi all, submitted by MechE_22 to Saturn_Cars [link] [comments] Had my 05’ Saturn in a month or so ago and just looked under the hood today to add wiper fluid and noticed this loose wiring and chip taped to the top of my under hood fuse box. Tried tracing the wiring diagram from the Hanes manual but no luck. Anyone have an idea on what this may be? It’s a red and black wire that comes off the main wiring bundle off the back of the fuse box. Thanks in advance! |
2023.05.21 22:30 nexion2 Which fuse is responsible for all the beeping noises the Volt makes?
2023.05.20 23:31 MeanBack1542 Silverado AC not working
2023.05.20 01:16 _farmer_guy_ How to remove these harnesses?
![]() | I have a 97 ford f250 xl 7.5 gas. I’m having trouble removing these harnesses from the firewall in my truck. This harness is attached to non engine components in the truck (headlights/starter fuse box etc). Attached is a photo of each side of the firewall. I’ve tried pulling every kind of way and it doesn’t seem to budge at all. I don’t want to break anything. Additionally, I’m having a hard time identifying part numbers for this truck. Does anyone know of a good source of part diagram images to get a source of part numbers? submitted by _farmer_guy_ to MechanicAdvice [link] [comments] |
2023.05.19 13:18 kriscoursecorner Trading courses available from 49$-120$. ( Price depends on the course selected) All proofs will be provided before your purchase so that you can verify genuinity. See the text below for the list of added courses. Feel free to message me if you need any course, If we have it we will help
2023.05.18 20:35 kempsam4 Duramax No Crank No Start
2023.05.18 20:35 kempsam4 Duramax No Crank No Start
2023.05.18 20:33 kempsam4 Duramax No Crank No Start
2023.05.18 12:05 FyrestarOmega Lucy Letby trial, Defence day 6, 18 May 2023
Mr Johnson asks if Lucy Letby wishes to change any of her answers from yesterday. Letby: "No."
Mr Johnson asks if handover sheets were handed out to student nurses.
Letby said she would have handover sheets as a student nurse at some placements, but in the neonatal unit she cannot recall specifically. She tells the court it was not standard practice at the neonatal unit to hand out handover sheets to student nurses "for the time we are talking about".
Mr Johnson says one of the handover sheets, dated June 1, 2010, was in a keep-sake box with roses on the box, when Letby was a student nurse [Letby having started full-time employment at the hospital on January 2, 2012]. Letby says she cannot recall it.
Mr Johnson asks what is "unusual" about the handover sheet, and how it differs from the others.
Letby is unsure what Mr Johnson means.
Mr Johnson: "It is in pristine condition."
Letby: "It's the original?"
Mr Johnson: "Yes."
Letby: "Ok."
Mr Johnson says Letby took the sheet for June 23, 2016 home as it had notes of drugs for Child O and Child P.Inserting here from BBC:
Letby said there was documentation on there, but cannot be sure what details were on it.
Letby said she took the note home deliberately to bring it back the following day for finishing up writing of medications.
A copy of the handover sheet is circulated to the jury and Letby. Mr Johnson says he is interested in the back, on the medical notes.
Letby describes what is on the note - medication for Child P - caffeine. Nothing was written for Child O. No medications were noted for a third child.
Letby said she had taken it back with the paper towel, which had further details.
Letby is asked when the Morrisons work bag was placed under her bed. Letby says she cannot recall the Ibiza bag became her new bag after her trip to Ibiza around June 2016.
Letby is asked how the handover sheets ended up in her bag. She says after emptying her pockets, the sheets would end up in her work bag.
Nicholas Johnson: "You're ferrying work sheets to and from work."
Letby: "I can't say definitively."
NJ: "They must have been...why put them in that bag at all?"
LL: "I can't recall."
NJ: "Can't or won't?"
LL: "They were just bits of paper to me."
"Why don't you want to tell the truth?" asks Nick Johnson KC, on the subject of handover sheets found at Lucy Letby's Chester home.Back to Chester Standard:
The defendant says they have "no meaning" and are "just pieces of paper".
"If they have no meaning, why did you keep them?" Mr Johnson asks.
Letby says she has accumulated "copious amounts of paper, cards" throughout "her whole life" and that these are "no different".
Mr Johnson mentions that handover documents were found in different bags in different places during the police search of her home. Letby says she was accumulating "paper, not their content".
"The question the jury may be interested in is why," Mr Johnson says.
"I have difficulty throwing anything away," Letby replies.
Letby says she accepts pieces of paper were taken between different areas and properties - "it's the paper I accumulate, not the content
Letby says she has difficulty throwing things away.
NJ: "Is that why you bought a shredder?"From BBC:
LL: "I bought a shredder for certain documents when I bought the house...predominantly bank statements."
NJ: "Why not the handover sheets?"
LL: "I wasn't aware I had them.
LL: "I wasn't thinking - they were just bits of paper."
Mr Johnson says the shredder was bought after Letby moved into her Chester home in April 2016.
LL: "They were insignificant."
NJ: "They are significant."
NJ: "They have the names of dead children on them."
LL: "They have the names of a lot of children on them - I agree I shouldn't have taken them home."
"Are you really asking the jury to accept that pieces of paper with information about dead children are insignificant?" asks Mr Johnson. Chester Standard
"Yes," Letby says.
Mr Johnson asks about other work documents found in Letby's Morrisons work bag, such as a blood gas record for Child M.
NJ: "Were they insignificant?"
Letby says at the time the documents were insignificant, as they went home along with a lot of other documents for babies not on the indictment.
LL: "These have come home with me...not with any intention."
NJ: "You have taken them home."
Letby accepts the wording.
Mr Johnson asks if Letby recalls a colleague nurse's evidence for Child M on the blood gas reading.
Mr Johnson says she took it, wrote it on the chart, and disposed of it.
Letby is asked how she got the sheet, if it had been put in the [hospital's] confidential waste bin.
LL: "I can't recall specifically."
NJ: "It was for your little collection, wasn't it?"
LL: "No."
Mr Johnson asks why Letby purchased a shredder if she wasn't going to use it - was she on so much money she could make such purchases?
Letby, after saying she is not sure what finance has to do with this, says she used the shredder to shred bank statements.
"Why did you lie about [not having a shredder] in interview?"
Letby said she didn't recall having a shredder, it was not a significant item in her house.
"Like the pieces of paper?"
Letby agrees.
Letby, asked how she could have disposed of handover sheets, said to police in interview she did not have a shredder and, if she did, that would be how she would dispose of confidential documents.
Letby tells the court: "I can't recall at the time - I had just been arrested by police, locating a shredder wasn't on my mind."
Mr Johnson asks when the shredder was bought.
Letby says "shortly before this [police] interview - if I said it was bought recently."
Mr Johnson asks about a shredder box in Letby's parents' home, in her bedroom wardrobe. Letby said "it probably moved with me". She says she cannot recall "definitively" whether it was her parents' shredder.
Mr Johnson says "it was settled" that the box had the word "keep" written on it. Letby said that was to "keep the box and the shredder".
Mr Johnson: "But there is no shredder in the box"
Letby: "The shredder was elsewhere in the house".
Letby agrees her parents would not go in her room at their parents' place.
Mr Johnson asks why the word 'keep' would be written on the box in that event.
"I can't answer that."
Mr Johnson asks about a sympathy card written to Child I's family.
Letby is asked where she wrote the card.
Letby says she bought the card, but cannot recall where specifically she wrote it.
Letby says she wouldn't have written it on shift.
Letby is asked why the photo was taken when she was at work.
"The card is written, it has been taken to work to hand over to a colleague who is going to the funeral."
NJ: "Why did you take a picture at the place where the child...died in dreadful circumstances?"
Letby said the place the photo was taken was "insignificant", it was taken before the card was handed over to staff.
Mr Johnson: "Another thing that is insignificant?"
Letby: "I think that is taken out of context."
Mr Johnson: "Did it give you a bit of a thrill?"
LL: "Absolutely not."
Mr Johnson says in the defence, Letby's name is not referred to in the schedule surrounding the events for some babies. Added from BBC:
"Are you suggesting the absence of your name [from the schedule]...is showing you hadn't had contact with the child?"
Letby agrees "...in terms of the documentation at that time." She agrees that does not record events such as minor nursing responses if a baby starts crying.
Letby says she has been to the unit on days off, such as finishing documentation that hasn't been done in the day, or seeing colleagues who have been on a course.
Letby says a record would be made as the swipe data would record her entrance, as the only way she could get into the unit.
Mr Johnson says for Child G, Letby did not leave work until 10am on September 7. Letby says: "That's not unusual."
A message is shown from 10.56pm on September 7 - Letby: "She looks awful doesn't she. Hope you get some sleep."
Letby said if there was a sick baby on the unit, "you would go and check on them, that's not unreasonable."
She had looked at Child G's charts, and accepts she was not on duty at that time. Letby said she had been in to finish some documentation.
Mr Johnson tells the court this was a "big day for" Child G, as it was her 100th day. Letby said: "Yeah she's declining bit by bit".
Mr Johnson says there is no record of Letby entering the unit.
He suggests Letby does not need a pass to gain entry to the unit.
Letby says she would need a pass to swipe in, and accepts: "Unless another colleague opened the door for me."
Letby adds if she had a legitimate reason to enter the unit, she would have entry accepted.
Letby is asked why she entered the unit at around 11pm, not earlier that day.
Letby: "It's quieter at night - I don't know, I can't say why I've gone in at night."
Nick Johnson KC turns to the subject of milk tube feeds for babies on the unit. Chester Standard:
After asking Lucy Letby to explain the process, he asks if she's ever used a syringe plunger to speed up the flow of milk, which she denies.
"Is it a job for which you need to use both hands?" Mr Johnson asks - Letby agrees.
"Have you ever sent texts to your friends while you have been performing a tube feed?" he questions.
"Absolutely not, no," she replies.
She says it would be "inappropriate" and that she doesn't "see how you could do a feed without having both hands".
He proposes that if hospital records show she was identified as giving feeds at the same time as texting friends that she wasn't in fact giving that feed.
Letby says the feed charts are estimates to the nearest quarter or half past hour.
"What would take priority, texting your friends or feeding a child?" Mr Johnson asks.
"The baby, obviously," she replies.
Mr Johnson asks if Letby has ever texted her friends while a resuscitation is going on in the unit. She says such an act would be inappropriate if she was at the cot side but not if she were elsewhere.
"Is it appropriate to be texting friends while a resuscitation is going on?"
"If I'm not playing a part in that, yes."
She denies Mr Johnson's suggestion she would have been "giving a commentary" to her friends while doing so.
"Do you know what I'm talking about?" he asks.
"No."
"We'll come to it."
Mr Johnson asks about staffing levels. Added from BBC:
Letby agrees that babies in room 1 are not necessarily always intensive care babies, or that babies in room 2 are always high dependency babies.
Mr Johnson says if the jury conclude a baby was attacked, then it would be the attacker who was the common link
Letby: "Just because I was on shift doesn't mean I have done anything."
Mr Johnson says if the jury conclude attacks happened in four cases, then the common link between them all would be the attacker.
LL: "That is for them to decide."
NJ: "On principle, do you agree?"
LL: "I don't think I can answer that."
Lucy Letby is asked about people she worked with in the neonatal unit, and if she had problems with any of her colleagues. Chester Standard:
Nick Johnson KC questions Lucy Letby on a "conspiracy group" against her - four of Letby's colleagues, including doctors, who raised concern over a possible link to Letby's presence and incidents involving babies on the unit.
"What is the conspiracy?" Mr Johnson asks.
"That they have apportioned blame on to me," Letby replies.
Asked what the motive would be, she says: "I believe to cover failings at the hospital."
Mr Johnson indicates he'll give Letby the opportunity to explain what hospital failings were involved in each case against her.
Mr Johnson asks about Letby's colleagues.
Letby says she did not have a disagreement with Dr Gail Beech or Dr Andrew Brunton, and had a good working relationship with them.
For Dr Stephen Brearey, Letby said she did not have a problem with him at the time she was at work with him - she wrote a note calling him a profanity after she was redeployed, as he and Dr Ravi Jayaram "had been making comments" about Letby being implicated in the deaths of babies.
"They were very insistent that I be removed from the unit."Letby denies being in love with a doctor who cannot be named - "I loved him as a friend, I was not in love with him."
A note in Letby's handwriting is shown to the court. There is a suggestion the writing, previously said as 'Timmy', is 'Tiny Boy'.
Letby says her dog as a child had a nickname of 'Tiny boy', while another of her childhood dogs was named 'Timmy'.
Letby said she had no issues with other doctors on the unit, including Dr John Gibbs, Dr Sally Ogden, Dr Alison Ventress and Dr David Harkness.
For one other doctor, she said she did not have the best working relationship, but they got on.
For Dr Jayaram, "we had a normal working relationship".
NJ: "You searched for him on the internet."
LL: "I searched for a lot of people."
Letby says four doctors were in the 'conspiracy group', including Dr Jayaram, Dr Gibbs and Dr Brearey - "that they have apportioned blame on me".From BBC:
Letby is asked about "failings in the hospital".
Letby is asked if Child F was poisoned with insulin.
"Yes I agree that he had insulin."
"Do you believe that somebody gave it to him unlawfully?"
"Yes."
"Do you believe that someone targeted him?"
"No."
"It was a random act?"
"Yes...I don't know where the insulin came from."
"Do you agree [Child L] was poisoned with insulin?"
"From the blood results, yes."
"Do you agree that someone targeted him specifically?"
"No...I don't know how the insulin got there."
Letby adds: "I don't believe that any member of staff on the unit would make a mistake in giving insulin."
"Mistake not possible in this case, is it?" Mr Johnson says.Chester Standard:
"No," Letby replies.
The judge asks if that is the case for Child F.
Letby agrees.
She denies it was her who administered the insulin.
Letby is asked about the dangers of unprescribed insulin.
Letby: "It would cause them to be unwell, it would cause them to be hypoglacaemic... seizures, apnoea, even death."
Letby is asked about her training which, when completed, allowed her to care for intensive care babies.
Letby is asked if that meant she would have access to room 1 more often than before. Letby agrees.
The training involved education about lines, access, and the complication of air embolous, the court hears.
Letby said she had heard of air embolous by the time police interviewed her.
She tells the court: "All staff know that air introduced...can lead to death."
NJ: "Everybody knows the danger of air embolous."
LL: "I can't speak for everyone."
Mr Johnson asks about the case of Child A.
Letby says she did have independent memory of Child A.
"Before [Child A], had you ever known a child to die unexpectedly within 24 hours of birth?"
LL: "I can't recall - I'm not sure."
Letby says she can recall "two or three" baby deaths prior at the Countess of Chester Hospital, and "several" at her placement in Liverpool Women's Hospital.
Mr Johnson says Letby had previously told police it was "two" at Liverpool. Letby says her memory would have been clearer back then.
Letby says it was discussed at the time Child A's antiphospholipid syndrome could have been a contributing factor at the time.
Letby tells the court "in part", staffing levels were a contributing part in Child A's death, due to a lack of fluids for four hours and issues with the UVC line.
She says they were "contributing factors", and put Child A "at increased risk of collapse".
"I can't tell you how [Child A] died, but there were contributing factors that were missed."
Letby says the issues with Child A's lines "made him more vulnerable", with one of the lines "not being connected to anything".
Letby is asked why she didn't record this on a 'Datix form'.
LL: "It was discussed amongst staff at the time...I didn't feel the need to do a Datix, it had been raised verbally with two senior staff, one Dr Jayaram, one a senior nursing staff."
She adds: "I don't know why [Child A] died."
Letby says if the cause of death was established as air embolous, then it would have come from the person connecting the fluids, "which wasn't me".
Mr Johnson: "Do you accept you were by [Child A] at the time he collapsed?"
LL: "I accept that I was in his cot space, checking equipment, yes...I was in his close vicinity."
NJ: "Could you reach out and touch him?"
LL: "I could touch his incubator - the incubator was closed."
NJ: "Could you touch his lines?"
LL: "No."
Letby says "there's no way of knowing" from the signatures, who administered the medication between the two nurses, Letby or nurse Melanie Taylor.
Dr David Harkness recalled to the court: "There was a very unusual patchiness of the skin, which I have never seen before, and only seen since in cases at the Countess of Chester Hospital."
Letby disagrees with that skin colour description for Child A.
She agrees with Dr Harkness that Child A had "mottling", with "purple and white patches".
Letby says she cannot recall any blotchiness.
"I didn't see it - if he says he saw it...that's for him to justify.
"It's not something I saw.
"I was present and I did not see those."
Dr Ravi Jayaram said Child A was "pale, very pale", and referred to "unusual patches of discolouration."
Letby: "I don't agree with the description of discolouration, I agree he was pale."
Letby disagrees with the description of Child A being blue, with pink patches 'flitting around'.
An 'experienced nurse of 20 years', who the court hears was a friend of Letby, said: "I've never seen a baby look that way before - he looked very ill."
Letby agrees Child A looked ill. She disagrees with the nurse's statement of the discolouration, or the blotchiness on Child A's skin.
"I agree he was white with what looked like purple markings."
Letby agrees with the statement that the colouring "came on very suddenly".
Mr Johnson refers to Letby's police interview, in which Letby was asked to interpret what she had seen on Child A.
Letby explained to police mottling was 'blotchy, red markings on the skin'
"Like, reddy-purple".
Child A was "centrally pale".
In police interview, Letby was asked about what she saw on Child A. She said: "I think from memory it [the mottling] was more on the side the line was in...I think it was his left."
Letby tells the court she felt Child A was "more pale than mottled".
She says it was "unusual" for Child A to be pale and to have discolouration on the side", but there was "nothing unusual" about the type of discolouration itself.
Mr Johnson asks about the bag being kept for testing.
Letby says she cannot recall if she followed it up if the bag was tested. She had handed it over to the shift leader.
Letby is asked if she accepts Child A did not have a normal respiratory problem. Letby agrees.
Mr Johnson asks if Letby has ever seen an arrhythmia in a neonate. Letby: "No, I don't think so, no."
Mr Johnson says air bubbles were found in Child A afterwards.
"Did you inject [Child A] with air?"
"No."
Mr Johnson asks if Letby was "keen" to get back to room 1 after this event.
Letby says from her experience at Liverpool Women's, she was taught to get back and carry on as soon as possible.
Letby had been asked what the dangers of air embolus were, and she had not known.
"Were you playing daft?"
"No - every nurse knows the dangers."
Letby said she did not know how an air embolous would progress, but knew the ultimate risk was death.
The trial is now resuming. Nicholas Johnson KC says there is one thing he overlooked from the morning's evidence.
He asks Lucy Letby why she said "blotchiness" rather than "mottling" in part of her police statement.
"I think they are interchangeable," Letby tells the court.
Asked if staffing levels or mistakes had contributed to the collapse of Child B, Letby says she does not know what caused Child B's collapse.
She says she does not recall Child B's father lying on the floor following Child B's collapse.
A text message from Letby includes:...'Dad was on the foor crying saying please don't take out baby away when I took him to the mortuary, it's just heartbreaking."
Letby says she does not recall that.
Letby says in this case, she did not want to care for Child B so soon after the death of Child A, as unlike the Liverpool example she had been taught of 'getting back on the horse' (Mr Johnson's words) and being back in nursery room 1, this was with the same family.
Letby accepts Child B did well on the day shift of June 9.
Letby is asked if Child B's parents 'stood guard' in the unit following the death of twin, Child A.
Letby: "They were very much present on the unit and we allowed for that."
A diagram for the night shift of June 9-10 shows Letby was in nursery room 3 for that night shift, looking after two babies. Child B was in room 1.
Letby says she "got on well" with all her nursing colleagues.
Letby recalls evidence from court by a nurse colleague on March 21, in which Letby had said working in nurseries 3 and 4 was "boring".
Letby tells the court: "I have never been bored [at work], I would never describe my work as boring."
Mr Johnson goes through the timeline of Child B's events.From BBC:
A message from Letby to Yvonne Griffiths said: "...Hard coming in and seeing the parents".
Mr Johnson says she is "engaged in chit-chat with a friend" between 8.41pm-9.10pm on the night shift in a social context. Letby says that sort of conversation was not limited to just her.
Mr Johnson says further messages are exchanged between 9.12pm-9.32pm.
Letby says "all members of staff use their phones on the unit". She says it was "accepted".
Nick Johnson KC shows the court a list of text messages which Lucy Letby sent to friends and colleagues whilst she was on shift.
He says: "I’m suggesting you were bored because you were engaging in chit chat on texts with friends."
Lucy Letby replies: "No that’s common practice on the ward, that's not unique to me."
Johnson adds: "I take it that staffing levels weren't an issue then?"
Lucy Letby says she can't speak for the other staff on the unit, but her babies were being adequately looked after at the time.
She says she cannot comment for the whole unit, but her designated babies were being cared for.
She says she does not believe there were staffing issues - "I can't see what's going on with the other babies [at this time]."
Further messages are exchanged involving Letby, some in a social context, up to 10.28pm.
Mr Johnson says in the middle of the block of messages, Letby signs for medication for a baby at 10.20pm. Letby says she didn't use her phone in clinical areas.
A "further block of messages" are exchanged on Letby's phone between 10.38-10.59pm.
NJ: "Were you bored?"
LL: "No."
NJ: "As a matter of fact, do you text a lot when in [room 3]?"
LL: "I text regardless where I am on shift."
NJ: "Even with an ITU baby [in room 1]?"
LL: "Yes, and I think everyone else would say the same if they were honest."
Letby says she was working in nursery 1 "at points" during the shift. She accepts that following Child B's collapse, she was in room 1.
A document for a TPN bag and lipid administration is signed by Letby, at 11.40pm on June 9.
Letby says an observation form at what appears to be 0010 has what Letby accepts could be her handwriting. It is similar to the writing in the next column, which is initialled by Letby.
A blood gas record is shown for 12.16am. Letby accepts she is there at that time as two nurses are needed to carry out the test.
Letby says she was "unsure" whether she or a colleague had alerted the other to Child B's deterioration.
LL: "I can't sit here and say definitively which way now, no."
NJ: "You injected [Child B] with air, didn't you?"
LL: "No I didn't."
Mr Johnson asks about Child B's appearance - Letby had earlier told her defence Child B "becoming quite mottled", "dark", "all over".
Letby was asked if she had seen that mottling before. "Yes, it was like general mottling that we do see on babies," adding: "It was not unusual" but it was a concern, in light of Child A's decline the night before.
Letby tells the court the mottling was more pronounced than usually found.
In police interview, Letby had said the mottling was more than seen on Child A, who was pale centrally.
"It was darker". Letby also said there was a "rash appearance".
Letby tells the court it was a "more pronounced mottling", but was still mottling.
NJ: "Are you saying this was normal?"
Letby says it was not normal, but something which would be seen. It was "more pronounced than general mottling". She says it "came very quickly", and in the context of Child A, everyone "acted very quickly".
Mr Johnson asks why a doctor asked for someone to get a camera.
LL: "In view of what had happened to [Child A] the night before...we did not want to take any chances."
Child B's mother describes the mottling event, and the consultant had "never seen this before", and the mother was "surprised" at this.
"Do you accept what [Child A and B's mother] said?"
LL: "I accept there was mottling, yes."
She says she does not recall the consultant saying that, as she was not there when it was said.
Letby tells the court she went "immediately" to get a camera, and when she returned, the mottling had gone.
A doctor had said Child B was a "very pale, dusky colour", and then developing widespread blotches...patches of a purpley-red colour.
Letby said she was not there at that point, as she may have been getting the camera. She says she did not see that on Child B. She says no conversation was ever had about that.
The judge asks if there was anything that could have led the doctor to be mistaken in her description.
Letby: "No, I just saw mottling."
Letby says the mottling was purpley-red.
Another doctor had described a blotchiness "to one side".
Letby says she did not "take over care" of Child B, from a senior nurse of 20 years experience. She says the senior nurse was busy with the family.
The court is shown Letby is co-signer for a number of medications following Child B's collapse, with the senior nurse.
Letby denies suggesting antiphospholipid syndrome was a cause of Child B's death.
Mr Johnson asks if Letby accepts Child A and Child B had air administered.
LL: "No."
Mr Johnson turns to the case of Child C.
Letby is asked to look at her defence statement.
Letby recalls she did not believe she was in room 1, and cannot recall how she ended up in room 1 - possibly it was as a result of Child C's alarm going off.
Letby, in her statement, said she had been involved in speaking to the family afterwards, but not to the extent Child C's mother had said.
Mr Johnson said a nurse had given evidence to say Letby had to be removed from the family room after Child C died.
Mr Johnson says Letby's "vague" recollection of events is untrue.
LL: "I don't agree with that."
NJ: "I'm going to suggest you enjoyed what happened, and that was why you were in the family room."
LL: "No."
Letby is asked why she did not remember Child C in police interview. Letby says she remembered once provided with further details.
She adds: "I don't know how [child C] died." She rules out staffing levels, medical incompetencies, or someone making a mistake.
Mr Johnson says this is a case where one of the nursing notes, by Yvonne Griffiths, was 'misfiled' to a different baby, and was, after Child C died, refiled back to Child C.From Sky News:
Mr Johnson asks Letby if nursing notes, timestamped by their start and end, are editable.
Letby: "No."
The court hears because of this, the note had to be re-entered into the system.
The rewritten note is shown to the court.
The note is for the June 12 day shift. It includes: '...no apnoeas noted and caffeine given as prescribed. Longline inserted by Dr Beech on second attempt...[Child C] unsettled at times soothes with pacifier and enjoyed kangaroo [skin-to-skin] care with parents."
A nursing note by Joanne Williams is shown to the court for Child C on the day shift: '...[Child C] very unsettled and fractious...[Child C] taken off CPAP while out having skin to skin with mummy. Calmed down straight away with mummy...'
Letby agrees this was a "positive picture" for Child C.
Child C was on CPAP breathing support to 10am, then was taken off it for a couple of hours, then was on Optiflow breathing support for the rest of his life.
Court documents show Lucy Letby was looking after a baby in nursery three at the Countess of Chester hospital during the night shift of 13-14 June 2015, while Child C was in intensive care nursery one.Chester Standard, for the same evidence:
Nick Johnson KC suggests to Letby that this was "another shift" where she "migrated" from a nursery for babies with lower dependencies back into nursery one.
Letby agrees but says it was only "in response to Child C's care needs".
"No, before Child C collapsed," Mr Johnson says.
"I don't have any recollection of that," Letby replies.
The shift leader on duty previously told the court she had to order Letby to look after her designated baby rather than get herself involved in other children.
"Is that true?" Mr Johnson asks. Letby says she doesn't remember the conversation.
"I'm going to suggest you were unhappy with the arrangements she'd made that dictated where you were working, do you agree?" he asks.
Letby concedes she was unhappy but it was down to the decision of a previous shift leader.
Mr Johnson moves on to the shift in which Letby was present. A shift rota is shown to the court, showing Letby was looking after two babies that night on June 13. She was in nursery room 3, with Child C in room 1 that night.
Mr Johnson says this was another shift when Letby had "migrated" to room 1.
Letby: "Yes, in response to [Child C's] care needs." She says she has no recollection of going to see Child C prior to his collapse.
Letby says she was unhappy at being in room 3 for that shift - as opposed to room 1 - but that was the decision of the prior shift leader.
Letby's nursing colleague had said Letby's designated baby in room 3 needed attention, after Letby had asked if she could be redeployed to room 1 that night.
Letby: "Yes, [they] did need attention and I gave [them] attention."
Letby had sent a message to Jennifer Jones-Key: "I just keep thinking about Mon. Feel like I need to be in 1 to overcome it but [colleague] said no x"
JJK: "I agree with her don't think it will help. You need a break from full on ITU. You have to let it go or it will eat you up i know not easy and will take time x"
LL: "Not the vented baby necessarily. I just feel I need to be in 1 to get the image out of my head, Mel has said the same and [colleague] let her go. Being in 3 is eating me up, all I can see is him in 1"
"It probably sounds odd but it's how I feel X"
JJK: "Well it's up to you but don't think it's going to help. It sounds very odd and I would be complete opposite. Can understand [colleague] she trying to look after you all"
LL: "Well that's how I feel, from when I've experienced it at women's I've needed to go straight back and have a sick baby otherwise the image of the one you lost never goes. Why send Mel in if she's trying to look after us, She was in bits over it. X
"Don't expect people to understand but I know how I feel and how I've dealt with it before, I've voiced that so can't do anymore but people should respect that X"
JJK: "Ok x
JJK: "I think They do respect it but also trying to help you. Why don't you go in one for a bit. X"
LL: "Yeah I've done couple of meds in 1. I'll be fine X"
JJK: "It didn't sound like you would be? Sorry was eating my tea x"
LL: ...Forget i said anything, I'll be fine,It's part of the job just don't feel like there is much team spirit tonight X"
JJK: "...I'm not going to forget but just think your way to hard on yourself. It is part of the job but the worst part but I do believe it makes us stronger people."
LL: "Unfortunately I've seen my fair share at the women's but you are supported differently & here it's like people want to tell you how to think/Feel. Anyway. Onwards & upwards. Just shame i'm on with Mel & [colleague].Sophie in 1 so haven't got her to talk to either."
JJK: "Work is work.
A lot of the girls say women's don't support and tell them to get on with it. I think they don't mean to tell you thou and were over caring sometimes
Yeah that's not good but you got Liz x"
LL: "Women's can be awful but I learnt hard way that you have to speak up to get support. I lost a baby one day.and few hours later was given another dying baby just born in the same cot space. Girls there said it was important to overcome the image. It was awful but by.end of day i realised they were right. It's just different here X
"Anyway, forget it. I can only talk about it properly with those who knew him and Mel not interested so I'll overcome it myself. You get some sleep X"
Letby accepts there were two babies in room 1, but does not accept she was specifically wanting to look after Child C.
Letby tells the court: "It wasn't about me wanting to get my own way."
Letby accepts she was upset, "just generally", that her feelings weren't being considered by a colleague and Melanie Taylor.
Mr Johnson says if this was the Melanie Taylor who Letby had said "potentially" caused a child's death. Letby: "Potentially, yes."
JJK: "That's a bit mean isn't it. Don't have to know him to understand we've all been there. Yep off to bed now x"
LL: "I don't mean it like that, just that only those who saw him know what image i have in my head X
"Forget it. Im obviously making more of it than I should X"
Letby tells the court she had hoped Jennifer Jones-Key would have been more understanding to how she was feeling, and was frustrated, and the conversation was not going anywhere, so she wanted to "leave the conversation".
Letby says colleague Sophie Ellis was the least experienced member of staff on that shift and "did not have the skills for the job" of looking after small, premature babies in room 1.BBC:
"I did not think she was qualified for the job...She did not have the skills for the premature babies [in room 1]."
She denies that Sophie Ellis did anything to cause Child C's collapse.
Mr Johnson: "She had something you wanted?"
Letby: "No."
The court hears Sophie Ellis's statement saying when she entered room 1, Letby was by Child C's cotside, saying: "He's just dropped..his heart rate/saturations" or words to that effect.
The court is shown the neonatal schedule for the night shift of June 13-14, 2015. Letby is shown recording observations for her designated babies, and made medication prescriptions for babies not in room 1.
Letby says the medications for those babies would have been drawn up in room 1. "They could not have been done in a special care nursery".
Letby says if Sophie Ellis has documented correctly, there would have been no air in Child C's stomach after an aspiration was made for the baby's feed.
Letby denies taking, in Mr Johnson's words: "an opportunity to sabotage [Child C]."
In police interview, it is put to Letby that Child C collapsed six minutes after she sent the last of her text messages.
Letby: "I don't recall where I was at the time" - Letby says she may have been in a nursing station before going into room 1.
Letby said she did not recall being cotside, but accepted Sophie Ellis's account at the time it was put to her by police.
Johnson is now quoting from Letby's police interviews. In one she was asked about a message exchange with a colleague while on shift on 13 June.Chester Standard:
The detective in that interview said: “The text messages suggest you were frustrated at not working in nursery one, do you agree?”
The defendant said: “Yes, I think it would have helped me if I could have been in nursery one.”
Johnson asks if she was frustrated. Letby says she was disappointed.
She's asked if she has accepted the evidence of nurse Ellis, that she saw Letby at baby C's cotside.
"I haven't accepted it, I've said I don't recall," she said.
"The death of [Child C] was very memorable, wasn't it?"Court has concluded for the day, reporting appears to be concluded as well.
"Yes."
2023.05.17 13:38 skodafusebox123 skoda fabia fuse box description
![]() | Hi submitted by skodafusebox123 to skoda [link] [comments] I have a problem with my skoda fabia fuse box. I unfortunately played with the fuses and wasn't able to return them to their normal positions. Some fuses are put arbitrarily and the dashboard shows an airbag yellow light. I couldn't find the description of the my fuse box diagram with the appropriate current on the internet as there are some variations. On the back cover of the fuse box it shows the number 5j0 010 623 a My skoda fabia is a 2008 automatic 1.6 (105hp) hatchback please help me https://preview.redd.it/g8ohxh6lod0b1.png?width=855&format=png&auto=webp&s=db543ed6989cb9df0bb3a4c82ddebfd1300f1041 |
2023.05.16 03:06 Windows98Fondler Low Bean Burning halogen bulbs right away
![]() | So I have a 92 Suzuki Bandit 400 with 10300 miles on it. I bought it a few hundred miles ago and just this week the low beam burned out. When I went to replace it I got the H4 bulb and replaced it. At first start up it worked fine, but after riding for a few minutes the low beam would burn out. Then I got another bulb, and another and it kept happening. submitted by Windows98Fondler to Fixxit [link] [comments] I went and looked at the fuse box and everything was fine, the wiring tested out okay also with voltage. The switch worked also and I’m just stuck with what to do next. I don’t want to keep buying bulbs since I’m broke already. What should I troubleshoot next since so far it seems like everything checks out and the bulb just keeps burning out (low beam only). All other electrical systems are working as is. I attached a copy of the wiring diagram also, it might be a little blurry though. |
2023.05.16 01:01 hmmyeahcool 2021 Winnebago Micro Minnie 1700BH Solar, Lithium, Inverter Upgrade
![]() | Last year my wife and I had a baby. The little dude immediately took up all of the space in the Class B that we had, so we decided to sell it and get a travel trailer instead. The micro minnie had the perfect layout for us and a ton more space. submitted by hmmyeahcool to RVLiving [link] [comments] RequirementsWe're typically taking the trailer out to go rock climbing, which means we're out in the middle of nowhere and rarely have hookups. We're often out for weekends, but several time a year we'll get out for a week or longer. We live in a part of the country that allows us to chase nice weather almost year round.We have moderate electrical requirements. We run the lights, vent fans, heaters as needed. Additionally we charge our phones and tablets. Occasionally I'll work remote from the van, so I wanted to be able to support that. I didnt really know much about our old class B's electrical setup, but whatever old lead acid battery was in there had done well enough for us, so I knew we didnt use a ton of power. When speccing the new system I somewhat arbitrarily assumed that 100Ahr of lithium was probably enough, so 200Ahr would be both affordable and essentially guarantee that we'd never run out of power. I decided that I wanted to put as many panels on the roof as possible, not to necessarily size my panels based on the size of the batter bank. The goal is to be able to pull in reasonable wattage even in crappy light. The Micro Minnie has a fairly flat and open roof, but there are enough things like vent fans, an AC unit, random antennas that you couldn't just completely load it up with solar. I shopped around for a bunch of different solar panels of different dimensions and settled on an arrangement of 6 100 Watt panels. The goal was to avoid messing with the existing wiring as much as possible. I watched a bunch of videos and read articles and decided I wanted to base my system on the explorist.life's 30A camper retrofit. https://explorist.life/30a-camper-inverter-with-solar-and-alternator-charging-wiring-diagram/. I was on the fence about an inverter (the plan was to use the 12V system for everything). I started buying some of the gear and then realized that without an inverter it'd essentially be impossible to every use the battery capacity that I had. So I added an invertecharger as well. The BuildSo the main components are:
Trailer Wiring Trailer wiring I mounted the system on some plywood and then mounted the plywood in the passthrough and the batteries nearby Batteries (orange) and components (blue) Components wired up outside the trailer Components installed in place I installed a fold-down cover to protect all of the components from random objects The batteries installed The trailer was 'wired for solar' which essentially means there were some MC4 connectors on the roof with a wire that went down into the same storage area. This was perfect, except the wiring was a smaller gauge that I would have liked, 10awg. This meant I needed to keep the amperage through these wires as low as possible if I wanted to stay efficient and safe. This meant wiring the panels in three parallel groups of two panels in series. Full power I have approximately 16A at 37V running through them. The panels mounted. Colors indicate items wired in series There are some shading issues, mainly because of the AC unit. It will occasionally take out one group of panels. It's only a problem late in the day or in winter when the sun is low in the sky. There were two weird things that I didnt know much about regarding the travel trailer. The first was the trailer jack. I didnt know how much power it was going to need, so I sized everything quite large. turns out it uses a very reasonable 60W-ish. Oh well. Second was the breakaway switch. Essentially there is a cable that you clip to your car. If the car and the trailer get separated the cable pulls out a thing and the trailer batteries get wired directly to the trailer brakes, hopefully stopping it before it kills anyone. I couldnt find many specs about how to properly wire this, so I wired it separately from the main battery fuse on its own wire. So no matter what stupid crap I pull, it's as close to it's own independent system as possible. Again, testing shows when activated this uses a few amps. 1 year laterLast season we got out a few times, but it was always cloudy/raining, or we happened to camp places with hookups. This year we finally got it out and I got some performance numbers.Overall, not trying to use electricity, but also not trying to save electricity we use about 20Ahr at night. This means in full sun we're at 100% battery by 10 or 11am. Typically I'll run the propane/120v refrigerator off of the inverter (which consumes 170W) during the day. I've seen the panels produce more than 600W a few times, but it's been brief, and almost always because it's rained and then the sun came out (meaning the panels were cold). https://preview.redd.it/5l9x0rf2t20b1.png?width=569&format=png&auto=webp&s=9c918140ff740be78b3f6809fb6d0c5422d5e42e A few weekends ago I ran the fridge and slow cooker all day. By sundown we were still >95% battery and the panels had produced > 3.5kWHrs in the day (averaging about 450W). For reference my batter bank is only 2.4kWhr. It was approx 80degF during the day, so I think the production was limited because the panels were hot. https://preview.redd.it/f717akpws20b1.png?width=569&format=png&auto=webp&s=8040b65f06687a1f5919771b07895ff4a068394c Overall I love the system, I would 100% do it again. I think I went with 600W solar mainly because it would fit. I'm so glad I went with an "as large as I can fit" array. Not because on days when I'm in full sun I can post huge numbers (which I do love), but because on days when it's cloudy I can still get decent numbers. Or when we're camping in the woods and the sun only blasts us for an hour or whatever. It's about making bad conditions productive, not about making amazing conditions better. Since the panels are so powerful I almost never enable the Orion DC-DC charger. The panels can charge faster than the car, so I'm not gonna put wear on my alternator (and burn extra gas) when I dont need to. As I said, I was on the fence about the inverter. Overall I'm glad we have it. Mainly so I can run the fridge off electricity instead of burning dinosaurs. Also it's been nice to be able to use the microwave (1800W draw) when preparing food for our little guy. We also used the convection oven function of the microwave to bake a pie. Basically the inverter is a great plan B for when you cant power something off of the 12V system. It's also a really powerful charger, so when we do plug in it can charge at 90A. I have a few regrets:
The rig on it's first weekend out |
2023.05.15 13:52 jyeds Honda Odyssey wiper relay
2023.05.15 04:43 Lanky_Library6881 Need help with 2003 Pontiac sunfire radio
2023.05.15 04:38 Lanky_Library6881 Need help with 2003 Pontiac sunfire radio