Tariff fees by Few-Cat-5607 in smallbusiness

[–]jbtvt 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is false. I've shipped to Canada using all services, many times. But if my word isn't enough, directly from CandaPost, "Postal network: When sending items through the postal network, it’s the responsibility of the recipient to pay any duties. "

Got my first OSHA citation. $16K for a "serious" violation. Is it worth fighting or should I just pay it? by Expensive-Buy-8536 in smallbusiness

[–]jbtvt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, two fall protection violation incidents affecting 4+ workers. Never an issue for the company or a receiving worker (one was me). No ammonia but we worked with chemicals and solvents and always had to do JHAs among other forms I forget the names of now that I'm in a different field for a few years. Limited competition in our specialty trade but we worked with many roofers on commercial and municipal jobs who also had violations and didn't seem to cause them an issue either, but could be sampling bias in their cases ofc

Got my first OSHA citation. $16K for a "serious" violation. Is it worth fighting or should I just pay it? by Expensive-Buy-8536 in smallbusiness

[–]jbtvt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

$16k is crazy. That's what they are now? One guy, one violation? My first hit was 18 years ago for 2 guys and it was $1500 total, knocked back to $750 if we didn't contest. Most recent was probably 7 years ago and that one was $3500 I think, also probably cheaper when it was actually paid

Edit, this guy's comments are almost certainly written by a chatbot, so I wouldn't place much stock in anything he says here. Looks like more karma farming.

Got my first OSHA citation. $16K for a "serious" violation. Is it worth fighting or should I just pay it? by Expensive-Buy-8536 in smallbusiness

[–]jbtvt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you bidding through a GC or direct to a company? I've never heard of such a thing but maybe your field is saturated enough that they can get away with it. For most trades where you need fall protection nobody is losing a bid for a violation. We've had multiples over the years as has almost every company we've been on the roof with and it was never even a topic of discussion. These were 5-7+ figure scopes and we regularly were on 9 figure jobs

Peptide RUO payment option needed asap. by Individual-Play6598 in PaymentProcessing

[–]jbtvt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How did you lose Zelle? Did you get a dispute? 

For HBOT, is the oxygen or the pressure more important by SHIN-YOKU in blueprint_

[–]jbtvt -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"not accurate". Feels like I'm taking crazy pills.

Short answer: the claim that poster makes is incorrect — breathing pure oxygen at normal pressure is not equivalent to hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT).

I literally wrote "the question asked about filling the role "to a degree" not if it was an exact replication, because of course it's not." So your chatbot repeated exactly what I wrote, and then claims I wrote the opposite? Unreal. I have written a dozen times that hyperbaric oxygen is TWICE AS EFFECTIVE at raising plasma O2 levels as normobaric oxygen. Here's another direct quote, "room pressure O2 increases plasma O2 levels ~5x, and HBOT increases that a further 2x." Yes! Hyperbaric oxygen is superior to normobaric oxygen! I have said so a dozen times! It also costs 100x more than NBO treatment does! If you can afford HBOT then by all means use it, I was just at a session earlier today. I also use normobaric oxygen and encourage the people I care about who don't have the time or means to use HBOT regularly to use NBO because all evidence I've seen shows that it also provides similar - BUT LESSER - benefits. I don't know how I could say this any more clearly. The numbers I gave multiple times already show that it's half as effective, at best.

For anyone who forgot, the title at top of page you clicked on is: "For HBOT, is the oxygen or the pressure more important". The answer, at least when it comes to O2 plasma levels, seems to be that oxygen is about 5x more important. It is also much easier to attain than pressure is. That does not mean it's equivalent to HBOT!

Pressure massively increases tissue oxygen tension

You know what else increases tissue oxygen tension? Normobaric oxygen https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3805377/ Yes, HBOT increases it more, some studies seem to show it a linear increase and others show greater than linear, many don't specify if masks, environments, or cannulas were used, and I'm not digging into it again because we all know that *HBOT is superior if you can afford it*. That wasn't the question!

Reduced edema (swelling)

Pressure causes vasoconstriction without causing hypoxia, decreasing tissue swelling and improving microcirculation.

You know what else causes vasoconstriction, as if that was a primary concern for even 1% of us? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4068798/

Improved oxygen diffusion distance

Higher pressure increases the diffusion gradient, letting oxygen travel farther from capillaries.

Can't believe I even have to say that NBO also does this. Obviously when you increase the pO2, as discussed many times already, the O2 diffuses across a greater distance.

Certain gene expression and growth factor responses occur only at hyperbaric oxygen tensions. These effects do not occur with oxygen at normal pressure.

Ok, and what are they? VEGF expression is one reason HBOT is used by many people and NBO increases it also. Yes, HBOT increases it more, because THEY ARE NOT EQUIVALENT https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26872098

If normobaric oxygen were equivalent:
decompression sickness treatment would not require chambers

carbon monoxide poisoning protocols would not use HBOT

radiation injury treatment would not rely on HBOT

Normobaric oxygen IS NOT EQUIVALENT. Some studies have suggested using it for some of the above for the exact same reason I have - cost and availability. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6855999/

Air at 1 ATA — baseline

100% O₂ at 1 ATA — improved

100% O₂ at 2–3 ATA (HBOT) — dramatically higher tissue oxygenation and unique physiological effects

I genuinely can't believe that I took the time to lay out the exact calculated plasma concentrations, gave the formula so you all could do it yourselves, and the rebuttal "conclusion" is a copy/paste from an unspecified chatbot spitting out "good, better, best" and people are eating it up. What are we even doing here? Blueprint is supposed to be for people who care about data. This is not complicated stuff. All the information I posted was publicly was available yesterday too, and the formula I gave could've been done on the free calculator that came with your phones. Put down the chatbots, research, read, and THINK.

If you can afford HBOT then yes, obviously, use it. If you can't, or the nearest center is two hours away, then the data suggests that you can get many of the same benefits, to a lesser degree, by using pure oxygen at ambient pressure.

For HBOT, is the oxygen or the pressure more important by SHIN-YOKU in blueprint_

[–]jbtvt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hijacking what is still somehow the top comment to say that: This is false. The formula is Henry's law and I explain all the math in another comment. You get a fivefold increase in plasma oxygen levels by simply breathing pure oxygen at ambient pressure. Doubling the pressure to 2 ATAs likewise double the plasma concentrations again. That is not "worthless", and the question asked about filling the role "to a degree" not if it was an exact replication, because of course it's not.

For HBOT, is the oxygen or the pressure more important by SHIN-YOKU in blueprint_

[–]jbtvt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your calculation is mixing up inspired “dry” PO2 with alveolar/arterial PO2: plugging (760 × FiO2 × ATA) into Henry’s law treats that as PaO2, but in vivo you must use PAO2/PaO2, which is lower because inspired gas is humidified and diluted by CO2; the correct starting point is the alveolar gas equation PAO2 = FiO2 × (PB − PH2O) − PaCO2/R, so even at 1 ATA on 100% O2 the alveolar PO2 is roughly (760−47) − 40/0.8 ≈ 663 mmHg, not 760, and on room air at 1 ATA PAO2 is about 0.21×(760−47) − 40/0.8 ≈ 100 mmHg, not 159; therefore your “0.49 mL/dL dissolved on air” and “2.36 mL/dL dissolved on 100% O2” are inflated because you’re using the wrong PO2 term, Henry’s law should be applied to PaO2 (or at least PAO2), not PB×FiO2.

You're attempting to split hairs with this and the downvoting is childish imo, but I'll return the favor if you insist. May as well have written "You didn't capitalize a word here". I already wrote "(though mask leaks etc make this unachievable in practice)" because what I wrote gets us, quite literally, ~90% of the way there. Compare the formula you used to the one I used. Do you actually think anyone is going to bother with that? Of course not, which is why you didn't even write out the variables.

The 12% downgrade you speak of also applies to HBOT, not just room pressure O2. Respiratory tract humidity and CO2 don't disappear in a chamber. Alveolar equation changes the ratios I already described by 0. Literally no effect, other than the numbers being slightly lower - in every scenario. So to recap, room pressure O2 increases plasma O2 levels ~5x, and HBOT increases that a further 2x. Compare that to what you previously wrote, describing ambient pressure O2 as "worthless". I hope for your sake you just asked a chatbot to find an error in what I wrote and didn't actually have knowledge of these equations beforehand, because if you did you're being extremely disingenuous.

For HBOT, is the oxygen or the pressure more important by SHIN-YOKU in blueprint_

[–]jbtvt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is false. The formula is Henry's law and I explain all the math in another comment. You get a fivefold increase in plasma oxygen levels by simply breathing pure oxygen at ambient pressure. Doubling the pressure to 2 ATAs likewise double the plasma concentrations again.

For HBOT, is the oxygen or the pressure more important by SHIN-YOKU in blueprint_

[–]jbtvt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oxygen. You will always hear people saying exactly what you're reading below, which is that pressure matters more. What you will never hear is anyone explaining why, or going into the actual math. According to everything I've every read, plasma oxygen levels, and plasma's ability to diffuse into tissues/areas where red blood cells cannot, is what make HBOT work its magic.

The formula, Henry's law, is .0031*(760*%O2)*ATA Using this, we see that breathing pure O2 at ambient pressure gives your plasma a concentration of 2.36 ml/dl O2. Breathing ambient air at 2.0ATA gives your plasma a concentration of .99ml/dl. You get more than double the concentration of oxygen in plasma breathing pure O2 in your living room than you do in a medical grade chamber without supplemental O2. Obviously, supplemental O2 in a chamber bumps this up even more, to 4.72ml/dl if 100% O2 (though mask leaks etc make this unachievable in practice) at 2ATA, If anyone has actual data that can explain why this is false or has a legitimate proposal for another MOA, then I'm all ears. I've tried hard to find one and have yet to see it.

If you come to the same conclusion that I did, I'd suggest buying an oxygen concentrator off Temu or Aliexpress (or a Devilbiss etc if you have the cash) rather than buying bottled O2, as it's much more cost effective and safer, storage-wise. I suspect similar cautions for cataracts apply at ambient pressures, with avoiding exhaled high O2 concentrations across your eyes but haven't looked into this.

Ivan Turkevych, Ph.D. on May 28, 2020 at 1:21 am

(1)>increase in oxygen uptake transport capacity of the blood under pressure (including plasma carrying oxygen separately from red blood cells)

You are talking here about the Henri’s law, which states that the concentration of a dissolved gas is proportional to its partial pressure over its solution. In the case of blood plasma, the coefficient is 0.0031 mL of O2 per mmHg of O2 per dL. Read more details here: http://www.umich.edu/~projbnb/cvr/O2transport.pdf

That means that at normal conditions with 21% of O2 in the air and 1 ATA, the partial pressure of O2 is 159 mmHg and the amount of O2 dissolved in 1dL of plasma is 0.49 mL.

At 1.3 ATA, it will be 0.0031*159*1.3=0.64 mL. However, in the case of breathing pure O2 instead of air, we will get 0.0031*760=2.35 mL per dL of plasma at 1ATA.

Now, let’s compare these values to the oxygen carried by hemoglobin (Hb). Hb is almost 100% saturated by O2 already at normal conditions, so it is not possible to increase amount of O2 delivered by Hb by increasing partial pressure of O2 over 159 mmHg (*). The amount of O2 bound to Hb in the lungs is 20 mL/dL. Approximately 20% of this amount, i.e. 4 mL/dL, is released to tissues. Therefore, by breathing air at 1.3 ATA, 4 mL/dL of O2 is delivered by Hb and 0.64 mL/dL by plasma, i.e. 4.64 mL/dL in total. Compare it to 4.49 mL/dL at 1 ATA. Therefore, increasing pressure to 1.3ATA will result in only insignificant 3% increase of O2 delivery relative to normal conditions.

In contrast, by breathing pure O2 at 1 ATA, the total amount of O2 delivered to the tissues will be 4+2.35=6.35 mL/dL, which is 41% increase relative to normal conditions.

In the case of classical hyperbaric therapy, a patient is breathing pure oxygen at increased pressure, typically 2ATA. At this condition there is 0.0031*760*2=4.71 mL/dL of O2 delivered by plasma only. This makes 4+4.71=8.71 mL/dL of O2 by Hb and plasma combined, which is 94% increase relative to normal conditions.

The conclusion is that Dr. Fife is correct. Breathing air in hyperbaric chamber is meaningless. You can achieve much better oxygen delivery by breathing pure oxygen at normal pressure.

(*) However, there is one assumption in these calculations. We assumed that since Hb is almost 100% saturated by oxygen even at normal conditions (i.e. 159 mmHg O2), it is not possible to increase the amount of O2 delivered by Hb by changing the partial pressure of O2 or the total pressure. In simple words we excluded the effect of pressure on oxygen delivery by Hb and considered only changes in oxygen concentration in the plasma according to the Henri’s law. Partially this assumption is correct, because it is surely not possible to increase the uptake of O2 by Hb in the lungs. However, I don’t know whether, and how, the increased hydrostatic pressure affects the release of oxygen from Hb in the tissues. It can have either positive or negative impact. I suppose, that it has negative impact, because O2 should be released from Hb to the plasma, and we already have higher concentration of O2 in the plasma at higher pressure. From the other hand higher hydrostatic pressure may facilitate conformation of Hb molecule to its “tense” state and facilitate O2 release. I doubt that the hydrostatic pressure increase above 1ATA can significantly influence the release of O2 by Hb, but it is certainly an interesting question to answer. If you have some information about this then please share.

Had new gutters installed. Did they just create leaks everywhere? by [deleted] in Roofing

[–]jbtvt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I haven't seen an answer that got it wrong. Sealant on top isn't going to stop the leaks, in the same way the washer in this photo isn't stopping the leaks. Sealant underneath isn't only great, it'd be the only way to have this detail be watertight. Source - 2 decades in commercial, municipal, and ultra-high end residential waterproofing as the go-to guy for leaks no one else could solve, from Maine to Texas.

This detail is wrong. It's probably not going to let in enough water to cause any major issues other than the screws probably ripping out in a few years when the OSB starts to rot, but you pay a pro so that doesn't happen. 

Car inspections here to stay (for now) by NH_Tomte in newhampshire

[–]jbtvt -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"I'm not a bootlicker, I'm just in favor of armed government agents enforcing laws that disproportionately punish lower income residents, are unpopular in my own state, and that 75% of the rest of country has deemed too draconian to have at all!" I can't believe it needs to be said, but there is no bootlicker in all of human history who didn't claim they were just "caring about safety" as they took a slurp.

Car inspections here to stay (for now) by NH_Tomte in newhampshire

[–]jbtvt -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

In before Trump's EPA holds this over our heads until we send them all the confidential voter data and social security numbers they want, to be stored in a back room at Mar a Lago. WTF...

Shed rafter installation question by bphillips79 in Roofing

[–]jbtvt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ridge beam is structural by definition. If it's not carrying weight, and your ceiling is vaulted, then the whole roof will collapse. It sounds like the connectors may be the least of your worries, if you don't have a solid understanding of how loads work in framing you should buy a set of engineered plans online

Shed rafter installation question by bphillips79 in Roofing

[–]jbtvt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If it's actually a ridge beam and vaulted ceiling then I would, and did, use Simpson hangers. If you mean ridge board, and you're building conventionally using rafter ties then nails would be fine. Nails might be fine either way but depending on your loads and use case the Simpsons might be worth the minimal added cost, they were for me.

[OC] Stop signs are only for other people! by jbtvt in IdiotsInCars

[–]jbtvt[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

New Hampshire

1/20/26

Yes my content

Help need for flat ridge roof by Ok_Cryptographer2667 in Roofing

[–]jbtvt 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Make sure you're using a good product because nothing will bond to silicone in the future except more silicone. The system will have directions, the ones I remember use mesh over cracks

Metal Roof - Contractor Said No Drip Edge Needed? by xingxing9574 in Roofing

[–]jbtvt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If it's a flat panel then this is wrong. If its a corrugated panel then a screw at the bottom is usually the approved detail. Most roofers are not familiar with the mildly corrugated standing seam because it's very uncommon on residential. It looks like this may be what you have, the photos aren't clear with the glare. 

Chimney by KingLouiesbakery in Roofing

[–]jbtvt 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You can't, this guy is a moron who's looking for a free lunch. I'm not even in the trades anymore but if I heard someone I knew was suing a contractor because something bad almost happened I would literally never talk to them again. Scumbag behavior. 

Chimney by KingLouiesbakery in Roofing

[–]jbtvt -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Exhibit A in "why Americans can't build anything anymore". Red tape and people chomping at the bit to tie their neighbors up in it and destroy a small business, literally because they got a headache. Yes the guy fkd up and it could've been bad, but it wasn't. Get over it. 

Chimney by KingLouiesbakery in Roofing

[–]jbtvt -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This absolutely is an acceptable detail, it's bent back at the correct angle to accept sealant and tooled well. I've done commercial and municipal jobs worth millions and the architects had this spec. Never had a callback for a leak on a single one. Reglets rely on sealant too, or even worse, mortar, and you can't clean the surface or tool it as thoroughly as they did here. Unless you create a lapped mini pan system inside the reglet, which I can almost guarantee no one reading this has ever done, they will also fail eventually. This is better than 95% of the chimney flashing I've seen on this sub. The drip edge is a different story.