[SK in CV]

SD Realtor is right on the money. Mold spores are everywhere. It’s likely impossible to remove them entirely from a living space.

But in order for mold spores to turn into mold, 3 things are required. Moisture, organic material and darkness. (For most common molds found here, warmer temperatures are also necessary.)

Eliminate the source of moisture and you have eliminated the biggest part of the problem. Once the source is eliminated, the target needs to be well ventilated for all remaining moisture to evaporate. Once that is done, the mold will die. Surface spots may remain, but it will just be dead dirt and inactive spores.

Surface areas can be easily treated with chlorine bleach (1 cup of bleach/gallon of water) which will kill all surface mold. Unless the infestation is serious, this should suffice. Big bucks professional mold remediation is rarely essential.

[SK in CV]

SD Realtor is right on the money. Mold spores are everywhere. It’s likely impossible to remove them entirely from a living space.

But in order for mold spores to turn into mold, 3 things are required. Moisture, organic material and darkness. (For most common molds found here, warmer temperatures are also necessary.)

Eliminate the source of moisture and you have eliminated the biggest part of the problem. Once the source is eliminated, the target needs to be well ventilated for all remaining moisture to evaporate. Once that is done, the mold will die. Surface spots may remain, but it will just be dead dirt and inactive spores.

Surface areas can be easily treated with chlorine bleach (1 cup of bleach/gallon of water) which will kill all surface mold. Unless the infestation is serious, this should suffice. Big bucks professional mold remediation is rarely essential.

[SK in CV]

SD Realtor is right on the money. Mold spores are everywhere. It’s likely impossible to remove them entirely from a living space.

But in order for mold spores to turn into mold, 3 things are required. Moisture, organic material and darkness. (For most common molds found here, warmer temperatures are also necessary.)

Eliminate the source of moisture and you have eliminated the biggest part of the problem. Once the source is eliminated, the target needs to be well ventilated for all remaining moisture to evaporate. Once that is done, the mold will die. Surface spots may remain, but it will just be dead dirt and inactive spores.

Surface areas can be easily treated with chlorine bleach (1 cup of bleach/gallon of water) which will kill all surface mold. Unless the infestation is serious, this should suffice. Big bucks professional mold remediation is rarely essential.

[SK in CV]

SD Realtor is right on the money. Mold spores are everywhere. It’s likely impossible to remove them entirely from a living space.

But in order for mold spores to turn into mold, 3 things are required. Moisture, organic material and darkness. (For most common molds found here, warmer temperatures are also necessary.)

Eliminate the source of moisture and you have eliminated the biggest part of the problem. Once the source is eliminated, the target needs to be well ventilated for all remaining moisture to evaporate. Once that is done, the mold will die. Surface spots may remain, but it will just be dead dirt and inactive spores.

Surface areas can be easily treated with chlorine bleach (1 cup of bleach/gallon of water) which will kill all surface mold. Unless the infestation is serious, this should suffice. Big bucks professional mold remediation is rarely essential.

[SK in CV]

Yes, you are missing something.

The calculation DOES factor in the tax deduction.

If the tax deduction was not factored in, the limit would be lower than 28%. It factors in everything. Cost of food, clothing, transportation, entertainment, and yes, taxes too. It factors in everything that isn’t principle on the loan, interest on the loan, property taxes and insurance.

It’s not a precise calculation. It is simply a percentage that historically works.

[SK in CV]

Yes, you are missing something.

The calculation DOES factor in the tax deduction.

If the tax deduction was not factored in, the limit would be lower than 28%. It factors in everything. Cost of food, clothing, transportation, entertainment, and yes, taxes too. It factors in everything that isn’t principle on the loan, interest on the loan, property taxes and insurance.

It’s not a precise calculation. It is simply a percentage that historically works.

[SK in CV]

Yes, you are missing something.

The calculation DOES factor in the tax deduction.

If the tax deduction was not factored in, the limit would be lower than 28%. It factors in everything. Cost of food, clothing, transportation, entertainment, and yes, taxes too. It factors in everything that isn’t principle on the loan, interest on the loan, property taxes and insurance.

It’s not a precise calculation. It is simply a percentage that historically works.

[SK in CV]

Yes, you are missing something.

The calculation DOES factor in the tax deduction.

If the tax deduction was not factored in, the limit would be lower than 28%. It factors in everything. Cost of food, clothing, transportation, entertainment, and yes, taxes too. It factors in everything that isn’t principle on the loan, interest on the loan, property taxes and insurance.

It’s not a precise calculation. It is simply a percentage that historically works.

[SK in CV]

Yes, you are missing something.

The calculation DOES factor in the tax deduction.

If the tax deduction was not factored in, the limit would be lower than 28%. It factors in everything. Cost of food, clothing, transportation, entertainment, and yes, taxes too. It factors in everything that isn’t principle on the loan, interest on the loan, property taxes and insurance.

It’s not a precise calculation. It is simply a percentage that historically works.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]
Looks like laboratory confirmed numbers is 1,857 for the period 8/30/2009 to 1/23/2010 (lower 2/3s of the page), and this is all influenza deaths, including H1N1 over the period.[/quote]

One of the main reasons for this is that they just didn’t test very many people. A friend, who is the chief of internal medicine at a large local center city hospital, told me that through the middle of december, 100% of tested patients with flu symptoms tested positive for H1N1. It was the only flu around. But fewer than 10% of their patients were tested, including only 1 of the 3 in that hospital that had died.

I’m not aware of any significant non H1N1 flu populations yet. It’s still early. So the chances are high that close to 100% of those confirmed flu deaths would have been H1N1. So the extrapolation of the positive tests to the untested deaths from flu like sympoms is reasonable. Which is exactly what the CDC concluded.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]
Looks like laboratory confirmed numbers is 1,857 for the period 8/30/2009 to 1/23/2010 (lower 2/3s of the page), and this is all influenza deaths, including H1N1 over the period.[/quote]

One of the main reasons for this is that they just didn’t test very many people. A friend, who is the chief of internal medicine at a large local center city hospital, told me that through the middle of december, 100% of tested patients with flu symptoms tested positive for H1N1. It was the only flu around. But fewer than 10% of their patients were tested, including only 1 of the 3 in that hospital that had died.

I’m not aware of any significant non H1N1 flu populations yet. It’s still early. So the chances are high that close to 100% of those confirmed flu deaths would have been H1N1. So the extrapolation of the positive tests to the untested deaths from flu like sympoms is reasonable. Which is exactly what the CDC concluded.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]
Looks like laboratory confirmed numbers is 1,857 for the period 8/30/2009 to 1/23/2010 (lower 2/3s of the page), and this is all influenza deaths, including H1N1 over the period.[/quote]

One of the main reasons for this is that they just didn’t test very many people. A friend, who is the chief of internal medicine at a large local center city hospital, told me that through the middle of december, 100% of tested patients with flu symptoms tested positive for H1N1. It was the only flu around. But fewer than 10% of their patients were tested, including only 1 of the 3 in that hospital that had died.

I’m not aware of any significant non H1N1 flu populations yet. It’s still early. So the chances are high that close to 100% of those confirmed flu deaths would have been H1N1. So the extrapolation of the positive tests to the untested deaths from flu like sympoms is reasonable. Which is exactly what the CDC concluded.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]
Looks like laboratory confirmed numbers is 1,857 for the period 8/30/2009 to 1/23/2010 (lower 2/3s of the page), and this is all influenza deaths, including H1N1 over the period.[/quote]

One of the main reasons for this is that they just didn’t test very many people. A friend, who is the chief of internal medicine at a large local center city hospital, told me that through the middle of december, 100% of tested patients with flu symptoms tested positive for H1N1. It was the only flu around. But fewer than 10% of their patients were tested, including only 1 of the 3 in that hospital that had died.

I’m not aware of any significant non H1N1 flu populations yet. It’s still early. So the chances are high that close to 100% of those confirmed flu deaths would have been H1N1. So the extrapolation of the positive tests to the untested deaths from flu like sympoms is reasonable. Which is exactly what the CDC concluded.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]
Looks like laboratory confirmed numbers is 1,857 for the period 8/30/2009 to 1/23/2010 (lower 2/3s of the page), and this is all influenza deaths, including H1N1 over the period.[/quote]

One of the main reasons for this is that they just didn’t test very many people. A friend, who is the chief of internal medicine at a large local center city hospital, told me that through the middle of december, 100% of tested patients with flu symptoms tested positive for H1N1. It was the only flu around. But fewer than 10% of their patients were tested, including only 1 of the 3 in that hospital that had died.

I’m not aware of any significant non H1N1 flu populations yet. It’s still early. So the chances are high that close to 100% of those confirmed flu deaths would have been H1N1. So the extrapolation of the positive tests to the untested deaths from flu like sympoms is reasonable. Which is exactly what the CDC concluded.

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]The sad part is that the Medicare and SS issues can be solved quite easily (well, in practice – not politically): raise the age at which folks start receiving benefits from 65 to 70. Voila! Problem solved. Literally, more than 40% of the projected liability would disappear. And the remaining liability can be funded under the status quo. But that AARP… they’re indefatigable.

Also, having folks actually work an extra five years would be good for the country’s overall productivity.[/quote]

Easy for you to say. Me too, pretty much. But for construction workers? Or other manufacturing jobs that require physical rather than purely mental work, not so much. For many, working to age 70 is just not a feasible option.

Additionally, life expenctancy for workers in many occupations, as well as lower income and minority populations barely exceeds 70. (As an example, life expectancy for African American men is 70.2 years as compared with more than 76 for all population groups.)

And normal retirement age is already over 65. I think for me (born in 1955) its something like 66 years 8 months. Early retirement benefits are still available at a lower rate at 62.

[Author]

Posts