quote:

ORIGINAL: angelikaJ

FR:
since we have been discussing homelessness...

here is a scenario...you become disabled due to illness and can not work.
You do not have disability insurance through your employer.

Your physician has said s/he will support you in getting SSDI.
Assuming the case is compelling enough that they give it to you the first time without a need for appeal you are not eligible to receive benefits until you have been out of work for 5 months.

How many of us have 5 months worth of bill money tucked away these days?

How close to being homeless would being out of work for 5 months put you?

(hijack over)

quote:

ORIGINAL: christine1

well geesh Level, i was just protecting your eyes from cammo clothes, i know it's a hard limit of yours!  how about cammo body paint? is that any better?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

quote:

ORIGINAL: lucern

I have heard that HIV can be transmitted through saliva, but that's more of a theoretical.  HIV can exist in small quantities there, but that it would take like 20 gallons of exposure to trasmit it.  That would be like a small bath tub of saliva. (ew lol).  On top of that, our own saliva has characteristics that protect us from microbes, making it even less likely to be transmitted via mouth-to-mouth.  The eye has some protection as well.

The virus can, however, be transferred via a bite.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/transmission.htm

I LOVE how up-to-date the CDC is on their theories. Check that copywrite of July 1999. Meidcal information almost ten years old there. More recent studies are finding that the need for active blood to active (or "live) bloob is required to transmit the virus.

"Well, Jen, how does that work for sex of any kind then?"

Answer:
Male-to-Male/Female Anal Sex: when a penis gets "hard" blood vessals "pop" and breaks along the uretha, introducing blood into semen. During anal sex there are soft tears and rips along the colon and sphincter. Blood at that point in time can be transmitted and give exposure.

Male-Females Vaginal Sex: Same as the anal...except another hole.

Mother-to-Child Breastfeeding: Often infants and newborns do not have the same anti-body and natural protections built in as adults. During breastfeeding there are trace amounts of blood in the milk that help provide those anti-bodies. In the case of a child becoming infected this way, a child is exposed and does not have the natural protections an adult would in their own saliva and are exposed in to the virus the same way they would be exposed to anti-bodies that are designed to help them survive childhood.

These reasons are why lesbians are not known for transmitting HIV. It's also the same reason that tears, sweat, urine, and saliva don't transmit the virus (no blood presence in the fluids normally) under normal circumstances. Blow jobs are generally considered "safer" than unprotected anal sex with an HIV+ partner. Does this mean go blow the next homeless guy out there cuz you can? No, it means be safe and protect yourself....and remember that bites MAY have the possibility to transmit in extreme circumstances.

Boi...who did HIV outreach and thinks the CDC is full of shit for publishing theory as fact and then not keeping up-to-date information.

quote:


As of September 30, 1992, CDC had received reports of 32 health-care workers in the United States with documented occupationally acquired HIV infection and 69 with possible occupationally acquired HIV infection.
Among those with documented occupationally acquired HIV infection, 27 (84%) had percutaneous exposure, four (13%) had mucocutaneous exposure, and one (3%) had both percutaneous and mucocutaneous exposures. Thirty were exposed to HIV-infected blood, one to concentrated infectious HIV, and one had a percutaneous exposure to an unspecified fluid from an unknown source patient. Seven (22%) of these workers have developed AIDS.
Of the 69 health-care workers classified with possible occupationally acquired HIV infection, four (6%) had occupational exposures to blood of patients known to be HIV-infected or to research laboratory specimens known to contain infectious HIV. Of the remaining 65, none reported exposure to blood or body fluids known to be HIV infected. Of these 69 workers, 54 (78%) have developed AIDS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KatyLied

Tank tops and short shorts in camo, how sexy would that be, with little ball caps too.  "reporting for duty...."

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

Persons classified with possible occupationally acquired HIV infection did not have behavioral or transfusion risks for HIV infection that could be identified during follow-up investigation; each person reported past percutaneous or mucocutaneous occupational exposure to blood, body fluids, or laboratory specimens, but seroconversion against HIV as a result of an occupational exposure was not documented.

Of the 69 health-care workers classified with possible occupationally acquired HIV infection, four (6%) had occupational exposures to blood of patients known to be HIV-infected or to research laboratory specimens known to contain infectious HIV. Of the remaining 65, none reported exposure to blood or body fluids known to be HIV infected. Of these 69 workers, 54 (78%) have developed AIDS.

Disclaimer   All MMWR HTML documents published before January 1993 are electronic conversions from ASCII text into HTML. This conversion may have resulted in character translation or format errors in the HTML version. Users should not rely on this HTML document, but are referred to the original MMWR paper copy for the official text, figures, and tables. An original paper copy of this issue can be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, DC 20402-9371; telephone: (202) 512-1800. Contact GPO for current prices.



There's your own quote.

Blood is the only listed infectious fluid there. Occupaitional exposure means "dirty needle sticks." As well.

boi...who says unknown sources of infection (because some of these cases came from HIV focused labs) should get greater investigation than a document that's more than ten years old.

quote:

ORIGINAL: christine1

i was simply stating that there are a number of reasons why someone might become homeless, and i'm not saying it is a permanent thing.  yes some people have themselves to blame for their homeless situations, but  a fire or natural disaster could make someone homeless in seconds whether they are addicts or what have you. 

if i were without a home for a week, that would be  a hard and scary thing, at least i would think so and i'd do my damndest to get out of that situation.  pretty much i'm saying shit happens across the board whether you're insane or an addict or millionaire.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomAviator

The Hurricane Katrina shit isnt homeless - its still having its rent paid 2-1/2 years after the storm much to the dismay of thousands of Houstonians who think its time for them to get off their asses and go home  

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomAviator

The Hurricane Katrina shit isnt homeless - its still having its rent paid 2-1/2 years after the storm much to the dismay of thousands of Houstonians who think its time for them to get off their asses and go home  

[8|][:(][X(][>:][:'(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

There are no words compatible with TOS for describing how some of you are coming across. Shame [:D] .

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

There are no words compatible with TOS for describing how some of you are coming across. Shame [:D] .

You are aware that the whole 'Katrina destroyed New Orleans' thing was a total hoax aren't you?

The hurricane veered away on the weak side and destroyed places a hundred miles away who got none of the massive press attention given the New Orleans residents.
Those houses got wet because the local contractors scammed the system and built substandard levees that gave way in the aftermath of heavy rains... there never was a direct hit, or 300,000 dead, or any of the imaginary Hiroshima level damage the Mayor and the rest of the crooked politicians claimed.