Saturday, May 31, 2014
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: AIDUIA" BEST "HOWARD COUNTY,MARYLAND CRIMINAL DEFE...
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: AIDUIA" BEST "HOWARD COUNTY,MARYLAND CRIMINAL DEFE...: www.charlesjeromeware.com . "Here to make a difference". Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys and Counselors, LLC, is a Columb...
AIDUIA" BEST "HOWARD COUNTY,MARYLAND CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS/LAWYERS
www.charlesjeromeware.com. "Here to make a difference".
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys and Counselors, LLC, is a Columbia, Howard County, Maryland-based boutique criminal defense law firm that is locally and nationally ranked as one of the " 10 BEST" criminal defense firms in Maryland. The firm's premier peer recognition comes from such respected organizations as the "National Trial Lawyers : Top 100' organization, the " American
Institute of DUI and DWI Attorneys " (AIDUIA), the American Bar Association (ABA), the National Bar Association (NBA), the Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys' Association ( MCDAA), et al., for its general excellence in law, impeccable client satisfaction, extremely high degree of professional achievement, stellar ethics in practice, and enormous success in representation of clients.
For an initial courtesy consultation, contact the firm at www.charlesjeromeware.com, charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys and Counselors, LLC, is a Columbia, Howard County, Maryland-based boutique criminal defense law firm that is locally and nationally ranked as one of the " 10 BEST" criminal defense firms in Maryland. The firm's premier peer recognition comes from such respected organizations as the "National Trial Lawyers : Top 100' organization, the " American
Institute of DUI and DWI Attorneys " (AIDUIA), the American Bar Association (ABA), the National Bar Association (NBA), the Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys' Association ( MCDAA), et al., for its general excellence in law, impeccable client satisfaction, extremely high degree of professional achievement, stellar ethics in practice, and enormous success in representation of clients.
For an initial courtesy consultation, contact the firm at www.charlesjeromeware.com, charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: ADENOID CYSTIC CARCINOMA (ACC): MARYLAND ENT MALPR...
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: ADENOID CYSTIC CARCINOMA (ACC): MARYLAND ENT MALPR...: www.charlesjeromeware.com " Here to make a difference." Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys and Counselors, LLC, is a Maryland-...
ADENOID CYSTIC CARCINOMA (ACC): MARYLAND ENT MALPRACTICE ?
www.charlesjeromeware.com " Here to make a difference."
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys and Counselors, LLC, is a Maryland-based national medical malpractice law firm and clearinghouse for the evaluation of medical malpractice cases, research and study of medical malpractice law firms, selection of medical experts, and the provision of all of the above in promising cases. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129. The information presented herein is not intended to be legal advice nor medical advice.
This medical malpractice case involves a 35-year-old female who was diagnosed with adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) of the salivary gland by her dentist. The dentist promptly referred the patient to an ear-nose-and throat (ENT) physician/surgeon who, as it happens, had never operated on a patient with ACC nor had ever seen a patient with ACC.
The ENT decided to perform a surgical procedure on the patient with an internist and a radiation oncologist assisting. The radiation oncologist had advised the ENT doctor on two separate occasions to monitor the patient with chest x-rays on an annual basis. The treating ENT -- even though his group practice had closed--- still forwarded letters to the treating ENT office every year for over 13 years recommending that chest x-rays be performed on the patient annually. The ENT, however, failed to advise the patient of the radiation oncologist's recommendations, and never gave the patient an option or recommendation to have the chest x-ray done.
The ENT maintains his belief that a chest x-ray in the circumstances of this case was not in line with the standard of care for this patient --- but, instead, he maintains that it was standard of care to wait until the patient became symptomatic for chest x-rays.
The patient never missed an appointment and routinely followed up with this same ENT as her treating physician. The patient eventually began to develop respiratory distress and presented to the ER. At that time she was diagnosed with late-stage lung cancer in both lungs, as well as metastatic disease in her brain and kidneys.
Question for Expert Consideration: Should a chest x-ray have been ordered for this patient, given her past medical history of ACC (Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma) along with the recommendations made by the radiation oncologist ?
Our Otolaryngology Expert opines: Yes. " This type of cancer requires long-term monitoring for metastatic disease including routine chest x-rays or CT scans ...."
[http://www.theexpertinstitute.com/case-studies/otolaryngology-expert-witness-advises.../May 28, 2014/ Faiza Patten]
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys and Counselors, LLC, is a Maryland-based national medical malpractice law firm and clearinghouse for the evaluation of medical malpractice cases, research and study of medical malpractice law firms, selection of medical experts, and the provision of all of the above in promising cases. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129. The information presented herein is not intended to be legal advice nor medical advice.
This medical malpractice case involves a 35-year-old female who was diagnosed with adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) of the salivary gland by her dentist. The dentist promptly referred the patient to an ear-nose-and throat (ENT) physician/surgeon who, as it happens, had never operated on a patient with ACC nor had ever seen a patient with ACC.
The ENT decided to perform a surgical procedure on the patient with an internist and a radiation oncologist assisting. The radiation oncologist had advised the ENT doctor on two separate occasions to monitor the patient with chest x-rays on an annual basis. The treating ENT -- even though his group practice had closed--- still forwarded letters to the treating ENT office every year for over 13 years recommending that chest x-rays be performed on the patient annually. The ENT, however, failed to advise the patient of the radiation oncologist's recommendations, and never gave the patient an option or recommendation to have the chest x-ray done.
The ENT maintains his belief that a chest x-ray in the circumstances of this case was not in line with the standard of care for this patient --- but, instead, he maintains that it was standard of care to wait until the patient became symptomatic for chest x-rays.
The patient never missed an appointment and routinely followed up with this same ENT as her treating physician. The patient eventually began to develop respiratory distress and presented to the ER. At that time she was diagnosed with late-stage lung cancer in both lungs, as well as metastatic disease in her brain and kidneys.
Question for Expert Consideration: Should a chest x-ray have been ordered for this patient, given her past medical history of ACC (Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma) along with the recommendations made by the radiation oncologist ?
Our Otolaryngology Expert opines: Yes. " This type of cancer requires long-term monitoring for metastatic disease including routine chest x-rays or CT scans ...."
[http://www.theexpertinstitute.com/case-studies/otolaryngology-expert-witness-advises.../May 28, 2014/ Faiza Patten]
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: MARYLAND BLACK FARMER LAWYERS : Issues and Updates...
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: MARYLAND BLACK FARMER LAWYERS : Issues and Updates...: Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys and Counselors, LLC, is a Maryland-based national law firm that features as one of its core practice areas th...
MARYLAND BLACK FARMER LAWYERS : Issues and Updates
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys and Counselors, LLC, is a Maryland-based national law firm that features as one of its core practice areas the representation of Black farmers in Maryland and throughout the United States. For an initial courtesy consultation to discuss your legal issues , contact us at www.charlesjeromeware.com, charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129. We are "here to make a difference."
The firm has been successfully involved in several major cases and issues regarding the welfare of Black farmers, including the major Black Farmers Class Action Cases : TIMOTHY PIGFORD, Et AL., v. ANN VENEMAN, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and CECIL BREWINGTON, ET AL. v. MIKE JOHANNS, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Civil Class Action Cases, Numbers 97-1978 (PFL) and 98-1693 (PLF), 1977 -1999, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
There are still multi-millions of dollars set aside by Congress for the benefit of Black farmers and farms who can survive the arduous and difficult process outlined in the U.S. District Court Order and Consent Decree of the parties of April 14, 1999 to recover it. Most unfortunately, too few Black farmers have been able to survive this difficult process to receive their just compensation for the severe wrongs suffered by them and their ancestors.
Attorney Charles Ware was one of the few select attorneys who filed motions to modify the Court's flawed Order and Consent Decree of the parties. However, the fight for justice goes on ; particularly since the fund is still there for disbursement.
As a reminder to the readers of this blog, the PIGFORD class action consent decree and order established a two-track dispute resolution mechanism for those Black farmers and their families seeking relief. The most widely used option has been "Track A", which provides a monetary settlement of $50,000 plus relief in the form of loan forgiveness and offsets of tax liability. It is a cumbersome and difficult process. An even more difficult option is the so-called "TRACK B" process., in which claimants must prove their claims and actual damages by a preponderance of the evidence ( i.e., it is more likely than not that their claims are valid). The documentation to support such a claim and the amount of relief are reviewed by a third party arbitrator, who makes a binding decision. The major problem with this process, however, is the difficulty in finding and producing the necessary documentation to get relief. The advantage here is the fact that the claimant is not restricted to just $ 50,000 in relief.
The firm has been successfully involved in several major cases and issues regarding the welfare of Black farmers, including the major Black Farmers Class Action Cases : TIMOTHY PIGFORD, Et AL., v. ANN VENEMAN, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and CECIL BREWINGTON, ET AL. v. MIKE JOHANNS, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Civil Class Action Cases, Numbers 97-1978 (PFL) and 98-1693 (PLF), 1977 -1999, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
There are still multi-millions of dollars set aside by Congress for the benefit of Black farmers and farms who can survive the arduous and difficult process outlined in the U.S. District Court Order and Consent Decree of the parties of April 14, 1999 to recover it. Most unfortunately, too few Black farmers have been able to survive this difficult process to receive their just compensation for the severe wrongs suffered by them and their ancestors.
Attorney Charles Ware was one of the few select attorneys who filed motions to modify the Court's flawed Order and Consent Decree of the parties. However, the fight for justice goes on ; particularly since the fund is still there for disbursement.
As a reminder to the readers of this blog, the PIGFORD class action consent decree and order established a two-track dispute resolution mechanism for those Black farmers and their families seeking relief. The most widely used option has been "Track A", which provides a monetary settlement of $50,000 plus relief in the form of loan forgiveness and offsets of tax liability. It is a cumbersome and difficult process. An even more difficult option is the so-called "TRACK B" process., in which claimants must prove their claims and actual damages by a preponderance of the evidence ( i.e., it is more likely than not that their claims are valid). The documentation to support such a claim and the amount of relief are reviewed by a third party arbitrator, who makes a binding decision. The major problem with this process, however, is the difficulty in finding and producing the necessary documentation to get relief. The advantage here is the fact that the claimant is not restricted to just $ 50,000 in relief.
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: MARYLAND's SECOND BEST MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ATTORNE...
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: MARYLAND's SECOND BEST MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ATTORNE...: We select and work with the best, locally and nationwide, as co-counsel and secondary counsel. We win ! Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys an...
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
MARYLAND's SECOND BEST MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ATTORNEYS, www.charlesjeromeware.com
We select and work with the best, locally and nationwide, as co-counsel and secondary counsel.
We win !
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys and Counselors, LLC, is a Maryland-based national medical malpractice and clearinghouse law firm that not only litigates these cases, we also research and study the best attorneys, law firms and medical experts to select the most appropriate and effective professionals for the clients' specific needs.
For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at www.charlesjeromeware.com, charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129. We are "here to make a difference" for our clients.
We know from years of experience that each malpractice case is unique and requires unique and specific expert staffing of attorneys and medical professionals in order to produce success.. We can successfully evaluate the client's case and produce the precise and proper team to pursue the justice demanded. Give us a try; you will not regret it.
We win !
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys and Counselors, LLC, is a Maryland-based national medical malpractice and clearinghouse law firm that not only litigates these cases, we also research and study the best attorneys, law firms and medical experts to select the most appropriate and effective professionals for the clients' specific needs.
For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at www.charlesjeromeware.com, charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129. We are "here to make a difference" for our clients.
We know from years of experience that each malpractice case is unique and requires unique and specific expert staffing of attorneys and medical professionals in order to produce success.. We can successfully evaluate the client's case and produce the precise and proper team to pursue the justice demanded. Give us a try; you will not regret it.
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: MARYLAND HOSPITAL & PHYSICIAN NEGLIGENCE ATTORNEYS...
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: MARYLAND HOSPITAL & PHYSICIAN NEGLIGENCE ATTORNEYS...: www.charlesjeromeware.com "Here to make a difference". For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at charlesje...
MARYLAND HOSPITAL & PHYSICIAN NEGLIGENCE ATTORNEYS : AN UPDATE
www.charlesjeromeware.com "Here to make a difference".
For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 720-6129 or (410) 730-5016.
$ 2,500,000.00 Confidential Recovery (Massachusetts), for failure to timely diagnose and treat encephalomyelitis in 18-year-old male; wrongful death. Hospital Negligence and Physician Negligence:
In this medical negligence case, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant physicians at the hospital were negligent in failing to timely diagnose the 18-year-old male decedent's encephalomyelitis despite clear symptoms. The decedent suffered brain death and was removed by his family from life support.
The defendant physicians and hospital denied any wrongdoing and maintained that the decedent's condition was aggressive and that earlier diagnosis and treatment would not have changed the outcome.
The 18-year-old male decedent presented to his pediatrician with complaints of a high fever and a headache which had persisted over a couple of weeks. During the examination, it became clear to the pediatrician that the child required immediate medical care since he was confused and unsteady on his feet. when the patient arrived at the emergency room, he displayed these symptoms which were worsening. He alleged unsteadiness, blurred vision, slurred speech, persistent headaches and high fever.
The defendant physician diagnosed him with viral meningitis or early signs of encephalopathy. The defendant physician failed to follow-up with a neurologist consult and failed to perform any diagnostic testing on the patient to confirm the defendant's diagnosis. the defendant was admitted to the hospital and then came under the care of the defendant hospitalist who also failed to order any diagnostic imaging of the patient's brain despite continued worsening of his symptoms, with increased headache pain and inability to walk without assistance due to the unsteadiness of his gait.
On the third day the defendant was prematurely released from the hospital, suffered a relapse, was rushed to the hospital again, diagnosed with an encephalopathic injury to his brain after an MRI was performed, determined not to have brain activity, and was subsequently removed from life support by his family. The autopsy determined the cause of death to be acute disseminated encephalomyelitis.
[http://www.jvra.com/verdict_trak/article/190997]
For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 720-6129 or (410) 730-5016.
$ 2,500,000.00 Confidential Recovery (Massachusetts), for failure to timely diagnose and treat encephalomyelitis in 18-year-old male; wrongful death. Hospital Negligence and Physician Negligence:
In this medical negligence case, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant physicians at the hospital were negligent in failing to timely diagnose the 18-year-old male decedent's encephalomyelitis despite clear symptoms. The decedent suffered brain death and was removed by his family from life support.
The defendant physicians and hospital denied any wrongdoing and maintained that the decedent's condition was aggressive and that earlier diagnosis and treatment would not have changed the outcome.
The 18-year-old male decedent presented to his pediatrician with complaints of a high fever and a headache which had persisted over a couple of weeks. During the examination, it became clear to the pediatrician that the child required immediate medical care since he was confused and unsteady on his feet. when the patient arrived at the emergency room, he displayed these symptoms which were worsening. He alleged unsteadiness, blurred vision, slurred speech, persistent headaches and high fever.
The defendant physician diagnosed him with viral meningitis or early signs of encephalopathy. The defendant physician failed to follow-up with a neurologist consult and failed to perform any diagnostic testing on the patient to confirm the defendant's diagnosis. the defendant was admitted to the hospital and then came under the care of the defendant hospitalist who also failed to order any diagnostic imaging of the patient's brain despite continued worsening of his symptoms, with increased headache pain and inability to walk without assistance due to the unsteadiness of his gait.
On the third day the defendant was prematurely released from the hospital, suffered a relapse, was rushed to the hospital again, diagnosed with an encephalopathic injury to his brain after an MRI was performed, determined not to have brain activity, and was subsequently removed from life support by his family. The autopsy determined the cause of death to be acute disseminated encephalomyelitis.
[http://www.jvra.com/verdict_trak/article/190997]
Monday, May 12, 2014
BUILD A FIRE, WIN THE LOTTERY, READ THE LOTTERY 'Bible' BOOK 1
Multiple lottery winners read, study and follow the best-selling lottery 'Bible' book written by successful lotterician, microeconomist and attorney Charles Jerome Ware, titled : THE SECRET SCIENCE OF WINNING LOTTERIES, SWEEPSTAKES AND CONTESTS : Laws, Strategies, Formulas and Contests; 166 pages. This valuablelottery book is available from all major booksellers, including AMAZON, BARNES & NOBLE, OUTSKIRTS PRESS, etc. ENJOY !
$$$$$ --- " Have fun ! Win the lottery with this amazing book ! " --- THE WASHINGTONIAN MAGAZINE.
$$$$$ --- " This brilliant lottery book is sheer genius ! A MENSA-Intelligent lottery 'Bible' ! 5 out of 5 brilliant stars !!!!!" --- Lottery multiple winner E. Thomas.
$$$$$ --- " Have fun ! Win the lottery with this amazing book ! " --- THE WASHINGTONIAN MAGAZINE.
$$$$$ --- " This brilliant lottery book is sheer genius ! A MENSA-Intelligent lottery 'Bible' ! 5 out of 5 brilliant stars !!!!!" --- Lottery multiple winner E. Thomas.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: BALTIMORE LEAD PAINT CASE DEFENSE GUIDE ( "BLPCDG"...
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: BALTIMORE LEAD PAINT CASE DEFENSE GUIDE ( "BLPCDG"...: www.charlesjeromeware.com "Here to make a difference". The Maryland-based national lead-paint poisoning defense law f...
BALTIMORE LEAD PAINT CASE DEFENSE GUIDE ( "BLPCDG")
www.charlesjeromeware.com "Here to make a difference".
The Maryland-based national lead-paint poisoning defense law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is highly-regarded and well-respected for its many successes in representing defendants in lead poisoning cases. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
In the legal realm of lead-based paint poisoning litigation, Baltimore is prolific. There are so many lead-based paint poisoning cases filed in Baltimore Circuit Court every year that the Court maintains a special lead cases docket. Furthermore, there is significant thought and opinion among some judges and other commentators in Baltimore that in certain circumstances lead poisoning cases are "indefensible".
Landlord MAINTENANCE is key. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has long taken the position that well-maintained (in good condition) lead-based paint is usually not harmful. However, when that paint is disturbed, problems can begin to occur. Paint on residential units (homes and apartments) built before 1978 should be regularly checked by certified professionals for chipping, peeling or deterioration; and any issues should be addressed immediately.
ALWAYS, landlords and property owners MUST overtly inform potential residents of residential units of the possibility of lead presence in and on the property
Of course, it helps that interior lead-based has not been manufactured in the United States for at least 50 years. But still, left-over lead-based paint is still around in some pre-1978 built homes. We advise that any residential unit built prior to 1978 must be treated as though it does contain lead-based paint, unless a professionally-certified lead risk assessor has issued a written report stating that the property has been tested and is lead-free.
The landlord or property owner should not do the repairs or renovations which may disturb lead-based paint themselves. Instead, hire appropriate professionals to do this work.
Ignoring lead-based paint problems can be devastating to both tenants and landlords.
The Maryland-based national lead-paint poisoning defense law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is highly-regarded and well-respected for its many successes in representing defendants in lead poisoning cases. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
In the legal realm of lead-based paint poisoning litigation, Baltimore is prolific. There are so many lead-based paint poisoning cases filed in Baltimore Circuit Court every year that the Court maintains a special lead cases docket. Furthermore, there is significant thought and opinion among some judges and other commentators in Baltimore that in certain circumstances lead poisoning cases are "indefensible".
Landlord MAINTENANCE is key. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has long taken the position that well-maintained (in good condition) lead-based paint is usually not harmful. However, when that paint is disturbed, problems can begin to occur. Paint on residential units (homes and apartments) built before 1978 should be regularly checked by certified professionals for chipping, peeling or deterioration; and any issues should be addressed immediately.
ALWAYS, landlords and property owners MUST overtly inform potential residents of residential units of the possibility of lead presence in and on the property
Of course, it helps that interior lead-based has not been manufactured in the United States for at least 50 years. But still, left-over lead-based paint is still around in some pre-1978 built homes. We advise that any residential unit built prior to 1978 must be treated as though it does contain lead-based paint, unless a professionally-certified lead risk assessor has issued a written report stating that the property has been tested and is lead-free.
The landlord or property owner should not do the repairs or renovations which may disturb lead-based paint themselves. Instead, hire appropriate professionals to do this work.
Ignoring lead-based paint problems can be devastating to both tenants and landlords.
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: " BELL" LEAD POISONING DEFENSE: Baltimore Electron...
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: " BELL" LEAD POISONING DEFENSE: Baltimore Electron...: www.charlesjeromeware.com "Here to make a difference". The Maryland-based national lead-paint poisoning defense law firm of ...
" BELL" LEAD POISONING DEFENSE: Baltimore Electronic/Electric Lead Poisoning Litigation DEFENSE
www.charlesjeromeware.com "Here to make a difference".
The Maryland-based national lead-paint poisoning defense law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, specializes in the defense of Baltimore, Maryland landlords and landowners in lead-paint poisoning cases. The firm is highly-regarded and well-respected for its successful representation of its clients in these difficult cases.
For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
There are many other potential sources of lead poisoning in Baltimore besides pre-1978 residential housing units. For instance, two infrequently-mentioned potential sources of lead poisoning are electric and electronic devices such as lead batteries, lead burners, electric accumulators, some electronic and electronic toys and communication devices, etc.
Epidemiologically, lead poisoning is a lot less common than it used to be --- particularly with less use of lead-based gasoline, paints and cosmetics, and generally improved housing.
The Maryland-based national lead-paint poisoning defense law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, specializes in the defense of Baltimore, Maryland landlords and landowners in lead-paint poisoning cases. The firm is highly-regarded and well-respected for its successful representation of its clients in these difficult cases.
For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
There are many other potential sources of lead poisoning in Baltimore besides pre-1978 residential housing units. For instance, two infrequently-mentioned potential sources of lead poisoning are electric and electronic devices such as lead batteries, lead burners, electric accumulators, some electronic and electronic toys and communication devices, etc.
Epidemiologically, lead poisoning is a lot less common than it used to be --- particularly with less use of lead-based gasoline, paints and cosmetics, and generally improved housing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)