Sunday, October 27, 2013

Remove the CouponDropDown Adware (Uninstall Guide)

Remove the CouponDropDown Adware (Uninstall Guide)

Ruling Doubles Paycheck for 1,375 Employees at High-Grossing Queens Slot Parlor

Ruling Doubles Paycheck for 1,375 Employees at High-Grossing Queens Slot Parlor

Ángel Franco/The New York Times
Jeannine Nixon with her son Carl Jones Jr., waiting for one of four buses she has to take to work at Resorts World Casino, in southeastern Queens.

Jeannine Nixon looked as if she had hit the jackpot. Ms. Nixon, a customer relations representative at Resorts World Casino in Queens, had just learned that she would be making $40,000 a year, up from $22,300.

Marcus Yam for The New York Times
The slot machine floor, known colloquially as Times Square, at the Resorts World Casino, next to Aqueduct Racetrack in Queens.

“It’s life-changing,” Ms. Nixon, her voice cracking, said on Thursday. “I can finally feel relieved.”
After a year of wrangling between management and her union, the Hotel Trades Council, an arbitrator had issued a ruling that would double the average paycheck for 1,375 union cashiers, attendants, waiters, bartenders and security guards who work at Resorts World, the highest grossingslot machine parlor in the country. The decision, issued last week, is to be made public on Monday.
Resorts World, like most slot parlors and full-scale casinos, had long promised thousands of good jobs and millions of dollars in revenue for the state. It was a particularly enticing assurance in the poor and working-class neighborhoods in southeastern Queens that surround Resorts World and the aging Aqueduct horse-racing track next door.
The slot parlor at Aqueduct, the only one in New York City, has been spectacularly successful in the two years since it opened. Yet the average wage for workers laboring amid the clanging electronic slot machines and table games was only slightly more than $10 an hour.
The average pay under a new three-year contract will immediately jump to $20.50 an hour, or nearly $40,000 a year, according to the Hotel Trades Council. Wages will increase further in the second and third years of the contract.
Ms. Nixon, who lives in subsidized housing, said she recently postponed a blood test because she could not afford to pay for it. A single mother, she takes two different buses every morning to take her son to school, before taking two other buses in the opposite direction to get to work. “If I had a car,” Ms. Nixon said, “it’d be a 15-minute ride.”
Peter Ward, president of the Hotel Trades Council, said, “This is the outcome we want, if we’re going to have gambling in New York.”
“We’ve worked to create a situation where the middle class is suddenly within reach of gaming workers,” Mr. Ward added, “not a bunch of minimum-wage jobs where people have to live on the dole to survive.”
The workers at Resorts World will also now be covered by the union’s pension and health plan.
The arbitration decision comes only a week before voters are being asked to approve Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s plan to expand gambling in New York, with up to seven full-scale casinos (containing both electronic slot machines and table games like poker, roulette, craps and blackjack), with hotels, shops and entertainment sites. Resorts World and eight other slot parlors in the state that are connected to racetracks — and are known as racinos — have only electronic games.
Proponents have long argued that the casinos would bring economic development and tax revenues earmarked for education and property tax relief. Critics contend that gambling represents a regressive tax whose costs outweigh any benefits.
At the urging of the Hotel Trades Council, state officials required slot parlor operators to sign “labor peace agreements” that they hoped would ensure jobs with decent wages and working conditions. Mr. Cuomo’s plans for full-scale casinos include a similar requirement.
But if voters approve the casinos, there is no guarantee that casino workers upstate, where unions are weaker, would have the leverage to obtain the same pay as those at Resorts World.
Resorts World is owned by the Genting Group, a Malaysian company that operates a network of casino-resorts in Britain and Asia. It opened Resorts World in October 2011, after bidding far more — $381 million — than two other operators for the slot franchise at Aqueduct. The company spent about $420 million building the casino, which has 4,525 electronic slot machines and 475 electronic table games.
With more than 5.6 million people living within 10 miles of Resorts World, the slot parlor has been crowded night after night.
Resorts World boasts that the giant slot parlor attracts 35,000 visitors a day and more than 12 million a year. It posted revenues of $696.5 million in the year ended in March, 38 percent of the $1.8 billion in combined revenues for all nine racinos in the state.
The electronic slot machines at Resorts World averaged $432 a day last month, far more than slot machines in Las Vegas, Atlantic City or Connecticut.
After most workers signed union membership cards from the Hotel Trades Council, the union and Genting began negotiating a labor contract.
The two sides reached an impasse on economic issues a year ago, so the union invoked the arbitration clause under its agreement with Genting. In making his decision, the arbitrator selected by both sides, Elliott D. Shriftman, considered the success of the business, the paycheck necessary for full-time workers to sustain themselves, their spouses and their children without government assistance, and the company’s ability to pay.
Rather than open its books, Genting conceded that it could pay higher wages.
“We respect and will implement the arbitrator’s award as required and will continue tofocus our efforts on improving our facility,” Kerri Lyon, a spokeswoman for Resorts World New York City, said in a statement released on Sunday.
“This will restore a path into the middle class for workers in that community that has been eroded over the last several years, given the broader changes in the city economy,” said James A. Parrott, chief economist for the Fiscal Policy Institute, a liberal research group. “You can see a big drop-off in African-American and Latinos working in city government.”

NY health exchange targets young workers and struggling older ones

Rachael Richardson, Louis Peters
Clinical applications counselor Rachael Richardson, left, works with Louis Peters at the Henry J. Austin Health Center, in Trenton, N.J., as he and others fill out papers to sign up for new plans through a health insurance exchange. / Associated Press
ALBANY — There are 1.2 million New Yorkers aged 25 to 44 withouthealth insurance, mainly people who are single and earn less than $45,960 a year.
As the state seeks to enroll 1 million uninsured over the next three years, they are looking to grow the insured ranks through young, single people and older workers who either work part-time or have been laid off.
Many of them — if they earn less than $45,960 as an individual or $94,200 as a family of four — would also be eligible for tax credits if they enroll. That’s the 400 percent threshold over the poverty line.
The new health exchange opened for registration on Oct. 1. The state Health Department said Wednesday that 174,000 New Yorkers have applied for health insurance through the exchange program, and 37,030 have fully enrolled. But two-thirds of those were determined to be eligible for taxpayer-funded Medicaid, not a private insurer.
State officials said they expect most enrollees will be eligible for some tax breaks, even if they make too much to quality for Medicaid.
“We expect that most people who enroll through our marketplaces will be qualified based on their income for some level of financial assistance,” said Donna Frescatore, the executive director of the New York Health Benefit Exchange.
“Nevertheless, there’s certainly some people over 400 percent of the federal poverty level who can purchase through marketplace and will see rates that are 53 percent less on average than today’s individual direct pay market.”
After a rocky start, Frescatore said the state is pleased with the response to the national program. New York had more than 30 million visits to its website in the first week — which appears to be largely due to a computer glitch that limited access to potential enrollees.
But many questions remain for consumers and for small businesses that could use the exchanges.
If a company has fewer than 50 workers, it won’t have to offer health insurance, but can do so through the exchanges. For larger employers, they could face fines if they don’t offer the insurance by 2015.
Some businesses, like the Rochester-based Wegmans food chain, said it would cut benefits for some part-time workers, encouraging them to enroll in the exchanges.
Businesses “are skeptical of it at best,” said Brian Sampson, executive director of Unshackle Upstate, a Rochester-based business group.
“From a financial standpoint, they have to look at what they are paying for the cost of insurance for their employees now compared to the cost of a fine as to whether they offer health insurance,” he said.
Even before the exchange, the number of uninsured in New York dropped nearly 5 percent between 2011 and 2012, U.S. Census data analyzed by Gannett’s Albany Bureau found.
In fact, census figures showed that Steuben and Broome counties had the second and third largest percentage-point decline in uninsured residents over the two years. First was Schenectady County.
Broome County Health Director Claudia Edwards said the county had about 1,000 fewer visits to its free health clinic over those two years. She said the county’s decline in uninsured residents is due to more people getting government help.
“It’s believed that the uninsured individuals in Broome County have become more eligible for government-insurance programs. So the shift is in that direction,” Edwards said.
A report for the state Health Department in May by the Urban Institute showed that New York had 2.7 million uninsured New Yorkers.
Nearly half were aged 25 to 44, and half made less than 400 percent of the federal poverty rate, the report found.
Thirty-eight percent were white and 33 percent were Hispanic, with 17 percent who were black. Forty-six percent were single, and 57 percent were male. A majority had only a high school education.
The majority of people who will benefit from the exchanges are young people who aren’t offered health insurance through their employer or older people who work several jobs without insurance, said Elisabeth Benjamin, who heads health policy for Community Health Advocates, a statewide group based in Manhattan.
Benjamin is one of the state’s hundreds of “navigators” who are trained to help people enroll in the exchanges.
She said she signed up a home-care worker in her 30s from the Bronx who earned 174 percent above the poverty limit. The woman is paying $72 a month for a health-insurance plan after tax subsidies.
“That’s what it’s all about: to really protect working-class people, who don’t have a lot of disposable income, to give them really good protection from financial ruin,” Benjamin said.
Queens, the Bronx and Brooklyn led the state in the percentage of uninsured New Yorkers, census data showed. In Queens, 17 percent were uninsured in 2012. The data only includes counties with populations above 60,000.
But it’s not just a big-city issue. Cattaraugus County in western New York ranked fourth statewide in number of uninsured residents, nearly 11 percent of its population.
Ulster and Sullivan counties in the Catskills were next, and each had about 12 percent of its residents without health insurance.
Even Westchester and Putnam counties — two northern New York City suburbs — ranked high. About 11 percent of Westchester residents were uninsured, compared to 10 percent in Putnam, ranking ninth and 10th in the state, respectively.
It was 9.5 percent in Dutchess and 8.8 percent in Chemung and Rockland counties.
Poor individuals and families in need of health care isn’t just an inner-city issue, said Nikisha Johnson, president of Mercy Community Services in Rochester. She said the community organization has increasingly seen clients who live in the suburbs.
“Most of the people that we see are people that they’re COBRA benefits are expiring,” Johnson said. “They are piecing together two or three jobs.”
Monroe and Tompkins counties had among the fewest uninsured residents, according to the census data. In Monroe, 6.7 percent of the population was uninsured; it was 6.2 percent in Tompkins.
The challenges are formidable to get New Yorkers enrolled in the controversial program.
Young and healthy people may balk at paying a few hundred dollars a month for health insurance.
If an uninsured person doesn’t get health insurance, they would likely be fined as a tax penalty on their 2015 income taxes. It’s about a $95-per-adult penalty for the first year, or 1 percent of annual income. And it increases over time, to as much as $695 a year.
Frescatore said health insurance makes sense over the long term.
“For the security and the peace of mind in the event that something unexpected occurs, and to be able to access preventative services, many of which doesn’t have any out-of-pocket costs, the decision to be insured is really right for them,” she said.

For seniors, disabled, and those waiting for 2 years without Medicare. Medicare & You 2014

Share your experience of trying to sign up for health insurance using government exchanges:

Two Other GIGANTIC "Screw You" Parts Of Obamacare - MT

Two additional things that I haven't seen discussed often (if at all) or which are given only flippant service -- but which could easily bankrupt you.
Actuarial Value.  This is a complicated way of saying "what percentage of total health care expense" is the policy expected to cover?  For a bronze plan (the least-expensive, but still expensive policy) the answer is 60%.
You may have heard the "actuarial value" but you probably didn't understand what it meant.  Let's put some numbers on this.  Assuming you will pay $300 a month for your "bronze" plan under Obamacare, or $3,600 a year.
The policy can of course, at most, pay $3,600 per year, per person who has it on average or the company will go out of business because it will lose money.  Eventually all firms that lose money continually go bankrupt.  Therefore, on average it must pay out less than this much per person, assuming zero overhead (which is of course impossible.)
This means that on average you are expected to fork up about another $2,400 in cash for your medical care on top of the $3,600 in premiums, or $6,000 annually.
Don't have $6,000 in disposable income?
Tough crap.
Now note that these are averages, and further disregard inefficiencies.  In other words, the total you are expected to spend will be somewhat less, because the inefficiency goes not to provide care but to run the insurance company.  Nonetheless this illustrates the problem -- you think it's $3,600 a year but it's really $6,000 you're signing up for!
The worst part of it is that while there will be some people who will "win" (and spend less or even zero beyond the premium as they use no services) there will be just as many people who get raped for much more.  That's how averages are -- they're statistical things and apply only over large groups of people, not to individuals.  But on average, and quite-likely, you are not going to spend $3,600 -- it's going to be much closer to $6,000 instead when all is said and done.
Worse is another problem that I am just starting to get reports on -- and which has not been cleanly disclosed.  With most conventional insruance there is a fair bit of "out of network" coverage.  Most people think of this as a big deal when they want to see a doctor that is not "in network" because they like him or because there is some specialty need.
I am getting multiple reports that many of these Obamacare policies have zero out-of-network coverage and this is not clearly disclosed up front until you sign up for the policy itself.  Indeed, I've seen exactly no clean disclosure on this point before you create an account if you're "just shopping."
Now add to this that previously insurance was sold on a state-wide basis. Under Obamacare it is sold on a county-by-county basis.
Why is this a big deal?
Because if there is no out-of-network coverage at all what happens when you are traveling out of your immediate home area and either get sick or have an accident of some sort (other than in a car, where your auto insurance likely provides injury coverage)?
You're screwed -- you will pay 100% with no limits as your insurance is worthless -- if there is no out-of-network coverage!
I wonder why there's been no widespread public discussion and clear disclosure on these two points.......

Saturday, October 26, 2013

Health Effects from - How does radiation cause health effects?

Health Effects from

Health Effects

Health effects are the central focus of EPA's Radiation Protection Programs. Below is information that explains the topics that we consider as we prepare regulations and guidance on protective limits.

Radiation and Health

How does radiation cause health effects?

Radioactive materials that decay spontaneously produce ionizing radiation, which has sufficient energy to strip away electrons from atoms (creating two charged ions) or to break some chemical bonds. Any living tissue in the human body can be damaged by ionizing radiation in a unique manner. The body attempts to repair the damage, but sometimes the damage is of a nature that cannot be repaired or it is too severe or widespread to be repaired. Also mistakes made in the natural repair process can lead to cancerous cells. The most common forms of ionizing radiation are alpha and beta particles, or gamma and X-rays.

What kinds of health effects does exposure to radiation cause?

In general, the amount and duration of radiation exposure affects the severity or type of health effect. There are two broad categories of health effects: stochastic and non-stochastic.

Stochastic Health Effects

Stochastic effects are associated with long-term, low-level (chronic) exposure to radiation. ("Stochastic" refers to the likelihood that something will happen.) Increased levels of exposure make these health effects more likely to occur, but do not influence the type or severity of the effect.
Cancer is considered by most people the primary health effect from radiation exposure. Simply put, cancer is the uncontrolled growth of cells. Ordinarily, natural processes control the rate at which cells grow and replace themselves. They also control the body's processes for repairing or replacing damaged tissue. Damage occurring at the cellular or molecular level, can disrupt the control processes, permitting the uncontrolled growth of cells cancer This is why ionizing radiation's ability to break chemical bonds in atoms and molecules makes it such a potent carcinogen.
Other stochastic effects also occur. Radiation can cause changes in DNA, the "blueprints" that ensure cell repair and replacement produces a perfect copy of the original cell. Changes in DNA are called mutations.
Sometimes the body fails to repair these mutations or even creates mutations during repair. The mutations can be teratogenic or genetic. Teratogenic mutations are caused by exposure of the fetus in the uterus and affect only the individual who was exposed. Genetic mutations are passed on to offspring.

Non-Stochastic Health Effects

Non-stochastic effects appear in cases of exposure to high levels of radiation, and become more severe as the exposure increases. Short-term, high-level exposure is referred to as 'acute' exposure.
Many non-cancerous health effects of radiation are non-stochastic. Unlike cancer, health effects from 'acute' exposure to radiation usually appear quickly. Acute health effects include burns and radiation sickness. Radiation sickness is also called 'radiation poisoning.' It can cause premature aging or even death. If the dose is fatal, death usually occurs within two months. The symptoms of radiation sickness include: nausea, weakness, hair loss, skin burns or diminished organ function.
Medical patients receiving radiation treatments often experience acute effects, because they are receiving relatively high "bursts" of radiation during treatment.

Is any amount of radiation safe?

There is no firm basis for setting a "safe" level of exposure above background for stochastic effects. Many sources emit radiation that is well below natural background levels. This makes it extremely difficult to isolate its stochastic effects. In setting limits, EPA makes the conservative (cautious) assumption that any increase in radiation exposure is accompanied by an increased risk of stochastic effects.
Some scientists assert that low levels of radiation are beneficial to health (this idea is known as hormesis).
However, there do appear to be threshold exposures for the various non-stochastic effects. (Please note that the acute affects in the following table are cumulative. For example, a dose that produces damage to bone marrow will have produced changes in blood chemistry and be accompanied by nausea.)
Health EffectTime to Onset
(without treatment)
5-10changes in blood chemistry 
75hair loss2-3 weeks
400possible deathwithin 2 months
1,000destruction of intestinal lining 
 internal bleeding 
 and death1-2 weeks
2,000damage to central nervous system 
 loss of consciousness;minutes
 and deathhours to days
  • Estimating Risk
    This page describes how scientists estimate cancer and other health risks from radiation exposures.

How do we know radiation causes cancer?

Basically, we have learned through observation. When people first began working with radioactive materials, scientists didn't understand radioactive decay, and reports of illness were scattered.
As the use of radioactive materials and reports of illness became more frequent, scientists began to notice patterns in the illnesses. People working with radioactive materials and x-rays developed particular types of uncommon medical conditions. For example, scientists recognized as early at 1910 that radiation caused skin cancer. Scientists began to keep track of the health effects, and soon set up careful scientific studies of groups of people who had been exposed.
Among the best known long-term studies are those of Japanese atomic bomb blast survivors, other populations exposed to nuclear testing fallout (for example, natives of the Marshall Islands), and uranium miners.

Aren't children more sensitive to radiation than adults?

Yes, because children are growing more rapidly, there are more cells dividing and a greater opportunity for radiation to disrupt the process. EPA's radiation protection standards take into account the differences in the sensitivity due to age and gender.
Fetuses are also highly sensitive to radiation. The resulting effects depend on which systems are developing at the time of exposure.

Effects of Radiation Type and Exposure Pathway

Both the type of radiation to which the person is exposed and the pathway by which they are exposed influence health effects. Different types of radiation vary in their ability to damage different kinds of tissue. Radiation and radiation emitters (radionuclides) can expose the whole body (direct exposure) or expose tissues inside the body when inhaled or ingested.
All kinds of ionizing radiation can cause cancer and other health effects. The main difference in the ability of alpha and beta particles and gamma and x-rays to cause health effects is the amount of energy they can deposit in a given space. Their energy determines how far they can penetrate into tissue. It also determines how much energy they are able to transmit directly or indirectly to tissues and the resulting damage.
Although an alpha particle and a gamma ray may have the same amount of energy, inside the body the alpha particle will deposit all of its energy in a very small volume of tissue. The gamma radiation will spread energy over a much larger volume. This occurs because alpha particles have a mass that carries the energy, while gamma rays do not.

Non-Radiation Health Effects of Radionuclides

Radioactive elements and compounds behave chemically exactly like their non-radioactive forms. For example, radioactive lead has the same chemical properties as non-radioactive lead. The public health protection question that EPA's scientists must answer is, "How do we best manage all the hazards a pollutant presents?" (SeeProtecting Against Exposure)

Do chemical properties of radionuclides contribute to radiation health effects?

The chemical properties of a radionuclide can determine where health effects occur. To function properly many organs require certain elements. They cannot distinguish between radioactive and non-radioactive forms of the element and accumulate one as quickly as the other.
  • Radioactive iodine concentrates in the thyroid. The thyroid needs iodine to function normally, and cannot tell the difference between stable and radioactive isotopes. As a result, radioactive iodine contributes to thyroid cancer more than other types of cancer.
  • Calcium, strontium-90 and radium-226 have similar chemical properties. The result is that strontium and radium in the body tend to collect in calcium rich areas, such as bones and teeth. They contribute to bone cancer.

Estimating Health Effects

What is the cancer risk from radiation? How does it compare to the risk of cancer from other sources?

Each radionuclide represents a somewhat different health risk. However, health physicists currently estimate that overall, if each person in a group of 10,000 people exposed to 1 rem of ionizing radiation, in small doses over a life time, we would expect 5 or 6 more people to die of cancer than would otherwise.
In this group of 10,000 people, we can expect about 2,000 to die of cancer from all non-radiation causes. The accumulated exposure to 1 rem of radiation, would increase that number to about 2005 or 2006.
To give you an idea of the usual rate of exposure, most people receive about 3 tenths of a rem (300 mrem) every year from natural background sources of radiation (mostly radon).

What are the risks of other long-term health effects?

Other than cancer, the most prominent long-term health effects are teratogenic and genetic mutations.
Teratogenic mutations result from the exposure of fetuses (unborn children) to radiation. They can include smaller head or brain size, poorly formed eyes, abnormally slow growth, and mental retardation. Studies indicate that fetuses are most sensitive between about eight to fifteen  weeks after conception. They remain somewhat less sensitive between six and twenty-five weeks old.
The relationship between dose and mental retardation is not known exactly. However, scientists estimate that if 1,000 fetuses that were between eight and fifteen weeks old were exposed to one rem, four fetuses would become mentally retarded. If the fetuses were between sixteen and twenty-five weeks old, it is estimated that one of them would be mentally retarded.
Genetic effects are those that can be passed from parent to child. Health physicists estimate that about fifty severe hereditary effects will occur in a group of one million live-born children whose parents were both exposed to one rem. About one hundred twenty severe hereditary effects would occur in all descendants.
In comparison, all other causes of genetic effects result in as many as 100,000 severe hereditary effects in one million live-born children. These genetic effects include those that occur spontaneously ("just happen") as well as those that have non-radioactive causes.

Protecting Against Exposure

What limits does EPA set on exposure to radiation?

Health physicists generally agree on limiting a person's exposure beyond background radiation to about 100 mrem per year from all sources. Exceptions are occupational, medical or accidental exposures. (Medical X-rays generally deliver less than 10 mrem).  EPA and other regulatory agencies generally limit exposures from specific source to the public to levels well under 100 mrem. This is far below the exposure levels that cause acute health effects.

How does EPA protect against radionuclides that are also toxic?

In most cases, the radiation hazard is much greater than the chemical (toxic) hazard. Radiation protection limits are lower than the chemical hazard protection limits would be. By issuing radiation protection regulations, EPA can protect people from both the radiation and the chemical hazard. However, deciding which hazard is greater is not always straightforward. Several factors can tip the balance:
  • toxicity of the radionuclide
  • strength of the ionizing radiation
  • how quickly the radionuclide emits radiation (half-life)
  • relative abundance of the radioactive and non-radioactive forms
For example:
  • Uranium-238 is both radioactive and very toxic. Its half-life of 4.5 billion years means that only a few atoms emit radiation at a time. A sample containing enough atoms to pose a radiation hazard contains enough atoms to pose a chemical hazard. As a result, EPA regulates uranium-238 as both a chemical and a radiation hazard.
  • Radioactive isotopes of lead are both radioactive and toxic. In spite of the severe effects of lead on the brain and the nervous system, the radiation hazard is greater. However, the radioactive forms of lead are so uncommon that paint or other lead containing products do not contain enough radioactive lead to present a radiation hazard. As a result, EPA regulates lead as a chemical hazard.

All information above comes from the website and is copied using the Freedom of Information Act.

Radiation Alert Inspector Xtreme USB Handheld Digital Radiation Detector with LCD Display and Protective Boot

Radiation Alert Inspector Xtreme USB Handheld Digital Radiation Detector with LCD Display and Protective Boot 

Radiation Alert Inspector Xtreme USB Handheld Digital Radiation Detector with LCD Display and Protective Boot
 Click for larger image and other views 

Image is representative of the product family.

Radiation Alert Inspector Xtreme USB Handheld Digital Radiation Detector with LCD Display and Protective Boot

By Radiation Alert

Price:$585.00 FREE ShippingDetails
Only 13 left in stock (more on the way).
Ships from and sold by Gift-wrap available.
Want it Tuesday, Oct. 29? 
Order within 50 hrs 26 mins and choose One-Day Shipping at checkout. 
Save 45% on BW Technologies GasAlertClip Extreme 2-Year Detector
For a limited time (and only while supplies last) save 45% on BW Technologies GasAlertClip ExtremeLearn more

Specifications for this item

Brand Name
Radiation Alert
Part Number
Number of Items
Item Weight
0.61 pounds
LowerTemperature Range
-10  Degrees Celsius
Overall Height
1.6  inches
Overall Length
7  inches
Overall Width
3.8  inches
Temperature Range
-10/50  Degrees Celsius
Upper Temperature Range
50  Degrees Celsius