Boiling point shall mean the boiling point of a liquid at a pressure of 14.7 pounds per square inch absolute (p.s.i.a.) (760 mm.). Where an accurate boiling point is unavailable for the material in question, or for mixtures which do not have a constant boiling point, for purposes of this section the 10 percent point of a distillation performed in accordance with the Standard Method of Test for Distillation of Petroleum Products, ASTM D-86-62, which is incorporated by reference as specified in 1910.6, may be used as the boiling point of the liquid.
Absolute C 5th Edition 29
We herein present an overview of the upcoming 5th edition of the World Health Organization Classification of Haematolymphoid Tumours focussing on lymphoid neoplasms. Myeloid and histiocytic neoplasms will be presented in a separate accompanying article. Besides listing the entities of the classification, we highlight and explain changes from the revised 4th edition. These include reorganization of entities by a hierarchical system as is adopted throughout the 5th edition of the WHO classification of tumours of all organ systems, modification of nomenclature for some entities, revision of diagnostic criteria or subtypes, deletion of certain entities, and introduction of new entities, as well as inclusion of tumour-like lesions, mesenchymal lesions specific to lymph node and spleen, and germline predisposition syndromes associated with the lymphoid neoplasms.
Evidence-based classification of disease is fundamental for the treatment of individual patients, monitoring of global disease incidence, and investigating all aspects of disease causation, prevention and therapy. The World Health Organization (WHO) classification of lymphoid tumours has provided a global reference for the diagnosis of lymphoid neoplasms since its 3rd edition in 2001 [1] which was based on the R.E.A.L Classification developed by the International Lymphoma Study Group (ILSG) in the early 1990s [2]. The definitions laid down in the successive WHO classifications [3, 4] have not only been adopted for use by pathologists, clinicians, and basic and translational research scientists, but they have also been incorporated into the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, and thereby serve as a global reference for epidemiological monitoring across national and international health policy organizations. In this article, we provide the conceptual framework and major developments in lymphoid neoplasms in the upcoming 5th edition of the WHO Classification of Haematolymphoid Tumours (WHO-HAEM5) scheduled to be published in 2022. An overview of myeloid neoplasms will be published separately.
The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint, nor is it an element in such liberty that one person, or a minority of persons residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have power to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State.
The highest court of Massachusetts not having held that the compulsory vaccination law of that State establishes the absolute rule that an adult must be vaccinated even if he is not a fit subject at the time or that vaccination would seriously injure his health or cause his death, this court holds that, as to an adult residing in the community, and a fit subject of vaccination, the statute is not invalid as in derogation of any of the rights of such person under the Fourteenth Amendment.
by the state court. The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the State subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best, and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that
at the time he was informed of the requirement of the regulation adopted by the Board of Health. It is entirely consistent with his offer of proof that, after reaching full age, he had become, so far as medical skill could discover, and, when informed of the regulation of the Board of Health, was, a fit subject of vaccination, and that the vaccine matter to be used in his case was such as any medical practitioner of good standing would regard as proper to be used. The matured opinions of medical men everywhere, and the experience of mankind, as all must know, negative the suggestion that it is not possible in any case to determine whether vaccination is safe. Was defendant exempted from the operation of the statute simply because of his dread of the same evil results experienced by him when a child and had observed in the cases of his son and other children? Could he reasonably claim such an exemption because, "quite often" or "occasionally," injury had resulted from vaccination, or because it was impossible, in the opinion of some, by any practical test, to determine with absolute certainty whether a particular person could be safely vaccinated?
United States v. Kirby, 7 Wall. 482; Lau Ow Bew v. United States, 144 U. S. 47, 144 U. S. 58. Until otherwise informed by the highest court of Massachusetts, we are not inclined to hold that the statute establishes the absolute rule that an adult must be vaccinated if it be apparent or can be shown with reasonable certainty that he is not at the time a fit subject of vaccination or that vaccination, by reason of his then condition, would seriously impair his health or probably cause his death. No such case is here presented. It is the case of an adult who, for aught that appears, was himself in perfect health and a fit subject of vaccination, and yet, while remaining in the community, refused to obey the statute and the regulation adopted in execution of its provisions for the protection of the public health and the public safety, confessedly endangered by the presence of a dangerous disease
This document is a W3C Recommendation. This fifth edition is not a new version of XML. As a convenience to readers,it incorporates the changes dictated by the accumulated errata (available at -V10-4e-errata) to the FourthEdition of XML 1.0, dated 16 August 2006. In particular, erratum [E09]relaxes the restrictions on element and attribute names, thereby providing in XML 1.0 the major end user benefitcurrently achievable only by using XML1.1. As a consequence, many possible documents which were not well-formed according to previous editions of this specification are now well-formed, and previously invalid documentsusing the newly-allowed name characters in, for example, IDattributes, are now valid.
Please report errors in this document tothe public xml-editor@w3.org mail list; publicarchives are available. For the convenience of readers,an XHTML version with color-coded revision indicators isalso provided; this version highlights each change due to an erratum published in theerratalist for the previous edition, together with a link to the particularerratum in that list. Most of theerrata in the list provide a rationale for the change. The erratalist for this fifth edition is available at -V10-5e-errata.
[Definition: A parsed entity contains text,a sequence of characters, which mayrepresent markup or character data.][Definition: A characteris an atomic unit of text as specified by ISO/IEC 10646:2000 [ISO/IEC 10646]. Legal characters are tab, carriagereturn, line feed, and the legal charactersof Unicode and ISO/IEC 10646. Theversions of these standards cited in A.1 Normative References werecurrent at the time this document was prepared. New characters may be addedto these standards by amendments or new editions. Consequently, XML processorsMUST accept any character in the range specified for Char.]
Systemidentifiers (and other XML strings meant to be used as URI references) may containcharacters that, according to [IETF RFC 3986],must be escaped before a URI can be used to retrieve the referenced resource. Thecharacters to be escaped are the control characters #x0 to #x1F and #x7F (most ofwhich cannot appear in XML), space #x20, the delimiters '' #x3E and'"' #x22, the unwise characters '' #x7B, '' #x7D, '' #x7C, '\' #x5C, '^' #x5E and'`' #x60, as well as all characters above #x7F. Since escaping is not always a fullyreversible process, it MUST be performed only when absolutely necessary and as lateas possible in a processing chain. In particular, neither the process of convertinga relative URI to an absolute one nor the process of passing a URI reference to aprocess or software component responsible for dereferencing it SHOULD trigger escaping.When escaping does occur, it MUST be performed as follows: 2ff7e9595c
Comments