吉林包皮过长手术费吉林治尿道炎好的医院是哪家,吉林治疗阳痿,吉林男性包皮过长手术,吉林手术治疗阳痿早泄,吉林在医院做包皮过长多少钱,吉林包皮干裂红肿怎么回事,吉林前列腺肥大是前列腺炎吗

WATCH LIVE:LAKE HUGHES (CNS) - A fast-moving brush fire quickly scorched about 10,000 acres in the Lake Hughes area Wednesday, burning what appeared to be homes and prompting a multi-agency effort and mandatory evacuations for at least 100 homes.The Lake Fire was reported at about 3:30 p.m. near North Lake Hughes Road and Pine Canyon Road in the Angeles National Forest, according to Marvin Lim of the Los Angeles County Fire Department, which was battling the blaze with Angeles National Forest crews, as well as assistance from the Los Angeles, Culver City, Beverly Hills and Santa Monica fire departments.The fire west of Palmdale had a "rapid rate of spread," amid temperatures in the mid-90s, low humidity and gusty winds, according to the U.S. Forest Service. The forest service and county fire departments quickly called in second-alarm responses.By 4:30 p.m., the flames had burned 400 acres, and officials said the fire had the potential to burn 1,000 acres, according the Los Angeles County Fire Department. That quickly changed two hours later, when the flames exploded across an estimated 10,000 acres, with no containment.The fire was entirely on federal land as of 6:30 p.m., according to the Los Angeles County Fire Department.The sheriff's department issued mandatory evacuation orders affecting at least 100 homes, and an evacuation center was set up for displaced residents at Highland High School in Palmdale.By 7:15 p.m., the flames had jumped Pine Canyon Road, two miles west of Lake Hughes Road, and shortly after, flames were seen on aerial footage burning what appeared to be homes in the area.ABC7 reported at 7:20 p.m. that homes had started to burn in the fire. 1698

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told lawmakers Wednesday that face masks are “the most important, powerful public health tool we have” against the coronavirus and they might even provide better protection than a vaccine.The CDC director, Dr. Robert Redfield, made the comments during a hearing before the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies.“I will continue to appeal for all Americans, all individuals in our country, to embrace these face coverings,” said Redfield. “I’ve said it, if we did it for 6, 8, 10, 12 weeks, we’d bring this pandemic under control.”Redfield said there’s clear scientific evidence that face coverings work and they’re our best defense against the virus.“I might even go so far as to say this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine,” said the CDC director.Redfield was also asked about when a potential COVID-19 vaccine would be available to the general public, for which he answered – late in the second quarter or the third quarter of next year, which would be between June and September 2021.“I think there will be vaccine that will initially be available sometime between November and December, but very limited supply and will have to be prioritized,” said Redfield. “If you’re asking me when it will be generally available to the American public, so we can begin to take advantage of vaccines and get back to our regular life, I think we’re probably looking at late second quarter, third quarter 2021.”Redfield says the first supply of vaccines will likely go to first responders and those most vulnerable to the disease.Later in the day, President Donald Trump held a press briefing, during which he was asked about Redfield’s comments and said that the CDC director may have been confused or made a mistake. He doubled down on saying that a vaccine will be available before Redfield’s timeline.“I think he made a mistake when he said that,” said Trump. “That’s just incorrect information. I called him and he didn’t tell me that and I think he got the message maybe confused, maybe it was stated incorrectly. No, we’re ready to go immediately as the vaccine is announced and it could be announced in October, could be announced a little bit after October, but once we go, we’re ready.”On Twitter, Redfield went on to clarify the statements he made in the hearing, saying he 100% believes in the importance of vaccines, especially the COVID-19 vaccine.“A COVID-19 vaccine is the thing that will get Americans back to normal everyday life,” he wrote. “The best defense we currently have against this virus are the important mitigation efforts of wearing a mask, washing your hands, social distancing and being careful about crowds.”Click here to learn more from the CDC about how to protect yourself and others from the coronavirus, which has killed more than 197,100 people across the nation, according to a tally by Johns Hopkins University. 3053

We have increasingly been hearing about security and privacy problems with smart devices that are connected to the internet. All of these devices, from doorbells to thermostats, could one day have what's almost like a nutrition label on them.The label would tell you about the security and privacy features of the device.Researchers from Carnegie Mellon University came up with the design for what the label could look like.The researchers want to have the label on the packaging and the website. They expect there would still be impulse buys where you would disregard the label, but it would help in other situations.“When they're making a more considered purchase for their home or if they're giving it as a gift to some else or if it's something that's more sensitive, I’m not just buying a light bulb, but I'm buying something that's health-related or something that has a video camera attached to it and I want to know where that video data is going, then I expect people will pay attention,” said Lorrie Cranor, Director of CyLab.Cranor, one of researchers who has been working on this, says the biggest obstacle right now is getting companies to buy in.She says to really have widespread adoption, there needs to be regulation that requires it. A number of pieces of regulation in Congress have mentioned the idea of a label, but none of them have advanced.She says having marketplaces require it would help as well.“You want your item to be sold in Best Buy or on Amazon or whatever, you have to have this label or we're going to feature the products that have this label,” said Cranor.This proposed label is for when you're buying a smart device, but there's already a recently created tool to find out about the smart cameras or location trackers you didn't buy that you may encounter around the city.The IoT Assistant app will notify you how your data is being collected by those devices. You can download it for free in the App Store or Google Play. 1969

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration says people would drive more and be exposed to increased risk if their cars get better gas mileage, an argument intended to justify freezing Obama-era toughening of fuel standards.Transportation experts dispute the arguments, contained in a draft of the administration's proposals prepared this summer, excerpts of which were obtained by The Associated Press.The excerpts also show the administration plans to challenge California's long-standing authority to enact its own, tougher pollution and fuel standards.Revisions to the mileage requirements for 2021 through 2026 are still being worked on, the administration says, and changes could be made before the proposal is released as soon as this week.RELATED: California sues over plan to scrap car emission standardsThe Trump administration gave notice earlier this year that it would roll back tough new fuel standards put into place in the waning days of the Obama administration. Anticipating the new regulation, California and 16 other states sued the Trump administration in May.Overall, "improvements over time have better longer-term effects simply by not alienating consumers, as compared to great leaps forward" in fuel efficiency and other technology, the administration argues. It contends that freezing the mileage requirements at 2020 levels would save up to 1,000 lives per year.New vehicles would be cheaper — and heavier — if they don't have to meet more stringent fuel requirements and more people would buy them, the draft says, and that would put more drivers in safer, newer vehicles that pollute less.RELATED: EPA moves to weaken Obama-era fuel efficiency standardsAt the same time, the draft says that people will drive less if their vehicles get fewer miles per gallon, lowering the risk of crashes.David Zuby, chief research officer at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said he's doubtful about the administration's estimate of lives saved because other factors could affect traffic deaths, such as automakers agreeing to make automatic emergency braking standard on all models before 2022. "They're making assumptions about stuff that may or may not be the same," he said.Experts say the logic that heavier vehicles are safer doesn't hold up because lighter, newer vehicles perform as well or better than older, heavier versions in crash tests, and because the weight difference between the Obama and Trump requirements would be minimal.RELATED: President Trump, California clash over key issues"Allow me to be skeptical," said Giorgio Rizzoni, an engineering professor and director of the Center for Automotive Research at Ohio State University. "To say that safety is a direct result of somehow freezing the fuel economy mandate for a few years, I think that's a stretch."Experts say that a heavier, bigger vehicle would incur less damage in a crash with a smaller, lighter one and that fatality rates also are higher for smaller vehicles. But they also say that lighter vehicles with metals such as aluminum, magnesium, titanium and lighter, high-strength steel alloys perform as well or better than their predecessors in crash tests.Alan Taub, professor of materials science and engineering at the University of Michigan, said he would choose a 2017 Malibu over a heavier one from 20 years earlier. It's engineered better, has more features to avoid crashes and additional air bags, among other things. "You want to be in the newer vehicle," he said.RELATED: Nearly every governor with ocean coastline opposes Trump's drilling proposalAn April draft from the Trump administration said freezing the requirements at 2020 levels would save people ,900 per new vehicle. But the later draft raises that to ,100 and even as high as ,700 by 2025.Environmental groups questioned the justification for freezing the standards. Luke Tonachel, director of the clean-vehicle program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the risk from people driving more due to higher mileage is "tiny and maybe even negligible."Under the Trump administration proposal, the fleet of new vehicles would have to average roughly 30 mpg in real-world driving, and that wouldn't change through 2026.California has had the authority under the half-century-old Clean Air Act to set its own mileage under a special rule allowing the state to curb its chronic smog problem. More than a dozen states follow California's standards, amounting to about 40 percent of the country's new-vehicle market.Asked if he thinks a freeze in U.S. mileage standards is warranted, EPA acting administrator Andrew Wheeler told a small group of reporters at EPA headquarters last week, "I think we need to go where the technology takes us" on fuel standards.Wheeler did not elaborate. Agency spokespeople did not respond when asked specifically if the EPA acting chief was making the case that modern cars could be both fuel efficient and safe.Wheeler also spoke out for what he called "a 50-state solution" that would keep the U.S car and truck market from splitting between two different mileage standards.The Department of Transportation said in a statement that the final fuel economy standards would be based on sound science. The department cautioned that a draft doesn't capture the whole picture of the proposed regulation.The draft said a 2012 analysis of fuel economy standards under the Obama administration deliberately limited the amount of mass reduction necessary under the standards. This was done "in order to avoid the appearance of adverse safety effects," the draft stated.___Krisher reported from Detroit. 5642

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is allowing nationwide enforcement of a new Trump administration rule that prevents most Central American immigrants from seeking asylum in the United States.The justices' order late Wednesday temporarily undoes a lower-court ruling that had blocked the new asylum policy in some states along the southern border. The policy is meant to deny asylum to anyone who passes through another country on the way to the U.S. without seeking protection there.Most people crossing the southern border are Central Americans fleeing violence and poverty. They are largely ineligible under the new rule, as are asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and South America who arrive regularly at the southern border.The shift reverses decades of U.S. policy. The administration has said that it wants to close the gap between an initial asylum screening that most people pass and a final decision on asylum that most people do not win."BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!" Trump tweeted.Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the high-court's order. "Once again, the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution," Sotomayor wrote.The legal challenge to the new policy has a brief but somewhat convoluted history. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco blocked the new policy from taking effect in late July. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed Tigar's order so that it applied only in Arizona and California, states that are within the 9th Circuit.That left the administration free to enforce the policy on asylum seekers arriving in New Mexico and Texas. Tigar issued a new order on Monday that reimposed a nationwide hold on asylum policy. The 9th Circuit again narrowed his order on Tuesday.The high-court action allows the administration to impose the new policy everywhere while the court case against it continues.Lee Gelernt, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who is representing immigrant advocacy groups in the case, said: "This is just a temporary step, and we're hopeful we'll prevail at the end of the day. The lives of thousands of families are at stake." 2276