成都静脉血栓住院要多少钱成都雷诺氏症治疗要多少钱,成都治腿上腿部血管炎医院,成都治老人腿糖足医院,成都下肢静脉曲张手术大概价格,成都治疗腿部老烂腿医院,成都哪里看雷诺氏症,成都看下肢静脉血栓医院哪个好

Kathleen Hartnett White, President Trump’s top pick for a key White House post advising him on environmental and energy policies, gave a response Wednesday at a Senate nomination hearing that raises questions about the truthfulness of her testimony.At issue: White’s answer to a question from Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del., about her role in helping public water systems across Texas underreport the amount of radiation present in their drinking water. Last month, Trump tapped White, a former chair of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality who has a reputation for extreme opposition to federal environmental regulations, to lead the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality. In her nomination hearing before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Carper, the ranking member on the panel, stated, “When Ms. White served on the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the commission staff were told to underreport the levels of radiation in drinking water.”   Carper cited a 2011 investigative documentary from KHOU-TV in Houston that showed White openly acknowledged playing a role in a scandal where official state policy helped dozens of water systems in Texas avoid cleaning up radioactive contamination of drinking water that exceeded amounts allowed by the EPA.“She later defended these actions, telling the reporter that, quote, ‘We did not believe the science of health effects justified the EPA setting the standard where they did,’” Carper said.In responding to the Senate committee, White said, “I would never, ever tell staff to underreport health hazards. That’s the only statement I wanted to make.”  KHOU reported in 2011 that White, who also sat on the Texas Water Advisory Council, acknowledged that the decision to report lower test results, rather than the actual results, was a good one.“As memory serves me, that made incredibly good sense,” she told KHOU.White did not respond to a Scripps News request Wednesday evening for comment about her Senate testimony. White currently serves as the director of the Armstrong Center for Energy & Environment at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. White had said in 2011, in explaining her position, that she and the scientists with the Texas Radiation Advisory Board disagreed with the science that the EPA based its rules on.  She says the rules were too protective and would end up costing small communities tens of millions of dollars to comply.“We did not believe the science of health effects justified EPA setting the standard where they did,” White said. She added, “I have far more trust in the vigor of the science that TCEQ assess, than I do EPA.” But a state “white paper” obtained by KHOU revealed top scientists at the very agency White led had concluded health risks to Texans were all too real, saying,  “Over 200,000 Texans drink water from public water systems which are contaminated with relatively high levels of radium and other naturally occurring radioactive material.”The paper noted that 140 systems are impacted and concluded some of these systems contain levels of radioactive contaminants with a calculated cancer risk that would cause an extra cancer victim for every 400 people who were exposed to the drinking water over a long-term period, “posing a potentially serious health concern.”In a trove of state documents ordered released by the Texas attorney general for the 2011 investigation, White is shown as having attended a June 2004 meeting of the Texas Water Advisory Council, where TCEQ presented written testimony that stated, “Under existing TCEQ policy, calculation of the violation accounts for the reporting error of each radionuclide analysis. Maintaining this calculation procedure will eliminate approximately 35 violations.” The practice of underreporting test results continued, according to the KHOU report, until an EPA audit told them to stop in 2009.“To say Ms. White’s testimony yesterday was concerning is an understatement," Carper said on Thursday. "At best, her shocking points of view on threats to our public health are woefully ignorant."The senator also said he found "it extremely disconcerting that much of what she said yesterday contradicts her long public record on issues she would oversee at (the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality), including whether or not she deems it appropriate to take the lowest common denominator or skirt the science and the law when reviewing or implementing health standards and regulations.”A committee staff member said Carper will submit questions for the record that will ask White to elaborate on her testimony, including how she implemented laws and regulations at TCEQ.Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., also was critical of White's testimony. "Maybe Ms. White and her family only drink bottled water, but it's not hard to understand that radioactive material does not belong in our children’s drinking water," Duckworth said. "The fact that Ms. White went out of her way to conceal the threat of water contamination isn’t just shameful — it’s extremely dangerous. Those responsible for enforcing our nation’s environmental policies should always strive to protect the health and safety of the American people, and Ms. White has made it clear she is not up to the task."White's testimony has come under fire from watchdog groups, too. Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, a non-partisan group based in Washington, D.C., said, “Contrary to her Senate testimony yesterday, the TCEQ under Kathleen Hartnett White’s direction did in fact tell staff to underreport health hazards.” He added that “Kathleen Hartnett White was a disaster as chair of the TCEQ, and she would be a disaster as head of the federal Council on Environmental Quality.”The National Resources Defense Council’s John Walke, a former EPA attorney during the Clinton administration, also said White misled senators about the issue. “I’m aware of the TCEQ policy, with Kathleen Hartnett White’s blessing, that chose to round down the margin of error, rather than rounding up, which one could do equally,” Walke said. “I consider what TCEQ did, with Kathleen Hartnett White’s awareness and blessing, to be documented lying to the EPA and law-breaking.”The NRDC, which reports having 2 million members and is opposed to White’s nomination, is a leading environmental watchdog and litigation group based in Washington, D.C. “Any ordinary American should have concern about government officials casually lying to the federal government to avoid a compliance cost for cleaning up pollution like radiation in drinking water," Walke said. “We believe she is deeply and profoundly unfit for the job.”The KHOU-TV interview in 2011 was conducted by Mark Greenblatt, who was an investigative reporter at the station at the time. Greenblatt is now senior national investigative correspondent for Scripps News. You can follow him on Twitter @greenblattmark. 7110

Kingsley, Iowa is home to 1,400 people. “Everybody knows everybody,” said resident Chet Davis.Davis owns the town’s single grocery store: Chet’s Foods. The store has been operating for decades, and Davis’ family has owned it for more than 40 years.Generations of the community have come through these doors, but now, Davis is worried this neighborhood staple may have an expiration date.“Whether we can make it the rest of the year, I don’t know,” said the father of four and grandfather of eight.Davis said his store’s sales took a big hit when a new neighbor moved in just a few blocks away. “This year, we had a Dollar General open up in Kingsley,” he said. After the discount store opened, Davis said his profits dropped by about 20-percent.“It’s disheartening,” said Davis. “You just do what you can, and that’s all you can do, so you just gotta kind of accept it. But you don’t want to; you want to fight it.”The loss in income is something he can’t afford for long. “It costs us ,000 a month just in electricity,” said Davis, as he pointed at the cold storage inside his store that’s necessary to keep frozen products, meats and produce fresh.But Davis has a bigger worry: the loss his entire town is about to see.“If we lose our store here in town, if you want a head of lettuce, you’ll have to drive 25, 30 miles. They always talk about a food desert, and that’s what we’ll have here if we end up having to close the store like we did the other one,” said Davis, referring to his second grocery store just a few miles away.What used to be a space packed with fresh produce is now empty, collecting dust. Davis and his family were forced to close just over one year after Dollar General opened right next door.“They came in and took about 30 percent of our business right off the top. A little bit of it came back, but not enough to pay the basic bills,” said Davis.Davis’ story is a snapshot of the incredible growth of dollar stores across the United States over the last decade.There are more than 33,185 stores across the country. That’s more than all the Starbucks and McDonald’s in the U.S. combined. 2124

KANSAS CITY, Mo. –- For two parents, welcoming three bundles of joy into the world last week was a one-in-a-million feeling. Statistically speaking, that’s not too far off. Identical triplets were born at Truman Medical Center Thursday to Nicole and Caleb Choge. Baby boys Ron, Elkanah, and Abishai were born just minutes apart and six weeks premature. By Sunday, the brothers were doing well under observation in the hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit. According to doctors, it’s not uncommon for multiple births to come prematurely. What is uncommon is identical triplets. According to a study in the Journal of Biosocial Science, identical triplets occur only about 20 to 30 times per 1 million births. While the boys’ mother rested, new father Caleb Choge spoke with reporters Sunday. The couple, who have a 2-year-old son, was expecting another baby but were surprised when they saw the sonogram. “My wife and I and our son prayed for another child,” he said. “And then, I like to say, God answered everybody’s prayer: one, two and three.”Until recently, the couple lived in Kenya, Caleb Choge’s home country. They moved back to the Kansas City area to be closer to Nicole Choge’s family.   1253

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The call for the Missouri Legislature to go into a special session has received enough votes in the Senate and House. The House initially passed the measure Wednesday afternoon, followed by the Senate in the early evening. The session will last for 30 days. Per the state Constitution, after the legislative session there are only two ways for the legislature to return: the governor calls a special session, or the House and Senate have a majority vote to hold a special session. It will not be official until it’s filed with the Missouri Secretary of State. Lawmakers said there are two reasons for the special session. First is to give the special investigative committee more time to do their job and the second reason is to consider if articles of impeachment need to be started. House Speaker Todd Richardson said the decision to call a special session was not made lightly."Members signed this petition because they believe in a fair process that will not be rushed to conclusion by an artificial deadline. But make no mistake about it, today's actions ensure that there will be a conclusion to this process," said Richardson.The committee was formed after Gov. Eric Greitens was indicted on an invasion of privacy charge in February. Court documents allege Greitens took a nude photograph of a woman he was having an affair with in 2015 and then transmitted the photo so it could be seen on a computer.The committee has released two reports on allegations against Greiteins. The first report was released in April. It detailed testimony the woman at the heart of the invasion of privacy charge provided to the committee.The second report, released earlier this week, claims Greitens lied on a campaign disclosure form about a list of donors to his charity, The Mission Continues. Attorney General Josh Hawley said Greitens illegally obtained the donor list from the charity to use for political fundraising. The committee's report agrees with Hawley's allegations. House Minority Leader Rep. Gail McCann Beatty sent the following statement to Scripps station KSHB in Kansas City: 2189

Judge Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court confirmation hearings concluded Thursday with the Senate Judiciary Committee setting a full Senate vote to seat her on the Supreme Court on Oct. 22.Should more than half of Senators vote to confirm Barrett next week — and the Republican-controlled Senate appears to have the votes to do so — there will be time to seat the judge on the Supreme Court ahead of the 2020 election on Nov. 3.Democrats attempts to delay the vote reached a peak on Thursday, as Democratic senators on the committee opened the Thursday by filing motions to push back a committee vote.Thursday's portion of the hearing opened with only one Democrat — Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois — in the room. Durbin argued that a quorum was not present and that the hearing should be delayed. The Republican-controlled committee quickly voted to change the rules to proceed with the hearing and set the date for a vote on Barrett's confirmation for Oct. 22.Following that vote, Democratic committee members called for motions to delay a vote on Barrett's confirmation. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, called the process "rushed," and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota called it a "sham." Republicans, like Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, offered a defense of the proceedings, saying they were within historical precedent.Graham allowed all lawmakers who wish to speak on the proposed motions to delay a vote will have the opportunity to do so, but added that he "hated it" for the witnesses who were scheduled to speak at the hearing later on Thursday. Witness testimony did not begin until nearly two hours after they were originally scheduled to start.The witnesses are to speak to Barrett's character before committee members give their closing statements. They include apolitical experts from the American Bar Association and the Federal Judiciary, as well as witnesses called by both Democrats and Republicans.Witnesses from the American Bar Association said they deemed Barrett qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, basing their decision solely on her judicial acumen.Witnesses called by Democrats argued that Barrett's nomination threatens several precedents, like legal abortion, public healthcare and LGBGTQ+ rights. Witnesses called by Republicans spoke to Barrett's personal character and her reputation as a "textualist" and "Constitutional originalist."Barrett was present at the hearing for any part of Thursday's hearings.Throughout her two days of questioning, Barrett attempted to mostly avoid sharing her views on hotly-debated judicial topics like abortion and public healthcare. However, President Donald Trump has said in the past that he would only nominate a judge to the court who would work to overrule the Affordable Care Act and abortion protections provided in Roe v. Wade, and Barrett's past opinions make it clear that she fits those qualifications. Graham himself lauded Barrett as an "unabashedly pro-life" and "conservative" woman during Wednesday's hearing. 3001