成都下肢动脉硬化好治疗医院成都治疗慢性前列腺肥大价格,成都男科慢性前列腺肥大医院,成都哪家医院专门看下肢动脉硬化的,成都哪里治前列腺肥大,成都做血糖足手术哪家医院好,成都血管瘤专科,成都血管瘤上哪儿治疗

Retailers pulled some name brand dog food from store shelves after a euthanasia drug was found in several products."I was a little surprised, but at the same time you hear all sorts of stuff about what is and what isn't in dog food," said Sam Porach, pet owner.The FDA started an investigation after a TV station tested several cans of Gravy Train dog food and found 60 percent contained pentobarbital, a drug used to euthanize animals, found in some products."It's a tranquilizing drug that is sometimes used by veterinarians in animal shelters to reduce anxiety in animals and ultimately put them to sleep," said Jackie Bowen, the executive director of Clean Label Project.The Clean Label Project is a non-profit aimed at educating people about toxins in products, including pet food."This industry needs to do a lot more testing and be a lot more critical of the ingredients used in its products," said Bowen.The J.M. Smucker Co. owns the brands in question including Gravy Train, Kibble 'N Bits, Skippy and Ol' Roy.  The company is investigating how pentobarbital got into the supply chain."One possible way is through contaminated ingredients," Bowen said.Between recalls and reading labels, pet owners are left trying to navigate what's really safe."Try to go all natural type yah know baked treats and stuff," pet owner Ryan Searle said."I feel like there's been a pretty big movement lately on knowing what's in your dogs' food and having higher quality foods," Porach said.Smucker's said the low level of the drug found in the food does not pose a threat to pets, but admit it's not acceptable. However, the study that triggered all this started because a woman believed the food killed her dog. The Clean Label?Project has information about pentobarbital in pet food and safe products on its website.  1849

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California sued Tuesday to block the Trump administration from cancelling nearly billion for the state's high-speed rail project, escalating the state's feud with the federal government.The Federal Railroad Administration announced last week it would not give California the money awarded by Congress nearly a decade ago, arguing that the state has not made enough progress on the project.The state must complete construction on a segment of track in the Central Valley agricultural heartland by 2022 to keep the money, and the administration has argued the state cannot meet that deadline. That line of track would be the first built on what the state hopes will eventually become a 520-mile (837-kilometer) line between San Francisco and Los Angeles.But Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom says the move is retribution for California's criticism of President Donald Trump's immigration policies."The decision was precipitated by President Trump's overt hostility to California, its challenge to his border wall initiatives, and what he called the "green disaster" high-speed rail project," the state said in the lawsuit.California was not expected to tap the 9 million the Trump administration has revoked until 2021. If the lawsuit is not resolved before then, the election could put Democrats in the White House and Congress who may be friendlier to the project.The lawsuit faulted the Trump administration for halting cooperation with the state on granting environmental clearances for the project. It said terminating the funding would "wreak significant economic damage on the Central Valley and the state."Newsom told reporters the administration is "after us in every way, shape or form." But he expressed confidence the state will win in court."Principles and values tend to win out over short-term tweets," Newsom said.The lawsuit highlighted a series of tweets Trump sent about the project, including one that said California's rail project would be far more expensive than Trump's proposed border wall.That tweet came a day after California led 15 states in suing over Trump's plans to fund the border wall, and hours before the administration first threatened to revoke the rail funding.The Federal Railroad Administration did not immediately respond to an email message seeking comment about California's lawsuit.California has worked for more than a decade on the project to bring high-speed rail service between Los Angeles and San Francisco, but the project has been plagued by delays and cost overruns. It's now projected to cost around billion and be finished by 2033.The state has already spent .5 billion in federal funding, and the Trump administration is exploring whether it can try to get that money back.The lawsuit also asks the court to block the administration from awarding the money to any other project.The lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of California.The dispute over the funding was partly driven by Newsom's remarks in February that the project faced challenges and needed to shift focus. Rail officials had been planning to connect the line under construction in the Central Valley to Silicon Valley, but Newsom has proposed extending the line further north and south into the valley before heading west.The California High-Speed Rail Authority presented a plan in early May that showed it would cost .3 billion to get trains up and running between Bakersfield and Merced by 2028.The board overseeing the project voted Tuesday to further study whether it makes sense financially and otherwise to run early train service on that line. Tom Richards, the vice chairman, noted the board has not yet formally approved the new approach."The board has not been asked for, nor has the board given, any interim service direction to (the project's) management," he said. 3851

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KGTV) - A bill working its way through the California State Legislature could require bike lanes and other "active transportation" amenities to be built on state-owned roads.Senate Bill 127 states that "any capital improvement project located in an active transportation place type on a state highway or a local street crossing a state highway that is funded through the program, shall include new pedestrian and bicycle facilities, or improve existing facilities, as part of the project."It means any time Caltrans wants to repave or resurface a part of a State Highway or a highway overpass or underpass, they must add some kind of bike/walking lane or safety measures.San Diego Legislator Tasha Boerner Horvath co-wrote the bill. She sent the following statement to 10News:“My district is a hub for all things that involve outdoor recreation — biking, walking, jogging, skateboarding — you name it and my constituents enjoy doing it throughout our beautiful district. SB 127 is a major move forward in identifying and funding important bike and pedestrian paths to connect people with the places they want to go. In addition, it will bring us an important step further on ensuring highway overpasses in my district have the bike and walking facilities they need to connect inland communities to the coast. This is important for safe routes to schools for our kids as well as folks accessing our stunning beaches.”Members of the San Diego Bicycle Coalition support the bill, saying it will make it easier for people to commute to and from work. They also say it will help fund more "active transportation" projects."The funding is always an issue," says SDBC Advocacy Coordinator Jennifer Hunt. "This is a great way to get that extra, additional funding and just to get more people out safely using biking and walking."The bill has passed the State Senate and is now in the Assembly. The California Legislature is on recess until August, but the bill will be in committee soon after they reconvene. 2028

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A group of Democratic California lawmakers called Monday for the state to invest 0 billion to drastically reduce its carbon emissions and reliance on fossil fuels by 2030.A resolution proposed by Democratic Sen. Henry Stern would set the non-binding goal and also declare a climate emergency, citing recent devastating wildfires and the impacts of air pollution on child asthma. It comes as Democrats in Congress advocate for the passage of the Green New Deal, a massive investment in rebuilding the nation's infrastructure and workforce to fight climate change."We have to live in California, hopefully for the rest of our lives, and hopefully in a way that doesn't burn down our homes, that doesn't make our kids sick (and) allows us to get to work without losing our minds in traffic," Stern said on the steps of the state Capitol with students from eight different University of California schools behind him.The 0 billion would be spent over 12 years and come from existing pots of money, including the state's carbon emissions auction program and a gas tax increase to fund transportation projects. The resolution would say all of that money should be spent toward projects that reduce, sequester or remove greenhouse gas emissions.While Stern's resolution would not be binding, Democratic state Assemblyman Todd Gloria has introduced legislation to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. The state's current goal is eliminating fossil fuel use for electricity by 2045 and to achieve carbon neutrality by that year, meaning the state takes as much carbon out of the atmosphere as it puts in.The goals are aggressive and ambitious even for California, a state viewed as a global leader on confronting climate change. The 2045 clean energy goal passed the 80-member state Assembly last year by just four votes, with some Democrats voting against it.Gloria's proposal would require an "immediate phase out of fossil fuels.""The emergency facing our state, our nation, our world is climate change, and don't let anybody tell you anything different," Gloria said.Stern's proposal, meanwhile, would call for the elimination of fossil fuels in the energy sector by 2030. He does not propose eliminating fossil fuel use in transportation, but drastically diminishing it. 2313

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — For decades, California and the federal government have had a co-parenting agreement when it comes to the state's diverse population of endangered species and the scarce water that keeps them alive.Now, it appears the sides could be headed for a divorce.State lawmakers sent to the governor early Saturday morning a bill aimed at stopping the Trump administration from weakening oversight of longstanding federal environmental laws in California. The lawmakers want to make it easier for state regulators to issue emergency regulations when that happens."The feds are taking away significant pieces of water protection law, of air protection law, and California has to step into the void," Democratic Assemblyman Mark Stone said.Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has 30 days to decide whether to veto the bill, sign it into law or allow it to become law without his signature.The bill survived a furious lobbying effort on the Legislature's final day, withstanding opposition from the state's water contractors and Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein."We can't really have a California system and a federal system," said Jeffrey Kightlinger, general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which delivers water to nearly 19 million people. "We're all in the same country here, so we need to find a way to make this work."California has a history of blunting Republican efforts at the federal level to roll back environmental protections. In 2003, shortly after the George W. Bush administration lowered federal Clean Air Act standards, the Legislature passed a law banning California air quality management districts from revising rules and regulations to match.More recently, after the Trump administration announced plans to roll back auto mileage and emission standards, Newsom used the state's regulatory authority to broker a deal with four major automakers to toughen the standards anyway.State lawmakers tried this last year, but a similar proposal failed to pass the state Assembly. But advocates say several recent announcements by the Trump administration — including plans to weaken application of the federal Endangered Species Act — have strengthened support for the bill.The bill would potentially play out most prominently in the management of the state's water, which mostly comes from snowmelt and rain that rushes through a complex system of aqueducts to provide drinking water for nearly 40 million people and irrigation to the state's billion agricultural industry.The bill would make it easier for state regulators to add animals protected under California's Endangered Species Act — animals that have historically been protected under federal law. It would then apply the state's Endangered Species Act to the Central Valley Project, a federally operated system of aqueducts and reservoirs that control flooding and supply irrigation to farmers.But it's not clear if a state law would apply to a federal project, "which could generate years of litigation and uncertainty over which environmental standards apply," according to a letter by Feinstein and four members of the state's Democratic congressional delegation.Plus, Kightlinger warns the proposal would disrupt complex negotiations among state and federal entities and water agencies over the Water Quality Control Plan. If all sides can sign these voluntary agreements, it would avert costly litigation that would delay environmental protections for fish and other species impacted by the water projects."We're pretty close. We believe we can get to completion by December. If (this bill) passes, half of the water districts pull out and go to litigation instead," Kightlinger said. "That's something that would be terrible for our ecosystem and what we're trying to achieve here."Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins, the bill's author, insisted early Saturday the bill would not impact those voluntary agreements."We really and truly did work in good faith to try to address those concerns," she said. 4049