沈阳皮肤病医院脂溢性皮炎(沈阳肤康痘痘医院口碑好吗) (今日更新中)

Boeing has developed a software patch and pilot training program to address issues with the Boeing 737 MAX identified in the October Lion Air crash, the Federal Aviation Administration said Wednesday.The FAA and other airplane regulators worldwide grounded the 737 MAX a week ago following a crash in Ethiopia. The agency said data and physical evidence shows similarities between the Ethiopian Airlines crash and the Lion Air crash less than six months ago.On Wednesday, the FAA provided an incremental update on its fix to the plane, which it has previously said will be rolled out "no later than April 2019.""The FAA is aware that Boeing is developing a Service Bulletin that would specify the installation of new flight control computer operational program software," the FAA said in an international notice."Boeing has also developed flightcrew training related to this software," it said. "The FAA's ongoing review of this software installation and training is an agency priority, as will be the roll-out of any software, training, or other measures to operators of the 737 MAX."The FAA has previously said the updates will address the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, known as MCAS. Investigators are probing whether faulty data coming into that system drove the Lion Air plane into a steep dive that the pilots were unable to overcome. The FAA and others have said data shows similarities between the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes."The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder (FDR) information have been downloaded from the units and are in possession of the Ethiopian authorities," the FAA said in the Wednesday notice.Earlier on Wednesday, the French authorities told CNN the so-called black boxes will be analyzed by Ethiopian investigators. 1804

At first, teachers at Sky Valley Education Center simply evacuated students and used fans to clear the air when the fluorescent lights caught fire or smoked with noxious fumes. When black oil dripped onto desks and floors, they caught leaks with a bucket and duct-taped oil-stained carpets.Then came the tests that confirmed their suspicions about the light ballasts.“Sure enough ... it was PCB oil,” said Cynthia Yost, who was among teachers who sent pieces of carpet and classroom air filters to a lab. Tests found elevated levels of the toxic chemicals, used as coolant in the decades-old ballasts that regulated electrical current to the lamps.Millions of fluorescent light ballasts containing PCBs probably remain in schools and day care centers across the U.S. four decades after the chemicals were banned over concerns that they could cause cancer and other illnesses. Many older buildings also have caulk, ceiling tiles, floor adhesives and paint made with PCBs, which sometimes have been found at levels far higher than allowed by law.Yet the Environmental Protection Agency has not attempted to determine the scope of PCB contamination or assess potential health risks, in large part because of lack of funding, political pressure and pushback from industry and education groups, according to dozens of interviews and thousands of pages of documents examined by The Associated Press.Members of Congress who promised three years ago to find money to help address PCBs and other environmental problems in the nation’s schools never introduced legislation.And an EPA rule that would have required schools and day cares to remove PCB-containing ballasts moved slowly under the Obama administration, then was quashed by President Donald Trump within days of his inauguration.That was the final straw for Tom Simons, a former EPA regulator who worked for years on the rule and said getting rid of ballasts was the least the EPA could do to protect children.“We thought it was a no-brainer: There are millions out there. These things are smoking and dripping, so let’s put this through,” said Simons, who retired shortly after Trump took office.___For decades, the presence of PCBs in schools flew under the radar.States, cities and environmental agencies focused on removing them from lakes, rivers and toxic waste sites because most exposure to PCBs is believed to come from people’s diet, including fish from contaminated waterways, and because PCBs do not break down easily. Studies have linked them to increased long-term risk of cancer, immune and reproductive system impairment and learning problems.PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, are mixtures of compounds manufactured by Monsanto Co. and widely used as coolants and lubricants in electrical equipment until they were banned in 1979.By then they were in transformers, air conditioners, adhesives, carbonless copy paper and billions of fluorescent light ballasts in schools, hospitals, homes, offices and commercial and industrial buildings. They also were ubiquitous in the environment and building up in human bodies.Nobody worried about schools.Then a 2004 study by Harvard health professor Robert Herrick identified the widespread use of PCBs as a plasticizer in caulk in schools built before 1980, estimating that as many as 14 million students and 26,000 schools could be affected. The EPA had not been aware of its use in caulk before then, Simons said.The EPA later found that the chemicals can move from building materials into the air and dust, where they can be inhaled or ingested. They also can be absorbed by walls and other surfaces as an ongoing source of exposure.Regulators also discovered that old fluorescent light ballasts remained a potentially widespread source of PCB contamination. The EPA had allowed the ballasts to remain in use because chemicals were in enclosed capacitors that experts thought would last only about 12 years. But it turns out they can last a half century or longer, said Simons.The older they are, the more likely ballasts will leak, catch fire or smoke. And that has happened repeatedly in schools, office buildings, restaurants and factories in recent years, according to reports reviewed by the AP.But the EPA has mostly voluntary guidelines, including recommended indoor air limits for PCBs that it says should protect children from health problems.The agency does not require — or encourage — schools to test for PCBs, so few do. If they are found in materials such as caulk, schools could be forced to undertake expensive cleanups when many are struggling to keep basic infrastructure intact and meet educational needs. Drawing attention to the issue also risks alarming parents.PCBs are illegal in building materials in concentrations exceeding 50 parts per million — a threshold set by the EPA decades ago based on how much contaminated material could affordably be removed rather than health risks.Rather than fostering “a very confusing and fearful situation,” the EPA should recommend that schools test classroom air for PCBs, then identify and address specific sources if the results are elevated, said Keri Hornbuckle, a civil and environmental engineering professor at the University of Iowa and one of the nation’s top researchers of PCBs in schools.“There is a good reason PCBs were banned, so ... let’s remove the worst cases and where (kids) are most vulnerable and have the highest exposure,” she said. “But you have to have the data.”Whether PCBs are addressed often is determined by ZIP code.In California’s wealthy Santa Monica-Malibu School District, parents, including model Cindy Crawford, sued to force the district to address PCBs after tests of caulk found levels up to 11,000 times the 50 ppm threshold. The district ultimately agreed to get rid of PCBs. It has torn down a middle school and continues to remove them from other buildings.In Hartford, Connecticut, the ending was far different. John C. Clark Elementary and Middle School, in a largely low-income African American neighborhood, was permanently closed in 2015 after PCBs were found and the city could not afford to remove them. The city has sued Monsanto and a company that manufactured caulk to recover the costs.“It was the crown jewel of the neighborhood,” Steven Harris, a former city council member and grandfather, said as he walked the deserted school grounds. “Our school board is doing the best they can. The reality is we don’t have a lot of money. And it’s going to take money to fix this problem.”Monsanto, now owned by Bayer Crop Sciences, has denied responsibility in lawsuits involving several school districts, saying it did not manufacture the building materials or components that contained PCBs.Concerns over schools like Hartford’s are one of the issues that ultimately kept the EPA from taking stronger steps to address PCBs.The agency, which originally recommended that schools test for the chemicals, was warned by the Association of California School Administrators that forcing schools to remove PCBs could create “a civil rights issue” if low-income minority schools could not afford it. What’s more, many of those schools have other environmental problems — including lead, asbestos and mold — that could be higher priorities.So instead, the EPA developed guidance that promotes vigilant cleaning and better ventilation and suggests schools could cover materials suspected of containing PCBs until the buildings are renovated or razed.But the recommendations were released quietly on the agency website to avoid publicity that might frighten the public, according to former EPA officials who said the agency was hamstrung by a problem that could cost billions of dollars. There are no rules requiring school officials to tell parents if they find or suspect their buildings have PCBs.Judith Enck, administrator of the EPA’s Region 2 under Obama, said the EPA bowed to intense political pressure.“The debate was never based on science and health. It was ‘We don’t want the grief from schools, and it’s a lot of work and we have other priorities,’” said Enck, who led an effort to get ballasts out of New York City schools. “I disagreed.”A bill introduced in 2010 by three New York congressmen aimed at funding school PCB cleanups was withdrawn after New York City officials agreed to replace aging ballasts. Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts released 8392

CANTON, Ohio — A 25-year-old Ohio woman has been charged for allegedly starving two dogs locked in a cage, causing one of the animals to eat the other after it died, according to court records.Court records state that on or about April 5, Jessica J. Swinehart locked a beagle in a cage with a German shepherd-mix and starved the animals. When the beagle died, the other dog ate it to survive. When authorities found the German shepherd, it appeared to have lost nearly two-thirds of its body weight. It was still locked in the cage with the decaying beagle.An arrest warrant was filed April 8 and she was later arrested.Swinehart has been charged with two counts of prohibitions concerning companion animals, a fifth-degree felony.A future court date is pending. 779

An unnamed, foreign government-owned company in a mystery court case is asking the Supreme Court to pause a grand jury subpoena it received related to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.The Supreme Court appeal comes after a federal appeals court ruling that ordered the company to comply with the subpoena, which required it to turn over "information" about its commercial activity in a criminal investigation. The appeals court also said the company could face fines for every day of noncompliance.The request to the Supreme Court is the latest twist in the secret case, which is under seal and has made its way through the federal court system with uncommon speed.This is the first known legal challenge apparently related to Mueller's investigation to make its way to the Supreme Court.It is not known when the court might decide if it will take action on the company's request to appeal further. The application is likely an effort to put the lower court action on hold before the Supreme Court is asked to step in to hear an appeal."So far as we know, the Court has never had a sealed argument before all nine Justices," said Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "They can keep parts of the record and briefing sealed, and often do, such as in cases implicating trade secrets. But there's no procedure in the court's rules for having the whole case briefed, argued and decided under seal. The only times I'm aware of in which parties tried it, the court denied certiorari," or the review of the case.The company's challenge of the subpoena appears to have begun in September.In its ruling this past week, the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia offered few clues about the company and its country of origin or what Mueller's team sought.In one short passage in the three-page decision, the judges describe how they had learned confidentially from prosecutors that they had "reasonable probability" the records requested involved actions that took place outside of the United States but directly affected the US. Even the company was not informed of what prosecutors had on the issue, because revealing it to the company would have violated the secrecy of the grand jury investigation, the judges said.The range of possibilities on the identity of the company is vast. The company could be anything from a sovereign-owned bank to a state-backed technology or information company. Those types of corporate entities have been frequent recipients of requests for information in Mueller's investigation.And though Mueller's work focused on the ties between the Trump campaign and Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, prosecutors have said and CNN has reported that the Mueller team looked at actions related to Turkish, Ukrainian and other foreign government interests.Mueller previously indicted three Russian companies and 25 Russians for their alleged contributions to a social media propaganda scheme meant to influence American voters and to the hack of the Democratic Party. The special counsel and other Justice Department units continue to pursue several investigations related to Mueller's core mission.Another challenge of a Mueller subpoena, from Roger Stone associate Andrew Miller, began at the trial level months before the anonymous company's action apparently began. Miller's case is now before the DC Circuit as well but has not yet been decided by the judges. His case became public after his attorneys publicly spoke about his intention to challenge Mueller and the subpoena.The company in the Supreme Court challenge has stayed secret—as has the grand jury proceeding it's related to. And both the company, prosecutors and the circuit court took pains to keep the identities of those involved in the case under wraps. An entire floor of the DC federal courthouse was locked down by security on the morning of the company's appeal argument, so that the lawyers entering and leaving the courtroom would not be seen. 4069

As outrage grows over the massive alleged college admissions cheating scheme, the parties involved are working to contain the scandal.Coaches accused of falsely presenting prospective students as athletes have been fired or put on leave by their universities, and schools are reviewing their enrolled students to confirm no one else was involved. 358

来源：资阳报