哈密治妇科去那个医院(哈密早孕试纸的准确性) (今日更新中)

Uranium ore stored at the Grand Canyon National Park museum may have exposed visitors and workers to elevated levels of radiation, according to the park's safety, health and wellness manager.Elston Stephenson told CNN that he began asking officials from the National Park Service and Department of the Interior last summer to warn workers and tourists they had possibly been exposed to unsafe levels of radiation. After his requests were ignored, he said he sent an email to all park staff at the Grand Canyon on February 4."If you were in the Museum Collections Building (bldg 2C) between the year 2000 and June 18, 2018, you were 'exposed' to uranium by OSHA's definition," said the email, which Stephenson provided to CNN."Please understand, this doesn't mean that you're somehow contaminated, or that you are going to have health issues. It merely means essentially that there was uranium on the site and you were in its presence. ... And by law we are supposed to tell you."The National Park Service is investigating what happened and working with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Arizona Department of Health Services, according to the Department of the Interior, which oversees the park service."Uranium naturally occurs in the rocks of Grand Canyon National Park. A recent survey of the Grand Canyon National Park's museum collection facility found radiation levels at 'background' levels -- the amount always present in the environment -- and below levels of concern for public health and safety. There is no current risk to the public or Park employees," the department said in a statement provided to CNN. The National Park Service also said there is "no current risk" to the public or park employees."The museum collection facility is open and employee work routines have continued as normal," Emily Davis, spokeswoman for the Grand Canyon National Park, said in a statement. "The NPS takes public and employee safety and the response to allegations seriously. We will share additional information about this matter as the investigation continues."Stephenson told CNN that in early June he found out about three 5-gallon buckets of uranium ore that had been stored next to a taxidermy exhibit at the park's museum for nearly two decades. He said he immediately contacted a park service radiation specialist to report the danger.According to a report from a park service radiation safety officer who responded to Stephenson's request on June 14, 2018, testing results were positive for radioactivity above background levels near the buckets, but elsewhere the radiation levels were not elevated.Still, according to the report, the park service decided to remove the buckets on June 18 and dispose of the contents in the nearby Lost Orphan uranium mine, where the ore had come from.Stephenson told CNN that park service workers were inadequately prepared to handle the radioactive material, moving the buckets wearing gardening gloves purchased at a general store, and using mop handles to lift the buckets into pickups for transport.Stephenson said that after trying and failing for months to get National Park Service officials to inform employees and the public about the possible uranium exposure, he filed a complaint with OSHA in November.The next day, Stephenson said, OSHA sent inspectors in protective suits to check the museum and found that park service workers brought the buckets back to the park facility after dumping the uranium ore."OSHA has an open investigation on the issue that was initiated on November 28," OSHA spokesman Leo Kay said in statement to CNN, declining to comment further on an active investigation.Staff for US Rep. Tom O'Halleran, D-Arizona, met with Stephenson in December, according to Cody Uhing, the congressman's communications director."We flagged this to the Natural Resources Committee, which is responsible for oversight for that area. They and we have requested the Department of the Interior's Office of the Inspector General to look into it and provide us with a report," Uhing said.The Department of the Interior's Office of the Inspector General confirmed Tuesday that it had received a letter from O'Halleran and that it would review it.Anna Erickson, associate professor of nuclear and radiological engineering at Georgia Tech, said the uranium exposure at the museum is unlikely to have been hazardous to visitors."Uranium ore contains natural (unenriched) uranium which emits relatively low amounts of radiation," Erickson said. "Given the extremely low reading (zero above background) 5 feet away from the bucket, I'm skeptical there could be any health hazards associated with visiting the exhibit."Stephenson told CNN that tours of schoolchildren often walked by the buckets at the museum, but his larger concern was for park employees and high school interns working near the uranium every day."A safe workplace really is a human right," he said. 4984

What does our future hold in terms of how our information is collected? How can we know our information is safe?It's a question people at SRI International are trying to answer. SRI is a research non-profit located in Silicon Valley that's helping to develop technology that become staples of everyday life, like the computer mouse and the technology behind Siri.“I really enjoy being part of the future, trying to imagine what the future is and live in that future as much as possible," says SRI's Patrick Lincoln.Lincoln is the Director of the Computer Science Laboratory at SRI. He and his team work to understand security and privacy aspects of the "internet of things.""The internet of things is growing world where everything is a computer,” Lincoln explains. “Where your refrigerator and your car [are] a computer.”Lincoln says with that growing world he believes there is more recognition that computer security matters and private information should stay private. "There are, unfortunately, threats to that based on the vulnerabilities out there in the world and your devices and as well as the internet,” he says.He says giving the guarantee of security in today's world is hard, but he's optimistic progress can be made towards that goal. “The good news is there’s brilliant people engaged in this topic, trying to understand the concerns and identify ways to move forward and provide security and privacy for people’s data out there in the internet,” Lincoln says. “There is a great deal of progress being reported in academic conferences in how we encrypt data and yet protect the privacy of the data that’s used.” 1639

What better way to mark Friday the 13th than with free food?!Firehouse Subs said on Facebook that if your name is Jason, Crystal, or Richard, you can get a free medium sub on Friday with any purchase.Why those three names in particular?The restaurant chain is paying homage to the 'Friday the 13th' horror movies.Jason, of course, is the iconic hockey mask wearing killer, while Crystal Lake is the setting for several of the films in the franchise.Richard is for Richard Brooker, an actor and stuntman who played Jason Voorhees in 'Friday the 13th Part III.'To get your free sub, visit any Firehouse Subs and provide your photo ID that shows your name is Jason, Crystal, or Richard. 695

WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court has largely upheld the Federal Communications Commission's controversial repeal of its net neutrality rules for internet providers, finding the agency didn't overreach when it decided in 2018 to deregulate companies such as Comcast and Verizon.The decision marks a victory for the Republican-led commission in light of opposition by consumer groups, tech companies and local government officials who had sued the agency in a years-long battle over the future of the open internet.But there is an important caveat: The court struck down a key aspect of the agency's order that could lead to further battles at the state level.Tuesday's opinion by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit is a win for the broadband industry, which had argued the regulations created uncertainty for internet providers and were too restrictive. But the decision also handed a partial victory to net neutrality advocates in that it provides a path for states to create their own net neutrality rules.Both sides were quick to declare victory.In a statement Tuesday, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said the decision is a win "for consumers, broadband deployment, and the free and open Internet." He added: "A free and open Internet is what we have today and what we'll continue to have moving forward."Democratic FCC commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a net neutrality advocate, cheered the court's decision as it "vacates the FCC's unlawful effort to block states and localities from protecting an open internet for their citizens."For years, consumer groups have pushed for tough net neutrality rules. Advocates say providers should not be allowed to slow down websites, block access to apps or give faster service to preferred partners, which could distort the market for online services. Under those principles, Verizon, for example, would not be allowed to speed up loading times for, say, Yahoo, which it owns. Similarly, Spectrum could not downgrade Netflix as a way to deter cord-cutting.In light of the decision, Mozilla, maker of the Firefox browser and one of the lead plaintiffs in the case, said the fight to preserve the principle of net neutrality "is far from over."Consumer groups succeeded in 2015 when the FCC decided to regulate internet providers much like legacy telephone companies. The agency imposed clear rules banning the blocking, throttling or accelerating of Web content by internet providers and reserved the right to investigate business practices that risked violating the spirit of net neutrality.Opponents charged that the rules were a gross overreach by the government. Industry groups argued the constant danger of FCC investigations created business uncertainty and the rules opened the door to direct federal regulation of broadband prices.When President Trump took the White House, Republicans gained control of the FCC. Among the first acts Pai took as the new chairman was a plan to unwind the rules. Pai argued that the net neutrality regulations were heavy-handed and discouraged internet providers from upgrading their networks. In 2017, the FCC voted to repeal major parts of the rules, including the bans on blocking and slowing of websites.Internet providers say they are not interested in blocking or slowing down websites anyway.USTelecom, an association representing broadband providers, said the litigation showed how "Congress must end this regulatory rinse and repeat cycle by passing a strong national framework that applies to all companies."But internet providers have lobbied for the freedom to strike deals with websites to provide premium service, possibly in exchange for extra fees.Some policymakers have argued that practice, known as "paid prioritization," could benefit advanced applications like self-driving cars and telemedicine. Critics worry it could become an unbearable cost for some websites and tech companies — giving wealthy, established firms the power to dominate while marginalizing smaller businesses that can't afford to pay.Those arguments figured prominently in the legal battle over net neutrality. A coalition of critics led by Mozilla sued the FCC in hopes of blocking Pai's deregulation.The case was decided with the panel's three judges concluding the FCC acted lawfully when it decided to undo the Obama-era rules and regulate internet providers more lightly.But the opinion also struck down efforts by the FCC to prevent state governments from enacting their own net neutrality laws and regulations. The court on Tuesday rejected that approach, saying it amounted to an attempt to "categorically abolish all fifty States' ... authority to regulate intrastate communications." The FCC could still seek to preempt states on a case-by-case basis, setting the stage for multiple legal tussles.Andy Schwartzman, a lecturer in law at Georgetown University, said the decision "provides a roadmap to rules that can protect the promise of a vibrant internet that serves people, not the big cable and telcom companies." 5018

Wimbledon has been canceled for the first time since World War II because of the coronavirus pandemic. The All England Club announced after an emergency meeting that the oldest Grand Slam tournament in tennis would not be held in 2020. Wimbledon was scheduled to be played on the outskirts of London from June 29 to July 12. "Following a series of detailed deliberations on all of the above, it is the Committee of Management’s view that cancellation of The Championships is the best decision in the interests of public health, and that being able to provide certainty by taking this decision now, rather than in several weeks, is important for everyone involved in tennis and The Championships," the club said in a statement Wednesday.The club added tickets will be refunded, and fans will be given the opportunity to purchase tickets for the same day and court during the 2021 tournament.The club also said it is in the process of developing a plan to support "those who rely on The Championship" for financial support, including staffers and players. The club did not go into specifics.Wimbledon now joins the growing list of sports events scrapped in 2020 because of the COVID-19 outbreak. That includes the Tokyo Olympics, the NCAA men's and women's college basketball tournaments and the European soccer championship. The last time Wimbledon was called off was 1945. 1384

来源：资阳报