江苏电子人体气管插管训练模型（带报警）贵州高级手臂动脉穿刺及肌肉注射训练模型,牡丹江高级成人鼻腔吸痰及护理模型,宁夏羊子宫解剖模型,杭州女性骨盆附盆底肌和神经模型,石家庄人体正常器官对比模型,益阳高级婴儿头部综合静脉穿刺模型,高级创伤评估模块购买

The UK will expel 23 Russian diplomats from the country after concluding that the Russian state is responsible for the attempted murder of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in the English city of Salisbury.This will be the single biggest expulsion of Russian diplomats in over 30 years, Prime Minister Theresa May said Wednesday. The 23 concerned, who May said had been identified as undeclared intelligence agents, will have only one week to leave."For those who seek to do us harm, my message is simple. You are not welcome here," she said in a statement to the House of Commons following a meeting of Britain's National Security Council.The expulsion of diplomats will "fundamentally degrade" Russian intelligence capabilities in Britain for years, May said.The Skripals are critically ill in hospital after being exposed to the nerve agent, known as Novichok and developed in Russia, on March 4. Thirty-eight other people in Salisbury were seen by medics after the exposure. One, a police officer, remains hospitalized.May said Monday it was highly likely that Moscow was behind the poisoning. The Russian ambassador to the UK was summoned to the UK Foreign Office to explain whether the attack was directed by Russian authorities, or whether Moscow had lost control of the nerve agent.She demanded that Moscow respond by midnight Tuesday, London time, to the UK government's conclusion that Russia was linked to the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia on a park bench in Salisbury in southern England.But Moscow -- which has repeatedly dismissed any accusations of involvement in the attack -- ignored the deadline.  1672

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) says it has identified some of the seeds that were mysteriously mailed to Americans from China.Osama El-Lissy, with the Plant Protection program of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, says 14 different species of seeds have been identified.The identified seeds include mustard, cabbage, morning glory, mint, sage, rosemary, lavender, hibiscus and roses, according to El-Lissy.Over the past few months, people across the country have received the seeds in unsolicited packages that appear to be coming from China.Officials are concerned that some of the seeds received in the U.S. could be invasive plant species, but the seeds identified so far appear to be harmless.Still, if you get unsolicited seeds in the mail, the USDA says you should not open the packets or plant the seeds. You’re asked to save the seeds and the package they came in, place everything in a mailing envelope, and contact your state plant regulatory official or APHIS State plant health director for instructions on where to send the package.The USDA says it’s important to evaluate the seed packages because they could carry seed born viruses or other diseases, posing a significant risk for U.S. agriculture and natural resources.“Imported vegetable or agricultural seed must meet labeling and phytosanitary requirements and be inspected by APHIS and CBP at the port of entry,” wrote the USDA in a release. “Some seeds, including citrus, corn, cotton, okra, tomato, and pepper seed, are restricted and may require an import permit, phytosanitary certificate, inspection at a USDA Plant Inspection Station, or testing to ensure any potential risks are mitigated.”While the USDA is still investigating why the seeds are being sent, officials say they don’t have any evidence that it’s anything other than an internet “brushing scam,” where sellers send unsolicited items to unsuspecting consumers and the post false reviews to boost sales.“Brushing scams involving seed packets in international mail shipments are not uncommon,” wrote the USDA in a release. “U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has intercepted similar seed shipments in recent years.” 2194

The U.S. Surgeon General is talking about structural racism, saying it's partly why the coronavirus has disproportionately affected Black and Latino Americans.Surgeon General Jerome Adams plans to focus on two initiatives soon, high blood pressure and maternal mortality, which is women dying from pregnancy or childbirth issues.The office plans to put out science-based summaries designed to create urgent action on both issues that disproportionately affect communities of color.Earlier this month, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation declared racism a public health crisis.“Racism is a public health issue,” said Dr. Ali Mokdad with the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. “I’ve been on record saying it’s more dangerous than COVID-19, simply because we're going to find a vaccine for COVID-19.”They are currently working with the National Institutes of Health on providing data down to the county level of the burden of disease by race.Mokdad used life expectancy as an example. He says within a county there are high disparities, sometimes 15 years less based on where minorities or lower income people live.“Provide data in order to tell people this is what we see. These are the problems, keeping in mind you cannot change what you cannot measure,” said Mokdad.The CDC is also now requiring states to collect data about race, ethnicity, gender, and zip code for coronavirus cases.Racism in healthcare affects everyone, socially and economically.“What people don’t realize is we are paying for it one way or another and right now when you look at the United States, we spend more money on health than every other country,” said Mokdad.Mokdad and other health professionals we talked to all pointed to universal health care as another obvious solution to addressing structural racism. 1818

The Senate voted Wednesday to pass a measure that would repeal changes to net neutrality rules that were recently adopted?by the Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission.The measure, which was backed by all 49 Democrats and Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and John Kennedy of Louisiana, will be sent to the GOP-led House, where it'll likely go nowhere -- and President Donald Trump is unlikely to back it.While Collins' support had been public leading up to the vote, Murkowski's and Kennedy's "yes" vote came as a surprise to some.Democrats used the Congressional Review Act to force a vote -- a law that allows Congress to repeal agency rules and regulations on a simple majority vote, instead of a 60-vote threshold needed to break procedural hurdles on most legislation, the kinds of traditional roadblocks where Senate leadership could typically hold up such a proposal.Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer spoke after the vote to begin debate earlier Wednesday, arguing that "at stake is the future of the Internet.""That fundamental equality of access is what has made the internet so dynamic," he said on the Senate floor. "Net neutrality protected everyone ... that era, the era of an open Internet, will unfortunately soon come to an end."He continued: "The Democratic position is very simple. Let's treat the internet like the public good that it is."The FCC voted in December to repeal Obama-era protections. The net neutrality rules, approved by the same organization two years earlier, prohibited Internet service providers -- such as Comcast and Verizon -- from speeding up or slowing down traffic from specific websites and apps.Democrats argued the new FCC rules give too much power to Internet service providers, which they fear will throttle down speeds for some websites and services while ramping it up for others who pay more.Schumer said in an earlier statement, "The repeal of net neutrality is not only a blow to the average consumer, but it is a blow to public schools, rural Americans, communities of color and small businesses. A vote against this resolution will be a vote to protect large corporations and special interests, leaving the American public to pay the price."While Democrats recognize they are unlikely to reverse the FCC's rule, they see the issue as a key policy desire that energizes their base voters, a top priority ahead of the midterm elections. 2456

The risk of homelessness looms large for many across the country as people deal with job loss and economic uncertainty brought on by the coronavirus pandemic.The National Alliance to End Homelessness estimates, right now, there are 567,000 people who call the streets their home, a number that has only risen since March.There are shelters, soup kitchens, and myriad charities to help, but the group Foundations for Social Change, a charitable organization based in Vancouver, Canada, suggests one source of help trumps the rest: money.“Sometimes a little bit of a hand up can mean all the difference in whether or not someone is going to stabilize and get into housing or not,” said chief public policy officer for the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless Cathy Alderman.It might seem like an obvious solution, but it is challenged by the preconceived notion that people battling homelessness might squander the money or spend it on harmful habits like alcohol, drugs, or cigarettes.“I think it’s not surprising at all that people who are struggling with the cost of living and forced to sleep outside would use dollars given to them to get inside into a home,” said Alderman.In September, Foundations for Social Change wrapped up nearly two years of research that suggests those in less fortunate circumstances would use money to help secure food and housing, rather than illicit substances.Back in 2018, the group gave 50 people battling homelessness in Vancouver a lump sum of ,700, without restriction, to see what they would spend it on, and they compared the findings to a group of 60 homeless individuals who were not given any lump sum.Foundations for Social Change found that in the first month, the group that received the payment, 70 percent of them were able to access a sustainable food source that they maintained for the rest of the year. They also found stable housing at a rate that outpaced those who had not received the payments by 12 months.The researchers also found that spending on items like drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes decreased by 39 percent.“The key findings were phenomenal and were even well beyond my expectations,” said one of the head researchers, Dr. Jiaying Zhao. “This actually is counter to our common assumptions of how these folks will spend their money and cash, so that was very good to see.”“I would save a third, spend a third on things I know I needed, and then give a third away,” said Benjamin Dunning, who was homeless for nearly five years following the Great Recession in 2008. “There just wasn’t any work available and I was like, 'well, better dig in for the long haul.'"Dunning says following an injury that prevented him from working he was no longer able to afford rent in the Denver suburb where he lived. He says he moved from shelter to shelter, trying to weather the storm before he was able to find a community of other people in a similar situation that offered a little more stability and a consistent roof over his head.“One thing I found out is [the homeless people I was around] were just like my neighbors in the suburbs,” said Dunning. “Most of them were people who had gotten stuck on hard times and trying to figure out how to deal with it.”The study by Foundations for Social Change focused on people who had been homeless for a year or less and who had been screened for a low risk of mental health challenges and substance abuse. So, Dr. Zhao says this is not a silver bullet, but an encouraging sign to help solve an issue that has several layers of complexity. 3546