济南早泄中医可以治疗(济南治疗早射多长时间恢复) (今日更新中)

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded a warning about several hand sanitizer products that have been found to contain wood alcohol, which can potentially be deadly to ingest or absorb through the skin.The agency says there has been a sharp increase in products that claim to contain ethanol (also known as ethyl alcohol) but have tested positive for methanol, or wood alcohol.Methanol can be toxic when absorbed through the skin or ingested and can be life-threatening, according to the FDA.Substantial methanol exposure can result in nausea, vomiting, headache, blurred vision, permanent blindness, seizures, coma, permanent damage to the nervous system or death, the FDA says."Methanol is not an acceptable ingredient for hand sanitizers and should not be used due to its toxic effects," the FDA wrote in their statement.While anyone who puts methanol on their hands is at risk, officials say young children who accidentally ingest these products and adolescents and adults who drink these products as an alcohol (ethanol) substitute, are most at risk for methanol poisoning.The FDA says consumers who have been exposed to hand sanitizers with methanol who are experiencing symptoms should seek treatment immediately.The FDA says it is especially concerned with:The dangers of drinking any hand sanitizer under any conditions. While hand sanitizers with possible methanol contamination are more life-threatening than those that are not contaminated, FDA urges consumers not to drink any of these products.Certain hand sanitizers that may not contain a sufficient amount of ethyl alcohol or isopropyl alcohol.Hand sanitizers that are sold or offered for sale with false and misleading, unproven claims that they can prevent the spread of viruses such as COVID-19, including claims that they can provide prolonged protection (e.g., for up to 24-hours).Products that are fraudulently marketed as “FDA-approved” since there are no hand sanitizers approved by FDA.Products packaged to appear as drinks, candy or liquor bottles, as well as products marketed as drinks or cocktails because their appearance could result in accidental ingestion or encourage ingestion. Children are particularly at risk with these products since ingesting only a small amount of hand sanitizer may be lethal in a young child.Below is a list of the products in the warning:CompanyProduct(s)NDCProduct statusGrupo Insoma, S.A.P.I de CV (Mexico)Hand sanitizer Gel Unscented 70% Alcohol75744-0200-375744-0200-475744-0201-575744-0202-175744-0250-175744-0250-275744-0500-175744-1000-175744-1000-375744-1001-1FDA tested product; contains methanol; FDA recommended a recall on 07/01/2020Transliquid Technologies (Mexico)Mystic Shield Protection hand sanitizer75477-435-0275477-435-1075477-435-1275477-435-2575477-435-5075477-534-10Contains methanolSoluciones Cosmeticas SA de CV (Mexico)Bersih Hand Sanitizer Gel Fragrance Free75165-003-0275165-004-0175165-005-0175165-006-0175165-008-0175165-250-0175165-600-01FDA tested product; contains methanol; FDA recommended a recall on 07/01/2020Soluciones Cosmeticas SA de CV (Mexico)Antiseptic Alcohol 70% Topical Solution hand sanitizerNot listedFDA tested product; contains methanol; FDA recommended a recall on 07/01/2020Tropicosmeticos SA de CV (Mexico)Britz Hand Sanitizer Ethyl Alcohol 70%76676-402-0177676-402-0277676-402-0377676-402-0477676-402-0577676-402-0677676-402-0777676-402-0877676-402-0977676-402-1077676-402-1177676-402-1277676-402-1377676-402-1477676-402-1677676-402-1777676-402-1877676-402-1977676-402-20FDA tested product; contains methanol; FDA recommended a recall on 07/01/2020Eskbiochem SA de CV (Mexico)All-Clean Hand Sanitizer74589-002-01Product purported to be made at the same facilityEskbiochem SA de CV (Mexico)Esk Biochem Hand Sanitizer74589-007-01Product purported to be made at the same facilityEskbiochem SA de CV (Mexico)Lavar 70 Gel Hand Sanitizer74589-006-01FDA tested product; contains methanolEskbiochem SA de CV (Mexico)The Good Gel Antibacterial Gel Hand Sanitizer74589-010-10Product purported to be made at the same facilityEskbiochem SA de CV (Mexico)CleanCare NoGerm Advanced Hand Sanitizer 80% Alcohol74589-005-03Product purported to be made at the same facilityEskbiochem SA de CV (Mexico)CleanCare NoGerm Advanced Hand Sanitizer 75% Alcohol74589-009-01FDA tested product; contains methanolEskbiochem SA de CV (Mexico)CleanCare NoGerm Advanced Hand Sanitizer 80% Alcohol74589-003-01Product purported to be made at the same facilityEskbiochem SA de CV (Mexico)Saniderm Advanced Hand Sanitizer74589-001-01Product purported to be made at the same facility; product recalled by Saniderm Products and UVT Inc.Click here for more information.This story was originally published by staff at WFTS, with contributions from WTXL. 4799

The US believes that Ibrahim al-Asiri, a master al Qaeda bombmaker, is dead.The Saudi Arabian native was the mastermind behind the "underwear bomb" attempt to detonate a flight above the skies of Detroit on Christmas Day in 2009.A senior US official expressed "confidence that he was killed."Two US officials told CNN al-Asiri was killed by a CIA drone last year. The CIA is not commenting on his fate.CNN reported last week that al-Asiri may have been killed in Yemen last year, according to a UN team that tracks terrorist groups.Counterterrorism analysts say there should be significant skepticism over al-Asiri's possible demise for one major reason: His group, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, has not released any statement acknowledging his death, nor a eulogy celebrating his martyrdom.Al-Asiri is widely credited with perfecting miniaturized bombs with little or no metal content that could make it past some airport security screening. That ability made him a direct threat to the US, and some of his plots had come close to reaching their targets in the US.In addition to the "underwear bomb" attempt, al-Asiri was behind the so-called "printer bomb" plot. That plan saw him send explosive devices inside printers to the US. The two packages were being shipped from Yemen through Dubai and the UK in October 2010.Both were addressed to synagogues in Chicago.Al-Asiri appeared to have taken on a more public-facing role within al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in recent years, including purportedly recording a speech the group released in 2016.The most recent public statement attributed to him was a written speech released by the group on September 12, 2017, to coincide with the 16th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The speech promised an ongoing war against the United States.CNN cannot independently verify he authored these statements.Few expect al-Asiri's expertise to die with him. Officials believe he trained a number of apprentices. And since 2014, US officials have been concerned that bomb-making expertise built up by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has migrated to other groups, including al Qaeda operatives in Syria.Meanwhile, ISIS is among the terrorist groups that have worked to develop laptop bombs, prompting large electronics to be temporarily banned in the cabin on certain flights to the United States and the UK from the Middle East last year. 2414

The Senate is expected to vote on an economic relief package this week and while it has little chance of passing the House, it is sending a very clear message to airlines: help may not be coming. United Airlines and American Airlines have both threatened thousands of their employees with layoffs if government assistance doesn't come before October 1. October 1 is the first date airlines that took bailout money from earlier this year can layoff workers under the terms set by Congress. United is looking at cutting around 16,000 employees while American is slashing around 19,000 workers. Southwest and Delta, notably, are not laying off workers after offering buyouts to many workers. For weeks, airlines and unions were holding out hope lawmakers would pass a bill after returning from their August recess. The Association of Flight Attendants took to Capitol Hill Wednesday to demand action. 906

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that the Trump administration can end census field operations early, in a blow to efforts to make sure minorities and hard-to-enumerate communities are properly counted in the crucial once-a-decade tally.The decision was not a total loss for plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the administration’s decision to end the count early. They managed to get nearly two extra weeks of counting people as the case made its way through the courts.However, the ruling increased the chances of the Trump administration retaining control of the process that decides how many congressional seats each state gets — and by extension how much voting power each state has.The Supreme Court justices’ ruling came as the nation’s largest association of statisticians, and even the U.S. Census Bureau’s own census takers and partners, have been raising questions about the quality of the data being gathered — numbers that are used to determine how much federal funding and how many congressional seats are allotted to states.After the Supreme Court’s decision, the Census Bureau said field operations would end on Thursday.At issue was a request by the Trump administration that the Supreme Court suspend a lower court’s order extending the 2020 census through the end of October following delays caused by the pandemic. The Trump administration argued that the head count needed to end immediately to give the bureau time to meet a year-end deadline. Congress requires the bureau to turn in by Dec. 31 the figures used to decide the states’ congressional seats — a process known as apportionment.By sticking to the deadline, the Trump administration would end up controlling the numbers used for the apportionment, no matter who wins next month’s presidential election.In a statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the Supreme Court’s decision “regrettable and disappointing,” and said the administration’s actions “threaten to politically and financially exclude many in America’s most vulnerable communities from our democracy.”Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the high court’s decision, saying “respondents will suffer substantial injury if the Bureau is permitted to sacrifice accuracy for expediency.”The Supreme Court ruling came in response to a lawsuit by a coalition of local governments and civil rights groups, arguing that minorities and others in hard-to-count communities would be missed if the census ended early. They said the schedule was cut short to accommodate a July order from President Donald Trump that would exclude people in the country illegally from being counted in the numbers used for apportionment.Opponents of the order said it followed the strategy of the late Republican redistricting guru, Thomas Hofeller, who had advocated using voting-age citizens instead of the total population when it came to drawing legislative seats since that would favor Republicans and non-Hispanic whites.Last month, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California sided with the plaintiffs and issued an injunction suspending a Sept. 30 deadline for finishing the 2020 census and a Dec. 31 deadline for submitting the apportionment numbers. That caused the deadlines to revert back to a previous Census Bureau plan that had field operations ending Oct. 31 and the reporting of apportionment figures at the end of April 2021.When the Census Bureau, and the Commerce Department, which oversees the statistical agency, picked an Oct. 5 end date, Koh struck that down too, accusing officials of “lurching from one hasty, unexplained plan to the next ... and undermining the credibility of the Census Bureau and the 2020 Census.”An appellate court panel upheld Koh’s order allowing the census to continue through October but struck down the part that suspended the Dec. 31 deadline for turning in apportionment numbers. The panel of three appellate judges said that just because the year-end deadline is impossible to meet doesn’t mean the court should require the Census Bureau to miss it.The plaintiffs said the ruling against them was not a total loss, as millions more people were counted during the extra two weeks.“Every day has mattered, and the Supreme Court’s order staying the preliminary injunction does not erase the tremendous progress that has been made as a result of the district court’s rulings,” said Melissa Sherry, one of the attorneys for the coalition.Besides deciding how many congressional seats each state gets, the census helps determine how .5 trillion in federal funding is distributed each year.San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said that his city lost 0 million in federal funding over the decade following the 2010 census, and he feared it would lose more this time around. The California city was one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.“A census count delayed is justice denied,” Liccardo said.With plans for the count hampered by the pandemic, the Census Bureau in April had proposed extending the deadline for finishing the count from the end of July to the end of October, and pushing the apportionment deadline from Dec. 31 to next April. The proposal to extend the apportionment deadline passed the Democratic-controlled House, but the Republican-controlled Senate didn’t take up the request. Then, in late July and early August, bureau officials shortened the count schedule by a month so that it would finish at the end of September.The Senate Republicans’ inaction coincided with Trump’s order directing the Census Bureau to have the apportionment count exclude people who are in the country illegally. The order was later ruled unlawful by a panel of three district judges in New York, but the Trump administration appealed that case to the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court decision comes as a report by the the American Statistical Association has found that a shortened schedule, dropped quality control procedures, pending lawsuits and the outside politicization of some parts of the 2020 census have raised questions about the quality of the nation’s head count that need to be answered if the final numbers are going to be trusted.The Census Bureau says it has counted 99.9% of households nationwide, though some regions of the country such as parts of Mississippi and hurricane-battered Louisiana fall well below that.As the Census Bureau winds down field operations over the next several days, there will be a push to get communities in those two states counted, said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, one of the litigants in the lawsuit.“That said, the Supreme Court’s order will result in irreversible damage to the 2020 Census,” Clarke said.___Follow Mike Schneider on Twitter at https://twitter.com/MikeSchneiderAP 6792

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to weigh in on the battle over pension reform in the city of San Diego. The decision leaves in place a California Supreme Court decision from last year that called pension reform into question and required a lower court to come up with a remedy. It could end up costing the city billions. In 2012, San Diego voters approved Proposition B with 65 percent in-favor. The measure ended pensions for nearly all new city hires, instead switching them to 401(k) type plans. Around the time, the city faced a billion pension liability, comprising 20 percent of the budget. "It is saving us, literally, hundreds of millions of dollars," Mayor Kevin Faulconer said Monday. "That's why it's important, so we can invest dollars back into neighborhoods."The city, however, is now on the legal defensive. Back in 2012, then-mayor Jerry Sanders campaigned on behalf of the measure. Labor unions argued Sanders' involvement required the city to meet and confer with unions before changing their terms of employment. The city argued that Sanders was exercising his First Amendment right to endorse the measure, which got to the ballot via a citizens initiative. The state Public Employee Retirement Board sided with the unions. So did the California Supreme Court, which last year ordered lower courts to decide a remedy. "There is not even a breath of a suggestion in this case that any public officials First Amendment rights have been violated," said Ann Smith, the attorney representing the labor unions. In a statement, Sanders, who now heads the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, called the Supreme Court's decision disappointing but not unexpected. Smith said a lower court decision could make a decision within 30 days. It could impact as many as 4,000 city employees. 1813

来源：资阳报