济南那个医院做包皮手术较好济南控制不住射精怎么办,济南阳痿还可以治疗好吗,济南哪里医院看男科病,济南割掉包茎,济南男科医院早射,济南海绵体受损怎么办,济南男性射精的时间

With its low air pressure, Hurricane Michael unofficially sits as the third-strongest landfalling hurricane to strike the United States. Having such a tremendously low air pressure typically causes storms to have strong winds, and Michael was no exception. Hurricane Hunters from the Air Force and NOAA estimated Michael's lowest pressure was 919 MB at landfall. The only two hurricanes with a lower pressure at landfall to hit the United States were the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 and Camille of 1969.Also based on estimates, Michael had top winds of 155 MPH, which is just below Category 5 status. Based on top winds speeds, Michael was tied for the sixth-strongest landfalling hurricane in US history, tied with Hurricane Maria in 2017 and "Guam" in 1900. In terms of air pressure, Michael was 1 MB stronger than Katrina in 2005 and Maria in 2017 at landfall, and 3 MBs stronger than Andrew of 1992. Michael's top winds at landfall were well ahead of Katrina's top winds at landfall of 130 MPH, on par with Maria's top winds at landfall of 155 MPH, but below Andrew's top winds of 165 MPH.But in the immediate aftermath of Andrew, it was declared a Category 4 hurricane at landfall. It was not until years later when the National Hurricane Center concluded that winds in Andrew were greater than 157 MPH, marking the only Category 5 hurricane to strike the US since Camille in 1969. Like Andrew, Michael continued to strengthen all the way until landfall. In just three days, the storm went from a tropical storm to a high-end Category 4 hurricane. Other reasons Micheal will be notable:- Michael was just the sixth hurricane of at least Category 4 strength to hit Florida since 1950.  1752

When the Enrique Rebsamen School fell, it did not do so lightly. The 7.1-magnitude earthquake that jolted the region on Tuesday caused part of the building to fold in on itself, sandwiching and collapsing, classroom onto classroom.In the destruction, rescuers found the bodies of 21 schoolchildren and four adults. Now, the community is waiting for word on the dozens more still missing.But waiting isn't enough. 420

While officials in Puerto Rico placed the official death toll from last year's Hurricane Maria at 64, researchers from Harvard believe the death toll was actually in the thousands. According to Harvard's study, there were an estimated 4,645 deaths directly or indirectly tied to the hurricane, which struck the island in September. Harvard estimated a mortality rate of 14.3 deaths per 1.000 people from September 20 through December 31, 2017 in Puerto Rico. Harvard said in its study that it believes its estimate is rather conservative due to a "survivor bias."Harvard conducted the study by performing a random survey of 3,299 households in Puerto Rico. "In our survey, interruption of medical care was the primary cause of sustained high mortality rates in the months after the hurricane, a finding consistent with the widely reported disruption of health systems," the study says. "Growing numbers of persons have chronic diseases and use sophisticated pharmaceutical and mechanical support that is dependent on electricity. Chronically ill patients are particularly vulnerable to disruptions in basic utilities, which highlights the need for these patients, their communities, and their providers to have contingency plans during and after disasters."Part of why there the death toll might have been underreported is due to how hurricane-related deaths are counted. In order to have a death counted as storm related, bodies had looked at by a medical examiner, which required a body to be transported to San Juan, or the medical examiner to travel to remote locations. With a lack of electricity and blocked roads, some bodies were likely buried before the government could count fatalities. Maria is considered the third-costliest hurricane in US history.  1816

Why are stocks falling again? President Donald Trump says it's because Democrats are gearing up to use their impending control of the House of Representatives to investigate him. As always, when it comes to the markets, the real answer is complicated.The Dow fell by more than 600 points on Monday, dragged down by investors' concerns about the tech sector and the rising dollar. The Nasdaq fell 2% and the broader S&P 500 fell 1.2%.Apple (AAPL) fell 5% after supplier Lumentum cut its earnings and sales forecast because of weak demand, and JPMorgan cut its target price on Apple's stock. That weighed on other technology stocks, including Amazon (AMZN) and Tesla (TSLA) -- down 4% -- as well as Facebook, which fell 3%. Google (GOOGL), Netflix (NFLX) and Microsoft (MSFT) were all down more than 2%.The strong dollar also weighed on stocks. The US currency surged to a 16-month high because investors fear the European economy could stall if no Brexit deal is reached this week. Prospects of another rate hike from the Fed next month have also helped lift the dollar. The rising dollar is a signal of a strong economy, but it hurts sales and profits for American companies that do business overseas.Though Trump blamed Democrats for the drop, the Dow had actually bounced back since the midterms, rising last week in its best showing since March. Wall Street tends to like stagnation in Washington, so investors are actually just fine with Democrats taking the House.As for what Trump termed the "prospect of presidential harassment," there is not much evidence the stock market will bat an eye if Democratic leaders in the House begin investigations into the Trump administration. Stocks rose before, during and after President Bill Clinton's impeachment. 1800

When will companies learn the golden rule: Think before you tweet.Keurig and other brands caught flack from all sides for how they responded to social media calls to distance themselves from Fox News host Sean Hannity. Companies walked back statements they made on Twitter or struggled to explain their actual relationships to Hannity -- in each case stoking the social media fires.Critics targeted companies that advertised on Hannity's syndicated radio show as well as his Fox News program after Hannity appeared to defend Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore on Thursday. Moore has been accused of sexual misconduct with teenagers, including a 14-year-old girl. He has denied the allegations.The firestorm began in earnest on Friday. Angelo Carusone, president of liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America, appealed directly to brands like Keurig to cut advertising ties with Hannity."Good afternoon @Keurig. You are currently sponsoring Sean Hannity's show ... please reconsider," Carusone wrote on Twitter.Keurig responded the next morning. The company said on Twitter: "We worked with our media partner and FOX news to stop our ad from airing during the Sean Hannity Show."Keurig's response was praised by Hannity's critics. But it sparked a backlash from Hannity's supporters, who started a #BoycottKeurig hashtag and, in some cases, even smashed their own Keurig machines.By Monday, Keurig CEO Bob Gamgort had apologized for how Keurig responded."The decision to publicly communicate our programming decision via our Twitter account was highly unusual," Gamgort wrote an internal memo to employees. "This gave the appearance of 'taking sides' in an emotionally charged debate that escalated on Twitter and beyond over the weekend, which was not our intent."Keurig wasn't the only company to walk back its initial response to the Hannity controversy.Realtor.com tweeted on Saturday "we are not currently, and will not be running TV ads on Hannity." But it later deleted the tweet, and on Sunday it posted a statement to its corporate blog with a very different message: "We will continue to place ads across a broad range of networks, including Fox News and its top shows."Reddi-wip, which is owned by ConAgra, tweeted on Monday "our objective has always been to reach fans in ways that align with our values. Therefore, we are removing our ads from the show," in response to a user who asked the brand not to support Hannity. Later, the company said "we removed Hannity from our advertising plans," adding on Tuesday, "this program has not been included in our media plan for a long time."A ConAgra representative confirmed on Tuesday that the company has not advertised with the program for months, but added that the controversy hasn't impacted ConAgra's future plans.Irv Schenkler, Director of the Management Communication Program at New York University's Stern School of Business, said that companies need to take a balanced approach when developing their social media strategies. On one hand, firms should be engaging with their customers online. On the other, they should be wary of jumping into a controversy too quickly, he advised.Sometimes when companies tweet "they are acting from the seat of the pants, as opposed to taking a moment to analyze and examine the dimensions of the event or issue," Schenkler explained.By responding too quickly on social media, companies may end up exacerbating controversies that may fizzle out on their own, he said.Brayden King, a professor of Management and Organizations at Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management, said Twitter can be an easy way for brands to get messages to a large audience. "Twitter reaches a lot of people very quickly," he said, while "a press release can be ignored by the very people you want to see it."But companies do face a risk when they use social media platforms to disseminate a position. "If you don't think through the media strategy carefully, you can expose yourself to criticism from other people -- including people you see as potential customers," King said.Schenkler added that brands may sometimes forget how public their Twitter interactions are."What [brands] might consider to be business conversations are just out there, and people forget that," he said. "And they pay the price sometimes."To protect themselves, Schenkler said, companies may want to enact a social media process or protocol that prioritizes the brand's ultimate objectives -- and keep it in mind when responding to a controversy.  4534