喀什严重阳痿能否治好(喀什包皮切除有危险吗) (今日更新中)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's increasingly deadly and destructive wildfires have become so unpredictable that government officials should consider banning home construction in vulnerable areas, the state's top firefighter says.Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Director Ken Pimlott will leave his job Friday after 30 years with the agency. In an interview with The Associated Press, he said government and citizens must act differently to protect lives and property from fires that now routinely threaten large populations.That may mean rethinking subdivisions in thickly forested mountainous areas or homes along Southern California canyons lined with tinder-dry chaparral. Los Angeles County supervisors on Tuesday were considering whether to allow a 19,000-home development in fire-prone mountains amid heavy criticism of the location's high fire danger.California residents should also train themselves to respond more quickly to warnings and make preparations to shelter in place if they can't outrun the flames, Pimlott said.Communities in fire zones need to harden key buildings with fireproof construction similar to the way cities prepare for earthquakes, hurricanes or tornadoes, and should prepare commercial or public buildings to withstand fires with the expectation hundreds may shelter there as they did in makeshift fashion when flames last month largely destroyed the Sierra Nevada foothills city of Paradise in Northern California.California already has the nation's most robust building requirement programs for new homes in fire-prone areas, but recent fire seasons underscore more is needed. Officials must consider prohibiting construction in particularly vulnerable areas, said Pimlott, who has led the agency through the last eight years under termed-out Gov. Jerry Brown.He said it's uncertain if those decisions should be made by local land managers or at the state level as legislative leaders have suggested. But Pimlott said "we owe it" to homeowners, firefighters and communities "so that they don't have to keep going through what we're going through.""We've got to continue to raise the bar on what we're doing and local land-use planning decisions have to be part of that discussion," he said.California's population has doubled since 1970 to nearly 40 million, pushing urban sprawl into mountain subdivisions, areas home to fast-burning grasslands and along scenic canyons and ridgetops that are susceptible to fires. After a crippling drought, the last two years have seen the worst fires in state history. November's fire in the northern California town of Paradise was the deadliest U.S. wildfire in a century, killing at least 85 people and destroying nearly 14,000 homes.A year earlier, a fire that ripped through the San Francisco Bay Area city of Santa Rosa killed 22 people and destroyed more than 5,000 homes and other structures.Every year since at least 2013, firefighters did not anticipate California's wildfires could get worse, Pimlott said. But each year the fires have increased in intensity — driven by dry fuels, an estimated 129 million drought- and bark beetle-killed trees, and climate change.In response, the state is doing more planned burning to eliminate brush and dead trees that serve as fuels for wildfires. The state will also add seven large firefighting aircraft, replace a dozen aging helicopters, provide firefighter counseling and ensure that firefighters have enough time off for medical checkups to help them manage the mental and physical stress from a fire season that now never ends.He said California leads the nation in clearing away dead trees and thinning forested areas that are crowded with trees that can fuel fires, contrary to criticism by President Donald Trump who has blamed forest mismanagement for the fires."No other state, or even the federal government, are putting the amount of investment into this space as California," Pimlott said.The department's philosophy for many years has been to stamp out fires quickly to protect people and property. Prescribed burns were previously used sparingly out of concern they could get out of control, but he said the department is making "a sea change" by recognizing that starting fires under optimum conditions is a good way to reduce dangerous fuels.Recent fires that have burned into cities have made clear that those protections need to be centered around vulnerable communities, he said. Paradise, for example, was built on a ridge atop steep canyons that helped channel the wind-driven fire, while wildfires have repeated blown into Northern and Southern California subdivisions from neighboring wildlands thick with tinder-dry fuel.Pimlott rose through the ranks from seasonal firefighter to deputy director of fire protection before his appointment as chief of the agency. In that role he doubles as the state's chief forester and oversees a department that includes nearly 8,000 firefighters, forest managers and support staff.He said he has seen fire conditions worsen each passing year during his three decades with the agency, taking its toll on residents and firefighters alike."Folks can say what they want to say, but firefighters are living climate change. It's staring them in the face every day," he said.To adapt, he advocates wildfire warning systems that not only use new technology like automated phone calling systems, but maybe restoring civil defense-style emergency sirens in some areas. City planners must prepare communities "unlike we ever have before" with easy evacuation routes and new evacuation centers.And he said Californians must treat "red flag" extreme fire danger warnings the way Midwesterners treat tornado warnings — as imminent threats."The reality of it is, California has a fire-prone climate and it will continue to burn," he said. "Fire is a way of life in California and we have to learn how to live with it, we have to learn how to have more resilient communities." 5973

Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor revealed in a letter on Tuesday that she has been diagnosed with the "beginning stages of dementia, probably Alzheimer's disease.""I will continue living in Phoenix, Arizona surrounded by dear friends and family," she wrote and added, "While the final chapter of my life with dementia may be trying, nothing has diminished my gratitude and deep appreciation for the countless blessings of my life."RELATED: Doctors testing medicine that aims to prevent Alzheimer's diseaseO'Connor, 88, was nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan as the first female Supreme Court justice of the United States in 1981. She retired from the bench in 2006, in part to care for her husband, who was ailing from Alzheimer's.The letter was released by the court's Public Information Officer. O'Connor signed it at the bottom writing "God Bless you all." 885

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- A California prosecutor says someone has filed an unemployment claim in the name of convicted murderer Scott Peterson.Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert said it is one of at least 35,000 unemployment claims made on behalf of prison inmates between March and August.Schubert said the state has paid out at least 0 million in benefits.At least 158 claims have been filed for 133 inmates on death row.Schubert called it perhaps the biggest fraud of taxpayer dollars in California history.Prosecutors say the scam involves people outside of prison filing claims on behalf of the inmates. 642

Rudy Giuliani's assertion to CNN this week that President Donald Trump can't be indicted by the special counsel, and thus can't face a subpoena, banks on a series of internal Justice Department policies.The question to this day is untested in the court system. Yet the step-by-step process Robert Mueller or any special counsel could follow for a President under investigation has several possible outcomes.According to several legal experts, historical memos and court filings, this is how the Justice Department's decision-making on whether to indict a sitting president could play out:First, there must be suspicion or allegations of a crime. Did the President do something criminally wrong? If the answer is no, there would be no investigation.But if the answer is maybe, that puts federal investigators on the pursuit. If they find nothing, Justice Department guidelines say they'd still need to address their investigation in a report summarizing their findings.If there could be some meat to the allegations, the Justice Department would need to determine one of two things: Did the potentially criminal actions take place unrelated to or before to the presidency? Or was the President's executive branch power was crucial in the crime?That determination will come into play later, because Congress' power to impeach and remove a president from office was intended by the framers of the Constitution to remedy abuse of the office, legal scholars say.Perhaps, though, the special counsel decides there's enough evidence to prove that the President broke the law.That's where the Office of Legal Counsel opinions come in.In 1973 and 2000, the office, which defines Justice Department internal procedure, said an indictment of a sitting president would be too disruptive to the country. This opinion appears to be binding on the Justice Department's decision-making, though it's possible for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to choose to override the opinion, give Mueller permission to ignore it and take it to court, or ask the office to reexamine the issue by writing a new opinion.This sort of legal briefing has been done before, like in the year after the 1973 opinion, when then-special prosecutor Leon Jaworski wrote a Watergate-era memo describing why the President should not be above the law.Of course, there's another immediate option if a special counsel finds the President did wrong. Prosecutors could use the "unindicted co-conspirator" approach. This would involve the special counsel's office indicting a group of conspirators, making clear the President was part of the conspiracy without bringing charges against him.At any time, in theory, a special counsel could decide to delay an indictment until the President leaves office -- so as not to interfere with the functioning of the executive branch. The other options would be to drop the case or send an impeachment referral to Congress. As evidenced by Mueller's actions previously in the investigations of Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, any steps this special counsel takes will likely come with the full support of the acting attorney general on the matter, Rosenstein.The question of whether a President could be subpoenaed is a story for another day. 3303

Rumors are spreading on Facebook that there will be a nationwide blackout enacted by the Department of Defense from Nov. 4 to Nov. 6.In one Facebook video, a woman says an electromagnetic pulse drill will occur and urges her viewers to prepare for it. "There will be a very huge blackout," she says.The claim of a blackout has also coincided with a conspiracy theory alleging that this blackout drill coincides with planned Antifa protests across the country. However, the claims are false.Snopes says DOD will conduct a "communications interoperability" training exercise from Nov. 4-6, simulating a "very bad day" scenario.The exercise will simulate power and communication outages across the grid, but there will be no actual outages.DOD has done this exercise every quarter since 2013. A representative says the average citizen will "not even know" this exercise is taking place. 911

来源：资阳报