濮阳东方医院割包皮咨询(濮阳东方医院割包皮价格费用) (今日更新中)

RIVERSIDE, Calif. - A California couple's fiery Halloween decorations are so hot it's prompting people to call 911.According to KABC, Carmen and Travis Long of Riverside decorated their home with a "Pirates of the Caribbean" theme, along with a realistic fire coming from the house.Riverside County Media captured video of the home's decorations. 354

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's governor on Friday threatened a possible takeover of the troubled utility blamed for sparking deadly wildfires across the state with its outdated equipment unless it can emerge from bankruptcy ahead of next year's wildfire season with a plan focused on safety.Gov. Gavin Newsom called all sides to a meeting early next week, saying he would personally try to mediate a solution involving Pacific Gas & Electric.But if an agreement can't be reached, Newsom said, "then the state will prepare itself as backup for a scenario where we do that job for them."PG&E has come under more scrutiny in recent weeks as it cut off power to millions of people to avoid a repeat of last year's deadly fire season.The shutoffs have angered residents, businesses and local governments, who say the company has done a poor job of communicating."This is not the new normal," Newsom said. "There are things that can be done immediately and will be done immediately."It's unclear how the state could take over PG&E in the event it does not meet the June 30th deadline. But the governor's office pointed to General Motors as an example. The automaker filed for bankruptcy in 2009, and the federal government purchased a controlling stake in the company. The government later sold its shares once the company was on solid footing."That kind of a move would give the state a lot of control over the strategic direction that PG&E takes without getting it into the nitty gritty of running the day to day," said Michael Wara, director of the Climate and Energy Policy Program at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University.Local governments, including San Francisco, have offered to purchase portions of PG&E's equipment for .5 billion so it could operate parts of the power system on its own. Asked if taxpayers would buy the company, Newsom said: "We're scoping all of that.""It's not writing a check," Newsom said. "This is not plan 'A,' but it is a plan. We would be irresponsible not to scope that plan. So we're not going to sit back and hope and hope an expectation that everything else works out."Pacific Gas & Electric filed for bankruptcy earlier this year after a 2018 wildfire mostly destroyed the town of Paradise and killed 85 people. An investigation revealed the fire was started by one of the company's powerlines that was knocked down during a windstorm.The utility is facing up to billion in damages from that fire and others.Shareholders and creditors have been battling for control of the utility in bankruptcy court, offering two competing plans for the company's future.A federal judge has expressed concern the two sides are not making progress, and last week appointed a mediator to try and resolve the case.In June, Newsom signed a law setting up a billion fund that could help utility companies pay out claims for future wildfires as climate change makes them more frequent and destructive.Utility companies would have to spend at least billion on safety improvements and meet new safety standards to participate. PG&E would have to be out of bankruptcy by June 30th to use the fund.Friday, Newsom called on PG&E executives, shareholders and creditors along with wildfire victims to meet with him. Newsom said he is confident the meeting will occur.However, representatives for the largest groups of bondholders and shareholders did not respond to a request for comment.PG&E spokesman James Noonan indicated the company would participate."We welcome the governor's and the state's engagement on these vital matters and share the same goal of fairly resolving the wildfire claims and exiting the Chapter 11 process as quickly as possible," he said. 3762

Rosie Raabe is an artist, a pet mom, a plant mom and a part of the cystic fibrosis community. She was diagnosed at three years old.“I wear a mask because if certain particles of bacteria and stuff get into my lungs, it will settle in there and it will cause endless lung infections,” Raabe said.According to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, cystic fibrosis is a progressive, genetic disease that causes persistent lung infections and limits the ability to breath over time.“A lot of people think of it as just a lung disease, but actually all your organs are involved. Especially for me, it is digestive,” Raabe said.Just two and a half years ago, Raabe underwent a liver transplant donated by her brother."I’m not crying in the video because I’m trying so hard not to, but it is the most terrifying thing to choose to go through something like that. And actually, at the end of that video I’m like, 'can I bring my mask?'”Masks have been an everyday part of Raabe’s life. So when she hears there are people who refuse to wear a mask during this pandemic, Raabe says she feels shocked, frustrated and upset somebody would be willing to risk the safety of someone’s life.“I just feel like it’s really inhuman to be so selfish.”She says a virus like the one that causes COVID-19 would have devastating effects on her.“I can’t even imagine what it would do to me, especially me. Because I’m on immuno-suppression for my liver transplant," Raabe said. "So having cystic fibrosis alone is scary enough to get something like this virus – I mean my lungs aren’t in tip-top shape – but on top of that, having immune-suppression, I’m even more susceptible.”Studies have increasingly shown that masks play a large role in preventing illness. Dr. Chris Nyquist is the Medical Director of Infection Prevention and Control at Children’s Hospital Colorado. Whether somebody has cancer, leukemia or in Raabe’s case, cystic fibrosis, Dr. Nyquist says wearing a face covering can make the difference between life and death for people with fragile immune systems.“The biggest benefit for people wearing cloth-face coverings in public is it actually captures the droplets and spittle that comes out of your mouth and keeps it from landing on someone else and prevents infection," Dr. Nyquist said. "And if you have two people who are both wearing cloth face coverings, that’s a great way to stop the spread of germs.”If you’re thinking, you're not sick, so why would you need to wear a mask? Well, doctors say you could still be spreading the virus without even realizing it.“We recognize that more and more people are without symptoms who are infected with COVID-19 and the CDC will give you numbers of up to 40% of people are asymptomatic. So they have the virus in their secretions, in their nasal secretions and in their mouth, and no symptoms. And they’re like ‘I’m clean, I’m free, I’m not sick.’ But that’s exactly the kind of person who really needs to be wearing that cloth face covering so they don’t unknowingly transmit to people,” Dr. Nyquist said.Raabe says she’s heard people say they choose not to wear a mask right now because it’s hard to breath with it on. However, in her experience, it’s still possible to breath with a mask on, even at 30% lung function.“Most people have above 100% lung function, and I had 30%, and I still wore that mask every time I was in public. So it’s just crazy to me that people are saying it’s so hard to breathe – 'I can’t breathe' – I’m like, ‘you probably have 100, maybe 90 or 80% lung function. Like you can breathe,’" Raabe said.Dr. Nyquist says she hopes more people will willingly choose to wear a mask as a part of the social contract to love and care for one another.“It isn’t politics to wear a face mask. It’s really common love of humanity, and it’s what we’re supposed to do for one another,” Dr. Nyquist said.“I have to wear one for the rest of my life, you have to wear one for a few months. I just feel like if you could save so many people’s lives, why wouldn’t you do it?” Raabe said. 4040

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Lawmakers can avoid the long lines plaguing California's Department of Motor Vehicles offices by visiting an office near the Capitol not open to the public, a decades-old practice under fresh fire as wait times surge.The office provides services for current and retired lawmakers, their staff and some other state employees, The Sacramento Bee reported Thursday. DMV spokesman Artemio Armenta said its primary purpose is to handle constituent requests that arrive on lawmakers' desks and that the two-member staff handles 10,000 requests per year.But one lawmaker said it shouldn't provide extra perks for the Capitol community as regular Californians are forced to wait up to hours in line for services at their local office.RELATED: Shorter lines? Larger DMV planned for Hillcrest"I have gotten my registration and all that stuff the old-fashioned way like everybody else in my district," Republican Assemblyman Jim Patterson told the Bee. "When you are living a public life the way most private people live, you'll understand when taxes hurt and bureaucracies hurt."Patterson's colleagues rejected his request to audit the DMV on Wednesday, and lawmakers have recently approved more money for the agency to deal with its exploding wait times.DMV officials said the long lines are due to complications complying with new federally mandated security upgrades for ID cards. In late 2020, airport security checkpoints will require so-called "Real ID" compliant cards, and Californians are now beginning to get the updated cards.RELATED: California lawmakers ask DMV officials about long linesLawmakers have approved tens of millions of dollars to hire more staff and implement the roll-out of Real ID. The DMV recently announced it would open more than a dozen offices on Saturdays.Whether lawmakers and Capitol staff should get access to a private DMV has been disputed before. Some people who work in and around the Capitol downplayed the office's existence in response to the Bee article, saying it's been known about for years. A 2006 Capitol Weekly article highlighted the debate over the office, referencing a small-government activist who criticized it for years.The office has been open for decades, moving locations around the Capitol. At one point it was open to the public. Now, the office is unmarked at the end of a hallway in the Legislative Office Building, located across the street from the Capitol.RELATED: State report: California DMV worker slept thousands of hours on the jobWhen a reporter stopped by on Friday, the door was locked and a woman who answered directed all questions to the public affairs office.Armenta, the DMV spokesman, said the door is locked because the office handles cash transactions and holds people's personally identifiable information. About 90 percent of the office's work relates to requests from constituents who call their lawmakers over complicated problems the local DMV branch may not be able to solve, he said."Often times it's a conduit for constituent work," Armenta said. "It provides the Legislature a way to be closely in contact with state government on helping customers with situations that they're having."Spokespeople for Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins did not respond to questions about whether it's appropriate for lawmakers to get services at the office. 3398

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Law enforcement agencies in California must release police misconduct records even if the behavior occurred before a new transparency law took effect, a state court of appeals has ruled.The 1st District Court of Appeal's decision released Friday settles for now a debate over whether records created before Jan. 1, when the law took effect, were subject to disclosure. Many police unions have sued to block the records release, while public information advocates argued the records should be disclosed.The ruling applies to police agencies statewide, including the attorney general's office, unless another appellate court steps in and rules differently, said David Snyder of the First Amendment Coalition."These records are absolutely essential for the public to be able to see what the police departments are doing with respect to police misdoubt," said Snyder, whose group intervened in the case. "These agencies have enormous power over Californians and so transparency of those agencies is absolutely essential in order to be able to hold them accountable."At least one agency reversed its prior decision to deny access to old records after the ruling came in. Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones said he would release records dating back five years after reading the court of appeal's decision, the Sacramento Bee reported.Mike Rains, an attorney for the Walnut Creek Police Officers Association and other police agencies seeking to block the disclosure, said he doesn't see the decision as setting precedent on the merits of the case but that agencies are likely to take guidance from it unless another court rules differently.His clients do not have an issue with releasing records of misconduct produced after Jan. 1, Rains said, but see the release of old records as a privacy violation."Police officers used to have a privacy right," he said. "We don't believe it changes the rights of privacy to those records that were created prior to Jan. 1."California lawmakers voted last year to require police agencies to release records on police shootings and officer misconduct to the public. Police unions had sought to block old records, with some law enforcement agencies even destroying them. Attorney General Xavier Becerra also declined to release records from his office, saying the intent of the law need to be clarified by the courts.The appeals court ruled on March 12 but only made the opinion public Friday.The rulings by a panel of three justices said the old records can be released because the action triggering their release — a request for public information by reporters or others — occurs after Jan. 1. The justices also noted the release of the records does not change the legal consequences for officers already found to have engaged in misconduct."The new law changes only the public's right to access peace officer records," the justices wrote. 2908

来源：资阳报