上海中医专业的医院排名上海肾上腺结合部结节,上海省中医乳腺科专家名单,上海哪个乳腺结节医院比较好的医院是哪家好,上海中医治好需要多少钱,上海什么叫放射治疗,上海看中医最好的地方,上海腰椎间盘突出挂哪个科

Americans are expected to spend more than billion for Valentine's Day this year, according to the National Retail Federation. While it probably comes as no surprise that at least half of that dollar figure will be spent on spouses and significant others, .7 billion will be spent on pets, the NRF found. That figure means the average consumer will spend .21 on pets this year. Spending on pets for Valentine’s Day has seen a huge increase over the years. In 2010, Americans collectively spent 0 million on pets. “We’ve always heard of puppy love, but pets are definitely seeing a larger share of Valentine’s Day spending,” Prosper Insights Executive Vice President of Strategy Phil Rist said. “Husbands and wives don’t need to be worried if their spouses are buying a Valentine’s Day gift for someone else – most likely it’s greeting cards for their children’s class at school, flowers for a family member or maybe a treat for the family dog.”Overall, Valentine’s Day spending is expected to jump from .7 billion in 2019 to .4 billion in 2020. The NRF expects that consumers will spend .1 billion on significant others, .2 billion on other family members, .1 billion on friends, .8 billion on co-workers and .5 billion on others. The total dollar figure spent by Americans on Valentine's Day has nearly doubled in the last decade. The average expected spending went from 3 to 6 per person over the last decade. The NRF estimates that 37% of all Valentine’s Day spending is on flowers, followed by 34% on an evening out, and 21% on jewelry. Men plan to spend more than women at 1.15 compared with 6.22, according to the study. 1679

A new study found 9/11 first responders may face a heightened risk of developing leukemia, nearly two decades after the terror attacks.Moshe Shapiro is a biostatistician with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. His team studied 29,000 members of the World Trade Center Health Program, which consists of police officers and other recovery workers.“Leukemia, we found a 41% increase in incidence compared to the general population,” Shapiro told PIX11.Researchers have long known about the substances recovery workers were exposed to in the dust and debris. Shapiro said this latest study shows illnesses like leukemia may continue to develop long after exposure. 682

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey on Wednesday signed into law a controversial abortion bill that could punish doctors who perform abortions with life in prison."Today, I signed into law the Alabama Human Life Protection Act, a bill that was approved by overwhelming majorities in both chambers of the Legislature," said Ivey, a Republican, in a statement. "To the bill's many supporters, this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians' deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God."The 550

After decades of silence, one of perhaps hundreds of sexual misconduct victims of an Ohio State University team doctor is speaking out for the first time, hoping his story serves as a lesson.The numbers are staggering: nearly 50 instances of rape, almost 1,500 cases of fondling.Those new numbers detail how widespread sexual abuse was at the hands of an Ohio State University's Dr. Richard Strauss. Many of the accusers are former OSU athletes.One of those shared the story he kept hidden for decades.For 14 years, he's been a trusted name in Grand Rapids, Michigan. But for years, Mike Avery, 607

An appeals court said Tuesday that President Donald Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking users on Twitter.The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a New York judge's ruling and found that Trump "engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by utilizing Twitter's 'blocking' function to limit certain users' access to his social media account, which is otherwise open to the public at large, because he disagrees with their speech.""We hold that he engaged in such discrimination," the ruling adds.The judges on the appeals court concluded that "the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees."The challenge to Trump's unprecedented use of Twitter in office came from seven individuals he blocked, as well as the Knight First Amendment Institute, which argued that the President's personal account is an extension of his office.The Justice Department argued in March that the President wasn't "wielding the power" of the federal government when he blocked certain individuals from his personal Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump, because while the President sends tweets in his official capacity, he blocks users as a personal matter.But the appeals court disagreed with that view."The irony in all of this is that we write at a time in the history of this nation when the conduct of our government and its officials is subject to wide‐open, robust debate," they wrote. "This debate encompasses an extraordinarily broad range of ideas and viewpoints and generates a level of passion and intensity the likes of which have rarely been seen. This debate, as uncomfortable and as unpleasant as it frequently may be, is nonetheless a good thing. In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less."Tuesday's ruling affirms the position taken last year by a New York federal judge, who ruled that Trump had 2197