汕尾山哪里有治疗白癜风的(潮州治白癜风那家效果好) (今日更新中)

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia – The world’s largest producer of condoms says the coronavirus pandemic may lead to a global shortage of the rubber contraceptives. The 171

Just passed Myles Garrett downtown by himself on Euclid spending time talking to a homeless guy. No clue if the guy knew who he was, but #95 seemed to be in no hurry to leave the convo 197

KANSAS CITY — Maureen Boesen has always known cancer risk was high in her family."We're able to really track our history of breast cancer back to the late 1800s and early 1900s," Boesen said. "My grandmother actually passed away from ovarian cancer when she was 44. She had five sisters and none of them lived to the age of 50. Then, my mother was diagnosed with breast cancer when she was 32. We knew there was something going on and that it was a very young age."When Boesen and her two sisters were ages 3, 5 and 7, their mom was already receiving chemotherapy for stage 2 breast cancer. Because of the extensive family history, the girls were part of a study at a university in another part of the Midwest. Their mom was hoping to help the world better understand what was killing so many women. She was hoping to better her daughters' chances for survival."We were all tested in the same exact room," said Boesen's sister, Bridget Stillwell. "I can even remember what the room looked like." Because the girls were so young, and the health threat still likely years away, they wouldn't receive their DNA test results until they turned 18."We knew we were part of a study," Boesen said. "We knew our results were waiting for us, but we didn't know what they were."When asked if she found that wait frustrating, she said emphatically it was not."Quite the opposite. We felt empowered," she said.She didn't get the results right away. The sisters knew there was nothing they could likely do at age 18 even if their test results showed they'd inherited the BRCA gene mutation. The sisters all waited until they were around age 21. One sister was positive. One sister was negative. Boesen remembers meeting with the researcher to learn her results."We sat down and we had a conversation about what BRCA was and what it meant for my family," Boesen said. "It was a lengthy conversation, which made me very uncomfortable because why would a conversation that wasn't going to change my life last that long?"Eventually, the researcher told her she had inherited the gene mutation."It was just devastating because I knew what breast cancer and ovarian cancer can do to a family. You know, my first question out of my mouth was, 'Is there any chance this could be wrong?' The researcher said 'No.' "Boesen walked out of that meeting determined. She was going to make decisions to save her own life. She was going to have a bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. She would schedule a surgery to remove both breasts to prevent breast cancer."This was me doing what I was supposed to do and this was me being empowered and me being proactive and not waiting until I have a cancer diagnosis," Boesen said.She didn't want to feel like a ticking time bomb. She wanted to live.Boesen had the surgery to remove both breasts when she was just 23 years old. She went on to get married and have three children."I didn't get to breastfeed them. It was sad. I'm not brokenhearted or devastated about it, but it is sad to think I couldn't provide for my children like that," she said.At the time, she still believed she'd made the right decision because she was healthy.Once done having children, she knew there was another step that most people with the dangerous BRCA gene mutation have to consider."I knew that when I was done having children, I needed to have a complete hysterectomy," Boesen said.The BRCA gene mutation not only dramatically increases a woman's chance of developing breast cancer at a young age, it also significantly increases a woman's chance of ovarian cancer."The right thing to do and what the doctors say to do is have a complete hysterectomy by the age of 35 and I was in my early 30s," Boesen said.In 2018, she went to a hospital in Kansas City, Missouri, to start the process of preparing for her hysterectomy. Both her health care provider and her insurance company wanted a new DNA test. Everyone knew what the results would be, but they went through the motions to get the required confirmation she was positive for the deadly gene mutation which was so rampant in her family.The test results were supposed to be back in a few weeks, but it had been four and Boesen was starting to worry. Then, she got the call from the doctor."I was at work. And the first thing she said was, 'We need to talk', and my heart just sank," Boesen said. "She said, 'You're negative,' and I just started bawling."She was overwhelmed, confused and full of emotions."I was angry. I was regretful. I was happy. I was sad. I so desperately wanted to feel relief, 'Oh, thank God, this is the best day of my life,' but it wasn't," Boesen said. "It was just devastating."Boesen got another test to confirm the second test results. It also came back negative.She did not get the hysterectomy. There was no need now. There was no longer a threat that cancer was waiting to explode in her body. She now knew she had not inherited the BRCA gene mutation that had killed so many of her relatives.Dr. Jennifer Klemp of the University of Kansas Cancer Center has worked in the field of cancer genetics, specifically breast and female cancers, since 1997. She is the director of Cancer Survivorship and a cancer risk counselor. While she was not involved in Boesen's original research, she says she's not surprised."Twenty years ago, when we sent our first tests and BRCA 1 and 2 were the two genes we tested for, about 30-40 percent of the time we would get something called a 'variant of uncertain significance,' " Klemp said. "Basically, that meant we found a mutation or an error in the DNA, but we didn't know if that was associated with an increased risk of cancer. Today, using a reputable lab, that should be less than 1-2 percent."Klemp says things are changing rapidly in the field of genetic testing. If someone had a DNA test more than five years ago, they should consider having an updated test. She also says the at-home tests are good for finding out details about your ancestry, but they shouldn't be used to make major decisions about your health. For that, you'd want a health professional to order a commercial test through a certified, reputable lab. With more and more companies offering testing, and more medical professionals and patients interested in genetic testing for so many reasons, she says demand right now is outpacing supply."If you have 10 different labs doing testing, and you have every primary care, OB-GYN, oncology clinic, surgical clinic and any number of patients eligible for testing, it's a little bit of the wild west," Klemp said, adding there's no central repository for this patient and test information.As for Boesen, the university where the original research was done and the false positive originated offered to re-test her DNA. She is currently waiting on the results from what is now her fourth genetic test. She hopes it comes back negative, too, which is what the experts all expect. She believes, then, finally, she'll be able to move forward with her life. Boesen and her two sisters are writing a book about their experiences. Each of her sisters has a story to tell, too. Their book will be titled, " 7146

It's possible April of 2019 will prove to be an historic month for renewable energy.For centuries, coal has been one of the primary sources of energy in the United States. But in recent years, energy sources such as wind, solar and hydro have been catching up.Bruce Bohannan is hoping his home will eventually be carbon neutral, which means it'd solely be powered by renewable energy. It's a process he started 10 years ago when he invested in solar panels. Bohannan’s house is not your average American house."You can see a little bit at the very top of the house, that was our first phase of solar panels," Bohannan said."I have a daughter who will outlive me into the world of the future, and I really put them on for my daughter's future... for her climate future," Bohannan added.A decade later, Bohannan is witnessing a change he had always hoped for to lower carbon emissions.In April -- for the first time in U.S. history -- forecasters say renewable energy sources generated more electricity than coal."It's an indicator of what's to come," Dennis Wamsted, an energy analyst for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, said.His claim is based on a short-term forecast of data for the month of April. Date from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows renewable energy surpassing coal production. "The coal industry 10 years ago generated about 50 percent of the nation's electricity. And in the past 10 years that percentage has dropped from 50 percent to this year, EIA [Energy Information Administration] is saying about 24 percent," Wamsted said.Electricity generation can be broken into four main categories: Natural gas generates 35 percent of our electricity; coal generates 24 percent; nuclear power 20 percent; and renewable sources generate 18 percent (3 percent is other). The percentage for coal is predicted to decrease in the coming years, whereas renewable energy is expected to do the opposite. Wamsted predicts renewable energy will surpass coal for good in three years.“Coal's costs are going up, and renewable costs are going down which gives me a great deal of confidence that this transition is going to continue into the future," Wamsted said.So what happened in April that spiked renewable energy production? Wamsted says, think about the changing seasons.April is a big month for snow melt which powers hydroelectricity. In many places, there's often more wind in the springtime to power wind turbines. And solar energy increases in the spring with more direct daylight in the United States.The coal industry's production also plays a role. Many plants shut down for maintenance in the spring, since most people around the country aren't cranking up heat or the A.C.While this data signals a big milestone for renewables, it's not a total surprise. Clean energy is now cheaper than coal because technology has improved, and manufacturers are more efficient.Energy Program Director Rob Sargent with Environment America says the coal industry, on the other hand, is facing a grim future.“It's been declining steadily, and uh, coal plants are shutting down left and right. Nobody is building new ones," Sargent said.The possible end of the coal industry has many concerned for their livelihood, but there is hope for the American workforce.A report done by nonpartisan business group 'Environmental Entrepreneurs' shows nearly every U.S. state saw an increase in clean energy jobs last year. In fact, jobs involving renewable energy outnumbered fossil fuel jobs three to one, and employers expect job growth to continue. "There is no question that right now in America there are more jobs in the clean energy industry than there are in the fossil fuel industry," Sargent said.Change can be challenging, but Sargent believes the increase in clean energy positions will ease the transition into renewables as a staple provider of energy. And clean energy proponents like Bohannan are convinced the change is only for the better."Anything we can do to leave carbon in the ground is the right answer for the earth. We need to drastically stop emitting carbon if we're going to have a positive effect on our climate chances over the next 50 years," Bohannan said.The United States is not the first nation in this energy transition. Renewable energy has already surpassed coal in the United Kingdom, and the country expects coal-fired energy generation will be completely cut off by 2025. 4450

Jordan and Andre Anchondo brought their infant son to Walmart on Saturday as they shopped for school supplies. But only the little boy would survive the visit, their relatives told CNN.The Anchondos were killed after a 231

来源：资阳报