医院龙济医院天津武清区龙济医院泌尿外科口碑如何,天津武清区龙济泌尿专科要预约吗,天津龙济医院男科医院是专业医院吗,天津市武清区龙济医院怎样,龙济医院治疗男科怎么样啊,天津武清龙济医院手术,天津龙济男地址

The Transportation Security Administration is considering eliminating passenger screening at more than 150 small and medium-sized airports across the US, according to senior agency officials and internal documents obtained by CNN.The proposal, if implemented, would mark a major change for air travel in the US, following nearly two decades of TSA presence since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and comes as the Trump administration has stepped up screening measures for items such as laptops and tablets.Internal documents from a TSA working group say the proposal to cut screening at small and some medium-sized airports serving aircraft with 60 seats or fewer could bring a "small (non-zero) undesirable increase in risk related to additional adversary opportunity."The internal documents from June and July suggest the move could save 5 million annually, money that could be used to bolster security at larger airports.According to the proposal, passengers and luggage arriving from these smaller airports would be screened when they arrive at major airports for connecting flights instead of the current practice of joining the already screened population at the larger airport. The high-volume airports have greater capacities and more advanced security measures than smaller locations, the documents say.CNN terrorism analyst Paul Cruickshank said it was "stunning that this is even seriously being considered.""Al Qaeda and ISIS still regard aviation as a priority target -- that includes aircraft where you have fewer than 60 people on board," he said. "They would see that as a way to hit the headlines. They would see that as a way to inflict severe economic damage on the United States. If you have an aircraft of 50 or so people being blown out of the sky there is going to be a great amount of panic and there will indeed be significant economic reverberations, and of course significant loss of life.""This is so dangerous," a TSA field leader at a large airport said. The individual is not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.Two senior TSA officials, who asked not to be identified, expressed serious national security concerns over the proposal. They said the idea was explored as far back as 2011 and has been resurrected. The documents referred to some 150 small airports in addition to some midsize ones. TSA currently screens passengers at 440 airports, according to its website.The working group determined that the policy change would affect about 10,000 passengers who are screened by 1,299 TSA employees daily, which amounts to about 0.5% of the people who fly out of US airports on any given day. The report does not list specific airports that could be affected by the policy change.TSA spokesman Michael Bilello said the study reflects a recurring debate within the agency about its legal requirements."This is not a new issue," he said via email. "The regulations which established TSA does not require screening below a certain level, so every year is 'the year' that TSA will reconsider screening." Bilello did not respond to a request for the text of the regulations.The two TSA senior officials said the level of activity around the proposal this year -- the formation of a working group to conduct a risk and cost analysis -- mean this is more than an annual exercise.The documents said a TSA working group of 20 people, including a representative of the agency's administrator's office, met on June 21 to examine the potential risks of the policy change. An internal TSA memo dated July 17 from TSA Director of Enterprise Performance and Risk Strategy Jerry Booker to the TSA administrator's chief of staff, Ha Nguyen McNeill, outlines the group's findings. It contains no formal recommendation. 3761

The US Department of Education has opened an investigation into the Ohio State University's handling of former students' allegations of sexual misconduct by a school doctor, according to the university.The federal investigation will be conducted by the department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR), which oversees Title IX complaints, the school said in a statement Thursday.The inquiry, led by the OCR's regional office in Cleveland, Ohio, "will examine whether the university is responding promptly and equitably to complaints and reports by former students," the statement said, "including allegations that employees knew or should have known about the sexual misconduct and allowed the abuse to continue."The scandal surrounding the alleged actions of the late Dr. Richard Strauss has grown since the university first announced in April its own investigation, headed by the law firm Perkins Coie, to look into claims made by male former athletes on 14 sports teams.Since then, more than 100 former Ohio State University students have reported firsthand accounts of sexual misconduct by Strauss, the school said last month.Some of them, mostly former student athletes, have come forward to publicly claim that Strauss sexually abused them under the guise of a medical examination.According to the school, the alleged abuse took place between 1979 and 1997."We welcome the involvement and careful oversight of OCR and look forward to providing any information we can," said Gates Garrity-Rokous, the school's vice president and chief compliance officer, in a statement about the US Department of Education's investigation."We responded promptly and appropriately to the allegations received in April about Dr. Strauss," Garrity-Rokous continued. "We are confident in the independence and thoroughness of the investigation we launched then as well as our ongoing commitment to transparency."The-CNN-Wire 1910

The U.S. Department of Justice is at polling locations in 19 states to ensure federal voting rights laws are being followed. There are also thousands of people with civil rights and voting advocacy groups watching the polls. One place they're concerned about voter suppression is Dodge City, Kansas.Jose Vargas, Marilyn Horsch and Rita Schweitz all traveled to Dodge City to help voters.  "We were really angry and thought maybe there’s something we can do to help," says Schweitz, who flew in from Denver, CO.  They’re all here because they’re angry that the town’s polling place was moved, without much notice. They are calling it voter suppression.“Designed to frustrate the voter, to make people give up,” says Horsch.For years, the town’s polling place was right in the middle of Dodge City. But this year, the county election officer, citing construction projects, decided to move to a different location that is four miles away. The new location is outside city limits, and there’s no access to sidewalks and it’s cut off from public transportation.The ACLU sued Dodge City, asking a judge to force the county to open a second polling location for the town's 27,000 residents. A judge denied the request, so the ACLU emailed election officer Debbie Cox, asking for help publicizing a voter help line.The Wichita Eagle reported that Cox then sent that on to the Secretary of State's office, adding “LOL” to the email.So, volunteers like Jose Vargas, Marilyn Horsch and Rita Schweitz are offering bus rides from the old location to the new one to ensure voters get to the poll. They rented a bus to shuttle voters to ensure they’d be able to cast their votes. 1682

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded a warning about several hand sanitizer products that have been found to contain wood alcohol, which can potentially be deadly to ingest or absorb through the skin.The agency says there has been a sharp increase in products that claim to contain ethanol (also known as ethyl alcohol) but have tested positive for methanol, or wood alcohol.Methanol can be toxic when absorbed through the skin or ingested and can be life-threatening, according to the FDA.Substantial methanol exposure can result in nausea, vomiting, headache, blurred vision, permanent blindness, seizures, coma, permanent damage to the nervous system or death, the FDA says."Methanol is not an acceptable ingredient for hand sanitizers and should not be used due to its toxic effects," the FDA wrote in their statement.While anyone who puts methanol on their hands is at risk, officials say young children who accidentally ingest these products and adolescents and adults who drink these products as an alcohol (ethanol) substitute, are most at risk for methanol poisoning.The FDA says consumers who have been exposed to hand sanitizers with methanol who are experiencing symptoms should seek treatment immediately.The FDA says it is especially concerned with:The dangers of drinking any hand sanitizer under any conditions. While hand sanitizers with possible methanol contamination are more life-threatening than those that are not contaminated, FDA urges consumers not to drink any of these products.Certain hand sanitizers that may not contain a sufficient amount of ethyl alcohol or isopropyl alcohol.Hand sanitizers that are sold or offered for sale with false and misleading, unproven claims that they can prevent the spread of viruses such as COVID-19, including claims that they can provide prolonged protection (e.g., for up to 24-hours).Products that are fraudulently marketed as “FDA-approved” since there are no hand sanitizers approved by FDA.Products packaged to appear as drinks, candy or liquor bottles, as well as products marketed as drinks or cocktails because their appearance could result in accidental ingestion or encourage ingestion. Children are particularly at risk with these products since ingesting only a small amount of hand sanitizer may be lethal in a young child.Below is a list of the products in the warning:CompanyProduct(s)NDCProduct statusGrupo Insoma, S.A.P.I de CV (Mexico)Hand sanitizer Gel Unscented 70% Alcohol75744-0200-375744-0200-475744-0201-575744-0202-175744-0250-175744-0250-275744-0500-175744-1000-175744-1000-375744-1001-1FDA tested product; contains methanol; FDA recommended a recall on 07/01/2020Transliquid Technologies (Mexico)Mystic Shield Protection hand sanitizer75477-435-0275477-435-1075477-435-1275477-435-2575477-435-5075477-534-10Contains methanolSoluciones Cosmeticas SA de CV (Mexico)Bersih Hand Sanitizer Gel Fragrance Free75165-003-0275165-004-0175165-005-0175165-006-0175165-008-0175165-250-0175165-600-01FDA tested product; contains methanol; FDA recommended a recall on 07/01/2020Soluciones Cosmeticas SA de CV (Mexico)Antiseptic Alcohol 70% Topical Solution hand sanitizerNot listedFDA tested product; contains methanol; FDA recommended a recall on 07/01/2020Tropicosmeticos SA de CV (Mexico)Britz Hand Sanitizer Ethyl Alcohol 70%76676-402-0177676-402-0277676-402-0377676-402-0477676-402-0577676-402-0677676-402-0777676-402-0877676-402-0977676-402-1077676-402-1177676-402-1277676-402-1377676-402-1477676-402-1677676-402-1777676-402-1877676-402-1977676-402-20FDA tested product; contains methanol; FDA recommended a recall on 07/01/2020Eskbiochem SA de CV (Mexico)All-Clean Hand Sanitizer74589-002-01Product purported to be made at the same facilityEskbiochem SA de CV (Mexico)Esk Biochem Hand Sanitizer74589-007-01Product purported to be made at the same facilityEskbiochem SA de CV (Mexico)Lavar 70 Gel Hand Sanitizer74589-006-01FDA tested product; contains methanolEskbiochem SA de CV (Mexico)The Good Gel Antibacterial Gel Hand Sanitizer74589-010-10Product purported to be made at the same facilityEskbiochem SA de CV (Mexico)CleanCare NoGerm Advanced Hand Sanitizer 80% Alcohol74589-005-03Product purported to be made at the same facilityEskbiochem SA de CV (Mexico)CleanCare NoGerm Advanced Hand Sanitizer 75% Alcohol74589-009-01FDA tested product; contains methanolEskbiochem SA de CV (Mexico)CleanCare NoGerm Advanced Hand Sanitizer 80% Alcohol74589-003-01Product purported to be made at the same facilityEskbiochem SA de CV (Mexico)Saniderm Advanced Hand Sanitizer74589-001-01Product purported to be made at the same facility; product recalled by Saniderm Products and UVT Inc.Click here for more information.This story was originally published by staff at WFTS, with contributions from WTXL. 4799

The Trump administration's executive order threatening to withhold funding from sanctuary cities is unconstitutional, a US appeals court said Wednesday.This story is developing. 190