宜宾眼睛整形价格(宜宾抽眼皮脂肪) (今日更新中)

The recommended amount of sleep for adults is six to eight hours a night. Sleeping more than those hours is associated with an increased risk of death and cardiovascular diseases, says a global study published Wednesday in the European Heart Journal.Looking at data from 21 countries, across seven regions, the research team found that people sleeping more than the recommended upper limit of eight hours increased their risk of risk of major cardiovascular events, like stroke or heart failure, as well as death by up to 41%.But a possible reason for this could be that people have underlying conditions causing them to sleep longer, which in turn could raise the risk of cardiovascular disease or mortality, explain the authors of the study.The team, led by Chuangshi Wang, a Ph.D. student at McMaster and Peking Union Medical College in China, also identified a rising risk among daytime nappers."Daytime napping was associated with increased risks of major cardiovascular events and deaths in those with [more than] six hours of nighttime sleep but not in those sleeping [less than] 6 hours a night," Wang said.In those who underslept, "a daytime nap seemed to compensate for the lack of sleep at night and to mitigate the risks," Wang explained.Previous studies into this topic were mainly carried out in North America, Europe and Japan. The new study brings a global picture.But the findings are observational, meaning the cause of this association remains unknown."Even though the findings were very interesting they don't prove cause and effect," said Julie Ward, a senior cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation, who was not involved in the study.Having less sleep -- under six hours -- was also shown to increase these risks by 9%, compared with people who slept for the recommended six to eight hours, but this finding was not considered to be statistically significant by the team.In 2014, 35.2% of American adults reported not getting enough sleep with less than seven hours per night, according to the CDC. 2049

The success of online retailers such as Amazon is proof positive that people like shopping online, but many parents still prefer going to the actual store for their children's back-to-school supplies.That way, they have their items right away, and their children can see and hold their new supplies themselves. Who's getting the better deal, though? People who frequent Amazon, or those who head to physical stores such as Target and Walmart?We priced a basket of items for a third-grade classroom, including pencil sharpeners, Crayola colored pencils, Elmer's school glue, Expo markers and Ticonderoga pencils.And we can't forget that oh-so-cute Disney backpack. 691

The risk of homelessness looms large for many across the country as people deal with job loss and economic uncertainty brought on by the coronavirus pandemic.The National Alliance to End Homelessness estimates, right now, there are 567,000 people who call the streets their home, a number that has only risen since March.There are shelters, soup kitchens, and myriad charities to help, but the group Foundations for Social Change, a charitable organization based in Vancouver, Canada, suggests one source of help trumps the rest: money.“Sometimes a little bit of a hand up can mean all the difference in whether or not someone is going to stabilize and get into housing or not,” said chief public policy officer for the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless Cathy Alderman.It might seem like an obvious solution, but it is challenged by the preconceived notion that people battling homelessness might squander the money or spend it on harmful habits like alcohol, drugs, or cigarettes.“I think it’s not surprising at all that people who are struggling with the cost of living and forced to sleep outside would use dollars given to them to get inside into a home,” said Alderman.In September, Foundations for Social Change wrapped up nearly two years of research that suggests those in less fortunate circumstances would use money to help secure food and housing, rather than illicit substances.Back in 2018, the group gave 50 people battling homelessness in Vancouver a lump sum of ,700, without restriction, to see what they would spend it on, and they compared the findings to a group of 60 homeless individuals who were not given any lump sum.Foundations for Social Change found that in the first month, the group that received the payment, 70 percent of them were able to access a sustainable food source that they maintained for the rest of the year. They also found stable housing at a rate that outpaced those who had not received the payments by 12 months.The researchers also found that spending on items like drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes decreased by 39 percent.“The key findings were phenomenal and were even well beyond my expectations,” said one of the head researchers, Dr. Jiaying Zhao. “This actually is counter to our common assumptions of how these folks will spend their money and cash, so that was very good to see.”“I would save a third, spend a third on things I know I needed, and then give a third away,” said Benjamin Dunning, who was homeless for nearly five years following the Great Recession in 2008. “There just wasn’t any work available and I was like, 'well, better dig in for the long haul.'"Dunning says following an injury that prevented him from working he was no longer able to afford rent in the Denver suburb where he lived. He says he moved from shelter to shelter, trying to weather the storm before he was able to find a community of other people in a similar situation that offered a little more stability and a consistent roof over his head.“One thing I found out is [the homeless people I was around] were just like my neighbors in the suburbs,” said Dunning. “Most of them were people who had gotten stuck on hard times and trying to figure out how to deal with it.”The study by Foundations for Social Change focused on people who had been homeless for a year or less and who had been screened for a low risk of mental health challenges and substance abuse. So, Dr. Zhao says this is not a silver bullet, but an encouraging sign to help solve an issue that has several layers of complexity. 3546

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that the Trump administration can end census field operations early, in a blow to efforts to make sure minorities and hard-to-enumerate communities are properly counted in the crucial once-a-decade tally.The decision was not a total loss for plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the administration’s decision to end the count early. They managed to get nearly two extra weeks of counting people as the case made its way through the courts.However, the ruling increased the chances of the Trump administration retaining control of the process that decides how many congressional seats each state gets — and by extension how much voting power each state has.The Supreme Court justices’ ruling came as the nation’s largest association of statisticians, and even the U.S. Census Bureau’s own census takers and partners, have been raising questions about the quality of the data being gathered — numbers that are used to determine how much federal funding and how many congressional seats are allotted to states.After the Supreme Court’s decision, the Census Bureau said field operations would end on Thursday.At issue was a request by the Trump administration that the Supreme Court suspend a lower court’s order extending the 2020 census through the end of October following delays caused by the pandemic. The Trump administration argued that the head count needed to end immediately to give the bureau time to meet a year-end deadline. Congress requires the bureau to turn in by Dec. 31 the figures used to decide the states’ congressional seats — a process known as apportionment.By sticking to the deadline, the Trump administration would end up controlling the numbers used for the apportionment, no matter who wins next month’s presidential election.In a statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the Supreme Court’s decision “regrettable and disappointing,” and said the administration’s actions “threaten to politically and financially exclude many in America’s most vulnerable communities from our democracy.”Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the high court’s decision, saying “respondents will suffer substantial injury if the Bureau is permitted to sacrifice accuracy for expediency.”The Supreme Court ruling came in response to a lawsuit by a coalition of local governments and civil rights groups, arguing that minorities and others in hard-to-count communities would be missed if the census ended early. They said the schedule was cut short to accommodate a July order from President Donald Trump that would exclude people in the country illegally from being counted in the numbers used for apportionment.Opponents of the order said it followed the strategy of the late Republican redistricting guru, Thomas Hofeller, who had advocated using voting-age citizens instead of the total population when it came to drawing legislative seats since that would favor Republicans and non-Hispanic whites.Last month, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California sided with the plaintiffs and issued an injunction suspending a Sept. 30 deadline for finishing the 2020 census and a Dec. 31 deadline for submitting the apportionment numbers. That caused the deadlines to revert back to a previous Census Bureau plan that had field operations ending Oct. 31 and the reporting of apportionment figures at the end of April 2021.When the Census Bureau, and the Commerce Department, which oversees the statistical agency, picked an Oct. 5 end date, Koh struck that down too, accusing officials of “lurching from one hasty, unexplained plan to the next ... and undermining the credibility of the Census Bureau and the 2020 Census.”An appellate court panel upheld Koh’s order allowing the census to continue through October but struck down the part that suspended the Dec. 31 deadline for turning in apportionment numbers. The panel of three appellate judges said that just because the year-end deadline is impossible to meet doesn’t mean the court should require the Census Bureau to miss it.The plaintiffs said the ruling against them was not a total loss, as millions more people were counted during the extra two weeks.“Every day has mattered, and the Supreme Court’s order staying the preliminary injunction does not erase the tremendous progress that has been made as a result of the district court’s rulings,” said Melissa Sherry, one of the attorneys for the coalition.Besides deciding how many congressional seats each state gets, the census helps determine how .5 trillion in federal funding is distributed each year.San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said that his city lost 0 million in federal funding over the decade following the 2010 census, and he feared it would lose more this time around. The California city was one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.“A census count delayed is justice denied,” Liccardo said.With plans for the count hampered by the pandemic, the Census Bureau in April had proposed extending the deadline for finishing the count from the end of July to the end of October, and pushing the apportionment deadline from Dec. 31 to next April. The proposal to extend the apportionment deadline passed the Democratic-controlled House, but the Republican-controlled Senate didn’t take up the request. Then, in late July and early August, bureau officials shortened the count schedule by a month so that it would finish at the end of September.The Senate Republicans’ inaction coincided with Trump’s order directing the Census Bureau to have the apportionment count exclude people who are in the country illegally. The order was later ruled unlawful by a panel of three district judges in New York, but the Trump administration appealed that case to the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court decision comes as a report by the the American Statistical Association has found that a shortened schedule, dropped quality control procedures, pending lawsuits and the outside politicization of some parts of the 2020 census have raised questions about the quality of the nation’s head count that need to be answered if the final numbers are going to be trusted.The Census Bureau says it has counted 99.9% of households nationwide, though some regions of the country such as parts of Mississippi and hurricane-battered Louisiana fall well below that.As the Census Bureau winds down field operations over the next several days, there will be a push to get communities in those two states counted, said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, one of the litigants in the lawsuit.“That said, the Supreme Court’s order will result in irreversible damage to the 2020 Census,” Clarke said.___Follow Mike Schneider on Twitter at https://twitter.com/MikeSchneiderAP 6792

The world's No. 1 tennis player’s offer to upgrade a tennis center in Boca Raton was rejected by the public park system’s leadership Monday, and many in the community call it a win. The Greater Boca Raton Beach and Park District had been looking to upgrade Patch Reef Park since 2014.Tennis star Rafael Nadal wanted a tennis academy in his name, which would have included restaurants, dorms, indoor and outdoors courts.The district has been looking at renovating the tennis center at Patch Reef Park since 2014. Last summer, Rafael Nadal had reached out and offered to help build a new indoor facility. "It just wasn’t right. It was wrong. We’re happy to have Nadal here but build elsewhere. This place belongs to the people of Boca Raton," said Dina La Voe, an advocate of Patch Reef Park. Instead, the park will make a request for proposals and have more public input. It’s possible for Nadal to win a bid that way.At the beginning of the month, renderings of the facility were shared and the facility was called the “Rafael Nadal Academy.” The renderings showed indoor and outdoor tennis courts, dormitories, and restaurants.District executive director Arthur Koski said the district was not going to agree to what the Nadal group had offered. “We advised the Nadal group that an academy would not be something we would consider.” “Right now, we think the best first step is a step backwards,” said Koski.Some people in Boca Raton were not happy to hear about the proposed Nadal Academy. “It looks to me like they are tearing everything out of here,” said Dan Bianco. Koski said he would like to see different ideas about an indoor tennis center that would fit everyone's needs.  1745

来源：资阳报