宜宾鼻中隔隆鼻(宜宾哪家微整比较好) (今日更新中)

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration updated its guidance on face coverings on Tuesday, adding information about wearing expired surgical masks.According to the FDA, face and surgical masks may still offer protection even if they've passed their designated shelf life or expiration date."If there is no date available on the face mask label or packaging, facilities should contact the manufacturer. The user should inspect all masks before use and, if there are concerns such as degraded materials (such as elastic) or visible tears," the agency recommends that you should discard the product.However, when it comes to re-using surgical disposal masks, the CDC recommends discarding them after one use.You can clean reusable masks, the CDC says, and recommends washing them after each use. For N95s, which the CDC considers a one-time-use product, but can be re-worn if cleaned with an approved decontamination method. 927

The White House on Monday backed down from its threats to revoke Jim Acosta's press pass."Having received a formal reply from your counsel to our letter of November 16, we have made a final determination in this process: your hard pass is restored," the White House said in a new letter to Acosta. "Should you refuse to follow these rules in the future, we will take action in accordance with the rules set forth above. The President is aware of this decision and concurs."The letter detailed several new rules for reporter conduct at presidential press conferences, including "a single question" from each journalist. Follow-ups will only be permitted "at the discretion of the President or other White House officials."The decision reverses a Friday letter by the White House that said Acosta's press pass could be revoked again right after a temporary restraining order granted by a federal judge expires. That letter -- signed by two of the defendants in the suit, press secretary Sarah Sanders and deputy chief of staff for communications Bill Shine -- cited Acosta's conduct at President Trump's November 7 press conference, where he asked multiple follow-up questions and didn't give up the microphone right away."You failed to abide" by "basic, widely understood practices," the letter to Acosta claimed.CNN won the temporary restraining order earlier on Friday, forcing the White House to restore Acosta's press access for 14 days. Judge Timothy J. Kelly ruled on Fifth Amendment grounds, saying Acosta's right to due process had been violated. He did not rule on CNN's argument that the revocation of Acosta's press pass was a violation of his and the network's First Amendment rights.Many journalists have challenged the administration's actions against Acosta, pointing out that aggressive questioning is a tradition that dates back decades.But Trump appeared eager to advance an argument about White House press corps "decorum," no matter how hypocritical.Since the judge criticized the government for not following due process before banning Acosta on November 7, the letter looked like an effort to establish a paper trail that could empower the administration to boot Acosta again at the end of the month.The letter gave Acosta less than 48 hours to contest the "preliminary decision" and said a "final determination" would be made by Monday at 3 p.m.CNN's lawyers had signaled a willingness to settle after prevailing in court on Friday. Ted Boutrous, an attorney representing CNN and Acosta, said they would welcome "a resolution that makes the most sense so everyone can get out of court and get back to their work."But in a new court filing on Monday morning, CNN's lawyers said the defendants "did not respond to this offer to cooperate." Instead, the letter from Shine and Sanders was an "attempt to provide retroactive due process," the filing alleged.So CNN and Acosta asked the judge to set a schedule of deadlines for motions and hearings that would give the network the chance to win a preliminary injunction, a longer form of court-ordered protection to Acosta's press pass.They were seeking a hearing "for the week of November 26, 2018, or as soon thereafter as possible," according to the court filing.A preliminary injunction could be in effect for much longer than the temporary restraining order, thereby protecting Acosta's access to the White House.In a response Monday morning, government lawyers called the CNN motion a "self-styled 'emergency'" and sought to portray the White House's moves as a lawful next step."Far from constituting an 'emergency,' the White House's initiation of a process to consider suspending Mr. Acosta's hard pass is something this Court's Order anticipated," they said.The DOJ lawyers continued to say that the White House had made "no final determination" on Acosta's access, and asked the court to extend its own deadline, set last week, for a status report due at 3 p.m. Monday, in light of the White House's separate self-imposed deadline for the Acosta decision.At lunchtime, Kelly granted the government's request and extended the status report deadline to 6 p.m. Monday.The case was assigned to Judge Kelly when CNN filed suit last Tuesday. Kelly was appointed to the bench by Trump last year, and confirmed with bipartisan support in the Senate. He heard oral arguments on Wednesday and granted CNN's request for a temporary restraining order on Friday."We are disappointed with the district court's decision," the Justice Department said in response at the time. "The President has broad authority to regulate access to the White House, including to ensure fair and orderly White House events and press conferences. We look forward to continuing to defend the White House's lawful actions."Trump seemed to shrug off the loss, telling Fox's Chris Wallace in an interview that "it's not a big deal."He said the White House would "create rules and regulations for conduct" so that the administration can revoke press passes in the future."If he misbehaves," Trump said, apparently referring to Acosta, "we'll throw him out or we'll stop the news conference.""This is a high-risk confrontation for both sides," Mike Allen of Axios wrote in a Monday item about Trump's new targeting of Acosta. "It turns out that press access to the White House is grounded very much in tradition rather than in plain-letter law. So a court fight could result in a precedent that curtails freedom to cover the most powerful official in the world from the literal front row."The-CNN-Wire 5546

The Wisconsin State Patrol pulled a driver of a sedan on Sunday because officers deemed the car was not safely transporting a snowmobile that the driver had tied to the top.The driver was on US 63 in Polk County when police flagged them down. The state trooper managed to get a photo of the vehicle.That photo was shared with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (DOT), who then shared it on their Facebook page."Don't try this at home," the DOT said in the post. 477

The Senate has passed its long-stalled legislation that would overhaul how sexual harassment complaints are made and handled on Capitol Hill and would hold members of Congress personally responsible for paying such settlements out of their own pockets.The legislation moved forward following a deal reached by Missouri Republican Sen. Roy Blunt and Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, and praised by leaders of both parties in the Senate.The bill now goes back to the House of Representatives, which passed its version in February and where the expectation is that there will be a conference committee to work out the differences between the two bills after Congress returns from its weeklong Memorial Day recess.The differences between the House's and Senate's versions of the legislation include the language used in describing when a member would be required to pay for settlements -- and when they would not -- and the reporting of settlements.California Republican Rep. Jackie Speier, one of the chief negotiators of the House's bill said that there is "disappointment" in Senate's bill among some members on both sides of the aisle in the House."We will go to conference and hopefully we can iron out some of those differences," Speier said Thursday on CNN's "New Day."There also is criticism of the Senate's bill among some outside advocacy groups, which have written to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Chuck Schumer expressing concern that the House bill became essentially too watered down in the Senate's negotiations."This bill contains numerous provisions that are contrary to key principles we've previously articulated, falls short of an acceptable compromise, and may have unintended negative consequences," says a letter sent to Senate leaders signed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Equal Pay Today, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights National Women's Law Center and Public Citizen.Additionally, these groups say they see "significant differences" between the House and Senate bills and are "deeply concerned" that "neither senators nor key stakeholders have been given adequate time to fully vet the bill."Congressional sources tell CNN there are numerous areas that the discussion will center on when the two sides meet to work out a compromise.Among the chief areas of concern: The provision for members being held personally responsible in the Senate bill states that they have to pay out of pocket only for sexual harassment, not for any awards that may be ordered for sex discrimination or any other kind of discrimination. Some fear that could provide a loophole for members who are accused of harassment to settle with a victim for sex discrimination, knowing that they won't be required to pay the settlement and it will instead come out of a US Treasury fund.Additionally, there is concern that in the Senate's legislation would empower and involve the Ethics Committee more so than the House's. The Senate version would give the chair and ranking member of the committee the authority to overrule settlement repayments. The House bill would create a third-party investigatory process instead. 3183

The Washington Post's executive editor condemned a robocall made during the U.S. Senate race in Alabama. "Hi, this is Bernie Bernstein," the caller says, according to The Hill. "I’m a reporter for The Washington Post calling to find out if anyone at this address is a female between the ages of 54 to 57 years old willing to make damaging remarks about candidate Roy Moore for a reward of between ,000 and ,000 dollars," says the caller. "We will not be fully investigating these claims. However, we will make a written report."The call comes after the Washington Post reported on four women accusing Republican candidate Roy Moore of pursuing them when the women were between the ages of 14 and 18. Moore was in his 30s at the time. In a later report, a fifth woman accused Moore of sexual misconduct.  835

来源：资阳报