当前位置:黑龙江地方站首页 > 龙江新闻 > 正文


2018年03月21日 17:03:17    日报  参与评论()人

鹰潭打胎哪家医院好鹰潭做无痛人流的专科医院CBS News Online is reporting Newtown School Superintendent Joseph Erardi confirmed Saturday CBS新闻在线报道,纽敦学校负责人约瑟夫周六实,that a Newtown middle school teacher, Jason Adams resigned from his position at the end of the school year. 纽敦中学教师杰森·亚当斯在学年结束的时候辞职。Adams was arrested on April 6, 2016 after he was seen with the pistol and detained by school security according to police. 据警方称,亚当斯于2016年4月6日被捕,此前因携带手被学校安保拘留。Police confirm that Adams did have a valid pistol permit, but Connecticut state law prohibits possession of firearms on school grounds. 警方实,亚当斯确实持有有效手许可,但康涅狄格州法律禁止在学校持有。Newtown Middle School is less than 2 miles from the site of the December 2012 shooting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School that killed 20 first-graders and six educators.纽敦中学距桑迪胡克小学不到2英里,2012年发生在那里的大屠杀造成20名一年级学生和6名教育者死亡。译文属。201607/452586南昌大学鹰潭医院引产需要多少钱 Food politics in America美国的食品政策Popped砰的出现Soda Politics: Taking on Big Soda (and Winning). By Marion Nestle. 软饮料策略:对付软饮料(然后取得胜利)。作者马里昂·奈斯特。MARION NESTLES heavyweight polemic against Coca—Cola and PepsiCo comes at an odd moment for the industry. Americans are drinking fewer sugary sodas—in 2012 production was 23% below what it had been a decade earlier. Even sales of diet drinks are losing their fizz, as consumers question the merits of artificial sweeteners. From one angle, it would seem that health advocates such as Ms Nestle have won. Yet in America companies still produce 30 gallons of regular (not diet) fizzy drinks per person per year. In many countries, particularly developing ones, consumption is on the rise.软饮料工业正处不尴不尬之际,马里昂?奈斯特对口可口可乐以及百事可乐的抨击颇具影响力。越来越少的美国人选择饮用含糖碳酸饮料—与十年前相比,2012年含糖碳酸饮料的生产减少了23%。人们甚至也失去了对膳食饮料的亲睐,因为消费者们对饮料中是否添加人工甜味剂提出了质疑。从某个角度来看,像奈斯特女士这样的健康倡导者似乎赢得了胜利。然而,美国软饮料公司每年生产的常规碳酸饮料(而非膳食饮料)人均多达30加仑。在许多国家,尤其是发展中国家,常规碳酸饮料的消费仍呈上涨趋势。Ms Nestle, a professor at New York University, is both heartened by recent progress and dissatisfied with it. That is no surprise. Her first book, “Food Politics” (2002), remains a bible for those who bewail the power of food companies. In her new book she attacks the industrys most widely consumed, least healthy product. “Soda Politics”, she says, is a book “to inspire ers to action”. As a rallying cry, it is verbose. When ers learn on page 238 that she will pick up a particular subject in chapter 25, it is with no little dismay that they realise they are only on chapter 17. But what the author wants most is to craft a meticulous guide to the producers alleged transgressions, and how to stop them.对于最近取得的进展,奈斯特女士,这位纽约大学的教授颇受鼓舞,但并不满足于此。这也不足为奇。她的第一本书“粮食政策”依旧被那些哀叹食品企业权势的人们奉为经典。在新书中,奈斯特女士对软饮料行业消费最广,最有害健康的产品进行了抨击。《软饮料策略》这本书旨在激励人们采取行动,奈斯特说到。然而作为战斗口号,却显得颇为繁冗。读者们在第238页了解到奈斯特将在第25章讲述一个特别的主题,却意识到自己才看到第17章,但他们并没有因此而沮丧。作者最想做的是拟定一份详细的指南,指出生产商曾经的过失,并想方设法阻止他们的这种行为。Ms Nestle says she would have no quibbles with sweet fizzy drinks if they were sipped occasionally, as a treat. However, for millions of people in many countries, they are not. In Mexico companies sold 372 cans of fizzy drinks per person in 2012. About half of Americans do not drink them regularly, but those who do are disproportionately poor, less educated, male, Hispanic or black. Ten per cent of Americans down more than four cans a day.奈斯特说如果人们只是在吃饭招待的时候偶尔饮用加了甜味剂的碳酸饮料,她不会提出异议。但实际上许多国家,成千上万的人们都在喝这种饮料。2012年,仅墨西哥人均消费的碳酸饮料就高达372罐。大约一半的美国人不会经常性地饮用碳酸饮料,但是那些选择碳酸饮料的人多半是些穷困潦倒,未接受良好教育的西班牙或者黑人男性。百分之十的美国人平均每天要喝掉至少4罐碳酸饮料。Drinking a lot of sweet fizzy drinks is plainly unhealthy. Unlike a Big Mac, they have no nutritional value; nor do their calories satisfy hunger. One large study found that for each can added to a persons daily diet, the risk of diabetes jumped by 22%. There are also links between sugar and heart disease, stroke and cancer. Drinking lots of sodas imposes clear costs on individuals, Ms Nestle argues, but it has a broader cost, too. American taxpayers subsidise corn production (and thereby corn syrup) and let the poor use government food vouchers to buy fizzy drinks. More important, taxpayers foot the health bill for those who develop chronic disease.很显然,过度饮用碳酸饮料对身体健康是有害的。与巨无霸不同的是,这些碳酸饮料毫无营养价值,它们产生的热量也无法抵抗饥饿。一项大型研究表明,如果在日常饮食中加入碳酸饮料,那么人们罹患糖尿病的风险就会增加22%。心脏病,中风以及癌症与过多的糖分摄入不无关系。奈斯特说,大量饮用碳酸饮料会增加个人开,但实际上个人花费要远大于此。美国的纳税人为玉米生产做出了贡献(也就是为玉米糖浆的生产做出了贡献),同时,他们让穷人用政府提供的食品券来购买碳酸饮料。更重要的是,纳税人为那些罹患慢性疾病的人付医疗帐单。Encouraging people to drink fewer fizzy drinks, however, is fiendishly difficult. Soda companies spend billions on marketing; it is a tribute to the admen that Coca—Cola is one of the worlds best—loved brands, despite selling what is essentially fattening sugar—water. (Think of Coca—Colas encouragements to “open happiness” and PepsiCos exuberant spokeswoman, Beyoncé Knowles.) Once people get used to consuming sugary drinks, they are loth to give them up. There is evidence suggesting that sugar is addictive—some laboratory animals prefer sugar to cocaine.然而,鼓励人们尽量少喝碳酸饮料却出奇的难。碳酸饮料企业在营销上花费巨资。尽管可口可乐售卖的实际上是令人增肥的糖水饮料,但可口可乐无疑是世界上最受消费者青睐的品牌之一。而这对于广告人而言,是件可喜可贺的事情。(想想可口可乐颇具鼓动性的广告语“开启幸福”,百事可乐活力四射的代言人碧昂丝·诺利斯。)人们一旦习惯了消费含糖饮料,便很难戒掉。有据表明食糖是会上瘾的—与可卡因相比,实验室的动物们更喜欢食糖。Most interesting, fizzy—drink companies are skilled at swatting away attempts at regulation. Ms Nestle describes an extraordinarily broad team of allies. That includes obvious friends, such as employees, bottlers and distributors, as well as the restaurants, cinemas, shops and sports stadiums that sell their products. But the companies are also astute philanthropists. When Michael Bloomberg, then mayor of New York, tried to block the use of government vouchers to buy sodas in 2010, the congressional black caucus was among those to lobby against it. The caucuss foundation has received money from both Coke and Pepsi. In 2011 Philadelphia was considering a soda tax. After the soda lobby offered a big donation to the citys childrens hospital, the idea fizzled out.更有趣的是,碳酸饮料企业对规避规范化的尝试颇有一套。奈斯特将其描述为一个非比寻常的庞大联盟。很显然,这个联盟包括了这些企业的盟友们,比如雇员,瓶装工,经销商,那些出售他们商品的饭店,电影院,商店以及体育场。但这些碳酸饮料企业同时也是非常精明的慈善家。2010年,当时的纽约市市长迈克尔?布隆伯格试图阻止人们用政府代金券购买碳酸饮料,但却遭到了包括美国国会黑人同盟在内的多数人的反对。2011年,费城考虑是否要征收碳酸饮料税,但在碳酸饮料游说集团出资捐助了一家当地的儿童医院之后,这项提议未能实施。Coca—Cola and PepsiCo do have a few notable adversaries. Mr Bloomberg, a billionaire, remains their single biggest foe. It is telling that in two rare instances when a soda tax has been passed—in Berkeley, California and in Mexico—it was with the help of cash from Mr Bloomberg. Drinks companies must also reckon with a small army of health advocates, among which Ms Nestle is a major—general.可口可乐和百事可乐确实有一些颇为出名的对手。布隆伯格,这位亿万富翁是他们最大的对手。据说在两个颇为罕见的通过征收碳酸饮料税的例子中—一个是加利福尼亚的伯克利市,另一个是墨西哥—都是在布隆伯格的资金帮助下通过了碳酸饮料税法案。饮料公司还得去对付那些以奈斯特为首的健康军团。With the slow decline of soda in America, she and her allies are advancing. Coca—Cola and PepsiCo are peddling healthier drinks, such as bottled water. However, as they try to face down a long—term threat while maintaining near—term profits, they are still pushing their syrupy fare.随着美国人慢慢地拒绝碳酸饮料,奈斯特和她的盟友们正向成功一步步迈进。可口可乐和百事可乐正忙于推销更健康的饮料,如瓶装水。然而,他们仍旧努力推动碳酸饮料事业的发展,试图在维持短期利润的同时,努力克长期以来的威胁。Ms Nestle is impatient. To the casual er, her suggestions can seem extreme. She writes enthusiastically about adorning soda cans with warning labels, such as pictures of a diabetics foot ulcer. She suggests that parents should teach their children about fizzy drinks by gently boiling down a Coke or a Pepsi into sludge, which sounds rather fun, and asking them to calculate the precise length of grocery shelves bearing sodas, which sounds less so. This zeal threatens to overshadow her stronger points: fizzy drinks offer no nutritional benefit and impose clear costs—on individuals health and on society.奈斯特女士可没那么好的耐心。对于一般的读者,她给的建议似乎很极端。在书中她强烈建议碳酸饮料瓶上面必须贴有糖尿病患者脚部溃烂诸如此类的警示标志。她建议父母们在向孩子们介绍碳酸饮料时,将可口可乐和百事可乐说成是垃圾,这看上去颇为有趣,并要求孩子们去算算杂货店摆满碳酸饮料的货架究竟有多长,这听上去似乎没那么好笑了。这份热情让斯耐特关于碳酸饮料的观点显得不那么重要了:碳酸饮料没有任何营养价值,对个人的健康没有好处,而且还增加了社会的负担。 /201512/416609鹰潭铁路医院人流要多少钱

鹰潭妇科医院在线咨询鹰潭市第三医院怎么样 Dear A Moment of Science,亲爱的《科学一科》栏目组:Why do we sleep?我们为什么需要睡觉?I know this question has been debated byscientists and philosophers for centuries, but are there any hard and fast answers?我知道科学家们和哲学家们就这个问题争论了好几个世纪,但现在有没有确实的,现成的?Good question!问得好!First, its true that scientists have long pondered the mystery of sleep why we do itand why its necessary.首先,科学家们长期以来确实在思考睡眠这一谜题,我们为什么需要睡眠,为什么睡眠十分必要?We know that going without sleep for too long can seriously damagehealth, so theres good reason to believe that getting enough sleep is important for our well-being.我们知道长期失眠会严重的危害健康,因此,有必要相信保睡眠充足对健康很重要。But exactly how and why thats the case is still an open question.但失眠为什么会影响健康,又是如何影响的,这个问题仍没有。Some research, though, mayshed a little light on the problem.一些研究也许可以稍稍解答这个问题。For instance, scientists at the University of Rochester MedicalCenter in New York did a study with mice, and found that during sleep their brains flush out toxinsthat accumulate during the day.比如,纽约罗切斯特大学医学中心的科学家们用老鼠做了一个研究,发现老鼠在睡觉时,他们的大脑会排除白天积累的毒素。More specifically, the study found that sleep sort of changes the brains cellular structure.更确切的说,该研究发现睡眠在某种程度上改变了大脑的细胞结构。When the mice were asleep or anesthetized, the researchers found that there was more space betweentheir brain cells, allowing a sort of brain plumbing apparatus called the glymphatic system to openwide and allow fluid to flow quickly through the brain.当老鼠处于睡眠状态或被麻醉是,研究人员发现,他们大脑细胞之间的空间增大了,使被称为脑部类淋巴系统的类似排污管道的器官大大的打开,这样脑脊液就能在大脑中快速的流动。Other studies have shown that toxic molecules build up in the space between brain cells.其他的研究表明,有毒分子在脑细胞的间隙中生成。Researchers at the University of Rochester found that those molecules vanished faster from thebrain when the mice were asleep.罗切斯特大学的研究人员发现,这些分子在老鼠睡觉时从大脑中消失得更快。So what does this mean?所以,这意味着什么呢?Well, it could give scientists new ways to study and potentially treatbrain disorders like Alzheimers by targeting the glymphatic system and helping it better flush awaybrain toxins.这意味着通过针对脑部类淋巴系统可以帮助大脑更好的排除脑部毒素,使科学家们有新的方法研究并很有可能治好像老年痴呆症这样的大脑疾病。 201410/336882鹰潭希正妇科医院做人流怎么样好不好

龙虎山区看乳腺检查多少钱The Ecology Center in Ann Arbor has just come out with its 5th report on toxic chemicals in car seats. The nonprofit group analyzes car seats for the presence of heavy metals and flame retardants. Flame retardant chemicals can migrate out of products like car seats and build up in dust, and then they can get into our bodies.Gillian Miller, staff scientist with the Ecology Center, says the center analyzed the chemical makeup of 12 different brands of car seats.;We found 10 different flame retardants among the various seats in different components. We found a few brominated and chlorinated flame retardants which are of particular concern; we call those halogenated as a class,; she says.She says these two categories of chemicals are highly toxic and very persistent in the environment.;Those are a concern just as a chemical class, and then we found four different halogen-free - so, no bromine or chlorine - chemicals that we call phosphate-based as a short term.;Those are newer chemicals, and she notes that car seat companies have intentionally been moving to the phosphates and away from halogenated flame retardants.;Weve been in communication with some of companies who are trying to eliminate halogens, but the phosphate-based chemicals, in many cases, have not been studied especially thoroughly,; says Miller. ;Were not quite sure what the health effects might be. Some of them might be less persistent in the environment; on the other hand, some of the phosphates have been found in Arctic air, so we know they are traveling long distances. ;She says these chemicals are also being found in people, when researchers do bio-monitoring - testing peoples bodies for chemicals.Miller notes they did not test concentrations of these chemicals in the car seats - they just tested for the presence of the chemicals.;That would be a great research question that would require more time and expense. We are asking companies, as one of our recommendations, if you cant eliminate a chemical, then use as little of it as you possibly can.;Miller emphasizes that car seats are crucial for the safety of your child, and its essential that you use them.;Theyre successful in terms of crash safety and thats incredibly important. So we dont ever want to scare people off.;Heres an excerpt from the report:Nearly three-quarters (73%) of seats tested contained hazardous halogenated flame retardants and over half contained non-halogenated organophosphate flame retardants, some of which are hazardous as well. The study finds the hazardous flame retardant chemicals and alternatives used by companies are poorly regulated, putting consumers at risk, and questions the fire safety benefit of using these chemicals. Top rated companies in the study, Britax and Clek, have been aggressively implementing policies to reduce hazards in their products while still meeting all safety standards. The poorest performing company was Graco.The Ecology Center identified three car seats made by Graco, Baby Trend and Orbit Baby as highest on their list of concern. Weve reached out to those car seat manufacturers for comment and well let you know if we hear back.How can parents make an informed decision?The Ecology Center has published a consumer guide to help parents and child caregivers. Miller notes they were only able to test 15 car seat models.;We encourage people to first check a companys website to see if they have a publicly disclosed policy around chemicals. ; she says. Miller says if you cant find a chemical policy on the companys website, its a good idea to call the company and ask them.Keep your car cleanLastly, Miller says that making a habit of vacuuming your car and car seat will reduce exposure to flame retardants. The flame retardant chemicals that migrate out of car seats tend to stick to dust. Then, kids can get the dust on their hands and ingest the chemicals when they put their hands in their mouths.;Keeping it clean will reduce the contaminated dust, which is a big source of exposure for kids and adults,; she says.201506/378959 Robert Owen, a British mill-owner and reformer, treated private property, along with organised religion and marriage, as a social scourge. In 1825 he bought land for a farm-and-factory commune in Indiana. It attracted farmers, artisans and intellectuals. Tools, food and housing were free. The commune had mixed-sex schools and a library. It sponsored scientific research. Without a shared faith or purpose, however, the members split into competing groups. By 1827, Owens secular community had disbanded. The difficulty of pursuing micro-communism in a capitalist society also dogged Cabets American followers. His New World Icarians split into several rival groupings. Shakers, Owenites and Icarians focused, each in their own way, on duties. They sought to tame human selfishness. Gloomy as he looked in portraits, the Frenchman Charles Fourier concentrated on fun. His writings inspired the Brook Farm commune near Boston and, less directly, Oneida. Fourier wanted to free peoples instincts so that everyone, especially women, might lead a life of varied enjoyments and sensual delight. Stripped of emphasis on sex, Fouriers message that a good life was a cultivated life, not one of striving and work, appealed to New England intellectuals who formed Brook Farms core.罗伯特欧文是英国一个工厂的厂长,同时他也是一位改革家,他把私有财产同有组织的宗教与婚姻归为社会灾祸。1825年,他在印第安纳州购买了农场,建造了将农场与工厂集一身的公社,吸引农民、艺术家与学者前往。工具,食物与住房都是免费提供,还有男女混合制的学校与图书馆。此外,公社还赞助科学研究。然而因没有共同的信仰或目的,公社内部发生分裂,成员间相互争斗。到了1827年,欧文的这个非宗教团体也解散了。在美国这样一个追求内阁政策的资本主义国家中,想要追求微型公社,困难重重。欧文的新世界Icarians分裂成几个敌对群体。无论是震教徒,欧文的组织还是Lcarians,都以他们各自的方式关注职责,都寻求驯化人类自私的心理。法国人查尔斯傅里叶关注于这其中的乐趣,尽管他在肖像画里看起来很忧伤。但他的著作鼓舞了波斯顿附近的“小溪农场”公社,还间接影响了奥奈达一带。傅里叶想要解放人们的本能以便每个人,尤其是女性,都尽可能的过上享受多种与感官愉悦的生活。他传递的信息不再只具有强调性,而是指好的生活,即耕种生活,并不是奋斗与工作的生活之一,这一观点对于“小溪农场”核心力量,一些来自新英格兰的学者颇有吸引力。“Paradise Now” is more than a record of failed hopes. Some ideas sp to the mainstream. Fouriers feminism is a good example. Fourierist communes foundered across the New World and Old; his ideas about gender equality lived on. No society could improve, Fourier believed, until womens lot improved. “The best countries”, he wrote, “have always been those which allowed women the most freedom.” That is a common thought today. It was radical when Fourier wrote it in 1808.《现世天堂》不止记录了一系列破败的幻想,其中的一些想法也成为了主流。傅里叶的女权主义就是极佳的例子。虽然傅里叶公社在新旧世界都破产了,但有关于性别平等的想法仍在产生影响。傅里叶认为,除非女性的命运得以改善,否则整个社会难以得以发展。他写道,“最好的国家总是那些给予女性最大的自由。”而今这一想法已再寻常不过。但1808年,傅里叶写下的这句话却显得尤为激进。Women more generally are at the centre of the Utopian story. Some communes he writes about were democratic, some authoritarian. None was patriarchal. Mr Jenningss book is rich in fond hopes and improbable ventures. Rather than nudging ers to mock, which is easy, the author reminds them instead to remember that the maddest-sounding ideas sometimes become motherhood.女性更多的被置于乌托邦故事的中心。Jennings所描述的公社一些是民主的,一些是自治的,但没有一个是家长制的。他的书中记录了希望与不可思议的冒险。但作者却并不是去怂恿读者去模仿——尽管很容易,而是提醒读者要记得听起来最疯狂的想法有时候会变成为现实。翻译:邓小雪 amp; 颜琪琳 校对:杨霭琳 译文属译生译世 /201603/429255江西中医学院第三附属医院预约鹰潭市最好的月经不调治疗医院



鹰潭妇产科医院哪家好咨询卫生贵溪市妇幼保健医院生孩子好吗 鹰潭信江新区彩超多少钱 [详细]
鹰潭做无痛人流比较好的医院 首都号鹰潭高新技术开发区做四维彩超哪个地方好知乎互动 [详细]
鹰潭希正生孩子价格预约挂号窍门鹰潭产科医院哪家好 贵溪市人民医院妇科检查怎么样 [详细]
鹰潭信江新区盆腔炎多少钱专家翻译鹰潭市第一人民医院妇科医生 慧聪爱问鹰潭希正妇科医院早孕检查多少钱 [详细]


鹰潭在线产科医生 鹰潭哪个医院妇科最好时空专家 [详细]
鹰潭东方医院可以做人流吗 鹰潭希正医院生孩子 [详细]
鹰潭市专治盆腔炎的医院 世纪医院鹰潭市同仁医院做血常规检查龙马专家 [详细]
优酷访谈江西铜业集团医院网上预约挂号 鹰潭治盆腔炎疾病治疗医院飞度评测鹰潭市妇科谁家好 [详细]