Tag «小海棠神秘花园江苏»

Low dose CT lung cancer screenings available for smokers

first_img Florida gas prices jump 12 cents; most expensive since 2014 You have entered an incorrect email address! Please enter your email address here Jane Bozelka UF/IFAS in Apopka will temporarily house District staff; saves almost $400,000 Previous articleNovember Supermoon a Spectacular SightNext articleNew WWII Movie Tells True Story of the First Conscientious Objector to Receive Medal of Honor Denise Connell RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR  If you’re a smoker (or ex-smoker) between the ages of 55 to 79 who has smoked at least 1 pack per day within the last 30 years or at least 2 packs per day for 15 years (also referred to as pack years), you may be at high risk and should consider a screening.Florida Hospital offers a low dose CT cancer screening to accurately detect signs of lung cancer. Medical studies have shown cure rates significantly improve when the disease is detected and treated at the earliest stages.A low dose CT screening takes minutes and is a noninvasive, painless procedure that uses low dose X-rays to screen your lungs for cancerous lesions. These screenings are offered at Florida Hospital and Florida Radiology Imaging locations throughout Central Florida.A lung cancer care coordinator is available to assist participants every step of the way, especially to make sure you meet the criteria for screening.Lung cancer screenings are recommended annually for current and former smokers by the United States Preventive Services Task Force, American College of Chest Physicians and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.According to the National Institutes of Health, about 224,000 Americans will be diagnosed with lung cancer this year, and it’s the leading cause of cancer deaths for American men and women. An estimated 158,000 lung cancer deaths nationwide will occur this year. This number has declined in recent years, partly because of better detection and fewer people smoking. LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply Please enter your comment!  Jane Bozelka, smoked for 40 years until a lung cancer screening revealed Stage III-a lung cancer. Fortunately, Jane underwent a robotic lobectomy and is doing well. She believes the screening saved her life. Share on Facebook Tweet on Twitter Please enter your name here Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Gov. DeSantis says new moment-of-silence law in public schools protects religious freedom last_img read more

Legal situation “untenable” after supreme court refuses to rule on protection of journalists’ sources

first_img Organisation Reporters Without Borders is worried about the US supreme court’s refusal yesterday to rule on the cases of five journalists who were held in contempt of court for refusing to reveal their sources. The ruling highlights the legal void as regards recognition of the confidentiality of journalists’ sources. United StatesAmericas News RSF_en Help by sharing this information June 7, 2021 Find out more Reporters Without Borders today condemned the US supreme court’s refusal yesterday to rule on the cases of five journalists who were held by a judge to be in contempt of court for refusing to reveal their sources for reports about Wen Ho Lee, a nuclear scientist formerly suspected of spying.Noting that the supreme court refused in June last year to rule on the cases of Judith Miller, then a staff writer with the New York Times, and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, who were held in contempt of court for similar reasons, Reporters Without Borders described the legal status quo as “untenable.” Miller spent 12 weeks in prison before consenting to reveal her sources. “Amid increasing attacks on the confidentiality of sources, the supreme court has let slip an opportunity to provide a guarantee at the federal level for one of the very principles of investigative journalism, the right of reporters to protect their sources,” Reporters Without Borders said.“A recently-concluded financial settlement between Wen, the government and the news media involved has determined the fate of James Risen, Robert Drogin, H. Josef Hebert, Pierre Thomas and Walter Pincus,” the organisation said. “While we welcome the fact that these journalists have avoided potential prison terms and have been able to protect their sources, it is regrettable that this is not as a result of a judicial decision. Courts are already ordering or will order other journalists to reveal their sources.”Reporters Without Borders continued: “This situation increases the urgency of the debate on the bill introduced in the senate last month by Senator Richard Lugar (Republican – Indiana), which would accord journalists ‘qualified privilege’ at the federal level as regards the confidentiality of their sources.”The organisation added: “The supreme court’s decision is in this case all the more regrettable as it cannot claim to be based on the supposed requirements of national security. It is very dangerous for press freedom as it makes the media pay for government leaks.”Under the settlement reached three days before the supreme court’s ruling was issued, Wen abandoned an invasion of privacy lawsuit against the US government in return for payment of 1.6 million dollars. Under the deal, the five news organisations that currently employ the journalists – the Associated Press, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and ABC television – also agreed to pay Wen an additional 750,000 dollars.Wen, who is of Chinese origin, brought a lawsuit against the justice and energy departments in 2003, accusing them of leaking information about him to the press at a time when he was suspected of being a spy. A court ruled in October of that year that he had a right to know who, within these government agencies, was responsible for initiating the leaks and allegations against him in the media.When questioned by Wen’s lawyers between 18 December 2003 and 8 January 2004, Gerth and Risen of the New York Times, Drogin of the Los Angeles Times, Herbert of the Associated Press, and Thomas – who was working for CNN at the time – agreed to provide information but refused to reveal their sources, invoking their First Amendment rights under the US constitution. Washington DC district court judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ordered the five journalists on 18 August 2004 to pay $500 a day until they named their sources. The DC court of appeals upheld his ruling on 28 June 2005 in all five cases except Gerth’s, where it was quashed on the grounds of insufficient evidence. Lawyers acting for the other four appealed to the supreme court.The confidentiality of journalists’ sources is recognized today in 32 US states but not at the federal level. Manhattan district court judge Robert W. Sweet decided in favour of Miller and her New York Times colleague Philip Shanen in another case involving protection of sources on 24 February 2005. He said they should not be compelled to turn over their phone records to federal prosecutors charged with identifying a leak in an investigation initiated in 2001 into two Islamic associations suspected of ties to terrorist movements. Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who had secured Miller’s conviction in the case of Valerie Plame case – the CIA agent whose identity was leaked to the press in 2003 – announced on 13 February of this year that he intended to appeal against the New York court’s decision. On 3 May, Connecticut state legislators adopted a so-called “shield law” recognizing the right of journalists to source confidentiality. The law, which applies to online as well as traditional media, allows courts to demand disclosure of a source only when a clear and convincing need is established, when the information is not available from “any alternative source,” and when there is an “overriding public interest” in the disclosure. The new law must now be signed by the state governor to take effect.A legal gulf therefore exists between the majority of states that recognise the confidentiality of sources and the federal level, where the First Amendment and a 1972 supreme court ruling alone do not give enough protection to journalists who want to protect their sources. It was to fill this gap that Senator Lugar and Senator Christopher Dodd (Democrat – Connecticut) introduced their bill in the senate.The latest version of their proposed “federal shield law” would accord journalists “qualified privilege” as regards their sources. The privilege would not apply if the attorney general had exhausted all other avenues to obtain the desired information, if it was established that the reporter had information that was vital for a case and if their was a significant public interest in its disclosure. Follow the news on United States News United StatesAmericas Receive email alerts WhatsApp blocks accounts of at least seven Gaza Strip journalists News News June 6, 2006 – Updated on January 20, 2016 Legal situation “untenable” after supreme court refuses to rule on protection of journalists’ sources to go further June 3, 2021 Find out more NSO Group hasn’t kept its promises on human rights, RSF and other NGOs say Facebook’s Oversight Board is just a stopgap, regulation urgently needed, RSF says April 28, 2021 Find out morelast_img read more

Huge, stubborn recycling plant fire could burn for days

first_imgPASSAIC, N.J. (AP) — Officials plan to tap a river to help put out a huge fire at a northern New Jersey recycling plant they say could burn for days. The blaze broke out around midnight at the Atlantic Coast Fibers plant in Passaic. More than two dozen fire departments responded. Mayor Hector Lora says there were at least two explosions. Water from firefighters’ hoses froze. One firefighter was treated for exhaustion and another after slipping on ice. All the plant’s employees are accounted for. Officials say the cause of the blaze is being investigated. It is not considered suspicious because fires are not uncommon in recycling plants.last_img read more