About the authorPaul VegasShare the loveHave your say Aston Villa boss Smith confident Grealish will find formby Paul Vegasa month agoSend to a friendShare the loveAston Villa manager Dean Smith has backed Jack Grealish to find some form.The midfielder and Villa captain has struggled to play at his highest level so far this season.”There will be more to come from Jack. He wants to get better. You end up sometimes dragging him off the training ground because he wants to get better. It’s a massive plus in his favour,” he said.”Jack’s a football person. He will train all day and go and find a room somewhere and fall asleep. Then he’ll wake up and go and do a gym session, that’s how he is.”He’s that sort of character – I’m surprised his girlfriend is still with him! He’ll go back home and he’ll be watching football as well. He’s a football nut.”Jack and John McGinn were probably our most influential players last season and to expect them to be as influential in the Premier League is asking a little bit too much straightaway. But they are getting better and better, that’s for sure.”What we want Jack to do is to be running at opposition players and hurting them like he did against Crystal Palace.”
New Delhi: CPI(M) general secretary Sitaram Yechury has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court for production of party leader Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami, who has been under detention in Jammu and Kashmir since the Centre abrogated provisions of Article 370, the party said on Saturday. Tarigami, a member of the Central Committee of the CPI(M) and four-time MLA of the dissolved Jammu and Kashmir Assembly has not been keeping well, party sources said. The writ petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the CPI(M) said. Yechury had travelled to Srinagar earlier this month to visit Tarigami but was denied entry. A delegation of opposition leaders is scheduled to visit Srinagar on Saturday.
Categories: News 21Jan Local superintendent joins Rep. Bumstead for State of the State State Rep. Jon Bumstead, R-Newaygo, was joined on the House floor by his guest, Stiles Simmons (left), at the governor’s State of the State address. Simmons is the superintendent of Baldwin Community Schools in Lake County.The governor outlined his plans for his second term during the annual speech.###
Reviewed by Alina Shrourou, B.Sc. (Editor)Dec 4 2018In a small study of infrequent cannabis users, Johns Hopkins Medicine researchers have shown that, compared with smoking cannabis, vaping it increased the rate of short-term anxiety, paranoia, memory loss and distraction when doses were the same.The findings of the new study, described in the Nov. 30 edition of JAMA Network Open, highlight the importance of dose considerations with the perception that vaping is a safer alternative to smoking cannabis, the researchers say. And they ask regulators of medical and recreational cannabis dispensaries to take note.Vaping devices heat cannabis to a temperature in which the mind-altering compounds in the plant are released as a vapor that is inhaled. Vaping is thought to be safer for cannabis and tobacco use because it doesn’t produce many of the harmful components of burning material such as tar and other cancer-causing agents.But, the researchers say, their study suggests that at least for first-timers or others who don’t use cannabis regularly, vaping delivers greater amounts of THC, the primary intoxicant in cannabis, which increases the likelihood of adverse reactions.”In light of increased legalization of cannabis, we designed our study to be more representative of the general population’s exposure to cannabis, namely someone who has never smoked it and wants to try it for medical or recreational purposes, or someone who does not use it regularly enough to understand or predict its effects,” says Ryan Vandrey, Ph.D., associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. “What our study suggests is that some people who use cannabis infrequently need to be careful about how much cannabis they use with a vaporizer, and they should not drive, even within several hours after use. It could be dangerous for themselves and others, and on top of that, they may experience negative effects such as anxiety, nausea, vomiting and even hallucinations,” he adds.For their study, the researchers chose 17 volunteer participants (nine men and eight women, average age 27 years), who hadn’t used cannabis in the past 30 days, which was verified by a drug screen, and together on average hadn’t used in over a year.In a controlled setting at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center’s behavioral pharmacology research unit, each participant either smoked or vaped cannabis containing 0, 10 or 25 milligrams of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active component in cannabis that gives people the high, in single visits once a week over six weeks. The researchers say that 25 milligrams of THC is a relatively low dose, and much less than is typically found in pre-rolled cannabis “joints” sold in dispensaries where cannabis is legal. The participants either smoked preloaded pipes or inhaled vapor from a vaporizer. Neither the participants nor the researchers knew the doses of THC that were delivered in a given experimental test session.During each of the six sessions, the research team observed and assessed drug effects in the test subjects, including for adverse reactions. They also measured vital signs such as heart rate and blood pressure and collected blood samples just after smoking, every 30 minutes for two hours and then every hour for eight hours.Each participant also completed the Drug Effect Questionnaire–rating self-reported drug effects out of a score of 100–shortly after smoking and each hour for up to eight hours later. The survey assessed overall drug effect; feeling sick, anxious, hungry, sleepy and restless; and experiencing heart racing, dry mouth, dry eyes, memory impairment and coughing.Results showed that a few minutes after smoking, those who vaped the 25-milligram THC dosage reported an average of 77.5 on the overall strength of the drug’s effect, meaning how high they felt compared with the average score of 66.4 reported by those who smoked the same dose. Participants who vaped 25 milligrams of THC reported about a 7 percent higher score on average for anxiety and paranoia, compared with people who smoked the same amount of the compound. Those who vaped any dose of THC also reported higher levels of dry mouth and dry eyes than those who smoked it. For example, when vaping 25 milligrams of THC, the participants rated dry mouth at 67.1 on average compared with 42.6 for those smoking it.Related StoriesNew study shows clear link between cannabis use and brain alterationsStudy: Less than 50% of U.S. adults exposed to court-ordered anti-smoking advertisementsCannabis use during pregnancy may cause premature birthResearchers say the participants also completed three computerized tasks designed to measure attention span, memory, physical reaction time and motor movement. One task required the participant to replicate the shape of patterns, another required them to add up strings of single-digit numbers and the third required them to follow a dot across the screen with the cursor while also tracking a dot that pops up in the periphery.The tests are meant to represent skills needed for proper workplace performance, operating a car or other daily activities. Reaction times on average were slower by more than 120 milliseconds with both active test doses of THC, using either smoking or vaping, when compared with reaction time after smoking or vaping cannabis without any THC.Next, the researchers compared the effects of vaping compared with smoking on participants taking the computerized Divided Attention Task, which required participants to track a square on the computer screen while also monitoring numbers in each corner of the screen. The amount of time participants accurately tracked the square on the computer in the Divided Attention Task dropped by an average of 170 percent after smoking 25 milligrams of THC compared with the cannabis without THC.The amount of time they accurately tracked fell an average of 350 percent when vaping 10 milligrams of THC and fell 500 percent when vaping 25 milligrams of THC, compared with those smoking either dose.”Our participants had substantially higher impairment on the tasks when vaping versus smoking the same dose, which in the real world translates to more functional impairment when driving or performing everyday tasks,” says postdoctoral fellow Tory Spindle, Ph.D., a researcher in the behavioral pharmacology research unit at Johns Hopkins Bayview.Other results showed that blood levels of THC were at their highest immediately after smoking or vaping cannabis. At 10 milligrams of THC, blood levels of THC reached an average of 7.5 nanograms per milliliter in vapers, compared with 3.8 nanograms per milliliter in smokers 10 minutes after they inhaled the drug. At 25 milligrams of THC, blood levels reached an average of 14.4 nanograms per milliliter when vaped compared with 10.2 nanograms per milliliter when smoked.”There’s a definite differences in the amount of drug making it into the blood when using a vaporizer versus smoking the drug, so considerations need to be made when dosing to ensure people are using cannabis safely,” says Spindle.The researchers note that they could only detect THC in the blood samples up to four hours after using, even though the participants reported the drug’s effects lasted five or six hours. The researchers say this suggests that blood testing isn’t an accurate way to tell if someone is high or perhaps driving under the influence.Two participants vomited after vaping 25 milligrams of THC, and another experienced hallucinations. One person vomited after smoking 25 milligrams of THC.Vandrey cautions that the study involved only a small number of younger adults and lasted only six weeks. “We still don’t have a full look at the long-term effects of vaping, such as whether there is a risk for chronic bronchitis, and more work needs to be done on that front,” he says. It is important to note that these effects were observed in individuals who don’t use cannabis very often, and may not extend to people who use cannabis routinely; they may have developed tolerance to these effects and also may be better able to regulate their dose.In recent years, Canada and several U.S. states including Washington, California, Colorado and Massachusetts have legalized cannabis for recreational use. Thirty-two states have made cannabis available with a doctor’s prescription, including Maryland, where the research was performed.Source: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/newsroom/news-releases/vaping-cannabis-produces-stronger-effects-than-smoking-cannabis-for-infrequent-users
Reviewed by Alina Shrourou, B.Sc. (Editor)May 7 2019Lung transplantation, the only lifesaving therapy for an increasing population of patients with end-stage lung disease, is severely limited by the number of available donor organs. Currently, up to 80 percent of donor lungs are rejected for serious but potentially reversible injuries. Since the beginning of transplantation in the 1960s, clinicians and scientists have been trying to address the critical shortage of donor organs.Now, a multidisciplinary team from Columbia Engineering and Vanderbilt University has–for the first time–demonstrated in a clinically relevant model that severely damaged lungs can be regenerated to meet transplantation criteria. In a study published today on Nature Communications ‘ website, the researchers describe the cross-circulation platform that maintained the viability and function of the donor lung and the stability of the recipient for 36 to 56 hours. As Brandon Guenthart, a lead author of the study, explains, “to support lung recovery and to demonstrate cellular regeneration, we had to pursue a radically different approach and develop more minimally invasive diagnostics.” Current methodologies of lung support are limited to only 6 to 8 hours, a time that is too short for therapeutic interventions that could regenerate the injured lung and improve its function.The team, co-led by Gordana Vunjak-Novakovic, University Professor and The Mikati Foundation Professor of Biomedical Engineering and Medical Sciences at Columbia Engineering, and Matthew Bacchettaunjak-Novakovic, the H. William Scott Professor of Surgery at Vanderbilt University, and adjunct professor at Columbia’s department of biomedical engineering, also developed new diagnostic tools for the non-invasive evaluation of the regenerating lung. They expect their advance will lead to an increase in the number of lungs for transplant, through the recovery of severely damaged lungs that are currently unsuitable for clinical use.The researchers have long been focused on developing processes to recover lungs that are being turned down for transplant because of injury to enable people with end-stage lung disease to live longer and better lives. “We have been fortunate to assemble a highly talented, interdisciplinary team of bioengineers, surgeons, pulmonologists, and pathologists, who have designed a durable physiologic support system for a donor lung outside the body, along with new technologies to achieve and monitor lung recovery,” Bacchetta says.Related StoriesVortex flow closely linked to pressure differences in ventricles of the heartComprehensive gene activity database could significantly reduce animal useUranium toxicity might have caused obesity and diabetes in Kuwait, finds new studyA previous study from the team demonstrated a cross-circulation platform that maintained the viability and function of a donor lung for 36 hours. The researchers were able to use their advanced support system to fully recover the functionality of lungs injured by ischemia (restricted blood supply) and make them suitable for transplant.For this new study, the team decided to test the effectiveness of their platform technology combined with conventional therapies and new diagnostics on lungs afflicted by the most frequent injury leading to donor lung rejection–gastric aspiration. This injury is caused by the entry of gastric material into the respiratory tract, resulting in severe injury to the pulmonary epithelium and thus making the lung unacceptable for transplantation. Currently, severely damaged donor lungs cannot be salvaged using existing devices or methods. This new study suggests that lungs injured by gastric aspiration can be maintained outside the body for several days, are amenable to repeated therapeutic interventions, and display evidence of cellular regeneration and improved function. Lungs regenerated on this platform met all criteria for transplantation.”For seven years, we have diligently worked to develop new technologies for the maintenance and recovery of donor organs. This paper represents a culmination of fundamental and translational studies of lung bioengineering that have converged into a system capable to recover severely damaged lungs. We now have the team and technology to bring this research to the patients, by making more donor lungs available for transplant,” says Vunjak-Novakovic.The team plans to conduct further studies to evaluate the functional capacity of the lungs following transplantation and the safety of the method, using a clinically relevant large animal model with immunosuppression.”We envision that interventional cross-circulation may be used to investigate regeneration of other damaged organs, such as hearts, kidneys, and livers, expanding donor pools by salvaging severely damaged organs and leading to more organ transplants,” Bacchetta adds. Source:http://www.engineering.columbia.edu/
According to Shamunder, “There should be potential for it to be monetizable, but every idea doesn’t have to be like that. It can be something that can be used to solve some unique societal problem as well.”Verizon claims it is motivated by the concept of generating such ideas and not because of any of the extra marketing attention the challenge brings to its 5G as it launches these networks at the same time that rivals such as AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint do.Shamunder concedes that the marketing aspect is a “byproduct,” but hardly the main purpose.”We don’t have a monopoly on ideas,” she says. “There are people out there who have deep insight into certain industries and that have their own unique problems. We have these toolboxes we want them to use to solve these problems and they are better at doing that than I am.”The various legal and other requirements that are part of the challenge are still being hammered out and will be posted on a Verizon website; it is probably safe to assume that Verizon will retain first right of refusal over any idea that is selected.It is unclear what kind of ownership stake Verizon will take in any of the winning ideas.This isn’t, in fact, the first time Verizon has challenged outsiders to develop ideas for 5G. In partnership with Ericsson and the Mass Tech Leadership Council, Verizon in November announced the launch of the Verizon 5G Robotics Challenge for universities, startups, and other developers in the greater Boston area to create 5G-powered robotics technologies that will transform modern industry. The pool money in that challenge was $300,000. Winners have not yet been selected. It has issued another similar challenge geared toward first responders.Verizon describes its far broader latest challenge as “a nationwide search for the biggest and brightest ideas that will bring the true power of 5G to life. Winners will be judged on innovation, commercial viability, and the potential impact and sustainability of how their ideas will be able to make the world a better, more connected place.”Judging will begin in the spring. Explore further Think you’ve come up with a killer idea for exploiting the emerging next-generation wireless networks known as 5G? (c)2019 USA TodayDistributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Verizon cuts 10,000 workers through buyouts as part of restructuring This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only. If Verizon buys into in your vision and considers it commercially viable, the company will issue you up to a cool $1 million in seed money. What’s more, you’ll be invited to develop the concept on live networks in one of Verizon’s 5G incubator labs, in New York City; Cambridge, Massachusetts; Los Angeles; Palo Alto, California, and Washington, D.C. And Verizon will provide training and technical support to the chosen innovators.It’s all part of a “Built on 5G Challenge” launched this week at CES in Las Vegas during a keynote address by Verizon CEO Hans Vestberg.5G is all about blistering speeds and low latency or network responsiveness, but the promise behind the technology extends well beyond the wicked fast handset you hope to carry in your pocket. There’s surely no small amount of hype around 5G, with Verizon referring to it as the “fourth industrial revolution.” The tech is meant to play an important role in self-driving cars, remote medicine, immersive education and all things connected, whether in your home, business or entire “smart community.”How might you play a small part in the revolution? Verizon’s challenge is open to venture-funded companies, bootstrapped startups, non-profits, educators, and yes, creative individuals. The $1 million that the company promises to dish out represents a pool of money that will be shared among a limited selection of potential winners; no more than two or three seems likely. If you’re the only one you could get the full million.Not just a PowerPointApplicants must meet certain criteria, says Sanyogita Shamunder, a network vice president for 5G ecosystems and innovation at Verizon. Is what you’ve cooked up real? What capabilities does the idea use? Can it realistically be implemented, given the current state of artificial intelligence, available hardware or other technologies? And does it really require 5G?”It can’t be just a PowerPoint. There needs to be a proof of concept,” Shamunder says.It’s too soon to tell, she adds, whether chosen ideas will turn into actual commercial products. Verizon could acquire the winning company behind an innovative idea—or not. It could license some aspect of the technology—or not. Citation: Edward C. Baig: Have a great idea for 5G? Verizon may give you a million dollars to make it happen (2019, January 16) retrieved 17 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-01-edward-baig-great-idea-5g.html
Chelsea Himsworth, Regional Director for the Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative, University of British Columbia This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.by Taboolaby TaboolaSponsored LinksSponsored LinksPromoted LinksPromoted LinksYou May LikeVikings: Free Online GamePlay this for 1 min and see why everyone is addicted!Vikings: Free Online GameUndoSecurity SaversWindows Users Advised To Do This TodaySecurity SaversUndoTruthFinder People Search SubscriptionOne Thing All Liars Have in Common, Brace YourselfTruthFinder People Search SubscriptionUndoKelley Blue Book2019 Lexus Vehicles Worth Buying for Their Resale ValueKelley Blue BookUndoArticles VallyDad Cuts Daughter’s Hair Off For Getting Birthday Highlights, Then Mom Does The UnthinkableArticles VallyUndoGundry MD Total Restore SupplementU.S. Cardiologist: It’s Like a Pressure Wash for Your InsidesGundry MD Total Restore SupplementUndo Rats! They eat our food, chew through our property and spread all sorts of nasty diseases. And they are gross (right?), with those naked tails and quick, unpredictable movements. Rats invade our homes — our castles! — the one place where we should be safe and in control. Over the millennia that we have lived with them, rats have proven themselves virtually impossible to expunge. They are so adaptable that they can exploit and infest virtually every corner of our cities. They avoid traps and poisons and reproduce at such a staggering rate that extermination attempts usually end up being a game of whack-a-mole… or, rather, whack-a-rat. Is it any wonder that many cities seem to be plagued by rats? Or do the cities themselves bear some responsibility for their rat problems? This is what I have been exploring over the past 10 years as a wildlife and public health researcher with the Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative and the University of British Columbia.Headbutting Tiny Worms Are Really, Really LoudThis rapid strike produces a loud ‘pop’ comparable to those made by snapping shrimps, one of the most intense biological sounds measured at sea.Your Recommended PlaylistVolume 0%Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcutsKeyboard Shortcutsplay/pauseincrease volumedecrease volumeseek forwardsseek backwardstoggle captionstoggle fullscreenmute/unmuteseek to %SPACE↑↓→←cfm0-9接下来播放Why Is It ‘Snowing’ Salt in the Dead Sea?01:53 facebook twitter 发邮件 reddit 链接https://www.livescience.com/65936-new-york-city-rats-and-humans.html?jwsource=cl已复制直播00:0000:3500:35 Challenges of managing urban rodents For the most part, when it comes to dealing with rats, cities have it all wrong. For example, rat-related issues are addressed using a hodgepodge of unrelated policy and programming. At best, municipal leadership is highly fragmented; at worst, it’s absent altogether. Municipal governments may address rat infestations that occur on public properties or in buildings scheduled for demolition. Local health authorities may address infestations in food establishments or where there is a demonstrated health risk. For the most part, people are left to fend for themselves. Another problem is that we know very little about urban rats. There is simply not enough information about them to answer even the most basic questions like: How many rats are there? Where do they live? Why are they there? Is the problem getting worse? Despite this lack of knowledge, cities are often willing to invest tremendous amounts of time and resources into pest control interventions, such as New York City’s $32 million “war on rats.” It means that cities have no metric to determine the return on their investments, because without knowing what the rat problem looked like beforehand, there is no way of knowing whether an intervention made the problem any better. The cohabiting solution The key to solving this problem may lie in simply changing our perspective. Rather than viewing the city as a place entirely under human control that’s being invaded by rats, we need to recognize that the city is an ecosystem and that rats live here too. This does not mean that we should love rats, nor does it mean that we need to leave them alone. Rather, it shifts the focus to managing the ecosystem of which rats are a part, rather than focusing on the rats themselves. Once we recognize that we are managing a system, it becomes clear that leadership and strategic planning are critical. The very concept of a system is that the whole is more than the sum of its parts; this is the antithesis of the reductionist approach that we’re accustomed to that deals with infestations on a case-by-case basis. Instead, we need to understand the urban ecosystem, just like we would if we were trying to manage polar bear populations in the Arctic or elephant populations on the savanna. This means substantive, long-term investments in collecting data on rat populations and the specific conditions that support them, as well as the impact of any implemented interventions. It also means understanding the interface between rats and humans. For the majority of urban centres, rats pose a relatively minor threat to people. The threats are certainly not in proportion to the amount of negative attention rats receive. This means we need to understand why we find rats so disturbing, and what can be done to reduce that fear. Urban ecologies An ecosystem lens also directs us to look at areas of vulnerability and resilience within the system. When it comes to rats, our homes are the most obvious place of vulnerability, where the relationship between rats and people is least acceptable. However, private residences are often the areas most ignored by municipal powers. Also, rats and rat-related issues disproportionately affect impoverished, inner-city neighbourhoods, and residents of these neighbourhoods are particularly vulnerable to the physical and mental health impacts of living with rats. By identifying and focusing on these highly vulnerable scenarios, cities can start to make meaningful changes in how we perceive and deal with rats. This is not to say the rest of the urban landscape should be ignored. Rather, the identification of particular areas of vulnerability needs to take place within a larger framework that uses ecosystem-based principles to address rats specifically. Examples include changing the way that garbage cans are designed and enacting tougher bylaws that enshrine the right to live in a healthy and rat-free environment. These sorts of policies and programs that increase the resilience of the system have the potential to curtail the physical and psychological damage done by rats. The result is that co-existence with rats will come to seem no more unthinkable than our co-existence with, for instance, squirrels.