当前位置:黑龙江地方站首页 > 龙江新闻 > 正文


2019年09月17日 20:42:39    日报  参与评论()人

海宁市第四人民医院口腔科嘉兴唇腭裂修复医院浙江嘉兴隆鼻手术一般要多少费用 France#39;s government on Wednesday asked a health watchdog to carry out a probe, possibly leading to EU suspension of a genetically-modified corn, after a study in rats linked the grain to cancer.法国政府本周三要求健康监管机构开展针对转基因玉米的一项调查,这有可能导致欧盟暂停进口这种转基因玉米。此前一项研究表明,转基因玉米会使实验鼠患上肿瘤。Agriculture Minister Stephane Le Foll, Ecology Minister Delphine Batho and Health and Social Affairs Minister Marisol Touraine said they had asked the National Agency for Health Safety (ANSES) to investigate the finding.法国农业部长史蒂芬-勒弗尔、环境部长黛尔菲那-巴多,以及社会事务部部长玛利索尔-图雷纳均表示,已要求法国健康安全局对这项研究成果进行调查。;Depending on ANSES#39; opinion, the government will urge the European authorities to take all necessary measures to protect human and animal health,; they said in a joint statement.他们在一份联合声明中说,“根据法国健康安全局的意见,政府将敦促欧盟采取一切必要措施,保护人类和动物健康。Earlier, French scientists led by Gilles-Eric Seralini at the University of Caen in Normandy unveiled a study that said rats fed with NK603 corn or exposed to the weedkiller used with it developed tumours.不久前,法国诺曼底凯恩大学以吉勒斯-埃瑞克#8226;瑟兰尼为首的科学家公布的研究结果称,用转基因玉米NK603喂养、或者接触了用于该谷物的除草剂的实验鼠患上了肿瘤。NK603 is a corn, also called maize, made by US agribusiness giant Monsanto. It has been engineered to make it resistant to Monsanto#39;s herbicide Roundup.NK603是一种转基因玉米,也称为玉蜀黍,是由美国农业巨头孟山都公司生产的,对该公司出品的草甘膦除草剂具有抗药性。This enables farmers to douse fields with the weedkiller in a single go, thus offering substantial savings.这使得农民可以放心使用这种除草剂,节省了大量费用。The study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, says it is the first to look at rats over their normal lifespan of two years.这一研究成果已刊发在行业期刊《食品化学毒物学》上。研究称,这是首次用长达两年的时间在实验鼠身上开展这一研究,而两年也是实验鼠的自然寿命。Two hundred male and female rats were split into 10 groups of 10 animals. One was a ;control; group which was given ordinary rat food that contained 33 percent non-GM corn, and plain water.在实验中,200只雄性和雌性实验鼠各自被分成十组,每组十只。其中一组被作为“对比组”,喂食含有33%非转基因谷物的普通饲料和白水。Three groups were given ordinary rat food and water with increasing doses of Roundup, reflecting various concentrations of the herbicide in the food chain.另外三组被喂食含有较大剂量草甘膦除草剂的饲料和水,反映出食物链中除草剂的不同浓度。The other six were fed rat food of which 11, 22 or 33 percent comprised NK603 corn, either treated or not with Roundup when the corn was grown.而另外六组则被喂食含有不同比例NK603的饲料,分别为11%、22%和33%。在谷物生长过程中有些接触过除草剂,有些则没有。The researchers found that NK603 and Roundup both caused similar damage to the rats#39; health, whether they were consumed together or on their own.研究人员发现,不管是同时食用还是单独食用,NK603和草甘膦除草剂都对实验鼠的健康造成了相似的危害。Premature deaths and sickness were concentrated especially among females. Males which fell sick suffered liver damage, developed kidney and skin tumours and digestive problems.尤其在雌性实验鼠中,幼鼠夭折和患病的比例特别高。患病的雄性鼠一般是患上肝损害,或肾肿瘤、皮肤肿瘤以及消化系统疾病。At the 14-month stage of experiment, no animals in the control groups showed any signs of cancer, but among females in the ;treated; groups, tumours affected between 10 and 30 percent of the rodents.在为期14个月的试验中,对照组的实验鼠没有一例发现患癌,而在被喂食含有NK603和草甘膦除草剂饲料的组别中,有10%到30%的实验鼠患上了肿瘤。 /201209/201249嘉兴红血丝怎么消除

嘉兴曙光中西医整形美容医院黑脸娃娃海宁市妇幼保健院去眼袋多少钱 Wireless carrier ATamp;T (T) was the top target of so-called patent trolls in 2013, having been sued more than 54 times by them in 2013—more than once a week. This year#39;s list of top ten patent troll targets was published today in a Fortune magazine feature story about RPX Corp.(RPXC), which compiled the statistics.2013年,无线运营商美国电话电报公司ATamp;T成为了 “专利流氓”的首要攻击目标。一年之内,ATamp;T被这类公司起诉达54次,平均下来每周超过一次。今天,《财富》杂志在一篇关于专利集成公司RPX Corp的专题报道中公布了这家公司统计、编撰的2014年“专利流氓十大目标公司”名单。The article, called ;Taking on the Trolls,; states: ;ATamp;T is no anomaly. Google (GOOG) was hit with 43 [such] suits last year; Verizon (VZ), 42; Apple (AAPL), 41; Samsung (SSNLF) and Amazon (AMZN), 39 each; Dell and Sony (SNE), 34 each; Huawei, 32; Blackberry (BBRY), 31. Every brand on this unenviable top-ten list was sued by [a patent troll] at least once every 12 days.;这篇标题为《迎接魔头的挑战》(Taking on the Trolls)写道:“ATamp;T并不是一个特例。谷歌公司(Google)去年被起诉达43次,威瑞森通信(Verizon)被起诉42次,苹果公司(Apple)被起诉41次,三星(Samsung)和亚马逊(Amazon)分别被起诉39次,戴尔(Dell)索尼(Sony)分别被起诉34次,华为(Huawei)32次,黑莓公司(Blackberry)31次。进入这张榜单并不是一件令人羡慕的事,榜单中的这些公司至少12天就要被(专利流氓)起诉一次。”;Patent troll; is a pejorative term. A more neutral term, and the one that RPX uses, is ;non-practicing entity,; or NPE. An NPE is a company that sells no products or services of its own. In their most controversial form, NPEs purchase patents on the open market and then assert them against operating companies, like ATamp;T and Google, seeking licensing fees and, often, suing to get them.“专利流氓”这个称呼带有鄙夷的意味,而RPX公司所使用了一个更中性的称谓——“非专利实施主体”,即NPE。NPE公司本身不为他人提供任何产品或务。它们最具争议的做法是,在公开市场上购买各种专利,然后声称运营公司(比如ATamp;T或谷歌)使用了他们的专利,然后要求对方付授权费。NPE拿到授权费的方式通常是向这些公司发起法律诉讼。RPX is what#39;s known as a defensive patent aggregator. In exchange for a subscription fee—currently paid by some 168 companies, including Google, Verizon, and Samsung—it attempts to buy up potentially problematic patents on the open market, before NPEs can get their hands on them.RPX则是所谓的防御型专利集成公司。RPX向公司收取会员费,然后赶在NPE动手之前,抢先买下公开市场上对成员公司具有潜在隐患的专利。目前RPX共有约168家客户,其中包括谷歌、威瑞森通信和三星。According to RPX#39;s statistics—which have been relied upon by academics and government agencies—NPEs filed 3,608 new suits in 2013, up 19% from the 3,042 they filed in 2012, and their suits named 4,843 total defendants, up 13% from the 4,282 sued a year earlier. NPE suits accounted for 67% of all new patent cases filed last year, and 63% of all new patent defendants, according to the figures RPX shared with Fortune.学术及政府机构均仰仗RPX提供的统计数据。根据它向《财富》杂志提供的资料,2013年,NPE共提起了3,608起诉讼,比2012年的3,042件增加了19%。这些诉讼指向的被告共有4,843名,比2012年的4,282名增加了13%。NPE提起的案件占去年全部专利案件的67%,被告人数为总被告人数的63%。When one takes into account NPE cases filed in previous years and still unresolved as of December 31, 2013, the top NPE target was Google, which was fighting 72 active cases as of that date. The next nine companies in line after it were ATamp;T (70), Apple (68), Samsung (63), Sony (58), Amazon (54), Verizon (46), HTC (42), LG Electronics (42), and Dell (41). (The figures for Google include suits against its Motorola Mobility unit, which Google announced last month that it is selling to Lenovo (LNGVY).)如果按在2013年12月31日前未终结案件的总数来计算,谷歌是NPE的首要目标。截至这一日期,谷歌手头上还有72件没有终结的专利官司。其余九大目标公司依次为ATamp;T(70件),苹果(68件),三星(63件),索尼(58件),亚马逊(54件),威瑞森通信(46件),宏达国际电子HTC公司(42件),LG电子(LG Electronics,42件)及戴尔(41件)。【谷歌的案件数中包括针对托罗拉移动部门(Motorola Mobility)的诉讼,谷歌上月已宣布计划将这一部门卖给联想(Lenovo)。】NPEs have their defenders, as the Fortune story explains: ;These argue that giant tech corporations routinely pilfer innovations dreamed up by independent inventors, and that NPEs simply give these powerless individuals the financial support and litigation muscle they need to vindicate their rights. NPEs therefore serve not only small inventors, the argument continues, but also society at large, by preserving the incentive systems that our Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution to ensure that the Thomas Edisons of the world would be motivated to provide the rest of us with the maximum possible benefit from their genius.不过,《财富》文章同时也写到,也有些人在为NPE辩护。“这些人的观点是,大型科技公司经常窃取独立发明家的创新专利,NPE公司不过是为这些无力反抗的人们提供了他们所需要的经济援和法律手段,以维护他们自身的权利。为了保世界上所有像托马斯?爱迪生一样的发明家能运用自己的天赋为社会带来更多福利,开国元勋们已将发明创新激励机制写进了宪法。而通过维护这一机制,NPE公司不只在为个体发明家务,更是在造福整个社会。”;Still, the sheer numbers have many people skeptical. Is ATamp;T really stealing breakthrough ideas from various Edisons at a rate of more than once a week?;“然而,仅仅从数字上看,很多人就对这种说法表示怀疑。难道说,ATamp;T在以超过每周一次的速度窃取爱迪生们的突破性成果吗?” /201403/279155嘉兴医院可以点痣吗

嘉兴市新塍人民医院去眼袋多少钱For 40 years, Los Angeles’ building code has required all buildings 75 feet and taller to have a rooftop emergency helicopter landing facility in a location approved by the fire chief. The idea in 1974, when the law was passed, was to make skyscrapers safer, in part as a reaction to a catastrophic fire in Brazil. But we know now there are better ways to make structures like the landmark U.S. Bank tower safe. I, for one, am cheering for the recently announced end of a policy requiring flat-topped buildings in Los Angeles. It’s a policy that holds lessons for tall buildings everywhere.40年来,洛杉矶的建筑条例一直要求,所有75英尺以上的建筑,要在消防部门批准的位置设置紧急直升机降落设施。1974年通过该法律的目的,是让天大楼更安全,这在很大程度上是受到了巴西一场惨重火灾的影响。但我们都知道,其实有许多更好的方法,可以让美国(U.S. Bank)大厦这样的地标性建筑更安全。最近,洛杉矶宣布终止这项要求天大楼必须设计为平顶的政策,我对此决定表示欢迎。这项政策对各地的高层建筑有相当大的借鉴意义。As an urban planner and architect (before becoming a professor, I was an architect at SOM-Chicago, the former Skidmore, Owings amp; Merrill), I know safety is more critical in tall buildings than in low-rise structures because tall buildings host a greater number of inhabitants and are themselves expensive investments. I also know that, if appropriately designed and built, skyscrapers are safer in many respects than low-rise and mid-rise buildings. They have concrete cores that are designed to withstand the extreme lateral forces and loads that occur during high winds and earthquakes. Fire safety systems in skyscrapers include sprinklers and wet and dry standpipes, to which firefighting hoses can be connected.作为一名城市规划师和建筑师【成为教授之前,笔者曾在SOM-Chicago建筑事务所(原Skidmore, Owings amp; Merrill建筑事务所)担任建筑师】,我很清楚,相比低层建筑,安全性对于高层建筑来说更加重要,因为高层建筑有更多居住者,而且高层建筑本身的造价也更加不菲。此外,我也很清楚,如果经过合理的设计和建造,天大楼在某些方面比中低层建筑更安全。天大楼的混凝土芯,可以承受强风和地震时的极端侧向力和横向载荷。天大楼的防火安全设施包括洒水装置,以及可以直接连接消防软管的湿式和干式竖管。Codes for tall building safety were found to be deficient following the World Trade Center collapse in 2001. The National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded it would have taken more than three hours to evacuate the buildings if they had been full of people at the time of the attacks. In the process, 14,000 people – 28% of the occupants – would have died because of insufficient stairwell capacity.2001年世贸中心大厦倒塌之后,人们发现了高层建筑安全规定的不足。美国国家标准与技术研究所(NIST)得出的结论是,如果大楼挤满人的情况下遭遇袭击,全部疏散需要三个多小时。在这个过程中,14,000人,即全部居住者的28%,会因为楼梯间容量不足而丧生。NIST stressed that time is of the essence in evacuation. And helipads have a very small impact on evacuation times. Helicopters take time to land, load people, and take off. They only take a small number of a skyscraper’s occupants each time. Research indicated that if the World Trade Center rooftops had been accessible (the helipad fell in disuse), helicopters couldn’t have landed because of the heat and smoke.NIST强调,时间是疏散的关键。而楼宇停机坪对疏散时间的影响微乎其微。直升机降落、登机和起飞都需要时间。而且,直升机每次仅能运送极少数天大楼居住者。研究显示,由于大火产生的热量和浓烟,即便直升机可以接近世贸中心大厦的屋顶(楼宇停机坪已被停用),也无法降落。Our rarely used helipads may enhance the perception of safety but do little else. The NIST study called for a smarter strategy of using building design for safety. Among the key elements:极少被用到的直升机停机坪,可能会增强人们的安全感,除此之外毫无用处。NIST的研究呼吁更明智地使用建筑设计实现安全性。这些设计要素包括:Assume that the full building will evacuate. Conventionally,builders of high-rises have assumed “staged evacuations” will occur. During a fire on one floor, occupants were supposed to evacuate to adjacent floors until it was safe to return. After the World Trade Center collapse, it became clear a tall building’s occupants would likely want to evacuate all at once in an emergency situation. NIST recommends that all non-residential skyscrapers that exceed 420 feet in height have three stairwells and fireproofing capable of withstanding a pressure of 1,000 pounds per square foot (in the event of a bomb, gas breakout, or something similar).假设整栋建筑都需要疏散。按照惯例,高层建筑的建造者会假设将发生“分阶段疏散”。当一层发生火灾时,居住者在可以安全返回之前,应该先疏散到临近楼层。世贸中心大厦倒塌明,在紧急情况下,高层建筑的居住者更希望全部疏散。NIST建议,所有高度超过420英尺的非居住用天大楼,应该设置三个电梯间,且耐火材料应该能够承受每平方英尺1,000磅的压力(发生炸弹袭击、煤气泄漏或其他类似事件时)。Allow some office workers to use elevators in an emergency.Conventionally, in an emergency situation, elevators in high-rise buildings are used by firefighters only. NIST recommends building elevators that can withstand fires and structural damage in the concrete core of a building.允许部分上班族在紧急情况下使用电梯。按照惯例,在紧急情况下,高层建筑的电梯仅供消防人员使用。NIST建议,建筑电梯应能够承受火灾和混凝土芯结构受损。Mark stairwells and exits with glow-in-the-dark signs.As simple as it sounds, not every building has such markings, especially those built before the 2000s. New York was the first large city to require luminous markings in stairwells, five years after the 9/11 tragic events. More than 1,500 buildings now have the markings, but that’s still a small fraction of America’s tall buildings.使用黑暗中可发光的标志指示楼梯间与紧急出口。听起来很简单,但并非所有建筑都有这样的标记,尤其是在2000年之前建造的建筑。911事件的悲剧发生5年后,纽约市规定在楼梯间设置发光标识,纽约因此成为第一个有类似规定的大城市。目前,超过1,500栋建筑设置了类似标志,但这在美国的高层建筑中仅占一小部分。If a city adopts these recommendations – and also asks tall buildings to include refuge floors, -camera surveillance, and automatic sprinkler systems — the safety of the skyscrapers will increase significantly.如果一个城市采用了这些建议,并且要求高层建筑设置避难层、视频监控和自动洒水系统,天大楼的安全性将大幅提高。Relaxing the requirements of a helipad also will empower architects to create more interesting rooftops. A space 50-by-50-feet wide at minimum is required for a helipad spot, plus a typical additional 25 feet around it as a buffer. This has resulted in a repetitive, boxy roof shape in the Los Angeles skyline.此外,放宽对直升机停机坪的要求,也可以使建筑师们设计出更有趣的屋顶天台。直升机停机坪至少需要50x50英尺的空间,而且周围通常要设立25英尺的缓冲区。这导致各种大同小异、四四方方的屋顶,占据了洛杉矶的天际线。Beyond aesthetics, boxy rooftops with helipads are really a missed opportunity to create “green” roofs with sustainable features. Now Los Angeles can do something like the spiral form in the rooftop of Shanghai Tower in Shanghai that captures rainwater. Some towers’ tops are now designated for wind turbines to harness wind energy, such as the Strata Tower in London.除了有失美感外,设有直升机停机坪的四方屋顶,也错过了利用可持续功能创建“绿色”屋顶的机会。现在,洛杉矶的大楼也可以像上海的上海中心大厦(Shanghai Tower)一样,在屋顶设计可以收集雨水的螺旋形结构。部分天大楼的屋顶设计了风力涡轮机,用来风力发电,例如伦敦的斯特拉塔(Strata Tower)。There’s nothing to fear – and much to gain – in relaxing the helipad requirement. I, for one, will be watching to see what inventive skyscrapers Angelinos come up with.对于放宽天大楼楼顶直升机停机坪的规定,我们无须担心,恰恰相反,这将给我们带来许多好处。洛杉矶人会设计出哪些有创意的天大楼呢?我很期待。Kheir Al-Kodmany is a professor in the Department of Urban Planning and Policy at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He wrote this for Zocalo Public Square.本为作者海尔o阿尔孔德曼尼是伊利诺伊大学芝加哥分校(University of Illinois at Chicago)城市规划与政策系教授。本文原刊登于信息交流网站Zocalo Public Square。 /201410/338843 嘉善县妇幼保健所隆胸多少钱嘉兴脱毛娜姐医院好



海宁市第二人民医院口腔科 嘉兴痘痘医院久久热点 [详细]
嘉兴彩光嫩肤价格 平湖市去咖啡斑多少钱 [详细]
嘉兴曙光整形美容医院治疗长鼻整形手术怎么样 飞度信息嘉兴玻尿酸哪家好安心诊疗 [详细]
爱乐园嘉兴曙光中西医医院激光美白 嘉兴小阴唇手术管分享桐乡注射丰太阳穴多少钱 [详细]