Monday, February 9, 2009
03
There happened a wedding scheduled at the same date of two women who were friends and it was really kind of complicated situation. This situation I was talking about was a situation where I had seen in a television series before and it was really a popular TV series. That situation was kinda shown in the last two episodes in Season 3 of the TV series which was shown 2 years ago(last 2007). They had fight over the wedding date on whom will have to had the wedding in that specified date. It kinda remind me also of the blockbuster movie this year which is titled as the Bride Wars and although they
02
There happened a wedding scheduled at the same date of two women who were friends and it was really kind of complicated situation. This situation I was talking about was a situation where I had seen in a television series before and it was really a popular TV series. That situation was kinda shown in the last two episodes in Season 3 of the TV series which was shown 2 years ago(last 2007). They had fight over the wedding date on whom will have to had the wedding in that specified date. It kinda remind me also of the blockbuster movie this year which is titled as the Bride Wars and although they
01
There happened a wedding scheduled at the same date of two women who were friends and it was really kind of complicated situation. This situation I was talking about was a situation where I had seen in a television series before and it was really a popular TV series. That situation was kinda shown in the last two episodes in Season 3 of the TV series which was shown 2 years ago(last 2007). They had fight over the wedding date on whom will have to had the wedding in that specified date. It kinda remind me also of the blockbuster movie this year which is titled as the Bride Wars and although they
Monday, January 5, 2009
oijeoifwjeofnweofij§
oiwjeof iwjefo ijweofijwe ofijoefijweof ijweofij weifjwo iejfwoeijf owefjwokgpe-dgpe'rmg ;oewrig ierg oweij woergihj wergowehirgpeirg;oew ijrgpoweigjr er g
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Biological terror attack likely by 2013, panel says
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Terrorists are likely to use a weapon of mass destruction somewhere in the world in the next five years, a blue-ribbon panel assembled by Congress has concluded.
Police watch over travelers at New York's Grand Central Terminal before Thanksgiving.
Police watch over travelers at New York's Grand Central Terminal before Thanksgiving.
They are more likely to use a biological weapon than a nuclear one -- and the results could be devastating, the chairman of the commission told CNN.
"The consequences of a biological attack are almost beyond comprehension. It would be 9/11 times 10 or a hundred in terms of the number of people who would be killed," former Sen. Bob Graham said.
He cited the flu virus that killed millions of people in 1918 as an example.
"Today it is still in the laboratory, but if it should get out and into the hands of scientists who knew how to use it for a violent purpose, we could have multiple times the 40 million people who were killed 100 years ago," he said. Video Watch how officials worry about a biological terror attack »
The U.S. government "needs to move more aggressively to limit" the spread of biological weapons, the commission said in its report.
Graham warned that such measures would be costly, but were necessary.
"The leadership of this country and the world will have to decide how much of a priority ... they place on avoiding the worst weapons in the world getting in the hands of the worst people in the world," he said.
Don't Miss
* Indian official: Terrorists wanted to kill 5,000
* Who's to blame for Mumbai attacks?
"It is not going to be cheap. It is not going to be accomplished without some sacrifices. It won't be accomplished without putting this issue ahead of some other competing national and international goals. But I think our safety and security depend upon doing so," he added.
Graham said a biological attack was more likely than a nuclear one because it would be easier to carry out.
Biological weapons "are more available," he said. "Anthrax is a natural product of dead animals. Other serious pathogens are available in equally accessible forms."
"There are so many scientists who have the skills to convert a pathogen from benign, helpful purposes into an illicit, very harmful weapon," he added.
But the commission warned that there is also a threat of nuclear terrorism, both because more countries are developing nuclear weapons and because some existing nuclear powers are expanding their arsenals.
"Terrorist organizations are intent on acquiring nuclear weapons," said the report, which was published Tuesday on the Internet and will be officially released Wednesday.
CNN obtained a copy of the report Monday evening.
It cited testimony before the commission from former Sen. Sam Nunn, who said that the "risk of a nuclear weapon being used today is growing, not receding."
The report recommends a range of measures, including increased security and awareness at biological research labs and strengthening international treaties against the spread of biological and nuclear weapons.
"Many biological pathogens and nuclear materials around the world are poorly secured -- and thus vulnerable to theft by those who would put these materials to harmful use, or would sell them on the black market to potential terrorists," the report warned.
The commission expressed particular concern about the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea, and about Pakistan, which it described as "the intersection of nuclear weapons and terrorism."
advertisement
While observing that Pakistan is a U.S. ally, the report said, "the next terrorist attack against the United States is likely to originate from within the Federally Administered Tribal Areas" in Pakistan. The tribal areas lie in northwest Pakistan where the government exerts little control; the United States says it is a haven for militants from both Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan.
Congress created the commission to investigate and report on WMD and terrorism in line with a recommendation from the 9/11 Commission, which compiled a report on the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. Commissioners heard testimony from more than 250 experts from around the world over the course of their six-month
Police watch over travelers at New York's Grand Central Terminal before Thanksgiving.
Police watch over travelers at New York's Grand Central Terminal before Thanksgiving.
They are more likely to use a biological weapon than a nuclear one -- and the results could be devastating, the chairman of the commission told CNN.
"The consequences of a biological attack are almost beyond comprehension. It would be 9/11 times 10 or a hundred in terms of the number of people who would be killed," former Sen. Bob Graham said.
He cited the flu virus that killed millions of people in 1918 as an example.
"Today it is still in the laboratory, but if it should get out and into the hands of scientists who knew how to use it for a violent purpose, we could have multiple times the 40 million people who were killed 100 years ago," he said. Video Watch how officials worry about a biological terror attack »
The U.S. government "needs to move more aggressively to limit" the spread of biological weapons, the commission said in its report.
Graham warned that such measures would be costly, but were necessary.
"The leadership of this country and the world will have to decide how much of a priority ... they place on avoiding the worst weapons in the world getting in the hands of the worst people in the world," he said.
Don't Miss
* Indian official: Terrorists wanted to kill 5,000
* Who's to blame for Mumbai attacks?
"It is not going to be cheap. It is not going to be accomplished without some sacrifices. It won't be accomplished without putting this issue ahead of some other competing national and international goals. But I think our safety and security depend upon doing so," he added.
Graham said a biological attack was more likely than a nuclear one because it would be easier to carry out.
Biological weapons "are more available," he said. "Anthrax is a natural product of dead animals. Other serious pathogens are available in equally accessible forms."
"There are so many scientists who have the skills to convert a pathogen from benign, helpful purposes into an illicit, very harmful weapon," he added.
But the commission warned that there is also a threat of nuclear terrorism, both because more countries are developing nuclear weapons and because some existing nuclear powers are expanding their arsenals.
"Terrorist organizations are intent on acquiring nuclear weapons," said the report, which was published Tuesday on the Internet and will be officially released Wednesday.
CNN obtained a copy of the report Monday evening.
It cited testimony before the commission from former Sen. Sam Nunn, who said that the "risk of a nuclear weapon being used today is growing, not receding."
The report recommends a range of measures, including increased security and awareness at biological research labs and strengthening international treaties against the spread of biological and nuclear weapons.
"Many biological pathogens and nuclear materials around the world are poorly secured -- and thus vulnerable to theft by those who would put these materials to harmful use, or would sell them on the black market to potential terrorists," the report warned.
The commission expressed particular concern about the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea, and about Pakistan, which it described as "the intersection of nuclear weapons and terrorism."
advertisement
While observing that Pakistan is a U.S. ally, the report said, "the next terrorist attack against the United States is likely to originate from within the Federally Administered Tribal Areas" in Pakistan. The tribal areas lie in northwest Pakistan where the government exerts little control; the United States says it is a haven for militants from both Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan.
Congress created the commission to investigate and report on WMD and terrorism in line with a recommendation from the 9/11 Commission, which compiled a report on the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. Commissioners heard testimony from more than 250 experts from around the world over the course of their six-month
Radiologists read scans better if they have patient's photo
Radiologists who read imaging exams -- such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and CT scans -- may do a better job if they see a picture of the face that goes with the diagnostic test, according to research presented this week at the Radiology Society of North America's annual meeting in Chicago, Illinois.
"I noticed that I know the patient's liver and spleen better than I know him," says study author Dr. Yehonatan Turner.
"I noticed that I know the patient's liver and spleen better than I know him," says study author Dr. Yehonatan Turner.
Radiologists in the study said they read CT scans more meticulously and felt more empathy when they saw a patient's face, although it's not clear whether the photo actually improved their accuracy in interpreting the test results.
Yehonatan N. Turner, M.D., a radiology resident at Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem, Israel, came up with the idea of adding photos to patients' files after reading dozens of CT scans as a medical resident. "I noticed that I know the patient's liver and spleen better than I know him," he says. "I thought maybe attaching the patient's photograph to the file may make the scan unique and important."
Turner says he was also drawing on the twentieth-century philosopher Emmanuel Levinas' idea that seeing another person's face instills a sense of responsibility for that person.
In the study, Turner and his colleagues photographed the faces of 267 patients (with their consent) two minutes before they underwent a CT scan. Fifteen radiologists interpreted the CT exams with patients' photos alongside, and then completed a questionnaire. Three months later, 30 of the CT scans that included an incidental finding (an unexpected finding that may or may not have health implications) were shown to the radiologists again, without the patient photos. Health.com: What to expect if you are having a mammogram
Study participants said that seeing the photograph didn't increase the amount of time it took them to interpret the scan, but they did say they interpreted it more meticulously. In fact, in 80 percent of the scans reviewed without photos, the radiologists didn't report the incidental findings that they had seen when they originally viewed the images.
"I think it's a really fun study to have done. I think it's very imaginative," says Etta D. Pisano, M.D., a Kenan professor of radiology and biomedical engineering at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill. She's also the director of the UNC Biomedical Research Imaging Center. "It sort of makes intuitive sense to me." Heath.com: X-Rays, bone scans...Could that radiation be harmful to your health?
But the implications are limited for the time being, she adds, given that the researchers didn't test the accuracy of the radiologists' readings with and without the photographs. "Anything that you do, even taking a photograph of a patient, costs money and time," Pisano says. "If radiologists' performance could improve for something important, then it might be worth implementing. Something like incidental findings isn't worth changing our system of providing care."
Health Library
* MayoClinic.com: Health Library
There's also the possibility that seeing what a patient looks like could have a negative impact on the radiologists' ability to interpret images accurately, notes Robert Smith, Ph.D., director of cancer screening at the American Cancer Society in Atlanta. "The physician could bring stereotypes and other information to bear that may diminish the accuracy, a perfectly human thing to do, by the way."
He points to a study in which radiologists who learned about a patient's family history of breast cancer spotted more tumors than if they didn't have this information. But they also came up with more false-positives.
"It's hard at face value to imagine that having the patient's photograph could be harmful," Smith says. "Typically, radiologists may work in isolation. They may actually find that this helps them to connect with the patient and helps them think more holistically about the image they're reviewing." Health.com: What a breast MRI feels like and how it works
The radiologists in Turner's study seemed to like the idea; all of them recommended adopting it for routine
"I noticed that I know the patient's liver and spleen better than I know him," says study author Dr. Yehonatan Turner.
"I noticed that I know the patient's liver and spleen better than I know him," says study author Dr. Yehonatan Turner.
Radiologists in the study said they read CT scans more meticulously and felt more empathy when they saw a patient's face, although it's not clear whether the photo actually improved their accuracy in interpreting the test results.
Yehonatan N. Turner, M.D., a radiology resident at Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem, Israel, came up with the idea of adding photos to patients' files after reading dozens of CT scans as a medical resident. "I noticed that I know the patient's liver and spleen better than I know him," he says. "I thought maybe attaching the patient's photograph to the file may make the scan unique and important."
Turner says he was also drawing on the twentieth-century philosopher Emmanuel Levinas' idea that seeing another person's face instills a sense of responsibility for that person.
In the study, Turner and his colleagues photographed the faces of 267 patients (with their consent) two minutes before they underwent a CT scan. Fifteen radiologists interpreted the CT exams with patients' photos alongside, and then completed a questionnaire. Three months later, 30 of the CT scans that included an incidental finding (an unexpected finding that may or may not have health implications) were shown to the radiologists again, without the patient photos. Health.com: What to expect if you are having a mammogram
Study participants said that seeing the photograph didn't increase the amount of time it took them to interpret the scan, but they did say they interpreted it more meticulously. In fact, in 80 percent of the scans reviewed without photos, the radiologists didn't report the incidental findings that they had seen when they originally viewed the images.
"I think it's a really fun study to have done. I think it's very imaginative," says Etta D. Pisano, M.D., a Kenan professor of radiology and biomedical engineering at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill. She's also the director of the UNC Biomedical Research Imaging Center. "It sort of makes intuitive sense to me." Heath.com: X-Rays, bone scans...Could that radiation be harmful to your health?
But the implications are limited for the time being, she adds, given that the researchers didn't test the accuracy of the radiologists' readings with and without the photographs. "Anything that you do, even taking a photograph of a patient, costs money and time," Pisano says. "If radiologists' performance could improve for something important, then it might be worth implementing. Something like incidental findings isn't worth changing our system of providing care."
Health Library
* MayoClinic.com: Health Library
There's also the possibility that seeing what a patient looks like could have a negative impact on the radiologists' ability to interpret images accurately, notes Robert Smith, Ph.D., director of cancer screening at the American Cancer Society in Atlanta. "The physician could bring stereotypes and other information to bear that may diminish the accuracy, a perfectly human thing to do, by the way."
He points to a study in which radiologists who learned about a patient's family history of breast cancer spotted more tumors than if they didn't have this information. But they also came up with more false-positives.
"It's hard at face value to imagine that having the patient's photograph could be harmful," Smith says. "Typically, radiologists may work in isolation. They may actually find that this helps them to connect with the patient and helps them think more holistically about the image they're reviewing." Health.com: What a breast MRI feels like and how it works
The radiologists in Turner's study seemed to like the idea; all of them recommended adopting it for routine
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
