Attractive veterinary students and adorable animals? We think this is something we can definitely get on board with.
Every year, Omega Tau Sigma veterinary fraternity at Cornell’s College of Veterinary Medicine creates a calendar featuring a few of their students posing with some very cute animals. Th夜网知识
Air pollution has been linked to a number of breathing problems, mainly in developing countries, and now a new preliminary study looking at pollution levels in New Jersey has found an increased risk of stillbirths among women exposed to specific pollutants.
“We found that different pollutants are harmful in different trimesters of pregnancy,” said Dr. Ambarina Faiz, an instructor at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. For example, exposure to a high level of nitrogen dioxide was particularly harmful during the first trimester, she said.
The study was published online July 18 in the American Journal of Epidemiology.
In their study, researchers used statewide birth data from 1998 through 2004. They compared live births with stillbirths, looking at mothers who lived within 10 kilometers (a little over 6 miles) of New Jersey’s 25 pollutant-monitoring stations.
They also gathered data from those stations: 11 stations monitored nitrogen dioxide, 16 monitored sulfur dioxide and 16 monitored carbon monoxide.
Researchers compared the pollutant concentrations during a woman’s three trimesters of pregnancy, and took into account factors known to affect stillbirth risk, including the mother’s age, smoking, ethnicity and prenatal care.
What they found
Several trends emerged from the data. In general, stillbirths were rare, with fewer than 1,000 among the hundreds of thousands of births in any region where the researchers measured pollutants. 上海419爱上海同城
With two children in public schools, I’m dismayed — but not surprised — to learn that the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank, planned to pay $100,000 to a consultant to develop a school curriculum that would promote skepticism about the science of global warming.
In a karmic twist, this news came last week from leaked documents within the Heartland Institute, which spread false claims about climate scientists based on stolen e-mails in 2009. Then this week, Peter Gleick, environmental activist and president of the Pacific Institute, apologized for obtaining and disseminating the internal Heartland documents, in part due to his frustration with their efforts to debunk climate science.
The drama sounds like a fictional plotline from the bestselling novel “The Girl Who Plays with Fire.” Unfortunately such polarizing stories play with our future by hijacking facts, creating confusion and delaying action on climate change.
Given the peer-reviewed research about global warming, why are we so confused as a national collective? And what can we do besides pray for a miracle to decrease our global carbon emissions?
This month, a study revealed that divisive political leaders drive our public confusion about climate change, an unfortunate finding given the overwhelming scientific consensus about global warming. The research showed that “elite cues” — statements from political leaders and advocacy groups — and the economy had the largest influence on public concern about climate change in the U.S. Extreme weather events and information campaigns barely registered an impact.
Published in the journal Climatic Change, the study used data from 74 surveys conducted from 2002-2010 to construct measures of public concern about the threat of climate change. The research examined five factors that could contribute to changes in public opinion: extreme weather, media coverage, access to scientific information, elite cues and advocacy efforts.
The authors found that the “elite partisan battle” about climate change was the most important factor in in上海419网站