Thứ Tư, 22 tháng 11, 2017

Waching daily Nov 23 2017

Thanksgiving is fast approaching and in case you didn't have any family controversy to

keep you livid this holiday season, your friends over at the National Football League will,

of course, do something infuriating to disrupt your holiday.

This year, the already failing sports league is further damaging their reputation by retaliating

against one of their own teams.

Apparently, the current National Anthem protest that has dug the NFL into an almost unrecoverable

hole is being combined with a grievance that the social justice warriors were wining about

previously.

That being the name of Washington's team.

The Redskins were at the center of a controversy over their name and if it was disrespectful

to the Native American population in the United States.

The most recent objection is to the fact that the Redskins will be hosting a Thanksgiving

day game, which some consider to be some sort of sick joke.

If we assumed that the majority of Americans even cared about football anymore (which their

ratings would say that we don't) it seems like the anniversary of making friends with

the Native Americans would be a great thing to celebrate.

However, according to Fox News Insider, that's just not how it's being viewed by those

fellow Americans who can find offense at anything:

"A writer for The Nation magazine criticized the NFL for putting the Washington Redskins

game on primetime on Thanksgiving.

Dave Zirin wrote that the 'R*dskins' name is a 'slur, a name that exists mainly because

of genocide and displacement.'

'It's as if NFL owners, by having Washington host this game, are having their own private

joke,' Zirin wrote, adding 'a league that celebrates racial slurs can never be an engine

for social change.'

Washington fan Juan Williams, who said he also finds the name offensive to Native Americans,

asked the panel their thoughts on the story.

'Doesn't matter what you call them, they're going to lose anyway,' Philadelphia native

and Eagles fan Jesse Watters remarked."

Watters remark is probably the most accurate assessment that could be made.

Not only do many predict that they will lose the game, everyone in the NFL is losing on

a much grander scale lately.

The NFL has completely PC'ed itself out of an audience by alienating anyone who possesses

even a modicum of patriotism.

Maybe some of the former NFL fans would have been open to hearing about any problems actual

Native Americans had about the name "Redskins" if it had been the American Indians who were

making the complaints, but at this juncture, it's a moot point.

In fact, the same Fox interview pointed out that a recent study showed that about 90 percent

of Native Americans didn't find the name "Redskins" offensive at all.

For more infomation >> This Is The Sick New Protest NFL Players Have Planned For 'Racist' Thanksgiving Day Games - Duration: 5:08.

-------------------------------------------

Why Hair Graft Density in a Single Hairline Lowering Session is Limited to Ensure Graft Survival - Duration: 9:27.

Thank you for your question.

You submitted your question with a single photo. And it seems like you recently had

both a forehead reduction as well as hair transplant and you are concerned that the

density of hairs is not going to be as good as you hoped for and you have some concerns.

And you state in your question that you checked in with your doctor and your doctor said that

several of the dots in the scalp are representing hairs that are not necessarily sticking out

so you're looking for additional thoughts.

Well, I can certainly share with you reflections about patients who we've treated like yourself

in our practice. A little bit of background, I'm a Board-certified cosmetic surgeon and

Fellowship-trained oculofacial plastic and reconstructive surgeon. I have been in practice

in Manhattan and Long Island for over 20 years. Hair transplant has been a very important

part of my practice. I am also the founder of TrichoStem™ Hair Regeneration Centers,

a system that we developed to non-surgically treat male and female pattern hair loss using

a material called Acellular matrix with platelet-rich plasma. So certainly this situation is not

unfamiliar to essentially every hair transplant surgeon.

It is understandable to have these concerns particularly when you look at the grafts that

are placed. I think that one of the things that I always try to communicate with patients

when we were doing a lot of transplants was essentially how transplants are done. And

I would essentially draw squares in the scalp, in the areas where we're transplanting and

say that we can at maximum put maybe 20 grafts per square centimeter and look at the donor

area and show what's being harvested. Mathematically, objectively, it always made sense. Patients

would sign off and understand but then came the fear of whether or not the transplanted

hair would have the level of density that we would hope for.

I've always told my patients that there is an upper limit to how much density you

can have with a single transplant because the more you try to crowd the grafts, the

higher the rate of grafts that will not make it. And that is important because your donor

area is a limited resource. Now your doctor I'm sure had a similar discussion with you.

Generally speaking, it's understood that it takes about a year or if not longer to

fully see the full growth.

We've actually helped a lot of patients who have had transplants done elsewhere. Looking

back to what I was discussing earlier about Hair Regeneration, Hair Regeneration is a

system that we developed that evolved out of hair transplant. We wanted the maximal

growth of our grafts which we worked so hard to place as well as the healing of the donor

area. And we were able to observe that thinning hairs actually became thicker that were not

directly transplanted hairs. So, from that evolved this system called Hair Regeneration

over the past 7-8 years which we've used to help men and women with pattern loss particularly

in areas which are not good transplants candidates.

Basically, whenever you have decent density but not significant coverage, it's a challenging

area to transplant. And we were able to figure out that if we are able to reactivate hair

that isn't growing, thicken thinning hair, prolong the longevity of existing growing

hairs, well then the coverage can actually be as good as a transplant, if not better

than two transplants. Basically, it's a function of effective coverage depending on

density as well as the caliper of individual hairs.

Well, we've also been able to take the same technology and apply it to patients who had

transplants done elsewhere. Generally speaking, somewhere in the second and third month, we

can do an injection to help stimulate healing and improve the quality of the existing hair.

And in addition, it appears that the transplanted hairs start to grow sooner. And I would theorize

or hypothesize that there is some value in improving the quality and the survivability

of those transplanted hairs. This is not an absolute but it's based on my clinical observation

with the experience that I have doing hair transplant.

That being said, I think that you still have a lot of time in front of you before you can

draw any conclusions. And no intervention surgically will be of any significance or

benefit in the short-term. You basically have to wait and see how well those grafts heal

and what the outcome will be.

It is well known in our specialty that in a survey of members of the International Society

of Hair Restoration Surgery that 65% of people after transplant did feel that they wanted

more density. And that's not in any way a reflection of the quality of the surgery

but rather the reality of the outcomes that are desired by the patient and the limitations

of what a transplant can deliver. So there has to be always the meeting of the minds

as to the realistic outcomes and maximal results that are somewhat, of course, depends on technical

execution of the surgery but also in the limitation of wound healing and the viability of transplanted

hairs.

I often tell my patients that if you're considering hair transplant, well be prepared

to do two because it is typical to need more than one for most people who are ready to

have a transplant. This motivated a lot of the work that we've done with Hair Regeneration

where anticipating the progression of hair loss and trying to treat before you need transplant

has been essentially the core approach to thinning that we have been employing now for

patients who come from around the world.

So I think that you need to, as I always recommend, maintain good communication with your doctor.

See your doctor for follow-ups as scheduled and just wait this out to see what ultimately

happens and understand that this is a reality for not just you but for at least 65% of patients

who undergo hair transplant.

So I hope that was helpful, I wish you the best of luck and thank you for your question.

For more infomation >> Why Hair Graft Density in a Single Hairline Lowering Session is Limited to Ensure Graft Survival - Duration: 9:27.

-------------------------------------------

Who is David Cassidy? Partridge Family star and US pop idol dies aged 67|K CHANNEL - Duration: 2:50.

Who is David Cassidy? Partridge Family star and US pop idol dies aged 67

David Cassidy was admitted to hospital in Florida last week after suffering kidney and liver failure.

Publicist Jo-Ann Geffen confirmed his death by sharing a statement from the family: "It is with great sadness that we announce the passing of our father, our uncle, and our dear brother, David Cassidy.

"David died surrounded by those he loved, with joy in his heart and free from the pain that had gripped him for so long.

Thank you for the abundance and support you have shown him these many years." Earlier in the year it was reported that Cassidy had dementia, and announced he would stop touring to "enjoy life".

Who was David Cassidy? Cassidy was born on April 12, 1950 in Manhattan, New York. He grew up in a family familiar to the entertainment industry.

His parents were actor and singer Jack Cassidy and actress Evelyn Ward. Cassidy spent years in and out of schools, and hardly made it through one year of college.

When he turned 18 the actor performed in a play called "The Fig Leafs are Falling". In 1970 he got the opportunity to play Keith Partridge on sitcom The Partridge Family. Cassidy played the eldest of five siblings in a band, Keith.

He did not know when he took the role that his real life step-mother would play his on-screen mother in The Partridge Family.

The show proved to be a hit, and The Partridge Family released eight studio albums, with hits such as I Think I Love You. In 1974 hundreds of fans were involved in a crush at a concert in London.

Thirty fans were taken to hospital, while a 14-year-old girl, Bernadette Whelan, died from cardiac arrest four days later. Cassidy said the event would "haunt" him the rest of his life.

He quit the show the same year to focus on his solo career. At the peak of his fame in the 1970s, the world was gripped by "Cassidymania".

Overwhelmed fans screamed his name and countless merchandise items such as lunchboxes and pillowcases sported his face.

The US pop idol received multiple Grammy nominations and has sold more than 30 million records worldwide. In 1976 he married actress Kay Lenz, who he divorced in the early 1980s.

Later, in 1984 he married horse trainer Maryl Tanz. They met in 1974 at a horse sale, but their marriage had ended by the end of the 1980s.

His daughter, Katie Cassidy, was born in 1986 from a relationship with Sherry Williams Benedon. He then married Sue Shifrin in 1991, who he had a child, Beau, with in the same year. They divorced in 2014.

In recent years the star opened up about his struggle with alcohol. Between 2010 and 2015 he was arrested three times for driving under the influence.

In February 2017 Cassidy fell down during a concert, which is when he revealed he was living with non-Alzheimer's dementia. Cassidy was admitted to hospital on November 18. He was then put in a medically induced coma, awaiting a liver transplant.

For more infomation >> Who is David Cassidy? Partridge Family star and US pop idol dies aged 67|K CHANNEL - Duration: 2:50.

-------------------------------------------

Insight: Is it time to give up on the diesel engine? - Duration: 17:04.

Insight: Is it time to give up on the diesel engine?

What should we do about diesels? Should we listen to the Government, which is lining up to introduce a diesel tax tomorrow, and buy fewer of them? Or should we continue buying diesels new in large numbers, as we have done over the past 30 years? Should we defend them,

spurn them, ban them from big cities or remove them from the road altogether? Is their proven low CO2 output vital in our fight to reduce greenhouse gases, or are their particulates and nitrogen oxides (NOx) so harmful – as an increasing body of research seems to show – that they should be removed from sale altogether?     Finding the correct answers to these burning questions seems to be clouding more and more car purchase decisions. There are supporters for each of the above courses of action

but the arguments for banning diesels are becoming ever more shrill, led notably by Sunday newspapers quoting doctors' organisations and academic sources in support of their case, and diesel sales are falling as a result.  Yet precious little guidance through the diesel minefield is forthcoming, either from government agencies or the car industry.

The only certainties for diesel-owning motorists – roughly 40% of the 30 million or so car owners in the UK – is that they bought their cars in good faith and that tomorrow, come what may, they'll need to get to their kids to school and themselves to work, mostly by car.

  The industry's view is multi-faceted and complex.

First, while carefully admitting 'more can always be done', its experts believe that when current, tough Euro 6 (EU6) emissions standards are combined with much more realistic and impartial test regimes that arrive this September (called WLTP or Worldwide harmonised Light vehicles Test Procedure), a modern car's output of NOx will have been cut to tiny proportions.

Diesels should be free to get right on with their job of contributing to lower CO2.

Recent figures from the SMMT, the UK's car manufacturers' club, indicate that CO2 emissions have been reduced for the past 19 straight years and are now well over 30% lower (at an average for a new car of around 120g/km) than in 2000.

  Second, the automotive industry is understandably reluctant to criticise the cars it has already put on the road, on the grounds that they complied with the legislation of the time.

UK car users have bought roughly a million diesels per year and there are an estimated 12m diesel cars and vans already on our roads. Penalising them would create havoc.

Completely changing the car parc, if you started now, could take 20 years.

  Third, Europe's motor industry needs to preserve its markets, viability and infrastructure to fund new, electrified cars planned along its 'glidepath' towards the 95g/km manufacturer fleet average thats required by 2020 – and onward towards a hoped-for zero-emissions future in 2050.

(In the UK, Jaguar Land Rover has just opened a new diesel plant in Wolverhampton and Ford builds most of its world requirement for diesels in Dunton).

Fourth, its bosses are extremely reluctant to wade into a complex, illogical debate that has conflated Volkswagen's highly publicised diesel emissions scandal in the US with a 15-year-old progression of EU emissions standards – currently at EU6 – whose fuel consumption results bear so little resemblance to owners' experience that they are presumed to be dishonest.

'They're all at it' is the common accusation.   The testing regime (called NEDC or New European Driving Cycle) attached to that 15-year progression is more at fault than the actual emissions standards.

The impending WLTP will change all that and is welcome. The WLTP standards will be accompanied by new real-world driving tests, called RDE, and it is the combination of the two that will deliver new, believable fuel consumption and emissions figures.

  The Government, meanwhile, is hamstrung (and embarrassed) by its promotion over past decades of a legislative framework that has appeared to encourage diesel adoption as a way of lowering CO2 – evidently at the expense of cutting NOx.

Knowledge of the harmful effects of NOx (about a quarter of which emanates from transport across the UK, but about half in London) has increased greatly in the past five years, although government agencies have lately been made unpleasantly aware of university studies that started issuing NOx health warnings 20 years ago.

Officialdom is very reluctant to offend car users in large numbers, such as by outlawing or cost-loading diesel cars they bought in good faith.

Lobbyists say offending the motorist has in the past proven to be about the most vote-sapping action a government can take.

Even London's mayor, Sadiq Khan, who has loudly expressed a determination to improve London's air quality by charging diesels £10 to enter the London congestion zone from October, is applying the charge to only pre-EU4 diesels - those made before 2005.

  "When EU4 was introduced for 2005, the industry's attention turned to diesel particulates," says Mike Hawes, CEO of the SMMT. "By the time EU5 arrived in 2010, they were the big issue.

NOx wasn't seen as damaging the way it is now, but I'm definitely not saying the industry disputes the effects of NOx on human health: we're no experts.

Our concern shows in the speed we've brought anti-NOx after-treatments to market."   What about diesel particulates? Consisting mainly of the ash left over from combustion, these are acknowledged as an important problem and damaging to human health, but the automotive industry believes it has already moved to cut them dramatically by fitting cars with particulate traps (DPFs) from 2010 when EU5 was introduced.

Why isn't there such concern over the pollution contribution of petrol cars? Because experts say that can be more easily controlled by increasingly effective catalytic converters, first seen in the early 1990s.

Levels of petrol exhaust pollutants rise less rapidly than diesels with extra speed, extra load, difficult gradients and hard driving (which is why diesels have attracted all of those headlines about reputable cars producing 10 times their advertised output of pollutants in real-world tests).

  The lower compression ratios of petrol engines have traditionally resulted in their production of considerably less NOx than diesels from combustion. Neither in the past have they had the diesel's exhaust ash problem, requiring a particulate filter.

But the situation could be about to change. The rise of more frugal, harder-working, smaller-capacity turbocharged petrol engines – with higher resultant compression ratios – is likely to mean they will also make more NOx.

There are also strong indications that they may produce finer particulates that may be harmful and may need filters of their own.

Research continues… The most urgent problem, identified by London mayor Khan, appears to be the profusion of old-school diesels – notably, well-worn and decades-old taxis, trucks and delivery vans as well as passenger cars – on our roads.

The mayor has already hit the headlines, and been rebuffed by the government, for proposing a £500m scrappage scheme that would pay diesel owners up to £3500 for ditching old diesel cars.

  Before he left office, London's previous mayor, Boris Johnson, also proposed a 2020 clean air directive that would penalise pre-EU6 (2014) diesels and pre-EU4 (2005) petrol cars by charging their drivers £12 on top of the regular daily congestion charge to enter London's congestion zone.

Latest indications are that Khan's administration will keep the idea but bring it forward by a year. The writing seems to be on the wall for old diesels.

Those who need older cars for inner London will do better owning petrol models. What should the concerned private car owner do about diesel ownership? First, say the experts, consider the kind of driving you do.

If you have a healthy early diesel and never drive in urban areas, it's no crime to keep it. You won't be contributing to urban pollution, the urgent problem.

Steve Gill, director of powertrain engineering at Ford of Europe, says: "Our concern is that customers will move away from diesels as a result of unbalanced coverage of the emissions situation.

We're not trying to force diesels on customers – they should buy what they want – but we've had to reposition some of our products and we're having discussions now about where to put our money in the future." In Autocar's opinion, diesel car ownership must not be off the agenda, because a bedrock of diesel sales is necessary to keep CO2 levels falling, the latest cars are clean and the industry needs the sales to fund the electrification that is coming.

There is no doubt that the cleanest cars, with both their particulate and NOx outputs 'trapped', are EU6 models, produced from 2014. We'd choose one of those.

  Were we about to buy a new diesel car, we'd consider delaying the purchase until models tested under the new, real-world WLTP process enter the market at the end of this year.

Then, despite all the fuss, we'd feel we'd chosen a car that was clean, efficient, legal and great to drive.

David Greenwood, head of advanced propulsion at Warwick University, says: "A 2016 EU6 car emits less than 1% of the particulates a similar car did in 1992. For NOx, the output is well below 10%.

If you read some media, you'll see headlines that say air quality is getting worse in cities. The data says it's getting better.

But it's not getting better at the rate we'd like it to." The bottom line is this: the cleanest diesel you can buy is probably the one you'll be able to buy late this year, which not only meets current EU6 standards but has also survived the latest WLTP 'real-world' test procedures.

If you need an older car and are worried about urban pollution, go for a post-2014 EU6 diesel or a post-EU3 petrol model, 2005 or later. Do think about the kind of driving you do.

Diesels, even older models, are fine if you don't drive in high-pollution areas. Do consider an electric or plug-in hybrid if you have a two-car family fleet.

Your second car can be a diesel. You may find your EV's smoothness makes it your first choice.

Do spread the word that better times are imminent for diesels, brought by stringent standards and a better testing process. Do study the facts about diesel vehicles and air pollution, and pass them on.

Disinformation has the potential needlessly to threaten jobs and cripple an important industry. Dont get the idea that criticism of diesel cars is all wrong.

There are at least seven levels of car diesel 'cleanliness'. Only recent versions can truthfully be termed clean.

Dont abandon the idea of making your next car a modern diesel, though. Diesel sales are helping to deliver vital targets for lowering CO2 and reducing global warming.

Dont accept assertions that steps already taken to cut toxic emissions and CO2 have not worked. There are figures to show they have – although there's still much more to do.

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét