A 5.9-magnitude earthquake struck central China on Monday, killing 47 people and injuring hundreds of others, official state media reported.
The U.S. Geological Survey told NBC News the quake hit in Gansu province about 8 miles east of Chabu at 7:45 a.m. Beijing time (7:45 p.m. ET Sunday). The USGS recorded it at 6 miles deep and said it caused shaking in a rural region where the infrastructure isn't seismically resistant.
The official Xinhua news agency?said in a bulletin Monday afternoon tat 47 people were dead and that at least 270 others were injured.
Many homes in the region collapsed, Xinhua reported. Widespread communications and power interruptions were reported, along with mudslides and landslides.
About 5,600 residential buildings were damaged, the Beijing-based China Daily newspaper reported Monday afternoon. Some train service was suspended, and hundreds of armed police were mobilized to repair a damaged part of the main highway linking Lanzhou, the provincial capital, to Minxian county, it reported.
Xinhua said the quake was felt in the neighboring cities of Dingxi, Longnan and Tianshui, as well as Lanzhou, more than 100 miles away. About 19,000 people live in the area that was subject to the strongest shaking, it said.
It was followed an hour and a half later by a 5.6-magnitude quake at about the same depth,?the USGS reported.
Based on the history of earthquakes of this size in rural China, there could be "significant casualties," the USGS said.
The official China Meteorological Administration warned that heavy rain was possible in southeastern Gansu province Monday night and into Tuesday. It said the rain could hamper rescue efforts and urged residents to be alert to flash flooding in areas damaged by the earthquake.
NBC News' Li Le in Beijing and Sarah Burke contributed to this report.
Watch World News videos on NBCNews.com?
This story was originally published on Sun Jul 21, 2013 9:22 PM EDT
The NCAA held a concussion summit in April 2010. It opened the conference with a talk about the concussion rates at NCAA schools and distributed the results of a concussion survey to those in attendance -- including some of the organization's top medical executives. The results of the survey were dismaying, and -- in light of a lawsuit alleging negligence over concussions by the NCAA -- potentially damaging, to say the least.
The survey was effectively a concussion questionnaire sent to all member programs. Its purpose was to focus on how schools were handling concussions. Specifically: Were they performing more intricate concussion testing, commonly called baseline testing? The first disappointment to organizers of the survey was the number of respondents -- the survey was sent to every head athletic trainer at every NCAA school, but only 48 percent responded.
Also, only 66 percent of the schools performed baseline testing. More than 170 schools did not require this testing for several reasons, including cost, inconvenience, too much time to administer the testing, lack of qualified medical personnel to administer the testing and "lack of support from coaches/administrators."
Breakdown of concussions by sport, per NCAA docs. (Provided to CBSSports.com)Most disturbing was that fewer than 50 percent of the NCAA schools, the NCAA's own documents show, stated a physician was required to see an athlete post-concussion. Also, 39 percent of schools did not have an established return-to-play guideline. This chart was also presented:
Breakdown of when players were allowed to return to play. (Provided to CBSSports.com)
The survey was done only three years ago.
The information comes from hundreds of pages of documents stemming from a concussion lawsuit against the NCAA. The documents, reviewed by CBSSports.com, are a combination of public information and never-before-seen NCAA internal memos and emails.
If the NFL did not know about these documents, it does now, and it's likely the documents will work their way into the bloodstream of the litigation stemming from the more than 4,000 players suing the NFL over its handling of concussions.
Plaintiffs suing the NCAA in this high-profile concussion case make the argument the NCAA knew of the dangers of concussions long ago but didn't act properly to protect players. As a result, players suffered unnecessarily because of concussions. The NCAA denies this.
"Student-athlete safety is one of the NCAA's foundational principles," spokeswoman Stacey Osburn said in a statement. "The NCAA has been at the forefront of safety issues throughout its existence."
But the NCAA's own internal emails at times tell a different story. One exchange shows some treating the concussion issue as joke material. NCAA staffers, documents show, mocked David Klossner, the NCAA's director of health and safety.
"Dave is hot/heavy on the concussion stuff," wrote Ty Halpin, the director of playing rules administration. "He's been trying to force our rules committees to put in rules that are not good -- I think I've finally convinced him to calm down."
? "He reminds me of a cartoon character," responded Nicole Bracken, the associate director of research.
? "HA!" Halpin responded, "I think you're right about that!"
Halpin later would testify that the NCAA's concussion plan is "toothless."
The NFL presumably could say that concussion problems for players started in college, not the NFL, and there are NCAA documents to prove it.
At the very least, the NCAA information possibly muddles even further the already complicated NFL concussion litigation.
Since the NCAA essentially serves as the NFL's minor league, the NFL could possibly be in an awkward position of attacking its feeder system.
There is a great deal of potential material for the NFL to use. In one part of the NCAA concussion court filings, the plaintiffs discuss an NCAA-commissioned study, authored by several experts, to examine how long concussed athletes were being kept out of games and practice.
The court documents state "the study explained that cognitive deficits took up to seven days to resolve," as "athletes required a full 7 days for postconcussive symptoms to completely return to baseline and control levels."
The document continues: "Given such findings, the authors suggested a pattern of premature return to play at NCAA member institutions, stating: We previously found that the largest percentage of collegiate football players were withheld from competition for an average of less than 5 days after concussion. The disparity between our data on average recovery time and concurrent reports on time withheld from play after concussion raises concerns based on the common assumption that resuming competition before reaching full recovery may increase the risks of recurrent injury, cumulative impairment, or even catastrophic outcome."
The plaintiffs state the NCAA ignored these findings.
In another example, an internal email exchange between several NCAA officials indicates that the NCAA's concussion testing methods were not up to par with the NFL's. And the NCAA knew it.
Intercepted NCAA email on head injuries. (Provided to CBSSports.com)
When some in the NCAA wanted to strengthen concussions rules and put those rules in the NCAA rules book, NCAA emails show some in the NCAA were concerned about things other than the health interests of the athlete. An email exchange between several NCAA officials:
Intercepted NCAA email questioning wording on concussions. (Provided to CBSSports.com)
Teresa Smith, the assistant director of playing rules administration, asks in another internal email if inclusion puts both officials and the NCAA at risk.
"Are the refs more at risk if we don't provide the educational piece on concussions or if we do provide it?" she asks in an email. "And, what about the NCAA? Would we be protecting/helping the organization by not providing the information?"
"Thus, it was clear the Playing Rules Administration and the Playing Rules Oversight Panel," the lawsuit states, "were more concerned with liability for the NCAA and its own members than the safety and welfare of the student-athletes."
That allegation is something the NFL could use in its own concussion defense strategy.
There has been some confusion regarding the availability of Nokia?s Glance feature, aka the on-screen clock which we covered recently in a tutorial post. The feature is coming to other Lumia devices via the Amber update, but we remember seeing rumors for ?exceptions? on specific devices pop up, revolving around screen technology i.e. AMOLED vs LCD.
Nokia has gone now and confirmed that the Glance is basically coming to all Windows Phone 8 Lumias except the Lumia 520 and Lumia 521 (T-Mobile, US) due to ?hardware restrictions?. While that would have been an awesome feature on the 52x series, evidently cutting hardware specs so low does have some consequences for feature parity.
Still, on the bright side the Lumia 620, 720, 810, 820, 822, 920 and 928 are all candidates for this feature, as long as their respective carriers push out the Amber firmware/GDR2 OS update to enable this cool trick. Our bet? Most carriers will allow this update to go out, much like previous Nokia ones, though it will be a staggered release as usual.
Glance allows users to check the time on their phones without having to turn on the screen. While it may seem like a throw away feature, as it turns out we use it surprisingly often. Current thought suggests it uses less battery life on AMOLED displays (Lumia 810, 820, 822, 925, 928, 1020) because it can independently turn on pixels for the backlight, as opposed to IPS LCD, which acts like one big light bulb. Still, what that means in real life is yet to be seen, but at least on AMOLED displays, the feature?s effect on battery has been negligible.
Nokia?s Amber update is expected to rollout to other Lumia devices later this summer.
Sports stars are becoming more and more popular. They have now become as sought after as some celebrities. They are on magazine covers, they attend the most exclusive Hollywood parties and compete with one another for the top sponsorship opportunities.
My case in point is Lance Armstrong. He became a household name, a role model to young people everywhere and a legend in sports performance. Sadly, some of these high profile athletes are so hungry for that small taste of fame they are doing anything to get it.
The use of steroids or use of other sports performance drugs is not something that is only rearing its ugly head in today?s age. Use of these drugs date all the way back to the times in Ancient Greece when the early Olympic games were beginning.
These performance inducing drugs were not known as steroids back then. Money was a huge motivator during these times, athletes did not play for prestige or love of the game. Athletes did not even compete for pride or for family.
The drugs were not the typical injection steroids of today. Instead, athletes ingested herbs and foods hoping to enhance their performance. Some athletes even ingested crushed sheep testicles, which are a known source of testosterone, to improve their performance.
Sports and Drugs
Doping, a term coined by Lance Armstrong himself, is referred to as taking sport performance drugs to better the athlete?s ?game?.
These athletes should have taken the time to learn about the potential benefits, the health risks and the many unknowns regarding so-called performance-enhancing drugs. These drugs include:
?> Anabolic steroids
?> Androstenedione
?> Juman growth hormone
?> Erythropoietin
?> Diuretics
?> Creatine
?> Other stimulants
Had they done the research, they may have decided that the benefits weren?t worth the risks. Not only have some of these star performers been stripped of their gold medals, some may have put their health in serious jeopardy and may only see some of the major consequences later on.
Taking anabolic-androgenic steroids to increase their athletic performance, besides being prohibited by most sports organizations, is very much illegal.
In the past 20 plus years, more effective law enforcement in the United States has pushed much of the illegal steroid industry into the black market.
However, make no mistake, athletes do know how to get their hands on them and sadly there are people in their ?circle? that will help them do it. Some of these people include managers and people on their own medical team.
Risks and Solutions
The potential risk is great for both men and women when deciding to take these type of drugs is great, some of the side effects have been identified as the following:
?> Severe acne
?> Increased probability of tendonitis and tendon tears
?> Heart problems
?> Rage
?> Depression
?> High blood pressure
?> Liver abnormalities
?> Increased risk of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) which is known as the ?bad cholesterol?
?> Drug dependence
?> Prostate enlargement
?> HIV
?> Death
Clean athletes that are competing against ?doping? athletes should be outraged and knowledge of these activities should never be kept a secret.
Coming off these type of steroids is no small feat, athletes experience some of the same type of withdrawal symptoms as any other drug dependent person.
Some of the withdrawal symptoms include weakness, fatigue, weight loss, decreased blood pressure, nausea, joint pain and fever. Some of these athletes have needed to seek professional help to discontinue these drugs even long after their athletic careers have ended.
Are sports performance drugs ruining sports? This has definitely got some eye brows raised as we are seeing it happen more and more.
The love of fame and the love for the sport have become somewhat intertwined. We as a society and the athletes themselves may hold these people to impossible expectations. In the end, an athlete may only have a small time slot to actually shine but they have a whole life that can be seriously impacted if they choose to use sports enhancing drugs.
Jennifer is a licensed drug and alcohol counselor, and mental health advocate. She's passionate about health care, addiction issues and lack of vital services for people with mental health illness. JenDesjardins has 21 post(s) at Top Secret Writers
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that a New York Times journalist must testify in a high-profile government leak case, saying journalists do not have special free speech protections.
The ruling by the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is a victory for the Obama administration, but it could hurt efforts by Attorney General Eric Holder to improve relations with the media. The Justice Department last week pledged to tighten its criteria for targeting journalists in leak cases.
Two other cases this year sparked a media outcry that the Justice Department had been overzealous in investigating government leaks and had infringed on free speech rights.
Prosecutors sought the testimony of reporter James Risen, author of a book, "State of War," that contained information the government believed was leaked by former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling.
In 2010, Sterling was indicted on 10 charges relating to Risen's book, including unauthorized retention and communication of national defense information.
The following year, Holder authorized the Justice Department to issue a subpoena seeking Risen's testimony. Risen challenged the subpoena, saying he could not be compelled to testify under the First Amendment and federal common law.
A three-judge panel ruled Friday there is no "reporter's privilege" under the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech, meaning journalists do not receive special treatment.
"The reporter must appear and give testimony just as every other citizen must," wrote Chief Judge William Traxler. "We are not at liberty to conclude otherwise."
Judge Roger Gregory dissented, pointing out that the law is not clear on the issue. Some courts have found in the past that there are instances in which reporters can invoke a "qualified privilege," which means they can refuse to testify.
"The paramount importance of the free press guaranteed by our Constitution compels me to conclude that the First Amendment encompasses a qualified reporter's privilege," Gregory wrote.
Risen's attorney, Joel Kurtzberg, said he was disappointed with the ruling and that he and his client were "evaluating our next steps." A spokesman said the Justice Department agreed with the decision and was considering how to proceed.
David Anderson, an expert in media law at the University of Texas at Austin, said the ruling was consistent with recent rulings in similar cases, which have indicated "a hardening of the judicial arteries toward the press."
If Risen refuses to testify, he will almost certainly face imprisonment and "had better pack his toothbrush," he said.
Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer in Los Angeles who has represented journalists in similar cases, said the ruling should prompt the Justice Department to back down on its request that Risen testify.
"One would hope they would look at this situation anew," he said.
MEDIA OUTCRY
Various media organizations, including Reuters America LLC, which is owned by Thomson Reuters Corp, joined a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Risen.
Congress is considering a new media shield law, backed by President Barack Obama, that would enshrine legal protections for journalists. The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing on the bill next week.
Friday's ruling came one week after the Justice Department issued new guidelines that would curb the ability of prosecutors to seize reporters' records when investigating leaks.
In a recent case, prosecutors obtained a warrant to search Fox News correspondent James Rosen's emails. He was named a "co-conspirator" in a federal leaks probe involving his reporting on North Korea.
In another case, the Justice Department seized Associated Press phone records as part of a probe into leaks about a 2012 Yemen-based plot to bomb a U.S. airliner.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Jennifer Saba and David Ingram; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Doina Chiacu)
The NapAnywhere pillow is a Kickstarter project developed by Ravi Shamaiengar, a medical doctor who was tired of the stiff, painful neck that resulted when he slept during travel. ?He found those U-shaped pillows just didn’t offer the neck and head support that was needed for sleeping upright, so he says: “Using my knowledge of [...]
