Friday, March 8, 2013

New fungal infections, 6 months after outbreak

AP

Nearly six months after injectable steroids made by the New England Compounding Center were implicated in an outbreak of fungal meningitis and other infections, more people are turning up ill, including those who previously tested clear of infection.

By JoNel Aleccia, Senior Writer, NBC News

Nearly six months after the start of a deadly fungal meningitis outbreak blamed on tainted pain shots, patients who originally tested clear are showing up sick, raising worries that the incubation period for illness may be longer than anyone thought.

Though the flood of patients has slowed dramatically, two or three people each week are still reporting infections caused by contaminated steroids in the outbreak that has killed 48 and sickened more than 700, officials with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.

Among those new patients are people who received mold-tainted doses of the drug methylprednisolone, but who previously got MRIs or lumbar punctures that showed they were free of infection. These slow-growing infections aren't as severe as meningitis, but worrying nonetheless.

?If you had an MRI in October, I don?t know that you?re out of the woods,? said Dr. Anurag Malani, an infectious disease expert at St. Joseph Mercy Hospital in Ann Arbor, Mich., the state that has seen the most cases -- 253 -- in the outbreak.

CDC officials issued a health alert this week urging clinicians to remain vigilant for new infections, even in people who show subtle symptoms -- or none at all.

?We are seeing some patients with very long incubation periods,? said Dr. Tom Chiller, associate director for epidemiological science in the CDC?s division of foodborne, waterborne and environmental diseases. ?We expect to see people getting infections months after their injections.?

Nearly 14,000 people in 23 states were exposed to the contaminated drugs produced by the now-shuttered New England Compounding Center of Framingham, Mass. An estimated 11,000 actually received shots for back or neck pain, the CDC says. So far, 720 people in 20 states have fallen ill.

Most of the seriously ill people ? those with fungal meningitis infections that caused strokes, for instance ? showed up within several weeks or one to two months starting in late September.

Back then, CDC officials told worried patients that the greatest risk for meningitis was likely in the first 42 days -- six weeks -- after the shots, suggesting that they could breathe easy after the first week in November.

But patients have continued to?become ill, most often not with meningitis, but with infections at the injection site, with epidural abscesses or with a condition called arachnoiditis, an inflammation of the nerves near the spine.

Though doctors have little experience with such fungal infections, the incubation period appears to be stretching longer than a previous outbreak in 2002, when a patient became ill 152 days ? five months ? after getting a steroid shot.

?I don?t think at this time we know how long the incubation period is,? Malani said.

That?s worrisome for people like John Horrell, 54, of Nashville, Tenn., who received a steroid shot for back pain from one of three tainted lots in September. He says he?s feeling ?remarkably well? these days, with no signs of infection. Health officials told him the biggest worry was after 90 days or so, but now he?s not so sure.

?There?s people still having problems,? said Horrell, who owns a sound system firm. ?We just keep our fingers crossed. I try not to worry about it.?

CDC officials want health workers to continue to monitor patients who got shots, particularly those whose have pain that is worse or different from the initial symptoms. But even patients who previously tested negative for infections and those with no apparent symptoms are at risk.

?These infections may be unrecognized because some patients have not continued to receive close clinical follow-up or because they have not recognized symptoms suggestive of a localized infection,? the new alert says.

CDC recommends that health workers have a low threshold for considering MRIs, or magnetic resonance imaging, to detect unseen infections.

Even patients who initially resisted MRIs because they didn?t want them or didn?t think they needed them have turned up with infections, said Malani.

The danger of not detecting the infections is that they only will get worse, Chiller said.

?Any untreated infection can sit there and smolder and spread,? he said, noting it can move beyond soft tissue to bone and the central nervous system, with devastating, even deadly, effects.

That, however, raises the next question in the ongoing meningitis puzzle: How long should infected patients be treated? Some patients say they?ve been told three months, then nine months -- then a year.

The primary drugs used to treat the fungus -- voriconazole and amphotericin B -- are both expensive and toxic, with a host of side effects ranging from hair loss and hallucinations to liver problems.?

Margaret Snopkowski, 51, of Fowlerville, Mich., has been on the drugs since early October, when she developed?meningitis -- and later, arachnoiditis -- after getting a contaminated shot.

She's back home, but life is hardly back to normal, especially with the high doses of antifungal drugs necessary to keep her infection in check.

?She walks around like a zombie,? said her husband, Tom Snopkowski. ?It just knocks her on her butt.?

Family members had hoped she?d be better by now, or at least looking to wean herself from the drugs. But that?s not happening, her husband said. Another MRI is scheduled for next week to see whether the infection has gotten worse.

?Now, they don?t even have an end date for that treatment," he added.

Related:?

Pharmacy tied to fungal outbreak files for bankruptcy

Fungal meningitis risk greatest first six weeks after shots, CDC says

Fungal meningitis victim hopes Congress hears: 'It's torturous'

Source: http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/07/17213640-six-months-after-scandal-patients-still-developing-fungal-meningitis?lite

tony stewart kurt busch kurt busch nba dunk contest 2012 act of valor woody guthrie benson henderson

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Tour Tracker 2013 - Reference iPhone App (PAID)

Tour Tracker 2013

Robert Virzera

[list][*]App Genre: Reference

[*]App Price: $0.99

[*]Released on: March 6, 2013

Tour Tracker 2013 is designed to help touring technicians track where their friends tours are. Tour Tracker currently follows almost all "Yellow Card Attractions". Features:-See tours near you by a variable distance-See where all tours are in a List View-See where all tours are by a Map View-See Tours Year ScheduleFollowed Yellow Card Attractions-Alvin Ailey-American Idiot-Anything Goes-Beauty and the Beast-Billy Elliot-Blue Man Group-Can't Stop Singing-Catch Me If You Can-Disney Live Mickey's Music Festival-Disney On Ice 100 Years of Magic-Disney On Ice Dare To Dream-Disney On Ice Rocking Ever After-Disney On Ice Treasure Trove-Disney On Ice World Of Fantasy-Disney's Phineas and Ferb-Dream Girls-Elmo Makes Music-Elmo's Super Heroes-Flashdance-Hair-Hubbard Street Dance-Jekyll & Hyde-Jersey Boys-Jersey Boys Second National-Les Miserables-Lion King-Mary Poppins-Memphis-Million Dollar Quartet-Peter Pan-Priscilla Queen Of The Desert-Rock Of Ages-Shrek-Sister Act-The Book of Mormon-War Horse-West Side Story-Wicked-Wicked Munchkinland

? © Robert Virzera

AppStore link to Tour Tracker 2013 - Reference iPhone App

Tour Tracker 2013 - Reference iPhone App is now available.

How to download Tour Tracker 2013 - Reference iPhone App?

You can download Tour Tracker 2013 - Reference iPhone App onto your iPhone by following the link below.

Link: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/tour...9553?mt=8&uo=2

Source: http://forum.iphoneworld.ca/iphone-appstore/tour-tracker-2013-reference-iphone-app-paid-284619.html

google privacy changes windows 8 preview leap year moratorium dwts season 14 cast leap day michigan primary results

Microsoft to Allow Office 2013 License Transfers to New PCs

Office 2013

Microsoft has reversed course and will allow Office 2013 users to transfer their licenses to another PC in the event that their computer dies or they buy a new machine.

Initially, Microsoft said that an Office 2013 license would only be transferable if the PC on which it was installed died while under warranty. Complaints from customers, however, prompted Redmond to change that policy.

The change is effective immediately and applies to Office Home and Student 2013, Office Home and Business 2013, Office Professional 2013, and the standalone Office 2013 applications.

Customers, however, can only transfer their Office 2013 license once every 90 days (except in the event of hardware failure).

"At Microsoft, we strive to make Office the very best product to help busy people and families get things done," Jevon Fark with the Microsoft Office team wrote in a blog post. "A key ingredient in our formula for success is listening to our customers, and we're grateful for the feedback behind this change in Office licensing."

As ZDNet pointed out, Microsoft tried to limit transfers with Windows Vista back in 2006, but complaints prompted it to drop the idea.

The subscription-based Office 365, meanwhile, is accessible on up to five devices. For more, see 10 Things You Need to Know About Office 365, as well as PCMag's full review of Microsoft Office 365 Home Premium.

Source: http://feeds.ziffdavis.com/~r/ziffdavis/pcmag/breakingnews/~3/CR1u9lzKVQM/0,2817,2416288,00.asp

Macys Thanksgiving Day Parade 2012 Turkey Cooking Times Butterball mashed potatoes Apple Black Friday how to cook a turkey emma stone

White House tours halted, staff reductions blamed

WASHINGTON (AP) ? No more chance sightings of first dog Bo?

Citing the impact of new spending cuts on staffing, the U.S. Secret Service and the National Park Service announced that public tours of the White House will be canceled beginning Saturday.

The cancellations come at the start of the spring tourist season, a popular time for White House tours.

Callers to the White House Visitors Office information line are told that tours already planned will not be rescheduled. The free, self-guided tours can take three weeks to six months for visitors to arrange through requests submitted to members of Congress or to embassies.

The cancellation is one of the consequences attributed to the automatic spending cuts that began to take effect Friday. The cuts, known in Washington as "sequestration," were initially designed to force Congress and the Obama administration to agree to a long-term deficit reduction plan. Those negotiations, however, failed to come up with an alternative.

As a result, the government has been forced to cut $85 billion from a myriad of federal accounts between March 1 and Sept. 30.

The U.S. Secret Service said that Uniformed Division Officers assigned to the public tours will be reassigned to other security posts. The reassignments will reduce overtime costs as well as potential furloughs that could have been required to meet the cuts in spending, the Secret Service said.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-tours-halted-staff-reductions-blamed-204824946.html

north korea missile don t trust the b in apartment 23 world financial center shabazz muhammad angela corey zimmerman charged bonobos

Monday, March 4, 2013

How to keep Facebook from annoying your friends

Facebook

5 hours ago

LH

NBC News

Facebook is using you, whether you know it or not. Sometimes it's obvious: you like a page, you click share, Facebook benefits. Other times, you have no clue until a friend asks you about a photo they saw that you liked. The unfortunate side effect to all of this is that it can actually make you an unbearable annoyance to your friends, and you probably don't even know it. Here's how it works, and how to stop it.

When we talk about the ways that Facebook uses your personal information, we're usually talking about why you should care about your privacy, or how Facebook tracks your activity. In this case, we're discussing how your Facebook habits are used ? with or without your knowledge ? to bother your friends with ads that they associate with you. It's a very different beast, but it can be stopped. Here's what you need to know.

EdgeRank: The math Facebook uses to pimp out your likes

You've probably seen an increase in posts in your news feed that say "[Your Friend] likes [Random Group]'s photo," with the full photo and text of the group's post right there, as though you liked the group yourself.

LH1

Courtesy of Lifehacker

On your phone or tablet, you've likely seen "Sponsored Posts" that say "[Another Friend] likes [Random Company]" with an invitation to like that page as well. It's annoying to be sure, but you also likely know that your friend didn't choose to advertise the page to you ? it's Facebook, using our habits to get likes and shares.

The logic that Facebook uses to decide what lands in your friends' feeds is called "EdgeRank," and it's purposefully obscure ? after all, if everyone understood it clearly (and lots of people claim to, but don't), advertisers wouldn't have to pay to promote posts, and users would be able to easily filter their feeds and block ads they don't want to see.

EdgeRank serves two purposes: For people who operate Facebook pages and manage brands, it's the algorithm that decides whether your post gets out to as many of your fans as possible. For users, it's the likelihood you'll see something in your feed liked or shared by someone else. It's also the math that governs why your news feed refuses to stay in real chronological order, even after you set it to "most recent."

We're not talking about your own status updates, photos or anything you post to Facebook yourself ? just the way you interact with other pages, groups, and people on Facebook. It's one thing if your news feed is full of baby pictures from your old high school friends ? it's another thing when every post you like from a group you follow ends up in all of your friends' news feeds without you knowing or being able to control who sees it.

Facebook uses you to help pages and brands find friends and go viral

The problem: When you see a post in your news feed from a group you've never heard of, like a heartwarming photo or a campaign for a cause, you might assume it's because your friend chose to share it with their followers by clicking the "share" button. That's not the case: odds are they thought it was good, clicked Like, and moved on.

A quick way to check is to visit their profile directly: if you don't see the post there, then Facebook decided that you might like to see it too, not your friend.

This is annoying, but it's especially problematic when you click like on something that may not be work-safe, assuming that "like" is not "share," so "who'll see it, right?"

H2

Courtesy of Lifehacker

For example, one of my friends is a model: she's attractive, and her photo shoots are often artsy, but it's nothing you'd want your boss asking you about because they peeked over your shoulder at work. By "liking" her posts about her photo shoots, I run the risk of unintentionally sharing her photos with my Facebook friends, and having their bosses scold them for looking at scantily clad model pics. See the problem?

Unfortunately there's no way out of this: Facebook doesn't let you set the privacy level of something you've liked. If the original poster shared publicly, your like is public as well. Remember that if you're a fan of any Facebook groups or pages that like to keep their posts in-group or close to pocket, or it may land in a friend's news feed.

This is EdgeRank in action: it's not sinister, it's just Facebook deciding that your friends may have similar interests and may like what you like.

The downside is that it populates your news feed with photos and updates from pages you may have no interest in, and does the same to your friends. We've shown you how to clean up your own feed, but how do you avoid cluttering up everyone else's feed?

The solution: First, think before you click the Like button. There's no way to determine which likes will be posted to which friends, so before you like that photo on one of your favorite pages, assume that it could be broadcast to all of your friends. Here are some other tips:

  • Hide those pages you like from your profile and set their posting rights to "only me." In our tests, doing this hid the things we liked from those groups from other people's feeds ? but we can't be 100 percent sure it'll work for everyone.
  • Check your activity log. This is the only way to know which of your likes are public and which aren't. (Go to your profile, then click "Activity Log.") You'll see a history of every status update, photo and shared item you've liked, along with an icon that'll tell you whether it's public or shared only with friends. Facebook usually doesn't let you change the visibility of those entries, but you can "unlike" something if you don't want it in someone else's feed with your name plastered over it.
  • Use Social Fixer to tame your own feed. You can use Social Fixer to trim down those types of reliked posts in your own feed, removing the temptation to like them yourself. Still, this doesn't stop Facebook from resharing groups you actually do like with your friends that don't.

Facebook uses your likes to sponsor brands, cluttering up your friends' feeds

The problem: You've seen the ads before: Friend A, B, and C Like [Brand], with a Like button next to it. They're right there in the middle of your news feed ? sometimes there are two or three of them together in a big "sponsored" box.

Facebook

Courtesy of Lifehacker

It's annoying, especially when the brand in question isn't even remotely interesting to you. Save your friends the hassle, and audit the brands and companies you like on Facebook.

The solution: Unlike pages and brands that you don't need an active relationship with, and don't like new ones unless you need to. Save your friends the irritation of seeing "So-and-So Likes A Company You Couldn't Care Less About!" every time they log in to Facebook and just remove brands you don't feel like providing free advertising for.

Don't get us wrong, lots of companies offer great customer service, discounts, and other incentives to like them on Facebook (we'd be lying if we said we didn't want you to like us on Facebook too,) but let's be honest. You probably liked a bunch of companies on Facebook because you shop there and wanted to see what their Facebook page was all about, or because they were running a contest that required you Like them ? not because they offer you any tangible benefit today. Alternatively:

  • Follow the same companies on Twitter instead. Twitter doesn't come with the same commitment that Facebook does, or the same access to your friends. You could also use Twitter lists to stay on top of their deals and coupons without having to like or follow them at all.
  • Set up a second Facebook account for "liking" purposes. A second account, one that you only use for things like promotions and discounts, is invaluable ? stuff it full of as much or as little information as you choose to provide, and then use it instead of your main account. You can even use it as a way to see what's Facebook is sharing from your primary account without you knowing (although the specifics vary from friend to friend.) Note: Facebook's policy is one person-one account, so you'd likely be violating their TOS by doing this. Just something to keep in mind.
  • Adjust your Facebook ad settings. One reader noted that you can also make sure to limit Facebook's ability to use your name and likeness in ads (which they currently don't, but say they may in the future), and how they use your likes and pages to generate ads for others to see. There's even a settings page governing it, even though it's quite buried. Set both options to "No One."

Facebook isn't planning to stop anytime soon

Annoying your friends ? by which we mean making sure that Facebook ads your friends see have your name above them (and vice versa) aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

Facebook's new Graph Search gives you a great way to find people who share interests with you, but it also gives advertisers a great way to cross-reference people's likes and interests so they can better target who should see their brand or product, and which of their friends they should use to say "See? Your friend already likes us, why don't you?"

Image from the always funny Actual Facebook Graph Searches.

Courtesy of Lifehacker

Image from the always funny Actual Facebook Graph Searches.

Now, Graph Search is only limited to a small number of people right now and it respects your privacy settings. If you're smart about keeping your privacy settings where they should be, you don't have anything to worry about from Graph Search. Similarly, it's not certain that Graph Search is even open to advertisers right now, so there's no reason to get out the torches and the pitchforks.

Another example of the same philosophy was Facebook's Social Reader. Graph Search is in the future, but Social Reader is a great example of a Facebook feature that went belly up because people didn't care too much for their activity being shared automatically and without their explicit permission each time it was used.

News sites using Social Reader, like The Washington Post andThe Guardian (the latter of which has already killed their social reader app) saw tumbling numbers last year as readers ditched them en masse. Whether they left because they didn't care for every story they read being automatically shared with their friends (assuming they didn't change post visibility to "only me,") or because they just didn't like what those apps had to offer is still a matter of debate.

The bottom line: Just know what you're getting into

The truth is that Facebook is a free service to users, and it needs to make money somehow, and that money will be made using your data. The question is whether Facebook uses it or they give it to someone else to use, and how that information is used.

The moral of the story here is to be careful with the things you like, because it's not just things you share that end up in your friends' news feeds. Since you can't even go to your profile to see what's been shared on your behalf, it's impossible to tell until someone pings you to ask why you've been liking so many posts from one particular Facebook group lately, or why the only thing you seem to share these days are someone else's photos.

Of course, stay on top of your privacy settings, the post visibility of apps you use (remember: "Only Me" is your friend,) watch what you click "Share" on. Oh, and of course: Every time Facebook makes an arcane change with nebulous results, make sure to update them accordingly.

Morefrom Lifehacker:

Source: http://www.today.com/tech/facebook-uses-you-annoy-your-friends-heres-how-stop-it-1C8645123

black panthers mauritania obama open mic jefferson county colorado extenze tenacious d steve smith

Sunday, March 3, 2013

Moscow skeptical about US autopsy of Russian boy

Demonstrators hold posters reading "There is no place for juvenile justice in Russia," "I want all children be happy" during a massive rally to back the ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian children in Moscow, Saturday, March 2, 2013. Russia voiced strong skepticism Saturday about the U.S. autopsy on Max Shatto, a 3-year-old adopted Russian boy in Texas and demanded further investigation as thousands rallied in Moscow to support the Kremlin ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian children. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko)

Demonstrators hold posters reading "There is no place for juvenile justice in Russia," "I want all children be happy" during a massive rally to back the ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian children in Moscow, Saturday, March 2, 2013. Russia voiced strong skepticism Saturday about the U.S. autopsy on Max Shatto, a 3-year-old adopted Russian boy in Texas and demanded further investigation as thousands rallied in Moscow to support the Kremlin ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian children. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko)

Demonstrators hold portraits of adopted Russian children who died in U.S., during a massive rally in Moscow, Saturday, March 2, 2013. Russia voiced strong skepticism Saturday about the U.S. autopsy on Max Shatto, a 3-year-old adopted Russian boy in Texas and demanded further investigation as thousands rallied in Moscow to support the Kremlin ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian children. The poster at left reads: "Vitya Tulimov died in 2000 in New Jersey at the hands of adoptive parents." A poster at right reads "Dima Yakovlev." (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko)

Demonstrators carry Russian flags and a huge poster reading "March in Defense of Children" during a massive rally in Moscow, Saturday, March 2, 2013. Russia voiced strong skepticism Saturday about the U.S. autopsy on Max Shatto, a 3-year-old adopted Russian boy in Texas and demanded further investigation as thousands rallied in Moscow to support the Kremlin ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian children. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko)

(AP) ? Russia voiced strong skepticism Saturday about the U.S. autopsy on a 3-year-old adopted Russian boy in Texas and demanded further investigation as thousands rallied in Moscow to support the Kremlin ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian children.

Max Shatto's death in January, ruled accidental, came a month after Moscow passed a ban on international adoptions in retaliation for a new U.S. law targeting alleged Russian human rights violators. Russian officials have pointed at Max's case to defend the ban, which has drawn strong public criticism.

The boy, born Maxim Kuzmin, died Jan. 21 after his adopted mother, Laura Shatto, told authorities she found him unresponsive outside their home where he had been playing with his younger brother.

Ector County Sheriff Mark Donaldson and District Attorney Bobby Bland said Friday that four doctors reviewed the autopsy report and agreed that the boy's death was not intentional. Preliminary autopsy results had indicated Max had bruises on several parts of his body, but Bland said Friday that those bruises appeared to be self-inflicted. He also said no drugs were found in Max's system.

Foreign Ministry rights envoy Konstantin Dolgov said Saturday that Moscow "proceeds from the understanding that these are the preliminary results of the investigation" and urged U.S. authorities to produce autopsy documents and the boy's Russian passport.

The Investigative Committee, Russia's top investigative agency, has opened its own probe into the case. It said has sent a formal request to the U.S. to provide the autopsy and other related documents. The committee's spokesman, Vladimir Markin, said it also has urged U.S. authorities to allow Russian investigators take part in the U.S. probe.

Children rights ombudsman Pavel Astakhov, who initially claimed that the boy had been "murdered" by his adoptive parents, tweeted that Russia should "demand convincing proof."

Pro-Kremlin groups rallied in central Moscow to back the ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian children and call for more adoptions by Russian parents. Protesters held signs with pictures of adopted Russian children who died in the U.S. in recent years and wore ribbons in the colors of the Russian flag with slogans demanding Max's half brother Kirill be returned to Russia.

"Today people are telling us that Maxim supposedly maimed himself to death with a blunt instrument and damaged his own internal organs. That's a slap in the face of our country and our people," Irina Bergset, one of the march's organizers, said in a speech at the rally.

Olga Batalina, a lawmaker from the Kremlin-backed United Russia party who reportedly authored the adoption ban, said Saturday that Russia should work towards liquidating orphans as a class by focusing on state-sponsored "basic moral values."

Organizers claimed upwards of 20,000 attended, though police estimated numbers at 12,000. Two people were arrested. Approximately 25,000 attended a protest against the U.S. adoption ban in January.

The atmosphere at Saturday's march was festive and rather bizarre. Marchers included large groups of old people in fur coats, members of obscure esoteric communist parties, and organizations that had no apparent link to the march, including the Gardener's Union and a group for victims of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine. Organizers herded people into columns and handed out balloons as eerie pop music sung by children wafted over loudspeakers.

"I came here because Americans beat our children they adopt," Ivan Levin, a participant, said. "Ideally, that shouldn't happen."

A significant number of demonstrators had been bused in from as far as hundreds of miles away from Moscow, a common tactic to boost numbers at pro-Kremlin rallies. In the days leading up to the march, classified ads and letters on United Russia stationery appeared online offering people money to attend or demanding that business owners and university directors bring 50 people.

Organizers vehemently denied that anyone had been paid or coerced to attend. The independent RBK news agency, however, posted photos on Twitter of what it said were marchers being paid after the march ended.

President Vladimir Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said on independent Rain TV Saturday that the rally demonstrated that "this problem has been very painful and sensitive for our people." He said that Russian diplomats had taken action to return the boy, but acknowledged that it would be difficult to achieve because the adoption process was in accordance with Russian law.

Last month, Russia's state-controlled Rossiya TV channel aired a talk show with the boy's biological mother, Yulia Kuzmina, who lost parental custody of Max and half brother Kirill Kuzmin over negligence and serious drinking problems. Kuzmina said during the show that she gave up drinking, had found a job and pledged to fight to regain custody of Kirill. But right after the show, Kuzmina and her boyfriend, who were traveling back from Moscow to their hometown, were taken off the train by police after a drunken brawl.

___

AP writers Vladimir Isachenkov and Laura Mills contributed to this report.

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/cae69a7523db45408eeb2b3a98c0c9c5/Article_2013-03-02-Russia-US-Adoptions/id-198d0d512c8844919ec314dd40e1311d

where the wild things are birdsong teresa giudice atlanta hawks 2012 white house correspondents dinner forrest gump bernard hopkins

Insight: Will Dreamliner drama affect industry self-inspection?

SAN FRANCISCO/SEATTLE/PARIS (Reuters)- Eight years ago, U.S. regulators substantially increased their dependence on the aircraft industry to help keep flying safe.

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said it would no longer directly manage routine inspection of design and manufacturing. Instead, it would focus on overseeing a self-policing program executed by the manufacturers themselves through more than 3,000 of their employees assigned to review safety on behalf of the FAA.

These so-called designees had existed for decades, but the FAA had vetted and controlled them. Under the new system, companies chose and managed them, to the point where the FAA even had trouble rejecting those they felt were unsuitable for the job, according to one government watchdog.

As the drama of the overheating lithium-ion batteries on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner unfolds, that relationship is coming under intense scrutiny.

No evidence has surfaced that the designee system is responsible for the battery problem that has prompted regulators to temporarily ban the plane from the skies. The story has raised the question, however, whether the regulator hands over too much power to the industry.

"This is an occupation with a built-in conflict of interest," said Gordon Mandell, a retired FAA certification engineer.

With Boeing doing about 95 percent of its own inspections, adds Mary Schiavo, former Department of Transportation inspector general, "it's kind of do-it-yourself." The situation was not unique to Boeing, she said. "There are places around the world that saw an FAA inspector once, maybe five years ago, and that's it."

HOW WERE TESTS VERIFIED?

Boeing's new ultra-modern carbon-composite jet has been grounded around the world for six weeks as the National Transportation Safety Board leads an investigation into two battery incidents, joined by the FAA. Both agencies are also looking into the 787 certification process.

"We need to understand what tests were done and who was certifying those tests, and again how they were verified - not just by Boeing, but by the regulator as well," NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman said on February 8, referring to the battery and other key parts made in a long, global supply chain.

At the broadest level, even some supporters of the designee process are asking whether the FAA is up to the task of effectively overseeing the system.

Among them is Ken Mead, another former DOT inspector general and a veteran of investigating the FAA. "The questions I'd want answers to are: Does the FAA have the right people with the right expertise to make sure the FAA is in a position to critically second-guess? And have they critically reviewed the approval process so this does not happen again?" he said.

The FAA's defense of its abilities and approach is unwavering. "Some have asked the question whether the FAA has the expertise needed to oversee the Dreamliner's cutting edge technology. The answer is yes, we have the ability to establish rigorous safety standards and to make sure that aircraft meet them," FAA Administrator Michael Huerta said in an industry speech on January 23. "The way to enhance safety is to keep the lines of communication open between business and government."

The FAA and Boeing both say the FAA is better off managing the system and picking out high-risk areas on which to concentrate. It lacks the resources to manage every individual and inspect every part, they say, and industry has a strong incentive to cooperate - unsafe products jeopardize business. They point out that FAA staff invested more than 200,000 hours over eight years certifying the 787 on top of work done by designees.

Perhaps their biggest defense is that there have been no fatal crashes of scheduled commercial flights in the United States for four years.

BIG JOB, NOT-SO-BIG BUDGET

The FAA's inability to expand its budget in line with an increasingly large, complex and global aviation industry played a major role in the 2005 decision to expand the delegation system. Certification work increased fivefold between the 1940s and 1990s and has only become more complex since.

"By shifting our inspection focus from reviewing test results to overseeing the designation program, we will be able to more efficiently use our resources while extending our oversight coverage, thereby increasing safety," the FAA said in the official announcement of the program, printed in the Federal Register on October 13, 2005.

It added, however, that "More than one commenter states that the FAA should be hiring more inspectors, not spending its limited resources creating an organizational designee system." Public comments from opponents of the new system outnumbered supporters 14 to 11, it noted.

While the agency still signs off on a new plane and key steps along the way, the bulk of the interim work - often 90 percent or more - is done by the designees at the manufacturers. As of 2010 there were about 1,000 FAA engineers and inspectors devoted to design review and inspection, compared with 3,655 designees working for companies on the FAA's behalf, according to government data.

Boeing has set up a separate group within the company to do the FAA work. Those employees approve the design of the planes except for the key steps and the final "type certificate" for new aircraft, which needs a stamp from FAA officials.

The jobs command respect and draw veterans who are more likely to stand up to pressure from their employers and won't risk losing their "ticket" - the FAA designee status - by cutting corners, people in the industry say. Candidates choose specializations and typically must pass written and oral exams meant to check their understanding of what a designee, also known as a "designated engineering representative" (DER), does and the limits of their powers.

"I've never seen it where a company's pressure on the DER was strong enough for them to bend from their loyalty to the FAA," said Richard Lukso, the former president of Securaplane, the company that made the chargers for the 787 batteries. They have unique insight into how companies work, he added, since they come from the inside.

A WATCHDOG BARKS

In 2011, the DOT's Office of Inspector General criticized the FAA for losing control of its oversight and risking safety. It cited one company designee, acting on behalf of the FAA, who took his employer's view in a dispute over whether an aircraft fuel system met agency standards. The manufacturer took a year to suspend the employee from FAA duty. The company was not identified in the report.

The FAA and the inspector general do not agree on how to weed out unwanted designees. The FAA says it is creating a new database of employees removed from consideration because of "misconduct"; the inspector general's office wants a broader set of employees to be included.

The FAA has been criticized beginning early in the Dreamliner program for skimping on supplier visits, as well.

In the first four years of the Dreamliner program, between 2003-2007, FAA officials visited only 1 percent of suppliers at Boeing and other major engine and plane makers, and left unchecked thousands of factories that would go on to make parts for the 787, according to another report by the same Office of Inspector General, this one from 2008. All parts for U.S. planes must be FAA certified at some point, but that can happen as part of the final assembly of a plane rather than at the factories where they are made.

The same report described how a worker at one factory - it is unclear if it was a supplier to Boeing or another plane maker - used a piece of paper, instead of a ruler, to measure parts. Another used a tool marked "uncalibrated." One supplier made a part fit by grinding away an edge, without permission from the manufacturer, and training overall was deemed inadequate.

The FAA made a number of changes in response to the report, but it only raised the minimum number of supplier visits at major manufacturers to nine a year from four, a spokesman for the inspector general told Reuters.

All FAA inspectors are based in the United States, even though much of the 787 airframe and many key components like the battery are made outside the country, raising the question of whether distance might make them less likely to visit. Inspectors travel when necessary, the FAA said. In its own statement, Boeing said that "in addition to requiring frequent and detailed progress reporting, during the development and design phase we regularly had people on site with our suppliers and they had people on site with Boeing."

FLAMMABILITY TESTS APPROVED

No full description of the process by which Boeing engineered and tested its lithium-ion battery has been disclosed, but emerging details show how regulators relied heavily on Boeing to do most of the work on what the FAA acknowledged from the start would be a potentially dangerous technology.

The FAA approved "special conditions" for the 787 battery in 2007, acknowledging risks including "Flammability of Cell Components."

"Safe cell temperatures and pressures must be maintained during any foreseeable charging or discharging condition and during any failure of the charging or battery monitoring system not shown to be extremely remote," the first condition reads. "Extremely remote" is FAA code for once in 10 million flight hours.

Special conditions do not include specific tests, so Boeing itself proposed them to the FAA. Designees could approve the design of tests and monitor the tests themselves, though the FAA told Reuters its staff also had approved the testing program and observed testing.

A Boeing presentation in February described "baking the battery to induce overheating, crush testing and puncturing a cell with nail to induce short circuit."

At the same time the FAA approved the special conditions in 2007, FAA staff and the aircraft manufacturing industry, including Boeing, were devising lithium-ion battery tests that included all the details the special conditions lacked.

Published in 2008 and adopted by the FAA three years later, the standard known as RTCA DO-311 gave precise instructions for tests. The worst-case-scenario test required turning off all failsafe electronics, short-circuiting the battery and watching for flames for three hours.

Boeing did not run those tests. "The RTCA standards were not designed for the 787," and Boeing provided extensive testing to show the 787 met the special conditions, spokesman Marc Birtel said.

The FAA acknowledged the batteries were potentially flammable in the special conditions approved. Said former Inspector General Schiavo, "They knew they had problems. They just said 'OK.'"

(This story is corrected with FAA to Federal Aviation Administration in paragraph two)

(Additional reporting by Mari Saito, James Topham and Tim Kelly in Tokyo, Andrea Shalal-Esa in Washington, Deepa Seetharaman in Detroit, Bill Rigby in Seattle and Karen Jacobs in Atlanta; editing by Martin Howell and Prudence Crowther)

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/insight-dreamliner-drama-affect-industry-self-inspection-120645048--finance.html

olympia snowe davey jones dead monsanto boston weather dr seuss birthday romney michigan derrick williams