VW Mulling Over Chattanooga To Produce Three EVs

first_img Volkswagen To Open New Electric Car Factory In North America Volkswagen Plans Massive Electric Car Offensive: 1 Million EVs By 2025 New Details Emerge On Volkswagen I.D. Hatch: 48-kWh Battery Or Bigger Three electric Volkswagens to be produced in North AmericaVolkswagen intends to produce three new electric cars, based on the MEB platform, in North America. Speculations about Mexico were downplayed, which inclines us to assume that the choice will be the Chattanooga plant in Tennessee.The decision about expanding Chattanooga to handle new BEVs (or about an all-new plant) is to be made by the end of this year.See Also Source: Automotive News The obvious model choice for North America seems to be:Volkswagen I.D. CROZZVolkswagen I.D. BUZZ / Volkswagen I.D. BUZZ CARGOand maybe also Volkswagen I.D. VIZZIONThe first plant to produce Volkswagen I.D. and derivatives to be Zwickau, Germany (from November 2019 at earliest). 31 photos Source: Electric Vehicle News Author Liberty Access TechnologiesPosted on October 25, 2018Categories Electric Vehicle Newslast_img read more

Read More →

Tesla Investor And The Infamous Kodak Moment

first_imgKodak developed the digital camera, but missed the opportunity. Today (well, 5 to 10 years ago actually), everyone in the automotive industry knows about electric cars, but there are still many manufacturers that are doing almost nothing. Another Kodak moment ahead for those who fail to see the future?“There are lots of risks, of course, and “we could still be wrong”, McCombie makes clear. But it is the traditional car makers who are under pressure, he claims, suggesting this could be their “Kodak moment”.“They spent hundreds of years building up their knowhow in industrial combustion engines and they do a great job with that, but what happens if all of us are suddenly saying ‘oh, I want an electric car’? Suddenly, that knowhow is useless,” he concludes.“What happened with Kodak is they actually discovered the digital camera, but they buried it because it was too frightening for them. They thought it would kill their film business. But the fact that they didn’t innovate killed Kodak.””Source: finance.yahoo.com Source: Electric Vehicle News Panasonic Sees Gigafactory 1 Profit In Near Future Legacy automakers risk the fate of KodakBaillie Gifford & Co.’s Iain McCombie said in an interview that too many people are focusing on controversial tweets posted by Elon Musk instead of the huge opportunities ahead for Tesla.Tesla is now selling in the U.S. more cars than Daimler and if we really think that EVs are the future, there is almost unimaginable potential of growth for electric cars (but also other Tesla businesses like solar roofs, energy storage, autonomous driving and trucks).This is why long-term investors like Baillie Gifford (the third largest shareholder of Tesla) backs Tesla, while those engaged in legacy automakers need to decide what those manufacturers should do. Invest in EVs or risk the fate of Kodak, who missed out on the digital camera future.See Also U.S. Tesla Sales In October 2018 Up By 861% October 2018 Plug-In EV Sales Slide Into Top Three Of All Time Author Liberty Access TechnologiesPosted on November 6, 2018Categories Electric Vehicle Newslast_img read more

Read More →

EGEB Beijing Olympics go green Florida solar goals Brown U green deals

first_imgSource: Charge Forward Electrek Green Energy Brief: A daily technical, financial, and political review/analysis of important green energy news.Today in EGEB, the Beijing Winter Olympics go green in 2022. Florida Power & Light starts a huge solar push in the Sunshine state. And Brown University in Rhode Island makes wind and solar deals. more…The post EGEB: Beijing Olympics go green, Florida solar goals, Brown U. green deals appeared first on Electrek.last_img

Read More →

According To Tesla SpaceX Employees Elon Musk Is Fit To Lead

first_imgMusk now faces possible penalties and other fallout effects of his most recent Tweets about Model 3 production, but at least the survey shows us that the majority of his employees have his back. Exactly how much that’s worth is another matter altogether, but it’s helpful to know that his people largely still trust him as their leader.As it now stands, the SEC is in a bit of a pickle. They likely won’t remove him as CEO because that would severely impact investors. “SEC Chairman Jay Clayton argued at the time of the original October settlement that taking Musk out of Tesla may also harm investors, since he is so important to the company. That would be anathema to the regulator’s mission to protect investors.”Part of that settlement was that Musk would continue as CEO of Tesla, and it would be counter-intuitive if the SEC were to revisit that decision at this time. Per U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan’s order, Musk now has until March 11th to justify the alleged violation of the settlement.No one really knows which direction this will take, but it’s clear that the SEC is watching Musk’s every action very closely, which will certainly make Elon’s Twitter life more difficult. But what can continue to strengthen Elon’s conviction is his employees’ support in him and the mission at large. After all, when the team has your back, it can provide that extra bit of resolve to push through short-term challenges in order to refocus on the big picture.===Author Bio: Shankar Narayanan is the editor of 1redDrop.com. Has an MBA from Kent State University and an engineering degree from Madurai Kamaraj University. He has been an active contributor to top financial sites like SeekingAlpha and GuruFocus, and has a penchant for talking business, finance, and technology.*InsideEVs Editor’s Note: EVANNEX, which also sells aftermarket gear for Teslas, has kindly allowed us to share some of its content with our readers, free of charge. Our thanks go out to EVANNEX. Check out the site here. While Elon Musk Tweets Can Be Stupid, We Should Hope Tesla Succeeds TESLA AND SPACEX EMPLOYEES STILL LARGELY SUPPORT ELON MUSK’S LEADERSHIP, SURVEY SHOWS2018 was both an excruciating and rewarding year for Elon Musk and Tesla employees – painful because Elon Musk kept getting himself entangled in needless controversies, Twitter fights and a lot more; and rewarding because Tesla not only doubled its production in 2018, but also managed to find new demand to match its rising production.Check Out These Stories: Source: Electric Vehicle News  77.82% selected “Yes”, while only 22.18% chose “No”. The total number of respondents was 284, with 221 positive and 63 negative responses. Tesla CEO Elon Musk: A Genius With A Grand Quest Full Of Goodness Tesla CEO Elon Musk Has A Knack For Getting His Way Flickr: thaddeus cesariIn the fourth quarter of 2018, Tesla delivered 90,700 Model 3, Model X and Model S. That’s a huge number when you consider that the disruptive EV maker delivered just 103,020 units for the entire year in 2017.Hamish McKenzie, a former member of Tesla’s communications team, recently commented on Musk’s recent escapades:It has sometimes been tempting to join those celebrating his recent public embarrassments – I think we can confidently state that he is the only executive to have achieved the rare trifecta of getting sued over a tweet, calling a British cave-diver a ‘pedo,’ and smoking a joint during an on-camera interview. And now he’s in hot water again with the SEC over another tweet. But my basic position hasn’t changed since 2014. We should hope he succeeds.Despite all the controversy that Musk has been shrouded in over the past 12 months, there’s been a clear signal that the people he leads at Tesla as well as SpaceX – a significant majority of them – believe in his leadership.In a recent survey conducted by Blind, a social network for the workplace, it emerged that no less than 3 out of 4 Tesla and SpaceX employees felt that Musk had it in him to take the two companies forward. The statement was a simple one that required a true or false response: “I am confident in Elon Musk’s ability to lead the company.” Source: Teamblind.comKnowing Musk’s penchant for off-the-cuff, often caustic remarks that could create cringing apprehension within Tesla’s board (and its investor community), you’d think that employee opinions would reveal a mixed bag. In a way, they do, but they also validate Musk’s ability as a leader, not just as a maverick entrepreneur with a flair for rubbing people the wrong way.The survey ran from Feb. 14 – 21, 2019 and was answered by 1,400 Tesla and 250 SpaceX employees who are also users of the Blind app. Here are the results: *This article comes to us courtesy of EVANNEX (which also makes aftermarket Tesla accessories). Authored by Shankar Narayanan. The opinions expressed in these articles are not necessarily our own at InsideEVs. Author Liberty Access TechnologiesPosted on March 6, 2019Categories Electric Vehicle Newslast_img read more

Read More →

A Closer Look At The UKs First Sec 7 Failure To Prevent

first_imgAs highlighted in this post, there were two firsts in last week’s U.K. Serious Fraud Office enforcement action against Standard Bank Plc (currently known as ICBC Standard Bank Plc): (i) the first use of Section 7 of the Bribery Act (the so-called failure to prevent bribery offense) in a foreign bribery action; and (ii) the first use of a deferred prosecution agreement in the U.K.A post later this week will turn to the later, but before dissecting “how” the enforcement action was resolved, it is important to understand “what” was resolved.This post takes a closer look at the Section 7 allegations and findings in the Standard Bank (SB) enforcement action. In short, the SFO’s first Sec. 7 “failure to prevent bribery” in a foreign bribery action was aggressive –  indeed some might say dubious.The key points – all based on the SFO’s charging document and/or the court’s judgement – are as follows.The enforcement action against SB was based on the conduct of its former “sister company” (Stanbic Bank Tanzania Limited (ST)) and two former employees at ST in regards to just one transaction.The transaction was a private placement offering for the Government of Tanzania (GOT).In connection with the transaction, SB connected due diligence on GOT and the enforcement action finds no fault in this regard.However, the enforcement action faults SB for not conducting effective diligence on a local partner inserted into the transaction by ST.SB’s oversight in this regard was the result of an apparent misunderstanding at SB based on – in the words of the SFO –  “a reasonable interpretation” of SB’s own written guidelines.The end result was that SB relied on ST to conduct due diligence and to raise any concerns regarding the local partner. Indeed, the SFO alleges that SB  was provided a “two page checklist from ST of the steps it had taken” in regards to due diligence of the local partner.SB’s alleged failure though was in allowing – and trusting – that its sister company would conduct effective due diligence of a local partner in one transaction.As stated by the Judge “the SFO has reached the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that any of Standard Bank’s employees committed a [bribery] offence: whilst a payment of US $6 million was made available to EGMA (the local partner), the evidence does not demonstrate with the appropriate cogency that anyone within Standard Bank knew that two senior executives of Stanbic intended the payment to constitute a bribe, or so intended it themselves.”Elsewhere, the Judge repeated: “the evidence does not reveal that executives or employees of Standard Bank intended or knew of an intention to bribe.”All of the above took place against the backdrop of SB having – as highlighted in the resolution documents – various policies and procedures designed to the same conduct giving rising to the enforcement action.Indeed, the SFO’s statement of facts contain an appendix titled “Training Schedule and Interview Excerpts re Training & Awareness of Policies” and identifies – for three SB employees – extensive training including “course name” and training dates.SB’s alleged failure also took place against the backdrop of – in the words of the Judge – “Standard Bank [having] no previous convictions for bribery and corruption nor has it been the subject of any other criminal investigations by the SFO.”Moreover, the Judge stated: “[T]here is no evidence that the failure to raise concerns about anti-bribery and corruption risks … was more widespread within the organization.Given the above allegations and findings, it is curious why SB even voluntarily disclosed the conduct at issue to the SFO, particularly in light of Sec. 7’s adequate procedures defense (highlighted below).But then again, counsel to SB (like counsel in other FCPA or related internal investigations) no doubt secured substantially more in legal fees by making the disclosure (compared to the other reasonable alternative of not disclosing and remedying any internal control deficiencies) plus the deferred prosecution agreement comes with post-enforcement action compliance obligation. Moreover, counsel achieved name recognition by being the first law firm to represent a Sec. 7 corporate defendant and secure a DPA on behalf of its client. (One can only imagine the speaking opportunities in the future for “how they did it”).Relevant to the disclosure issue, the resolution documents state: “[t]he disclosure was within days of the suspicions coming to the Bank’s attention, and before its solicitors had commenced (let alone completed) its own investigation.”Against this backdrop, my own two cents is that if SB’s disclosure was premature, careless and indeed reckless.Given Sec. 7’s adequate procedures defense, and based on allegations and findings in the enforcement action, the first use of Sec. 7 by the SFO seems dubious (albeit with judicial blessing).But then again, so too is certain use of the FCPA’s internal controls provisions by U.S. enforcement authorities (in situations that originated with voluntary disclosures). With increasing frequency, U.S. enforcement authorities have seemingly ignored the qualifying language in the statutory provision and also seemingly ignored its own sensible guidance relevant to the provisions.The same came be said of the SFO’s first use of Sec. 7 of the Bribery Act.Sec. 7 has qualifying language and the U.K. Ministry of Justice’s Sec. 7 guidance (highlighted below) is sensible and seemingly speaks to the nature of the conduct actually alleged in the SB enforcement action.In short, the U.K.’s first use of Sec. 7 of the Bribery Act is similar to several FCPA enforcement actions where the enforcement theory seems to be, with the benefit of perfect hindsight, to zero in on one transaction (against the universe of thousands of similar transactions) and say shoulda, coulda, woulda.With this commentary out of the way, the remainder of this post first provides relevant background on Sec. 7 of the Bribery Act and Ministry of Justice guidance on Sec. 7. It then excerpts the SFO’s resolution documents and the court judgement relevant to the Sec. 7 offense against SB that was deferred.*****Section 7 of the Bribery Act states:(1) A relevant commercial organisation (“C”) is guilty of an offence under this section if a person (“A”) associated with C bribes another person intending—(a) to obtain or retain business for C, or(b) to obtain or retain an advantage in the conduct of business for C.(2)But it is a defence for C to prove that C had in place adequate procedures designed to prevent persons associated with C from undertaking such conductSection 8 of the Bribery Act defines associated person in Sec. 7 as follows.(1) For the purposes of section 7, a person (“A”) is associated with C if (disregarding any bribe under consideration) A is a person who performs services for or on behalf of C.(2) The capacity in which A performs services for or on behalf of C does not matter.(3) Accordingly A may (for example) be C’s employee, agent or subsidiary.(4) Whether or not A is a person who performs services for or on behalf of C is to be determined by reference to all the relevant circumstances and not merely by reference to the nature of the relationship between A and C.(5) But if A is an employee of C, it is to be presumed unless the contrary is shown that A is a person who performs services for or on behalf of C.In Bribery Act Guidance, the U.K. Ministry of Justice stated, in pertinent part, as follows regarding Sec. 7: “[n]o policies or procedures are capable of detecting and preventing all bribery” and “no bribery prevention regime will be capable of preventing bribery at all times.”According to the Ministry of Justice, “[t]he objective of the [Bribery] Act is not to bring the full force of the criminal law to bear upon well run commercial organisations that experience an isolated incident of bribery on their behalf.”As relevant to the adequate procedures defense, in the Guidance the Ministry of Justice detailed six bribery-prevention procedures (proportionality, top level commitment, risk assessment, due diligence, communication and training, and monitoring and review) that “are intended to be flexible and outcome focused, allowing for the huge variety of circumstances that commercial organisations find themselves in.”Against this backdrop, the SB enforcement action focused on allegations that a former affiliate company of Standard Bank made an improper payment to a local partner in Tanzania intending to induce members of the Government of Tanzania to show favor to the affiliate’s and SB’s proposal for a US$600 million private placement offering to be carried out on behalf of the Government of Tanzania.Specifically, the conduct at issue focused on a “former sister company” Stanbic Bank Tanzania Limited (ST) and two individuals ST’s former Chief Executive Officer (Bashir Awale) (BA) and former Head of Corporate and Investment Banking (Shose Sinare) (SS).According to the Statement of Facts, the case concerned a financing transaction undertaken on behalf of the Government of Tanzania (GOT) by SB and ST by way of a sovereign note private placement. According to the Statement of Facts, SB and ST “acted jointly” on the proposal and “their initial proposal” quoted a combined fee of 1.4% of the gross proceeds raised.”According to the Statement of Facts, “the proposed fee to be paid by the GOT had increased to 2.4% on the basis that an additional 1% (ultimately US $6 million) would now be paid to a local partner, a Tanzanian company called Enterprise Growth Markets Advisors Limited (EGMA).” The Statement of Facts alleges that EGMA’s chairman and one of its three shareholders and directors, Mr. Harry Kitilya, was at all relevant times Commissioner of the Tanzania Revenue Authority and as such a serving member of the GOT.”According to the Statement of Facts, “the proposed involvement of a local partner and the increased fee were disclosed to SB by ST sometime after they had been included in a proposal given by ST to the GOT.”The Statement of Facts next allege that BA and and SS “intended this 1% fee promised to EGMA to induce a senior representative or senior representatives of the GOT to perform a relevant function improperly, namely by that representatives showing favor to SB and ST in their bid to secure their joint role and fees in the financing transaction.”According to the Statement of Facts:“by agreement between GOT, SB and ST, ST alone contracted with EGMA and ST alone made the payment to EGMA”“No contemporaneous document has been located which indicates that the GOT, SB or ST queried why EGMA’s services were needed. No document has been located which suggests that any of EGMA, the GOT, SB or ST sought to negotiate or ask questions about EGMA’s fee.”The Statement of Facts next allege:“There were bribery risks inherent in the arrival of a third party in a transaction with a government department. No document has been located which indicates that SB or ST raised concerns or questions about EGMA or those behind the company. There were bribery risks given that EGMA’s directors included a serving member of the GOT and the former head of a GOT agency. ST did not make SB aware of these connections and there is no evidence that SB asked any questions about who was behind EGMA.”[…]Despite the payment of the US $6 million being made as part and parcel of a deal in which SB and ST acted jointly, SB’s policies did not clearly require it to conduct any enquiry into EGMA. Despite a number of indicators of significant bribery risk nor did anyone within SB raise any questions or concerns about EGMA, its role or fees. The SB deal team relied on ST to conduct Know Your Customer [KYC] and to raise any concerns as regards EGMA.SB’s Head of Global Debt Capital Markets, Florian von Hartig [FVH], led the SB deal team that participated in the mandate. At some point after ST had already included such in a proposal to the GOT, he was made aware by ST of a proposal to involve a local partner and the related fee increase of 1%. In interview he stated that although SB had been willing to perform Know Your Customer checks on the third party, in the end he believed they were not obliged to do so, but that ST were so obliged and did carry out the KYC. He said that he had relied upon the checks of SB’s sister company, ST, to alert him to any concerns, that it was proper to do so and that he did not suspect anything untoward. He stated that SB had no contact with EGMA and accepted that SB had not made any enquiries about EGMA or its role. The available evidence does not prove that FVH or any other member of the SB team was complicit in any section 1 or section 6 Bribery Act 2010 offence.”According to the Statement of Facts, “SB and ST were acting jointly and on behalf of one another in respect of arranging this transaction.” The Statement of Facts next state:“In light of all the circumstance of this transaction, the SFO alleges that:a. BA /SS promised or gave a financial advantage to EGMA intending that advantage to induce a representative or representatives of the GOT improperly to show favour to SB and ST in appointing or retaining them for the purposes of the transaction. BA/SS permitted US $6 million to be paid to EGMA in order to reward those public officials they believed had been induced to act improperly. In acting as they did BA and SS were or would be (ignoring jurisdictional restraints) guilty of bribery contrary to section 1 of the Bribery Act 2010.b. Given the positions of BA and SS within ST, their conduct as individuals can properly prove a section 1 offence against ST as a corporate individual. Hence ST was or would also be guilty of the section 1 Bribery Act offence.c. In the circumstances of this case, BA, SS and ST were all performing services on behalf of SB and hence are all associated persons for the purpose of section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010. As the facts demonstrate, they were all persons connected to SB who might be capable of committing bribery on SB’s behalf.The position of ST, BA and SS as associated persons is illustrated by the following factors:a. SB and ST were together the “lead manager” under the Mandate Letter.b. The fee was due to SB and ST directly and jointly as lead manager and was split 50/50 between them.c. SB and ST carried out different but complementary roles within the transaction i.e. SB provided the technical expertise and ST managed the client relationship. SB could not complete the transaction without ST and vice versa.d. Members of both deal teams liaised closely with one another about the transaction.e. SB was responsible for much of the contractual drafting and had a significant level of control over the overall structure of the deal and the terms of the Mandate Letter, Fee Letter and Collaboration Agreement.f. The Fee Letter signed by both SB and ST stated that both SB and ST were acting in collaboration with the local partner.The SFO alleges that, in committing what would have been but for jurisdictional reasons a section 1 Bribery Act 2010 offence, BA and SS and ST (through BA and SS) were intending thereby to obtain or retain business for SB (or an advantage therein), as well as ST.”Under the heading “Checks and Approvals,” the Statement of Facts alleges:“FVH and his team were aware that, if SB was a direct contractual counterparty to EGMA, SB would have to conduct KYC and due diligence on EGMA as required by SB’s Introducers and Consultants policy. However, FVH and his team were of the view that because of the way EGMA’s involvement in the deal was structured (EGMA was not a signatory to the Mandate Letter, there was no separate agreement between SB and EGMA, ST would KYC EGMA and no direct payment would be made by SB to EGMA), SB’s only obligation was to KYC its client, the GOT.”FVH had made plain in his email to the SB team on 20th September 2012 that the KYC of EGMA would fall to ST and that no shortcuts would ever be acceptable as far as the KYC of EGMA was concerned. The SB deal team was satisfied with confirmation from ST that its KYC on EGMA had been completed and having been provided with a two page checklist from ST of the steps it had taken to KYC EGMA.[…]“SB [was] told … by SS that KYC had been completed on EGMA.”Under the heading “Applicable Policies,” the Statement of Facts alleges:“Throughout the life of this transaction, both SBG and SB had in place a number of committees, policies and procedures designed to address bribery and corruption.In particular, the SB had an Introducers and Consultants policy in respect of Introducer and Consultant agreements and relationships relating to business transacted in the name of or on behalf of SB. This reflects the language in section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010.A central tool in any system of anti-bribery and corruption is the KYC and due diligence process. This process should provide adequate information by which to identify any obvious warning signs associated with bribery and corruption (often referred to as red flags). The obligation to conduct KYC and due diligence was a focal point in the Standard Bank approach to anti-bribery and corruption.The strength of any KYC and due diligence process lies not only in the quality of checks which are undertaken but also in the understanding of staff as to the extent of the obligation to conduct them. In this transaction, the final formal structure of the deal was in part dictated by SB’s wish not to trigger an obligation on their part to KYC EGMA (because this would be time consuming and might jeopardise the deal, according to FVH).In circumstances in which EGMA was being engaged and paid by another SBG entity (in this case ST) which was performing KYC on EGMA, the SB team believed that there was no requirement for SB to conduct its own KYC and/or due diligence on EGMA.SB conducted KYC and due diligence checks on its client, the GOT, but only ST performed KYC checks on EGMA. […] The KYC checks on EGMA performed by ST do not appear to have been conducted in the same level of detail as would have been the case had SB conducted its own KYC and/or due diligence on EGMA.The quality of the SBG response to bribery and corruption was also influenced by broader policies designed to mitigate the risks in this area. In addition to the relevant compliance functions and high level structures (e.g. Board of Directors, Audit Committee) the most relevant committees and policies were as follows.”The Statement of Facts then lists several relevant committees and policies at both Standard Bank Group and SB.The Statement of Facts then states:“None of the SB deal team thought that the Introducers and Consultants policy applied. The policy was not clear. If the policy did apply, it was inadequately communicated to the SB deal team and/or that they were not properly trained to apply the policy in circumstances where a third party was being engaged by its sister company.In summary:a. The applicability of the Introducers and Consultants policy was unclear on the face of the policy. Moreover, it was not reinforced effectively to the SB deal team through communication and/or trainingb. SB’s Introducers and Consultants policy and/or SB’s training did not provide sufficient specific guidance about relevant obligations/procedures where two entities within the Standard Bank Group were involved in a transaction and the other Standard Bank Group entity engaged an introducer or a consultantc. The SB deal team relied on its sister company, ST, to flag any anti-bribery and corruption risks relating to EGMA through ST’s own KYCd. As a consequence of their reliance on ST to flag any anti-bribery and corruption risks relating to EGMA (and the fact that ST did not identify such risks), the SB deal team did not identify the bribery and corruption risks relating to EGMA’s involvement in this transactionThe result of this was that:a. overall, SB was engaged as joint lead manager with ST in a transaction with the government of what a number of international bodies consider to be a high risk country in which a third party received US $6 million with the protection of only a bank account opening KYC check on that third party conducted by ST, a sister company in respect of which SB had no interest, oversight, control or involvement.b. SB undertook no enhanced due diligence process to deal with the presence of any red flags regarding the involvement of a third party in a government transaction, relating to what a number of international bodies consider to be a high risk countryc. SB failed to identify and therefore deal adequately with the presence in this transaction of a politically exposed person.d. No one within SB identified, documented or considered corruption red flags in this case.e. SB permitted the formal structures of a transaction or relationship (i.e. contractual relationship, the identification of the client, the making of a payment) rather than the broader risks to dictate the existence of any obligation to conduct KYC/due diligence checks.f. SB failed to address the risk of the arrival of a third party charging a substantial feeg. SB did not provide clear guidance about relevant obligations/procedures where two parts of the SB Group (or other parties) are involved in a transactionh. the SB compliance team did not have the opportunity to assess the role of EGMA on this transaction (because it was reliant on the SB business unit identifying and raising any substantive concerns about EGMA or its role and the SB business unit relied on the findings of the KYC conducted by ST which did not identify such risks)i. the SB staff within that business unit were not adequately alive to bribery and corruptions risks. Some of them were not aware of relevant SB and Group policies.j. an anti-corruption culture was not effectively demonstrated within SB on this transaction.”In conclusion, according to the Statement of Facts:“ST and/or its senior employees BA and SS would be guilty of bribery contrary to section 1 of the BA 2010 … They would be guilty in that they promised or gave a financial advantage to EGMA intending that advance to induce a representative of GOT improperly to show favour to SB and ST in appointing or retaining them for the purposes of this transaction. ST/BA/SS permitted US $6 million to be paid to EGMA from the raised on behalf of the GOT intending it to be used to reward those public officials they believed had been induced to act improperly. They committed that offense intending to obtain or retain business for SB (or advantage in the same).ST, BA, and SS were persons associated with SB.SB failed to prevent the commission of that bribery offence.The SB procedures designed to prevent the commission of bribery offences were inadequate.”The Statement of Facts then contains a nearly ten page appendix that details “Applicable Policies, Training & Awareness.”As to the internal “Introducers & Consultants Policy” that the SFO alleged was executed in a deficient matter by SB, the appendix states: “none of the SB deal team though that this policy applied to EGMA. Given the terms in which it was written, that was a reasonable interpretation. If the policy was designed to have SB to perform checks on EGMA its terms failed to make that clear.”Under the heading “Training & Culture,” the appendix states:“Although SB did have a relevant training system in place for its employees, the effectiveness of the training provided must be in doubt given that no SB deal team member raised any concern about this transaction or sought to ask any substantive question about EGMA, its role or its fee but instead relied on SB’s sister company, ST, to flag any concerns arising from its KYC of EGMA.”[…]On the 9th January 2013 FVH attended an SB training course entitled “Standard Bank AntiBribery and Corruption (Associated Persons) Risk Training”. The course materials made reference to the risks of third parties being used as conduits for bribes by being paid for nonexistent services. However the training stated that where a consultant is not acting in relation to business transacted on the Bank’s balance sheet or in the name of the Bank, they would not be covered by the Introducers and Consultants policy but would instead be reviewed via the Bank’s procurement process on a contract by contract basis. Whether the training correctly reflected the policy on that point or not, given the subject matter of the training, it is difficult to understand why it did not prompt FVH to at least ask further questions about EGMA. There is no document in the possession of the SFO which records FVH doing so.None of the SB deal team appears to have identified or considered the risks of bribery and corruption in this transaction. Given that SB placed reliance upon the relevant business unit to identify whether the relevant policies applied and to identify bribery and corruption, any effective system requires a proactive approach by such individuals.[…]In respect of this transaction there was an absence of appreciation by the SB deal team that there was an obligation on SB to conduct KYC and/or due diligence on EGMA and its role. Between them, they made the following points:i. Given the lack of contractual relationship with or direct payment to EGMA, SB had no obligation to KYC EGMA.ii. SB’s only KYC obligation was in respect of its customer, the GOTiii. ST was obliged to KYC EGMAiv. Had there been. any problem with EGMA, they believed this would have been brought to their attention by STv. SB did not need any more than a tick box form from ST that KYC had been completedvi. They had not asked any questions themselves about EGMA or its role and did not consider they were under any obligation to do so.”The Statement of Facts next contain an appendix titled “Training Schedule and Interview Excerpts re Training & Awareness of Policies” and identifies – for three SB employees – extensive training including “course name” and training dates.As to the specifics of the Sec. 7 offense, in his Approved Judgment, the Judge, Sir Brian Leveson, stated:“Turning to the position of Standard Bank, despite the fact that it acted jointly with Stanbic on the transaction, the team at the Bank (led by its then Head of Global Debt Capital Markets, Florian Von Hartig), did not believe Standard Bank was required to conduct KYC and due diligence. In that regard, it is common ground that the applicable policies at Standard Bank were unclear and did not provide sufficient specific guidance. In this uncertainty, Florian Von Hartig interpreted them as not requiring Standard Bank to conduct any enquiry at all into EGMA. Further, despite the obvious red flags for bribery risk being present, Standard Bank’s deal team do not appear to have raised any questions or concerns about the arrangement being corrupt and did not make any enquiry about EGMA or its role. Instead, it relied entirely on Stanbic to conduct KYC checks and raise any concerns as regards EGMA.”[…]Section 7(2) of the 2010 Act provides that it is a defence for a commercial organisation to have had in place adequate procedures designed to prevent persons associated with the commercial organisation from undertaking the bribery. On the basis of the material disclosed, the Director of the SFO has concluded that Standard Bank did not have a realistic prospect of raising this defence. The applicable policy was unclear and was not reinforced effectively to the Standard Bank deal team through communication and/or training. In particular, Standard Bank’s training did not provide sufficient guidance about relevant obligations and procedures where two entities within the Standard Bank Group were involved in a transaction and the other Standard Bank entity engaged an introducer or a consultant.In the event, Standard Bank engaged as joint lead manager with Stanbic in a transaction with the government of a high risk country in which a third party received US $6 million with the protection of only KYC checks relevant to opening a bank account. The checks in relation to that third party were conducted by Stanbic, a sister company in respect of which Standard Bank had no interest, oversight, control or involvement. It did not undertake enhanced due diligence processes to deal with the presence of any corruption red flags regarding the involvement of a third party in a government transaction, relating to a high risk country. There were also failings in terms in not identifying the presence of politically exposed persons and not addressing the arrival of a third party charging a substantial fee. In essence, an anti-corruption culture was not effectively demonstrated within Standard Bank as regards the transaction at issue.”In analyzing the “seriousness of the conduct,” Sir Leveson stated:“[A]lthough the predicate bribery offence was allegedly committed by two senior executives of Stanbic, and involved the intention to bribe a foreign public official, using public funds such as to make the intended bribe payment, such as could have compromised the integrity of a financial market, that is not the conduct in respect of which Standard Bank falls to be judged.The criminality which Standard Bank potentially faces is the failure to prevent the intended bribery committed by senior officials of Stanbic (a sister company the management of which is unconnected to the Bank) arising out of the inadequacy of its own compliance procedures and its own failure to recognise the risks inherent in the proposal. The SFO has reached the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that any of Standard Bank’s employees committed an offence: whilst a payment of US $6 million was made available to EGMA, the evidence does not demonstrate with the appropriate cogency that anyone within Standard Bank knew that two senior executives of Stanbic intended the payment to constitute a bribe, or so intended it themselves.”In analyzing the “extent of any history of similar conduct involving prior criminal, civil and regulatory enforcement against the organization,” Sir Leveson stated:“Standard Bank has no previous convictions for bribery and corruption nor has it been the subject of any other criminal investigations by the SFO. It has, however, been subject to regulatory enforcement action by the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) in respect of its failing in its anti-money laundering procedures. In the instant case failings arose in policy, procedure and training, specifically in respect of anti-bribery and corruption. Although there are features of similarity relating to compliance, they related to different processes and are not connected.”In analyzing the amount of compensation to be paid, Sir Leveson stated:“Although the facts in this case involve corruption, the specific allegation concerns a breach of s. 7 of the Bribery Act 2010 and is the failure to put in place appropriate mechanisms to prevent bribery of local or national government officials or ministers, namely member(s) of the Government of Tanzania. The Joint Prosecution Guidance in relation to the Bribery Act makes it clear (at page 11) that the s. 7 offence “is not a substantive bribery offence”. Further, I repeat: the evidence does not reveal that executives or employees of Standard Bank intended or knew of an intention to bribe.Having said that, the significant albeit not intentional role that Standard Bank played in the bribery suggests at least medium culpability within the Sentencing Council Guideline. Standard Bank was the joint lead manager in a transaction in respect of which US $6 million was paid by the associated (sister) entity (Stanbic) to a local partner from the sum raised on behalf of the Government of Tanzania. The inference is that it was well understood (at least by two senior executives of Stanbic and, thus, Stanbic) that it would induce public officials to act improperly. Further, the deal team at Standard Bank was fully aware that a significant payment was to be made to a local third party in circumstances where there were different understandings amongst the team as to what the precise role in the transaction of that third party was.Although there were bribery prevention measures in place, these measures did not prevent the suggested predicate offence. Standard Bank’s employees involved in the transaction did not express adequate awareness about the bribery risks in the transaction. Further, given that Standard Bank and its former sister company, Stanbic, were advising on a transaction involving the government of a country which international bodies have identified as having a high bribery risk, and given Standard Bank’s experience in emerging markets, the risk of corruption of local and national government officials or ministers should have been anticipated in this transaction, including through Standard Bank’s bribery prevention measures.”[…]“[T]here is no evidence that the failure to raise concerns about anti-bribery and corruption risks … was more widespread within the organization.”last_img read more

Read More →

WA Groups Weigh in on Gun Debate After OrlandoLate Season Snowfall at

first_imgWith Congress struggling to agree on any gun legislation after the Orlando massacre, groups in the Evergreen State have taken a stance on the issue.Dave Workman’s with the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  He see’s serious flaws in a proposal by Democrats to block people on no fly lists from getting guns.“The problem is about due process” said Workman.  “If somebody winds up wrongfully on one of these lists, there has to be a process in which people have the right to appeal and clear their names.”Workman’s also against beefing up background checks,  which Democrats on Capitol Hill are pushing for, He claims those laws are already as strong as they can be.The Washington based Alliance for Gun Responsibility says Congress is way behind the general public in wanting stricter gun laws.The group’s Joanna Paul said “Congressional action and public opinion are pretty far apart.  We’ve seen really high approval ratings for things like background checks, even among gun owners and among NRA members.”The Alliance for Gun Responsibility has introduced a ballot initiative in Washington which would prevent individuals at risk for violent behavior from having or obtaining a gun.The organization claims it has 1,000 volunteers spread across the state gathering the necessary signatures to get the initiative, known as I-1491, onto the November ballot.The group also appears to be well funded, having raised about $1 million in contributions at its recent annual gathering.last_img read more

Read More →

Wenatchee Downtown Association has Big Plans for 2019Giving Abounds at 2019 Supper

first_imgThe Wenatchee Downtown Association is working on two initiatives for 2019 according to Executive Director Linda Haglund. The first is called “Customers First” and Haglund calls it an education program.“It’s really a program designed to communicate with the employees in the downtown to let the parking be for customers first.”Haglund says they need to inform business and employees where the other parking options are around downtown. WDA also wants to look at the landscaping around downtown and what could be improved or added.There are also nine buildings that are at some level of renovation, some of which says Linda Haglund is about residences.“What we’re looking for now, and what people are looking for, is more living in downtown. So, more and more, these building owners are looking for how they can incorporate a housing portion to their building.”Haglund says that the strings of lights over the road will remain up all year long.The annual WDA banquet is February 27th. Voting on the Best of 2018 awards is available through February 11th. Find out more at WenDowntown.org.last_img read more

Read More →

The New Dementia Story Momentia

first_imgby, Marigrace Becker, ChangingAging ContributorTweetShare6ShareEmail6 SharesDementia. Latin for “without mind.” In a world defined by the phrase, “I think, therefore I am,” there is nothing more terrifying. And dementia is on the rise. But in the midst of the fear, in the midst of the anxiety, in the midst of the despair, something else is brewing. It is brewing and it is overflowing and it is unstoppable. It is telling the new dementia story. It is momentia.What is momentia?Momentia is a joyful proclamation. Momentia declares the new dementia story, a story not of fear, isolation, despair, futility and loss, but a story of hope, connection, growth, purpose and courage. Momentia affirms a story told by the lips and lives of people living with dementia, a story of living fully and boldly in the moment. In words, it’s told by Roger as he states, “I’m not scared anymore; I look for opportunities to engage.” It’s told by members of Seattle’s Greenwood Senior Center early stage memory loss program, as they assert: “I’m still here.” “I’m still able.” “I’m a person first.” In lives, the story is told as a man savors the familiar thrill of reeling in a wild salmon, his eyes twinkling and his face lit with a broad grin. It’s told as a woman carefully appraises the brilliant color of a fall leaf on the table in front of her, dips her brush into the thick red paint, and spreads a bold streak across her paper. It’s told as a man strums his guitar at a local cafe, his fingers finding their joyful way, his wife singing along as they lead others living with dementia in a rousing rendition of “You Are My Sunshine.” Momentia exclaims, “there is hope!” And not just hope in a future cure, but hope in this moment.Dementia is not contagious. Momentia is.Momentia is an irrepressible community transformation. Around the world, a movement is rising. It is a movement that publicly demonstrates the new dementia story through the exponential growth of opportunities for people living with dementia to engage in community. As people living with dementia increasingly take the lead, as more and more cities and nations declare themselves “dementia-capable,” as expanding numbers of theaters, bookstores, parks, museums, community centers and coffee shops offer innovative dementia-friendly experiences like theater improv, watercolor painting, snowshoe hikes, poetry readings, Alzheimer’s Cafes and art gallery tours, the new dementia story is being told in a powerful public voice that captivates, inspires and ignites. This is momentia – a worldwide phenomenon – pulsing with life, spreading like fire. It’s a movement – momentum – forward motion. Dementia is not contagious. Momentia is.Momentia is an exhilarating invitation. There’s a new dementia story being told, and we can all be a part of it. The old dementia story mocked and exhausted us: “Why bother? You can’t make a difference anyway. Dementia is a hopeless situation.” In response, the new dementia story laughs brightly, undaunted, and invites us with a refreshing voice: “Come! You can make a difference, with delight and with ease. Your particular gifts can be of use in countless ways.” Working together with people living with dementia, and carried along by the joy of the movement, we can ask ourselves: what small part of the new dementia story most enlivens us? What part are we bursting to tell? This is the energizing invitation of momentia.Can we listen carefully to the new dementia story as told by the words and lives of people living with dementia, and begin to share it? Can we share it intentionally and exuberantly with friends, family, neighbors and co-workers as a way to overcome the fear and shame of the old dementia story?Can we invite people living with dementia to take a leadership role in our organizations, congregations or neighborhoods, or if we live with dementia, can we offer our stories, skills and perspectives on behalf of the movement for dementia-friendly communities?Can we write a poem, compose a song, or produce a film celebrating the strengths of people living with dementia?Can we use our research background to study the positive effects of nonpharmacological approaches to dementia, such as creative arts and community engagement?Can we publicly display art, theater, writing or music produced by people living with dementia?Can we reach out to a neighbor living with dementia, discern what brings him or her joy in the moment, and do it together?Can we contribute financially to a local art museum or theater and ask them to develop an arts engagement program designed for people living with dementia?Can we volunteer at a program like this?Can we contact our celebrity or politician of choice and ask him or her to advocate for dementia-friendly communities?Can we help our local coffee shop start an Alzheimer’s Cafe?Can we, in invigorating ways like these, and numerous ways yet to be discovered, join in the movement to redefine what it means to live with dementia in our communities? We can – with delight, and with ease.This, together, is momentia. A new story told most compellingly and vividly by people living with dementia. A community transformation unfolding as the new story surges onward, leaving its tangible and joyful mark in our museums, parks, community centers, art galleries, stadiums and coffee shops. An irresistible invitation for us all to play a part in abundantly life-giving ways.And through it all, we use the word to celebrate. The old dementia story has come to an end. The new dementia story is emerging. Momentia! Try saying it. It must, in fact, be exclaimed. The word springs from the lips, proclaiming, transforming, inviting. Momentia! There’s a new dementia story being told. It’s a hopeful story, it’s a triumphant story, and we’re all a part of it. Momentia! We’re not afraid anymore. We are celebrating. Because as dementia is on the rise, so is momentia!There’s a new dementia story being told, and we’re all a part of it! We’d love to hear from you:How is the new dementia story being told by people living with dementia in your community?Where is the Momentia movement already emerging where you live, or what dementia-friendly community transformations would you love to see?How are you already involved in redefining what it means to live with dementia in your community, or what small and delightful part would you love to play?ChangingAging will be following the Momentia story worldwide as the movement unfolds. Share your stories by commenting below, submitting guest blog posts. Please visit Momentia Seattle on Facebook and subscribe to our Momentia mailing list for the latest news and updates on the new dementia story: Momentia!Subscribe to our Momentia mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Related PostsSeattle’s All-inclusive Dementia-Friendly ‘Momentia’ Movement GrowsFormed as a coalition of “community partners,” Momentia’s purpose is to empower people with memory loss and their care partners to remain connected and active in the community. Central to the movement’s philosophy is its positive perspective on dementia and a collective determination “to transform what it means to live…”Having Alzheimer’s Is An Adventure, Not a Disease”In Seattle, community members living with memory loss are rising up as the true spokespeople, and the true experts, on what it means to live with dementia!The New Dementia Story Part 2: CharlieEvery day, we can choose to continue telling the old dementia story, a story that condemns and terrifies, a story that adds burden to an already challenging journey. Or, we can choose to stop and listen. There’s a new dementia story being told.TweetShare6ShareEmail6 SharesTags: Alzheimers Dementia Innovation Momentia Pro-Aging Seattlelast_img read more

Read More →

Study finds Why not take a risk mentality to be prevalent among

first_imgJun 1 2018″Antibiotics can’t hurt. They might even make me feel better. Why not take a risk?” You may have had similar thoughts when sick with the flu or common cold. Your doctor may think so too.A new study led by David Broniatowski, an assistant professor in the George Washington University’s department of engineering management and systems engineering, finds the “Why not take a risk?” mentality is widespread among patients and medical care providers. Many in both groups believe that antibiotics “can’t hurt” patients with flu or cold symptoms. They held this belief even though they knew antibiotics have side effects. Education alone doesn’t seem to help: many knew antibiotics don’t work against viruses. However, providers still believed the antibiotics might help patients feel better.Related StoriesGeorgia State researcher wins $3.26 million federal grant to develop universal flu vaccineHow to get a cheaper prescription before leaving the doctor’s officeFinger-prick blood test could help prevent unnecessary antibiotic prescribing for patients with COPDPatients and providers who use antibiotics may not be behaving irrationally. “When you’re feeling sick, you just want to feel better as soon as possible and the side effects from antibiotics look extremely mild in comparison,” Dr. Broniatowski said. “There’s always that extremely rare possibility that your disease actually is bacterial.”However, this “Why not take a risk?” belief may be leading to unnecessary prescribing and to the spread of superbugs, which have caused 23,000 deaths and 2 million illnesses nationwide. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the total cost to treat superbugs exceeds $20 billion annually.”People may be acting strategically – trying to hedge their bets – when they expect or prescribe antibiotics,” Dr. Broniatowski said. “Unfortunately, this individually-rational action leads to negative consequences for society.”The team behind the study included researchers from GW; the Center For Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy; Johns Hopkins University; University of California, Davis; and Cornell University. They surveyed 149 clinicians and 225 patients from two large urban academic hospitals, and 519 online nonpatient subjects to determine whether providers share patients’ rationales for antibiotic use. The research, “Patients’ and Clinicians’ Perceptions of Antibiotic Prescribing for Upper Respiratory Infections in the Acute Care Setting,” appeared in May in the journal Medical Decision Making.Dr. Broniatowski and his colleagues hope a better understanding of this issue will lead to the development of communication strategies directed to both patients and providers that can be used to reduce inappropriate prescribing, thus alleviating antibiotic resistance. Source:https://www.gwu.edu/last_img read more

Read More →

Lesbian gay bisexual adults face trouble affording healthcare even after launch of

first_imgAug 10 2018The Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as Obamacare, has reduced the number of Americans without health insurance from 18 percent to about 13 percent, statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show.And though the exact percentage of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) adults with health insurance prior to the launch of the ACA isn’t known precisely, a new study reports that they are now insured at the same rate as their straight peers. However, they are still more likely to avoid necessary medical treatment due to cost.”I started looking at this question because I had read a few studies indicating that following the ACA’s implementation in 2014 and the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2015, there were comparable rates of uninsurance for LGB adults,” said Kevin Nguyen, lead author of the Aug. 6 study in the August issue of Health Affairs. “However, insurance is only one step in receiving care — I was curious to see if there were other differences in the access to care and health outcomes.”Nguyen is a doctoral student at the Brown University School of Public Health. Dr. Amal N. Trivedi, an associate professor of health services, policy and practice, and an associate professor of medicine at Brown, and Theresa I. Shireman, a professor of health services, policy and practice at Brown, were co-authors on the study.The researchers analyzed three publically available data sets from the CDC spanning from 2014-15 — the first year the survey asked about sexual orientation — to 2016-17, the most current data set. The study included about 330,000 adults between ages 18 and 64, 4.3 percent of whom identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual.Of those surveyed via the study, 16.4 percent of LGB adults reported avoiding or delaying medical treatment for financial reasons, compared to 14.2 percent of their straight peers. Given the large number of people surveyed, that difference proved statistically significant, the researchers said.Though the study did not explore the cause of the difference in being able to afford medical treatment, Nguyen said, based on prior studies, one possible explanation is that more LGB adults had individually purchased insurance, which may have higher copays or deductibles than employer-sponsored insurance. Another possibility is that on average LGB individuals may need more medical services than straight individuals.Related StoriesFainting during pregnancy could be more serious than earlier believed finds studyStudy estimates health care costs of uncontrolled asthma in the U.S. over next 20 yearsFirst smartphone app to detect childhood ear infectionIn addition to similar levels of health insurance, the study also found that LGB individuals now report comparable levels of having a primary care doctor and having an annual check-up as their straight peers — approximately 77 percent and 66 percent, respectively.Yet despite comparable levels of access to health care, LGB adults reported 5.3 days in the last month where poor health prevented them from doing normal activities, compared to 4.9 for their straight peers. Similarly, they reported 5.6 poor mental health days (days with stress, depression or emotional problems) in the last month, compared to 3.9.The researchers at Brown used an adjusted analysis of the survey data to take demographic differences into account, including variations in age, race, marital status, income and education levels between LGB and straight adults. They did not focus on transgender individuals in this study, as they face additional challenges in accessing health care, whether they identify as LGB or not.Nguyen is interested in looking at the data from the 2017-18 survey upon its release to see how various health policy debates and changes have impacted the LGB community, he said.”It really is important to collect sexual orientation data in these nationwide surveys because it allows us to answer questions about access to care and health outcomes,” he said, adding that the CDC has not yet decided whether the sexual orientation module will be included in the 2019 survey. “This helps us understand the experiences of certain communities who face very high barriers to care and allows us to monitor whether we’re making improvements or not.”​ Source:https://news.brown.edu/articles/2018/08/lgblast_img read more

Read More →

Effective hemorrhage control critical for survival after motorsport accidents

first_imgMotorsport is one of the most popular sports in the United Kingdom, with the Motor Sports Association (MSA) issuing permits for approximately 5000 events each year. With 29 active permanent circuits around the country and televised races attracting thousands of viewers from around the world, the UK is undoubtedly one of the most active territories in motorsports.While racing venues uphold very high safety standards and employ trained emergency medical personnel for races, accidents still happen. The critical factor is the speed and effectiveness of medical staff to respond when an accident occurs; something that can be a matter of life or death.Celox Medical, a global brand by Medtrade Products Ltd, is established for its innovation in the field of pre-hospital hemorrhage control. A result that stems from the company’scommitment for continuously monitoring and assessing the safety and performance of its products, once these are released in the market.For example, several medical support teams at motorsport venues around the UK carry Celox products to provide fast, effective hemorrhage control, with Celox Rapid being the fastest acting hemostatic gauze.Meditech Global, the track side emergency ambulance provider at the Rockingham Motor Speedway, recently reported a prime example of how its paramedics used Celox to save the life of a motorcyclist.During a bike track day, a fault with a motorcycle’s braking system developed. Unable to slow down, the rider turned through a high-speed corner and lost control of his bike. The momentum forced both bike & rider sliding off the circuit at over 100mph.The speed and force were so intense that the rider continued over the gravel trap before hitting the tyre wall protected armco barrier. The rider came to an eventual stop fully conscious with his legs split apart.Related Stories’Traffic light’ food labels associated with reduction in calories purchased by hospital employeesDanbury Hospital launches ‘Healing Hugs’ for its most vulnerable patientsBordeaux University Hospital uses 3D printing to improve kidney tumor removal surgeryWhilsta rare type of accident, it was extremely challenging to treat. The rider had suffered a dislocated femur with an arterial laceration on the upper thigh and multiple fractures to his pelvis. Failure to stem the flow of blood from the laceration would result in the rider bleeding out.Time is of the essence with arterial bleeds, particularly as the time to treat after a motorsports accident is often not immediate. Response to the incident was prompt with the first paramedic/technician crewed ambulance at scene within 60 seconds.With a one-minute hemorrhage already a reality, emergency treatment needed to be done quickly to stop the arterial bleed caused by the laceration. The paramedic at the scene immediately turned to Celox and later reported that the chitosan-coated gauze, stopped the arterial bleeding within three minutes.Given the severity of the wound, the air ambulance transferred the patient to Coventry emergency hospital. A 12-minute, high pressure, high vibration journey, with air-medics potentially ready for another hemorrhage situation on the flight. Celox kept the wound sealed without any rebleeding on route from the circuit to the emergency hospital. The patient arrived safe and was taken straight into the operating theater and was successfully treated.    Without an effective hemostatic gauze on hand to provide fast hemorrhage control, the story could have ended very differently. Fortunately, the emergency team had Celox on hand to act quickly and properly.A hemostatic gauze like Celox can treat life-threatening bleeding fast, without the need for a tourniquet and, for Celox Rapid, with only 60 seconds compression, or until bleeding stops.Life threatening accidents are fortunately rare, but accidents do happen in motorsport. For the emergency services responding to these accidents, speed is as important for treatment as it is for the racers competing. It’s important that emergency responders have the fastest acting products available to ensure as many people survive as possible. Aug 14 2018When you assemble a group of people with modified cars and ask them to drive at high speeds around a circuit of sharp turns and tight corners, accidents and injuries seem unavoidable. Despite this, motorsport accidents are infrequent, though they can be serious when they occur. Toni Murch, MCPara, HCPC registered paramedic and business development manager at Celox Medical, recounts one incident where effective hemorrhage control was critical for survival. Source:http://www.celoxmedical.com/last_img read more

Read More →

Rapid urbanization makes Central Africa more vulnerable to infectious disease outbreaks

first_img Source:https://www.niaid.nih.gov/news-events/rapid-development-central-africa-increases-risk-infectious-disease-outbreaks Reviewed by James Ives, M.Psych. (Editor)Aug 24 2018WHAT:The Central Africa region is experiencing rapid urbanization and economic growth, and infrastructure development. These changes, while generally positive and welcome, also make the region more vulnerable to explosive infectious disease outbreaks, according to an international group of scientists. Writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, the authors, all of whom have field research experience in the region, note that efforts to build up the health care infrastructure in Central Africa are critically needed to mitigate or prevent a large outbreak of Ebola or other infectious disease in the region. The authors represent 12 different organizations, including the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health.Related StoriesNew research links “broken heart syndrome” to cancerResearch sheds light on sun-induced DNA damage and repairAMSBIO offers new, best-in-class CAR-T cell range for research and immunotherapyCiting the example of the 2013-2016 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, they note that Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea all have large, urban and mobile populations. Among other factors, this enabled the Ebola virus to quickly spread through these countries and overwhelm their limited health care infrastructures, resulting in more than 28,000 cases of Ebola virus disease and 11,000 fatalities.Through their Central Africa field work over several years–primarily in the Republic of the Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)–the researchers have observed what they describe as the world’s fastest rate of urbanization. By 2030, they write, half of the Central Africa population is expected to live in urban areas. They have seen the evolution of once-rutted jeep trails used to access remote villages now accessible by paved roads, typically related to the growth in logging, mining and hydroelectric industries. Road construction and similar disturbances in the jungle terrain alters ecosystems in which pathogens and their hosts reside, they note. This increases the opportunity for new infectious diseases to emerge and reduces the time it takes people to travel to and from urban areas, allowing outbreaks to spread quickly.”Clearly, Central Africa is rapidly approaching a tipping point,” the authors state. “Africa’s economic development is a positive change that cannot and should not be stopped. At the same time, rapid economic and demographic transitions bring the challenges of emerging infectious disease outbreaks of increased frequency, size, and global impact.”They believe that increases in population, income and educational attainment could spur demand for improved services, including health care. Moreover, directed investments in clinical research infrastructure could include training health care workers to identify, report and properly handle cases of unknown emerging infectious disease; diagnose patients; provide clinical care; and test new vaccines and therapeutics.”Directed and sustained investment is urgently needed, before ongoing demographic and economic changes conspire to cause major outbreaks of both national and international consequence,” they write.last_img read more

Read More →

Smart window changes color with weather

first_img Email Weather could power the next generation of smart windows. Researchers have created glass that tints by harvesting energy from wind and precipitation. The approach offers an alternative to other smart windows powered by batteries, solar panels, and even standard power outlets.“The innovation … represents a new kind of renewable energy source,” says Liming Dai, a nanomaterials engineer at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, who was not involved in the research.Smart glass, which changes its properties to block out light or heat, has been around for decades. Common examples include glare-fighting rearview car mirrors and windows that change color for energy savings and privacy. But many are expensive, and people are still looking for eco-friendly ways to power the windows. Batteries and plug-in outlets aren’t ostensibly “green,” whereas embedded solar panels can cloud or obscure segments of the glass. Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Countrycenter_img The new glass uses nanosized generators powered by triboelectrics—the static electricity produced by friction when two materials touch. When activated, the generators, which rest in two layers atop a single pane of glass, create an electric current that tints the clear window a dark shade of blue.The outermost layer of generators harvests static energy from rain. When a raindrop falls from a cloud, the contact between the water and the air creates a positive charge within the droplet. When the droplet strikes the glass, which is coated with nanoscopic pyramids made from a negatively charged silicone material called polydimethylsiloxane, it creates an electric current.The second layer of nanogenerators lies just beneath the first and harvests energy from the wind. This layer consists of two sheets of charged, see-through plastic that are separated by nanoscopic spring coils. As wind pushes against the window, the springs compress and create an electric current as the charged plates of plastic approach each other.In experiments, the glass produced up to 130 milliwatts per square meter, enough to power a pacemaker or a smart phone while it’s asleep, the team reported online last month in ACS Nano. This output might suit many applications, such as being a power source for home or office electronics, says co-developer and nanoscientist Zhong Wang of the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. Since their first project in 2012, a light-up sidewalk powered by footsteps, he and his colleagues have miniaturized their generators to create everything from self-cleaning keyboards to sensors for security systems.But Wang and colleagues still have more work to do before this smart glass is ready for commercialization. Now, the glass has no way to store the energy it creates. To solve this problem, Dai says, transparent supercapacitors could be laced into the glass without decreasing visibility.For now, the team wants to boost the energy efficiency of their nanogenerators. These tiny power plants can convert about 60% of the mechanical energy that they encounter into electricity. “The output power is a constant goal,” Wang says. “Free energy surrounds us, and anything can happen if you harness it.”(Credit for linked PDF: Yeh MH et al., ACS Nano [2015]) Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwelast_img read more

Read More →

Hot spells doomed the mammoths

first_img Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Email Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*)center_img About 30,000 years ago, mammoths, giant sloths, and other massive mammals roamed the earth. Twenty thousand years later they were all gone. Some researchers blame human hunting, but a new study claims that abrupt shifts in climate set in motion a downward spiral for many of these species, one that humans aggravated. The results, the authors say, are a warning to modern humans that, if not slowed, current warming could doom many more species.Until recently, researchers relied primarily on fossils to assess the rise and fall of big mammals over the past 60,000 years. But a team led by Alan Cooper, a paleogeneticist at the University of Adelaide in Australia, added ancient DNA—isolated from the same fossils—to the mix. Based on how diverse a species’ DNA is at a given site, he and his colleagues can estimate how plentiful the animals were at a particular point in time. They compiled material from thousands of sites across North America and Eurasia, focusing on DNA from ancient mammal bones that had been analyzed by radio carbon methods to determine their ages.The analysis showed that various species were disappearing at different times from different sites over the past 60,000 years. Sometimes they were replaced by new populations moving in as the climate cooled; other times they were not—and the permanent loss may have represented one of the large mammals’ extinction. Cooper and colleagues also documented climate fluctuations by looking for tell-tale signs of temperature change recorded in ice cores from Greenland. To pin these down more accurately, they matched those dates against fluctuations recorded in marine sediments in Venezuela. From the two records, they built a timeline of so-called interstadials—periods when climate suddenly warmed by as much as 16°C, sometimes over decades, and then cooled down again just as quickly. Several such fluctuations occurred before Earth entered a sustained period of cold from 27,000 to 19,000 years ago. And a few followed this last glacial maximum.When the ice age was at its peak, mammoths, sloths, and other big mammals held their ground, indicating the cold was not causing extinctions as some researchers had assumed, the team reports online today in Science. But many of these species did decline and even disappeared from certain locations when the climate warmed rapidly—particularly 34,000 years ago and again between 28,000 and 30,000 years ago, the group concludes.Cooper’s approach impresses David  Steadman, a paleontologist at the Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville. “People haven’t ever correlated the radiocarbon data on extinct animals to the paleoclimate data in much as detail as these [researchers],” he points out. But he is cautious about the work’s conclusions. “They read too much into the completeness of the fossil record” by assuming that when fossils disappear from a site, the species has gone extinct. And he doesn’t buy the argument that climate change made such a big difference, as much earlier climate warming events didn’t drive many of these same species to extinction. To him, humans were the deciding factor because so many extinctions happened once humans came on the scene.Cooper counters that in at least some cases, an animal’s disappearance does not depend on humans. His study shows that in North America, the giant shot-faced bear was already gone before humans reached the New World about 13,000 years ago. In Eurasia, many big animals persisted after modern humans arrived 44,000 years ago, surviving up to 30,000 years more and disappearing only when the climate suddenly warmed. The climate shifts, the researchers suggest, altered the environment, causing populations to die off or move away. Animals first hit by warming might have been particularly vulnerable to hunting or to humans interfering with their recolonization of an area, Cooper says.“There are still people who are putting all the blame on humans, and some blame climate,” says Adrian Lister, an evolutionary paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in London who was not involved with the work. “But a growing number see it as it a synergistic effect, a powerful combination of those two factors happening at once.”last_img read more

Read More →

Neandertals may have used chemistry to start fires

first_imgScientists know a lot about Neandertals these days, from their hair color to their mating habits. Still, a basic mystery remains: Did they know how to start a fire? Archaeologists have long known that Neandertals, like the family pictured in this artist’s representation, used fire, but they could have merely taken advantage of naturally occurring lightning strikes and forest fires to supply the flames. Now, a new hypothesis about some odd Neandertal artifacts suggests that our distant cousins could indeed spark a fire from scratch. Excavations at the 50,000-year-old site Pech-de-l’Azé I in southwestern France have yielded blocks of manganese dioxide, which is abundant in the region’s limestone formations. Archaeologists previously thought that Neandertals used the substance as a black pigment to decorate their bodies. But a new team of researchers points out that charcoal and soot from their campfires would have made for easier and more accessible body paint. Plus, the Neandertals at Pech-de-l’Azé I appeared to have strongly preferred manganese dioxides to the other manganese oxides available in their environment, even though all of the closely related chemicals would have yielded the same color pigment. So what can manganese dioxide do that its relatives can’t? Start fires. Noticing signs of abrasion on some of the Pech-de-l’Azé I blocks, the scientists ground up bits of them to produce a powder. When they sprinkled that powder on a pile of wood, it lowered the temperature needed to initiate combustion to 250°C, making it much easier to start a fire, they report today in Scientific Reports. (Untreated wood failed to ignite at temperatures up to 350°C.) The researchers can’t rule out other possible Neandertal uses for manganese dioxide, including body decoration. But based on their experiments, they suggest adding fire-starting to the list.last_img read more

Read More →

Magic Airs Out The Lakers In Bombshell Interview

first_imgBasketball legend “Magic” Earvin Johnson didn’t hold a single thing back during his interview with Stephen A. Smith on ESPN’s “First Take” Monday morning, letting loose on a number of topics having to do with his prized Los Angeles Lakers. Johnson happily quit his job as the Lakers’ president last month — that much was known.But the Hall of Fame point guard who won five championships with the Lakers opened up to Smith in ways once thought unimaginable, with Magic dishing on what he described as a dysfunctional organization. Magic was so brutally honest, in fact, that some users across social media branded him a snitch. Whether Magic broke any kind of “code” was debatable as the amicable 12-time NBA all-star has always come across as not having a malicious bone in his body.After listening to the interview in full, there were five main takeaways that stood out the most in a storyline that’s all but guaranteed to have the NBA and its fans buzzing for months. Magic Johnson identifies Rob Pelinka is the person who was backstabbing him. pic.twitter.com/3mul9lJuzi— Arash Markazi (@ArashMarkazi) May 20, 20192. Magic wanted to fire head coach Luke WaltonThis was not a secret in the basketball world, but what was kept under wraps — until Monday — was that Magic said he was forbidden from terminating Walton’s contract. That was “the straw that broke the camel’s back,” Magic said, adding that “we gotta find a better coach.” The Lakers and Walton parted ways just days after Magic quit following a season where the team finished with the league’s 11th worth record. Magic Johnson said he traded D’Angelo Russell because of the “Shaggy P” problem. He also said he wanted to fire Luke Walton and get a “better coach.”Via @FirstTake pic.twitter.com/8qIFwXNJC6— Ballislife.com (@Ballislife) May 20, 20191. Lakers general manager Rob Pelinka stabbed him in the backMagic said he only accepted the job of Lakers president after he said he was assured by Lakers owner Jeanie Buss that the organization would both allow him the power to make decisions while he also attended to his other successful business ventures. However, Magic said, he would soon find out that neither was the case as he blamed Pelinka, Kobe Bryant‘s former agent for spreading rumors that he wasn’t working hard enough and that he was rarely in the office. 15. Current Lakers players after seeing the Magic Johnson interview pic.twitter.com/UIzkmezyub— CleWest (@erjmanlasvegas) May 20, 2019 1. Live look at what Magic Johnson is doing to the Lakers.. pic.twitter.com/OocfmzXPeI— Tarek Fattal (@Tarek_Fattal) May 20, 2019 5. Magic Johnson called out Rob Pelinka like Omar called out Bird in ‘The Wire’. pic.twitter.com/Gnw8crFNWk— Not Bill Walton (@NotBillWalton) May 20, 2019 11. Magic Johnson: “I’m not saying Jeanie Buss doesn’t know what she’s doing and should sell the team.”Also Magic Johnson: “But she doesn’t know what she’s doing and l’d love to buy the team if it were for sale….hypothetically.” pic.twitter.com/rqCkgFEwWJ— AAWOL (@AAWOLSports) May 20, 2019 2. live look at Magic Johnson this morning pic.twitter.com/H9i2Pa5mCu— LakeShowYo (@LakeShowYo) May 20, 2019 12. Magic Johnson equates backstabbing with being held accountable. pic.twitter.com/FzQiUmMHuV— AnthonyDavisEra (@ADLakersEra) May 20, 2019 9. Magic Johnson showing up for First Take this morning to talk about Rob Pelinka pic.twitter.com/A311Ouguid— Ray Lewis (@RayLewis1997) May 20, 2019 10. This Magic Johnson interview is confirming two theories everyone outside of #Lakers fans believed:1. The Lakers are one of the most mismanaged franchises in all of sports and have been for nearly a decade2. He should’ve never been offered or taken this job pic.twitter.com/4vQKRsly89— Farewell CP3 (@SammyBissett) May 20, 2019 Magic Johnson wants to see Kobe Bryant more involved with the Lakers. #Lakeshow #Lakers pic.twitter.com/Ad2IY3Y8tk— LakeShow (@LakeShowCP) May 20, 20195. LaVar Ball was right!The opinionated founder of the fledgling Big Baller Brand who, rumor had it, was banned from the Lakers’ facilities after complaints he was being a helicopter dad for his son, Lonzo, the team’s point guard. Ball, like Magic, was happy back in February to discuss what he saw as the Laker’s main problem — a “crumbling” Lakers organization. During an interview on FS1’s “The Undisputed,” Ball told host Skip Bayless that Magic was “just the face” of the Lakers, suggesting the franchise was “crumbling down.” Magic Johnson isn’t coming out and telling Jeanie Buss to sell the Lakers but he said he’d be interested in putting a group together to buy the team if she did.— Arash Markazi (@ArashMarkazi) May 20, 20194. Kobe Bryant should be more involved with the LakersMagic left no franchise stoned unturned as he tried to pinpoint what the NBA’s second-most valuable franchise must to change its fate and become a contender again. The Lakers missed out on the playoffs this season despite being led by LeBron James. But in typical “it takes a village” form, Magic said the presence of fellow Lakers legend Kobe Bryant was needed.center_img 16. Magic johnson to luke walton: pic.twitter.com/HEaZKw5kxB— AuPhenom (@AuPhenom) May 20, 2019 8. Magic Johnson came with it. When he said “Just Rob” I lost it #Lakers pic.twitter.com/KPrAlEBPc6— Ziggy Blackwell (@ZiggyBlackwell) May 20, 2019 Lavar Ball was right ALL ALONG about Magic Johnson and Jeanie Buss. #nevalost pic.twitter.com/WeSfFy2PeW— reubs (@Pryzims) May 20, 2019Critics panned Ball at the time for his assessment that Magic proved correct Monday morning.Still, despite Magic’s honest criticism for an organization that he helped thrust to prominence decades ago, some on social media questioned the basketball legend’s intent. Scroll down to see a sampling of the social media posts in response to Monday morning’s interview. 4. Magic Johnson be like#lakeshow #LakersNation #lakers pic.twitter.com/3MiTqnG8HR— tony (@trom1983) May 20, 2019 7. Magic Johnson: pic.twitter.com/3qqniyi8UP— Juan Wick (@ARG2G) May 20, 2019 13. Magic Johnson spilling secrets on @FirstTake: pic.twitter.com/EFTVLE51d4— Andrew Auger (@DREWAUGER95) May 20, 2019 Magic Johnson is messy and lives for drama.He goes on First Take to talk about how he wanted to fire Luke Walton.”We gotta get a better coach.” pic.twitter.com/YWBJvUj90X— Erick Fernandez (@ErickFernandez) May 20, 20193. Magic would rather buy the Lakers than work for them“When I think I don’t have the decision-making power that I thought I had, then you gotta step aside,” Magic explained to Stephen A. Monday morning. But he left the door open for his return to the franchise under one condition. 14. Magic Johnson when asked about Rob Pelinka: pic.twitter.com/qtV1zFeKMv— Cicely C. Mitchell (@CicelyMitchell) May 20, 2019 3. Magic Johnson said David Griffin and Trajan Langdon are two great hires and called current Lakers GM Rob Pelinka a backstabber this morning. pic.twitter.com/KRfJ1idGkI— The Bird Writes (@thebirdwrites) May 20, 2019 6. Magic Johnson to the Lakers org: pic.twitter.com/NUnKG0ZyWF— todd altom (@waffletodd) May 20, 2019 17. Exclusive footage of Rob Pelinka currently on the phone with Kobe trying to fix the Magic Johnson mess pic.twitter.com/XN8SBD2P0e— Jason McIntyre (@jasonrmcintyre) May 20, 2019last_img read more

Read More →

Crashout Brexit looms larger for scientists after deal rejected

first_img A historic defeat for U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May has raised the odds that the United Kingdom will crash out of the European Union in March, a prospect that scientists dread for its potential for disruption to research collaborations and the economy. On 15 January, Parliament roundly rejected May’s deal with the European Union, which lays out the terms for an orderly withdrawal. What happens next is unknown.“Yesterday’s unprecedented vote makes the prospect of leaving the EU without a deal even more likely,” said Venki Ramakrishnan, president of the Royal Society in London, in a statement. “A no-deal Brexit would be a disaster for British science and innovation and I urge our elected representatives to put the interests of the country first and get a new plan to prevent this catastrophic outcome.”After a 2016 referendum, in which a majority of 51.9% voted to leave Europe, May invoked Article 50 of the European Union’s Treaty of Lisbon. This action set 29 March as the date of departure. In November 2018, May’s negotiators reached an agreement with the European Union over the terms of the departure, spelling out the United Kingdom’s remaining financial obligations to the European Union and specifying a 2-year period to smooth the transition. Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Frank Augstein/AP Photo Crash-out Brexit looms larger for scientists after deal rejected U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May’s compromise Brexit deal was rejected by Parliament. Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Countrycenter_img By Erik StokstadJan. 16, 2019 , 2:55 PM Email Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe As expected, Parliament has rejected this deal. Proponents of Brexit, for example, say the deal keeps too many ties to the European Union. May must return to Parliament within 3 days to present an alternative. But given the European Union’s negotiating stance, there is little she can do to make the deal more palatable to its opponents. With Parliament deadlocked, some observers say a second referendum is needed to allow the people to vote on the deal and additional options. Others suggest a general election should be called. If nothing happens, the United Kingdom will by default leave without a deal.The consequences for the nation, including scientists, could be severe. The economy is predicted to take a hit and could remain hindered for years—with possible ramifications for funding of science. Without adequate preparations at the border, imports could slow to a crawl. Some scientists fear this could lead to shortages of crucial reagents or other laboratory supplies.In the event of a no-deal exit, the ability of U.K. researchers to apply for EU funding would immediately cease, and collaborations on international clinical trials and other research projects could also be affected.last_img read more

Read More →

Senate panel delays goodgovernment bill scolds HHS for moving the goal posts

first_imgSenator Rob Portman (R–OH) hopes to strike a compromise on new rules for government advisory panels. Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Joshua Morrison/The News via AP The bill, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously in March, is aimed at strengthening the 47-year-old Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). FACA sets rules for appointing members to the thousands of panels advising the U.S. government and governs how they operate, with open meetings the default mode. Good-government watchdog groups have long complained that some agencies have circumvented the rules in hopes of ginning up more favorable advice by appointing members that represent special interests or who have shown a clear bias.Cautious supportFACA applies to all federal research agencies, and the bill would put into statute what are now executive branch rules on how it should be implemented. One key change would require NIH to designate study section members as special government employees. The National Science Foundation already does that, with little disruption to its merit review system. But NIH officials say the change—they are now classified as consultants—would add months to the appointment process, generate massive amounts of additional paperwork, and discourage scientists from volunteering to serve.Senators on the HSGAC panel were clearly torn between their support for greater transparency and their fear of jeopardizing the government’s investment in biomedical research.“I would be happy to vote to move [H.R. 1608] forward so that it can be reviewed on the floor before we take a vote,” said Senator Mitt Romney (R–UT), noting that NIH had shared its concerns with him. “And while I’m willing to vote for it at this stage, I reserve the right to vote no if further analysis suggests that we need to make further adjustments to get the support of NIH so that it doesn’t impose too substantial a burden on our health and technology investments.”Last-minute objectionsH.R. 1608 is the latest version of legislation that Representative William Lacy Clay (D–MO) first introduced in 2008. It has passed the House three times—twice while Republicans were the majority party—but it was only last year that HSGAC also embraced it. That step set off alarm bells at NIH and HHS, which led to negotiations last fall with both House and Senate members.Supporters say they tweaked the bill to exempt NIH study sections and address other HHS concerns. But last month, HHS wrote to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–KY) saying the changes haven’t solved the problem. Specifically, HHS said the fix only applied to when NIH study sections meet, not how their members are appointed or the rules governing their operations. It suggested exempting all study sections covered by the Public Health Service Act that governs NIH’s behavior.Legislators are dumbfounded by HHS’s interpretation. “At the eleventh hour HHS raised some additional concerns,” Portman says. Going forward, he adds, “We hope the standard of reasonableness will apply.”At the same time, supporters of the legislation say HHS’s proposed fix is a nonstarter because it would also apply to regulatory agencies like the Food and Drug Administration, where potential conflicts of interest among advisory committee members are rife.With no markup looming, both sides are hoping to resume negotiations in the next few weeks. The goal is to find a way to address NIH’s concerns and still close existing loopholes in FACA.“So we’ll go back and work with them again,” Portman says. “We want to make sure that NIH can continue to carry out its job of reviewing grant proposals. But we believe that transparency in advisory committees is very important, too.” A Senate panel delayed action today on a bipartisan bill to improve government transparency among advisory bodies in deference to concerns from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that the legislation would seriously disrupt the agency’s ability to review research proposals. At the same time, the bill’s Republican sponsor in the Senate chastised NIH’s parent body for “moving the goal posts” after legislators believed they had struck a compromise last fall to address NIH’s concerns about the bill’s impact on its 173 study sections.“I’m not someone who likes to publicly admonish agencies, unless it’s warranted,” said Senator Rob Portman (R–OH), referring to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). “But we did work with them, and I thought we had reached a compromise. And then they moved the goal posts.”Without debate, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) unanimously approved 15 bills and four nominees to senior positions at agencies it oversees during a 20-minute business meeting this morning. But its chairman, Senator Ron Johnson (R–WI) postponed action on the transparency bill, H.R. 1608, after Portman said committee members needed more time to examine its provisions. Emailcenter_img Senate panel delays good-government bill, scolds HHS for ‘moving the goal posts’ Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country By Jeffrey MervisMay. 15, 2019 , 5:20 PM Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*)last_img read more

Read More →