Calls to repair ‘dangerous subsidence’ on road in east Donegal

first_imgA Donegal County Councillor has said that ‘dangerous subsidence’ on an east Donegal road is posing a serious road safety problem.Councillor Gerry Crawford said the busy regional road in Carrickmore, between Derry (via St Johnston) and Lifford, s looking for the County Council to take action.Crawford told Donegal Daily: “The road carries a very high volume of traffic throughout the year, including HGVs and cross-border traffic. “The road, up until August 10th, was used as a nightly diversion when repairs on the A5 were taking place.“It is of strategic importance and it is incredibly busy but this dangerous subsidence is not being properly marked.”A traffic cone, with a tied on hi-vis jacket, has been positioned near the area in question to warn drivers of the danger, but Crawford insists that has already been blown from its position more than once.“The cone has been blown into the culvert and lifted out already today (Weds) and it is something that needs immediate action because it has the potential to cause a serious accident,” Crawford explained. “The Donegal County Council have been informed and I am now waiting on them to take action.”Calls to repair ‘dangerous subsidence’ on road in east Donegal was last modified: August 14th, 2019 by Shaun KeenanShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)last_img read more

Inflation Concocted to Avoid a Young, Perfect Universe

first_imgAlan Guth concocted inflation theory in 1980 to avoid evidence for a 10,000-year-old universe.  For his wild, evidence-free speculation, he may win a Nobel Prize.In a profile on National Geographic, cosmology guru Alan Guth describes his college experiences that led him to invent inflation theory.  The velvet-glove interviewer, Dan Vergano, treats Guth like a rock star, aided by photographer Deanne Fitzmaurice, who presents the 67-year-old physicist as supercool for a new generation – an appropriate description, because his speculations about supercooling of the universe in the first fractions of a second were his ticket to stardom.Inflation theory began with two hard facts that challenged big bang theory, but would make believers in Genesis quite comfortable.  The first was the fine-tuning of the universe:In 1978, he learned in a talk by Princeton physicist Bob Dicke of a problem with the universe—it was too perfect. All sorts of factors, from the workings of atoms to the gravity holding stars together, seem too exquisitely fine-tuned for creating a cosmos in defiance of both rational explanation and what chance would predict.“One second after the big bang—and I’m pretty sure that is the example he used—the expansion rate had to be just right to an accuracy of 14 decimal places or our universe would look nothing like it does now.” Just a smidge more expansion and the universe would have blasted itself apart. A tiny bit less and it would have fallen in on itself. Instead it had unfolded just right, balanced on a universe-friendly knife-edge, seemingly for no reason.Guth filed away this “flatness” problem in his mind as interesting but too big to tackle. “It just stuck in the back of my mind.”Guth began thinking of ways to rescue secular cosmology from the flatness problem.  Later, after he first conceived of inflation, he speculated that it would also solve another conundrum: the horizon problem (the unexpected uniformity of temperature in regions that never had contact).The second hard fact concerned the age of the universe:In the spring of 1979, Guth attended two lectures by physics Nobelist Steven Weinberg, then at Harvard, about problems with the big bang in its first instants, less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. “I decided that if Steve was willing to work on these crazy things, maybe they weren’t so crazy.”The answer that Guth and Tye found that year, however, was still crazy: The universe should be swimming with cosmic defects.In fact, these defects should have been so numerous and so massive that if they actually existed, the age of the universe “would turn out to be about 10,000 years,” Guth says, with a laugh. “This doesn’t turn out to be the case, scientifically.”Guth laughed.  He dismissed as unscientific the notion that the universe might fit within a Biblical timeframe.  But he couldn’t ignore the problem.  He began speculating.  Maybe, if the universe supercooled in those tiny fractions of the first second, the defects would go away.  “A 100,000-fold drop in temperature might have given the forces inside the early universe a bit more time to line up nicely with each other, essentially producing fewer defective cracks in creation,” the article states, with no explanation of how or why it would undergo supercooling.  But the idea was pregnant with imagination.Guth began figuring on paper.  His imaginary supercooling, he speculated, would also make gravity repulsive, expanding the universe exponentially.  As by-products, it would solve the flatness problem and the horizon problem.  His imagination led him to the analogy of phase transitions when water boils into steam.  He got so excited, he wrote “Spectacular realization!” on his paper.  Secular cosmology could be saved from the appearance of design!Problem: he couldn’t figure out how to stop inflation once it started.  That and other pesky details were mopped up over time, once he and others took off and ran with the idea of inflation.  Guth was noticed by his peers.  Job offers rolled in.  He was high in demand as a speaker by others wanting to hear the radical new idea.Inflation compelled the interest of physicists because it kept all the advantages of the big bang as an explanation for the origin of the universe while filling in a uncharted spot in explaining how it actually started—in other words, what put the bang in the big bang.Intelligent causes were clearly left out of the equations.Unfortunately, Guth’s model of inflation was falsified the next year, in 1981.  It didn’t produce the smooth universe he anticipated.  He almost gave up, but others, charmed with the notion of inflation, came up with patches and fixes to keep the dream alive.  It didn’t seem to matter that the new versions got crazier and crazier:And at the end of the year, Stanford’s [Andre] Linde did find another answer, and he was followed shortly afterward by other researchers. The wholesale makeover of inflation, called “chaotic inflation” or “eternal” inflation, produced by Linde and colleagues in 1983 has become a standard for the field. In this model, inflation is occurring somewhere in the universe all the time, far beyond the 92 billion light-year expanse of the cosmos we can now see.Most often the model also sees inflation producing a proliferation of universes, a multiverse filled with a cornucopia of realities.Guth’s fame has not dimmed with each new observational challenge.  There’s the lumpiness problem, for instance – the observation that very large structures exist throughout the universe.  Guth dismisses these with evidence for tiny fluctuations in the incredibly-smooth CMB (cosmic microwave background radiation) that might have given birth to galaxies, provided there was ample unobserved dark matter available.  There’s the entropy problem: such low entropy today presupposes incredibly, unbelievably low entry at the beginning.  And there’s the conclusion by Sean Carroll (5/11/06) that inflation solves nothing, because to get inflation to work requires even more improbable initial conditions: “It would seem that the conditions required to start inflation are less natural than those of the conventional Big Bang,” Carroll noted.Inflation is so useful to atheists, though, that it has survived all empirical challenges, including the CMB measurements and the “discovery” of cosmic acceleration (requiring occult “dark energy”).  Guth is optimistic that worries about the dust clouding the BICEP2 announcement (see 6/24/14) will dissipate, so that he can point to it as confirmation.For now, as he awaits an expected Nobel Prize in September, Guth lives comfortably at MIT, counting his blessings, Vergano writes.  He already got the Kavli Prize ($1,000,000) shared with Linde and Starobinsky (other inflation rock stars).  Conveniently for him, the Planck project data that could tip the evidence against inflation will probably arrive after Guth and his accomplices have laughed all the way to the bank.Did you know that the inflation model so often described in popular reports and animated on TV, like Cosmos, is wrong?  Inflation underwent a “wholesale makeover” in 1983 when Linde and others made it even more speculative and irrational.  Now, inflation occurs all the time, they say – conveniently, in places that can never be seen, like regions beyond our cosmic horizon, or in other universes that are not observable even in principle.  Inflation is the ultimate shell game, the ultimate ad hoc proposal concocted only to prevent the evidence for a created universe to shine through in glory.  (Recommended reading: Bruce Gordon shows why inflation explains nothing, Evolution News & Views 4/04/14).Alan Guth (Grand Unified Theory Huckster) is a charlatan who doesn’t deserve the fame and fortune showered on him from fawning reporters and willing accomplices in academia who use his “spectacular” evidence-free “realization” to promote materialism.  Don’t be fooled by this BICEP2 confirmation talk.  Because of the under-determination of theory by data, there are an infinite number of theories that can explain whatever turns up from the BICEP2 and Planck instruments.  This article reveals that the evidence supported creation when Guth made up his story, and it still does.  Laughing off God’s word that accounts for the fine-tuning of the universe and its age, Guth made a deliberate choice in 1980 to trust in the imagination of his own heart.  Strong words?  See Guth indict himself in our 2/21/05 entry, where he spouted evidence-free speculation non-stop, admitting that “Without inflation, this large-scale smoothness appears quite puzzling” – confessing therein that he knew the evidence supports design.The blessings he’s now counting should have included gratitude to his Maker for giving him breath, a brain, and the ability to live in a beautiful designed world.  Instead, he turned against his Maker and led a generation astray.  He should also count it a blessing that more philosophically rational men have not booted him out of academia for engaging in self-refuting ideas (which, by definition, cannot possibly be true).  If Guth’s mind is the product of chaotic, irrational forces, then we cannot trust a word he says, including inflation and the idea that his mind is the product of irrational forces.  No amount of math skill can overcome that.Would that Guth had learned to follow the evidence where it leads.  After hearing Dicke’s lecture in 1978, he could have realized, “Wow! That sounds like intelligent design!”  After finding his own model predicted a 10,000-year-old universe, he could have said, “Wow! That sounds like Genesis!”  Instead, he sold his soul to do evil (note: thinking irrationally is evil).  The devil, ever prowling for dupes, in a Faustian bargain, gives him rock star fame and fortune – for a little while.“Their eye bulges from fatness; The imaginations of their heart run riot” (Psalm 73:7) “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (Romans 1:21; see 1/21/07 commentary).  Alan, Andre, Robert and the rest of the cosmic cabal, while you walk God’s green Earth, there is still time to repent. (Visited 102 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

Lillard rallies Trail Blazers for tight win over Lakers

first_imgPortland Trail Blazers guard Damian Lillard, center, shoots as Los Angeles Lakers forward Kyle Kuzma (0) defends during the first half of an NBA basketball game, Monday, March 5, 2018, in Los Angeles. (AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill)LOS ANGELES — Damian Lillard scored 19 of his 39 points in the fourth quarter and the Portland Trail Blazers won their 15th consecutive game over the Los Angeles Lakers, 108-103 on Monday night.Lillard scored 15 in a row for the Trail Blazers down the stretch, giving them a 104-103 with 1:08 remaining by knowing down 1 of 2 free throws.ADVERTISEMENT Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. Typhoon ‘Tisoy’ threatens Games View comments Police teams find crossbows, bows in HK university PLAY LIST 01:29Police teams find crossbows, bows in HK university01:35Panelo suggests discounted SEA Games tickets for students02:49Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City Families in US enclave in north Mexico hold sad Thanksgiving LATEST STORIES The Lakers led 80-73 after the third quarter, with Randle scoring nine points and Caldwell-Pope adding seven. Caldwell-Pope knocked down back-to-back 3-pointers to put Los Angeles up by 12, the Lakers’ largest lead of the game. Delivering on the defensive end, the Lakers held Lillard and McCollum to a combined six points on 2-of-13 shooting. Portland was 5 of 23 from the field, shooting 21.7 percent in the quarter.The Trail Blazers opened up an 11-point lead in the first quarter after Ball was called for two personal fouls in the first 5:56. The short-handed Lakers responded by cutting the advantage down to three going into the second, where the trading of runs became more pronounced.McCollum had seven straight to start the quarter, helping Portland to a 17-8 scoring edge over the first 4:28 and opening up a 46-32 lead, only to see the Lakers answer with an 8-0 run that included consecutive 3s by Kuzma and Ball. The Trail Blazers were up 58-55 at the break, with McCollum scoring 14 of his 17 first-half points in the second quarter.TIP-INSTrail Blazers: Lillard was 12 of 25 for the game, including 6 of 11 from 3.ADVERTISEMENT Pussycat Dolls set for reunion tour after 10-year hiatus CJ McCollum had 22 points, and Jusuf Nurkic added 16 points and 16 rebounds.Julius Randle had 21 points and nine rebounds for the Lakers, who had their five-game winning streak ended. Kentavious Caldwell-Pope had 16 points, and Lonzo Ball had 10 points, two rebounds and two assists.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSWATCH: Drones light up sky in final leg of SEA Games torch runSPORTSLillard, Anthony lead Blazers over ThunderSPORTSMalditas save PH from shutoutLillard was 5 of 7 from the floor and 4 of 5 from 3-point range in the fourth quarter.Isaiah Thomas had a chance to tie it in the closing seconds but was stripped by Shabazz Napier, who then made two free throws. Thomas finished with 19 points. LOOK: Iya Villania meets ‘Jumanji: The Next Level’ cast in Mexico Roger Federer dazzles in first career Bay Area appearance Brace for potentially devastating typhoon approaching PH – NDRRMC MOST READ John Lloyd Cruz a dashing guest at Vhong Navarro’s wedding Typhoon Kammuri accelerates, gains strength en route to PH Google honors food scientist, banana ketchup inventor and war hero Maria Orosa Read Next Lakers: Six Lakers finished in double figures, including 14 points for Brook Lopez and 11 for Kyle Kuzma.UP NEXTTrail Blazers: Host the New York Knicks on Tuesday.Lakers: Host the Orlando Magic on Wednesday.last_img read more

Basketball: India drub Bangladesh, enter final

first_imgIndia stamped their superiority yet again at the Middle Asia Qualifying tournament for the 26th FIBA Asia Championship as they slammed Bangladesh 120-26 to enter the final here on Thursday.India’s Jagdeep Singh scores on ThursdayNew coach Kenny Natt had reasons to be satisfied. Not only are his boys just a step away from qualifying for the September event in Hubei, China, but also youngsters like Amrit Pal Singh, Amjyot Singh shone bright in the match at the Thyagraj Stadium.Amrit Pal finished as the joint top-scorer along with Vishesh Bhriguvanshi scoring 18 points each. India’s defence was rock solid as they hardly let the Bangladeshi forwards make their chances count.In the title match India will face Sri Lanka, who the hosts defeated earlier, on Friday. Sri Lanka defeated Nepal 65-44 in the other semi-final.The hosts dominated right from the word go with Trideep Rai opening the account. Bangladesh had no answer for the fast counter attacks as India surged ahead by 27-8 at the end of the first quarter.Sambhaji Kadam was the fulcrum of India’s attacks. Though, he scored only two points, he ended up with 12 assists. His passes were duly converted by Bhriguvanshi and Amrit Pal.Bhriguvanshi’s scoring accuracy was at its peak as he converted four of the seven attempted three- pointers.Another senior, Jagdeep Singh entertained the spectators with his dunks and finished with 14 points.If the first quarter was any indication of what was to follow, in the second India cemented their position taking a 63-17 lead.advertisementEven young Satnam Singh, who is grabbing attention with his height, played a clean game and scored three baskets from five attempts. The 15-year-old used his reach well as he had four defensive rebounds.The third quarter continued with the same flow with India giving little space as they went up 86-25. The visitor’s Md. Mahmudul Hasan Shawan was able to break past India’s defence on a number of occasions but his teammates failed to support him.In the last quarter, India’s defence was at its best with Bangladesh being able to score just one point as India finished the match 120-26.After the match, Natt said he was satisfied with the way his young players came up. “The youngsters have performed to my expectation and they are being helped by the veteran players,” he said.”Here, the competition is less so as the level of challenge rises we will be able to ascertain how far we have progressed.” Yadwinder, a senior player, echoed Natt’s view. “We are taking this competition as practice as India is the strongest team in this region. We need to improve our game if we are to do well in the main event,” he said.Natt said he was going to employ the defensive techniques more. “From here on we would concentrate more on the defence. If we are able to consolidate that part the offensive moves will bear results automatically,” he said.last_img read more

Cochlear implant

first_imgInformationA cochlear implant is a small electronic device that helps people hear. It can be used for people who are deaf or very hard of hearing. A cochlear implant is not the same thing as a hearing aid. The device is surgically implanted and works in a different way.There are many different types of cochlear implants. However, they made up of several similar parts. One part is implanted into the bone around the ear (temporal bone) using surgery. It is made up of a receiver-stimulator. This part of the device accepts, decodes, and then sends an electrical signal to the brain.The second part of the cochlear implant is outside the ear. It is made up of a microphone/receiver, a speech processor, and an antenna. This part of the device receives the sound, changes the sound into an electrical signal, and sends it to the inside part of the implant.WHO USES A COCHLEAR IMPLANT?Cochlear implants allow deaf people to receive and process sounds and speech. To some degree, these devices allow deaf people to “hear.” It is important to note that these devices do not restore normal hearing. They are tools that allow sound and speech to be processed and sent to the brain.Both children and adults can be candidates for cochlear implants. They may have been born deaf or became deaf after learning to speak. Children as young as 1 year old are now candidates for this surgery. The basis for selection may vary slightly from adults to children. The basic guidelines are:advertisementThe person should be completely or almost completely deaf in both ears, and get very little help from hearing aids. Anyone who can hear well enough with hearing aids is not a good candidate for cochlear implants.The patient needs to be highly motivated. After the cochlear implant is placed, the person must learn how to use the device.The patient needs to know what kind of hearing improvement should be expected after surgery. The device does not restore or create “normal” hearing.Children need to be enrolled in programs that help them learn how to process sound.Before being considered for the implant, the patient must have an exam by an ear, nose, and throat (ENT) doctor (otolaryngologist). Patients will also need specific types of hearing tests that are done with their hearing aids on. This may include a CT scan or MRI scan of the brain and the middle and inner ear.Patients (especially children) may need psychological evaluation to determine if they are good candidates.HOW IT WORKSIn a normal ear, sounds are transmitted through the air, causing the eardrum and then the middle ear bones to vibrate. This sends a wave of vibrations into the inner ear (cochlea). These waves are then converted by the cochlea into electrical signals, which are sent along the auditory nerve to the brain.A deaf person does not have a functioning inner ear. A cochlear implant attempts to replace the function of the inner ear by turning sound into electrical energy. This energy can then be used to stimulate the cochlear nerve (the nerve for hearing), sending “sound” signals to the brain.Most cochlear implantshave similar parts.Sound is picked up by a microphone worn near the ear. This sound is sent to a speech processor usually connected to the microphone and worn behind the ear.The sound is analyzed and converted into electrical signals, which are sent to a surgically implanted receiver behind the ear.The receiver sends the signal through a wire into the inner ear. From there, the electrical impulses are sent to the brain.HOW IT IS IMPLANTEDDuring the surgery:You will be asleep and pain free during this surgery.A surgical cut is made behind the ear. You may need some of your hair shaved behind your ear. A microscope and bone drill are used to open the bone behind the ear (mastoid bone) to allow the inside part of the implant to be inserted.The electrode array is passed into the inner ear (cochlea).The receiver is placed into a pocket created behind the ear. The pocket helps keep it in place, and makes sure it is close enough to the skin to allow electrical information to be sent from the device. A “well” may be drilled into the bone behind the ear so the implant is less likely to move under the skin.After surgery:There will be stitches behind the ear.You may be able to feel the receiver as a bump behind the ear.Any shaved hair should grow back.The outside part of the device will be placed 1to 4 weeks after surgery to give the opening time to heal.RISKS OF SURGERYadvertisementMost of the time, a cochlear implant is a safe surgery. However, all surgeries pose some risks. Common risks include:Wound healing problemsSkin breakdown over the implanted deviceInfection near implant siteThese are problems are rare now that the surgery can be done through only a small cut.Less common complications include:Damage to the nerve that moves the face on the side of the operationLeakage of the fluid around the brain (cerebrospinal fluid)Infection of the fluid around the brain (meningitis)Temporary dizziness (vertigo)Failure of the device to workAbnormal tasteRECOVERY AFTER SURGERYFollowing your operation:You may be admitted to the hospital to be watched overnight. (Many hospitals now let patientsgo home the day of surgery.)Your health care provider will give you pain medicines. You may also get antibiotics to prevent infection.Many surgeons place a large dressing over the operated ear. The dressing is removed the day after surgery.A week or more after surgery, the outside part of the cochlear implant is secured to the receiver-stimulator that was implanted behind the ear. It is only at this point that you will be able to use the device.The implantwill beattached to the outside processor when the surgeryis healed. You will begin to work with specialists to learn to “hear” and process sound using the cochlear implant. These specialists may include:AudiologistsSpeech therapistsEar, nose, and throat doctors (otolaryngologists)Working with the specialists after surgery is a key part of the process. You will need to make a joint effort with your health care team to get the most benefit from the implant.OUTLOOKResults with cochlear implants vary widely. How well you do depends on:The condition of the hearing nerve before surgeryYour mental abilitiesThe device being usedThe length of time you were deafThe surgerySome patients can learn to communicate on the telephone. Others can only recognize sound. Getting themost results can take up to several years. You need to be motivated. Patients are often enrolled in hearing and speech rehabilitation programs.LIVING WITH AN IMPLANTOnce you have healed, you may need to make some changes.Most activities are OK. However, some health care providers recommend avoiding full-contact sports. This isto lessen the chance of trauma to the implanted device.Most patients with cochlear implants cannot get MRI scans, because the implant is made of metal.ReferencesBalkany TJ, Brown KD, Gantz BJ. Cochlear implantation: Medical and surgical considerations. In: Flint PW, Haughey BH, Lund LJ, et al, eds. Cummings Otolaryngology: Head & Neck Surgery. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Mosby Elsevier; 2010:chap 159.Brown KD, Balkany TJ. Benefits of bilateral cochlear implantation: a review. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;15:315-318.Papsin BC, Gordon KA. Cochlear implants for children with severe-to-profound hearing loss. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2380-2387.advertisementSparreboom M, van Schoonhoven J, van Zanten BG, et al. The effectiveness of bilateral cochlear implants for severe-to-profound deafness in children: a systematic review. Otol Neurotol. 2010 Sep;31(7):1062-71.Review Date:5/21/2013Reviewed By:Ashutosh Kacker, MD, BS, Associate Professor of Otolaryngology, Weill Cornell Medical College, and Associate Attending Otolaryngologist, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY. Review provided by VeriMed Healthcare Network. Also reviewed by David Zieve, MD, MHA, Bethanne Black, and the A.D.A.M. Editorial team.last_img read more