npr--2020-01-14--LAX-Bound Aircraft Dumps Fuel On 4 Elementary Schools, Minor Injuries Reported

Teams treated children and adults for minor injuries at four suburban Los Angeles elementary schools Tuesday after a Delta Airlines flight dumped jet fuel on the way to an emergency landing .
The Los Angeles County Fire Department said 20 children and 11 adults were treated for minor injuries when the fuel fell in the playground of Park Avenue Elementary in Cudahy .
First responders also treated six people at Tweedy Elementary and six at San Gabriel Elementary in South Gate , along with one at Graham Elementary in Florence-Graham .
None of the patients was taken to the hospital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a statement that Delta Air Lines Flight 89 declared an emergency after departing Los Angeles International Airport , returned to the airport and landed without incident .
The FAA said it is investigating the incident and that when fuel is dumped , it is supposed to be over `` designated unpopulated areas . ''
The LA Unified School District said students and staff complained of skin irritation or breathing difficulties .
This is a developing story .
Some things reported by the media will later turn out to be wrong .
We will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authorities , credible news outlets and reporters who are at the scene .
We will update as the situation develops .

Delta Plane Dumps Fuel On 4 Elementary Schools Over LA, Minor Injuries Reported
Enlarge this image toggle caption Matt Hartman/AP Matt Hartman/AP
Updated at 6:43 p.m. ET
Teams treated children and adults for minor injuries at four suburban Los Angeles elementary schools Tuesday after a Delta flight dumped jet fuel on the way to an emergency landing.
The Los Angeles County Fire Department said 20 children and 11 adults were treated for minor injuries when the fuel fell on the playground of Park Avenue Elementary in Cudahy. First responders also treated six people at Tweedy Elementary and six at San Gabriel Elementary in South Gate, along with one at Graham Elementary in Florence-Graham.
No patients were taken to the hospital.
The Federal Aviation Administration said in a statement that Delta Flight 89 declared an emergency after departing Los Angeles International Airport, returned to the airport and landed without incident.
The FAA said it is investigating the incident and that when fuel is dumped, it is supposed to be over "designated unpopulated areas."
The LA Unified School District said students and staff complained of skin irritation or breathing difficulties.


npr--2020-01-14--The Aftermath Of Iran's Missile Attack On An Iraqi Base Housing U.S. Troops

The Aftermath Of Iran 's Missile Attack On An Iraqi Base Housing U.S .
Troops The conflict between the United States and Iran has flared dangerously in Iraq — and in few places more so than a remote desert air base , more than 100 miles northwest of Baghdad .
Iran fired at least 10 ballistic missiles at the sprawling Ain al-Assad base last week in response to the Jan. 3 U.S. drone strike in Baghdad that killed top Iranian commander Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani and an Iraqi paramilitary leader .
NPR international correspondent Jane Arraf and freelance photographer Alexander @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invited to tour the base earlier this week .
Opened in 1987 during Iraq 's war with Iran , Ain al-Assad is the size of a small city — it takes half an hour to drive across .
The target of the Iranian strikes was the American side of the base , where about 1,500 U.S. troops support Iraq 's fight against ISIS , train Iraqi troops and send armed and unarmed drones into Iraq and Syria .
U.S. military officials say the barrage of rockets lasted more than two hours early in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before , the U.S. received warnings that one of four or five bases in Iraq would be attacked .
Those warnings allowed the military to disperse personnel on the base and sent them rushing to bunkers .
About 15 minutes before the attack , personnel at the base were warned the missiles had been launched .
Because of the precautions , no one was killed or seriously injured , but the missiles heavily damaged living areas and left huge craters .
U.S. officials wo n't say if the drone strike that killed Soleimani @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the area from where U.S. troops launch drones suffered some of the worst damage in last week 's strike .
Here are some scenes from the base .

The Aftermath Of Iran's Missile Attack On An Iraqi Base Housing U.S. Troops
Enlarge this image toggle caption Alexander Tahaov for NPR Alexander Tahaov for NPR
The conflict between the United States and Iran has flared dangerously in Iraq — and in few places more so than a remote desert air base, more than 100 miles northwest of Baghdad. Iran fired at least 10 ballistic missiles at the sprawling Ain al-Assad base last week in response to the Jan. 3 U.S. drone strike in Baghdad that killed top Iranian commander Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani and an Iraqi paramilitary leader.
Middle East Surveying Damage At The Iraqi Base That Iran Attacked Surveying Damage At The Iraqi Base That Iran Attacked Listen · 4:18 4:18
NPR international correspondent Jane Arraf and freelance photographer Alexander Tahaov were among a group of journalists invited to tour the base earlier this week.
Opened in 1987 during Iraq's war with Iran, Ain al-Assad is the size of a small city — it takes half an hour to drive across. The target of the Iranian strikes was the American side of the base, where about 1,500 U.S. troops support Iraq's fight against ISIS, train Iraqi troops and send armed and unarmed drones into Iraq and Syria.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Alexander Tahaov for NPR Alexander Tahaov for NPR
U.S. military officials say the barrage of rockets lasted more than two hours early in the morning on Jan. 8. Hours before, the U.S. received warnings that one of four or five bases in Iraq would be attacked. Those warnings allowed the military to disperse personnel on the base and sent them rushing to bunkers. About 15 minutes before the attack, personnel at the base were warned the missiles had been launched.
Because of the precautions, no one was killed or seriously injured, but the missiles heavily damaged living areas and left huge craters.
U.S. officials won't say if the drone strike that killed Soleimani was launched from this base. But the area from where U.S. troops launch drones suffered some of the worst damage in last week's strike.
Here are some scenes from the base.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Alexander Tahaov for NPR Alexander Tahaov for NPR
Enlarge this image toggle caption Alexander Tahaov for NPR Alexander Tahaov for NPR
Enlarge this image toggle caption Alexander Tahaov for NPR Alexander Tahaov for NPR
Enlarge this image toggle caption Alexander Tahaov for NPR Alexander Tahaov for NPR
Enlarge this image toggle caption Alexander Tahaov for NPR Alexander Tahaov for NPR
Enlarge this image toggle caption Alexander Tahaov for NPR Alexander Tahaov for NPR


npr--2020-01-14--World's Largest Asset Manager Puts Climate At The Center Of Its Investment Strategy

World 's Largest Asset Manager Puts Climate At The Center Of Its Investment Strategy BlackRock , the world 's largest asset manager , says that it will now make climate change central to its investment considerations .
And not just for environmental reasons — but because it believes that climate change is reshaping the world 's financial system .
That was the message in BlackRock Chairman and CEO Larry Fink 's annual letter to CEOs published on Tuesday .
`` The evidence on climate risk is compelling investors to reassess core assumptions about modern finance , '' he wrote , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concern that investors raise with BlackRock .
`` In the near future — and sooner than most anticipate — there will be a significant reallocation of capital . ''
BlackRock manages approximately $ 7 trillion on behalf of investors .
Its shift could signify a watershed moment for corporate action on climate , particularly among U.S. firms .
BlackRock says it will require additional reporting from the companies it invests in , including disclosure of climate-related risks and plans for operating under the goals of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raised a number of financial risks presented by climate change : Fink said BlackRock will remove companies that generate more than 25 % of their revenues from coal production from its actively managed portfolios .
But only about a quarter of BlackRock 's assets are actively managed , according to Reuters .
The majority of BlackRock 's assets are in passively managed index funds , and thus would n't be subject to the policy .
Nonetheless , BlackRock 's move can provide companies that want to move on climate a weighty business justification @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't , they risk being dropped from the investment giant 's funds .
Fink also warned that BlackRock wo n't hesitate to use its status as a major shareholder to pressure companies accordingly : `` [ W ] e will be increasingly disposed to vote against management and board directors when companies are not making sufficient progress on sustainability-related disclosures and the business practices and plans underlying them . ''
This is n't the first time Fink has caused a stir with his CEO letter .
Two years ago , his letter called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ profits and more on long-term growth and making a positive contribution to society .
BlackRock has been under criticism from activists to put pressure on fossil fuel companies or stop investing in them .
A group called The Sunrise Project was among the organizers of a campaign called BlackRock 's Big Problem , which pointed out that BlackRock is a huge investor in coal plants , coal reserves , and oil and gas companies .
It also identified Fink as potentially sympathetic to their cause : `` He 's a Democrat , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a major conservation organization . ''
( In a 2010 interview with Vanity Fair , Fink called himself a `` lifelong Democrat . ''
) But Fink says the move is all about business .
`` We are fiduciaries , '' he told The New York Times .
`` Politics is n't part of this . ''
The Sunrise Project was among the conservation organizations cheering Fink 's letter on Tuesday — and hoping that it will spur other asset managers to do the same .
`` BlackRock 's new initiatives match @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeing in 2020 and are the direct result of an outpouring of pressure from the global climate movement , '' Sunrise Project senior strategist Diana Best said in a statement .
`` BlackRock beginning its shift of capital out of fossil fuels , including today 's divestment of coal in its actively managed funds , is a fantastic start and instantly raises the bar for competitors such as Vanguard and State Street Global Advisors . ''

World's Largest Asset Manager Puts Climate At The Center Of Its Investment Strategy
Enlarge this image toggle caption Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images
BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, says that it will now make climate change central to its investment considerations. And not just for environmental reasons — but because it believes that climate change is reshaping the world's financial system.
That was the message in BlackRock Chairman and CEO Larry Fink's annual letter to CEOs published on Tuesday.
"The evidence on climate risk is compelling investors to reassess core assumptions about modern finance," he wrote, explaining that climate change is the top concern that investors raise with BlackRock. "In the near future — and sooner than most anticipate — there will be a significant reallocation of capital."
BlackRock manages approximately $7 trillion on behalf of investors. Its shift could signify a watershed moment for corporate action on climate, particularly among U.S. firms. BlackRock says it will require additional reporting from the companies it invests in, including disclosure of climate-related risks and plans for operating under the goals of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius.
Fink raised a number of financial risks presented by climate change:
"Will cities, for example, be able to afford their infrastructure needs as climate risk reshapes the market for municipal bonds? What will happen to the 30-year mortgage — a key building block of finance — if lenders can't estimate the impact of climate risk over such a long timeline, and if there is no viable market for flood or fire insurance in impacted areas? What happens to inflation, and in turn interest rates, if the cost of food climbs from drought and flooding? How can we model economic growth if emerging markets see their productivity decline due to extreme heat and other climate impacts?"
Fink said BlackRock will remove companies that generate more than 25% of their revenues from coal production from its actively managed portfolios. But only about a quarter of BlackRock's assets are actively managed, according to Reuters. The majority of BlackRock's assets are in passively managed index funds, and thus wouldn't be subject to the policy.
Nonetheless, BlackRock's move can provide companies that want to move on climate a weighty business justification for doing so: If they don't, they risk being dropped from the investment giant's funds.
Fink also warned that BlackRock won't hesitate to use its status as a major shareholder to pressure companies accordingly: "[W]e will be increasingly disposed to vote against management and board directors when companies are not making sufficient progress on sustainability-related disclosures and the business practices and plans underlying them."
This isn't the first time Fink has caused a stir with his CEO letter. Two years ago, his letter called on CEOs to focus less on short-term profits and more on long-term growth and making a positive contribution to society.
BlackRock has been under criticism from activists to put pressure on fossil fuel companies or stop investing in them.
A group called The Sunrise Project was among the organizers of a campaign called BlackRock's Big Problem, which pointed out that BlackRock is a huge investor in coal plants, coal reserves, and oil and gas companies. It also identified Fink as potentially sympathetic to their cause: "He's a Democrat, a philanthropist, and sits on the board of a major conservation organization." (In a 2010 interview with Vanity Fair, Fink called himself a "lifelong Democrat.")
But Fink says the move is all about business. "We are fiduciaries," he told The New York Times. "Politics isn't part of this."
The Sunrise Project was among the conservation organizations cheering Fink's letter on Tuesday — and hoping that it will spur other asset managers to do the same.
"BlackRock's new initiatives match the size of the crisis we're seeing in 2020 and are the direct result of an outpouring of pressure from the global climate movement," Sunrise Project senior strategist Diana Best said in a statement. "BlackRock beginning its shift of capital out of fossil fuels, including today's divestment of coal in its actively managed funds, is a fantastic start and instantly raises the bar for competitors such as Vanguard and State Street Global Advisors."


npr--2020-01-14--'Left With No Choice,' European Allies Put Iran On Notice Over Nuclear Deal Breaches

'Left With No Choice , ' European Allies Put Iran On Notice Over Nuclear Deal Breaches The 2015 Iran nuclear deal , already teetering after the U.S. withdrawal and subsequent breaches by the Iranian government , has suffered yet another grave blow .
The foreign ministers of the U.K. , France and Germany — half of the deal 's remaining signatories — announced Tuesday that they are lodging a formal complaint that Iran is not meeting its commitments .
To do so , they are triggering a dispute resolution mechanism in the agreement , known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negotiation period of up to 60 days , during which the countries will seek to bring Iran back into full compliance .
Should that process fail , U.N. sanctions on Tehran that were lifted as part of the deal , including an arms embargo , are likely to be reinstated .
Still , the three countries stressed that their goal is the deal 's survival , not the resumption of sanctions .
`` Our three countries are not joining a campaign to implement maximum pressure against Iran , '' the diplomats explained in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our hope is to bring Iran back into full compliance with its commitments under the JCPoA . ''
`` We do this in good faith with the overarching objective of preserving the JCPoA and in the sincere hope of finding a way forward to resolve the impasse through constructive diplomatic dialogue , while preserving the agreement and remaining within its framework , '' the diplomats explained in a joint statement released Tuesday .
They explained that , while they are concerned with recent Iranian violations , the decision to hash out the dispute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reflects their continued faith in its effectiveness — and their continued rejection of the route taken by the Trump administration , when it unilaterally pulled out over its own concerns and reinstated sanctions on Iran in 2018 .
Since then , Iran has repeatedly breached the terms of the agreement , which stipulates that the country refrain from enriching its stores of uranium more than 3.67 % — an amount commonly seen in nuclear power reactors around the world .
Weapons grade uranium , the kind that could be used in a nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 90 % .
In November , Iranian authorities announced plans to bump enrichment levels to 5 % and ramp up operations at a controversial underground facility .
Both steps violate the nuclear deal .
As hopeful as Tuesday 's announcement sounds , the move — which the deal 's other remaining signatories , Russia and China , did not join — is unlikely to improve the outlook for the battered nuclear deal .
Tehran has forcefully rejected the idea that this move is a productive one — and , in a Foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it with its own `` serious and strong response . ''
The three European countries `` can save JCPOA but not by appeasing the bully & pressuring the complying party , '' Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said Monday , in a statement anticipating the move and associating it with `` bully '' Washington .
`` Rather [ the group ] should muster the courage to fulfill its own obligations . ''
The move comes at a particularly turbulent time for the Iran , which is reeling from the news that its military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amid heightened tensions with the United States .
Tehran admitted the `` unforgivable mistake '' late last week , after spending several days forcefully denying that one of its own missiles brought down the jetliner , killing scores of Iranians , Canadians and other passengers .
Iran carried out the unintentional strike around the same time it executed an attack it did intend — a series of strikes on Iraqi bases that host U.S. troops , in retaliation for the Washington-ordered killing of prominent Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani one week earlier .
Amid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Boris Johnson likely made no friends in Tehran by suggesting that he is open to scrapping and replacing the Iran nuclear deal with a new agreement orchestrated by President Trump .
`` If we 're going to get rid of it , let 's replace it , and let 's replace it with the Trump deal — that 's what we need to see .
And I think that would be a great way forward , '' Johnson told the BBC in an interview released Tuesday , without explaining details of what that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ differ from the 2015 agreement .
`` President Trump is a great dealmaker , by his own account and many others , '' Johnson added .
`` Let 's work together to replace the JCPOA and get the Trump deal instead . ''
Despite Johnson 's remarks , his foremost diplomats and those of France and Germany reiterated that they hope above all to preserve the JCPOA .
`` Given recent events , '' they said , `` it is all the more important that we do not add a nuclear proliferation crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ region . ''
So , what 's next in the dispute ?
According to Paragraph 36 of the agreement , the matter will be referred to a joint commission composed of representatives from Iran , Russia , China , Germany , France , Britain and the European Union .
The commission will have 15 days to offer a resolution , though the participants can agree on an extension .
If there is no resolution after this period elapses , the matter is then , for another 15 days , referred to the group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with three members — one each appointed by either side and a third , independent member .
Only then , after at least 30 days , can the complainants use the dispute as acceptable grounds for withdrawing from the agreement and notifying the U.N. Security Council of Iran 's noncompliance .
After such a notification , the Security Council would need to pass a resolution in order to continue Iran 's relief from U.N. sanctions — which would be a tall order , given the veto power of by the U.S. , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resolution be approved , previous U.N. sanctions would snap back into place .

'Left With No Choice,' European Allies Put Iran On Notice Over Nuclear Deal Breaches
Enlarge this image toggle caption Jean-Francois Badias/AP Jean-Francois Badias/AP
The 2015 Iran nuclear deal, already teetering after the U.S. withdrawal and subsequent breaches by the Iranian government, has suffered yet another grave blow.
The foreign ministers of the U.K., France and Germany — half of the deal's remaining signatories — announced Tuesday that they are lodging a formal complaint that Iran is not meeting its commitments. To do so, they are triggering a dispute resolution mechanism in the agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
The move launches a negotiation period of up to 60 days, during which the countries will seek to bring Iran back into full compliance. Should that process fail, U.N. sanctions on Tehran that were lifted as part of the deal, including an arms embargo, are likely to be reinstated.
Still, the three countries stressed that their goal is the deal's survival, not the resumption of sanctions.
"Our three countries are not joining a campaign to implement maximum pressure against Iran," the diplomats explained in a joint statement released Tuesday. "Our hope is to bring Iran back into full compliance with its commitments under the JCPoA."
"We do this in good faith with the overarching objective of preserving the JCPoA and in the sincere hope of finding a way forward to resolve the impasse through constructive diplomatic dialogue, while preserving the agreement and remaining within its framework," the diplomats explained in a joint statement released Tuesday.
They explained that, while they are concerned with recent Iranian violations, the decision to hash out the dispute using procedures laid out in the deal reflects their continued faith in its effectiveness — and their continued rejection of the route taken by the Trump administration, when it unilaterally pulled out over its own concerns and reinstated sanctions on Iran in 2018.
Since then, Iran has repeatedly breached the terms of the agreement, which stipulates that the country refrain from enriching its stores of uranium more than 3.67% — an amount commonly seen in nuclear power reactors around the world. Weapons grade uranium, the kind that could be used in a nuclear weapon, typically has enrichment levels closer to 90%.
In November, Iranian authorities announced plans to bump enrichment levels to 5% and ramp up operations at a controversial underground facility. Both steps violate the nuclear deal.
As hopeful as Tuesday's announcement sounds, the move — which the deal's other remaining signatories, Russia and China, did not join — is unlikely to improve the outlook for the battered nuclear deal. Tehran has forcefully rejected the idea that this move is a productive one — and, in a Foreign Ministry statement Tuesday, vowed to meet it with its own "serious and strong response."
The three European countries "can save JCPOA but not by appeasing the bully & pressuring the complying party," Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said Monday, in a statement anticipating the move and associating it with "bully" Washington. "Rather [the group] should muster the courage to fulfill its own obligations."
The move comes at a particularly turbulent time for the Iran, which is reeling from the news that its military mistakenly shot down a Ukrainian passenger jet amid heightened tensions with the United States. Tehran admitted the "unforgivable mistake" late last week, after spending several days forcefully denying that one of its own missiles brought down the jetliner, killing scores of Iranians, Canadians and other passengers.
Iran carried out the unintentional strike around the same time it executed an attack it did intend — a series of strikes on Iraqi bases that host U.S. troops, in retaliation for the Washington-ordered killing of prominent Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani one week earlier.
Amid this deepening friction, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson likely made no friends in Tehran by suggesting that he is open to scrapping and replacing the Iran nuclear deal with a new agreement orchestrated by President Trump.
"If we're going to get rid of it, let's replace it, and let's replace it with the Trump deal — that's what we need to see. And I think that would be a great way forward," Johnson told the BBC in an interview released Tuesday, without explaining details of what that deal would entail or how it would differ from the 2015 agreement.
"President Trump is a great dealmaker, by his own account and many others," Johnson added. "Let's work together to replace the JCPOA and get the Trump deal instead."
YouTube
Despite Johnson's remarks, his foremost diplomats and those of France and Germany reiterated that they hope above all to preserve the JCPOA.
"Given recent events," they said, "it is all the more important that we do not add a nuclear proliferation crisis to the current escalation threatening the whole region."
So, what's next in the dispute?
According to Paragraph 36 of the agreement, the matter will be referred to a joint commission composed of representatives from Iran, Russia, China, Germany, France, Britain and the European Union.
The commission will have 15 days to offer a resolution, though the participants can agree on an extension. If there is no resolution after this period elapses, the matter is then, for another 15 days, referred to the group's foreign ministers or an advisory board with three members — one each appointed by either side and a third, independent member.
Only then, after at least 30 days, can the complainants use the dispute as acceptable grounds for withdrawing from the agreement and notifying the U.N. Security Council of Iran's noncompliance.
After such a notification, the Security Council would need to pass a resolution in order to continue Iran's relief from U.N. sanctions — which would be a tall order, given the veto power of by the U.S., the U.K. and France. Should no such resolution be approved, previous U.N. sanctions would snap back into place.


npr--2020-01-14--Racist Housing Practices From The 1930s Linked To Hotter Neighborhoods Today

Racist Housing Practices From The 1930s Linked To Hotter Neighborhoods Today In cities around the country , if you want to understand the history of a neighborhood , you might want to do the same thing you 'd do to measure human health : Check its temperature .
That 's what a group of researchers did , and they found that neighborhoods with higher temperatures were often the same ones subjected to discriminatory , race-based housing practices nearly a century ago .
In a study of 108 urban areas nationwide , the formerly redlined neighborhoods of nearly every city studied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some by nearly 13 degrees .
Redlining refers to the federal government 's practice in the 1930s of rating neighborhoods to help mortgage lenders determine which areas of a city were considered risky .
The federal Home Owners ' Loan Corporation made maps and shaded neighborhoods red that it deemed `` hazardous . ''
That risk level was largely based on the number of African Americans and immigrants living there .
The practice , along with the other segregationist housing policies of the time , had lasting effects — from concentrating poverty to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still feel those effects — literally .
Nearly 90 years after those maps were created , redlined neighborhoods are hotter than the highest-rated neighborhoods by an average of almost 5 degrees , according to the research from Portland State University , the Science Museum of Virginia and Virginia Commonwealth University .
`` It 's like stepping into a parking lot from a park .
You would feel that relatively quickly , '' says Vivek Shandas , a professor of urban studies and planning at Portland State University , who co-authored the study .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ saw that it was a pattern that we were seeing consistently across the country . ''
The link between higher heat and redlined neighborhoods , many of which are still struggling economically from decades of disinvestment , echoes the findings of a joint investigation last September by NPR and the University of Maryland 's Howard Center for Investigative Journalism .
In an analysis of heat and income in 97 of the most populous U.S. cities , we found low-income areas in the vast majority of those cities were more likely to be hotter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas were also disproportionately communities of color .
That extra heat can have dangerous , and sometimes deadly , health consequences .
Extreme heat kills more Americans every year than any other weather-related disaster , and heat waves are growing in intensity and frequency as climate change progresses .
In Baltimore , NPR and the Howard Center found dramatic increases in the rates of emergency calls during dangerous heat waves , and low-income patients in the city 's hot spots visited the hospital more often than low-income patients in cooler areas .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face grave consequences in terms of their human health , their financial health or generally their ability to cope with these effects , '' Shandas says .
The way cities are built often creates what is known as an urban heat island , meaning they tend to be hotter than their rural surroundings .
That 's largely because cities usually have more pavement and concrete , which absorb heat and release it slowly .
They also tend to have fewer trees , which cool the air and provide shade .
Cities in general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concrete also are n't distributed evenly across an urban area .
That can create micro heat islands within a city .
Shandas says the heat patterns seen in his study are likely the result of more concrete and fewer trees and green spaces in those hotter areas .
Other recent research helps bear that out : In 37 cities around the country , formerly redlined neighborhoods have about half as many trees on average today as the highest-rated predominantly white neighborhoods on those maps .
That 's according to research released last week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center , the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies , Dartmouth College , Bates College , Arizona State University and the University of Vermont .
An additional study from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Medical College of Wisconsin also found a similar pattern : In nearly 90 % of the 115 cities they looked at , the highest-rated neighborhoods on the redlining maps had the most tree cover in the city by 2011 .
Researchers on all three studies used the redlining maps made available by the University of Richmond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to heat and tree canopy data .
The researchers looking at heat patterns used surface temperature data from NASA and the U.S. Geological Survey .
The researchers with the Forest Service team used tree canopy data mainly from individual cities and the University of Vermont , and the Wisconsin researchers used the National Land Cover Database .
`` Research on environmental justice has yet to really try to understand how systems are at work that may cause inequities , '' says Morgan Grove , a research scientist at the Forest Service 's Baltimore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's study .
`` There are these explanations that require understanding history to understand why we see what we see today in cities . ''
The federal segregationist policies that went along with redlining , particularly those of the Federal Housing Administration , ensured many communities of color stayed where they were and moved white families into single-family homes in the suburbs .
`` The policies of segregation that were followed by the federal government were so powerful that they determine the racial landscape of today , '' says Richard Rothstein , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the author of The Color Of Law : A Forgotten History of How our Government Segregated America .
`` African Americans are restricted to neighborhoods because the other neighborhoods are now unaffordable to them , restricted to neighborhoods where there are fewer trees , where there is more heat . ''
The 1968 Fair Housing Act prohibited ongoing housing discrimination , but it did n't look backward on the damage already done , Rothstein says .
`` Unless explicit action is taken to subsidize people who are denied the right to move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20th century , to now subsidize them to move , '' Rothstein says .
`` You ca n't undo the damage .
You need explicit policy , race-based policy .
You need affirmative action in housing . ''
Those communities of color also often had less political power when it came to resisting denser housing and the construction of major industry or roadways in their neighborhoods , which in turn can generate more heat .
`` Honestly , the results of these studies confirm what we 've been talking about for years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manager of tree equity programs at the nonprofit American Forests .
`` Our cities , they 're not like jungles where they developed just by natural selection on their own .
People designed these places , which means that they were designed for particular people , and that means that not everybody was held in mind when plans for cities and communities were made . ''

Racist Housing Practices From The 1930s Linked To Hotter Neighborhoods Today
Enlarge this image toggle caption Ian Morton for NPR Ian Morton for NPR
In cities around the country, if you want to understand the history of a neighborhood, you might want to do the same thing you'd do to measure human health: Check its temperature.
That's what a group of researchers did, and they found that neighborhoods with higher temperatures were often the same ones subjected to discriminatory, race-based housing practices nearly a century ago.
In a study of 108 urban areas nationwide, the formerly redlined neighborhoods of nearly every city studied were hotter than the non-redlined neighborhoods, some by nearly 13 degrees.
Loading...
Redlining refers to the federal government's practice in the 1930s of rating neighborhoods to help mortgage lenders determine which areas of a city were considered risky. The federal Home Owners' Loan Corporation made maps and shaded neighborhoods red that it deemed "hazardous." That risk level was largely based on the number of African Americans and immigrants living there. The practice, along with the other segregationist housing policies of the time, had lasting effects — from concentrating poverty to stifling home ownership rates.
You can still feel those effects — literally. Nearly 90 years after those maps were created, redlined neighborhoods are hotter than the highest-rated neighborhoods by an average of almost 5 degrees, according to the research from Portland State University, the Science Museum of Virginia and Virginia Commonwealth University.
Loading...
"It's like stepping into a parking lot from a park. You would feel that relatively quickly," says Vivek Shandas, a professor of urban studies and planning at Portland State University, who co-authored the study. "It was very surprising when we saw that it was a pattern that we were seeing consistently across the country."
The link between higher heat and redlined neighborhoods, many of which are still struggling economically from decades of disinvestment, echoes the findings of a joint investigation last September by NPR and the University of Maryland's Howard Center for Investigative Journalism. In an analysis of heat and income in 97 of the most populous U.S. cities, we found low-income areas in the vast majority of those cities were more likely to be hotter than their wealthier counterparts. Those poorer areas were also disproportionately communities of color.
That extra heat can have dangerous, and sometimes deadly, health consequences. Extreme heat kills more Americans every year than any other weather-related disaster, and heat waves are growing in intensity and frequency as climate change progresses. In Baltimore, NPR and the Howard Center found dramatic increases in the rates of emergency calls during dangerous heat waves, and low-income patients in the city's hot spots visited the hospital more often than low-income patients in cooler areas.
"Those communities are much more likely to face grave consequences in terms of their human health, their financial health or generally their ability to cope with these effects," Shandas says.
The way cities are built often creates what is known as an urban heat island, meaning they tend to be hotter than their rural surroundings. That's largely because cities usually have more pavement and concrete, which absorb heat and release it slowly. They also tend to have fewer trees, which cool the air and provide shade. Cities in general are hotter, but green space and concrete also aren't distributed evenly across an urban area. That can create micro heat islands within a city.
Shandas says the heat patterns seen in his study are likely the result of more concrete and fewer trees and green spaces in those hotter areas. Other recent research helps bear that out: In 37 cities around the country, formerly redlined neighborhoods have about half as many trees on average today as the highest-rated predominantly white neighborhoods on those maps. That's according to research released last week by the U.S. Forest Service, the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Dartmouth College, Bates College, Arizona State University and the University of Vermont. An additional study from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Medical College of Wisconsin also found a similar pattern: In nearly 90% of the 115 cities they looked at, the highest-rated neighborhoods on the redlining maps had the most tree cover in the city by 2011.
Researchers on all three studies used the redlining maps made available by the University of Richmond's Mapping Inequality database and compared them to heat and tree canopy data. The researchers looking at heat patterns used surface temperature data from NASA and the U.S. Geological Survey. The researchers with the Forest Service team used tree canopy data mainly from individual cities and the University of Vermont, and the Wisconsin researchers used the National Land Cover Database.
"Research on environmental justice has yet to really try to understand how systems are at work that may cause inequities," says Morgan Grove, a research scientist at the Forest Service's Baltimore Field Station and co-author of the service's study. "There are these explanations that require understanding history to understand why we see what we see today in cities."
NPR YouTube
The federal segregationist policies that went along with redlining, particularly those of the Federal Housing Administration, ensured many communities of color stayed where they were and moved white families into single-family homes in the suburbs.
"The policies of segregation that were followed by the federal government were so powerful that they determine the racial landscape of today," says Richard Rothstein, a distinguished fellow at the Economic Policy Institute and the author of The Color Of Law: A Forgotten History of How our Government Segregated America. "African Americans are restricted to neighborhoods because the other neighborhoods are now unaffordable to them, restricted to neighborhoods where there are fewer trees, where there is more heat."
The 1968 Fair Housing Act prohibited ongoing housing discrimination, but it didn't look backward on the damage already done, Rothstein says.
"Unless explicit action is taken to subsidize people who are denied the right to move into those kinds of homes in the 20th century, to now subsidize them to move," Rothstein says. "You can't undo the damage. You need explicit policy, race-based policy. You need affirmative action in housing."
Those communities of color also often had less political power when it came to resisting denser housing and the construction of major industry or roadways in their neighborhoods, which in turn can generate more heat.
"Honestly, the results of these studies confirm what we've been talking about for years," says Sarah Lillie Anderson, senior manager of tree equity programs at the nonprofit American Forests. "Our cities, they're not like jungles where they developed just by natural selection on their own. People designed these places, which means that they were designed for particular people, and that means that not everybody was held in mind when plans for cities and communities were made."


npr--2020-01-14--Bushfire Smoke Causes Player To Forfeit Her Qualifying Match For Australian Open

Bushfire Smoke Causes Player To Forfeit Her Qualifying Match For Australian Open A blanket of smoke from massive wildfires in Australia hangs like a blanket over the city of Melbourne .
The smog there is so thick that some of the world 's top athletes have raised alarms about player safety at the Australian Open tennis tournament , slated to kick off next week .
The air quality in Melbourne on Wednesday was forecast to be `` very poor to hazardous , '' according to the Environment Protection Authority in Victoria state .
The hazardous breathing conditions prompted Australian Open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But qualifying matches went on as scheduled , and one of the players later said it was `` not fair '' that they were asked to compete .
That player , Slovenia 's Dalila Jakupovic , was leading 6-4 , 5-6 in her match against Switzerland 's Stefanie Voegele when she was overtaken by a fit of coughing and dropped to her knees .
Her breathing difficulties forced her to forfeit , handing the victory to Voegele .
`` I was really scared that I would collapse , '' Jakupovic told the Australian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not suffer from asthma or have a history of respiratory issues .
`` I just could n't breathe anymore and I just fell to the floor . ''
Jakupovic was n't the only one with breathing difficulty .
The AP also reports Eugenie Bouchard received medical attention during her qualifying match , which she eventually won .
Over at the Kooyong Classic , Russia 's Maria Sharapova was down a set in her exhibition match against Germany 's Laura Siegemund .
Tied at 5-5 in the second set , officials moved to stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heat and smoke .
`` It was the right call from the officials , '' Sharapova told SBS Sports .
The official account for the Australian Open tweeted Monday that event staff members were monitoring onsite data and working with medical personnel and scientists to make sure that it is safe for players to take to the court .
`` As always the health and safety of our players , our staff and our fans is our priority . ''
Bushfires in Australia have claimed the lives of more than two dozen people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousands of acres since they began in September .
University of Sydney ecologist Chris Dickman has estimated that more than a billion animals may have been killed in the fires .
Australia is no stranger to wildfires , but this year 's fire season is historic .
Two massive fires recently combined to form a `` megafire '' more than three times as large as any known fire in California , as NPR has reported .
The bushfires have also produced a plume of smoke the size of the continental United States and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carbon dioxide into the atmosphere .

Bushfire Smoke Causes Player To Forfeit Her Qualifying Match For Australian Open
Enlarge this image toggle caption Daniel Pockett/Getty Images Daniel Pockett/Getty Images
Smoke from massive wildfires in Australia hangs like a blanket over the city of Melbourne. The smog there is so thick that some of the world's top athletes have raised alarms about player safety at the Australian Open tennis tournament, slated to kick off next week.
The air quality in Melbourne on Wednesday was forecast to be "very poor to hazardous," according to the Environment Protection Authority in Victoria state.
The hazardous breathing conditions prompted Australian Open officials to suspend practice sessions Tuesday. But qualifying matches went on as scheduled, and one of the players later said it was "not fair" that they were asked to compete.
That player, Slovenia's Dalila Jakupovic, was leading 6-4, 5-6 in her match against Switzerland's Stefanie Voegele when she was overtaken by a fit of coughing and dropped to her knees. Her breathing difficulties forced her to forfeit, handing the victory to Voegele.
"I was really scared that I would collapse," Jakupovic told the Australian Associated Press. She said she does not suffer from asthma or have a history of respiratory issues. "I just couldn't breathe anymore and I just fell to the floor."
Jakupovic wasn't the only one with breathing difficulty.
The AP also reports Eugenie Bouchard received medical attention during her qualifying match, which she eventually won.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Michael Dodge/AP Michael Dodge/AP
Over at the Kooyong Classic, Russia's Maria Sharapova was down a set in her exhibition match against Germany's Laura Siegemund. Tied at 5-5 in the second set, officials moved to stop play as both players struggled with the heat and smoke.
"It was the right call from the officials," Sharapova told SBS Sports.
The official account for the Australian Open tweeted Monday that event staff members were monitoring onsite data and working with medical personnel and scientists to make sure that it is safe for players to take to the court. "As always the health and safety of our players, our staff and our fans is our priority."
Bushfires in Australia have claimed the lives of more than two dozen people, destroyed nearly 3,000 homes and charred thousands of acres since they began in September. University of Sydney ecologist Chris Dickman has estimated that more than a billion animals may have been killed in the fires.
Australia is no stranger to wildfires, but this year's fire season is historic. Two massive fires recently combined to form a "megafire" more than three times as large as any known fire in California, as NPR has reported.
The bushfires have also produced a plume of smoke the size of the continental United States and pumped hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.


npr--2020-01-14--Iran Makes Arrests Over Downing Of Ukrainian Airliner, And A New Video Emerges

Iran Makes Arrests Over Downing Of Ukrainian Airliner , And A New Video Emerges Iranian authorities have arrested an undisclosed number of people over the accidental shootdown of a Ukrainian airliner .
The move comes as Iranians continue to protest against the government over the tragedy .
Hours after the arrests , a new video emerged that purportedly shows two missiles hitting the passenger jet .
`` Thorough investigations have been launched and a number of individuals have been arrested , '' Iranian judiciary spokesman Gholamhossein Esmaili said according to Iran 's Press TV , citing an official statement on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denying responsibility for the deadly crash , Iran admitted its missiles took down the jet after several videos showed the airliner being struck by an object and falling in flames .
On Tuesday , new footage was published by The New York Times that suggests Iran 's military may have fired two missiles at the passenger jet .
That roughly two-minute video , taken from a surveillance camera , shows what looks to be a missile being launched and hitting its target — and then , nearly 30 seconds later , a second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The plan then remains airborne for well over a minute , including a shocking moment when it is enveloped by a fireball .
Earlier Tuesday , President Hassan Rouhani called for the judiciary to set up a special court to hold a full accounting of the disaster , which killed 176 people and triggered public outrage in Iran and other affected countries .
News of the arrests comes days after Iran acknowledged that human error in its military 's defense systems had caused what Rouhani deemed a `` great tragedy & unforgivable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ airliner shortly after it took off from Tehran .
For days after Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 was violently brought down last Wednesday , Iran denied that its military may have played a role , even as the catastrophe 's timing — just after Iran launched missiles at U.S. assets in Iraq — immediately raised suspicions that the jet had been targeted by mistake .
Iran 's missile strike was in retaliation for the U.S. killing Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad .
As Rouhani called on the judiciary to dedicate a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Iran owes a debt of responsibility to those who died .
The plane had been carrying 82 Iranians , 57 Canadians and a number of other foreign nationals .
Many of them had dual citizenship .
`` This is not an ordinary case .
The entire world will monitor the proposed court , '' Rouhani said , according to The Tehran Times .
He added , `` I myself , due to my somehow knowledge about air defense issue , say that only one person ca n't be guilty in this adventure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I want ( the relevant bodies ) to explain the issue honestly to the people . ''
In the days since the plane was shot down , Iranians have been taking to the streets — at first to mourn the victims , but then to vent their fury over the government 's handling of the tragedy .
`` Demonstrations that had been attacking the U.S. for killing Iran 's top general quickly turned into calls of 'death to the dictator , ' a reference to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei , '' as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wake of the government 's shifting narrative about the crash .
Government security forces appeared to use live ammunition against some of those protesters , according to videos that were released by a human rights group Monday .
Officials later denied that allegation .
In a reflection of the critical time in which Iran now finds itself , the country 's supreme leader , Ayatollah Ali Khamenei , will take the rare step of delivering a Friday prayers sermon this week — something he has n't done in eight years , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chief in Tehran .

Iran Makes Arrests Over Downing Of Ukrainian Airliner, And A New Video Emerges
Enlarge this image toggle caption Bloomberg/via Getty Images Bloomberg/via Getty Images
Updated at 3:50 p.m. ET
Iranian authorities have arrested an undisclosed number of people over the accidental shootdown of a Ukrainian airliner. The move comes as Iranians continue to protest against the government over the tragedy. Hours after the arrests, a new video emerged that purportedly shows two missiles hitting the passenger jet.
"Thorough investigations have been launched and a number of individuals have been arrested," Iranian judiciary spokesman Gholamhossein Esmaili said according to Iran's Press TV, citing an official statement on the agency's website.
After initially denying responsibility for the deadly crash, Iran admitted its missiles took down the jet after several videos showed the airliner being struck by an object and falling in flames. On Tuesday, new footage was published by The New York Times that suggests Iran's military may have fired two missiles at the passenger jet.
That roughly two-minute video, taken from a surveillance camera, shows what looks to be a missile being launched and hitting its target — and then, nearly 30 seconds later, a second missile is launched and causes another explosion. The plane then remains airborne for well over a minute, including a shocking moment when it is enveloped by a fireball.
Earlier Tuesday, President Hassan Rouhani called for the judiciary to set up a special court to hold a full accounting of the disaster, which killed 176 people and triggered public outrage in Iran and other affected countries.
News of the arrests comes days after Iran acknowledged that human error in its military's defense systems had caused what Rouhani deemed a "great tragedy & unforgivable mistake" in shooting down the civilian airliner shortly after it took off from Tehran.
For days after Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 was violently brought down last Wednesday, Iran denied that its military may have played a role, even as the catastrophe's timing — just after Iran launched missiles at U.S. assets in Iraq — immediately raised suspicions that the jet had been targeted by mistake. Iran's missile strike was in retaliation for the U.S. killing Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad.
As Rouhani called on the judiciary to dedicate a special court to the inquiry, he said Iran owes a debt of responsibility to those who died. The plane had been carrying 82 Iranians, 57 Canadians and a number of other foreign nationals. Many of them had dual citizenship.
"This is not an ordinary case. The entire world will monitor the proposed court," Rouhani said, according to The Tehran Times. He added, "I myself, due to my somehow knowledge about air defense issue, say that only one person can't be guilty in this adventure, so there are some others. I want (the relevant bodies) to explain the issue honestly to the people."
In the days since the plane was shot down, Iranians have been taking to the streets — at first to mourn the victims, but then to vent their fury over the government's handling of the tragedy.
"Demonstrations that had been attacking the U.S. for killing Iran's top general quickly turned into calls of 'death to the dictator,' a reference to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei," as NPR's Peter Kenyon reported in the wake of the government's shifting narrative about the crash.
Government security forces appeared to use live ammunition against some of those protesters, according to videos that were released by a human rights group Monday. Officials later denied that allegation.
In a reflection of the critical time in which Iran now finds itself, the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, will take the rare step of delivering a Friday prayers sermon this week — something he hasn't done in eight years, according to Ali Arouzi, NBC News' bureau chief in Tehran.


npr--2020-01-14--Medicare for All? A Public Option? Health Care Terms, Explained

If the last few Democratic presidential debates are any guide , tonight 's will likely delve into health care proposals .
Do voters know what we 're talking about when we talk about various plans and concepts , including `` Medicare for All ? ''
Or any of the other health policy terms that get thrown around ?
According to one poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation , 87 % of Democrats support `` Medicare for All , '' while 64 % of Democrats support `` single-payer health care . ''
Here 's the catch — those two phrases describe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this debate is murky , confusing and hugely consequential .
So we 're laying out some key terms to help you keep up .
This is a kind of health care system where the government provides insurance to everyone .
Think about it as if you 're a doctor : a patient comes in , and you treat them .
Who 's paying you for that care ?
Under our current system , it could be a variety of payers : state Medicaid programs , Medicare , or a private insurance company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Blue Shield — each with different rates and different services that they cover .
Instead , under the single-payer model , there 's just one , single payer : the government .
If single-payer is fruit , Medicare for All is a banana .
In other words , single-payer is a category of coverage , and Medicare for All is a specific proposal , originally written by presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders ( as he often reminds us ) .
It envisions the creation of a national health insurance program , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the idea that access to health care is a human right .
Private health insurance would mostly go away , and there would be no premiums or cost-sharing for patients .
Important note : it would not actually just expand Medicare as it exists now for all people ( as you might guess from the name ) .
Medicare does n't cover a whole lot of things that this proposed program would cover , like hearing and vision and dental and long-term care .
The idea of a `` public option '' was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Care Act was being debated .
The idea is that along with the private health insurance plans that you might have access to through your employer or through the individual insurance exchanges , there would be an option to buy into a government-run insurance program , like Medicare .
Private insurance would still exist , but people could choose to get a government insurance plan instead .
There are many kinds of public option proposals , and different presidential candidates have their own ideas on how it would work , whether it 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ creating a new program that 's not Medicare or Medicaid that people could buy into , among others .
The idea is that the government might be able to offer a more affordable option for people , which could push down prices in the private insurance world .
Pete Buttigieg 's plan — `` Medicare for All Who Want It '' — is his version of a public option .
And Elizabeth Warren announced November 15 that she 'd start with a public option plan before trying to push the country toward Medicare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for All and other health proposals use the term `` government-run '' as a dig against them , including President Trump .
( Sometimes the term `` socialized medicine '' is used as well . )
In the U.K. and some other places , the government does n't just pay people 's health care bills , it also owns hospitals and employs doctors and other providers — that 's a government-run health care system .
The single-payer concept being discussed in this country 's presidential campaign would not operate like that — the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the government would pay the bills .
How the government would generate the money to pay those bills is subject to debate . )
This is n't a plan , it 's a goal that everyone has health insurance — that health insurance coverage is universal .
The Affordable Care Act made a system for states to expand Medicaid and created the individual health insurance exchanges , , both of which significantly cut down on the number of uninsured people , but currently 27 million Americans do not have health insurance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insurance is rising .
Most Democratic presidential candidates would like to achieve universal coverage — the debate is about the best approach to get there .

Medicare for All? A Public Option? Health Care Terms, Explained
Enlarge this image toggle caption The Washington Post/Getty Images The Washington Post/Getty Images
If the last few Democratic presidential debates are any guide, tonight's will likely delve into health care proposals. Do voters know what we're talking about when we talk about various plans and concepts, including "Medicare for All?" Or any of the other health policy terms that get thrown around?
Pretty much no.
According to one poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation, 87% of Democrats support "Medicare for All," while 64% of Democrats support "single-payer health care." Here's the catch — those two phrases describe almost the same thing. The language in this debate is murky, confusing and hugely consequential. So we're laying out some key terms to help you keep up.
Single-payer
This is a kind of health care system where the government provides insurance to everyone. Think about it as if you're a doctor: a patient comes in, and you treat them. Who's paying you for that care? Under our current system, it could be a variety of payers: state Medicaid programs, Medicare, or a private insurance company like Aetna or Cigna or Blue Cross and Blue Shield — each with different rates and different services that they cover. Instead, under the single-payer model, there's just one, single payer: the government.
Medicare for All
If single-payer is fruit, Medicare for All is a banana. In other words, single-payer is a category of coverage, and Medicare for All is a specific proposal, originally written by presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (as he often reminds us). It envisions the creation of a national health insurance program, with coverage provided to everyone, based on the idea that access to health care is a human right. Private health insurance would mostly go away, and there would be no premiums or cost-sharing for patients.
Important note: it would not actually just expand Medicare as it exists now for all people (as you might guess from the name). Medicare doesn't cover a whole lot of things that this proposed program would cover, like hearing and vision and dental and long-term care.
Public option
The idea of a "public option" was floated back in 2009 when the Affordable Care Act was being debated. The idea is that along with the private health insurance plans that you might have access to through your employer or through the individual insurance exchanges, there would be an option to buy into a government-run insurance program, like Medicare. Private insurance would still exist, but people could choose to get a government insurance plan instead.
There are many kinds of public option proposals, and different presidential candidates have their own ideas on how it would work, whether it's lowering the age for Medicare access or creating a new program that's not Medicare or Medicaid that people could buy into, among others. The idea is that the government might be able to offer a more affordable option for people, which could push down prices in the private insurance world.
Pete Buttigieg's plan — "Medicare for All Who Want It" — is his version of a public option. And Elizabeth Warren announced November 15 that she'd start with a public option plan before trying to push the country toward Medicare for All.
"Government-run" health care
Many opponents of Medicare for All and other health proposals use the term "government-run" as a dig against them, including President Trump. (Sometimes the term "socialized medicine" is used as well.) In the U.K. and some other places, the government doesn't just pay people's health care bills, it also owns hospitals and employs doctors and other providers — that's a government-run health care system. The single-payer concept being discussed in this country's presidential campaign would not operate like that — the industry would still be mostly private, but the government would pay the bills. How the government would generate the money to pay those bills is subject to debate.)
Universal coverage
This isn't a plan, it's a goal that everyone has health insurance — that health insurance coverage is universal. The Affordable Care Act made a system for states to expand Medicaid and created the individual health insurance exchanges, , both of which significantly cut down on the number of uninsured people, but currently 27 million Americans do not have health insurance, and the rate of people who lack insurance is rising. Most Democratic presidential candidates would like to achieve universal coverage — the debate is about the best approach to get there.


npr--2020-01-14--Opinion: The Danger From Iran Didn't Die With Soleimani

Opinion : The Danger From Iran Did n't Die With Soleimani Brett Bruen ( @ BrettBruen ) was director of global engagement in the Obama White House and was a U.S. diplomat for 12 years .
He now runs a crisis communications agency and teaches on the topic at Georgetown University .
President Trump did not only kill Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani .
He also killed a core principle that had long protected our people .
For the last several decades , the United States agreed it would not assassinate foreign government officials .
That rule is now dead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president has handed a powerful precedent to Iran and other adversaries .
Moreover , the danger we face did not die with Soleimani .
While Tehran may have temporarily pulled its punches , we should all be very worried about the new risks we will confront in a world where senior government officials are considered fair game .
The American president essentially has said he can take out anyone , anywhere , for any reason .
This will alter our adversaries ' actions dramatically .
For a country like Iran , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibilities .
Tehran can now attempt to justify a future assassination of one of our officials on the basis that they represented an `` imminent threat '' to Iran .
In fact , we may see this justification repeated by other governments for quite questionable purposes .
Russia has regularly reached across borders in recent years to exact deadly revenge against dissidents and defectors .
Not even Moscow , though , was bold enough to take out other nations ' officials .
That may now change .
Iran 's missiles fired at bases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any Americans .
But even if Iranian leaders were demonstrating strategic restraint , it should not be mistaken for standing down .
Iran has restarted its nuclear program and still has U.S. personnel squarely in its sights .
Iran was never going to mount a full-frontal assault in retaliation for the killing of one of its top commanders .
That is just not how Tehran fights , especially against a superpower like the United States .
Instead , it has spent years building a specialization in asymmetric attacks , often through its wide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Masking those operations provides the Iranian government with the ability to claim it was n't responsible for the actions of its affiliated groups .
Trump struck down one of Iran 's leaders so brazenly , so boastfully , and he did n't even bother to build a cogent case for why it had to happen .
There is a long history of Iranian leaders pointing to America 's past performance and positions to justify taking aggressive action .
Last week , Iran 's ambassador to the United Nations parroted the administration 's line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when he said that the United States should `` join the international community and act like a normal country in respecting international agreements . ''
Perhaps the White House approach is best described as `` bully them until they break . ''
Based on my diplomatic experience , such strong-arm strategies do n't work .
They end up actually producing a lot of unintended consequences as the targeted country looks for unconventional ways to push back .
In this case , Iran has already demonstrated its readiness to retaliate against oil fields , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it exactly that Trump expects Iran to do ?
The president said over the weekend he `` could n't care less if they negotiate . ''
Even when Iran showed relative restraint in response to Soleimani 's killing , the administration continued to escalate the sanctions and strong words .
Lost to many in the frenzy of the past week is the fact that Tehran proclaimed to be completely unbound by the terms of the Iran deal .
Signed by Iran , the U.S. , European nations , Russia and China , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relief in exchange for curbing its nuclear program .
But President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the deal and reimposed sanctions on Iran in 2018 .
Now , beyond bellicose bluster , there appears to be no notion within the Trump administration for how it gets Iran to change course .
Were Iran to acquire nuclear weapons , as with North Korea , America 's options would be severely limited , while Iran 's options would multiply .
Without a clear roadmap for how to move forward , there is a high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cliffs overlooking a crisis in the coming months .
How can we avoid things getting out of hand and Iran developing nuclear weapons ?
First , forget about presidential summits , which have n't worked with North Korea .
Instead , the administration should use the model of ministerial meetings that helped lead to progress on the trade war with China .
It should make some clear , concrete demands for Iran to end support to proxies and protection of Iranians ' fundamental rights .
Then get China , Russia and our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
How can we avoid the Soleimani strike boomeranging back against Americans serving abroad ?
The nonbinding war powers resolution passed by the House of Representatives last week and the Senate bill to prevent war with Iran are sorely insufficient .
Congress needs to do more than set stricter conditions for war .
It ought to demand detailed answers for how we avoid it .
There should be a review of when and with what justification presidents can order a senior foreign official killed .
New rules need to be written .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very high bar for such action .
The national security principles and practices the president disavows are vital for keeping American officials safe .
Trump ostensibly took out Soleimani to protect our people serving in the Middle East .
He ended up putting them and many others in much greater danger .
Protecting them requires quickly laying out a roadmap for resolving the crisis with Iran , along with writing up and respecting a rigid rulebook for any future targeting of foreign officials .

Opinion: The Danger From Iran Didn't Die With Soleimani
Enlarge this image toggle caption Ebrahim Noroozi/AP Ebrahim Noroozi/AP
Brett Bruen (@BrettBruen) was director of global engagement in the Obama White House and was a U.S. diplomat for 12 years. He now runs a crisis communications agency and teaches on the topic at Georgetown University.
President Trump did not only kill Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani. He also killed a core principle that had long protected our people. For the last several decades, the United States agreed it would not assassinate foreign government officials. That rule is now dead, and, with its demise, the president has handed a powerful precedent to Iran and other adversaries.
Moreover, the danger we face did not die with Soleimani. While Tehran may have temporarily pulled its punches, we should all be very worried about the new risks we will confront in a world where senior government officials are considered fair game.
The American president essentially has said he can take out anyone, anywhere, for any reason. This will alter our adversaries' actions dramatically. For a country like Iran, it opens up a whole new realm of possibilities. Tehran can now attempt to justify a future assassination of one of our officials on the basis that they represented an "imminent threat" to Iran. In fact, we may see this justification repeated by other governments for quite questionable purposes.
Tehran can now attempt to justify a future assassination of one of our officials on the basis that they represented an 'imminent threat' to Iran.
Russia has regularly reached across borders in recent years to exact deadly revenge against dissidents and defectors. Not even Moscow, though, was bold enough to take out other nations' officials. That may now change.
Iran's missiles fired at bases in Iraq last Wednesday did not strike any Americans. But even if Iranian leaders were demonstrating strategic restraint, it should not be mistaken for standing down. Iran has restarted its nuclear program and still has U.S. personnel squarely in its sights.
Iran was never going to mount a full-frontal assault in retaliation for the killing of one of its top commanders. That is just not how Tehran fights, especially against a superpower like the United States. Instead, it has spent years building a specialization in asymmetric attacks, often through its wide network of proxies across the planet. Masking those operations provides the Iranian government with the ability to claim it wasn't responsible for the actions of its affiliated groups.
Trump struck down one of Iran's leaders so brazenly, so boastfully, and he didn't even bother to build a cogent case for why it had to happen. There is a long history of Iranian leaders pointing to America's past performance and positions to justify taking aggressive action. Last week, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations parroted the administration's line about Tehran during an interview with NPR when he said that the United States should "join the international community and act like a normal country in respecting international agreements."
Perhaps the White House approach is best described as "bully them until they break." Based on my diplomatic experience, such strong-arm strategies don't work. They end up actually producing a lot of unintended consequences as the targeted country looks for unconventional ways to push back. In this case, Iran has already demonstrated its readiness to retaliate against oil fields, tankers and military bases.
What is it exactly that Trump expects Iran to do? The president said over the weekend he "couldn't care less if they negotiate." Even when Iran showed relative restraint in response to Soleimani's killing, the administration continued to escalate the sanctions and strong words.
Lost to many in the frenzy of the past week is the fact that Tehran proclaimed to be completely unbound by the terms of the Iran deal. Signed by Iran, the U.S., European nations, Russia and China, the deal was meant to offer Iran economic relief in exchange for curbing its nuclear program. But President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the deal and reimposed sanctions on Iran in 2018. Now, beyond bellicose bluster, there appears to be no notion within the Trump administration for how it gets Iran to change course. Were Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, as with North Korea, America's options would be severely limited, while Iran's options would multiply.
Without a clear roadmap for how to move forward, there is a high probability we will find ourselves back on the cliffs overlooking a crisis in the coming months.
How can we avoid things getting out of hand and Iran developing nuclear weapons? First, forget about presidential summits, which haven't worked with North Korea. Instead, the administration should use the model of ministerial meetings that helped lead to progress on the trade war with China. It should make some clear, concrete demands for Iran to end support to proxies and protection of Iranians' fundamental rights. Then get China, Russia and our European allies to apply pressure on Tehran.
How can we avoid the Soleimani strike boomeranging back against Americans serving abroad? The nonbinding war powers resolution passed by the House of Representatives last week and the Senate bill to prevent war with Iran are sorely insufficient. Congress needs to do more than set stricter conditions for war. It ought to demand detailed answers for how we avoid it. There should be a review of when and with what justification presidents can order a senior foreign official killed. New rules need to be written. We have to set and stick to a very high bar for such action.
The national security principles and practices the president disavows are vital for keeping American officials safe. Trump ostensibly took out Soleimani to protect our people serving in the Middle East. He ended up putting them and many others in much greater danger. Protecting them requires quickly laying out a roadmap for resolving the crisis with Iran, along with writing up and respecting a rigid rulebook for any future targeting of foreign officials.


npr--2020-01-14--FDA Approves Drugs Faster Than Ever But Relies On Weaker Evidence, Researchers Find

FDA Approves Drugs Faster Than Ever But Relies On Weaker Evidence , Researchers Find The Food and Drug Administration has gotten faster at approving new prescription drugs over the past four decades , but the evidence it relies on in making those decisions is getting weaker , according to new research published Tuesday .
As a result , there are more cures and treatments on the market but less proof that they are safe and effective .
`` There has been a gradual erosion of the evidence that 's required for FDA approval , '' says lead study author Jonathan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ School 's Program on Regulation , Therapeutics and Law .
As a result , patients and physicians `` should not expect that new drugs will be dramatically better than older ones . ''
Almost half of recent new drug approvals were based on only one pivotal clinical trial instead of the two or more that used to be the norm , according to the study published Tuesday in JAMA , the journal of the American Medical Association .
And the reliance on surrogate measures — stand-ins for presumed patient benefits — has increased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a surrogate measure could be shrinkage of tumors instead of improvements in survival after treatment .
Darrow and his colleagues analyzed FDA drug approvals , changes in laws and regulations and the rise in industry funding of the agency 's reviews from 1983 through 2018 .
The researchers found that the average number of new drug approvals per year increased from 34 in the 1990s to 41 in the 2010s , after a dip to 25 a year in the 2000s .
New drugs are getting through the FDA process faster .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for standard drug applications was 10.1 months compared with 2.8 years for standard and priority applications for the period from 1986 and 1992 .
Faster approval was the goal of many legislative and regulatory changes starting in the 1980s .
For instance , in 1983 , Congress passed the Orphan Drug Act to encourage drugmakers toward developing rare disease treatments that otherwise might not be profitable .
The FDA allowed approval for these drugs based on smaller trials with more flexible evidence standards , and it offered more time on the market for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also began paying the FDA fees to fund the review process after AIDS activists protested the agency 's sluggishness in the 1980s .
The FDA collected $ 29 million in fees in 1993 , the year after Congress passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act for the first time .
The fees rose to $ 908 million in 2018 .
That year , industry fees amounted to about 80 % of the money spent on FDA employee salaries for drug reviews , according to the study .
`` There is some concern about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the FDA , '' Darrow says .
`` And whether it has created a culture in the FDA where the primary client is no longer viewed as the patient , but as the industry . ''
Former FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Dr. Joshua Sharfstein says the FDA has succeeded in approving more drugs , but he also says that more changes are needed to make sure the medicines are worthwhile for patients .
`` Some of them are really great , and some of them [ are ] not so great , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health .
`` And a lot of them are very expensive . ''
In an accompanying editorial in JAMA , Sharfstein offers several suggestions for change , including a reevaluation of the FDA 's expedited approval programs to see which ones are working and which ones are mainly driving up health care costs .
`` We 've kind of reached a point where it makes sense to pause and see whether we can do things better , '' Sharfstein says .
`` And I think we @ @ @

FDA Approves Drugs Faster Than Ever But Relies On Weaker Evidence, Researchers Find
The Food and Drug Administration has gotten faster at approving new prescription drugs over the past four decades, but the evidence it relies on in making those decisions is getting weaker, according to new research published Tuesday.
As a result, there are more cures and treatments on the market but less proof that they are safe and effective.
"There has been a gradual erosion of the evidence that's required for FDA approval," says lead study author Jonathan Darrow, a lawyer with Harvard Medical School's Program on Regulation, Therapeutics and Law. As a result, patients and physicians "should not expect that new drugs will be dramatically better than older ones."
Almost half of recent new drug approvals were based on only one pivotal clinical trial instead of the two or more that used to be the norm, according to the study published Tuesday in JAMA, the journal of the American Medical Association. And the reliance on surrogate measures — stand-ins for presumed patient benefits — has increased. In the case of cancer drugs, a surrogate measure could be shrinkage of tumors instead of improvements in survival after treatment.
Darrow and his colleagues analyzed FDA drug approvals, changes in laws and regulations and the rise in industry funding of the agency's reviews from 1983 through 2018.
The researchers found that the average number of new drug approvals per year increased from 34 in the 1990s to 41 in the 2010s, after a dip to 25 a year in the 2000s.
New drugs are getting through the FDA process faster. In 2018, the median review time for standard drug applications was 10.1 months compared with 2.8 years for standard and priority applications for the period from 1986 and 1992.
Faster approval was the goal of many legislative and regulatory changes starting in the 1980s. For instance, in 1983, Congress passed the Orphan Drug Act to encourage drugmakers toward developing rare disease treatments that otherwise might not be profitable. The FDA allowed approval for these drugs based on smaller trials with more flexible evidence standards, and it offered more time on the market for the medicines without generic competition.
Drugmakers also began paying the FDA fees to fund the review process after AIDS activists protested the agency's sluggishness in the 1980s.
The FDA collected $29 million in fees in 1993, the year after Congress passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act for the first time. The fees rose to $908 million in 2018. That year, industry fees amounted to about 80% of the money spent on FDA employee salaries for drug reviews, according to the study.
"There is some concern about the incentives that this is created within the FDA," Darrow says. "And whether it has created a culture in the FDA where the primary client is no longer viewed as the patient, but as the industry."
Former FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Dr. Joshua Sharfstein says the FDA has succeeded in approving more drugs, but he also says that more changes are needed to make sure the medicines are worthwhile for patients.
"Some of them are really great, and some of them [are] not so great," says Sharfstein, now a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. "And a lot of them are very expensive."
In an accompanying editorial in JAMA, Sharfstein offers several suggestions for change, including a reevaluation of the FDA's expedited approval programs to see which ones are working and which ones are mainly driving up health care costs.
"We've kind of reached a point where it makes sense to pause and see whether we can do things better," Sharfstein says. "And I think we can."


npr--2020-01-15--In Philippines, Volcano Is Quieter, But Officials Renew Warnings For People To Leave

In Philippines , Volcano Is Quieter , But Officials Renew Warnings For People To Leave Updated at 6:10 a.m .
ET Mass evacuations continued Wednesday in the Philippines under the shadow of a volcanic plume that blotted out the sun and spread ash across much of the country 's most populous island .
Since an initial eruption on Sunday , Taal volcano — located on an island in the middle of a lake just 40 miles south of the capital , Manila , in Batangas province — has spewed ash , dust and noxious sulfur dioxide fumes , forcing tens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homes .
`` It 's all in God 's hands now , '' Leonita Gonzales , 52 , who fled with the rest of her household from the danger zone around Taal , in Batangas , told Reuters .
`` We are not sure if we will have a home to return to . ''
Ash covers Gonzales ' land and has wiped out her banana palms .
She says she 's not sure if the metal roof on her home can bear the weight of the accumulated ash .
Christian Morales , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the island where Taal is located to check on his pigs , told The Associated Press , `` Almost everything is destroyed . ''
`` If anybody defied orders and stayed behind , he would have been killed without a doubt , '' he said .
Gonzales and Morales are among nearly 44,000 people who have fled the nine-mile `` danger zone '' around the volcano , an area that is home to some half-million people .
In their rush to escape the eruption , many people have been forced to abandon livestock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Morales , have risked going back .
A group of volunteers were trying to rescue pets and animals left behind by the evacuees .
One of them , Kevin Villena , spoke with Rappler , a popular independent news website .
For now , he says , they are only trying to get small animals , such as dogs and cats , out of danger .
`` We left behind cows , '' Villena told the website .
`` We can not haul them because they might get injured , and their owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it 's been a challenge to catch the abandoned dogs .
`` They are shivering in fear , '' he said , according to Rappler 's translation .
`` They 're really thirsty and afraid , '' he said .
So far , no one has been reported killed , but many more are yet to be evacuated .
The director of the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology ( PHILVOLCS ) , Renato Solidum , says illegal settlements inside Taal 's danger zone , which is also part of a protected national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ waiting to happen , '' adding that his agency has repeatedly warned people not to live there .
The institute said Wednesday that the volcano was displaying `` generally weaker '' activity but it kept its Alert Level at 4 ( out of 5 ) , denoting that a `` hazardous explosive eruption '' is possible within hours or days .
Some 466 tremors , which preceded Sunday 's eruption and have continued since , are a constant reminder that Taal might have something bigger — and deadly — in store .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Volcano 's activity has been characterized by continuous but generally weaker of the main crater due to magmatic and hydrovolcanic processes , '' the institute said in its bulletin released at 8 a.m. local time ( 7 p.m. Tuesday ET ) .
Sunday 's event was classified as a `` phreatic '' or steam-driven eruption , but officials are concerned about the possibility of a worst-case `` plinian eruption , '' marked by columns of volcanic debris , including large amounts of pumice and fast-moving and extremely dangerous pyroclastic flows .
PHILVOLCS has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ near the volcano , saying they could indicate that magma was rising underground and that another eruption was imminent .
`` Such intense seismic activity probably signifies continuous magmatic intrusion beneath the Taal edifice , which may lead to further eruptive activity , '' the institute said .
Taal is located in hardest-hit Batangas province , which was declared to be under a `` state of calamity '' earlier this week , but on Wednesday , the adjacent province of Cavite approved a similar resolution , according to the Philippine Star .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increased seismic and volcanic activity known as the `` Ring of Fire , '' that forms a rough circle around the Pacific Ocean where several tectonic plates come together .
Memories of the 1991 eruption of Mt .
Pinatubo , which killed hundreds of people and blanketed large swaths of the country in thick ash , have been on officials ' minds since Sunday 's eruption .
`` The worst-case scenario is that the volcano will blow up like Mount Pinatubo .
That 's what we 're fearing , '' Defense Secretary Delfin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the world 's smaller active volcanoes , measuring just 1,020 feet .
It last erupted in 1977 .
Another eruption , in 1965 , killed more than 200 and one in 1911 killed an as many as 1,500 people .

In Philippines, Volcano Is Quieter, But Officials Renew Warnings For People To Leave
Enlarge this image toggle caption Eloisa Lopez/Reuters Eloisa Lopez/Reuters
Updated at 6:10 a.m. ET
Mass evacuations continued Wednesday in the Philippines under the shadow of a volcanic plume that blotted out the sun and spread ash across much of the country's most populous island.
Since an initial eruption on Sunday, Taal Volcano — located on an island in the middle of a lake just 40 miles south of the capital, Manila, in Batangas province — has spewed ash, dust and noxious sulfur dioxide fumes, forcing tens of thousands of people to abandon their homes.
"It's all in God's hands now," Leonita Gonzales, 52, who fled with the rest of her household from the danger zone around Taal, told Reuters. "We are not sure if we will have a home to return to."
Ash covers Gonzales' land and has wiped out her banana palms. She says she's not sure whether the metal roof on her home can bear the weight of the accumulated ash.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Julie McCarthy/NPR Julie McCarthy/NPR
Christian Morales, who ignored official warnings and returned to the island where Taal is located to check on his pigs, told The Associated Press, "Almost everything is destroyed."
"If anybody defied orders and stayed behind, he would have been killed without a doubt," he said.
Gonzales and Morales are among nearly 44,000 people who have fled the 9-mile "danger zone" around the volcano, an area that is home to some half-million people.
In their rush to escape the eruption, many people had to abandon livestock and pets — and some, like Morales, have risked going back.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Aaron Favila/AP Aaron Favila/AP
A group of volunteers has been trying to rescue pets and animals left behind by the evacuees. One volunteer, Kevin Villena, spoke with Rappler, a popular independent news website. For now, he says, they are only trying to get small animals, such as dogs and cats, out of danger.
"We left behind cows," Villena told the website. "We cannot haul them because they might get injured, and their owners will blame us."
WATCH: A group of volunteers brave the danger zone around Taal Volcano to rescue pets and other animals left behind by residents when they evacuated
To help or donate, contact Kevin Villena at 09165855746
Full story: https://t.co/6XCLqUM6AH pic.twitter.com/X7q4cHykN9 — Rappler (@rapplerdotcom) January 15, 2020
He said it has been a challenge to catch the abandoned dogs.
"They are shivering in fear," he said, according to Rappler's translation.
"They're really thirsty and afraid," he said.
So far, no one has been reported killed, but many more are yet to be evacuated.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Aaron Favila/AP Aaron Favila/AP
The director of the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology, Renato Solidum, says illegal settlements inside Taal's danger zone, which is also part of a protected national park, have been "an accident waiting to happen," adding that his agency has repeatedly warned people not to live there.
The institute said Wednesday that the volcano was displaying "generally weaker" activity, but it kept its alert level at 4 (out of 5), denoting that a "hazardous explosive eruption" is possible within hours or days. Some 466 tremors, which preceded Sunday's eruption and have continued since, are a constant reminder that Taal might have something bigger — and deadly — in store.
"For the past 24 hours, Taal Volcano's activity has been characterized by continuous but generally weaker of the main crater due to magmatic and hydrovolcanic processes," the institute said in its bulletin released at 8 a.m. local time (7 p.m. Tuesday ET).
Sunday's event was classified as a "phreatic," or steam-driven, eruption, but officials are concerned about the possibility of a worst-case "plinian eruption," marked by columns of volcanic debris, including large amounts of pumice and fast-moving and extremely dangerous pyroclastic flows.
The Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology has noted several new fissures in the ground near the volcano, saying they could indicate that magma was rising underground and that another eruption was imminent.
"Such intense seismic activity probably signifies continuous magmatic intrusion beneath the Taal edifice, which may lead to further eruptive activity," the institute said.
Taal is located in hardest-hit Batangas province, which was declared to be under a "state of calamity" earlier this week, but on Wednesday, the adjacent province of Cavite approved a similar resolution, according to the Philippine Star.
The Philippines is situated in an area of increased seismic and volcanic activity known as the "Ring of Fire" that forms a rough circle around the Pacific Ocean where several tectonic plates come together.
Memories of the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which killed hundreds of people and blanketed large swaths of the country in thick ash, have been on officials' minds since Sunday's eruption.
"The worst-case scenario is that the volcano will blow up like Mount Pinatubo. That's what we're fearing," Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana said Monday.
Taal is one of the world's smaller active volcanoes, measuring just 1,020 feet. It last erupted in 1977. Another eruption, in 1965, killed more than 200, and one in 1911 killed an as many as 1,500 people.


npr--2020-01-15--NPR Poll: More Americans Disapprove Of Trump's Handling Of Iran Than Approve

NPR Poll : More Americans Disapprove Of Trump 's Handling Of Iran Than Approve More Americans disapprove than approve of President Trump 's handling of the situation with Iran , according to a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll .
But they are split along party lines , and the results largely reflect the president 's approval rating .
By a 49 % -42 % margin , Americans disapprove of Trump 's handling of Iran .
Usual splits emerge , with roughly 9 in 10 Republicans approving , more than 8 in 10 Democrats disapproving and about half of independents disapproving .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Click here .
Trump 's job approval is steady at 41 % , with a majority of Americans ( 53 % ) continuing to disapprove of the job he 's doing .
Similar to the party split seen in the Iran question , 9 in 10 Democrats disapprove , while 9 in 10 Republicans approve .
But 55 % of independents disapprove .
Do n't see the graphic above ?
Click here .
There was a 47 % -47 % split on whether Americans are in favor of the Senate removing Trump from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last month .
And here , as well , 85 % of Democrats think he should be removed , 92 % of Republicans do n't and independents are split .
Do n't see the graphic above ?
Click here .
As locked in as Americans are on their views of Trump , it 's notable that the survey found some variance among independents on these three questions .
`` There 's obviously a group of independents who do move one way or another , '' said Barbara Carvalho , director of the Marist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Voters , who although may not have the most positive impression of him [ Trump ] overall , do assess the president based on the specific issue . ''
The pollsters noted that about 3 in 10 independents ( 29 % ) shifted in their support or opposition to the president in response to the three questions .
That reflects about 8 % of the 1,259 adults in the poll and about 10 % of the 1,064 registered voters surveyed .
That 's essentially the small universe of persuadable voters in America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The survey , conducted by the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion , has a margin of error of +/- 3.5 percentage points when adults are referenced and +/- 3.8 percentage points when registered voters are referenced .

NPR Poll: More Americans Disapprove Of Trump's Handling Of Iran Than Approve
Enlarge this image toggle caption Alex Brandon/AP Alex Brandon/AP
More Americans disapprove than approve of President Trump's handling of the situation with Iran, according to a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll. But they are split along party lines, and the results largely reflect the president's approval rating.
By a 49%-42% margin, Americans disapprove of Trump's handling of Iran. Usual splits emerge, with roughly 9 in 10 Republicans approving, more than 8 in 10 Democrats disapproving and about half of independents disapproving.
Loading...
Don't see the graphic above? Click here.
Trump's job approval is steady at 41%, with a majority of Americans (53%) continuing to disapprove of the job he's doing. Similar to the party split seen in the Iran question, 9 in 10 Democrats disapprove, while 9 in 10 Republicans approve. But 55% of independents disapprove.
Loading...
Don't see the graphic above? Click here.
There was a 47%-47% split on whether Americans are in favor of the Senate removing Trump from office, a finding largely unchanged from last month. And here, as well, 85% of Democrats think he should be removed, 92% of Republicans don't and independents are split.
Loading...
Don't see the graphic above? Click here.
As locked in as Americans are on their views of Trump, it's notable that the survey found some variance among independents on these three questions.
"There's obviously a group of independents who do move one way or another," said Barbara Carvalho, director of the Marist Poll at Marist College, adding, "Voters, who although may not have the most positive impression of him [Trump] overall, do assess the president based on the specific issue."
The pollsters noted that about 3 in 10 independents (29%) shifted in their support or opposition to the president in response to the three questions.
That reflects about 8% of the 1,259 adults in the poll and about 10% of the 1,064 registered voters surveyed.
That's essentially the small universe of persuadable voters in America who could determine whether Trump is reelected.
The survey, conducted by the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, has a margin of error of +/- 3.5 percentage points when adults are referenced and +/- 3.8 percentage points when registered voters are referenced.