According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Beef Packing Company in Liberal, Kansas has recalled approximately 50,000 pounds of meat due to a possible e.coli contamination.
The problem was discovered through routine USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service monitoring which confirmed a positive result for E.coli O157:H7. An investigation determined the firm was the sole supplier of the source materials used to produce the positive product.
The beef, which was sold by the National Beef Packing Company isolated to a small group of products affecting 50,100 pounds of ground beef produced on July 18, 2013 with a use by/freeze by date of August 7, 2013. The ground beef was originally shipped in clear, 10 pound chubs and was shipped to a limited number of retailers and wholesale and food service distributors in approximately 70 lbs. boxes.
The beef recalled, carries the establishment number “EST. 208A” inside the USDA mark of inspection. The products are sold as “National Beef,” “NatureSource” and “NatureWell.”
Affected products include:
- 10 lb. chub of “National Beef” 93/ 7 Fine Ground Beef, Product Code 0707
- 10 lb. chub of “NatureSource” 80/20 Fine Ground Chuck, Product Code 7031
- 10 lb. chub of “NatureSource” 85/15 Fine Ground Beef, Product Code 7054
- 10 lb. chub of “NatureSource” 90/10 Fine Ground Beef, Product Code 7344
- 10 lb. chub of “NatureSource” 93/ 7 Fine Ground Beef, Product Code 7004
- 10 lb. chub of “NatureWell 80/20 Fine Ground Chuck, Product Code 7484
- 10 lb. chub of “NatureWell” 85/15 Fine Ground Beef, Product Code 7454
- 10 lb. chub of “NatureWell” 90/10 Fine Ground Sirloin, Product Code 7577
- 10 lb. chub of “NatureWell” 93/7 Fine Ground Beef, Product Code 7404
E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacteria that can cause bloody diarrhea, dehydration, and in severe cases, kidney failure. It is considered an adulterant in raw beef, according to USA Today.
National Beef recalled 22,737 pounds of raw ground beef on June 18, also due to possible contamination with E. coli O157:H7.
Neither FSIS nor the company have received reports of illness related to the recalled product, according to a press release.
FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume ground beef that has been cooked to a temperature of 160° F. The only way to confirm that ground beef is cooked to a temperature high enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that measures internal temperature.
Consumers with food safety questions can call USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.
Beef Recall from Kansas
Beef recalled from National Beef Packing Company in Liberal, Kansas has recalled approximately 50,000 pounds of meat due to a possible e.coli contamination.
Bitcoin Carbon Footprint Is As Massive As The Impact Caused By Las Vegas and Sri Lanka
When companies operate their business solely online, one would think that they have a substantially lower environmental impact than those who conduct business traditionally; however, a study suggests that this is not the case.
A case study on bitcoin operations reveals that bitcoin’s carbon footprint — the world’s most robust cryptocurrency — is so massive to the extent that it can rival the environmental impact caused by Las Vegas or a small country like Sri Lanka. According to the study conducted by Christian Stoll, Lena Klaaßen, Ulrich Gallersdörfer from Technical University of Munich and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Bitcoin generates about 22 megatons in CO2 emissions each year.
While it is true that cryptocurrencies supposedly depend on online blockchain technology to process transactions like transferring of funds, and doesn’t have a physical infrastructure that is huge enough to cause such amount of carbon emissions, the researchers said that this validation process uses “vast amounts of electricity,” which causes some severe carbon emissions.
During 2018, according to the study, the computing power required to solve a Bitcoin puzzle increased more than 4-fold until October and heightened electricity consumption accordingly. Speculations about the Bitcoin network’s source of fuel have suggested, among other things, Chinese coal, Icelandic geothermal power, and Venezuelan subsidies. To keep global warming below 2°C—as internationally agreed in Paris COP21—net-zero carbon emissions during the second half of the century are crucial.
Bitcoin mining operations use too much electricity
One area of interest for researchers is the effect of bitcoin mining, the process by which people can earn bitcoins without spending money through painstakingly scavenging for small amounts across the internet. To estimate the electricity consumption, the study authors used IP addresses and hardware data from recent IPO filings. It was determined the annual electricity consumption of Bitcoin, as of November 2018, to be 45.8 TWh and estimate that yearly carbon emissions range from 22.0 to 22.9 MtCO2.
The study revealed that “There is no typical size of cryptocurrency mining operations.” The operations range from college students aiming to earn enough funds to pay for their electric bills, to gamers who leverage their graphics cards whenever they are not playing (as reflected in Nvidia’s volatile sales allocated to crypto), all the way up to large-scale crypto-mining farms. These mining operations have consumed enough electricity around the world to compare with electricity consumption like that of Jordan, a small middle-eastern country.
Regulation on mining operations necessary
According to the discussion presented by the researchers, their study sets up baseline information that would lead to a better understanding of the environmental impacts of cryptocurrencies and serves as a guide for a policymaker to develop climate-positive policies. They said that the results of the study could not be overlooked and should be a basis for policymakers to build balancing regulations.
Furthermore, the results were said to highlight the necessity of cost/benefit trade-offs for blockchain applications in general. While the researchers do not invalidate the benefits of cryptocurrencies, the “current debate is focused on anticipated benefits, and more attention needs to be given to costs.” And as the researchers have been pushing, policymakers should not ignore these results.
“Naturally, there are bigger factors contributing to climate change. However, the carbon footprint is big enough to make it worth discussing the possibility of regulating cryptocurrency mining in regions where power generation is especially carbon-intensive,” one of the authors, Christian Stoll, said in a statement.
“To improve the ecological balance, one possibility might be to link more mining farms to additional renewable generating capacity.”
Tip of the iceberg
Meanwhile, the researchers said that their analysis of carbon footprint of bitcoin is just the “tip of the iceberg” as other cryptocurrencies also carry significant carbon footprints upon their shoulders as well. This highlights the need to regulate cryptocurrency mining operations as it has external impacts – specifically to the environment.
“Bitcoin’s power consumption may only be the tip of the iceberg. Including estimates for three other cryptocurrencies adds 30 TWh to our annual estimate for Bitcoin. If we assume correlation to market capitalization and consider only mineable currencies (unlike second layer tokens or coins with other consensus mechanisms), the remaining 618 currencies could potentially add a power demand over 40 TWh. This more than doubles the power consumption we estimate for Bitcoin,” the study concludes.
Facebook Digital Money — Libra — To Debut Next Week With Huge Backers
Rumors have circulated online regarding Facebook releasing its crypto-based currency, and the talks appear to be accurate as multiple companies – from financial companies to booking websites – have signed up to back up the Facebook money.
Reports suggest that multiple companies, including VISA and Mastercard, have signed up to back the digital currency that Facebook is planning to launch by 2020. Other companies include Paypal, the popular money transfer service, Uber, the ride-hailing application, and Booking.com, a travel booking platform.
The cryptocurrency is reportedly said to be named Libra, and the financial and e-commerce companies, venture capitalists and telecommunications firms will invest around $10 million each in a consortium that will govern the digital coin. The consortium, known as Libra Association, was built for Facebook to establish a group of companies that will back its monetary efforts.
Facebook opens a Swiss company to focus on the digital money venture
A few weeks ago, the social networking giant reportedly opened up a company in Switzerland to focus on payment and blockchain technology, similar to the technology that powers bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies.
People familiar with the matter said that Facebook is planning to unveil the new digital currency next week and will start the operation next year. The money is expected to act as a “stable coin” because it is hinged on government-issued currencies in order to limit the volatility of the value of the coin; an issue which Bitcoin has faced for some time. According to a Swiss publication, Handelszeitung, the Facebook cryptocurrency would be tied to the US dollar and therefore will remain stable unlike bitcoin, which started crashing since 2017.
Owned by Facebook Global Holding II in Ireland, the Swiss company will focus on developing the software and hardware for crypto-related functions like payments, blockchain, analytics, big data, and identity management.
Facebook is hesitant to comment regarding their plans for the digital currency and did not confirm nor denied the reports of its existence. Nonetheless, the news is consistent with an earlier report that Facebook created a team of 50 individuals to develop their cryptocurrency and blockchain technology to be used across the network and on its WhatsApp messaging services.
That design would be geared toward avoiding a speculative frenzy like the one that caused the value of the primary cryptocurrency, bitcoin, to soar and then crash. While Facebook also did not confirm anything related to the leaked project at the time, the California-based company confirmed that they are interested in blockchain technology.
“Like many other companies, Facebook is exploring ways to leverage the power of blockchain technology,” the company said in a statement. “This new small team is exploring many different applications.”
It isn’t known, even to some members of the consortium, how the coin will work or what their roles will be, people familiar with the project said. However, it is also noted that regulatory hurdles are still high for Facebook to overcome with this new project. People familiar with the matter said that the concerns were raised regarding the potential of the new currency to be used by terrorist organizations and money launderers in their operations – something other cryptocurrencies have since been associated with.
Interesting partnership with potential competition
But investors are nonetheless interested in the project as other companies back up the new digital money in hopes of gaining traction with millions of Facebook users around the world. It is interesting that to note that the involvement of VISA and Mastercard to a service that will practically, if successful, would pose a threat to their business as one of their biggest competitors.
Other analysts have seen value with this partnership, however. Still, the lure of Facebook’s nearly 2.4 billion monthly active users was too strong for many companies to pass up. Card companies have long fretted that a technology giant could muscle into their business, creating a payment option that cuts out card networks. Participating in Libra allows them to closely monitor Facebook’s payment ambitions while sharing in the upside should the project gain traction with consumers.
Meanwhile, Facebook will not be having control over the new venture – nor will the consortium. Some of the members could serve as “nodes” along with the system that verifies transactions and maintains records of them, creating a brand-new payments network, according to people familiar with the setup.
13 Police Officers Sue San Francisco For Racial and Gender Discrimination
Twelve white police officers and a white lesbian former police officer are suing the state of San Francisco for cases involving gender and racial discrimination against white police officers applying for promotions. The argument is led by a lieutenant whose similar suit 16 years ago netted a $1.6 million settlement.
The case is alleging that the current selection process is discriminatory against white police officers. Specifically, it is accusing the test-scoring and “banding” method of the San Francisco police force to determine eligible applicants for promotion.
All thirteen officers are alleging that they were denied opportunities for promotions due to the current system unfairly favoring minorities such as people of color, women, and other minorities.
The lawsuit reported Wednesday was filed Tuesday at a federal court accusing the city of San Francisco, the Police Department, the Police Commission, Mayor London Breed, former Mayor Mark Farrell, Police Chief Bill Scott, and former Chief Greg Suhr.
The lead plaintiff, Lt. Ric Schiff is leveraging the latest discrimination case against San Francisco with a 2003 lawsuit that he also led in behalf of twelve sergeants who accused the police force of discriminating in favor of black candidates for lieutenant. Schiff was denied a promotion to captain in support of women and minority candidates with lower scores, the suit said.
The 2003 lawsuit was settled by the city for $1.6 million, giving $200,000 to Schiff, who was later promoted to lieutenant. However, the city did not acknowledge any wrongdoing.
The 2019 case, which is seemingly rooted from white privilege, stands on the basis of a 1979 settlement over a racial discrimination suit filed by the Black Police Officer’s Association.
In 1973, a group called the Officers for Justice with almost all members were black, filed a lawsuit against the SFPD alleging that it has engaged in a pattern of employment discrimination based on race, sex, and national origin.
“As the suit dragged through the courts, it picked up support from the National Organization for Women, Chinese for Affirmative Action and the League of United Latin American Citizens. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People joined the quit soon after it was filed, and the United States Department of Justice filed a separate action, which was merged with the original suit for trial,” reported in a 1979 article from The New York Times.
Consent Decree settled the lawsuit—a litigation remedy past discrimination cases—in 1979 declaring that the then rules and selection criteria for employment at the SFPD were illegal which included written examinations, minimum height requirements, and the strength test.
Moreover, the 1979 ruling included provisions such as: “Promotion policies will be changed to facilitate [the] movement of minority members and women into command positions” and “in recruiting women and minority members, the city must take advice from organizations that represent them and must advertise in media directed at these recruits.”
As a result, “the court upheld banding as a psychometrically sound procedure and [is] valid as a matter of constitutional and federal law,” cited from Test-Score Banding in Human Resource Selection by Herman Aguinis.
Banding allowed the SFPD to employ and promote individuals by ‘banding’ or grouping promotional test results so that all candidates who scored within a specific range were treated the same, allowing them to be judged on other factors such as experience and language skills.
However, with the current provision emphasizing on the prioritization of applicants from minority groups has left an unfair advantage against white police officers.
Aguinis in his book notes on banding says that “cases typically involve plaintiffs who sue because they believe testing is unfair either to a minority group or individuals. On occasion, majority-group members sue because they do not see an attempt to reduce [the] adverse impact as fair to majority-group applicants. It is an anomaly that banding is proposed as an alternative selection procedure that benefits minority plaintiffs, but in some cases, minority-group members actually object to banding and view it as discriminatory.”
“The city — to this day — has a long-standing practice and custom of discriminating against white males in SFPD promotions to the rank of sergeant, lieutenant, and captain,” M. Greg Mullanax, the officers’ attorney said in the lawsuit.
Meanwhile, John Coté, a spokesman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, said the Police Department “uses lawful, merit-based civil service examinations in making promotions.” The system, he said in a statement, is “designed to provide qualified individuals with the chance for advancement while ensuring fair treatment without regard to race, gender, religion, age or other status.”
Animals2 weeks ago
Norway’s Celebrity Beluga Whale ‘Hvaldimir’; A Russian Spy Or Child Therapist?
Automotive2 weeks ago
Ferrari’s Fastest Car: SF90 Stradale
Gaming2 weeks ago
‘Pokémon Sleep’ and ‘Pokémon Go Plus Plus’: From Walking More To Sleeping More
Offbeat2 weeks ago
Send A Baby To Mars, And Other Funny AI Generated Petitions
Advertising4 weeks ago
MailChimp Updates Pricing Policy, Now Charging Unsubscribed Emails In The Mailing List
Arts & Entertainment1 month ago
The CW And Netflix Break Up Means No More Riverdale?
TV Shows4 weeks ago
‘Young Sheldon’ Season 2 Finale: What’s Meant To Be Will Always Find Its Way To You
Cybersecurity1 month ago
Apple, Google, And Microsoft Started Protecting You From ZombieLoad Threat