丝脉

直线-职能制又称直线参谋制，也叫生产区域制，是由法国的（）首次提出的。

A.泰罗

B.法约尔

C.梅纳特

D.吉尔布雷斯

患者女，28岁，因“发热、胸闷1个月余，加重伴咯血1天”来诊。患者系统性红斑狼疮（SLE）病史10年，1周前曾于外院应用抗生素和激素治疗，症状一过性好转。发病以来无明显咳嗽、咳痰，最高体温38.5℃。查体：体温38.1℃，心率115次/分，血压92/60mmHg（1mmHg=0.133kPa），呼吸32次/分，储氧面罩吸氧10L/min，动脉血氧饱和度96%。听诊双肺呼吸音对称增粗，肺底可闻及少量湿啰音。

目前应主要考虑的诊断有（）(提示　血气分析：pH 7.44，动脉血氧分压69 mmHg（1 mmHg=0.133 kPa），动脉血二氧化碳分压31 mmHg，血乳酸2.5 mmol/L；血常规：白细胞 9.5×10⁹/L，中性粒细胞0.78，血红蛋白8.3 g/L，血小板40×10⁹/L；C反应蛋白105 mg/L，红细胞沉降率60 mm/1h。胸部CT：双肺间质改变，右下肺团状密度增高。)

A.肺部感染

B.免疫相关肺动脉高压

C.免疫关肺间质病变

D.肺栓塞

E.支气管扩张

F.肺癌

A deal is a deal—except, apparently, when Entergy is involved. The company, a major energy supplier in New England, provoked justified outrage in Vermont last week when it announced it was reneging on a longstanding commitment to abide by the state’s strict nuclear regulations.

Instead, the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not challenge the constitutionality of Vermont’s rules in the federal court, as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running. It’s a stunning move.

The conflict has been surfacing since 2002, when the corporation bought Vermont’s only nuclear power plant, an aging reactor in Vernon. As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale, the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012. In 2006, the state went a step further, requiring that any extension of the plant’s license be subject to Vermont legislature’s approval. Then, too, the company went along.

Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments, or it simply didn’t foresee what would happen next. A string of accidents, including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 207 and the discovery of an underground pipe system leakage, raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety and Entergy’s management—especially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe. Enraged by Entergy’s behavior, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an extension.

Now the company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid because of the 2006 legislation, and that only the federal government has regulatory power over nuclear issues. The legal issues in the case are obscure: whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power, legal scholars say that Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend. Certainly, there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations that could result if every state sets its own rules. But had Entergy kept its word, that debate would be beside the point.

The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so damaged that it has noting left to lose by going to war with the state. But there should be consequences. Permission to run a nuclear plant is a public trust. Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States, including Pilgrim Nuclear station in Plymouth. Pledging to run Pilgrim safely, the company has applied for federal permission to keep it open for another 20 years. But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviews the company’s application, it should keep in mind what promises from Entergy are worth.

In the author’s view, the Vermont case will test（）

A. Entergy’s capacity to fulfill all its promises

B. the nature of states’ patchwork regulations

C. the federal authority over nuclear issues

D. the limits of states’ power over nuclear issues

网络仓库

货物托运书