Introduction {#Sec1}
============

Fractures are frequent events in a subject's lifetime \[[@CR1]\]. Osteoporotic or low-trauma fractures are the most extensively studied types of fractures and have become a worldwide subject of interest \[[@CR2], [@CR3]\]. The incidence of fractures increases dramatically with age in all countries \[[@CR4]--[@CR6]\].

Hip fractures have been studied in particular detail, as they are associated with a high mortality rate, but the burden of all fractures is constantly growing in all countries as a result of aging of the populations \[[@CR7]\].

Few recent studies have addressed the nationwide global burden of fractures, taking into account fracture severity and health care utilization. Fractures, particularly low-trauma fractures, primarily hip fractures, are responsible for loss of healthy life-years or increased mortality \[[@CR8], [@CR9]\].

However, no nationwide general population data are available concerning the severity and consequences of fractures regardless of age, and according to the anatomical fracture sites.

The aim of this study was to estimate the incidence and severity of fractures in France in 2016 and analyze variations according to age, gender, and anatomical fracture site.

Methods {#Sec2}
=======

Source {#Sec3}
------

This study was conducted using the national health data system (SNDS) which covers the entire French population (66.6 million inhabitants). Fractures were identified in two-linked databases, the French national health insurance database (DCIR) and the French hospital discharge database (*Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d'Information*, PMSI), by unique anonymous numbers. The DCIR allows access to reimbursed medical care or products, including outpatient drugs, medical devices, and medical procedures. The PMSI provides information about medical diagnoses and surgical procedures during the hospital stay, including death when it occurs in hospital. These databases have been used to conduct various pharmaco-epidemiological studies and Health Services Research \[[@CR10]\] and for the assessment of several surgical procedures, including orthopaedic surgery \[[@CR10]--[@CR14]\].

Patients {#Sec4}
--------

All subjects aged 20 years or older on 31 December 2015 living in France (including overseas departments) were eligible for inclusion. Patients with at least one fracture in 2016 were included.

Fractures were detected in two ways: patients requiring hospital admission, by using a list of ICD-10 diagnosis codes when the fracture was indicated in the main diagnosis, related or associated diagnosis; and patients treated on an outpatient basis, by using a list of orthopedic splinting procedure codes from the French medical classification of clinical procedures (*Classification Commune des Actes Médicaux* -CCAM). The list of codes is presented in supplementary Table [1](#MOESM1){ref-type="media"}.

To avoid duplicate (prevalent) events or treatment for previous fracture care, patients were excluded when a similar fracture was detected during the previous three months, or when an orthopaedic implant removal procedure was performed (list in supplementary Table [2](#MOESM1){ref-type="media"}).

Anatomical fracture site {#Sec5}
------------------------

Due to the limited information recorded when the fracture is treated on an outpatient basis (no morbidity coding is performed in the ambulatory care setting in France, only procedures such as plaster casts are recorded), we defined 12 fracture site categories: skull, face, spine, pelvis, clavicle, rib, proximal upper limb, distal upper limb, femoral neck, proximal lower limb, distal lower limb, and multiple fractures when at least two sites were detected, according to ICD-10 codes or according to the type of plaster applied. Details are given in supplementary Table [3](#MOESM1){ref-type="media"}.

Severity {#Sec6}
--------

Severity was classified into four levels depending on the medical consequences of the fracture: orthopedic immobilization in the outpatient setting (level 1), hospital admission without surgery (level 2), hospital admission with a surgical procedure on the fracture, (procedures were identified when a surgical procedure corresponding to the fracture was performed during the same hospitalization) (level 3), and in-hospital mortality, as recorded by the PMSI (level 4). In patients with several repeated fractures, the most severe fracture was included in the analysis.

Statistical analysis {#Sec7}
--------------------

The total number of fractures in the overall population was reported with the estimated mean age and standard deviation (SD) of the patients concerned. The number and percentage of fractures with the estimated mean age and standard deviation of the population concerned were calculated for the following combinations of variables: gender, fracture site, severity, gender and fracture site, gender and severity, gender and fracture site, and severity.

The incidence rate per 10,000 person-years and the 95% confidence interval for each fracture site were estimated by gender and 5-year age intervals from 20 to 90 years and older. The French population for the gender-age groups on 1 January 2016 was obtained from INSEE data \[[@CR10]\].

Results {#Sec8}
=======

In the population of 49,763,610 adult patients included in this study, we identified 562,094 subjects with an incident fracture in 2016 (1.1%). These subjects had a mean age of 63.6 years (SD: 22.1), and presented a female predominance: 319,858 (56.9%). Details of the fracture distribution by gender and fracture sites are presented in Table [1](#Tab1){ref-type="table"}. Three sites accounted for more than half of all fractures: distal upper limb (172,591, 30.7%), distal lower limb (84,602, 15.1%), and femoral neck (78,766, 14%). Skull, face, clavicle, distal upper limb, and distal lower limb fractures presented a bimodal distribution, especially in men and occurred earlier in life at a mean age of 58.2, 51.6, 52, 55.2, and 54.2 years, respectively, whereas pelvic, femoral neck, and proximal lower limb fractures occurred in older patients (mean age of 77.3, 82, and 77.6 years, respectively).Table 1Description of fractures in France in 2016 by fracture siteGender*N* (%)Mean age (SD)All fracturesAll562,094 (100)63.6 (22.1)Men242,236 (43.1)53.2 (21.8)Women319,858 (56.9)71.5 (18.9)SkullAll5986 (100)58.2 (21.1)Men4146 (69.3)54 (20.2)Women1840 (30.7)67.5 (20)FaceAll25,534 (100)51.6 (24.2)Men16,490 (64.6)44.8 (21.2)Women9044 (35,4)64.1 (24.3)SpineAll49,783 (100)71.9 (18.3)Men20,762 (41.7)66.1 (19.9)Women29,021 (58,3)76 (15.9)PelvisAll13,675 (100)77.3 (17.2)Men3990 (29.2)68 (20.7)Women9685 (70.8)81.2 (13.8)RibsAll26,353 (100)63.1 (18.9)Men15,828 (60.1)63.3 (18.4)Women10,525 (39.9)73.4 (17.3)ClavicleAll13,988 (100)52 (21.6)Men9075 (64.9)46 (18.8)Women4913 (35.1)63.1 (22.1)Proximal upper limbAll33,690 (100)69.1 (18.3)Men11,329 (33.5)59.4 (19.7)Women22,361 (66.4)73.9 (15.4)Distal upper limbAll172,591 (100)55.2 (18.3)Men76,756 (44.5)43.6 (19.2)Women95,835 (55.5)64.6 (18.9)Femoral neckAll78,766 (100)82 (11.7)Men21,510 (27.3)78 (14.3)Women57,256 (72.7)83.6 (10.2)Proximal lower limbAll16,922 (100)77.6 (17.2)Men4945 (29.2)67.2 (21.7)Women11,977 (70.8)81.9 (12.7)Distal lower limbAll84,602 (100)54.2 (19.8)Men39,659 (46.9)46.8 (17.9)Women44,943 (53.1)60.8 (19)Multiple fracturesAll40,204 (100)67.1 (21.8)Men17,746 (44.1)55.2 21)Women22,458 (55.9)76.5 (17.4)

Marked variations in the incidence of fractures were observed according to gender and according to fracture site with age, with a nonlinear increase with age.

The burden of fractures for all sites, notably for several specific sites (clavicle, proximal and distal upper limb, distal lower limb, and face) was higher among men during the first decades of life, with a time-dependent crossover according to the site studied (mean age of 50 years for proximal and distal upper limb and lower limb fractures and 70 years for other fractures), when fractures were predominantly observed in women. Skull fractures occurred more commonly in men than in women at all ages (men accounted for 4146 of the 5986 skull fractures, 69.3%). Nevertheless, the overall pattern of the last quarter of life observed in the general population, with an exponential increase for both genders, was observed for all sites after the age of 70 years for the majority of fracture sites studied except for upper limb and distal lower limb fractures in women with an early shift of the inflection point at 55 years. Incidence curves are shown in Figs. [1](#Fig1){ref-type="fig"}, [2](#Fig2){ref-type="fig"} and [3](#Fig3){ref-type="fig"}. Incidences of fractures by gender across age groups are presented in supplementary Tables [4](#MOESM1){ref-type="media"} and [5](#MOESM1){ref-type="media"}.Fig. 1Incidence of fractures in 2016 in France for men and womenFig. 2Incidence of skull, face, spine, pelvis, rib, and clavicle fractures in 2016 in France for men and womenFig. 3Incidence of limb and multiple fractures in 2016 in France for men and women

A majority of patients with fractures required hospital admission (456,929, 81.3%) and more than half needed a surgical procedure (281,290, 50%), with a higher proportion for several sites, notably lower limb fractures: 69,030 (87.6%) and 13,213 (78.1%) patients operated on for femoral neck and proximal lower limb fractures, respectively. In contrast, 12,064 (88.2%) of the 13,675 patients with pelvic fractures were hospitalized without a surgical procedure, and 6521 (46.6%) of the 13,988 patients with clavicular fractures and 69,705 (40.4%) of the 172,591 patients with distal lower limb fractures were treated by immobilization without hospitalization.

Severity of fractures is presented in Table [2](#Tab2){ref-type="table"} and separately by gender in supplementary Table [6](#MOESM1){ref-type="media"}. Severity systematically increased with age for the overall population and according to fracture site from outpatient management to hospitalization and death. However, patients undergoing operations were younger than non-operated hospitalized patients. A total of 11,913 (2.1%) patients, with a mean age of 79.5 years (SD 15.9), died in hospital, including 5781 women (1.8%) and 6132 men (2.5%). The mean age of deceased patients ranged from 66 to 84 years for men and 75 to 87 years for women according the fracture site. Fractures associated with higher early mortality were skull fractures (12.9%), rib fractures (4.9%), and fractures of the femur (4.3% for femoral neck and 4.2 for proximal lower limb)Table 2Clinical severity of fractures in France in 2016 by fracture siteSeverity*N* (%)Mean age (SD)All fractures1105,165 (18.7)51.71 (20.51)2163,726 (29.1)70.2 (20.6)3281,290 (50)63.51 (21.78)411,913 (2.1)79.54 (15.87)Skull1NANA23968 (66.3)58.38 (20.80)31249 (20.9)50.79 (20.06)4769 (12.9)69.08 (19.04)Face1417 (1.6)40.66 (18.49)216,721 (65.5)53.75 (24.69)38013 (31.4)46.65 (22.14)4383 (1.5)73.92 (19.46)Spine1NANA237,063 (74.4)74.04 (17.74)310,899 (21.9)63.40 (18.29)41821 (3.7)79.01 (14.30)Pelvis1NANA212,064 (88.2)78.78 (15.75)31129 (8.3)60.33 (22.51)4481 (3.5)80.74 (15.07)Ribs1NANA222,232 (84.4)68.62 (18.74)32835 (10.8)60.65 (19.19)41286 (4.9)76.30 (16.00)Clavicle16521 (46.6)48.32 (19.80)23585 (25.6)65.91 (21.39)33693 (26.4)43.87 (17.63)4189 (1.4)74.07 (19.54)Proximal upper limb13002 (8.9)54.34 (20.98)212,420 (36.9)74.39 (17.00)317,581 (52.2)67.42 (16.97)4687 (2)79.19 (15.37)Distal upper limb169,705 (40.4)52.78 (21.04)212,809 (7.4)70.59 (21.58)389,677 (52)54.83 (20.48)4400 (0.2)79.69 (16.29)Femoral neck1NANA26327 (8)81.47 (12.85)369,030 (87.6)81.90 (11.68)43409 (4.3)85.87 (9.58)Proximal lower limb1579 (3.4)81.81 (11.97)22421 (14.3)79.02 (15.44)313,213 (78.1)76.91 (17.77)4709 (4.2)81.72 (14.96)Distal lower limb124,937 (29.5)48.75 (18.26)212,839 (15.2)67.75 (20.49)346,415 (54.8)53.22 (18.46)4411 (0.5)76.73 (18.45)Multiple fractures1NANA221,280 (52.9)70.59 (20.51)317,556 (43.7)62.18 (22.44)41368 (3.4)75.17 (19.68)*NA* not applicable

Discussion {#Sec9}
==========

In this study, we evaluated the burden of fractures in the adult population (49,763,610 subjects) in France in 2016. With 562,094 events requiring medical care, representing 1.1% of the population, fractures are a major health issue. The incidence of fractures in the overall population and for each fracture site increased with age and women were more commonly affected. These events were associated with particularly significant medical consequences. A majority of patients required hospital admission, represen ting 456,929 admissions in one year. Surgery was performed in nearly two-thirds of hospitalized patients, with an in-hospital mortality of more than 2% after a fracture.

Most studies on the incidence of fractures considered only a few site-specific incidences (mainly hip, or forearm), or incidence trends of these fractures \[[@CR3]\]. The incidence patterns according to age in both genders in this study were similar to those already reported. Bone frailty and falls are the main risk factors for fracture, and are responsible for an exponential increase of the incidence of fractures in the last decades of life, but with varying degrees according to fracture site and the population studied \[[@CR15]\]. Moreover, these differences have tended to increase during the second half of the twentieth century, with decreased bone quality and strength in modern society \[[@CR16]\]. In 2011, Cooper et al. published a large retrospective review of these studies for the International Osteoporosis Foundation and found similar results to those observed in our study \[[@CR3]\]. These authors showed an increase of age-adjusted incidences of major low-trauma fractures during the second half of the twentieth century until a plateau in the 1990s. These findings have been the subject of debate, and have been partially explained, by some authors, by the use of low-trauma fracture prevention strategies, more healthy behaviors, or the development of national prevention programs in developed countries \[[@CR17]--[@CR19]\]. These recent changes emphasize the need for accurate and recent epidemiologic data, as provided by the present study.

We found significant differences between incidence patterns according to fracture site, age, and gender. Fractures occurred at an earlier age at certain sites, particularly for the forearm and distal lower limb. Some authors have proposed mechanical explanations for this difference, such as the tendency to protect oneself during a fall with outstretched arms \[[@CR20]\]. Similarly, ankle fractures appear to be strongly associated with certain mechanical factors, including sustained physical activity particularly among teenagers, independently of osteoporosis, explaining the higher incidence of ankle fractures in younger people \[[@CR21]--[@CR24]\]. These findings have already been reported by many authors. Abrahamsen et al. recently published a study on forearm fractures in the Danish population and reported consistent results \[[@CR25]\]. Forearm and ankle fractures have even been considered to be an alert flag for subsequent low-trauma fractures \[[@CR26], [@CR27]\].

In a Danish population-based study in 2011, Driessen et al. also analyzed incident fractures and showed the same incidence patterns for the various fracture sites as those observed in our study \[[@CR28]\]. However, incidence rates in young people were much lower in our study. One of the possible explanations for this lower incidence is the lack of sensitivity of our study to detect minor fractures occurring in healthy subjects only requiring simple outpatient care, such as foot fractures reported in the article by Driessen et al.

The economic burden of certain fractures, such as hip or wrist fractures, has been addressed in population-based studies, and has been estimated to be more than \$10,000 per person \[[@CR4], [@CR29], [@CR30]\]. Several published studies have established a strong link between hip fractures and a high mortality in the following year, but many of these studies are now out-dated. In a recent literature review, Abrahamsen observed a wide range of one year mortality rates after hip fracture, ranging from 8.4 to 36% \[[@CR31]\]. However, the clinical impact of fractures has not been clearly determined and reported in real-life studies. Fractures have been reported to be a frequent cause of death in France in a nationwide study conducted by Ziadé et al. in 2010. However, no study has reported the detailed clinical outcome for specific fracture sites. Our study highlights the clinical impact of fractures, as more than four out of five patients required at least one hospital admission, and one-half of patients required surgery. Mortality is also not rare. We showed an overall mortality higher than 2%, and even higher than 4% for several severe fractures: skull, ribs, and femoral fractures. The 11,913 in-hospital deaths observed in our study based on 77% of the French population therefore represent more than 2% of the 596,685 deaths observed in France in 2016. Two main factors appear to be associated with mortality: severity of the fracture, with a higher mortality associated with fractures adjacent to a vital organ (brain for skull fracture or lung for rib fractures), and the frailty of the patient appears to have a major impact, as reflected by the much higher mortality rate among older patients observed for all fracture sites and all subgroups, in line with knowledge concerning fracture-related mortality in frail people \[[@CR32]\]. We were nevertheless surprised to observe a relatively low mortality rate after femoral neck fractures (4.33%), lower than the mortality rates published in the literature \[[@CR33]\]. The overall mortality related to femoral neck fractures was obviously underestimated, as we were only able to measure in-hospital mortality, but it has already been shown that mortality continues to increase up to one year after a fracture \[[@CR7]\]. However, this low mortality rate could be partially explained by better peri-operative care of femoral neck fractures over recent years. In France, Boddaert et al. demonstrated a major impact of peri-operative care, with a decrease of in-hospital mortality from 7.6 to 3% after implementation of specific geriatric care \[[@CR34]\].

This study conducted on the French administrative database (SNDS) allows a real-life, cross-sectional, population-based study with detailed description of individual clinical outcomes, providing updated knowledge on the epidemiology and impact of fractures managed by modern healthcare in a developed country.

The results of this study are subject to the main limitations usually encountered with the use of administrative databases in general and the SNDS in particular. Firstly, the lack of precision regarding information for outpatient care prevented accurate analysis of certain details: the only way to detect out-of-hospital fractures was by means of plaster cast procedures. This method induced two biases: the risk of underestimating events not requiring a plaster cast and the risk of overestimating events when plaster casts were used for trauma without fracture. This limitation probably had only a limited impact on our results, as it essentially concerned non-severe fractures (i.e., with limited functional impairment allowing outpatient care). Lack of information concerning outpatient care also prevented us from identifying the anatomical site/bone concerned by the fracture and, for the patients concerned, the fracture site was estimated by the type of plaster cast applied. It is likely that an unknown number of fractures were misclassified. Secondly, the very nature of the French healthcare system encouraged healthcare providers to maximize the expenditure declared by means of diagnostic coding procedures in order to obtain higher levels of funding. However, this bias would have tended to modify clinical outcome towards more severe outcomes rather than produce existing fractures or surgical procedures.

In conclusion, in this study, we documented the incidence and healthcare burden of fractures in adults in France in 2016. This study provides recent exhaustive and reliable data precisely describing the burden of fractures across age. This study also confirmed that fractures remain frequent serious life events, especially in older people.

Electronic supplementary material
=================================

 {#Sec10}

ESM 1(DOCX 61 kb)

**Publisher's note**

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The authors thank Anthony Saul for English revision of the manuscript.

This research was funded by the French National Health Insurance Fund (CNAM). JR, FL, and AW are or were employees of the French National Health Insurance Fund.

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

The present paper represents the opinions of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the position of their employers.


Editor's note: Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin is an online, subscription intelligence news service from the creator of WorldNetDaily.com  a journalist who has been developing sources around the world for almost 30 years. The subscription price for the premium newsletter has been slashed in half and is now available for only $9.95 per month.

WASHINGTON  As London recovers from the latest deadly al-Qaida attack that killed at least 50, top U.S. government officials are contemplating what they consider to be an inevitable and much bigger assault on America  one likely to kill millions, destroy the economy and fundamentally alter the course of history, reports Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

According to captured al-Qaida leaders and documents, the plan is called the "American Hiroshima" and involves the multiple detonation of nuclear weapons already smuggled into the U.S. over the Mexican border with the help of the MS-13 street gang and other organized crime groups.

Al-Qaida has obtained at least 40 nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union  including suitcase nukes, nuclear mines, artillery shells and even some missile warheads. In addition, documents captured in Afghanistan show al-Qaida had plans to assemble its own nuclear weapons with fissile material it purchased on the black market.

In addition to detonating its own nuclear weapons already planted in the U.S., military sources also say there is evidence to suggest al-Qaida is paying former Russian special forces Spetznaz to assist the terrorist group in locating nuclear weapons formerly concealed inside the U.S. by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Osama bin Laden's group is also paying nuclear scientists from Russia and Pakistan to maintain its existing nuclear arsenal and assemble additional weapons with the materials it has invested hundreds of millions in procuring over a period of 10 years.

The plans for the devastating nuclear attack on the U.S. have been under development for more than a decade. It is designed as a final deadly blow of defeat to the U.S., which is seen by al-Qaida and its allies as "the Great Satan."

At least half the nuclear weapons in the al-Qaida arsenal were obtained for cash from the Chechen terrorist allies.

But the most disturbing news is that high level U.S. officials now believe at least some of those weapons have been smuggled into the U.S. for use in the near future in major cities as part of this "American Hiroshima" plan, according to an upcoming book, "The al-Qaida Connection: International Terrorism, Organized Crime and the Coming Apocalypse," by Paul L. Williams, a former FBI consultant.

According to Williams, former CIA Director George Tenet informed President Bush one month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that at least two suitcase nukes had reached al-Qaida operatives in the U.S.

"Each suitcase weighed between 50 and 80 kilograms (approximately 110 to 176 pounds) and contained enough fissionable plutonium and uranium to produce an explosive yield in excess of two kilotons," wrote Williams. "One suitcase bore the serial number 9999 and the Russian manufacturing date of 1988. The design of the weapons, Tenet told the president, is simple. The plutonium and uranium are kept in separate compartments that are linked to a triggering mechanism that can be activated by a clock or a call from the cell phone."

According to the author, the news sent Bush "through the roof," prompting him to order his national security team to give nuclear terrorism priority over every other threat to America.

However, it is worth noting that Bush failed to translate this policy into securing the U.S.-Mexico border through which the nuclear weapons and al-Qaida operatives are believed to have passed with the help of the MS-13 smugglers. He did, however, order the building of underground bunkers away from major metropolitan areas for use by federal government managers following an attack.

Click Here.

Bin Laden, according to Williams, has nearly unlimited funds to spend on his nuclear terrorism plan because he has remained in control of the Afghanistan-produced heroin industry. Poppy production has greatly increased even while U.S. troops are occupying the country, he writes. Al-Qaida has developed close relations with the Albanian Mafia, which assists in the smuggling and sale of heroin throughout Europe and the U.S.

Some of that money is used to pay off the notorious MS-13 street gang between $30,000 and $50,000 for each sleeper agent smuggled into the U.S. from Mexico. The sleepers are also provided with phony identification, most often bogus matricula consular ID cards indistinguishable from Mexico's official ID, now accepted in the U.S. to open bank accounts and obtain driver's licenses.

The Bush administration's unwillingness to secure the U.S.-Mexico border has puzzled and dismayed a growing number of activists and ordinary citizens who see it as the No. 1 security threat to the nation. The Minuteman organization is planning a major mobilization of thousands of Americans this fall designed to shut down the entire 2,000-mile border as it did in April with a 23-mile stretch in Arizona.

According to Williams' sources, thousands of al-Qaida sleeper agents have now been forward deployed into the U.S. to carry out their individual roles in the coming "American Hiroshima" plan.

Bin Laden's goal, according to the book, is to kill at least 4 million Americans, 2 million of whom must be children. Only then, bin Laden has said, would the crimes committed by America on the Arab and Muslim world be avenged.

There is virtually no doubt among intelligence analysts al-Qaida has obtained fully assembled nuclear weapons, according to Williams. The only question is how many. Estimates range between a dozen and 70. The breathtaking news is that an undetermined number of these weapons, including suitcase bombs, mines and crude tactical nuclear weapons, have already been smuggled into the U.S.  at least some across the U.S.-Mexico border.

The future plan, according to captured al-Qaida agents and documents, suggests the attacks will take place simultaneously in major cities throughout the country  including New York, Boston, Washington, Las Vegas, Miami, Chicago and Los Angeles.

In response to the G2 Bulletin revelations, Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, a citizen action group demanding the U.S. government take control of its borders, said an immediate military presence on the borders is now imperative "to stop the overwhelming influx of unidentified, potentially hostile and seditious persons coming across at an alarming rate."

"Terrorists have carte blanche to carry practically anything they want across our national line at this time," he said. "As ordinary citizens have warned this government for years, the only surprising part about the new information reported here is that nothing apocalyptic from Mexican-border weapons trafficking has yet happened. Terrorism has reared its ugly head in London again these past few days, and as we know all too well we are not immune in this country. At this point, the next attempt to attack America at home is just a matter of 'when,' not 'if.' And our unsecured borders have surely contributed to this threat  yet our government officials continue to fiddle while our nation's margin of security and safety burns away. The president and Congress had better wake up before they have to answer for another devastating terrorist incursion on our own soil."

While the nuclear threat against the US is growing steadily every year, this article is full of holes and poor guess work.

For instance, this line "Russian special forces Spetznaz to assist the terrorist group in locating nuclear weapons formerly concealed inside the U.S. by the Soviet Union during the Cold War...."

While I suppose it is possible that Soviet Spetznaz units planted warheads in the US during the cold war, I seriously doubt that any of these devices would be operable today. These things require routine maintenance. While I suppose these devices could probably be overhauled and refueled, such a procedure would require some serious expertise, and would be difficult to undertake in the US without being discovered.

I cannot refute the allegations made in this article anymore than the author can prove them, but he harms his credibility a number of times within this article.

If any of this does happen then we must hunt down those responsible and really let them have it. I'm talking about 3 hot meals a day, daily showers, access to lawyers, time to pray to allah (aka Satan), and protection from such abuse as being forced to stay awake for 18 hours at a time. This must be done in combination with mandatory classes for all to determine and understand exactly what we did wrong to cause our attackers to lash out at us.

According to Williams, former CIA Director George Tenet informed President Bush one month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that at least two suitcase nukes had reached al-Qaida operatives in the U.S.

This old story was bullsh*t then, and it's bullsh*t now. Does anyone seriously think Al Qaeda has had nukes in the USA for five years and not used them while we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, hunted them down and killed 2/3 of their leadership? What are they waiting for? Us to do something to make them really, really mad?

According to captured al-Qaida leaders and documents, the plan is called the "American Hiroshima" and involves the multiple detonation of nuclear weapons already smuggled into the U.S. over the Mexican border with the help of the MS-13 street gang and other organized crime groups.

Why would the Maras help people that they hold in absolute contempt, destroy their very own neighborhoods, family, friends and source of millions of dollars? This story is crap, IMO.

I do completely agree that our border situation is ridiculous. The fact that we have virtually no border security at all is a display of total criminal negligence. I like President Bush and fully support his foreign policy but I absolutely hate the fact that he has done and will continue to do nothing about our borders.

The only certain deterrence for this eventuality is for President Bush to clearly and publicly state that if we are hit with a nuke ,or nukes , in America , that we will nuke Mecca and Medina in immediate response , and Tehran in a second strike. Just put it on the table loud and clear and let the chips where they may. There has to be a terrible , unbearable cost to islam if they hit us. There has to be...

You could kiss all the blue states and cities good bye. Whatever isn't hit by the terrorist nukes will vote Republican and for Total War...

It is possible that the strong response following 9/11 is all that has held the terrorists back from implementing "Hiroshima". If they really do have nukes in our country already, they're waiting for something to give them an overwhelming advantage so as to force a surrender. As it stands, use of their Hiroshima Option will result in a smoking, radioactive ruin where Mecca currently stands.

20
posted on 07/12/2005 3:38:47 AM PDT
by coconutt2000
(NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))

Jack already did the Mexican scenario,but, that was with drug dealers.Now, if he can find Abdul in Venezueala, plotting with Chavez, that might get interesting. SA IMHO is going to be our next great struggle against terrorism. Along with the Chinese using SA as a proxy.

Second, if someone had nuclear weapons and wanted to bring them into this country, the Mexican border protected or not would have little impact on their success getting them in.

We're an open country with huge borders and coastal areas. Too many ways in that are virtually undetectable for those with resources.

Anyway, why go to all that trouble? A nuke in the bottom of an oil tanker in any harbor USA and the deed is done. That's just the hard cold reality of it. We have to take them out before they have the chance to take us out.

I spent some time in Mexico recently and the feedback I got was Muslims arent welcome there. They dont want the mosques and the hatred in that country. That doesnt mean some arent there, but most Latinos aspire to "move" to the US and dont want to blow it up. But money can move mountains.

Does anyone seriously think Al Qaeda has had nukes in the USA for five years and not used them while we invaded

The terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in 1993 and waited patiently eight years before their next attack.They have demonstrated they are willing to wait more than five years to attack.

If someone had publicly stated on 9/10/01 that some time in the near future a group of terrorists would hijack several planes and use them as WMD's by targeting the World Trade Center Towers, The Pentagon and the U.S. Capital(Plane crashed in PA) the reaction would be the same amount of skepticism being posted in this thread. Obviously myself nor anyone else can prove if this story is accurate but given our porous borders it amazes me so many people can outright dismiss at least the possibility regardless of who sends the message. That kind of denial would be exactly what I would want if I was a terrorist.

If a nuke goes off in a US city - nuking Mecca and/or Medina is not nearly enough in response. There better darn well be smoking glass craters all over the middle east and beyond within hours of the event. At that point playing nice is out.

If true, then AQ are truly the henchmen of KR. Not only would a stunt like this allow the most aggressive neocons free hand in dealing with Islamofacism, it would dramatically shift the U.S. Demographic red. Virtually all dense population centers in the U.S. are blue, nuking them kills appeasers.

Remember former SecDef Cohen, hardly a neocon, was saying after 9/11 that nukes were not off the table (Saddam, "The American People need to be reasonable." Dirty Harry, "I tried being reasonable, I didn't like it.")

The president would turn to Pakhistan's PM/dictator du jour and say, "You have 30 days to hand me Osama's head on a pike or Islamabad is a glassy parking lot." To the Saudis, "Close down the terror breeding ponds or you're now New Texas."

. You maybe correct but then again what evidence could anyone show that would convince the American public who is on the outside looking in. Most individuals have no way of proving there is or isn't WMD's of any kind in the U.S. So it is reasonable to assume there is always a possibility. No one had any evidence terrorists would attack us on 9/11/01 in such a manner but it happened. The prudent reaction would be to verify Farah's statements with other sources just as a person seeks a second or third opinion for medical advice and not automatically rule out the possibility.

[invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, hunted them down and killed 2/3 of their leadership? What are they waiting for? Us to do something to make them really, really mad?]

Actually, yes. I moved away from New York City one month after the 9-11 attacks when an AP wire report mentioned a nuke in Manhattan and, within 10 minutes, made the wire report disappear. It spooked me. Since then I've seen Bush playing "chicken" with the enemy...basically fighting them according to rules laid out in advance so there would be no misunderstanding.

First: Bush announced a war that would last many years. Why did he do that? On September 12th, a lot of us were thinking that the slaughtering of 40 Saudi clerics and Prince Najef wouldn't take more than a week. I was thinking "What gives?" Then I realized: we were really in a cold war with a nuclear power. We would have to fight this war as a string of conventional battles where the direct leadership of the other side was never actually threatened. Just as we fought in Vietnam against the Kremlin, we ended up fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq against Rijad and Mecca.

Bush asked Al Qaeda to prove their manhood by fighting a conventional war in Afghanistan. I remember thinking "this means that they can have a nuke in Manhattan but not risk a nuclear exchange that would take Mecca out when they might actually win in Afghanistan against us...especially if the American left had lots of anti-war protests.

Then Bush telegraphed the Iraq War a year in advance. He played chicken with the enemy in Saudi Arabia. He gave them a chance to organize a left wing cold war against America that would "hold us back". Bush got our allies to hold us back on purpose and then give "insurgents" the idea that they could turn Iraq into another Vietnam. It may have been more than just the Flypaper Effect Bush was after.

The way to stop a nuke from exploding is to always give the enemy reason to believe that they can win another way and that they are winning the other way. America's left wing seems to be helping Al Qaeda decide that America can be defeated from within, without a nuclear exchange.

I don't see Bush doing what needs to be done in Syria and Iran now that they have crossed the line with the London bombings. This says to me: they have nukes in US cities. Otherwise, we would liberate those two countries. The London bombings show me that the other side feels comfortable with bringing small bombings to England because they have drawn a line in the sand that we cannot cross in retaliation. The London bombings show me that a new Cold War has begun. We are only allowed to retaliate with subway bombings of our own (which we will not do) but I understand that they will no longer tolerate anymore regime changes. We can do nothing about the London bombings but treat it as a criminial investigation. If the investigation shows Syrian connections, our own government will downplay these findings or bury them.

I don't get any idea at all that nukes are NOT in American cities. I am NOT living in an American city until the government tells me the truth about what THEY know.

One reason why I would like to see war in Iran is precisely so that I know they don't have nukes in the USA.

Where, for instance, are Jenna and Barbara Bush living? If one of them is in Manhattan, then I would admit to being wrong about this. I want to be wrong here.

Actor-director Forest Whitaker is finding himself caught up in an intrigue he never expected nor can possibly deal with. While in Minnesota shooting his new film, "The Falconer," he had the crew dig a long canal so that he could shoot a highly dramatic tracking shot that would really offer some emotional force. But, in the process of upturning all this earth, the crew came across a very strange thing indeed. It was a large strongbox of sorts, firmly planted in the ground. After a lot of heaving and huffing they finally managed to get the buried shed open and were shocked at what they found inside.

Turns out it was a cache of weapons, loads of them, as well as an information retrieval system that managed to intercept what Forest Whitaker later learned were CIA communications. Much like the storehouses former KGB higher-up Vasili Mitrokhin has revealed the Soviets were planting all along the midwest.

Shouldnt have been a problem for Forest if he had just reported the spectacular find to the local authorities. Unfortunately Whitaker apparently viewed some highly explosive materials, materials the CIA really wish he hadnt. Whitaker was so freaked out he immediately stopped production on the film and left the set for his Holiday Inn in Brainerd. He has not been heard from since.

Authorities speculate Whitaker is in hiding  others speculate those same authorities put him in hiding. Whatever way you look at it, the man who last directed "Hope Floats" appears to have lost all hope. And who knows what he could have seen (it cant have been much worse than "Hope Floats

37
posted on 07/12/2005 4:23:10 AM PDT
by taxed2death
(A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)

A short maintenance schedule is an intriguing feature of portable nuclear devices, which is particularly important from the counterterrorism perspective: If that information is correct, such devices would be useless or have limited utility after only a few years, begging the question of whether terrorists would envision the same purpose for such devices as the Soviet Union. The period between routine maintenance--only six months--might seem very short, but short maintenance periods appear to be a typical feature of all Soviet warheads.

Without detailed knowledge of the design of Soviet warheads, it would be impossible to know which components needed replacement at what time intervals. Two potential candidates are tritium and the neutron generator, which may use radioactive materials that decay over time. It seems possible, for example, that Soviet designers balanced on the threshold, using only just enough plutonium to achieve critical mass and relied on tritium to generate required yield. In that case, even modest degradation of tritium could have resulted in a significant drop of yield. Thus, it would be safe to assume that without proper maintenance, portable nuclear devices might still produce chain reaction, but yield would be minimal, and with time, possibly non-existent.

There is no doubt, a big threat of nuclear terrorism not only to the United States, but to our allies, the U.K., Australia, or any nation that has opposed the Islamofascist jihadists.

The only thing bigger than that threat is Joe Farah's massive ego.

He so desperately wants to be a "player", he can taste it.

So which is it Joe?

First, you insist that Iran will detonate an EMP nuke over America to fry our infrastructure, now you're going off about al Qaeda nukes "already" in the U.S.

So which is it? Either, or both?

Oh wait Joe, I know: if I subscribe to your (drum roll please) "G2 INTEL NEWSLETTER", and send you my cash each month, you will keep me informed on ALL of these potential threats, in addition to peppering me with MORE urgings to subscribe to this offer, or that offer, or whatever offer will help eliminate the threat of WorldNetDaily being unable to meet their coffee budget for the month.

There ARE real terrorist threats, no question about it folks, but make no mistake: Farah and his WND crowd are making the most of it, and their objective is to profit from it.

But the US still holds a nuclear doctrine called MAD. All we have to do is point 25% of our nuclear arsenal at every population center in the middle east. If all-squida detonates a nuke or a series of nukes in the US, they potentially seal the death warrants of hundreds of millions muslims and permantly lose their holiest sites forever.

Wouldn't that be demorilizing for muslims to know that their 'all powerful' allah couldn't stop the US from turning Mecca into an uninhabitable glass parking lot for the next 10k years and that they couldn't fulfil their duties as muslims and had nowhere to point their heads and eat dirt?

They would be just as much the fools as the Soviets would have been during the cold war.

There is techonology to detect the neighborhood-level proximity of these bombs, even if they are lead shielded. I think it would be nice, prudent, if we made a few thousands of that technology and established a nationwide network.

At least there are some precautions that conservatives can take that lefties simply won't contemplate:

1) Don't live or work within a mile of an obvious target if you can really help it. Maybe I would take a good job in Washington DC...but preferably my office would be more than one mile upwind of the mall. These nukes won't be that powerful.

2) Don't live or work downwind 5 miles of an obvious target.

3) Don't own real estate in the above areas of at least the 6 most likely to be targeted urban centers.

Those rules aren't that hard to abide by in the post 9-11 world. They would ruin the lives of about 4 million people if the fallout is bad enough. It would cost them all of Saudi Arabia, every last Palestinian, probably Damascus, Cairo, Peshawar, Karachi, Islamabad...and, and, and.

The nukes wouldn't destroy any American city. Just mess up the downtown, and irradiate hundreds of thousands in addition to the 50,000 or so who will die in the blast. It would be a small prinprick to deliver to America in return for the annihilation of much of Muslim civilization.

I have often wondered how many and where the weapons that were smuggled (source various stories and books)into the US during the cold war were buried or stored. A nuke would be hard to maintain for so many years without maintenance but high explosives should be able to be stored for long periods as well as automatic weapons and other devices.

Has anyone found any of these storage sites? Or has anyone been found that were sleeper USSR agents? The American Communist party received millions from the USSR so would expect that, if this is true, they had a hand in the storage and smuggling operation.

"First, you insist that Iran will detonate an EMP nuke over America to fry our infrastructure, now you're going off about al Qaeda nukes "already" in the U.S. "

Even if they did, our military command and control centers are hardened and invulnerable to such an attack. All it would do is kill the lights for us civilians but our military and nuclear arsenal would be more than ready to duke it out.

They think what we did to Iraq was hot stuff? Iraq was a joke. We could have taken out every government in the entire middle east with little or no more forces than we have in Iraq right now...if we were to fight the war like wars were fought during WWII.

We're fighting this stupid war with both hands ties behind our back and our feet shackled. Waking this country up like what happened during WWII would be an utterly amazing and awesome spectacle. These stupid shithole countries and idiot terrorists over there have no idea what hell they'd unleash upon themselves. They'd better hope theres an allah at that point because thats where they'd all be going in a hurry.

"The only certain deterrence for this eventuality is for President Bush to clearly and publicly state that if we are hit with a nuke ,or nukes , in America , that we will nuke Mecca and Medina in immediate response"

I had a professor in 1979 at the University of Washington assert this same perspective during the Iranian hostage situation.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


Proximity Labeling by a Recombinant APEX2-FGF1 Fusion Protein Reveals Interaction of FGF1 with the Proteoglycans CD44 and CSPG4.
Fibroblast growth factor 1 (FGF1) binds to specific FGF receptors (FGFRs) at the surface of target cells to initiate intracellular signaling. While heparan sulfate proteoglycans (HSPGs) are well-described coreceptors, it is uncertain whether there are additional binding sites for FGF1 at the cell surface. To address this, we devised and tested a method to identify novel binding sites for FGF1 at the cell surface, which may also be applicable for other protein ligands. We constructed an APEX2-FGF1 fusion protein to perform proximal biotin labeling of proteins following binding of the fusion protein to the cell surface. After functional validation of the fusion protein by a signaling assay, we used this method to identify binding sites for FGF1 on cell surfaces of living cells. We confirmed the feasibility of our approach by detection of FGFR4, a well-known and specific receptor for FGF1. We subsequently screened for novel interactors using RPE1 cells and identified the proteoglycans CSPG4 (NG2) and CD44. We found that FGF1 binds CD44 through its heparin-binding moiety. Moreover, we found that FGF1 was colocalized with both CSPG4 and CD44 at the cell surface, suggesting that these receptors act as storage molecules that create a reservoir of FGF1. Importantly, our data demonstrate that recombinant ligand-APEX2 fusion proteins can be used to identify novel receptor interactions on the cell surface.


Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) received a nod Wednesday from an unlikely source: Freedom Partners, a political nonprofit with close ties to billionaire conservatives Charles and David Koch.

Freedom Partners released an ad Wednesday that it says is meant to encourage moderators of the upcoming Democratic debate to raise the issue of the Export-Import Bank, a federal agency that free-market groups like Freedom Partners have characterized as "corporate welfare."

The Ex-Im Bank, as it's known, helps to finance foreign purchases of U.S.-made goods for large-scale buyers that need to borrow money to make the purchase. Critics of the bank have said that it disproportionately helps major corporations and that it could do more to assist small businesses.

“Seventy-five percent of the funds going from the federal government to the Export-Import Bank goes to large, profitable corporations," Sanders says in the Freedom Partners ad, in a clip from the Democratic debate in Flint, Michigan, this past Sunday. "I don’t think it’s a great idea for the American taxpayer to have to subsidize, through corporate welfare, profitable corporations."

“I don’t want to break the bad news -- Democrats are not always right," Sanders said during that debate. "Democrats have often supported corporate welfare.”

"Tonight, we’d like to see moderators push both candidates to explain why middle class Americans should be lining the pockets of major corporations and their campaign donors," Andy Koenig, a senior policy adviser at Freedom Partners, said in a statement Wednesday.

The group also hopes to raise the visibility of other kinds of government breaks for corporations, including wind and solar tax credits and sugar subsidies.

Earlier this week, the National Rifle Association, another group reviled by progressives and many Democrats, expressed its support for Sanders via Twitter.

The NRA and the Sanders campaign did not immediately respond to requests for comment.


EU negotiator warns ‘not a minute to lose’ in Brexit talks

London: EU negotiator warns ‘not a minute to lose’ in Brexit talks

LONDON: The EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier stressed the urgency of Brexit talks ahead of a meeting with Prime Minister Theresa May on Monday, with her government still deeply divided on the negotiations.
“My feeling is that we have not a minute to lose because we want to achieve a deal,” Barnier told the BBC and Sky News television as he left for London.
Barnier will also meet the UK’s Brexit minister David Davis ahead of talks between British and European Union officials in Brussels from Tuesday to Friday.
Reports in recent days that some government ministers will seek to keep Britain in a customs union with the EU in order to safeguard trade ties have raised tensions between pro-EU and pro-Brexit factions.
But ahead of Barnier’s visit, May’s spokesman said that Britain did not want to be in a customs union with the EU once it leaves the bloc.
“It is not the government’s policy to be a member of the customs union or a customs union,” he told a daily briefing on Monday, saying the two options were instead “a new customs partnership” or “a highly streamlined customs arrangement.”
London and Brussels struck a preliminary deal on key Brexit issues in December but are yet to discuss the conditions for a post-Brexit transition period and future trade relations.
May has yet to bring together her divided government to produce a final plan.
High-profile pro-Brexit ministers Boris Johnson and Michael Gove are later this week set for a cabinet meeting showdown with europhile ministers, led by Finance Minister Philip Hammond, as they battle to shape Britain’s post-Brexit vision.
Johnson and Gove are ready to deliver an ultimatum to prevent May backtracking on plans to fully leave the customs union, according to The Sunday Times.
Brexit supporters within May’s Conservative Party would be prepared to replace the premier with Johnson and install Gove as his deputy, with influential backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg drafted in as finance minister, the newspaper reported.
Such a move would enrage the sizeable rump of hardcore pro-EU Conservative MPs, raising the spectre of another general election as May is running a minority government.
The internal tensions exploded into public view last week when Rees-Mogg, who is the bookmaker’s favorite to become the next Conservative Party leader, accused Hammond’s department of “fiddling the books” in providing gloomy forecasts of Brexit’s economic impact.

Conservative MP and Brexit supporter Bernard Jenkin wrote in The Sunday Telegraph newspaper that May “can only command a majority in parliament on her present policy” — a thinly veiled threat that Brexiteers would be prepared to bring down her vulnerable government.
Pro-EU interior minister Amber Rudd hit back on Sunday, telling BBC television: “I have a surprise for the Brexiteers, which is the committee that meets in order to help make these decisions is more united than they think.”
Britain voted to leave the European Union in a momentous referendum in June 2016 that revealed a bitterly divided nation, sparked a tumultuous period in British politics and caused global shockwaves.
Although Britain will officially leave the bloc in March next year, it hopes to secure a two-year transition deal to taper the effects of Brexit.
Terms of the transition deal will be on the negotiating table this week, with key issues up for debate including immigration, Britain’s ability to strike third-party trade deals, and whether Britain will have to abide by new EU laws.
Barnier has said that Britain “will continue to have all the economic benefits, therefore it must apply all the rules” during this transition period.
However, May appears set on a collision course with the EU after questioning the rights of EU citizens who arrive in Britain during the transition.
May insisted Friday she was “doing what the British people want” and going nowhere despite pressure on her to resign.


Complex structure of a maize Myb gene promoter: functional analysis in transgenic plants.
The maize P gene encodes a Myb-like transcription factor that regulates synthesis of red flavonoid pigments in floral organs. To study the transcriptional regulation of the P gene, candidate regulatory sequences of the P1-rr gene promoter were identified by Ac insertional mutagenesis and subjected to functional testing in transgenic maize plants. The results indicate that a 561 bp fragment (Pb) encompassing the transcription start site (-235 to +326) supports weak expression of a GUS reporter gene in floral organs, including husk, silk, kernel pericarp, cob and male inflorescence. Two other fragments, located approximately 1 and 5 kb 5' of the transcription start site, increased the levels of GUS activity in floral tissues and thus appear to contain enhancer elements. All of the tested constructs gave similar patterns of GUS expression, suggesting that the 561 bp Pb fragment that is common among the transgene constructs contains regulatory elements that promote activation in floral organs. The basal promoter and proximal enhancer fragments contain putative binding sites for bZip regulatory factors, and a complex arrangement of palindromes including a large inverted repeat of two tRNA-like genes. Possibly, interconversions between linear and cruciform conformations of the palindromes may affect protein/DNA interactions and thereby modulate P1-rr expression.


Q:

Backbone view not initialising correctly after back or forward button

So I have a single page backbone application which loads in new pages via AJAX and updates the URL using the history API. This all works fine but when I press the back button it just changes the URL back and does not load the previous AJAX.
So I have begun to fix this issue but I have a strange issue where the previous AJAX is called, loads in correctly but does not work because I get the following error:
this.el is undefined

I really do not know how to fix this, here is some of my code:
ContainerView = Backbone.View.extend({
el: 'body',
events: {
    'click .navigation-item': 'loadRequestedPage'
},
initialize: function() {
    this.listenTo(Backbone, 'popstate', this.onPopState);
},
onPopState: function(e) {
    var pageName = window.location.pathname.substring(window.location.pathname.lastIndexOf('/') + 1, window.location.pathname.lastIndexOf('php') + 3);
    $('.navigation-item[href="'+pageName+'"]').eq(0).click();
},
....
loadRequestedPage: function(e) {
    if (Modernizr.history) {
        e.preventDefault();

        var pageModel = myWebsite.where({pageID: currentPage})[0],
            requestedPageID = $(e.currentTarget).data('page-id'),
            requestedPageModel = myWebsite.where({pageID: requestedPageID})[0],
            requestedPageUrl = requestedPageModel.get('pageUrl'),
            $targetElement = this.determineTargetElement(requestedPageID);

        this.closeMobileNavigation();

        this.loadNewPage(requestedPageModel, requestedPageUrl, requestedPageID, $targetElement);

        this.setActiveNavItem(requestedPageUrl);
        this.updateCurrentPage(requestedPageID);
        this.gaTrackEvent('Page Navigation', requestedPageUrl, 'User used the main navigation to navigate to' + requestedPageUrl);
    }
},

The functions inside of loadRequestedPage then go on to trigger the history.pushstate which then triggers the backbone.router and finally starts the requred view.
It works fine when clicking a .navigation-item manually but not when i trigger it through JS after click a back button.
If anyone can help that would be awesome.
Thanks.
EDIT
Here is my router
var app = app || {};

(function($) {

    var Router = Backbone.Router.extend({
        routes: {
            '': 'instantiateHome',
            'index.php': 'instantiateHome',
            'our-approach.php': 'instantiateOurApproach',
            'our-work.php': 'instantiateOurWork',
            'people.php': 'instantiatePeople',
            'social.php': 'instantiateSocial',
            'contact-us.php': 'instantiateContactUs',
            "*notFound" : 'notFound'
        },
        instantiateHome: function() {
            if(app.home_view == null) {
                app.home_view = new app.HomeView();
            }
        },
        instantiateOurApproach : function() {
            if(app.our_approach_view == null) {
                app.our_approach_view = new app.OurApproachView();
            }
        },
        instantiateOurWork: function() {
            if(app.our_work_view == null) {
                app.our_work_view = new app.OurWorkView();
            }
        },
        instantiatePeople: function() {
            if(app.people_view == null) {
                app.people_view = new app.PeopleView();
            }
        },
        instantiateSocial: function() {
            if(app.social_view == null) {
                app.social_view = new app.SocialView();
            }
        },
        instantiateContactUs: function() {
            if(app.contact_us_view == null) {
                app.contact_us_view = new app.ContactUsView();
            }

        },
        notFound: function() {
            if(app.not_found_view == null) {
                app.not_found_view = new app.NotFoundView();
            }

        }
    });

    app.router = new Router();

    var location_pathname = window.location.pathname;
    var site_url = location_pathname.replace(location_pathname.split("/").pop(),"");
    var urlArray = location_pathname.split("/");
    var pageUrl = urlArray[urlArray.length-1];
    if (Modernizr.history) {
        Backbone.history.start({pushState: true, root: site_url});
    } else {
        Backbone.history.start({hashChange: false, root: site_url});
    }

    app.router.navigate(pageUrl, {trigger: true});

})(jQuery);

EDIT
SO I have worked out that pressing the back button triggers the router without having to do the following code:
app.router.navigate(pageUrl, {trigger: true});

Usually I run the above code after the AJAX call is complete so I know all elements are on the page before the new view is instantiated.
So I guess my question is now: How do I stop the back button from triggering the router?
EDIT
New router code to be dependent on ajaxComplete()
instantiateOurWork: function() {
    if (app.ajaxActive) {
        $(document).ajaxComplete(function() {
            if(app.our_work_view == null) {
                app.our_work_view = new app.OurWorkView();
                $(document).unbind('ajaxComplete');
            }
        });
    } else {
        if(app.our_work_view == null) {
            app.our_work_view = new app.OurWorkView();
        }
        app.ajaxActive = true;
    }
},

This is really messy code but I don't know how else to do it.

A:

OK so I have figure it out, it is not a pretty sight but I am not sure how else I can do it.
Firstly I needed to make sure all ajax calls had ended before I started loading new views, this would prevent multiple views existing at any one time and stop any JS errors, this was done from the following code which can also be found in one of my edits above:
instantiateOurWork: function() {
    if (app.ajaxActive) {
        $(document).ajaxComplete(function() {
            if(app.our_work_view == null) {
                app.our_work_view = new app.OurWorkView();
                $(document).unbind('ajaxComplete');
            }
        });
    } else {
        if(app.our_work_view == null) {
            app.our_work_view = new app.OurWorkView();
        }
        app.ajaxActive = true;
    }
},

app.ajaxActive is a global variable which is set to false by default, this is because the initial page load does not execute an AJAX call, then it is set to true, this means that it will always expect an AJAX call to be running and wait for it to finish using the ajaxComplete function.
The next problem I had to deal with was terminating code which is running in the background, things like getScript() and $.each loops which would cause errors as they would try to run after the view had been removed.
To fix this I had to implement the local variable this.stopExecution which was set to false by default.
When my this.removeView() function was called this.stopExecution would be set to true.
Then inside of any code which could possibly run after the view has been removed I added the following code:
if(self.stopExecution) {
    return false;
}

which would stop the code from running and prevent any errors.
If anyone has a better solution please feel free to share.
Thanks.


MacLeod guns down Oman

Uddy skipper Calum MacLeod scored his maiden international T20 century as he blitzed the Oman bowling attack at Sharjah.

MacLeod went on the attack from ball one, moosing the poor Oman attack to all parts of the stadium in front of stunned crowd. Scotland ended up with a lower than expected 158-5 off their 20 overs, with Calum smoking an unbeaten 104 that included 4 massive babooshka's over the stands.

However, Scotland's 158 was more than enough, as "Magic Man" Majid Haq bamboozled the hapless Oman batsmen who were bowled out for just 106.

The win over Oman sets up a tantalising game against Ireland on Sunday to be played at the Dubai Cricket Stadium in front of an expected crowd of 25,000. Both sides were beaten by surprise tournament front runners Namibia, so a loss on Sunday could spell the end of the tournament for either team.

Ireland have bounced back after getting beat by Namibia, with Boyd Rankin, Ed Joyce and William Porterfield starring in the Irish resurgence. Ireland will be targeting MacLeod, who has become Scotland's linchpin with the bat in T20 cricket.

Niall MacLeod, Calum's younger brother, said yesterday, "Yes, Calum is looking forward to the challenge of the Irish. He loves a good battle and just can't wait to get back out there and smash some sixes. Alan (Calum's older brother) and I understand that right now, Calum is the favourite son and rightly so. His efforts in the UAE have been incredible and long may that continue."


Pediatric Dentistry

Pediatric Dentistry is the treatment of children from birth through late adolescence. Because it is a specialized field of dentistry, the American Dental Association requires up to three additional years of training after graduating from dental school. Dentists who complete this additional training receive a Diplomate ABPD from the American Board of Pediatric Dentistry.

Most pediatric dentists serve all children, but some choose to specialize in treating children with special needs such as cerebral palsy or autism. If your child has unique physical or emotional needs, please mention this when you schedule your appointment with Healthy Smiles of La Grange so we can provide the best care possible.

Beyond academic training, it’s essential for a pediatric dentist to understand the psychology of children. No dentist who primarily treats kids should expect them to act like miniature adults. Going to the dentist is a new experience that may frighten them.

Dr. Qureshi and our friendly dental team will never use words like injection, drill, or needle with younger patients. We make the visit as pleasant as possible by creating a friendly atmosphere and using language children can understand. However, we respect all patients and never speak in a condescending tone.

When a child experiences a frightening dental appointment early in life, this fear can linger into adulthood. Our dental clinic teaches kids the importance of caring for their teeth at every stage of life. This also includes parent education for very young children. Dr. Qureshi acts as a friendly mentor to children to encourage cooperation. Our staff feels that praise for a job well done goes much further than a lecture for something a child didn’t get quite right.

Specific Functions of a Pediatric Dentist

Dentists and dental hygienists are instrumental in teaching kids healthy oral health habits to last for a lifetime. They always emphasize how important it is to care for the baby teeth so the new adult teeth can grow in strong and healthy. Pediatric dentists take special care to explain the other roles of teeth besides eating, such as the ability to produce speech sounds.

Dr. Qureshi offers your child the following services:

Patient Education: Dr. Qureshi uses simple terms to explain to children what he is about to do and why he is doing it. He also uses computer technology and kid-sized teeth models to demonstrate the importance of excellent oral hygiene. Lastly, our pediatric dentist and his staff instruct children on proper brushing and flossing techniques to use at home.

Monitoring: Each time your child comes in for a visit, Dr. Qureshi monitors his or her growth through x-rays and a visual inspection. He carefully notes your child’s file about all work he performed in addition to anything he would like to keep an eye on for the future. This makes it possible for him to provide early intervention services if necessary.

Preventive Services: Bringing your child in for regular preventive check-ups is the most important thing you can do to ensure his or her long-term oral health. This also gives our pediatric dentist the chance to apply fluoride treatments or dental sealants if he feels that your child could benefit from them. Counseling on thumb-sucking or other habits may also be appropriate.

Additional Treatment: Your child may need further dental work if he or she has sustained an injury, has a dental disease, or requires orthodontic services to correct misaligned teeth. In addition to recommending a specific procedure, Doctor Qureshi will provide you with detailed information about treatment time, cost, and other important factors.

I have been coming to Healthy Smiles for many years, with Dr. Danielson retiring I was disappointed, however after having a checkup and subsequent cavity fill with Dr. Qureshi any doubt has been put out of my mind. Extremely professional and personal as well! Great Dentist.

Chris Peake

Super friendly and genuinely cared for my well-being.

Kaamil Siddiqui

Dr. Qureshi is an awesome dentist. Does a great job and seems to really care about his patients.


A known hoax purveyor spread false claims that the FBI "raided" the CDC in the middle of the night for data on vaccines and autism on the order of President Trump.

CLAIM

RATING

ORIGIN

On 23 January 2017 a blogger (going by the name Dr. William Mount) published an article claiming that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had conducted a middle-of-the-night raid on the headquarters of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in search of data proving a link between vaccines and autism:

This morning President Trump ordered the CDC Headquarters in Atlanta to be raided at 3:00 Am Their Time.

Although Unconfirmed the CDC did tell me on the phone a few minutes ago: “We Are Not Allowed To Comment On That.Please Email me and we will give you a statement about it. ”

I also had 36 Posts on my video 10 minutes before it was posted…

Long before the Employees began showing up to work the FBI was busting down doors and seizing computers.

Accompanying these FBI Agents was Dr William Thompson — who is a CDC Whistle Blower.

The raid was ordered by the President and was led by Sally Yates – Acting Attorney General and part of the King and Spalding Law Group, which was also working with President Trump’s huge law firm: “Jones Day.”

All of the records for the Vaccines – what is in them, what they have done to people across the globe – it is all being seized as you read this.

As soon as President Obama took office he granted both the CDC and Monsanto protection in their massive use of GMO Foods and Vaccines to kill people world wide. That protection is now gone. The employees involved in murder and disabling people world wide have two choices: Become a whistle blower or face 20 years to life in prison.

There is no place you can hide on this planet or in this planet.

So what is in Vaccines that make them so deadly???

Of the 202 children we have worked with 2 were autistic due to Vaccines given to the Mothers while she was in the military. The other 200 became autistic the day they were vaccinated and all have Indigo Aura … Those with Chrystaline Aura’s were killed outright. This author has a Chrystaline Aura.

The blog post was peppered with extremely questionable assertions, and it didn’t take long to trace it back to an even less reliable source:

A stunning Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) report circulating in the Kremlin today states that just hours after President Donald Trump and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey “warmly embraced” in the White House yesterday, FBI agents conducted a massive early morning raid on the headquarters of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) based in Atlanta, Georgia, accompanied by Doctor-Scientist William Thompson — who is one of the most feared government whistleblowers in the United States for his exposing the vaccine-to-autism link cover-up.

The “unconfirmed report” referenced by social media users and conspiracy-oriented blogs originated with (and as initially reported by no source other than) the fake news site WhatDoesItMean.com, described by RationalWiki as follows:

Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of “reports” published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don’t think much of it.

Each report resembles a news story in its style but usually includes a sensational headline barely related to reality and quotes authoritative high-level Russian sources (such as the Russian Federal Security Service) to support its most outrageous claims. Except for the stuff attributed to unverifiable sources, the reports don’t contain much original material. They are usually based on various news items from the mainstream media and/or whatever the clogosphere is currently hyperventilating about, with each item shoehorned into the conspiracy narrative the report is trying to establish.

WhatDoesItMean.com’s conspiracies seem to have a longer shelf life than most fake news since they’re often based on actual events or tragedies and layered with embellishments picked to fit existing rumors. Moreover, the CDC raid claim was popularized via a personal blog attributed to a doctor and not the known fake news site on which it first appeared, ensuring its likely continued spread decoupled from its dubious origins. The item in question utilized old video related to a CDC vaccine conspiracy theory.


Welcome back to Raiders football and the next season of Ballers & Busters. Preseason is unique from regular season games when it comes to individual performances evaluations. This is when the outcomes matters little and each player is literally fighting for their NFL lives. Some are fighting for their place on the depth chart while others are fighting for a job.

With that in mind, here are those who improved their statuses and those who have work to do.

Ballers

Quite a breakout performance by the undrafted rookie. While we’re all thinking about the battle between Jalen Richard and DeAndre Washington, Warren says ‘what about me?’

What about Warren is he living up to the legacy of his 3-time NFL Pro Bowl father. When Warren III wasn’t carrying defenders for yards inside, he was running by them for big gains on the outside. He had runs of 26, 19, and 11 yards and finished with a team leading 86 yards on 13 carries (6.6 yards per carry).

The fourth round rookie is already having a few NFL GM’s kick themselves for passing on him. He was viewed as a second round prospect until he tore a meniscus in a workout with these same Lions. He returned healthy for training camp and is back to full strength.

Nelson led the defense in snaps and made the most of them. The first two passes his way came in the third quarter and they resulted in an incompletion due to his tight coverage, and a tackle for loss he perfectly played out in the right flat.

He had a rough patch at the end of that drive, called for holding to wipe a sack off the board on third down, and gave up a 9-yard catch on third and two. But he shook it off and had a good close to the fourth quarter.

He should have had an interception, but after making the catch, he got so excited that he held up the ball to show possession and it popped out of his hands. Luckily it was 3rd down and the Lions punted anyway. On the final drive, he had a pass defended that was very nearly a pick, made the tackle on a 3-yard catch on third and 14, and batted a pass down at the line on the second to last play. He gave up just two catches in the game for 21 yards.

After just one series for Derek Carr, Cook entered the game to run the offense for the remainder of the first half. In that time, he went 11 for 19 for 141 yards and a touchdown with no interceptions.

A 41-yard toss to a wide open Johnny Holton set up a field goal on his first drive. On third down of his second series, he hit Martavis Bryant in stride on a crossing route for 12 yards to keep the drive alive. Later in the drive, he escaped the pocket out right and threw for Paul Butler who made a diving 24-yard catch. He finished off the drive from third and goal from the 7-yard-line with another escape from the pocket, this time out left. Then he re-set and found Ryan Switzer in the back of the end zone for the score.

His next two series would end with high passes on third down, but those first two series gave him something to build upon.

He had the first tackle of the game for the Raiders when he stopped the return man. Then on the second play of the series, he made the run stop for a one-yard gain and the Lions would go three-and-out. He would have two more run stuffs in the first half and even made a tackle on a short catch that led to another three-and-out. He finished tied for second on the team with 5 combined tackles (3 solo).

The rookie kicker was given three chances in the game to show his worthiness to be the Raiders next kicker. Jon Gruden even made it difficult for him, intentionally placing the offense on the infield dirt for two of his three kicks. And he nailed every one of them. The first was a chipshot from 20 yards out and the two off the dirt were from 48 and 45 yards out. In the 16-10 game, those kicks made all the difference.

Jon Gruden, Paul Guenther

The offense was clicking and the defense was stifling so long as the players on the field were performing their duties as they were supposed to. The result was some unexpected solid performances from some young and previously under the radar players. Most notably on offense it was the presence of play action and on defense the presence of disguising the blitz to confuse the opposing offense. Two things that we haven’t seen much of lately in Oakland.

Aside from his potential suspension this season, what Worley did in this game should give some confidence to the Raiders should Gareon Conley continue to have injury issues. The very first defensive play of the game saw Worley step up and seal the edge of the line to send the running back inside for a short gain. Then on the third play of the next series, he had a nice looking pass defended and would ultimately end the drive teaming up for a tackle on a run short of the first down. That was his last play of the game. Solid outing.

PJ Hall

The rookie second round pick had a sack on his very first play. Credit goes to the scheme that had the quarterback pressured to step up and gave Hall a single blocker, but he had the discipline and strength to hold his ground and shed his blocker to make the sack and send the Lions offense to the sidelines with a three-and-out. The next drive, Hall had a batted ball at the line. The two things he was known for doing in college — sacks and batted balls at the line — he had on display right away.

Oddly, he wasn’t in the game with the first team. But when the Raiders needed him, he proved he was the man for the job. He had just one catch in the game, but it was a beauty. With Connor Cook scrambling and looking for and open receiver, he saw Switzer roaming in the back of the end zone. Cook threw to the open area and Switzer went and got it, diving full extension to make a sure-handed touchdown catch to put the Raiders up 10-0 early in the second quarter. And he dove into the Black Hole.

He didn’t come in the game until the 4th quarter. The first series he was in the game, the Lions were in third and one and Cowser made the stop for no gain to force a punt. The final series of the game, with Matt Cassell back in the game and the Lions trying to pull out a late win, Cowser had a pressure for an incompletion and then ended the threat by getting in the backfield and was credited with a strip sack. Victory formation after that.

Honorable Mention

Jordy Nelson — Had a 4-yard catch on the first play of the game, but made this list for the pass defended he had to prevent what would have been an interception.

Marshawn Lynch — A Kolton Miller holding brought it back, but Marshawn broke off a 60-yard run on the first series that showed he can still outrun a defense.

Keith Smith — His blocking was superb and relentless, showing why Gruden wanted him in Oakland.

Karl Joseph — He made a pretty nifty jump sack and was penalized for a great tackle due to the over-called new lowering the head rule.

Fadol Brown — He and Bruce Irvin had the pressure to set up that PJ Hall sack. Brown also got in the backfield along with Cowser and it appeared as if it were him who knocked the ball out, though Cowser got the credit for it.

Pharaoh Brown, Paul Butler — Both had some fine blocking in the game. Butler also had an outstanding diving catch for 24 yards that set up the Raiders only touchdown.

Marcell Ateman — Led Raiders receives with 4 catches. Though he had just 22 yards, he showed he is versatile as a receiver. He even made a tackle on special teams.

Shilique Calhoun — Had a sack and a QB hit in the game. May have had another sack had Nick Nelson not been called for holding.