How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
News
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Fernandez
Following a change in screening guidelines, the incidence went up across the state, even more than it has nationally.
The incidence of advanced prostate cancer in California rose markedly in the decade since doctors stopped routinely screening all men for the disease, according to a new study by UC San Francisco.
After declining for many years, the death rate from the disease also plateaued in most regions across the state.
The findings reinforce the need for screening that can identify potentially fatal tumors without raising false alarms about ones that pose no threat to the patient.
The study appears Jan. 27 in JAMA Network Open.
“This overall rising trend is alarming and has occurred across age groups, regions of California, races and ethnicities,” said lead author Erin L. Van Blarigan, ScD, UCSF associate professor of Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Urology.
“Our data point to how urgent this problem is,” said Van Blarigan, who is also with the UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. “Figuring out the best way to screen for prostate cancer continues to be a challenge for researchers and doctors. Without screening, the number of men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer – when treatments are less effective – increases fast.”
The challenge of screening for prostate cancer
Among men in the U.S., prostate cancer is the most common cancer and second-leading cause of cancer deaths. While some tumors are aggressive and can lead to death, the majority are low-grade and never spread.
The most frequently used screening tool is PSA testing (prostate specific antigen), which does not differentiate between aggressive or non-aggressive tumors, leading many men to be diagnosed with cancers that would not hurt them in the long run.
On the other hand, if screening isn’t done, timely diagnosis of more advanced cancers can be missed – those cancers might have been successfully treated if found early.
After years of screening all men for prostate cancer, the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force stopped recommending it in 2012. They hoped to prevent unnecessary and potentially harmful interventions, like surgery, for men whose disease was not serious.
In 2018, they began recommending that men between the ages of 55 and 69 discuss possible benefits and harms of screening with their doctors. But, as the authors note, this may not always be happening.
Prostate cancer mortality stops falling
UCSF researchers analyzed data involving nearly 388,000 men with prostate cancer in California between 2004 and 2021. Almost 28,000 (7.2%) had advanced disease, which has a five-year survival rate of just 37%. During the study timeframe, there were 58,754 deaths from prostate cancer.
Investigators looked at 10 regions spanning the state to see if rates in certain areas were increasing faster or slower.
They found that serious disease, which had been stable or dropping until 2010, grew 6.7% a year from 2011 to 2021. By contrast, national rates grew by 4.5% a year from 2011 to 2019. The lowest annual increase was in the Southern San Joaquin Valley (2.3%), the highest was in the Central Coast (9.1%).
Prostate cancer mortality dropped by 2.6% a year between 2004 and 2012; but after that, it plateaued in 7 out of 10 regions in the state. Mortality was highest in the Inland Empire followed by San Diego-Imperial and North Coast. It was lowest in the San Francisco Bay Area.
“It’s important to continue monitoring prostate cancer trends both in California and nationally as we learn more about the impact of screening guidelines on different populations,” said senior author Scarlett L. Gomez, PhD, MPH, UCSF professor in the Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics.
Additional authors: Meg A. McKinley, MPH; Samuel L. Washington III, MD, MAS; Matthew R. Cooperberg, MD, MPH; Stacey A. Kenfield, ScD; and Iona Cheng, PhD, all with UCSF.
Funding: California Department of Public Health; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries (1NU58DP007156); the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program (HHSN2612018000321, HHSN2612018000151, HHSN2612018000091).
Elizabeth Fernandez writes for the University of California at San Francisco.
- Details
- Written by: LINGZI CHEN
The new rule would prohibit individuals from loitering within 15 feet of public restrooms and intentionally blocking the entrances and exits.
Offenders ordered to leave for loitering by a peace officer would be barred from returning for 72 hours.
The ordinance exempts any person whose conduct arises out of a medical emergency.
For the Lakeport Police Department, it’s an added tool in their toolbox in response to a rise in loitering behavior at public restrooms.
Over the past 18 months, the police department “through officer contacts noticed that there was a significant increase in the number of people loitering around the entrances and within the restrooms,” said Police Chief Dale Stoebe, who submitted the proposal.
The purpose of the new ordinance was “for the sake of enhancing public safety in the community,” he added.
With just one short public comment, and no council comment or questions, the council voted all in favor to approve the ordinance. The process took less than four minutes.
Four weeks ago, at its Jan. 21 meeting, the City Council conducted its first public hearing for the ordinance, during which it was slightly challenged and received some council discussion.
At that first hearing, Lakeport resident Danny Wind spoke against the ordinance, suggesting that it was about arresting homeless people.
Lakeport Police Officers’ Association President Todd Freitas disagreed in comments he offered during public comment.
Freitas said the ordinance was not targeting the homeless and it was just a warning tool that a police officer could use to ask offenders to leave the public restroom.
Chief Stoebe: More instances, more aggressive encounters
After the meeting, Lake County News sent a text message to Stoebe, inquiring about police data on public restroom loitering, such as the annual increase in the number of cases.
Stoebe replied that the department doesn't keep statistics on that. “It would be very hard to establish a number,” he said in a reply text message.
But Stoebe shared his personal counts for the past 18 months.
“I have personally been to 5 such calls when I don’t think I went to five in the ten years prior (and I worked many more patrol shifts in that 10 year period). Also, those instances have been far more aggressive,” Stoebe wrote.
He gave an example about one of his five encounters: “An apparent biological male was sitting in and completely blocking the entrance to the women’s restroom and only moved after several requests made by law enforcement. This male was suspected of having a behavioral health issue.”
Stoebe’s staff report for the council meeting noted that current local code does not have “an enforceable section to regulate the described conduct,” while related state laws are only “enforceable when a sexual gratification component can be established.”
The new ordinance allows officers to address problematic behavior without imposing fines that could worsen the “financial struggles of unhoused or underprivileged community members,” Stoebe said in the text message.
Email staff reporter Lingzi Chen at
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
The incidents occurred overnight Sunday and early Monday, according to reports from residents as well as video footage they posted online.
The neighborhood that was hit is located in Lucerne’s “second riviera” and included homes on and around Plaza Terrace.
Residents reported vehicles being damaged and broken into and smashed mailboxes.
Footage showed what appeared to be two males carrying skateboards who were walking through the neighborhood, trying vehicle doors. There also were reports of two young females having accompanied them.
Sheriff’s public information officer Lauren Berlinn said the agency had received reports about the incidents and were working with about five different victims.
“At this time, it appears to have been juveniles,” said Berlinn. “We are actively investigating and working with neighbors who have provided some video surveillance that may help identify the parties responsible.”
Berlinn said Deputy Marcos De la Torre is working the cases.
Deputy De la Torre asks that anyone with information email him at
Email Elizabeth Larson at
- Details
- Written by: LAKE COUNTY NEWS REPORTS
U.S. Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) demanded answers from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) after Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) reportedly accessed sensitive personal data of disaster survivors.
Senators Padilla and Welch led 10 of their colleagues from disaster-impacted states in sounding the alarm on DOGE’s potential security breach.
This breach is particularly concerning as Californians request federal disaster assistance following the devastating Southern California fires last month.
The senators also requested more information on the procedures FEMA follows to protect data from misuse, and questioned whether DOGE’s unaccountable agents were in compliance with federal law.
“In order to register for federal disaster assistance and receive help rebuilding their communities, our constituents have provided their personally identifiable information to FEMA. They did not do so with the expectation that their sensitive information would be turned over to unvetted, unaccountable DOGE agents,” wrote the senators.
“When disaster strikes, Americans should have confidence the government will safeguard their data, regardless of the Administration at the helm,” continued the senators. “Reports indicate you have breached that trust—perhaps in violation of federal privacy law.”
In their letter, the senators also expressed that while Congress must better equip FEMA and communities with the tools needed to cut through red tape and quickly assist disaster victims, these reforms “do not require, or come close to justifying, the invasive measures DOGE has reportedly undertaken.”
In addition to Senators Padilla and Welch, Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) also signed the letter.
The full text of the letter is below.
Dear Mr. Hamilton,
We write with serious concern about reports that Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) has obtained access to sensitive information at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), including the personal data of thousands of disaster victims.
The United States has suffered from a growing number of natural disasters over the past several years—from severe flooding in Vermont, Minnesota, and Connecticut and hurricanes in North Carolina, to catastrophic wildfires in Hawai’i, California, New Mexico, and Oregon. In order to register for federal disaster assistance and receive help rebuilding their communities, our constituents have provided their personally identifiable information to FEMA. They did not do so with the expectation that their sensitive information would be turned over to unvetted, unaccountable DOGE agents.
Mr. Musk has stated his desire to eliminate waste at FEMA. We agree the country must examine and thoughtfully consider reforms to the operation of FEMA. Our constituents have experienced first-hand the frustrating bureaucracies that hinder the federal disaster recovery process. Congress must take steps to equip FEMA and communities with the tools needed to better assist disaster victims after the storm has passed. We stand ready to work with anyone willing to fix it.
But such reforms do not require, or come close to justifying, the invasive measures DOGE has reportedly undertaken.
When disaster strikes, Americans should have confidence the government will safeguard their data, regardless of the Administration at the helm. Reports indicate you have breached that trust —perhaps in violation of federal privacy law.
To understand the scope of that breach and the extent of your compliance with federal law, we request responses to the following items by no later than February 28, 2025:
1. Please provide a complete list of individuals authorized by FEMA to access disaster victims’ data and records during the period between January 20, 2025, and February 14, 2025. Please indicate whether those individuals are employees of FEMA, the White House, DOGE, or another federal agency and specify the agency. If the individuals are not federal employees, please indicate that in your response.
2. What are the individuals specified above authorized to do with disaster victims’ data and records, and what types of data were obtained?
3. What procedures does FEMA follow to protect disaster victims’ data from misuse? Are DOGE-affiliated individuals required to follow those procedures?
4. How many Americans’ personally identifiable data has been accessed by DOGE affiliated individuals? What vetting did these individuals undergo prior to their being granted access to FEMA systems?
