Jual Genset Foton di Minahasa Utara Hubungi : 0821 - 1310 - 3112/(021) 9224 - 2423 PT. Tribuana Diesel Adalah penjualan Generating-Set (genset) berkualitas import (builtup) bagi anda yang membutuhkan product berkualitas serta pengadaan yang cepat urgent tanpa berbelit-belit, Genset kami di lengkapi dengan dokumen Certificate Of Original , Manual book engine dan manual book generator, Kami sediakan Genset kapasitas 10 Kva - 650Kva (ANDA PESAN KAMI ANTAR).

Jual Genset Foton di Minahasa Utara Kami juga menerima pembuatan box silent dan perakitan diesel generator set. Produk kami meliputi berbagai diesel generator set model open, silent lokal yang ukuranya menyesuaikan lokasi pondasi genset, mobile/ trailer . Sebagian besar mesin kami menggunakan Merk : Perkins, Cummins, Deutz, Lovol, Isuzu Foton dengan generator Leroy Somer, Stamford, kualitas terbaik brushless alternator. Jual Genset Foton di Minahasa Utara

Jual Genset Foton di Minahasa Utara

Tag :
Jual Genset Lovol | Jual Genset Foton di Minahasa Utara | Jual Genset Lovol kav 45 kva | jual genset lovol Kap 70 Kva Prime Power type 1004TG | Genset Lovol | Genset Lovol kav 45 kva | Jual Genset cummins |

Jual genset perkins CHINA/LOVOL Kap 135 kva Prime power type 1006TAG1A Murah di Jepara

Jual genset perkins CHINA/LOVOL Kap 135 kva Prime power type 1006TAG1A Murah di Jepara Hubungi : 0821 - 1310 - 3112/(021) 9224 - 2423 PT. Tribuana Diesel Adalah penjualan Generating-Set (genset) berkualitas import (builtup) bagi anda yang membutuhkan product berkualitas serta pengadaan yang cepat urgent tanpa berbelit-belit, Genset kami di lengkapi dengan dokumen Certificate Of Original , Manual book engine dan manual book generator, Kami sediakan Genset kapasitas 10 Kva - 650Kva (ANDA PESAN KAMI ANTAR). Jual genset perkins CHINA/LOVOL Kap 135 kva Prime power type 1006TAG1A Murah di Jepara

Kebersihan Lingkungan merupakan faktor utama kenyamanan dalam kehidupan sehari-hari. Apabila lingkungan tidak bersih, maka segal

Kebersihan Lingkungan merupakan faktor utama kenyamanan dalam kehidupan sehari-hari. Apabila lingkungan tidak bersih, maka segala aktifitas tidak akan berjalan dengan baik. Oleh karena itu, disini Admin D3 Perbankan Syariah akan memberikan contoh karya ilmiah tentang Kebersihan Lingkungan Sekolah. Karena sekolah merupakan tempat untuk sarana belajar dan mengajar, maka sekolah tersebut haruslah bersih. Supaya para siswa dan guru merasa nyaman untuk melakukan Kegiatan Belajar Mengajar (KBM). Untuk contoh karya tulis/karya ilmiah tentang kebersihan lingkungan di sekolah silahkan baca selengkapnya. BAB I PENDAHULUAN 1.1 Latar Belakang Siswa-siswi SMPN 15 Bogor akan merasa nyaman berada di lingkungan sekolah yang lingkungannya bersih, bahkan bukan hanya para siswa saja yang merasa nyaman berada di tempat yang bersih, para pengajar pun akan merasakan nyaman dalam memberikan pelajaran kepada anak didiknya. Namun pada kenyataannya lingkungan SMPN 15 Bogor masih jauh dari harapan kebersihan yang maksimal. Untuk itu kami membuat karya ilmiah ini agar dapat membantu meningkatkan kebersihan lingkungan SMPN 15 Bogor. Langkah awal yang harus dilakukan oleh para siswa dan para guru adalah harus membiasakan diri dengan kehidupan sehari-hari yang bersih di lingkungan sekolah. Caranya adalah membuang sampah pada tempatnya. Adapun cara-cara lain yang lebih menjurus ke kegiatan yang biasa dilakukan sehari-hari oleh para murid yaitu seorang wali kelas membentuk jadwal piket harian agar kebersihan lingkungan SMPN 15 Bogor itu sendiri terjaga kebersihannya setiap hari. Dan juga setelah selesai membersihkan ruang kelas ataupun ruangan lainnya harus ada kesadaran didalam diri tiap individu untuk selalu menjaga kebersihan dimanapun berada. Didalam suatu sekolah ada susunan organisasi para pengajar dan staf-staf lainya, salah satunya adanya Cleaning Service yang pekerjaannya adalah membersihkan seluruh lingkungan sekolah. Cleaning Service itu sendiri harus sadar akan kebersihan lingkungan sekolah dan itu tanggung jawab pekerjaannya. Jadi untuk meningkatkan kebersihan di SMPN 15 Bogor harus saling menyadari bahwa pentingnya kebersihan lingkungan sekolah untuk kenyamanan kita dalam memberi dan menerima pelajaran agar kita lebih fokus dalam bidangnya masing-masing. 1.2 Permasalahan 1.2.1 Bagaimana cara meningkatkan kebersihan lingkungan SMPN 15 Bogor ? 1.2.2 Usaha apa saja yang harus dilakukan dalam meningkatkan kebersihan lingkungan SMPN 15 Bogor ? 1.2.3 Untuk apa kita meningkatkan kebersihan lingkungan SMPN 15 Bogor ? 1.2.4 Siapa saja yang harus terlibat dalam usaha meningkatkan kebersihan lingkungan SMPN 15 Bogor ? 1.3 Tujuan Penulisan Penulisan kaya tulis ini bertujuan : 1.3.1 Memenuhi salah satu tugas mata pelajaran. 1.3.2 Mengetahui seberapa besar pengaruh kebersihan terhadap lingkungan SMPN 15 Bogor. 1.3.3 Ikut serta dalam upaya mengembangkan penanaman kebersihan pada diri siswa. 1.3.4 Memberikan solusi atau masukan terhadap SMPN 15 Bogor tentang kebersihan lingkungan agar tingkat kebersihan sekolah di SMPN 15 Bogor meningkat. 1.4 Metode Penelitian 1.4.1 Pengamatan atau survey terhadap beberapa lingkungan yang ada di SMPN 15 Bogor. 1.4.2 Membuat dan menyebarkan pamflet disekitar lingkungan SMPN 15 Bogor. 1.5 Manfaat Penelitian 1.5.1 Sebagai sumbangan ide bagi pengelola lingkungan. 1.5.2 Sebagai salah satu alternatif cara meningkatkan kebersihan lingkungan SMPN 15 Bogor. 1.5.3 Sebagai solusi terhadap kebersihan sekolah di SMPN 15 Bogor. 1.6 Sistematika Makalah Pengolahan data dari hasil pengamatan kebersihan lingkungan sekolah SMPN 15 Bogor. Adapun system penulisan dari Makalah Laporan Penelitian Sosial ini adalah : • BAB I, berisi tentang pendahuluan membahas tentang latar belakang, permasalahan, tujuan, manfaat, metode dan sistematika. • BAB II, berisi tentang pembahasan. • BAB III, berisi tentang kesimpulan dan saran. BAB II PEMBAHASAN Untuk lebih lengkapnya mengenai Contoh Karya Ilmiah tentang Kebersihan Lingkungan Sekolah, silahkan kunjungi Link ini http://pbsstainmetro.blogspot.com/2013/03/contoh-karya-ilmiah-tentang-kebersihan.html

Lenovo telah menegaskan akan mempertahankan merek Motorola setelah vendor asal China itu mengakuisisi vendor ponsel tersebut.

Lenovo telah menegaskan akan mempertahankan merek Motorola setelah vendor asal China itu mengakuisisi vendor ponsel tersebut.

"Motorola juga merupakan brand yang sangat kuat di AS dan Eropa. Seperti halnya produk-produk IBM, kami juga akan mempertahankan merek Motorola selain tetap mengembangkan smartphone merek Lenovo," ujar Country General Manager Lenovo Indonesia Rajesh thadani.

Menurut dia, saat ini pihaknya dan Motorola tengah dalam masa transmisi dan konsolidasi bisnis, sehingga belum dapat diketahui rencana Lenovo ke depan terhadap Motorola.

Namun, kata Rajesh, akuisisi Motorola dan unit bisnis server x86 IBM makin melengkapi portofolio Lenovo dan sekaligus memperkuat bisnis smartphone, PC, dan tabletnya di level global.

Lenovo telah resmi mengakuisisi divisi ponsel Motorola dari Google Inc senilai USD 2,91 miliar. Angka ini juga merupakan nilai akuisisi terbesar di industri teknologi di China.

Dikutip dari GSMArena, sebagai bagian dari akuisisi tersebut, Google juga akan mempertahankan sebagian besar portofolio paten Motorola seperti current applications dan invention disclosures. Lenovo sendiri juga akan mengakuisisi sekitar 2 ribu paten disamping merek Motorola Mobility dan merek dagang Motorola.

From sea to shining sea, or at least from one side of the Hudson to the other, politicians you have barely heard of are being accused of wrongdoing. There were so many court proceedings involving public officials on Monday that it was hard to keep up.

In Newark, two underlings of Gov. Chris Christie were arraigned on charges that they were in on the truly deranged plot to block traffic leading onto the George Washington Bridge.

Ten miles away, in Lower Manhattan, Dean G. Skelos, the leader of the New York State Senate, and his son, Adam B. Skelos, were arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on accusations of far more conventional political larceny, involving a job with a sewer company for the son and commissions on title insurance and bond work.

The younger man managed to receive a 150 percent pay increase from the sewer company even though, as he said on tape, he “literally knew nothing about water or, you know, any of that stuff,” according to a criminal complaint the United States attorney’s office filed.

The success of Adam Skelos, 32, was attributed by prosecutors to his father’s influence as the leader of the Senate and as a potentate among state Republicans. The indictment can also be read as one of those unfailingly sad tales of a father who cannot stop indulging a grown son. The senator himself is not alleged to have profited from the schemes, except by being relieved of the burden of underwriting Adam.

The bridge traffic caper is its own species of crazy; what distinguishes the charges against the two Skeloses is the apparent absence of a survival instinct. It is one thing not to know anything about water or that stuff. More remarkable, if true, is the fact that the sewer machinations continued even after the former New York Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, was charged in January with taking bribes disguised as fees.

It was by then common gossip in political and news media circles that Senator Skelos, a Republican, the counterpart in the Senate to Mr. Silver, a Democrat, in the Assembly, could be next in line for the criminal dock. “Stay tuned,” the United States attorney, Preet Bharara said, leaving not much to the imagination.

Even though the cat had been unmistakably belled, Skelos father and son continued to talk about how to advance the interests of the sewer company, though the son did begin to use a burner cellphone, the kind people pay for in cash, with no traceable contracts.

That was indeed prudent, as prosecutors had been wiretapping the cellphones of both men. But it would seem that the burner was of limited value, because by then the prosecutors had managed to secure the help of a business executive who agreed to record calls with the Skeloses. It would further seem that the business executive was more attentive to the perils of pending investigations than the politician.

Through the end of the New York State budget negotiations in March, the hopes of the younger Skelos rested on his father’s ability to devise legislation that would benefit the sewer company. That did not pan out. But Senator Skelos did boast that he had haggled with Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, in a successful effort to raise a $150 million allocation for Long Island to $550 million, for what the budget called “transformative economic development projects.” It included money for the kind of work done by the sewer company.

The lawyer for Adam Skelos said he was not guilty and would win in court. Senator Skelos issued a ringing declaration that he was unequivocally innocent.

THIS was also the approach taken in New Jersey by Bill Baroni, a man of great presence and eloquence who stopped outside the federal courthouse to note that he had taken risks as a Republican by bucking his party to support paid family leave, medical marijuana and marriage equality. “I would never risk my career, my job, my reputation for something like this,” Mr. Baroni said. “I am an innocent man.”

The lawyer for his co-defendant, Bridget Anne Kelly, the former deputy chief of staff to Mr. Christie, a Republican, said that she would strongly rebut the charges.

Perhaps they had nothing to do with the lane closings. But neither Mr. Baroni nor Ms. Kelly addressed the question of why they did not return repeated calls from the mayor of Fort Lee, N.J., begging them to stop the traffic tie-ups, over three days.

That silence was a low moment. But perhaps New York hit bottom faster. Senator Skelos, the prosecutors charged, arranged to meet Long Island politicians at the wake of Wenjian Liu, a New York City police officer shot dead in December, to press for payments to the company employing his son.

Sometimes it seems as though for some people, the only thing to be ashamed of is shame itself.

WASHINGTON — A decade after emergency trailers meant to shelter Hurricane Katrina victims instead caused burning eyes, sore throats and other more serious ailments, the Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of regulating the culprit: formaldehyde, a chemical that can be found in commonplace things like clothes and furniture.

But an unusual assortment of players, including furniture makers, the Chinese government, Republicans from states with a large base of furniture manufacturing and even some Democrats who championed early regulatory efforts, have questioned the E.P.A. proposal. The sustained opposition has held sway, as the agency is now preparing to ease key testing requirements before it releases the landmark federal health standard.

The E.P.A.’s five-year effort to adopt this rule offers another example of how industry opposition can delay and hamper attempts by the federal government to issue regulations, even to control substances known to be harmful to human health.

Continue reading the main story
 

Document: The Formaldehyde Fight

Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen that can also cause respiratory ailments like asthma, but the potential of long-term exposure to cause cancers like myeloid leukemia is less well understood.

The E.P.A.’s decision would be the first time that the federal government has regulated formaldehyde inside most American homes.

“The stakes are high for public health,” said Tom Neltner, senior adviser for regulatory affairs at the National Center for Healthy Housing, who has closely monitored the debate over the rules. “What we can’t have here is an outcome that fails to confront the health threat we all know exists.”

The proposal would not ban formaldehyde — commonly used as an ingredient in wood glue in furniture and flooring — but it would impose rules that prevent dangerous levels of the chemical’s vapors from those products, and would set testing standards to ensure that products sold in the United States comply with those limits. The debate has sharpened in the face of growing concern about the safety of formaldehyde-treated flooring imported from Asia, especially China.

What is certain is that a lot of money is at stake: American companies sell billions of dollars’ worth of wood products each year that contain formaldehyde, and some argue that the proposed regulation would impose unfair costs and restrictions.

Determined to block the agency’s rule as proposed, these industry players have turned to the White House, members of Congress and top E.P.A. officials, pressing them to roll back the testing requirements in particular, calling them redundant and too expensive.

“There are potentially over a million manufacturing jobs that will be impacted if the proposed rule is finalized without changes,” wrote Bill Perdue, the chief lobbyist at the American Home Furnishings Alliance, a leading critic of the testing requirements in the proposed regulation, in one letter to the E.P.A.

Industry opposition helped create an odd alignment of forces working to thwart the rule. The White House moved to strike out key aspects of the proposal. Subsequent appeals for more changes were voiced by players as varied as Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, and Senator Roger Wicker, Republican of Mississippi, as well as furniture industry lobbyists.

Hurricane Katrina in 2005 helped ignite the public debate over formaldehyde, after the deadly storm destroyed or damaged hundreds of thousands of homes along the Gulf of Mexico, forcing families into temporary trailers provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The displaced storm victims quickly began reporting respiratory problems, burning eyes and other issues, and tests then confirmed high levels of formaldehyde fumes leaking into the air inside the trailers, which in many cases had been hastily constructed.

Public health advocates petitioned the E.P.A. to issue limits on formaldehyde in building materials and furniture used in homes, given that limits already existed for exposure in workplaces. But three years after the storm, only California had issued such limits.

Industry groups like the American Chemistry Council have repeatedly challenged the science linking formaldehyde to cancer, a position championed by David Vitter, the Republican senator from Louisiana, who is a major recipient of chemical industry campaign contributions, and whom environmental groups have mockingly nicknamed “Senator Formaldehyde.”

Continue reading the main story

Formaldehyde in Laminate Flooring

In laminate flooring, formaldehyde is used as a bonding agent in the fiberboard (or other composite wood) core layer and may also be used in glues that bind layers together. Concerns were raised in March when certain laminate flooring imported from China was reported to contain levels of formaldehyde far exceeding the limit permitted by California.

Typical

laminate

flooring

CLEAR FINISH LAYER

Often made of melamine resin

PATTERN LAYER

Paper printed to resemble wood,

or a thin wood veneer

GLUE

Layers may be bound using

formaldehyde-based glues

CORE LAYER

Fiberboard or other

composite, formed using

formaldehyde-based adhesives

BASE LAYER

Moisture-resistant vapor barrier

What is formaldehyde?

Formaldehyde is a common chemical used in many industrial and household products as an adhesive, bonding agent or preservative. It is classified as a volatile organic compound. The term volatile means that, at room temperature, formaldehyde will vaporize, or become a gas. Products made with formaldehyde tend to release this gas into the air. If breathed in large quantities, it may cause health problems.

WHERE IT IS COMMONLY FOUND

POTENTIAL HEALTH RISKS

Pressed-wood and composite wood products

Wallpaper and paints

Spray foam insulation used in construction

Commercial wood floor finishes

Crease-resistant fabrics

In cigarette smoke, or in the fumes from combustion of other materials, including wood, oil and gasoline.

Exposure to formaldehyde in sufficient amounts may cause eye, throat or skin irritation, allergic reactions, and respiratory problems like coughing, wheezing or asthma.

Long-term exposure to high levels has been associated with cancer in humans and laboratory animals.

Exposure to formaldehyde may affect some people more severely than others.

By 2010, public health advocates and some industry groups secured bipartisan support in Congress for legislation that ordered the E.P.A. to issue federal rules that largely mirrored California’s restrictions. At the time, concerns were rising over the growing number of lower-priced furniture imports from Asia that might include contaminated products, while also hurting sales of American-made products.

Maneuvering began almost immediately after the E.P.A. prepared draft rules to formally enact the new standards.

White House records show at least five meetings in mid-2012 with industry executives — kitchen cabinet makers, chemical manufacturers, furniture trade associations and their lobbyists, like Brock R. Landry, of the Venable law firm. These parties, along with Senator Vitter’s office, appealed to top administration officials, asking them to intervene to roll back the E.P.A. proposal.

The White House Office of Management and Budget, which reviews major federal regulations before they are adopted, apparently agreed. After the White House review, the E.P.A. “redlined” many of the estimates of the monetary benefits that would be gained by reductions in related health ailments, like asthma and fertility issues, documents reviewed by The New York Times show.

As a result, the estimated benefit of the proposed rule dropped to $48 million a year, from as much as $278 million a year. The much-reduced amount deeply weakened the agency’s justification for the sometimes costly new testing that would be required under the new rules, a federal official involved in the effort said.

“It’s a redlining blood bath,” said Lisa Heinzerling, a Georgetown University Law School professor and a former E.P.A. official, using the Washington phrase to describe when language is stricken from a proposed rule. “Almost the entire discussion of these potential benefits was excised.”

Senator Vitter’s staff was pleased.

“That’s a huge difference,” said Luke Bolar, a spokesman for Mr. Vitter, of the reduced estimated financial benefits, saying the change was “clearly highlighting more mismanagement” at the E.P.A.

Advertisement

The review’s outcome galvanized opponents in the furniture industry. They then targeted a provision that mandated new testing of laminated wood, a cheaper alternative to hardwood. (The California standard on which the law was based did not require such testing.)

But E.P.A. scientists had concluded that these laminate products — millions of which are sold annually in the United States — posed a particular risk. They said that when thin layers of wood, also known as laminate or veneer, are added to furniture or flooring in the final stages of manufacturing, the resulting product can generate dangerous levels of fumes from often-used formaldehyde-based glues.

Industry executives, outraged by what they considered an unnecessary and financially burdensome level of testing, turned every lever within reach to get the requirement removed. It would be particularly onerous, they argued, for small manufacturers that would have to repeatedly interrupt their work to do expensive new testing. The E.P.A. estimated that the expanded requirements for laminate products would cost the furniture industry tens of millions of dollars annually, while the industry said that the proposed rule over all would cost its 7,000 American manufacturing facilities over $200 million each year.

“A lot of people don’t seem to appreciate what a lot of these requirements do to a small operation,” said Dick Titus, executive vice president of the Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association, whose members are predominantly small businesses. “A 10-person shop, for example, just really isn’t equipped to handle that type of thing.”

Photo
 
Becky Gillette wants strong regulation of formaldehyde. Credit Beth Hall for The New York Times

Big industry players also weighed in. Executives from companies including La-Z-Boy, Hooker Furniture and Ashley Furniture all flew to Washington for a series of meetings with the offices of lawmakers including House Speaker John Boehner, Republican of Ohio, and about a dozen other lawmakers, asking several of them to sign a letter prepared by the industry to press the E.P.A. to back down, according to an industry report describing the lobbying visit.

Within a matter of weeks, two letters — using nearly identical language — were sent by House and Senate lawmakers to the E.P.A. — with the industry group forwarding copies of the letters to the agency as well, and then posting them on its website.

The industry lobbyists also held their own meeting at E.P.A. headquarters, and they urged Jim Jones, who oversaw the rule-making process as the assistant administrator for the agency’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, to visit a North Carolina furniture manufacturing plant. According to the trade group, Mr. Jones told them that the visit had “helped the agency shift its thinking” about the rules and how laminated products should be treated.

The resistance was particularly intense from lawmakers like Mr. Wicker of Mississippi, whose state is home to major manufacturing plants owned by Ashley Furniture Industries, the world’s largest furniture maker, and who is one of the biggest recipients in Congress of donations from the industry’s trade association. Asked if the political support played a role, a spokesman for Mr. Wicker replied: “Thousands of Mississippians depend on the furniture manufacturing industry for their livelihoods. Senator Wicker is committed to defending all Mississippians from government overreach.”

Individual companies like Ikea also intervened, as did the Chinese government, which claimed that the new rule would create a “great barrier” to the import of Chinese products because of higher costs.

Perhaps the most surprising objection came from Senator Boxer, of California, a longtime environmental advocate, whose office questioned why the E.P.A.’s rule went further than her home state’s in seeking testing on laminated products. “We did not advocate an outcome, other than safety,” her office said in a statement about why the senator raised concerns. “We said ‘Take a look to see if you have it right.’ ”

Safety advocates say that tighter restrictions — like the ones Ms. Boxer and Mr. Wicker, along with Representative Doris Matsui, a California Democrat, have questioned — are necessary, particularly for products coming from China, where items as varied as toys and Christmas lights have been found to violate American safety standards.

While Mr. Neltner, the environmental advocate who has been most involved in the review process, has been open to compromise, he has pressed the E.P.A. not to back down entirely, and to maintain a requirement that laminators verify that their products are safe.

An episode of CBS’s “60 Minutes” in March brought attention to the issue when it accused Lumber Liquidators, the discount flooring retailer, of selling laminate products with dangerous levels of formaldehyde. The company has disputed the show’s findings and test methods, maintaining that its products are safe.

“People think that just because Congress passed the legislation five years ago, the problem has been fixed,” said Becky Gillette, who then lived in coastal Mississippi, in the area hit by Hurricane Katrina, and was among the first to notice a pattern of complaints from people living in the trailers. “Real people’s faces and names come up in front of me when I think of the thousands of people who could get sick if this rule is not done right.”

An aide to Ms. Matsui rejected any suggestion that she was bending to industry pressure.

“From the beginning the public health has been our No. 1 concern,” said Kyle J. Victor, an aide to Ms. Matsui.

But further changes to the rule are likely, agency officials concede, as they say they are searching for a way to reduce the cost of complying with any final rule while maintaining public health goals. The question is just how radically the agency will revamp the testing requirement for laminated products — if it keeps it at all.

“It’s not a secret to anybody that is the most challenging issue,” said Mr. Jones, the E.P.A. official overseeing the process, adding that the health consequences from formaldehyde are real. “We have to reduce those exposures so that people can live healthy lives and not have to worry about being in their homes.”

Artikel lainnya »