Biaya Umroh Tout Desember 2015 di Jakarta Pusat Hubungi 021-9929-2337 atau 0821-2406-5740 Alhijaz Indowisata adalah perusahaan swasta nasional yang bergerak di bidang tour dan travel. Nama Alhijaz terinspirasi dari istilah dua kota suci bagi umat islam pada zaman nabi Muhammad saw. yaitu Makkah dan Madinah. Dua kota yang penuh berkah sehingga diharapkan menular dalam kinerja perusahaan. Sedangkan Indowisata merupakan akronim dari kata indo yang berarti negara Indonesia dan wisata yang menjadi fokus usaha bisnis kami.

Biaya Umroh Tout Desember 2015 di Jakarta Pusat Alhijaz Indowisata didirikan oleh Bapak H. Abdullah Djakfar Muksen pada tahun 2010. Merangkak dari kecil namun pasti, alhijaz berkembang pesat dari mulai penjualan tiket maskapai penerbangan domestik dan luar negeri, tour domestik hingga mengembangkan ke layanan jasa umrah dan haji khusus. Tak hanya itu, pada tahun 2011 Alhijaz kembali membuka divisi baru yaitu provider visa umrah yang bekerja sama dengan muassasah arab saudi. Sebagai komitmen legalitas perusahaan dalam melayani pelanggan dan jamaah secara aman dan profesional, saat ini perusahaan telah mengantongi izin resmi dari pemerintah melalui kementrian pariwisata, lalu izin haji khusus dan umrah dari kementrian agama. Selain itu perusahaan juga tergabung dalam komunitas organisasi travel nasional seperti Asita, komunitas penyelenggara umrah dan haji khusus yaitu HIMPUH dan organisasi internasional yaitu IATA. Biaya Umroh Tout Desember 2015 di Jakarta Pusat

Pada kesempatan kali ini kami akan memberikan kupasan tuntas mengenai bahan yang dipakai untuk pembuatan Jaket Kulit hati-hati bagi para pembeli jangan sampai tidak mengetahui mana jaket kulit Domba Asli dengan jaket Kulit dengan bahan bukan domba Asli Garut

Di zaman modern saat ini apasih yang tidak bisa ditiru, kemajuan teknologi telah membuat orang semakin berfikir untuk dapat menjiplak sebuah produk seperti layaknya produk asli . salah satu contoh apa sih bedanya Jaket Kulit

Domba Jaket Kulit Sapi Jaket Kulit dan Kambing Kalu orang awam mungkin 80 % tidak mengetahui mana Produk asli Jaket Kulit Domba dan Produk Palsu , maka jangan heran kalau ada orang yang menawarkan jaket kulit dengan harga 300 ribu sampai 350 ribu , Aslikah ? atau palsu ?

Mungkin bisa asli dari kulit, tetapi dengan bahan bukan dari bahan baku Domba ( Jaket kulit dari bahan baku kulit domba merupakan Produk unggulan dan No.1 dikelasnya )Mungkin Palsu ? bisa jadi kulit yang anda beli jaket kulit Imitasi , untukitu silahkan untuk melakukan uji Coba keasliannya dengan cara

memberikan api kecil kepermukaan jaket anda , tapi jangan pakai api yang ada dikompor gas .Kalau ternyata jaket tahan api berarti jaket tersebut asli dari bahan Kulit . Ups tapi nanti dulu bahannya dari kulit apa dulu kok bisa murah sih ?

Untuk pertanyaan itu akan kami jelaskan sebagai berikut :
1. Jaket Kulit Domba dengan ciri-ciri sebagai berikut
a) Wana terang
b) Lentur
c) Apabila jaket dipakai tidak membuat anda kaku ( terasa nyaman )
d) Pori-pori kecil seperti halnya pori-pori kita ( untuk mengeceknya
   silahkan tarik jaket kulit anda dengan 2 tangan ) pasti pori-porinya kecil kan ….!!!!
e)Tidak berbau
f) Bila sudah menjadi Jaket kulit , jaketnya biasanya tidak banyak sambungan , karena Domba Garut mempunyai ukuran yang besar dibanding dengan kambing .
g) Cocok sekali dibuat Jas kulit

2.Jaket Kulit Kambing dengan ciri-ciri sebagai berikut
a) Warna agak Kusam
b) Kurang Lentur
c) Pori-pori agak besar Pori-pori ( untuk mengeceknya silahkan tarik jaket kulit anda denga  2 tangan ) pasti pori-porinya kelihatan besar dan bandingkan dengan pori-pori jaket kulit Asli
d) Berbau Kambing
e) Bila sudah menjadi jaket biasanya model dan potongannya banyak jahitan , ini dikarenakan bahan Jkaet kulit kambing tidak ada yang besar , beda dengan Kulit Domba yang Super Besar

3.Jaket Kulit Sapi dengan ciri-ciri sebagai berikut
   Warna Agak Kusam Kaku Pori pori kelihatan besar dan biasanya ada garis memnajang ( untuk mengeceknya silahkan tarik jaket kulit anda denga 2 tangan )pasti pori-porinya kelihatan besar ada bergaris bandingkan dengan pori-pori jaket kulit Asli Jaket kulit sapi banyak diminati oleh motoris

Perbedaan Jaket Kulit Domba Dan Jaket Kulit Sapi

Bagi anda para pembeli jaket kulit kami telah menganjurkan anda untuk dapat berhati-hati dalam membeli jaket kulit yang anda inginkan, jangan sampai anda tidak mengetahui mana jaket kulit berbahan dasar Domba Asli dengan jaket Kulit bahan bukan domba Asli Garut. Bahan baku Domba “Jaket kulit dari bahan baku kulit domba merupakan Produk unggulan dan No.1 dikelasnya”. Untuk itu dibawah ini ada beberapa cara untuk dapat membedakan mana jaket kulit berbahan dasar domba asli dan yang bukan.

    Jaket Kulit Domba

Jaket Kulit Domba Asli Garut telah memiliki ciri-ciri sebagai berikut “ Warna terang dan lentur, apabila jaket dipakai tidak membuat anda kaku (terasa nyaman). Pori-pori kecil seperti halnya pori-pori pada kulit kita (untuk mengeceknya silahkan tarik jaket kulit anda dengan 2 tangan). Jaket Kulit Domba tidak berbau bila sudah menjadi Jaket kulit dan jaketnya biasanya tidak banyak sambungan, karena Domba Garut telah mempunyai ukuran yang besar dibandingkan dengan kulit kambing. Kulit Domba juga sangat cocok sekali dibuat Jas kulit.

    Jaket Kulit Kambing

Memiliki warna agak Kusam dan Kurang Lentur. Pori-pori agak besar untuk mengeceknya silahkan tarik pasti pori-porinya kelihatan besar bila dibandingkan dengan pori-pori jaket kulit Asli. Jaket kulit yang satu ini, berbau Kambing bila sudah menjadi jaket dan biasanya dalam model maupun  potongannya banyak sekali jahitan, ini disebabkan bahan Jaket Kulit Kambing tidak ada yang besar. Hal ini tentu saja sangat berbeda dengan Kulit Domba yang mempunyai ukuran super besar.

    Jaket Kulit Sapi

Jaket Kulit Sapi ini telah memiliki warna agak kusam dan kaku. Pori pori kelihatan besar dan biasanya ada garis memanjang, untuk mengeceknya silahkan tarik jaket kulit anda dengan 2 tangan pasti pori-porinya kelihatan besar dan bergaris bila dibandingkan dengan pori-pori jaket kulit Asli. Lantas, bagaimana cara untuk membedakan jaket yang berasal dari kulit asli dan jaket kulit yang berasal dari imitasi? Sebenarnya banyak cara yang sangat sederhana untuk mengetahui apakah jaket yang dibeli berbahan kulit asli atau imitasi. Nah, berikut ini beberapa hal yang dapat diperhatikan ketika Anda akan membeli jaket kulit. Jaket kulit yang berasal dari kulit domba asli biasanya telah memiliki motif atau tekstur yang khas. Teksturnya eksotis dan elegan. Artinya, Anda tidak dapat menemukan tekstur yang sama pada jaket kulit yang lain.

Masing-masing kulit telah memiliki tekstur yang khas. Karena kekhasan kulit yang dijadikan bahan pembuatan jaket kulit, maka jaket kulit memang dibuat eksklusif. Dilihat dari daya tahan produk jaket kulit, Anda juga dapat mengetahui mana jaket kulit asli dan mana jaket kulit yang imitasi atau palsu.

Jaket kulitJaket kulit

Daya tahan jaket kulit asli sangatlah tinggi dibandingkan dengan daya tahan jaket kulit imitasi. Terkadang juga, harga 'nggak bohong'. Jaket kulit yang terbuat dari kulit asli, telah memiliki harga yang tinggi. Dari sini juga Anda dapat membedakan jenis-jenis kulit yang dipakai membuat jaket kulit.
Kulit domba yang digunakan untuk membuat jaket kulit terdiri dari beberapa tingkatan. Kualitas yang paling baik adalah kualitas kulit nomor satu (KW1) dari domba yang berasal dari Garut. Untuk itu, sebelum Anda membeli jaket kulit pastikan juga kualitas kulit yang digunakan sebagai bahan baku pembuatan jaket kulit tersebut.
Beberapa ciri lain yang dapat Anda perhatikan untuk dapat membedakan jaket kulit asli dan jaket kulit imitasi adalah sebagai berikut:
Ø Jaket kulit asli memiliki warna yang tidak pucat.
Ø Jaket kulit asli memiliki sifat yang lentur tidak seperti kulit imitasi yang tidak lentur.
Ø Jaket kulit asli bahan kulitnya lembut dan halus.
Ø Jika digunakan, jaket kulit asli tidak akan menyebabkan Anda kepanasan ketika digunakan pada siang hari, dan dapat menghangatkan Anda ketika cuaca sedang dingin
Ø Jaket kulit asli juga memiliki wangi yang khas dibandingkan dengan jaket kulit imitasi.

PERBEDAAN JAKET KULIT DOMBA JAKET KULIT SAPI JAKET KULIT DN KAMBING

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.”

The Uphill Battle to Better Regulate Formaldehyde

Artikel lainnya »