Chinese County Bans Birthday Parties in ‘Frugality Drive’

Gabrielle Reyes12 May 2021

 

A county government in southwestern China banned residents from holding birthday parties and other celebrations starting this month as part of a frugality campaign by China’s ruling Communist Party.  The government of Funing county in Yunnan province issued a notice last week announcing that birthday parties, housewarmings, university admission, and graduation celebrations “would all be banned from this month,” the South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported on May 12.

The decree also set forth new restrictions on weddings and funerals, “including a ban on cash gifts above 200 yuan (US$31) and ordering that funerals be held within three days of death,” according to the report.  “The directive applies to all communist party members, civil servants and leaders of village organisations,” according to the SCMP.............To Read More.....

My Take - This must be a mistake. China's supposedly doing so well, and trade is skyrocketing.  Right?  So, this must be a misprint.  Right?  Or maybe China's really not doing that well after all?

But, how can that be?  They're a centrally controlled economy, and we know that should work to the best of everyone, after all, we have that for no lesser authorities than Bernie and OAC.  Right?  

Then again, can anyone name a nation that's been successful with central economic planning as the foundation for their economic health?  The mistake we made over the decades was preventing them from taking over the surrounding countries.  Just think how fast they would have collapsed then, unless of course another Nixon came around and bailed them out.

 

Top 10 Things Liberals Will Try To Ban Within The Next Decade

Kurt Schlichter | Jan 10, 2019

Liberals are all about freedom…their freedom to tell us Normal Americans what to think, how to feel, and what to do. And the highest form of liberalism is the ban, a bar to an activity, institution, or attitude that they wish to suppress either to enhance their own power or just for the sheer joy of telling people like us – who they hate – what to do. Often, it’s both.

The following ten targets for prohibition may seem wacky now, but give the left time. “Really?” you might ask. But then, a decade ago everyone knew which bathroom to use, yet here we are. In my three novels about what America would look like if it split into red and blue halves, I tried to invent the craziest aspirations of libs gone wild. And my predictions keep coming true. Mark my words, it’s just a matter of time before they really do resurrect J. Edgar Hoover as an icon of non-binary gender identity.

The following bans are going to happen, as nutty as they may sound. Maybe not tomorrow, and maybe not completely at first, but they will. They can’t not happen, because the fascist imperative of leftism is control, control over every aspect of normal peoples‘ lives.

10. Pets ……
9. All-Male Sports…..
8. Accurate Pronouns……..
7. Fossil Fuel Cars……..
6. Hunting…….
5. Private Doctors……..
4. Guns……. 3. Religion……
2. Free Speech………
1. Conservatives….

Prohibit an entire ideology? The left would never do that, except they are totally trying to do it. Political tests already exist in academia, Hollywood and the mainstream media – and conservatives fail. Their goal is to eventually drive conservatives out of all non-political positions of power, with driving them out of political power to follow, ably assisted by the cowardly Fredocon contingent of gimpcon fellow travelers like Mitt Romney. But in the meantime, their pals in Silicon Valley are already hard at work slowly eliminating conservative voices from the web. Whether its Google suppressing searched, Facebook helping the Dems, or Twitter banishing dissenters, their goal is clear. It’s to totally eliminate conservative opposition to the liberal elite ..............To Read More........        

EPA to Ban Methylene Chloride in Paint Strippers: Science or Scaremongering?

By ACSH Staff — May 18, 2018 @ American Council on Science and Heatlh

The United States Environmental Protection Agency has moved to place a ban on methylene chloride (dichloromethane, DCM) citing associations to a higher risk of cancer and neurological and liver problems. This was proposed in 2014 and under the Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA was required to perform risk evaluations on the uses of ten specific chemicals, including methylene chloride.

 

With a new administration and concern about "secret science" and "sue and settle" efforts at EPA in the past, it was unclear if EPA would want to revisit the risk assessments of this volatile organic compound. They have accepted the findings from 2017 and will prohibit consumer and commercial paint stripping uses of it.

Why it is a concern.

DCM is the paint stripper of choice and that is why it's so popular. It works very well. But it is volatile (has a low boiling point) so fumes are inevitable. Inhaling the fumes can be harmful and it is also absorbed through the skin. It can be detected at very low concentrations by its sweet smell but smelling it doesn't speak to whether a dangerous exposure has taken place. As with all chemicals, it's the exposure that determines the harm, even though OSHA maintains that once you can smell it you are already overexposed (2).In high concentrations, it can be deadly. In a high-profile 2012 case, a worker using a methylene chloride product to refinish a bathtub died in an unventilated bathroom.
In industrial settings, there is much less risk because workers wear full-face respirators like in the image, and that is why the ban will only be for commercial and residential paint stripping products.

1. Why not create a new standard instead of banning it? 

There is no way to significantly reduce exposure to methylene chloride if it is being used to strip paint, especially in a non-industrial setting, such as homes. It takes a lot to do the job completely, and it is so volatile that it is impossible not to inhale some unless you are using a commercial full-face respirator, something that do-it-your-selfers are unlikely to do.

When a chemical is banned finding an alternative can be challenging. The Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA) argues that current replacements are less effective, may be as toxic, and some are flammable (1).

2. Is the ban an example of EPA overreach?

"Methylene chloride is arguably the most dangerous of all the solvents sold at Home Depot," said Dr. Josh Bloom, Senior Director of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. "Chemists use it all of the time, but we do so in fume hoods. Some argue it's not necessary to ban it, but this is not a knee-jerk chemophobic response by EPA. There is real risk here." (3)

It is used in for other applications, like adhesives, pharmaceuticals, and aerosols, but only paint strippers have any risk.

Given the assessments done, this is an instance where EPA concern is warranted.

NOTE:

(1) Halogenated hydrocarbons, such as methylene chloride and chloroform are not flammable. Another, carbon tetrachloride is actually used in fire extinguishers.

(2) The OSHA position is more regulatory than scientific. One drop of DCM in a room will probably be detected by smell but will cause no harm to anyone. A comparison of this to workers exposed to high concentrations of the chemical, especially in poorly ventilated areas, is meaningless.

(3) Methylene chloride may be toxic to humans, but it is even more so to paint, which comes sloughing off as soon as the solvent is applied. Nothing works better. The question is what will be used to replace it. Dr. Bloom says "There is nothing strips paint better than methylene chloride. Since all halogenated solvents (like chloroform) are just as toxic, or worse, it will be interesting to see what the substitute will be. My best guess a mixture of toluene and acetone, but it won't work as well and toluene has its own toxicity issues."

 

Were ‘activist scientists’ behind European Union neonicotinoids ban?

Henry Miller | February 10, 2017 | Forbes

Editor’s note: Henry Miller is a physician and molecular biologist who was the founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology.] 

[A] case of undisclosed activist conflict of interest was unearthed at the end of January [2017] by investigator David Zaruk in Brussels. The case involves Gérard Arnold–a member of the scientific panel at the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA)–who helped draw up EFSA’s

“Bee Guidance Document,” while concealing his ongoing leadership role in Apimondia, an anti-pesticide global federation of beekeepers’ organizations.

According to Zaruk’s investigation, Arnold was found to be serving as the “coordinator” of the anti-pesticide Apimondia working group on “Adverse Effects of Agrochemicals and Bee Medicines on Bees” (designated “AWG 9,” which Arnold apparently founded in 2010) during the 2011-2013 period while he was working with EFSA on the Bee Guidance Document. In spite of being required by EFSA’s rules to disclose such a relationship, Arnold failed to do so.

[The Bee Guidance Document] provided a foundation for the European Commission’s 2013 decision to impose a supposedly “temporary” ban on neonic pesticides…...To Read More...  

Soda Industry Sues to Stop a Sales Ban on Big Drinks

By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM
Published: October 12, 2012

New York’s battle over big sodas is heading to the courtroom.   The American soft-drink industry, joined by several New York restaurant and business groups, filed a lawsuit on Friday that aims to overturn restrictions, proposed by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and approved by the Board of Health, on sales of large sugary drinks at many dining locations in the city.  The suit, filed in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, contends that the Board of Health did not have the authority to ratify the new rules unilaterally. The rules — approved last month and scheduled to take effect in March — limit the size of sugary drinks to 16 ounces or less at restaurants, street carts, and entertainment and sports venues...  To Read More.....

For a glimpse into reality......

Sugary soda consumption has declined, but obesity has not

 October 12, 2012

As New Yorkers prepare for the ban on the sale of some sugary sweetened beverages exceeding 16 ounces that will go into effect in March, a new study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds that in the last decade, consumption of calories from sugar in regular soda has actually decreased. 

This is from the American Council on Science and Health….to read more…..