Tag: 娱乐地图NO

The Ortiz del Tacon twins, pioneers of women’s football

first_imgMalena and Samara began their career as footballers at the Rayo Vallecano academy, a quarry where they played from 7 to 15 years old, then went through the Canillas (2013-16), club in which they coincided as players with Ana Rosell, the president of Tacon, the club that both arrived in 2016 with the dream of debuting one day in Primera. They did it this summer, after a round season in Second. Already in First, they have followed different paths. Malena is the captain of the team and one of those who has added the most minutes with the white elastic. Great merit for the footballer, who disputes her position with two renowned veterans such as Kaci and Thaisa, both with titles and participations in the best women’s competitions. For his part, An injury has crossed in the way of Samara, who underwent surgery in January after a fracture of the middle third of the right clavicle and already seems to be in good condition again. Samara and Malena Ortiz Cruz (Madrid, 1997) this season they joined a great list of sisters who have gone through the First Iberdrola. From the Unzué sisters, through the Del Estal to the Ramos, another pair of sisters, and also rivals (one plays in Granadilla and the other in Seville) in the highest category of Spanish women’s football. Now, the Ortiz also write their case in the history of the competition and they do it for Tacon, future Real Madrid Femenino. Both, Malena and Samara have left us a great advance in the equality of treatment between men’s and women’s football.The two sisters are one of the first to use high-tech sports equipment, such as Rhinob ProSocks socks for your personal training and post-match recovery. These compression stockings aim to prevent injury, facilitate recovery from muscle ailments, and improve performance during games and workouts. By increasing the oxygenation of the legs, the feeling of fatigue is less. The risk of injury is also reduced by 29% because the appearance of lactic acid is delayed. Its use shortens the recovery times of any muscular ailment by 13%. “The muscle suffers less and you feel lighter. It is as if you put one more gear into your body “Malena explains.last_img read more

US chemical regulation reform gets boost as House passes TSCA rewrite

first_imgRequire that chemical rules protect “vulnerable subpopulations” such as pregnant women and infants; Make it tougher for companies to shield chemical data from the public.The Senate’s measure, S. 697, is far more expansive than the House’s; lawmakers said that narrower approach was the result of the need to write a bill that could survive the House’s political polarization. “While no one group gets all they might have hoped for in this legislation, every stakeholder group gets something that they need,” said Representative Frank Pallone (D–NJ), top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The bill represents a strong compromise, he said.Differences in House and Senate billsOne key difference is that the House bill would leave intact the current system for screening new chemicals: Unless EPA can prove they’re unsafe within a 90-day review period, new substances can generally go on the market by default. The Senate bill, by contrast, would generally bar new chemicals from entering the market until EPA signed off on their safety.Other provisions that the Senate bill includes, but the House bill does not, would:Direct EPA to sort chemicals into high- and low-priority categories;Require the agency and companies consider using nonanimal forms of toxicity testing when possible; andSet up a federal green chemistry research and development program.The Senate bill also includes a provision setting up a new committee of scientists to advise EPA on chemical safety. (Though EPA has since announced that it would create a similar panel.)The Senate’s bill also would more aggressively preempt state regulation than does the House bill. While both measures aim keep current state chemical regulations on the books, the Senate bill would generally bar states from issuing new rules for a chemical if EPA were to classify it as a “high priority.” That provision has angered environmentalists and liberal Democrats, who say that the states would serve as a valuable backstop and potentially flag additional toxic substances that don’t make it onto EPA’s radar. That provision is among the reasons why some environmentalists say the House bill is the lesser offender of the two competing proposals.These differences are among those that lawmakers in both chambers would have to resolve to send a TSCA reform bill to President Barack Obama for signing. Shimkus said he hoped the momentum generated by the House vote would continue into negotiations. “We want to make sure we have a strong House position as we go into negotiations with the Senate,” Shimkus said. “I think we’re going to have that.”Senator Barbara Boxer (D–CA), the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee and a leading critic of the Senate bill, welcomed the House’s action. “While the House bill could still be improved,” she said in a statement, “I feel it is the appropriate bill to take up in the United States Senate where we can work on just a few amendments to make it better.  The Senate bill is far more complex.  Its preemption provision is complicated and will lead to the court house.”Lawmakers have expressed hope that they can finish TSCA reform this year. Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Email Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Give EPA more power to order new chemical safety data; and The U.S. House of Representatives Tuesday evening overwhelmingly approved a bipartisan bill that would update the nation’s industrial-chemicals regulations for the first time in nearly 40 years. The bill—which would make it easier for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to request new safety data on chemicals and regulate chemicals already on the market—takes a narrower approach than a competing bill in the Senate. But it brings Congress another step closer to making long-sought reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) a reality.The 398 to 1 vote came just weeks after the bill, H.R. 2576,  sailed through a key House committee with unanimous bipartisan support. A Senate panel last month also advanced a far more expansive (but also more contentious) compromise measure of its own. The two actions mark what is arguably the furthest lawmakers have ever come in efforts to overhaul what they agree is a broken law, which they say has analytical and legal hurdles that have often prevented EPA from cracking down on harmful substances.The House measure, sponsored by Representative John Shimkus (R–IL), who chairs a key subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, resulted from negotiations that go back to the previous Congress. After previous measures that sought to update TSCA more comprehensively failed to gain support, lawmakers opted for a smaller bill to make it easier to gain broad support among industry’s allies and environmental advocates in Congress. “The bill does not try to be all things for all people,” Shimkus said on the House floor on 23 June. “Of course we want to be protected from harm. But we do not want needless expensive regulation.” Critics of the bill were swift to react. “We commend the House for its focus on the need to overhaul chemical policy, but this piece of legislation will not do the job,” said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., in a statement. “It tips much too far in favor of an industry in serious need of regulation.”The Senate and House measures—which enjoy chemicals industry backing but generally face opposition from environmental and public-health activists—have similar core provisions that seek to make it easier for EPA to evaluate and regulate industrial chemicals. For example, EPA is currently required to consider costs when assessing a chemical’s safety and choose the “least burdensome” way to regulate it. The bills would do away with these provisions, requiring EPA’s chemical safety assessments to be based on scientific evidence alone and reducing the role of cost in determining the stringency of a regulation.Both bills also:Strive to make a more nationally uniform regulatory system, a key wish of the chemicals industry;last_img read more