Az Internetto irta dec. 3-en a Nepszabadsagra hivatkozva. Ti hallotatok errol?

                                                                    Tepi

> (Nepszabadsag) Interaktiv kornyezeti nevelesi oktatocsomagot mutatott be
> a mult heten a Fuggetlen Okologiai Kozpont. A Ko:rnet cimu program a
> Balaton-felvideki Dorogdi-medence elo es elettelen termeszeti ertekeit
> bemutatva a nem vedett teruletek "cselekvo vedelmehez" nyujt modellt es
> modszertani utmutatot. A program az Interneten es floppyn is elerheto az
> iskolak szamara.

AND YOU THOUGHT YOU LIKED SHRIMP

What's worse?  Hearing that something you really like is harmful to your
health, socially shameful and environmentally unsupportable?  Or NOT hearing
that something you really like is harmful to your health, socially shameful and
environmentally unsupportable?

If you picked the first, stop reading now.

The world shrimp catch has tripled since 1970.  It's now 50% beyond what the UN
Food and Agriculture Organization figures is the long-term sustainable limit. 
In several countries shrimp fisheries are using more and more boats to bring in
the same quantity of shrimp.  These overextended fisheries continue only
because, like failing fisheries everywhere, they are subsidized by governments.

It would a boon to other fisheries to let shrimping collapse, because on
average for every pound of shrimp brought up in nets five pounds of other
creatures come up as "bycatch" and are thrown back dead.  The bycatch includes
bass, herring, crab, mullet, flounder and tuna, often juvenile, as well as
ancient, endangered sea turtles.  U.S. shrimpers are required to fix their nets
so turtles can get out, but that doesn't help the rest of the bycatch or the
turtles in the rest of the world.  Shrimp bycatch totals 19 million pounds a
year, 20% as much as the world's total commercial fish catch.

The worst damage from shrimping may come not from bycatch, bad as that is, but
from bottom trawling.  The trawlers drag huge weighted nets that scrape the
ocean floor like bulldozers.  The entire northern Gulf of Mexico and Sea of
Cortez are plowed over several time a year.  Bottom-dwelling communities are
stirred, pummeled, broken.  The effects on ocean food chains are not known, but
must be profound.

As the ocean fisheries decline, shrimp aquaculture is rising.  It now supplies
one-fourth of all shrimp consumed, half of all shrimp entering international
trade.
Shrimp farming has been practiced in a low-key way for a long time.  When
low-lying coastal land in the tropics gets inundated by storm surges or high
tides, farmers sometimes discover that their fields are full of shrimp.  Some
increase the bonanza by making small dams to hold back floodwater for awhile or
by pumping seawater in.

Modern shrimp farming takes that simple process and turns it into a watery
equivalent of modern chicken farming.  Intensive shrimp farms consist of
bulldozed, uniform ponds seeded with superdense populations of shrimp fed with
carefully formulated feed.

Like chickens but even more so, shrimp raised in close quarters get diseases. 
The ponds must be treated with antibiotics and disinfectants, also with
pesticides to eliminate predators and competitors.  Here is a partial list of
chemicals used in shrimp aquaculture: copper sulfate, sodium hypochlorite,
potassium cyanide, tobacco dust, malathion, aldrin, DDT, terramycin,
streptomycin, tetracycline.  These chemicals are released into nearby waters
when the ponds are flushed, and they can contaminate the shrimp.

In spite of the chemicals, shrimp aquaculture is so new that it doesn't work
very well.  No one has succeeded in breeding shrimp continuously; new spawn
must be brought in from the wild.  All the major shrimp-farming countries
(Thailand, Indonesia, China, Ecuador, India) have experienced widespread
epidemics in the ponds.  Growers harvest shrimp at less valuable smaller sizes,
to get them to market before they get sick.  (The big shrimp you see are
wild-caught.)  On average a shrimp pond lasts five years before it is too
contaminated to use.

Therefore the intensive shrimp farmers stay mobile, sweeping in with large
amounts of money, buying up and flooding farms and villages, extracting
breathtaking profits (40-50% per year return on investment) for a few years,
and moving on, leaving the local population with salty, barren land that can't
be used for shrimp, rice, or anything else.  (The farms are too recently
abandoned to know yet how long it will take them to recover.)

Unfortunately it's convenient to put shrimp ponds where mangroves grow. 
Mangroves, half-submerged coastal forests, teeming with life, are nurseries for
many kinds of sea creatures, including shrimp.  Thailand has lost at least
150,000 acres of mangroves to shrimp farming (and still more to coastal
development and charcoal burners).  Thai shrimp farms, which for the moment
export $2 billion worth of shrimp a year, have already moved from the north
central gulf to the east coast to the southeast coast, crashing each time from
disease and water pollution.  They are now moving to the Andaman coast, where
80% of Thailand's remaining mangroves are located.

I love shrimp, and I don't want to hear this stuff any more than you do.  But
before we groan and blame the bad-news environmentalists for ruining yet
another of life's pleasures, let's consider who is doing the ruining. 
Environmentalists are just trying to tell the story quickly enough and
emphatically enough to save the ocean ecosystems, including the shrimp.


The real culprits are the greedy shrimp fishers and farmers, right?  Or the
Japanese and Taiwanese investors who are raking off the huge profits?  Or the
corrupt governments that subsidize the industry and help big exporters take
away small peasants' coastal lands?  Or the Darden Restaurant chain, owner of
Red Lobster, which imports half the shrimp that comes into America?  Or the
happy, heedless folks who flock in for the cheap all-you-can-eat shrimp
special?  Or everyone in human history who has had more than two children and
helped to swell the population?

Blame is not a useful exercise, folks.  Seems to me what we need is worldwide
regulation of the shrimp industry, so it doesn't wipe itself out.

(I'm indebted to Jason Clay of the World Wildlife Fund for much of the research
summarized in this column.)

(Donella H. Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental studies at
Dartmouth College.)

Forditja valaki az aknakampany vezetojenek a Beke Nobel Dij atvetelekor 
mondott beszedet ? Netan mar meg is jelent valahol ?

Mert mi forditjuk es nem szeretnenk parhuzamos, folosleges munkat vegezni.

Mi rendszeresen forditunk, ezert altalaban javaslom, hogy amikor valaki 
belekezd egy forditasba, tegyen fel ide egy ilyen "Forditja valaki?" hirt.

(Rovid ismerteteseknel ez nyilvan nem olyan fontos, de a nagyobb
cikkeknel mar megerheti.)

Kulonosen ajanlom az ilyen kis ertesitest Dana Meadows cikkeinel, mert 
azok rendszeresen jonnek a Kornyesz-en es olyan jok, hogy bizonyara tobben 
is kedvet kapnak leforditani.

Nem lattam meg itt a hiret, ezert figyelmetekbe ajanlom

Kornyezetvedelem, Kornyezetgazdalkodas, Kornyezettudomany

kislexikon es angol-francia-nemet-spanyol-orosz-magyar szotar,

2700 cimszo. Szerzo-szerkeszto: Dr. Kerenyi Ervin.

1300 Ft + postakoltseg (kerheto kemenykotesben is, 300 Ft-tal tobb).

Megrendelheto a kiadonal:

Elpidia Kiado, 2120 Dunakeszi, Berzsenyi u. 5/c.
Tel/fax: 27-342900.

(Az Elpidia gorog szo, remenyt jelent.)

Ha valaki e-mailen szeretne megrendelni, kuldje a Bocs Alapitvany cimere
es majd tovabbitjuk:

Ezt a megdobbento informaciot szeretnem veletek megosztani. Az
igazsagtartalmaert nem vallalok semmi felelosseget.  Ha valaki tudna
hozzaadni adatokat vagy erveket, vagy tudna cafolni az ugy gondolom hasznos
lenne.

Urge Laci
___________________________________________________________
Hi,

WOULD YOU...

Wash your hair and brush your teeth with brake fluid, engine degreaser or
anti-freeze?

YOU PROBABLY ARE AND DON'T EVEN KNOW IT!!!

You and your family may be exposed to potential cancer causing agents every
time you enter the bathroom.

Potentially harmful ingredients are in everyday personal care products.

Have you ever read the labels on your deodorant, shaving cream, mouthwash
and toothpaste BOX??? Product warning labels are shown for a reason. It is
a fact that many manufacturers use certain harmful chemical ingredients
mainly because they're CHEAP and give the ILLUSION of working properly.
But residues of more than 400 toxic chemicals have been found in human
blood and fat tissue.  From 1950 to 1989, the overall incidence of cancer
in the U.S. has risen by 44% (smoking related incidences accounts for less
than 25% of the increase).  Childhood cancer is up 20%. Today, cancer is
the leading cause of death for women aged 35-74.  Baby Boomers have three
times the cancer rate of their grandparents.  In 1901 cancer was considered
a rare disease.  Statistics show that 1 out of 8000 persons had cancer.
Today, according to the American Cancer Society, 1 out of 3 people have
cancer.  By the year 2000, 1 out of 2 persons will be touched by cancer.

How much cancer, and other illnesses, are linked to chemical exposure?
Sometimes it depends on which "expert" you listen to but even OSHA admits
there are at least 880 neurotoxic (harmful to your nervous system)
chemicals used in personal care products, cosmetics, and perfumes.

DID YOU KNOW...
There is a proven significant trend towards the incidence of ALZHEIMER'S
disease among long term users of ALUMINUM based anti-perspirants?  But
almost all store brands use aluminum.

DID YOU KNOW...
That three of the most popular shaving creams combine two chemicals which
together form a likely cancer causing agent?  They're even listed right on
the label.  But how many people would know this? The manufacturers' are
betting "not many"  .
Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) and propylene glycol are two of the most common
ingredients found in many personal care products BUT...

DID YOU KNOW...
That the journal of the American College of Toxicology reports that (SLS)
is easily absorbed
into your skin and builds up in your heart, liver, lungs, and brain...even
if you wash it right off after using it!  The Medical College of Georgia
has done testing showing that SLS forms dangerous levels of cancer-causing
nitrosamines when combined with several other common ingredients found in
many personal care products.  Your skin is the largest breathing organ of
your body, and  many chemicals can be absorbed through it.  Nicotine and
medicine skin patches wouldn't work if the skin couldn't absorb.  Yet most
shampoos contain SLS.

DID YOU KNOW...
That propylene glycol, used in many facial moisturizers and hand/body
lotions, has been found to cause kidney damage and liver abnormalities in
scientific and animal testing.  Propylene glycol may damage cell membranes
causing rashes, dry skin, and surface damage to the skin.  Sierra brand
anti-freeze for your car is mostly propylene glycol (read it right off the
label).  Most auto anti-freezes will switch to propylene glycol(from
ethylene glycol) in the near future.  Is this the best thing to be putting
on your skin?

DID YOU KNOW...
That KIDS' bubble baths have warning labels on them?  Why?  It is because
the sodium lauryl sulfate in them eats away at the mucous lining of the
skin and causes urinary tract infections.

DID YOU KNOW...
That the Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc. reports that sodium lauryl
sulfate builds up in the eye tissue and may be a cause of eyesight problems
in many children.  You will find sodium lauryl (or laureth) sulfate in most
shampoos.

DID YOU KNOW...
That many children are rushed to the emergency rooms each year due to
alcohol poisoning from drinking mouthwash.  One of the most popular brands
of mouthwash is 26.9% alcohol.  In adults, high alcohol mouthwash increases
the risk of oral cancer by as much as 60%.

>From the information above, it is little wonder that cancer is on the rise.
All these harmful chemicals found in our everyday products, combined with
the pollution of our air and water, has created and environment that is no
longer friendly.

> Elozo szamban egy vitat olvashattunk a Duna energiajanak hasznositasarol. A
> levezetes utan sem ertem, az az energia amit a Bosi eromu kivesz, az eromu
> megepitese elott hol jelentkezett? (vo. energia megmaradas.) Ha a Duna
> Pesten nem folyik lenyegesen lassabban, akkor minden bizonnyal Pozsony es
> Pest kozott "csinalt" valamit. Ennek az elmaradasa mit okoz?

Ha jol sejtem, arrol van szo, hogy a viz szallitja a hordalekot. Ha 
duzzasztassal lelassitjuk a folyot, az lerakja a hordalekot a duzzasztott 
reszen. A gat alatt mar nincs a folyoban a hordalek, vagyis a folyobol a 
hordalek szallitasi energiaja veheto ki. Tovabba: a gat alatt fokozodik a
medermelyules, hiszen a viz kimossa a medret, de fontrol nem potolja a 
hordalek a kimosott anyagot. Ez ugye nem jo. Elobb-utobb folul kotorni 
kell, alul meg tolteni a medret. Ha a kotrott anyaggal toltunk, velhetoen 
kb. ugyanannyi energiat kell befektetni, mint amit kinyertunk. 
Energiamegmaradas...

Kochis Pal Zoltan 4-6-0 csoport