Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
Copyright (C) HIX
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 kozlegelokrol egy kicsit pontosabban (mind)  51 sor     (cikkei)
2 erdekes zold csomopontok (mind)  37 sor     (cikkei)
3 meadows-rovat (mind)  100 sor     (cikkei)
4 meg egy internet csemege (mind)  15 sor     (cikkei)
5 haragoszold (mind)  25 sor     (cikkei)
6 Re:Forwarded KORNYESZ 271 (mind)  12 sor     (cikkei)

+ - kozlegelokrol egy kicsit pontosabban (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Ido hijan csak egy rovid valasz Laszlo Barna irasara a legutobbi 
kornyeszben az oneredek ervenyesitesenek elkerulhetetlensegerol. 
 Garrett Hardin klasszikus legelos peldajat (Hardin, G.  The tragedy 
of the commons.  Science 162:1243-1248, December 13, 1968), amit Barna 
is emlit, 1968-as eredeti publikalasa ota ma mar azt hiszem 
arnyaltabban kell latni.

A kozlegelok Hardin ertelmezeseben tulajdonkeppen nem koztulajdonu 
hanemi tulajdonjog nelkuli - "free access" - strukturak.  A 
koztulajdoni strukturak - ez a tenyleges "common property" vagy 
"commons" - ettol lenyegesen kulonboznek.  Vehetjuk tehat akar ugy is, 
hogy Hardin szohasznalata amit sajnos a koznyelv hamar atvett, a mai 
terminologia szerint pontatlan.  A kulonbseg lenyege hogy mig az elso 
esetben valoban nem akadalyozza meg semmi a "tragedia" bekovetkezeset, 
vagyis az adott eroforrasbazis ismert vagy nem ismert 
eltartokepessegen tuli hasznalatat es leromlasat, a masodik esetben 
letezik olyan informalis/formalis/hagyomanyos stb. intezmenyi 
struktura ami az eroforrashasznalatot szabalyozza, de nem 
privatizacion alapul.  A kozgazdasagtan egeszen a legutobbi idokig nem 
nagyon tudott mit kezdeni ezekkel a strukturakkal melyek tulajdonjogi 
szempontbol a teljes magantulajdon es az abszolut koztulajdon (senki 
foldje) koze esnek.  Szamtalan bizonyiteka van azonban annak, hogy 
ilyen struturak leteztek/nek, mukodnek, es adott esetben alkalmasabbak 
eroforrashasznalati szabalyok kialakitasara es betartatasara mint pl. 
a teljesen privatizalt vagy koztulajdonu rendszer.  A kerdes 
reszleteirol pl. Elinor Ostrom, Fikret Berkes, David Feeny, Carl Folke 
irt igenyesen.  Konkretabb es klasszikus, gyakran targyalt peldak pl. 
a svajci magashegyi legelotarsulasok (nem a bioconozisra gondolok...), 
hawaii oslakosainak intezmenyrendszere, de akar a magyar neprajzbol 
ismert viz vagy foldhasznalati tarsulasok, ugyan utobbit a nemzetkozi 
irodalom meg nem fedezte fel, de pl. Herman Otto es sokan masok mar 

Szerintem az eroforrasbazis/eroforrashasznalat kapcsolata legfeljebb 
rovid tavon veheto linearisnak, es ugy is csak akkor ha hianyoznak az 
intezmenyi feltetelei a hasznalat (on)korlatozasanak.  Jo pelda az 
amerikai Midwest kora 20. szazadi mezogazdasaga, ahol a teljesen 
szabalyozatlan foldhasznalat rovid idon belul extenziv 
talajleromlashoz stb. stb. vezetett, nem tul linearisan, de eleg 
meggyozoen...  Itt Kanadaban is megtortent mindez, amire a harmincas 
evektol elkezdve regionalis tarsulasok (pl. Conservation Districts) 
letrehozasaval kezdtek a gyogyirt keresni, nem sikertelenul.  Nezetem 
szerint a hazai (M.o.) fold es egyeb privatizacios divat utan, 
remelhetoleg a "tragedy" bekovetkezte elott, ra fognak tobben jonni 
hogy ilyen intezmenyekre szukseg van, kulonben pl. a mezogazdasag 
gazdatlanna valt, de sokak altal hasznalt videki infrastrukturaja 
tonkremegy - a szabaly persze nem csak a mezogazdasagra vonatkozik. 
 Egyedul tehat nem megy.  A nemlinearitasrol egyebkent ajanlom pl. 
Buzz Holling munkait.

Pinter Laci
+ - erdekes zold csomopontok (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)



I would like to invite you to visit the Committee for the National
Institute for the Environment's (CNIE) web site.  


We are developing a prototype National Library for the Environment, an
on-line source of environmental information.  The address is:


To activate the project, the CNIE has put on-line about 200 full-text U.S.
Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports on environmental issues. Our
site has reports covering a range of environmental topics including:

  Agency Profiles                  Air
  Biodiversity                     Climate
  Energy                           Forestry
  Information Sources              International
  Legislation                      Marine
  Mining                           Pesticides
  Pollution--General               Population
  Public Lands                     Regulatory Reform
  Risk Assessment                  Science & Tech.
  Stratospheric Ozone              Trade, Taxes & Econ.
  Transportation                   Resources--General
  Waste Management                 Water Quality
  Wetland & Aquatic

CRS, part of the United States Library of Congress, provides nonpartisan
information on any subject of interest to Congress. CRS products undergo
careful review for accuracy, thoroughness, technical soundness, balance,
nonpartisanship and objectivity.
+ - meadows-rovat (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)


"Have you ever known a pesticide to kill anyone?" a neighbor asked me the other
day.  She's a good farmer.  She uses pesticides lightly, only when she really
needs them.  I pick apples at her place, because on my own, where I use no
pesticides, I do fine with every crop except apples.

No, I had to tell her, other than deliberate misuse or accidents like Bhopal, I
don't think pesticides kill people, not directly, not often.  My concern has
been ecological.  I don't believe in poisoning all the creatures in the
countryside just to eliminate one small pest, especially if I have invited that
pest by planting large expanses of its favorite food.

But I've recently read John Wargo's new book, Our Children's Toxic Legacy, so
now I'm also worried about what pesticides may be doing to people.  There are
more kinds of harm than flat out, drop-dead killing.

Wargo's book says that of the 325 pesticides that are legally allowed to remain
as residues in food, one-third are suspected of causing cancer.  One-third are
known to disrupt the nervous system.  A whole new bunch is coming under
investigation for disrupting hormonal signals that guide the development of
fetuses, the growth of children, and the ability to reproduce.  The damage they
do may not show up until the next generation.

Nearly 100 pesticides are legally allowed (in tiny quantities) in milk -- which
makes up 21 percent of a toddler's diet.  A child may encounter 13 different
insecticides and fungicides on apples, 26 on grapes, 20 on oranges.  Ten
percent of tested community water sources and four percent of rural wells
contain pesticide residues.  Children are especially at risk, because they are
more sensitive than adults to harmful chemicals and more likely to ingest them.

Wargo, a professor of environmental policy at Yale and a scientific advisor to
the "Kids Committee" (the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Pesticides
in the Diets of Infants and Children), says that when government licenses
pesticides, it is conducting a massive experiment on us and on our children.
His book makes a convincing case that NO ONE KNOWS what our actual exposure to
pesticides is or how these chemicals, either individually or in combination,
affect us.  So how can anyone responsibly assure us that they are safe?

Wargo is not a zealot like me, who would stop using pesticides.  What he'd like
to see is a lot more public information about the risks we are being exposed to
and a lot more democratic discussion about whether those risks are justified.
He takes his research seriously and personally, because of his own two
children, Adam and Kate.

Here are some of the steps Wargo takes to protect his own family and would
recommend to everyone to minimize the risk of pesticide exposure:

Try to buy organic fruits and vegetables from a grower you know and trust.  If
that's not possible, ask your supermarket to carry organic foods.  If it
already does, ask how those foods are certified pesticide-free.

Make your own juices and baby foods from organic produce.

Wash non-organic fruits and vegetables before using, and peel off wax coverings
(which can trap pesticides).

Grow your own -- especially if you have children.  Discover, as millions of
backyard gardeners have, that gardens are fun and educational, and you don't
need chemicals to produce great crops (except maybe apples).

Avoid using pesticides in your home -- instead check screening, keep floors,
counters, and cabinets clean, wash off houseplants outside, and try
non-poisonous repellents (like citrus juice or borax).

Reconsider lawn chemicals.  It's not worth endangering your family's health to
have a perfect lawn. If you walk across a lawn that has been sprayed, remove
your shoes before going indoors.

Check with your child's school or day-care center to find out whether
pesticides are used there.  If they are, ask if it's necessary, ask if there
have been tests for residues, ask to be notified in advance any time there's an

If you have a private well and anyone around you uses pesticides (be wary of
farms, golf courses, powerlines, railways, highways, and large institutional
grounds), have your drinking water tested.  If you use public water, ask to see
the results of testing.  If there's a problem, install a filtration system.

If your children swim in a public pool, check to see whether algicides are used
in the water.

If you are exposed to pesticides at work, change clothes before going home, and
don't wash those clothes along with other clothing.

If there are plans to spray power lines, forests, lakes, or recreation areas
near you, sound off.  Ask questions.  Demand answers.

Take these steps with special care if you're pregnant or have very young

If all this sounds like a lot of work, it's the price of a political philosophy
that distrusts government, treasures freedom, and lets citizens fend for
themselves.  This is what fending for yourself looks like.  If you don't like
it, if you think freedom might perhaps include freedom from risk caused by
other peoples' use of toxic chemicals, sound off.  Ask questions.  Demand

(Donella H. Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental studies at
Dartmouth College.)
+ - meg egy internet csemege (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

          Central European Environmental Data Request Facility (CEDAR)
               CEDAR provides computing and Internet work facilities to 
          support international data exchange with the Central and Eastern 
          European environmental community.  In 1992, CEDAR began to work 
          with the United Nations Environmental Programme's INFOTERRA 
          Network, UNEP's global information exchange programme. Designated 
          as the INFOTERRA Internet node and Regional Service Centre for 
          Central and Eastern Europe, CEDAR is working with the Austrian 
          National Focal Point (NFP) at the Austrian Federal Environmental 
          Agency and other regional and global NFPs to support 
          environmental information dissemination.
+ - haragoszold (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Kedves Barna!

Mint a kozismert tehenes pelda is szemlelteti, nem varhato el 
senki epeszu emberfiatol, hogy onkent hatterbe szoritsa sajat 
erdekeit meg akkor sem, ha... ezt tudjuk. Az evolucio persze szinten 
ezt bizonyitotta, de sokminden mast is. Peldaul azt, hogy a gyengeseg 
halalos bun.
Ket utat vazoltal fel. Az egyik (a haragoszold) kezdettol fogva 
veszelyes es embertelen. A masik pedig vagy pusztulasba, vagy valami 
nagyon haragos szinbe vezet (zold, piros, feher, fekete), ami a 
legtobbunk szamara a pusztulast jelenti, csak azt nem tudjuk, mikor.
Azt irod kerdesek vannak, valaszok nincsenek. Szerintem inkabb 
kerdezni merunk, valaszolni nem.
Lattam egy termeszetfilmet, ahol zimankos, havas japan tajon majmok 
lubickoltak egy hoforrasban. Belekepzeltem magam a helyukbe es 
elszornyedtem azon, hogy milyen rossz lesz kijonniuk azott bundaval a 
hideg levegore. Kijonni kellemetlen es veszelyes (megfazhatnak, ami 
halalos is lehet), bennmaradni pedig ongyilkossag. 
Ugye Te nem tudod a valaszt, mit kell a majmoknak csinalniuk, hogy jo 
legyen a tulelesi statisztikajuk?
Megnyugtatlak, en csak elvi vitakban vagyok haragoszold, tetteimben 
halovanyzold, mint a MOL.

Toth Ferenc
+ - Re:Forwarded KORNYESZ 271 (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Az 1930-as evekben epuelt pecsi szennyvizteleprol meseltek, hogy a szolgalati

lakasokban a telepen termelt gazzal foztek, vilagitottak!
Biogaztermeles egyebkent ma is van az uj szv.telepen: a szennyviziszapbol 
egetnek (szaritanak) a felhasznalasaval szilard halmazallapotu granulatumot.
Ez a granulatum egyebkent kivaloan alkalmas lenne a mutragya kivaltasara, 
csak epp azt nem tudja garantalni senki, hogy a csatornan erkezo szv.-bol 
milyen anyagok (nehezfemek stb.) maradtak benne.
A szagrol: ha most otthon a konyhadban erzed a gazszagot, akkor mar regen