Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
Copyright (C) HIX
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 meadows-rovat (mind)  98 sor     (cikkei)
2 mohi (mind)  41 sor     (cikkei)
3 gamma megint (mind)  30 sor     (cikkei)
4 Re: *** HIX KORNYESZ *** #560 (mind)  13 sor     (cikkei)

+ - meadows-rovat (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

(egyebkent Dana most epp Magyarorszagon tartozkodik, az eves 
Balaton-csoport osszejovetelen).


	Public relations people have a funny way of arguing.  You say
something, and they answer with a change of subject.  It's like a tennis game
in which you hit a ball over the net and your opponent hits a different ball
back.  Confusing.  Unfair.  Not much of a game.

	For example, last winter I wrote a column that said synthetic chemicals
are not people and we shouldn't treat them as innocent until proven guilty.  If
we suspect a chemical of doing harm, the burden should be on its maker to prove
it safe, not on us to prove we're being poisoned.

	Fred Webber, president of the Chemical Manufacturers Association,
didn't much like that column, so he wrote a rebuttal.  It starts by trumpeting
the benefits of chemicals.  "We're living longer, healthier lives because so
many diseases that were rampant years ago have been eradicated, our drinking
water is purer, our homes and place of work are safer, and our food is abundant
and affordable....  These dramatic improvements ... are due in large part to
the great chemical discoveries ... of this century."

	All that may be true, but so what?  The fact that some chemicals are
wonderful does not mean none are harmful.  Might as well argue we shouldn't
lock up criminals because the world is full of saints.

	Webber goes on: "She (that's me) cites some unexplained deformities in
frogs in Minnesota and suggests they must be due to chemicals, although the
true cause has not been determined.  Scientists say the deformities could be
due to natural causes, we just don't know.  Research will tell us."

	In fact I had quoted some of the very research Webber calls for, and it
didn't help his cause: "Now comes a report in the Journal of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry about researchers in Switzerland exposing developing
frogs to a fungicide called triphenyltin.  (Minnesota sugarbeet farmers use
over 100,000 pounds of triphenyltin a year.)  The fungicide stunts the growth
of tadpoles and retards the sexual development of adult frogs."

	In a lab this fungicide deforms frogs.  In places where it is used
frogs are deformed.  While we work out the details, should we go on using this

	Webber uses anotherdubious tactic, the straw man (straw woman?): "She
(me again) focuses on a massive spill in a Florida lake many years ago that
harmed alligators living there and seems to suggest this is happening every
day.  It isn't."

	What I said was, you don't need massive spills to cause harm: "A
pesticide spill about 15 years ago in a Florida lake called Apopka led
scientists to be worried about estrogen-mimicry ....  The pesticide caused the
alligators in the lake to develop improperly, especially the males, which had
shrunken penises and could not reproduce.

	"New research ... reveals that it doesn't take a spill to emasculate
alligators; agribusiness as usual will do the trick.  Male alligators in three
other Florida lakes, including huge Okeechobee, have depressed testosterone
levels.  Females have elevated levels of estradiol, the principal estrogen
found in all vertebrates.  The alligators also have problems with thyroid
hormones, which govern brain development and metabolism."

	There have been no pesticide spills in these lakes, but they are
surrounded by large farms that use pesticides heavily year round.

	Again, no smoking gun, but plenty of bullets scattered about.  As I
pointed out: "the chemistry of all life is similar.  Something that can
interfere with the operation of a fungus or a flea or a frog or an alligator
could also interfere with us."  That's why, when there's cause for suspicion,
we should lean toward protecting public health rather than company profits.

	Webber throws in more non sequitors, such as: "The American chemical
industry is among the most highly regulated in the world."  Of course his
organization regularly pushes to weaken those regulations, but now I'm being
beside the point.  More important, my article gave enough examples of damage to
show that "most highly regulated" does not mean regulated enough to protect us.

	"There are no more caring and conscientious nor better trained workers
in any industry," Webber says, and I agree.  I know many of them.  I used to be
one myself.  I don't think anyone in the chemical industry wants to poison the
world.  But how many examples do we need of the world being poisoned before
people in the industry, especially at the top, become humble enough to stop
pretending that they know what they do not know and that they can control what
they cannot control?

	Unfortunately, Webber ends with the lowest form of debate, a personal
attack on his critic.  "Her fears seem to arise from her own lack of knowledge,
even thought her credentials list her as a part-time professor."  I'd be happy
to put my credentials up against Webber's any day, but again, that's not the
point.  The evidence in my column didn't come from me, it came from scientific
journals, and it documents widespread harm from chemicals that continue to be

	Webber does not even acknowledge, much less answer, that evidence. 
He's too busy pointing in other directions.  It's what magicians do, when they
don't want you to catch on to their tricks.

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

-----Eredeti uzenet-----
Persze az az izotop, ill. az izotopot hordozo medium mar nem, amelyik
ugarozza, ezek megjelenese a detektor kozeleben az idojarasi viszonyok
fuggvenye. Mellesleg a kulso gamma dozisintenzitas csak az egyik
legalapvetobb, de tavolrol sem teljes egeszeben reprezentativ osszetevoje
egy atomeromubol szarmazo sugarterhelesnek, meg amugy altalaban a
kornyezeti sugarterhelesnek. Mert ott van ugyebar a
tricium, (a legalattomosabb izotop, korulmenyesen merheto), egyes mas
hasadvanytermekek lagy betasugarzasa, rosszabb esetben
a futoelemdarabok alfaja, stb..stb.
                                         Kobor Jozsef

Miert alattomos a tricium? Sugarvedelmi szempontbol egyaltalan nem lenyeges 
izotop, kis energiaju beta-sugarzo, ami altalaban a viz molekula egyik 
hidrogenjenek a helyebe ul be. A merestechnikaja jol megoldott, ma mar nem 
problema meg a termeszetes vizekben sem megmerni. A mohihoz hasonlo 
eromuvek tricium-emisszioja nem tul jelentos, ha meg a kornyezetben 
futoelembol szarmazo alfa reszecskeket kellene merni, akkor mar igen nagy 
baj lenne.

Mivel ez is elektromagneses sugarzas, ezert ez is
fenysebesseggel terjed, mig a reszecskesugarzas
terjedesi sebessege nagysagrendekkel kisebb, ha
jol tudom. Raadasul a reszecskek a levegoben
utkoznek a levegot alkoto molekulakkal, ezert szerintem
elsodleges reszecskesugarzas nem is jon el idaig,
vagy, ha el is jon nem lehet szamottevo. Ezert igazabol
a gamma sugarzason kivul nem is lehet mit merni.
Ha nem jol tudom, remelem kijavit valaki.


A gamma dozisteljesitmeny merese csak egy esetleges baleseti szituacioban 
jelent hasznos informaciot, mert egy normal uzemmetben mukodo atomeromutol 
szarmazo tobbletdozis a hozza kepest tobb nagysagrenddel nagyobb 
hattersugarzas miatt nem merheto. Sokkal fontosabb a levegobe kibocsatott 
es ott jol terjedo aeroszolokat mintazni, majd a vett mintakat muszeresen 
merni. Ezt egyebkent a szlovakok komoly halozattal vegzik, es az adatokat 
ugy tudom hozzaferhetove is teszik.

Udv Barnabas Istvan
+ - gamma megint (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Koszonom a sok segito szandeku hozzaszolast, bar kisse
rosszul esett, hogy senki nem nezte ki belolem, hogy tudom,
mi a kulonbseg az elektromagneses es a reszecskesugarzasok
kozt :) Sot, meg a Cserenkov-sugarzasrol is hallottam :) Na,
amire tenylegesen kivancsi voltam es vagyok: a radioaktiv felho
ideerese elott mennyi idot ad a cselekvesre (pl. utolso kenet 
felvetele) a gamma-dozisteljesitmeny merese, atlagos idojarasi 
korulmenyek kozt? A hozzaszolasokbol azt szurtem le, hogy 
direkt reszecskesugarzas aligha er el minket, tehat akkor leginkabb
a szel altal behordott radioaktiv anyag fertozhet. 


Szerintem eloszor a sajat berkeken belul kellene kerdezoskodni, el
tudom kepzelni, hogy az aramszolgaltatoknak van radioaktivitas-
mero szerkentyuje. Biztosan van minden olyan felsooktatasi intez-
menyben, ahol kemiat vagy fizikat tanitanak. A katonai vegyvedelmi
alakulatoknak is van. A polgari vedelemnek pedig tuti. Sot, ha gyanu
merul fel, ok kotelesek is kimenni es merni. Ami a konkret esetet
illeti: Elozetes tippnek erdemes megfigyelni, hogy ha komoly 
radioaktivitas van, akkor a haz lakoja nehany even belul tele lesz 
rakos daganatokkal. Ha ilyen az elmult 30 evben nem volt, akkor 
egy-ket evet ki lehet benne birni, legalabbis nem fog visszaforditha-
tatlan egeszsegkarosodas fellepni. Egy 30 eves vakolatra pedig 
mindenkepp rafer, hogy kicsereljek. Persze, a gyerekvallalastol ez
ido alatt jobb tartozkodni, mert a magzat erzekenyebb.


+ - Re: *** HIX KORNYESZ *** #560 (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

> Szlovakia ismet Hagahoz fordul (NSZ)
> Szlovakia szeptember 2-an ertesitette a magyar kormanyt:  a dunai
> vizlepcso jogvitajaban ismet a hagai Nemzetkozi Birosaghoz fordul.  A
> testulet torteneteben pelda nelkuli, hogy ugyanabban az ugyben ketszer
> is e birosaghoz forduljanak.

A HVG 97-es cikkei alapjan en ugy tudom, hogy (kontinentalis talapzat 
elhatarolasi ugyekben) mar tobbszor is volt masodik fordulo. Igaz, ott a felek 
uj (konkretan megfogalmazott) kerdest tettek fel a birosagnak, amely erre 
konkret muszaki megoldast adott.

Udv///Meszaros Laci (otthonrol)