Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
Copyright (C) HIX
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Maxx-nak (mind)  27 sor     (cikkei)
2 Laszlo Barnanak (mind)  17 sor     (cikkei)
3 RE: pocegodor (mind)  6 sor     (cikkei)
4 meadows-rovat (mind)  98 sor     (cikkei)
5 kornyesz esemenynaptar (mind)  37 sor     (cikkei)
6 East-East NGO Exchange Program (mind)  55 sor     (cikkei)
7 Re:Forwarded KORNYESZ 271 (mind)  49 sor     (cikkei)
8 Re: *** KORNYESZ *** #271 (mind)  45 sor     (cikkei)

+ - Maxx-nak (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Kedves Maxx,

tudok-e adatokat a vilag romlasat illetoleg,
erzelmeim alapjan latom-e oly sotetnek a helyzetet,
a DDT-t ahol tilos hasznalni, ott vajon gyartani nem tilos-e.

Irtam korabban, de bizonyara regen volt:
ha egyszer merlegre tennenk a kornyezetszennyezest, az ellen iranyulo 
munka es penz mennyiseget, valamint a kemikaliak eladasbol szarmazo 
hasznot, valoszinuleg az jonne ki, hogy jol elszurtuk, mivel uszhatunk 
a sajat piszkunkban, es legfeljebb a kereskedok orvendezhetnek. Nem 
hiszem, hogy akadna ember, aki erre Neked globalis adatokat tudna 

Nem erzelmeim alapjan beszelek. Munkam olyan, hogy mindennap 
szembesulok szennyezettsegi adatokkal.

Az, hogy egy kemikaliat tilos hasznalni egy orszagban, nem jelenti 
azt, hogy gyartani is tilos. Erre mondtam azt a peldat, hogy Svajcban 
tilos az atrazint hasznalni, megis a svajci vegyipar gyart atrazint 
exportra, mast lehet mergezni..

Otvos Edit
Keretik egyenlore maganlevelektol tartozkodni, a fenti cim nem fogad 
+ - Laszlo Barnanak (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Kedves Barna,

maganleveledben ismet ketelkedsz az afrikai DDT-vel kapcsolatban. 
Tovabbra is kitartok allitasom mellett. Emellett, hogy Neked is igazad 
legyen: tegnap egy holland kutatoval beszeltem, aki ezen a teruleten 
dolgozik. Nevetve mondja, hogy ne legyek olyan naiv, hogy elhiggyem, 
hogy Europaban nem hasznalnak (es gyartanak) a mai napig illegalisan 
DDT-t. Hozzatette, igy van ez sajat orszagaban is.

Irod meg, sokkal tobbet segithettem volna felvilagositasodban, mert 
nem ezen a teruleten dolgozol es egy csomo idodbe kerul a tajekozodas. 
Csakhogy. En sem szorosan a DDT-vel foglalkozom, rengeteg idombe 
kerult mar eddig is, hogy valamelyest felvilagositsalak. Bocs de 

A fenti cimen uzeneteket nem tudok fogadni.
+ - RE: pocegodor (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Tisztelt Hozzaszolok!

Mindenkinek koszonom, aki megosztotta a velemenyet a temarol!

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


If you are a purist who would just as soon not have any harmful chemicals in
your food, you will not feel protected by the new "Food Quality Protection Act
of 1996."  If you're a political realist, though, you might say, "Well, heck,
it's better than the law we had before.  It's probably the best we're gonna
get, given the crew we've got in Washington."  (Anyhow, that's what a realist
who was deeply involved in the legislation recently said to me.)

In some ways the new law may indeed turn out to be an improvement:

1.  It takes children into account.  For ten years a Yale professor named John
Wargo has been challenging the government's assumption that we all eat an
average adult diet.  Actually, hardly anybody does, especially not kids. 
Wargo's research, now assembled in his book "Our Children's Toxic Legacy,"
shows that small children eat fewer kinds of foods than adults do and much
larger amounts (per unit of body weight).  Seven times as much milk, for
example.  Sixteen times as much apple juice.  Therefore a child could, while
eating perfectly legal foods, be exposed to many times the
government-determined "safe" level of pesticides.

The new law asks the EPA, as it sets standards for new pesticides and
re-examines old ones, to consider children's exposures.  That should lower
pesticide allowances in our foods.  But it will take decades to test and review
all the standards, especially on a low budget.

2. The law finally recognizes multiple exposures.  Obviously we encounter more
than one pesticide at a time and from more than one source.  But until now the
"safe" level for each chemical on each food was determined in isolation.  A
tolerance was set for benomyl on tomatoes, say, disregarding the fact that
there might also be benomyl on green beans and other pesticides on 

Now EPA may set standards based on combinations of chemicals coming from many
sources.  Again, the process will take decades, not only because the review
process is slow, but because the necessary information is almost nonexistent. 
For example, when John Wargo tried to estimate total exposures to one
particular set of pesticides, he found adequate data for only five (out of 40)
pesticides on eight (out of 75) foods.

Meanwhile, there are many ways the new law falls short of protecting our food

1. It still sticks the government with an impossible task.  Producers have come
up with over 25,000 pesticides, containing mixes of 600 "active ingredients"
(the chemicals that actually kill the pest) plus 1600 "inert ingredients"
(added for solubility, storability, or other purposes).  The EPA is supposed to
determine "safe" residue levels for each of these pesticides on 675 different
kinds of foods.  There isn't enough knowledge to do this job, even if there
were enough money, which there isn't.

2. The law does little to inform consumers of the risk of pesticide exposure. 
The government can probably never do enough testing to put warnings on all
pesticide-tainted foods, but it surely could certify those that have been grown
without pesticides.  Many states now do this, but only federal certification
will work for foods that cross state lines.

3. The new law severely discourages states from setting pesticide standards
more stringent than federal ones.  That is an attack on states' rights unworthy
of a Republican congress.  Furthermore it ignores the fact that in the past
several states have banned pesticides that were later found harmful and banned
by the feds.

4. The law still lets U.S. companies make banned pesticides for export -- some
of which come back to us in imported foods.  The law also does nothing to
ensure that imported foods are sufficiently tested.  Wargo's book cites data
from a few years ago showing that the Food and Drug Administration conducted
one residue test for every two million pounds of imported food.  Each year it
tests 167 bananas out of ten billion imported and ten samples of orange juice
out of hundreds of millions of gallons.

5. The law is based on dubious risk-benefit calculations.  For example, it
allows enough pesticide to cause one cancer in a million children over those
children's lifetimes, or two cancers if the pesticide provides really important
benefits.  Now, maybe we would be willing to pick out 260 random Americans (one
in a million) and give them cancer in order to save the entire corn crop of the
Midwest.  But would we do it to let farmers grow continuous corn, when they
would need little or no pesticide if they just rotated their crops?  Who bears
the risk?  Who benefits?  Who says?

6. The most fundamental flaw of the old law is still alive and well in the new
one -- the burden of uncertainty is thrown onto the public.  While the EPA
tries to figure out risks and benefits, while companies fight in court, while
tests are conducted, while budgets are too small to allow all pesticides to be
properly examined, the chemical makers and users can carry on.  This makes us
all guinea pigs, most especially our children, who have both higher exposures
and higher sensitivities than the rest of us.

It's impossible to eliminate all life's hazards.  No one wants to pay a lot to
reduce a very small risk.  It might not be government's responsibility to
remove every danger from the marketplace.  But if government doesn't ensure
honest and full communication about hazards and their uncertainties, if
government doesn't seek out and coordinate the necessary research, if
government doesn't protect the public from reckless commercial experiments, who

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

List of Environment Related Events
              in Central and Eastern Europe
       Compiled by the Regional Environmental Center
                for Central and Eastern Europe

10/23/96 - 10/25/96
Opatija, Croatia
Language: English, Croatian
Contact: D.Sc. Bernard Frankovic, Croatian Solar Energy Association, 
Vukovarska 58, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia, tel: 385-51-514-562, fax: 385-
51-514-562, e-mail: 

11/5/96 - 11/7/96
Prague, Czech Republic
Main topics include: the philosophy of energy efficiency, policies, 
legislation and programs to support energy efficiency, new trends in 
energy conservation technology, the economic, financial, and 
managerial aspects of energy efficiency projects.
Language: English
Contact: SEVEn, Martin Dasek, Slezska 7, P.O.Box 39, 120 56 Praha 2, 
Czech Republic, tel: 42-2-2424-7552 or 252-435, fax: 42-2-2424-7597, 

9/18/97 - 9/20/97
Chambery, France
Conference topics include: teaching and European cooperation in 
environmental education, different points of view on environmental 
science, sustainable development and environmental education, 
multimedia and new communication tools
Contact: Dr. Herve Boileau, AUDES '97, ESIGEC, Universite de Savoie, 
Campus Technolac, 73376 Le Bourget du Lac, France, tel: 33-7975-8812, 
fax: 33-7975-8772, e-mail: 
+ - East-East NGO Exchange Program (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

From:          "Ivelin Roussev (+36-26-311-199)" >
Organization:  The Regional Environmental Center

East-East NGO Exchange Program

NEW DEADLINE: October 25, 1996 
(please note that the deadline for receiving applications 
has been extended)

We are pleased to announce the second phase of the East-East NGO
Exchange Program (EENEP), previously known as the Environmental
Leadership Training Program. Following please find the description of
the program and application procedure for interning with the host NGOs
for this period.

What is the East-East NGO Exchange Program?

In November 1995, the Environmental Partnership for Central Europe
(EPCE) and the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern
Europe (REC) initiated the Environmental Leadership Training Program.
This pilot project involved six host NGOs and six interns and is
currently proceeding very well. On the basis of experiences with this
pilot project we have extended the program for 1996-1997 to include
more countries and more host NGOs.

The East-East NGO Exchange Program allows members from less
experienced environmental NGOs to stay with more experienced NGOs in
the CEE region for up to one month. The purpose of the program is to
develop management and leadership skills, to exchange experiences in
various fields of expertise and to establish links for future
cooperation with the host organizations.

During the program, interns will join in the activities of the host
organization and will receive training from experienced members of the
groups. They will get an inside view into the operations of the NGOs
and the preparations for an ongoing campaign or project.

The EENEP includes a visit to the offices of the Environmental
Partnership for Central Europe and the Regional Environmental Center
in the country of the host organization. A meeting of host NGOs will
be held from September 13 to 15, 1996 where they will be given a
complete introduction to EENEP and training for hosting an intern.

tovabbi info: 

     Melita Rogelj 
     East-East NGO Exchange Program 
     Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe


Deadline for receiving applications to the REC Head Office is
October 25, 1996.
+ - Re:Forwarded KORNYESZ 271 (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

> =======================================================
> Felado :  [Hungary]
> Temakor: Eme'szto" go:do:r ( 24 sor )
> Idopont: Thu Oct  3 05:25:11 EDT 1996 KORNYESZ #271
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Kedves kornyeszek!
> Sajnos teljesen elterjedt gyakorlat a go:dro:k szabalytalan lyukacsos
> epitese. Azonban a zsir a fo:ldet a godor szelen eltomitik, igy a szivargas
> nehany ev alatt drasztikusan csokken. Ezert ket megoldast szoktak a "gazdak"
> valasztani:
> 1. mindenfele szereket ontenek a godorbe amik a zsirosodast csokkentik;
> 2. A sajat kertjukbe szivattyuzak a folyadekot. (Utana lehet enni a gyumolcso

> Az utobbinak finomitott valtozata, amikor a mosomasina vizet engedik a
> szomszedba, utcara...
> A csatornazas csak onerobol lehetseges ami kb 60eFt ha'zankent, plussz a
> vizdij nagysaganak megfelelo havi dij, akkor is ha csak locsoltak...
> Igy az anyagi erdekeltseg is igen nagy, a sajatos tragyazasert.
> A hazi szenyviz biologiai hatasara en is kivancsi vagyok.
> Udv!
> Lantos Peter

Kedves Peter!
Furcsa egy dolog ez, sok dolog lehet szennyviz. Ha a kommunalis szennyvizrol

van szo, akkor is jelentosen megoszlanak a velemenyek. Volt szerencsem egy 
budapesti ceg /Kornyezetvedelmi KFT/ eloadasat hallani, ok azzal 
foglalkoznak, hogy a kommunalis szennyvizet a termofoldekre hordjak ki , es

ezzel ontozik peldaul a kukoricat, cukorrepat meg ilyeneket. Van ra 
engedelyuk es szerintuk ez a szennyviz hasznositasa szempontjabol idealis 
dolog. A nitratot, foszfatot, felszivja a noveny, a bacillusok meg szep 
lassan elenyesznek es nem fertoznek.
Egy biotermeszto mar a gondolattol is "szornyethalna", hogy emberi 
fekaliaval ontozze meg a termeset. Valami biogazda konyvben olvastam, hogy a

mutragyamentesen termelt retekben  kb. 400-500 mg/l nitrat van, mig a 
mutragyazottban akar 2-3000 mg/l is lehet! Szerintem a nitrat az nitrat, a 
foszfat meg foszfat, stb... mindegy, milyen uton jut ki a foldre, a noveny 
akkumulalja. Tehat, a fekalianak is mutragya hatasa van ebbol a szempontbol.
Mas allati szerves tragyak sem jobbak, bar sokan azt gondoljak, az a 
megoldas, hogy a mutragyakat szerves tragyaval helyettesithetjuk. Ez csupan

mas szempontok szerint elonyos: pl. novenyi maradvanyok, mikroelemek vannak

benne, valamivel kozelebb van a termeszet korforgasahoz.
Udv. Mester Zsolt
+ - Re: *** KORNYESZ *** #271 (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

> 2. A sajat kertjukbe szivattyuzak a folyadekot. (Utana lehet enni a gyumolcso
>  ..)
Hat ha a gazda a sz*os almat szereti, tegye. Kereskedelmi forgalomba azert
csak nem kerul az ilyesmi...

Tenyleg, arra gondoltam, hogy vegul is egesz konnyen meg lehetne oldani,
hogy 2 lefolyo legyen egy csatornazatlan hazban! Az egyikbe kerulhetne a
kaki, pisi meg a kornyezetbarat dolgok, mert ezek tok jok tragyazasra es a
masikba a vegyszerek! Es csak a hypos godrot kene szipkazni, tehat minden
a legjoban jarna (bar ketszer kene csovezni a hazat, ami azert nagyobb

> Meszaros Laszlo (Budapestrol) i'rt az emeszto, szikkaszto'
> gyakorlatrol. Ennek kapcsan felremlett egy nagyon regi cikk
> (-sorozat?) az Elet es Tudomanybol, amiben a haztartasi hul-
> ladek, vegtermek stb. 'bioga'zza' + veszelytelen tragyava
> alakitasaval foglalkoztak. (A keletkezo bioga'zzal tuzhelyet
> taplaltak, ha jol emlekszem!)

Nem volt budos egy kicsit? ...gondolom azert ami a rothadasnal keletkezik
az nem tiszta metan :-)

>  * Mi lesz a kornyezo allat- es novenyvilaggal,a fout mellett elok
>    egeszsegevel?

Nincsenek pontos adataim, de szamomra ugy tunik, hogy a belvarosok ebbol a
szempontbol sokkal tobb figyelmet erdemelnek. Ott ugyanis sokkkal rosszabb
ez a helyzet... azt hiszem egy autopalya sokkal kornyezetbaratabb mint egy
ugyanakkora forgalom lebonyolitasara kepes autouthalozat (pl azert is mert
azon lassabban mennek a kocsik -> adott utszakaszon tobbet pufogtatnak)...

>  * Valoban kedvezoen befolyasolja a toke bearamlasat a keleti
>    orszagreszbe,vagy nem lesz lenyeges hatasa?

Szerintem egy autppalya semmit nem jelent... kelet le fog szakadni, mint
delolaszorszag. Hiaba lehet konnyebben odautazni, ha az autopalyan kivul
eppolyan rossz az uthalozat, mint volt... meg a telefonhelyzet, meg ugy az
infrastruktura altalaban.