Egy jo par szammal ezelotti irasra szeretnek visszaterni, amire ido 
hianyaban eddig nem tudtam reagalni.

En a kovetkezoket irtam:
>  > atomenergia tamogatoi soha nem probalkoznanak azzal hogy megekadalyozzak
>  > a Greenpeace vagy a kornyezetvedok egy-egy akciojat, ellenben a GP.
>  > aktivistai megprobaltak elallni a szerelveny utjat

Erre Luki az alabbiakat valaszolta:
>  na ez kapasbol nem igaz. lasd letartoztatasok a bekes tunteteseken. vagy
>  pl. a mururoran sem akadalyoztak a munkat a greenpeace-szesek megis
>  mindent elkoboztak toluk.
>  vagy paris-ban mert vertek oket? talan akadalyoztak az
>  anyagok mururorara vitelet? vagy az atomszemetek tengerbe sullyesztesenel
>  miert dobtak rajuk az atomszemet kontenereket? valoszinuleg a hajosok
>  meg voltak sertodve, hogy nem vegezhettek munkajukat.
> 
>  vagy miert robbantottak fel a rainbow warrior I. -et? talan a kikotoban
>  allo hajo akadalyozott valamit?

Eloszor is ne keverjuk ossze a hadsereget es az atomenergia bekes 
felhasznalasanak tamogatasat. Mururoroa kapcsan nem eromuvekrol volt szo es 
a hadsereg lepett kozbe. Tudtommal a Greenpeace ellen csak olyankor 
lepnek fel a rendorok atomenergia kapcsan, amikor a GP. torvenyt sert az 
akcioival. Egyebkent az indulatossag kapcsan arrol volt szo, hogy az 
atomenergia tamogatoi (akiknek semmifele erdeke nem fuzodik az 
atomenergiahoz es akik mondjuk a KORNYESZ-be 
irogatnak) soha nem fekudnenek keresztbe az uton, hogy elalljak egy GP-s 
tuntetoket szallito busz utjat, mig forditva azert elkepzelheto a dolog.

A masik megjegyzesem az energiafelhasznalasrol szolo valasszal kapcsolatos

Luki azt irja, hogy O sem tud olyan energiaforrasrol ami hosszu tavon 
megoldana az energiagondokat. Az atomenergiat azert nem helyesli mert 1. 
az is veges, 2. kornyezeti terhet ro az utodokra. Ezert vegso 
megoldaskent a fogyasztas olyan szinte valo csokkenteset javasolja amit 
megujulo energiaforrasokkal ki lehet elegiteni.
1. Nem tudom, hogy mennyire 
becsulik a Foldon fellelheto nuklearis 
energiatartalekokat (tud valaki ilyen adatrol?), de mindenesetre joval 
nagyobb mertekben allnak rendelkezesre, mint a hagyomanyosok es egy par 
szaz evre biztos elegendoek. 
2. A sugarzo anyagok tarolasa valoban problema, de evvel majd egy masik 
irasban foglalkoznek.

A fogyasztas csokkentese nem hiszem hogy megoldas: ehhez meg kellene 
allitani a nepesseg novekedeset, valoszinuleg visszavetne a 
tudomanyos-szellemi fejlodest (itt ugyanis mar nem egyszeruen 
takarekossagrol lenne szo, hanem arrol hogy a legelemibb szuksegletek 
kielegitesere lenne csak eleg a villamos energia). Ad abszurdum nemcsak a 
mikrosutorol kellene lemondani, hanem a szamitogepekrol is, esetleg a 
villanyvilagitasrol stb. Szerintem a jelenlegi technikai szintunkon egy 
-kizarolag megujulo energiaforrasokra epulo energiarendszer (a Fold egesz 
lakossagat tekintve), csak a futesi es elelmezesi energiaigenyeket tudna 
fedezni (de ehhez is az kellene, hogy teljesen felszamoljuk a 
nagyvarosokat). Szoval Luki szerintem ez az otleted egy Madach 
falanszterehez hasonlo vilaghoz vezetne.  


Udv		Xux

Mail*Link(r) SMTP               meadows rovat

CHEMICALS ARE A MEANS, NOT AN END

We thought DDT was great, until we found robins dying on our lawns and eagle
eggs broken in their nests.

Thalidomide eased morning sickness in pregnant women; then their babies were
born without arms or legs.

Our cars performed better with tetraethyl lead in the gas, but the lead came
out the tailpipes and poisoned us.

Everyone believed that chlorofluorocarbons such as Freon were harmless, until
we found them chewing up the ozone layer.

Those are just a few of the nasty chemical surprises we have suffered over
the
past half-century.  Now we find that a wide assortment of chemicals --
pesticides, cleaning agents, plastic additives, PCBs, dioxins -- act like
hormones, messing up communications within the bodies of all forms of life
that
have endocrine systems, including ourselves.  Infinitesmal quantities of
these
endocrine disrupters can produce devastating results, especially in
developing
embryos.  The damage may show up as birth defects, gender confusion, or
miscarriage, or, years later, as cancer or infertility.

Maybe this most recent addition to the long list of terrible surprises, will
wake us up to the unsurprising fact that when we dump chemicals into nature,
they go somewhere.  They work their way into the stratosphere or our own
sperm. 
They react with each other, break down into new chemicals, do things we never
imagined, never created tests for, never thought to regulate.

Human ingenuity produces a thousand or so new molecules of commercial value
every year.  Companies that hope to profit from them say, essentially, "Let
us
make them by the ton.  We've tested them.  They're OK.  Trust us."

We should not trust them, because neither they nor we can predict the fates
or
effects of their products.  Planet Earth carries on enormously complex
chemistry of its own.  Dump strange substances into the mix, or increase the
rate at which old ones move around, and the real surprise would be NOT to
experience a continuous stream of surprises, as we turn nature and ourselves
into guinea pigs for thousands of experiments running all at once.

We can try to fix chemical problems with zero-emission manufacturing or
risk-benefit analyses or a million regulations, but what mainly needs fixing
is
the way we think about chemicals.  They're not ends in themselves, but means
to
our real ends.  They're costs, not benefits, to be minimized, not sloshed
around.

That means/ends point was impressed on me by Dr. Michael Mehnert, a professor
of chemistry in Kassel, Germany.  A few years ago I heard him give a
presentation on "sustainable chemistry."  Mehnert's guidelines would go a
long
way toward solving our present and future chemical problems.

We don't want detergents, he said, we want clean clothes.  We want pest-free
crops, not pesticides; health, not medicines; the product, not the package. 
The fewer chemicals we use to get what we want, the cheaper, the safer, the
better.

A similar insight is revolutionizing the energy industry.  We want light,
heat
and motion, not kilowatt-hours or barrels of oil.  Substitute insulation for
bigger furnaces, compact fluorescent bulbs for incandescents, clever car
design
for V-8 engines, intelligence for brute force, and we can cut our energy
bills
by at least half, probably three-quarters, maybe even 90 percent.  

Such reductions are possible for chemicals too.  The practice called
integrated
pest management, for example, includes the bright idea of not spraying unless
a
pest is actually present.  It produces high crop yields with 80-90 percent
less
pesticide.

Mehnert also suggests recycling chemicals wherever possible, and designing
molecules that have long "technical lifetimes" -- that don't break down in
use. 
The trick is to combine long technical lifetimes with short ecological
lifetimes, he says.  The few chemicals we do need should be safe as possible.

They should break down quickly in the environment.  They should not be
soluble
in fat (so they won't be stored in bodies and accumulated up the food chain.)

We should be specially wary of chlorine-containing chemicals, which presently
make up 60 percent of organic chemical production, and which tend to be
toxic,
long-lived, and bioaccumulated.

Some more of Mehnert's guidelines:  To avoid disrupting ecosystems, never
emit
a chemical at rates that exceed 10 percent of the natural flow of that
chemical.  Minimize chemical change in the production process -- don't, for
example, break down petroleum to one or two carbons and then reassemble
larger
molecules.  Instead use the complex structures that nature provides for free.

Improve energy and materials efficiency in all products.  Shift to renewable
sources.  Imitate nature's information-rich, low-temperature, low-pressure,
solar-powered assembly techniques.

These ideas would benefit everyone except chemical companies, which are
rewarded by the market for selling more, not less.  Remembering that all
companies exist to serve society and not the other way around, we could
regulate them out of business.  (Some think we already do).  Or we could get
creative about making markets that reward them for producing the ends instead
of the means -- helping us grow crops, clean clothes, package products,
maintain our health with fewer and safer chemicals.
As it did in the energy industry, that idea sounds ridiculous at first.  But
only because it's new, not because it's impossible.

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

Mail*Link(r) SMTP               egyetemi allas az USAban

Position: Environmental Studies
Institution: Western Washington University
   Location: Washington

Environmental Studies: Huxley College of Environmental
Studies; Environmental Geographertenure-track position.
Applications are invited for a full-time, tenure-track position
at the Assistant Professor level. The position is scheduled to
begin September, 1996. The successful applicant will teach
courses and direct undergraduate and graduate research in
environmental studies and geography. Duties include teaching and
advisement in geography and environmental studies. Teaching
responsibilities may include  physical geography, research
methods and statistics, landforms, climatology, natural
resources management, cartography, and geographic information
systems, water resources, land resources, and environmental and
resource policy. Knowledge of physical geography is central to
the position, and knowledge and interest in geographic
information systems and environmental education are desired.
Research interest and experience in natural resources management
is highly desired. An interest in and demonstrated ability to
teach in an interdisciplinary learning environment is essential.
A Ph.D. in geography or related field is required. Salary will
be commensurate with experience. Review of applications will
begin after April 1, and continue until the position is filled.
Please send letter of application, curriculum vitae, and names
of three references to Dr. John Miles, Chair, Environmental
Geography Search Committee; Huxley College of Environmental
Studies, MS 9085; Western Washington University; Bellingham,
Washington 982259085; phone 3606503277; fax 3606507702. WWU is
an AA/EEO institution. To contact an office at WWU, call the TDD
Relay number at 18008336388. To request disability
accommodation, contact 3606503306.

       From: The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 1, 1996
 Categories: Environmental sciences, Science and technology, Geography,
             Social sciences, Faculty and research positions.

Mail*Link(r) SMTP               hirek: mar meginegy olajbotrany

Mar megint egy olaj-ugy sziberiaban....

--------------------------------------
Russian pipeline spills 1,500 tons of oil

A pipeline leak in Russia's main oil-producing region of Tyumen in
Western Siberia has spilled 1,500 tons of crude oil over nearby swamps
and a frozen river, Interfax news agency said Wednesday. The pipeline
ruptured on March 7 in the Nefteyugansk area, 40 miles from the city
of Surgut and repair work was continuing, the agency quoted local
environmental official Viktor Dolinger as saying. The spill covered
8.6 acres of swamps and 2.5 acres of the frozen River Balyk, a
tributary of the River Ob, Dolinger said, adding that the accident had
now been localized and special equipment was being used to clean up
the area. The oil on the river was being burned, although the
pollution had reached areas up to five miles from the ruptured
pipeline, he said. The River Ob was unlikely to be contaminated, he
added. 

Copyright 1996, Reuters, All Rights Reserved
March 14, 1996

Kedves Agoston!
Eloszor egy kis nyelvtan: az "atomipar" es a "nuklearis ipar" kozott 
nem az a kulonbseg, hogy magyarul mondjuk-e vagy sem, hanem az, 
hogy a nucleus szo az atommagot jelenti. Gondolom Te a nuklearis 
iparra gondoltal (az atomokkal es molekulakkal a tobbi iparag 
foglalkozik).
    A nuklearis iparnak ugyanugy nincs egyseges velemenye (mert 
velemenye foleg az embereknek lehet), mint barmely mas iparagnak. 
Az alapfilozofiaja azert abban egyseges, hogy a biztonsagi 
eloirasoknak kell megeloznie a letesiteseket. Ha jol meggondolod ez 
mas agazatokban nem mindig volt igy, pl. kozlekedesben, 
vegyiparban, banyaszatban es meg szamos mas teruleten elobb 
kezdodott a tevekenyseg, majd a balesetek lattan hoztak biztonsagi 
rendszabalyokat. Az elso biztonsagi szabalyzatokat (az USA-ban pl. 
a kozel 50 eve mukodo Nuclear Regulatory Committee) meg az elso 
atomeromuvek uzembehelyezese elott megalkottak. Az eloirasok 
azota termeszetesen sokat valtoztak, mert a hibakbol es uzemi 
tapasztalatokbol sok ujat lehet tanulni. Jelentosen valtoztak a 
rendszabalyok pl. a Three Mile Island atomeromu 1979-es es a 
Csernobili eromu tiz evvel ezelotti balesete utan. Szo sincs tehat a 
tevedhetetlenseg hiterol. Sot, inkabb az orok ketkedesrol. Ezert 
tunnek pl. a mediaban gyakran erotlennek a nuklearis ipar kepviseloi 
a "kornyezetvedok"-kel szemben, mert nem lobog bennuk az 
egyeduli igaz hit letetemenyeseinek megszallottsaga, mert ismerik 
az emberi tudas korlatait is.
      Emellett meg azt az allitast is megkockaztatom, hogy a nuklearis 
ipar kockazata nem nagyobb, mint a kevesse veszelyesnek ismert 
iparagak (pl. textil v. elelmiszer ipar) es sokkal biztonsagosabb, mint 
a nehezipar sok mas agazata. Es ebbe az iparag nagy bakloveset. 
Csernobilt is beleertem. Hanyan emlekeznek pl. Sevesora vagy 
Bhopalra? Mint ahogy nagyobb a hirverese a nehany hettel ezelotti 
hegynek utkozott repulonek (Peru, 100-150 halott), mint az aprankent, 
de biztosan elpusztulo evi kb. 1000 embernek (Magyarorszag, kozuti 
balesetek). Persze ha 13 egy buszban, az mas, az mar szenzacio. 
Egy hetvegen 20, de mondjuk 15 autoban, arra mar oda se figyelunk 
a vasarnap esti hirekben.
       Mas: ismert-e, hogy milyen kornyezethez kapcsolodo 
tevekenyseget vegez/vegzett a nuklearis ipar? A szennyezoanyagok 
legkori terjedesere vonatkozo ismereteinket az Oak Ridge-i nuklearis 
kutatokozpont kutatasai alapoztak meg (lasd a tobbszor is megirt 
Meteorology and Atomic Energy c. konyvet) (bocs: az elso bekezdes 
visszavonva!) Vagy a kockazat (= bekovetkezesi valoszinuseg 
* kovetkezmeny integralja) fogalmanak, a 
kovetkezmeny-modellezesnek a kidolgozasa, es a sor meg 
folytathato lenne.
     Ugy, ahogy "navigare", villamosenergiat es mas kenyelmes 
energiahordozot eloallitani is muszaj. Az erre szolgalo modszerek 
kozul meg mindig a nuklearis energia az egyik legkisebb kornyezet 
terhelest jelento, gazdasagilag is versenykepes eljaras (a masik a 
vizenergia).
    Erre gondoltal, amikor azt kerdezted, hogy "Es az atomipar...?"? 
Ha igen, akkor remelem, hogy sikerult a kerdesre - legalabbis 
reszleges - valaszt adni.
    Udvozlettel        Gacs Ivan