On Sun, 6 Sep 1998, HIX KORNYESZ wrote:

> Mersich Ivan:
> > Sokan es sokszor kerdeztek a mohi eromu kapcsan, hogy mi lesz a
> > tajekoztatassal. Az Orszagos Meteorologiai Szolgalot dontese alapjan
> > mintegy ket hete barki folyamatos gamma-dozisteljesitmeny meresi
> > informaciokhoz juthat.
> 
> Remelem, nem kerdezek hulyeseget: a gamma-dozisteljesitmeny ugye
> a fizikaban ismeretes gamma-sugarzas (nagyfrekvencias elektromagneses
> sugarzas) mereserol szol? Miert pont ezt merik? Tippem szerint azert, mert
> ez gyorsabb, mint a reszecskesugarzasok, de mennyivel?


Hat annyival, hogy gyorsabb mar nem is lehetne: fenysebesseggel halad, bar
elvileg nagyon nagy energiaju reszecskek KOZEGBEN Cserenkov sugarzas
keltese soran "megelozhetik". 
Persze az az izotop, ill. az izotopot hordozo medium mar nem, amelyik
sugarozza, 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

>Remelem, nem kerdezek hulyeseget: a gamma-dozisteljesitmeny ugye
>a fizikaban ismeretes gamma-sugarzas (nagyfrekvencias elektromagneses
>sugarzas) mereserol szol? Miert pont ezt merik? Tippem szerint azert, mert
>ez gyorsabb, mint a reszecskesugarzasok, de mennyivel?

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.

Udv.Csaboca.

Egy kb. 30 eves csaladi haz szigetelesere salakot hasznaltak fel. Megszeretnem 
tudni van-e egeszsegre karos radioaktiv sugarzasa.

Ehhez keresek valakit, aki ezt megme'rne'.  

Lehet a salaknak mas karos hatasa is? (Viz hatasara gaz fejlodes...) A salak al
litolag szenes kazan salakja.

Koszonom

Peter

WE CAN ALL HARDLY WAIT FOR ELECTRICITY DEREGULATION

This week 18 New England power plants were sold to Pacific Gas & Electric of
San Francisco.  The small notice on page A4 of the paper, says, "The sale
solidifies [PG&E's] position as a major player in the region's newly
deregulated power industry."

You jumped up and down for joy, right?

This week four candidates for New Hampshire governor debated not whether but
how to encourage electricity marketing.

I bet you can hardly wait till power companies call at dinnertime like phone
companies with their sales pitches.
This same busy week the present New Hampshire governor held a press conference
at a printing company, praising the rate cut that free-market electricity will
bring.  That company's electric bill is expected to drop from $431,000 to
$352,000 per year.

That sounds good even to those of us with more modest bills, but in states
where deregulation is farther advanced than in New Hampshire the promised price
cuts are illusions.  They were due to happen anyway, or they are supported by
government subsidies (therefore what we save in electric bills we pay in
taxes), or they are available to large users only.

Furthermore, many deregulation deals roll surcharges into ratepayers' bills to
pay off past industry investments (mainly nuclear power plants) that could
never compete in a free market.  Those forced payoffs are pure corporate
welfare.  The code for them, in case you are trying to follow the bargaining in
your state, is "stranded costs."

You are following the bargaining, right?  No?  You don't have time for that? 
Well, don't worry, the folks who do have time are there lobbying.  They are big
utilities hoping to expand markets for their excess capacity and big
electricity users hoping to cut costs.  They are making the same promises
people made when they deregulated banks and airlines and cable companies and
phone companies and hospitals.  If you like the way those providers have been
treating you lately, you will love what's about to happen to the power
companies.

You're not so sure about that?  It isn't you demanding these changes?  Well
that's funny.  If you listen to folks who speak through microphones, you get
the idea that electricity restructuring is a) inevitable, b) the best thing
since sliced bread, and c) eagerly demanded by the American people.

Clearly there's a disconnect here.  The industry was shocked when, in
California, which offered free-market electricity last spring, only 25,000 out
of 9.9 million customers bothered to select a new power company, even after $73
million worth of frenzied advertising.

What a surprise.  Haven't we all been just waiting for the opportunity to shop
for electricity?  It will be as much fun as shopping for health care.

I apologize for the sarcasm, but the more I hear about electricity
restructuring, the more skeptical I get.  This is an enormous change in a vital
service, driven not by the public but by a few people who expect to profit. 
Given what we've seen from other deregulations, here's what seems to be in it
for us:

- Avalanches of advertising, much of it misleading.  (As in those $100 "checks"
AT&T sends us, which are in fact sign-ups for their service.)  

- Companies swallowing each other up.  (Where did Pam Am, Eastern, Braniff
Airlines go?  Who owns your local bank now?)

- Prices dropping, then rising, while services erode.  (Notice how the banks
suddenly charge for every little thing.  And how the airlines herd us like
cattle, squeeze us in like sardines, throw bags of peanuts at us and jack up
rates on routes they monopolize -- as they have done at our local airport.)

- Complex rate structures with good deals only for those with time, expertise,
or paid staff.  (It takes hours to sort through phone or airline or health
insurance options.)

- Distant management uninterested in the ordinary customer.  (The health care
industry is the leader here, but I also offer you this comment from a telephone
industry consultant, quoted in an Associated Press report: "AT&T doesn't want
to be the service provider for the little old lady with tennis shoes.  They
want to be the company that provides a wide range of services to profitable
customers.")

- Redistribution of income from workers to stockholders and CEOs.  (Unions are
weakened, pay is whittled down, jobs are exported, management pay goes into the
stratosphere.)

- Fraud.  (Such as the savings and loan debacle.)

These distortions don't happen by accident, and they don't happen because
people in industry are bad.  They happen because an unregulated market rewards
such behavior and punishes restraint from such behavior.  If your competitor
does it, you have to do it or say good-bye to your business.  That's why
governments must regulate markets, and why market players should never be
allowed to give money for any purpose to anyone in government.

Here's a set of questions to ask whenever someone enthuses about the next
deregulation.  Is this a service that people can do without if they can't
afford it?  Is it one that plain folks have the time and expertise to shop for?
 
Is it OK to stratify it into classes, so small customers get shoddy treatment? 
Do we want the provider to be distant and hard to contact?  Should decisions be
made primarily on the basis of short-term rewards to stockholders?  Can this
industry restrain itself from fraudulent behavior?

If so, privatize it, deregulate it, let the market rip.  If not, what's needed
is even-handed, unflinching, incorruptible, responsible-to-the-public
regulation.

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

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.  Illes Zoltan, az Orszaggyules
kornyezetvedelmi bizottsaganak elnoke szerint hazank a masodik fordulo
utan csak jobb helyzetbe kerulhet.  Eorsi Matyas (SZDSZ) volt kulugyi
allamtitkar kozolte:  gratulalni fog a kormanynak, ha eleri, ne kelljen
ujabb mutargyat epiteni a Dunan.

Horvath Gabor kulugyi szovivo kifejtette:  a magyar fel tudomasul veszi
a szlovak kormany donteset, hiszen az 1993. aprilis 7-en kelt kulon
megallapodas vonatkozo rendelkezese alapjan barmelyik fel jogosult
visszaterni a birosaghoz, es kerheti annak meghatarozasat, hogy milyen
modon keruljon sor az 1997. szeptember 25-en kihirdetett itelet
vegrehajtasara abban az esetben, ha az ettol az idoponttol szamitott hat
honapon belul a felek nem tudnak megallapodni.

A magyar fel kovetkezetesen arra torekedett, hogy az itelet
vegrehajtasara a felek ketoldalu targyalasok kereteben talaljanak
megoldast - kozolte a szovivo.  Hozzatette:  Magyarorszag kesz arra,
hogy udvozolje partatlan harmadik fel kozbenjarasat es kozvetiteset.

A szlovak fel majus elso feleben azok utan jelentette be eloszor, hogy
ismetelt hagai megkeresest fontolgatja, miutan Horn Gyula kormanya
kozolte:  Budapest az ev vegeig nem irja ala a keretegyezmeny-
tervezetet.