||GIS- es amitoguru-allas a CEU-ban (mind)
|| 39 sor
||KERDES : Atom-hirek (Ukrajna) (mind)
|| 19 sor
||Immunrendszer & peszticidek (mind)
|| 66 sor
||On "Our Stolen Future" Part 1. (mind)
|| 52 sor
|+ - ||GIS- es amitoguru-allas a CEU-ban (mind)
A fizetes tisztesseges; a munkakorulmenyek kitunoek; es
a tarsasag ISTENI ;-))....! (diakok es tanarak uszkve 40 orszagbol....)
Az angolt persze kenni-vagni alapfeltetel.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES & POLICY
Central European University (CEU)
Nador u. 9
The Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy is accepting
applications for the position of Research Assistant.
Ideal candidates should have a background in computer programming to
develop software for the environmental software library and modify
existing programs, be able to help with day-to-day running of the
network and provide support for the users, have some knowledge of GIS
(geographical information systems), and have a working knowledge of
both Hungarian and English.
Please send a C.V. or resume, a list of three references whom we may
contact, and a cover letter to the address above by July 10, 1996.
Applications will also be accepted via e-mail to: >.
The approximate start date would be September 1, 1996.
Kerlek, kozvetlenul a tanszeken erdeklodjetek, es ne nalam!
|+ - ||KERDES : Atom-hirek (Ukrajna) (mind)
>Pervomaisk (South-Ukrainian Nuclear power Plant), June 1, -
>All the cities in the 30 km zone around South-Ukrainian NPP
>are cleaned up by disactivating substances. It's possible that
>South-Ukranian Nuclear Power Plant have released a big amount
>of radioactivity to the atmosphere on May 27, - special
>correspondent reported from Pervomaisk, a small city is
>located in 32km from the NPP. It's a tradition in Ukraine to
>cleanse cities by disactivating chemicals after serious
>accidents with radioactivity release from NPP, but nobody
>knows is it helping anybody. It wasn't any press-release from
Ezt a "disactivating substances" kifejezest nem ertem. Olyasmit, hogy olcso
es hatekony mososzer, azt el tudok kepzelni es akkor nem a sugarzo
izotopokat, hanem az epuleteket "sugarmentesitik". De az miert jo? A fiuk
ossze tudjak gyujteni a hazak tetejerol lemosott port? Ha nem, ha csak
vizsugarral lemossak a szemetet a foldre, az elso szel visszaviszi.
Mi ez a hir, meg tudna valaki magyarazni nekem?
|+ - ||Immunrendszer & peszticidek (mind)
<<Immune System Suppression is Linked to Widely Used Pesticides.>>
by Bette Hileman, From: CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING NEWS 1996,
Considerable evidence exists that exposure to widely used pesticides
may suppress the immune system, making people significantly more
vulnerable to infectious diseases and certain cancers. But the problem
is being ignored according to a report by the World Resources Institute
(WRI) titled "Pesticides and the Immune System: The Public Health
The problem of immune suppression from pesticides may be
particularly significant in developing countries, where infectious
diseases cause nearly half of all deaths. A large fraction of the
population here is involved in agriculture, with a concomitant
widespread and increasing exposure to pesticides. Farmers and
workers lack the knowledge and equipment to heed safety precautions
even when using products that are banned or severely restricted in
industrialized countries, says WRI Vice President Robert Repetto, a
former associate professor at the Harvard University School of Public
Health and coauthor of the report.
The evidence for immune suppression comes from three types of
studies: laboratory tests, wildlife, and human. And some pesticides from
nearly every major chemical class have been found positive for
immunotoxicity in laboratory tests, says researcher S. S. Baliga,
coauthor of the report. Although no single study in humans proves that
pesticides are causing increased disease, the weight of evidence from
these studies gives cause for concern.
Hundreds of studies in human cell cultures and 1ab animals using
accepted scientific methods show that many pesticides alter the
immune system, the report says. Such tests include those for
macrophage, neutrophil, and natural killer cell activity; leukocyte count;
lymphocyte count; and tests in which the animals are challenged with
bacteria, fungi, or viruses a after being given a dose of pesticide. If the
animals exposed to pesticides are less able than the unexposed
animals to defend themselves against microorganisms, their immune
systems are assumed to be compromised.
Wildlife studies also offer evidence that pesticides are immunotoxic.
For example, seal pups captured off the relatively unpolluted northwest
coast of Scotland were fed uncontaminated fish for one year. Then
the seals were put in two tanks. Half the pups were fed Baltic Sea
herring, which is polluted with pesticides and PCBs, while the other half
were fed relatively uncontaminated herring from Iceland. The immune
system responses of the pups fed Baltic herring were overall one-third
as strong as those in the control group.
Epidemiological studies in central Moldova in the former Soviet Union
have implicated pesticides in immune suppression. In one study,
teenagers in villages where pesticide application was greatest had two
to five times as many respiratory tract infections as teenagers from
areas of lower pesticide use.
In the US and several other countries, the overall cancer rate in
farmers is lower than that of the general population. But studies show
that farmers who use pesticides experience elevated risk for the same
cancers that immune-deficient patients develop.
The report says the "WHO should take the lead in designing and
organizing an extensive program of research to address the risk of
pesticide damage to the human immune system." Thorough testing for
immunotoxicity be required on all pesticides also recommended.
Currently, in the registration of pesticides, the EPA requires only a
single crude test of immunotoxicity - a measure of the weight of the
tissues involved in immune system function. That test is sufficient to
detect an effect on the immune system, says John McCarthy, American
Crop Protection Association (ACPA) vice president of global scientific
and regulatory affairs. But it needs to be supplemented with three new
follow-up tests for immunotoxicity that EPA proposed two years ago,
McCarthy says. The tests were approved by the Scientific Advisory
Panel to EPA's pesticide program and endorsed by ACPA.
|+ - ||On "Our Stolen Future" Part 1. (mind)
Edited excerpts from the book review by William R. Moomaw (Professor
of international environmental policy at the Fletcher School of Law &
Diplomacy, Tufts University)
Appeared in: Chemical & Engineering News, 1996, 74(14), 34-35.
"OUR STOLEN FUTURE: Are We Threatening our Fertility,
Intelligence, and Survival? A Scientific Detective Story=94 by T. Colborn,
D. Dumanoski, & J. P. Myers, Dutton, New York 1996, pp 306 ($24.95)
In a prepublication announcement, the publishers called "Our Stolen
Future" the second "Silent Spring" being a wake-up call to a newset of
environmental and health problems associated with the ubiquitous use
of chemicals. A quick review of Rachel Carson's 1962 classic confirms
that there are, indeed parallels between these books. But there are
also some important differences.
Like Carson, the authors of "Our Stolen Future" are from outside the
scientific mainstream. Colborn, who constructed the book's basic
hypothesis, is a zoologist and senior scientist and the World Wildlife
Found. She was assisted by Petersen Myers, a biologist who directs
the W. Alton Jones Foundation, concerned with protecting the global
environment and which provided financial support for the project. Most
of the actual writing was done by Dumanoski, an award-winning
The book primarily was written to the public and policy-makers, and
not for a technical audience. The individual pieces of research they
have assembled come from specific peer-reviewed scientific literature
and are carefully documented in extensive endnotes. However, the
links they propose between these research findings and the their
hypothesis have received little attention from the scientific community.
That hypothesis is that low concentrations of chemicals now
widespread in the environment can cause endocrine disruption,
especially during fetal development.
The authors, after skillfully describing the nature and role of chemical
messengers, make their case by explaining how hormones transmit
information that is during embryogenesis to create the brain,
reproductive system, and other organs. In adulthood, these hormones
determine reproduction and other critical functions.
Carcinogens are often species-specific metabolites of ingested
chemicals; by contrast, many species share common molecular
hormones. Hence, the authors argue that animal models are more
likely to be relevant to humans in the study of hormonal effects. They
then recount a series of observations of birds, reptiles, and other
wildlife; laboratory and in vitro research studies; and human
epidemiology and medical cases that they link to synthetic chemicals
acting as "endocrine mimics".
Much of the book's. power comes from its emphasis on alterations in
sexual differentiation and reproductive outcomes. The authors
describe reports of ambivalent genders of birds and wildlife; loss or
diminution of primary and secondary sex characteristics; infertility and
reduction of sperm counts in human males; rise in estrogen-stimulated
cancers of breast and prostate; and lowered intelligence in children of
women exposed to certain chemicals.
It is pretty scary stuff.