Ha mar olyan sokan irtak, en is meg kell irjam, hogy egyetertek
Eperkevel: az energiaval takarekoskodni kell. Elsosorban persze a
primer energiaforrasokra gondolok, nem a vegfelhasznalasra.
Minden realis energiaforrasunk veges, az energiafajtak
konvertalasanak mellektermekeit (ugye, milyen bonyolultan lehet
leirni azt, hogy fustgaz?) el kell helyezni stb.

Csakhogy en maskepp gondolom az energiatakarekossagot, mint
Eperke. Nem szeretnek sotetebb, hidegebb lakasban ulni,
kevesebbet kozlekedni, kevesebb e-mailt kuldeni, kevesebbet
telefonalni vagy szobahomersekleten inni a whiskyt (legalabbis,
amig a szoba eleg meleg!). Viszont lenyegesnek tartom, hogy
ugyanazt a vilagossagot, szobahomersekletet, helyvaltoztatast
stb. kevesebb primerenergia felhasznalassal erjuk el. Nem az a
takarekossag, hogy kevesbe vilagitjuk ki az utcakat (talan meg
nehanyan emlekeznek ra a 70-es, 80-as evekbol, amikor emiatt
megnott a kozlekedesi balesetek es az utcai bunesetek szama),
hanem az, ha energiatakarekosabb megoldassal (=jobb
fenyhozamu lampak) oldjuk meg a vilagitast. Nem kevesebbet kell
kozlekedni es langyosan inni a whiskyt, hanem kisebb
energiafelhasznalasu jarmuveket es hutogepeket kell gyartani. Es
az ipari celu energiafelhasznalast nem is emlitettem. Tehat valodi
teendo van eleg. Nem kell vaktoltennyel lonni a szelmalmokra
(kepzavarversenyenyen dijjat nyert kifejezes!).

Mire gondolok? Az elmult 4 KORNYESZ szamban mindenkinek
volt egy jo otlete, szeltol az atoeromuvekig terjedo skalan, majd
mindegyikrol valaki mas azt allitotta, hogy nem jo. Ezen igy el
lehet ragodni az idok vegezeteig, eredmeny nelkul. Az en
allitasom: mindegyikre szukseg van a maga helyen, csak meg kell
talalni az idoben es hely szerint folyamatosan valtozo helyes
aranyokat. Magyarorszagon pl. nem kene szelenergiara alapozni,
de pl. Skociaban lehet eszreveheto reszaranya. A geotermikus
energia jo lehet alacsonyhomersekletu hoigenyek, pl. lakasfutes
kielegitesere (persze megfelelo rendszabalyokkal, mint pl. a draga
visszasajtolas), de az osszes alapenergiahordozo felhasznalas
mintegy 50%-at kitevo villamosenergiaipari es kohaszati celu
felhasznalas szoba sem kerulhet. Kevesebb CO2-t szeretnenk?
Novelni kell a viz- es atomeromuvi reszaranyt. Dragul az olaj (majd
utana a gaz is, hisz egymast helyettesito termekek)? Kepesnek
kell lenni viszonylag gyorsan a szen iranyaba modositani az
aranyokat. Es meg sok mindent fel lehetne sorolni. Csak azt nem,
hogy hideg lakasban meleg whiskyt igyak.

Vegul Fidusz megjegyzeserol
>Sajnos a vilagbank is elsosorban az eghajlatmelegito olaj/gaz es
>banya beruhazasokat tamogatja elsosorban (na es az _oriasi_
>vizeromu beruhazasokat (megujulo energiaforrrasokra alig adnak
>tamogatast. :(
>Es hat mashol is a fosszilis es atomenergia kapja a tamogatast.

En nem hiszem, hogy tamogatast kap. Hiteleket nyilvan kap, mert
ma nagy tokeigenyu beruhazas hitel nelkul nem valosithato meg
(ezt mar a manapsag sokat emlegetett Szechenyi is megirta). A
Vilagbank sem jotekonysagi intezmeny, oda adja a penzet,
ahonnan biztos visszafizetest remelhet. A visszaterites nelkuli
tamogatas az egyes kormanyok feladata. Emiatt az, hogy mennyi
tamogatast kapnak a megujulo energiaforrasok fejleszteset celzo
kutatasok, az orszagonkent valtozo (ezert kar lenne a Vilagbankot
es a globalizaciot karhoztatni). Az egyes kormanyok is foleg olyan
teruleteknek adnak tamogatast, ahonnan hosszutavon valami
haszon varhato. Tobbnyire, a nem rovidlatok, tamogatjak is a
megujulo energiaforrasok fejleszteset. Ellenben a hagyomanyos,
mar kialakult energiaformak (ide szamitom a mai atomeromuvi
technikat is) altalaban nem kapnak allami tamogatast, mert mar
piaci alapon is megallnak a sajat labukon. Sot! Az allami bevetelek
nem elhanyagolhato hanyada az energiaipar altal befizetett
adokbol szarmazik. Talan a dohany es az alkohol utan a
legerosebben adoztatott kategoria. Gondolj csak a benzinarakra
vagy arra, hogy az allam a gazarakon keresztul a MOL-lal hajtatja
vegre a szocialpolitikai kiadasait (ez utobbi persze csak magyar
pelda - mashol meg sem lehetne tenni -, de a benzinre mindenhol
igaz).

Üdvözlettel
Gács Iván

HK>  :
>> Ha tomegkozlekedsz, vagy taxit hivsz, akkor is energiat
>> hasznalsz, amivel vegul is a Te erdekedben szennyezik
>> masok a kornyezetet. A bringa jo, de nem lehet minden
>> helyzetben megoldas. Itt, annak ellenere, hogy szinte
>> minden csaladban 2 kocsi van, sok helyen kivaloan
>> kiepitett kerekparut-halozat mukodik, amit sokan hasznalnak,
>> hasznalunk is. Na de esoben, hoban, stb. ez sem jelent
>> megoldast, ilyenkor marad a kocsi.

Bocs, de egy utaskilometerre atomegkozlekedes joval kevesebb
energiafogyasztassal ill. szennyezessel jar. Azt elismerem, hogy nem
lehet mindig bicajozni, bar mar ezugyben is hallhattunk ellenpeldat
skandinav orszagokbol, de azert nem kene a mucsotanyt (gyk.: auto) a
tomegkozlekedes fole helyezni...

Nekem nincs jogsim, es meg mindig elek...

Udv:

Fidusz

Tisztelt kornyeszesek, tisztelt KORNYESZ, tisztelt DPG (ha olvasod) !

Regota olvasom a leveleket, es rendszeresen mentem oket.
Most szuksegem lenne egy temara, tortenetesen, a szerves oldoszerekkel kapcsola
tosan.
Ugy emlékszem volt errol is mar szo, de nem talaltam.
Kerdesem tehat az, hogy hogy lehet ketesni az elmentett levelekben megnyitogata
s nelkül.
Ha van otlet, várom, meg barmit a VOC szennyezesrol.
udv PZ

(ezutan kivancsi vagyok:  Magyarorszagon adnak-e fluort az ivovizhez?  tudja va
laki?)

SCIENTISTS, FLUORIDE LOONIES, AND THE EVIDENCE

Back when I was a chemistry major, my professors told me in no uncertain terms
that water fluoridation is a boon.  It prevents millions of children from
getting cavities.  People who oppose it are hysterical know-nothings.
We budding chemists absorbed both the specific and the general lesson.  Fluorid
e
is good.  Scientists know best.

At just that time Rachel Carson was questioning scientific wisdom with
regard to
another issue: pesticides.  I was taught that she was hysterical too.  However
as I read more widely and went beyond chemistry to ecology, I decided
she was
right.  While I continued to respect science greatly, I came to see that some
scientists can be hasty in judgment, narrow in understanding, out of
date, or
more loyal to their ideology or source of income than to the truth.

But I didn't question fluoride.  The consensus was strong.  The dentists were
behind it.  Toothpaste makers hyped it.  Half the nation's cities fluoridate
their water with no obvious ill effect.  I classed fluoride opponents
with UFO
spotters and horoscope believers.  Loonies.

I never looked at the evidence.  I was thoroughly unscientific.

So my sins finally caught up with me.  People in towns on the verge of
fluoridation kept asking me to write a column on the subject.  I
delayed.  I
made excuses.  They sent me piles of information, which I didn't read -- until,
out of curiosity, one day I did.  

Then I went to Web.  Then I started asking my scientific colleagues. 
The deeper
I got into the topic, the more confused I got.  Fluoridation is like capital
punishment or gun control.  Wildly polarized.  Vested interests.  Each side
hoarding up selective evidence to prove itself right.  Enough conflicting
evidence to keep both sides happy.  My head spun.

I did come out of the process more open-minded.  Not all
pro-fluoridation folks
have done their homework.  Not all anti-fluoridation folks are loonies
-- they
include dentists and scientists and 1500 employees of the EPA.  Both sides
exaggerate a lot.

Here, for what they're worth, are some conclusions I drew after my whirlwind
immersion in this contentious topic.

- Fluoride does protect against cavities.  Back in the 1940s, a dentist noted
that people with "Texas teeth" -- brown, mottled teeth that came from naturally
high fluoride levels in their water -- also had unusually low cavity
rates. 
Comparisons of communities with varying natural fluoride levels led to the
conclusion that about one part per million in drinking water was ideal
to reduce
tooth decay without triggering the mottling (which is called fluorosis).

- Tap water isn't the only source of fluoride.  That dosage of one part per
million was calculated at a time when there was no fluoride in
toothpaste. 
Nowadays we also get fluoride in soft drinks, in air pollution, in fruit juice,
in children's vitamin supplements.  Studies over time seem to show that rising
exposure to fluoride from other sources makes water fluoridation less protectiv
e
of teeth and more likely to cause fluorosis.

- Fluoride is toxic.  It doesn't take much of it to kill vegetation, fish,
mussels, crabs, shrimp, cattle.  In human beings overexposure not only mottles
teeth, it weakens bone.  There are scientific papers linking fluoride to cancer
and brain damage.  The fluoride used by municipal water districts comes from
phosphate fertilizer plants in Florida, where it is stripped from
smokestacks to
reduce air pollution.  It contains not only fluoride, but heavy metals
and other
contaminants.  If it were not put in drinking water, it would have to be treate
d
as hazardous waste.

- There are arguments, even in the vaunted Journal of the American Dental
Association, about how fluoride actually works.  It may be by ingestion, gettin
g
itself implanted into tooth enamel.  It may be by washing the mouth, inhibiting
the growth of plaque bacteria.  Fluoride in toothpaste may be just as effective
as fluoride in drinking water.

- The epidemiological evidence doesn't seem to be compelling either way.
 If you
compare one fluoridated city (say, Toronto) with one unfluoridated one
(Vancouver), you can pick your cities to get any result you want.  Most of
Europe does not use fluoride, much of America does.  Is there more tooth decay
there and more bone damage here?  Expert panels have come down either
way.  That
suggests that neither the positive nor the negative effects of fluoride
(at low
concentrations) can be very big.

Given the uncertainties, given the variation in intake from other
sources, given
the possibility of overdose, given known toxicity to other forms of
life, if I
lived in a city deciding about fluoridation, I would ask, isn't there a better
way to protect children's teeth?  Why fluoridate the whole water supply, the
millions of gallons with which we flush toilets and take showers and water
lawns, if our only target is children's teeth?  Why expose all people to a
chemical of arguable benefit and some risk in a way they can't control?  Why
dump that chemical into water supplies and then sewage plants and then waterway
s
with almost no understanding of what happens to it after that?

(Donella Meadows is an adjunct professor at Dartmouth College and
director of
the Sustainability Institute in Hartland, Vermont.  See www.sustainer.orgf.)