IF THE GOVERNMENT SAYS IT'S SAFE, IT'S SAFE.  RIGHT?

The folks who bring us gene-spliced soybeans, corn, potatoes, and other foods
like to make a point of the U.S. government's approval of their products.  
The
feds OK'd it.  That must mean biotech foods are safe, right?

Right.  Sure.  This is the government that declared DDT safe and thalidomide
and DES and dozens of other drugs, additives, and pesticides that were banned
only after they had done grievous harm.  Given that history, why should we
trust the government?

Take, for example, the current controversy about endocrine disrupters, the
class of chemicals that mimic or block the action of the body's hormones. 
These disrupters include many pesticides, PCBs, dioxins and ingredients in
plastics, cleaning agents and other chemicals that you and I encounter every
day.

For decades neither industry nor government could have protected us against
this harm, because no one suspected its existence.  About fifteen years ago
alarms began to be sounded, primarily by wildlife biologists, who found
problems in sea birds, polar bears, alligators, whales.  For awhile the
regulators did nothing.  Then, as concern began to hit the popular press
(particularly concern about human sperm counts), the government did what it
usually does.  It commissioned a National Academy of Sciences study.

That study has just been released under a cloud.  Not only did the scientific
panel include several chemical industry apologists, but its staff coordinator
has just left the Academy to join a biotech industry lobbying group.

However the committee did include several scientists who are worried about
endocrine disrupters and who brought a mountain of compelling evidence to the
table.  Here are just a few of the findings the whole panel found undeniable.
 
(HAA is the report's abbreviation for "hormonally active agent."  Apparently
"endocrine disrupter" sounds too ominous.)

- HAAs are found in air, water, soil, and sediments all over the world, can
persist in the environment for years and can be transported long distances.

- HAAs are widely found in wild creatures.  The higher the creature is in the
food chain, the higher its concentration of HAAs.

- HAAs are also found in the human food supply and in human fat and milk.

- Birds that feed on HAA-contaminated fish reproduce poorly and their
populations are declining.

- Lab animals exposed to these chemicals develop abnormal reproductive tracts
and low sperm counts.

- Birds from the Great Lakes region and seals from the Baltic Sea, where PCB
concentrations are high, have weak immune systems and are susceptible to 
deadly
infections.

- Babies born in Michigan to mothers with high PCB exposure had low birth
weight, slow weight gain, and slow neurological development.

- Levels of the herbicide atrazine in Iowa municipal water supplies are
correlated with birth defects in babies' hearts, genitals, and limbs.

- People who eat Great Lakes fish perform more poorly on tests of memory,
cognition, and motor function than an equivalent group from the same region 
who
eat no fish.

- Several HAAs have been shown to reduce immune system function in both
laboratory and wildlife studies.

There are more such conclusions in longer sentences with longer words, but 
you
get the idea.

No government can protect anyone from dangers of which science is completely
unaware.  However, I would argue that once scientists compile a list like the
one above, it is high time the regulators step forward vigorously.  What is
needed is more research (which the panel did recommend) and stringent 
reduction
of public exposure to risk while the research is going on.

I'm not a knee-jerk government basher, but I'm appalled by the process by 
which
industry and government have colluded to plunge us into a soup of 70,000
inadequately tested industrial chemicals, plus a thousand or two new ones 
every
year.  Instead of eliminating the government I distrust, I'd strengthen and
transform it.  Industry funds should never flow to politicians.  Regulators
should not flow back and forth to industry.  Regulators should be adequately
funded to do their job.  Above all the government should see its role as
protecting health, not profits.

All that would require a starting presumption exactly backward from the one
that now prevails.  While resolving scientific doubt, don't keep exposing the
public to risk.  If we're dealing with chemicals nature has never seen (at
least not in the quantities industry is prepared to spew out), caution is
better than permissiveness.  People are more important than companies.  
Nature
is more important than the stock market.  Life is more important than power.

Serious campaign reform, getting private money out of public business, is the
only way I can see that we can ever have a government we trust.  Until then I
am not assured about gene-spliced foods, industry-produced chemicals, or
anything else the regulators have declared safe.

(Donella H. Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental studies at
Dartmouth College and director of the Sustainability Institute, a think/do 
tank
that promotes sustainable systems.)

Bocs mindenkitol, aki nem birja a jogi szoveget, es javallom a
PgDn-t.

> Az egyik tavoli szomszed egy autokereskedes megbizasabol
> rettenetesen fullaszo anyagot eget hetente 2 ejszaka egy
 ...
> Az illeto tulajdonos onkormanyzati kepviselo es
> autoszalon tulajdonos.

Hat ez roppant erdekes, ugyanis a magyar jogszabalyok kozt sok olyan
van, amelyik az ilyen esetekre is vonatkozik:
1991. XX. torveny az onkormanyzatok (es meg nehany egyeb testulet)
feladat- es hataskoreirol
85.§. (1) (h)
A telepulesi onkormanyzat kepviselotestuletenek feladat- es hataskorebe
tartozik az avar es kerti hulladek egetesere, tovabba a haztartasi tevekeny-
seggel okozott legszennyezesre vontakozo szabalyok megallapitasa

Tehat a helyi onkormanyzat koteles volt ezt a szabalyt meghozni es a 
szemetegetest vegzo szomszedod ellen ez alapjan koteles eljarni.

Masreszt a kereskedot is fulon lehet fogni, mert ugyanazen torveny
85.§ (2) (c)
A polgarmester kornyezetvedelmi es termeszetvedelmi feladatkorebe, illetőleg
allamigazgatasi hatosagi hataskorebe tartozik a legszennyezest okozo,
szolgaltato es/vagy termelo tevekenyseget ellato letesitmenyek uzemeltetoinek
(...), a tevekenysegnek idoleges korlatozasa vagy felfuggesztese;

Azaz a kereskedo ellen a polgarmester koteles eljarni, pl. legszennyezesi
birsagot kiszabni.

Ezen felul meg lehet jatszani, hogy az egetes modja nem felel meg a
a kornyezet vedelmenek altalanos szabalyairol szolo 1995. evi LIII. tv-nek,
a levego tisztasaganak vedelmerol szolo 21/1986. (VI. 2.) Minisztertanacsi
rendeletnek, illetve az ahhoz kapcsolodo 4/1986. (VI. 2.) OKTH
rendelkezesnek, amiben reszletesen le van irva, hogy mik a levegotisztasag-
vedelmi eloirasok es tilalmak. Peldaul ebben a 6.§ (1) bekezdes

Az ipari eredetu es a kommunalis hulladekot, valamint a mezogazdasagi
termelés soran keletkezo novenyi hulladekot nyilt teren vagy hagyomanyos
energiatermelo berendezesben elegetni csak a levegotisztasag-vedelmi
allamigazgatasi ugyben eljaro hatosag (a te konkret esetedben a polgarmester)
engedelyevel szabad. Engedely nelkuli egetesnek minosul az is, ha a hulladek
a szakszeru es biztonsagos tarolasra, orzesre vonatkozo kotelezettseg
megszegese kovetkezteben - elemi kar kivetelevel - kigyullad.

Remelem, eleg municiot adtam az elso lovesek leadasahoz. Sok kitartast!

Tisztelettel

Csussz

> Szevasztok,
> mar reg nem haborogtam (hoborogtem) e rovatban. Am, ujra itt vagyok.
> Az ok:
> 
> >A kaposztasmegyeriek az M0-s Kaposztasmegyer mellett elhalado
> >szakasza es a lehajto ellen is tiltakoznak, de kompromisszumkent el
> >tudnak fogadni, hogy csak a lehajto ne epuljon meg.
> 
> >Lukacs Andras
> 
> Kedves Andras!
> 
> En nem keszitettem felmerest, de biztos vagyok benne, hogy "ez igy
> ebben a formaban...."
> Nyilvan a kaposztasmegyeriek egy resze ilyen, egy resze olyan
> velemenyen van (mint a vilagon minden kerdesben, itt sem lehet
> egyseges az allaspont). Az mas kerdes, hogy ki milyen hangos, milyen
> ismeretanyag birtokaban alakitanak ki velemenyt, kinek mi tetszik
> ill. mi nem tetszik a kozeli autopalyaban stb.
>   Meg nem igen mondtak, hogy sulyos onbizalomhianyban szenvedek, de
> en biztos nem mernek egy ekkora tomeg neveben nyilatkozni, sot,
> kinyilatkozni. Az eredmenyesseg persze Teged igazol. A valosag mar
> nem biztos, hogy ugyanezt teszi.
> 
> Gacs Ivan


Kedves Ivan!

1. A Kaposztasmegyeri Kornyezetvedok Kore keszitett felmerest. E szerint 
a leginkabb erintett Kaposztasmegyer II. lakotelepen lakok (kb. 
5000 ember) tulnyomo tobbsege ellenzi a csomopont megepiteset.

2. A kornyezeti es egeszsegi szempontok elsobbseget kell hogy elvezzenek 
a gazdasagi es kozlekedesi szempontokkal szemben. Egyetlen egy ember 
egeszseget sem szabad(na) veszelynek, kockazatnak kitenni.

Lukacs Andras
>