..valoszinuleg utoljara ez ugyben (legalabbis reszemrol).

Valaki (mert nem szeretnem a nevet elteveszteni) irja:

" 2/ Gal Ivannnak: errol van szo! A hulladekegetes amugy is orulet, de 
az itt tervezet technologia es kapacitas maga az agybaj. A most ott 
levo tetraklorbenzolt Dorogon gond nelkul el lehetne egetni - ha mar 
azt kell. Es sokkal olcsobban - nemzetgazdasagi szintet tekintve. De 
a garei egeto: "nagyberuhazas" - azaz nagy suskak potyognak a 
petrences szekerrol. Ide - oda. Meg:  a technologusok MUben 
gondolkodnak. Valami szep, nagy - az a jo! Nekik. "

Kerdeseim: 
- Mit szolnak ehhez a dorogiak? Beszeltel errol veluk? Vagy Te vagy 
"a dorogi" es uzleti erdekeidet serti az uj letesitmeny?
- Szervezed mar a tiltakozo akciot arra az esetre, ha veszelyes 
hulladekot ilyen nagy mennyisegben akarnak az orszag egyik 
vegebol a masikba szallitani?
- Milyen bizonyitekod van a sulyos vadakhoz? Ha ezt mind tudod, 
akkor miert nem teszel feljelentest? Vagy csak ugy a levegobe 
vadaskodsz? (Veszelyes! Vegul meg Te lehetsz a feljelentett!)
- Most mi a baj: az hogy nagy lesz vagy az hogy sok kicsi lesz? (Ui. 
egy masik haragos-zold a multkor azt kifogasolta, hogy tul sok 
kis egetomu van Mo.-n)

Nem szukseges feltetlenul valaszolnod.

Meszaros Laszlonak:

Az eges soran a klorbol foleg sosav (HCl), kisebb aranyban mas - de 
hasonlo veszelyessegu klorvegyuletek keletkeznek. Ezek tobbsege - 
foleg a sosav - bazikus mosoban a fustgazbol igen jol kimoshato. Ezt 
hulladekegetoknel altalaban meg is teszik, emiatt azok HCl 
kibocsatasa sokszor kisebb, mint a veszelytelenebbnek tartott 
szentuzelese.
De ha meg ki is menne, akkor is csak jobb, mint a kiindulo anyag. 
Jellemzesul alljon itt nehany immisszio hatarertek (Vedett I., 24 h, 
MSz 21854 alapjan) mikrogramm/m3-ben:
Klor                          30
Sosav                       50
Tetraklor-etilen         60   stb.

Dioxin 2,3,7,8-TCDD egyenertekben   1E-6  (azaz 1 pg/m3)

Hat ezert kell elegetni.

A 2. es 3. pontban megfogalmazott aggalyaidban biztos van igazsag, 
de ugy erzem ezt Te sem donto ervnek szanod.

Vegul egy kommentar:

Az egesz kezd hasonlitani a Gyongyosoroszi HAF ugyhoz. Remelem 
a kezdemenyezok nagy eredmenyeik kozott tartjak szamon az ugyet, 
mert igy meg csak egy gyerek halt meg olommergezesben, nehanyat 
meg apolnak es egesz falvak mentek tonkre az olomtol, mig ha 
felepitettek volna akkor "akar emberek ezreinek egeszseget 
veszelyeztetne, a kornyek hazainak erteket csokkenthetne..."
Es lehet, hogy nem diszitene az erdoket annyi szep elhajitott 
hasznalt akkumulator. Friss elmenyem: lomtalanitaskor kitettem a 
felgyulemlett hasznalhatatlan akkumulatoraimat, hatha elviszik azt 
is. Elvittek - meg a hivatasos lomtalanitok elott nehany oraval. 
Tudom, csunya dolgot tettem - most talan valahol gyerekek 
labosaban fozik oket -, de varom a jo otleteket, hogy a kovetkezotol 
(bar remelem nem lesz) hogyan szabaduljak meg. Szerencsere 
klorozott szenhidrogeneket nem tartok otthon, legalabbis nem 
hordoszam...

Udvozlettel   Gacs Ivan

SOMETHING THERE IS THAT DOESN'T LOVE A CLEARCUT

You have to be well trained by a forestry school or well paid by a lumber
company to see beauty in a clearcut.

If you haven't been so trained or paid, if you're just an ordinary bloke
looking at an expanse of slashed, rutted ground where recently a forest stood,
you feel slightly sick.  You know violence has been done.  Whatever your
logical mind tells you about jobs and profits and cheap wood, your conscience
whispers that this is no way to treat a forest.

That instinctive negative reaction has become a problem for industry.  As
hikers and campers discover open spaces where there used to be trees, as
companies need more timber to pay for mergers and stockholder expectations, as
ragged scars dominate once-green landscapes, citizens are becoming outraged.
In California they block loggers from old-growth redwoods.  In Maine they've
called a referendum to ban clearcuts.

To foresters these uprisings seem ignorant and emotional and hypocritical.
Cityfolk don't know a fir from a spruce, they are the greatest paper users in
the world, and they probably have redwood picnic tables in their backyards.
They sure as heck don't know what it would cost, if clearcuts were stopped.

But when the public is repulsed by something, there is often good reason,
whether the public can articulate that reason or not.  In the case of
clearcuts, the reasons are many, esthetic, ecological and economic.

Industry snatches away every tree, to be sure it doesn't "go to waste," which
means rot in place rather than being turned into dollars.  In nature's economy
that "waste" maintains the forest.  It returns the nutrients in dead trees to
the soil, slowly, at the rate growing trees can take them up again.  And as
they decay, woodpecker-riddled snags and moss-covered logs are habitat and food
for whole pyramids of creatures.

Nature doesn't do clearcuts.  Mostly, as ancient trees die, holes open in the
forest canopy, letting in light for the next generation.  Every now and then a
hurricane or volcano may level a swath of forest, but that swath isn't shaved
clean.  It's covered with downed trunks, piled like jackstraws, sheltering
porcupines and blackberries until new tree seedling rise up.  Even forest fires
don't leave clearcuts.  They leave nutrient-laden ash and charred trunks to
hold soil.

The industrial feller-buncher feeding into a chipper takes virtually all
biomass except underground roots.  It compacts and tears the soil.  Woodland
creatures flee, creating two problems.  In the forest to which the exiles move,
there is overcrowding.  In the clearcut there is desert.  The temperature
rises, winds blow unimpeded, humidity drops.  Life still exists there --
pioneer species such as lichens or crabgrass thrive -- but not forest life.  It
will be decades before forest-dwellers return, assuming there's someplace they
can hide out, so they can return.

The most stomach-turning clearcuts are on steep slopes in rainy territory, like
the ones that deface our national forests in the Pacific Northwest.  The rains
wash the soil away, slowing forest regeneration maybe for centuries, maybe
forever.  Landslides clog streams, bury roads, cover floodplains, destroy
fisheries.  Both floods and droughts get worse.  The cost for decades to come
is high, and it's not assessed to the clearcutters or added to the price of
wood.

In places like Maine, with gentler slopes, lighter rains, and less erosive
soils than the Northwest, the consequences of clearcuts are not so drastic.
But the patchy clearings surrounded with narrow "beauty strips" of remnant
forest form fragmented habitats certain to extinguish species of birds,
mammals, wildflowers, butterflies.  Clearcuts are often followed with herbicide
to kill off everything except valuable spruce and fir.  The new two-species
even-age industrial plantation bears as much resemblance to a forest as a wheat
field does to a prairie.

Every clearcut removes nutrients and speeds up erosion.  There is no guarantee
that after three or four clearcuts there will be enough soil and nutrients left
to grow a forest at all.

Any clearcut is an ugliness, even one done by a careful company with a
long-term perspective -- and there are such companies.  There are also
liquidators, folks who are in it for the quick payoff.  They grab the resource
and move on, leaving behind economic devastation that they blame on
environmentalists or government regulators.  In the national forests they bribe
politicians to subsidize their destruction with public funds.

This is an outrage.  You don't have to know spruce from fir to be outraged.
The public is not overemotional on this subject.  To the contrary, we have
waited too long to issue wake-up calls to an industry that has let itself get
out of control.  Our call for responsibility is still much too gentle.  It
shouldn't be at the state level (where a Maine clearcut ban could just send the
rogues into New Hampshire) or grove by hard-fought grove in California.  It
should be federal.

We should demand sustainable forestry -- preservation of soils and species and
a cutting rate no faster than regeneration on a local level, to sustain local
economies.  We should require forest operations to pay for all the damage they
cause, even long-term, even downstream.  We should eliminate public subsidies
to private harvesters.  And we should ban clearcuts.

All that will cost a lot, in the price of forest products, in the loss of some
kinds of jobs.  But it won't cost as much as the irresponsible, unsustainable
forestry that's going on today.

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