Kedves Mindenki!

Egy (pontosabban "A", mert csak egy van) balatonmariai nadas ugyeben aggodom,
attol felek, hogy feltoltik es eladjak mint a to nadasainak jelentos reszet
az eddigiekben. Igy is csokkentve azt a kis maradek allat- es novenyvilagot
ami meg megmaradt.

Ez a nadas 100-200 m szeles es kb 6-8 km hosszu, a part menten. Jelenlegi
tulajdonosa a Sarszentmihalyi Allami Gazdasag (illetve jogutodja, ha azota
felbomlott), kinek egykoron kezeloi joga volt a teruletre nadvagas celjabol.
Nadat ugyan mar vagy 20 eve nem vagtak ott (igy az arathato nad minosegerol
most nem is lehet beszelni), de akkori kezeloi joguk szamomra erdekes
titokzatossaggal tulajdonjogba ment at a 80-as evek vegen..

Mivel hatalmas partmenti teruletrol van szo, eros anyagi vonzas befolyasolhatja
az ugyben nyilatkozo es 'tevekenykedo' embereket.

Ami teny, hogy a nadaratasok megszunesevel rengeteg madar allando koltohelyeve
valt a terulet, itt latni meg bekat, teknost, siklot es mas, mashol mar
tetemesen megritkult viziallatot es novenyt.

A helyi polgarmester szerint a terulet mocsar es buzlik (ami tavolrol sem
igaz), ezert fel kell tolteni...aztan fel is lehet parcellazni...(1 m^2 parti
telek atlagara 10000 Ft-korul mozog),beepiteni es az uj tulajdonosok adoibol (1
m^2 telek eves adoja most 20 Ft, ehhez jonnek meg tovabbi adok) hatalmas
bevetelre tenne szert a helyi onkormanyzat. Emellett az allami gazdasag is igen
jol jarna anaygilag.

Csupan a meg meglevo utolso kis toredeke a termeszetnek tunne el megint nehany
ember rovidtavu anyagi erdeke miatt.

Eddig ugy tudom jelentos eroket forditottak a terulet eladasara, hollandok
epitettek volna udulofalut, szallodakat..stb, aztan valamiert megsem jottek.
Valoszinuleg gazdasagi okok miatt s nem a vadkacsakat sajnaltak meg.
Ami eleg gyanussa teszi az egeszet, az a hallgatas. Ezelott par evvel meg
beismertek, hogy mi a szandekuk a terulettel, mostanra titkoljak.
Legutobb mikor rakerdeztem (kb. 1 eve) a Pm. Hiv.-ban, megprobaltak adni az
artatlant, hogy meg nem is gondoltak ra...

Tudom, hogy a Balatonnak jelenleg sincs 'gazdaja', szinte senki sem ellenorzi
mar, hogy mi is tortenik a parton, hogy a 'beleszolasra jogosult' szervek
hataskore nem jo definialt, hogy viragzik a korrupcio..stb.

Megis arra kerek mindenkit, hogy ha tud segitsen. Szakvelemennyel, otlettel,
tanaccsal..stb. Hogy lehetne meggatolni a nadas feltolteset?
Hogy lehetne vedettseget biztositani az ott elo allatoknak?

Elore is koszonom mindenkinek a segitseget.

Nemeth Zsolt


-- 
****************************************************************************
Dr Zsolt T. Nemeth                    tel.:(+49) 2461 615196
Forschungszentrum Julich GmbH         fax.:(+49) 2461 612850    
INSTITUT FUR FESTKORPERFORSCHUNG         
52 428 GERMANY                      E-mail: 
****************************************************************************

@@@@@@@@@@@@
Kedves Piros, ez most nem sikerult!  Kuldd be kerlek meg egyszer.
Kosz
Diana
KORNYESZ moderator
@@@@@@@@@@@@

INDUSTRY COULD BE A CLEAN AIR GOOD GUY

If the EPA carries out its plan to strengthen the Clean Air Act, that will be
the end of Fourth of July fireworks.

Backyard barbecues will be banned.

You will probably lose your job.

The economy will crash.

All for a few asthmatic kids, who should just stay inside on smoggy days.

So industry ads and spokespersons are saying.  It's astonishing.  They still
hire public relations firms at high prices to try to make us believe stuff like
this.

The National Association of Manufacturers is asking companies for $25,000
apiece for a "major grassroots lobbying effort" against the Clean Air Act.  An
industry front called Citizens for a Sound Economy is spending over $100,000 a
week on radio ads warning that the feds are about to take away our fireworks.
Their hired guns picketed Senate hearings wearing prison stripes and handing
out bumper stickers: "Tell the EPA that Barbecuing is Not a Crime!"  The Air
Quality Standards Coalition consists of 600 firms and trade associations, each
ponying up thousands of dollars to keep clean air standards from being
strengthened.

There's no way the American Lung Association, which very much wants the
standards strengthened, can match that kind of spending.

Twenty-seven years after the passage of the Clean Air Act, over 60 million
Americans still live in places where breathing endangers their health.  Twice
that many are regularly exposed to harmful levels of ozone, the prime
ingredient in smog, the one that makes you gasp and wheeze, the one that
reduces even a healthy adult's lung capacity by 15-20 percent.  Incidence of
severe asthma, especially in children, is rising rapidly.

Given those facts, the Clean Air Act may look like a failure, but in fact it is
a fair success.  The air in most of our cities is improving slightly, though
population, traffic, and industry have increased.  Los Angeles, always the
worst case, had 239 unsafe air days in 1988 and only 103 in 1995.  Despite
industry resistance and underfunded government enforcement, the Clean Air Act
has let us go on growing without the air getting worse.  The trouble is, the
air is still a long way from healthy.

Congress wrote into the Act that air safety standards must be based on health,
not cost, and that the EPA must check every five years to see if new science
might require standards to be updated.  The EPA had been slow in doing that.
So in 1993 the American Lung Association sued the government to force it to
obey the law and update the standards.

Now the EPA has reviewed hundreds of journal articles, suggested two new
tougher standards, and gotten them approved by two scientific review panels.
EPA chief Carol Browner says, "This has been the most extensive scientific
review and public outreach process ever conducted by the EPA for public health
standards."  Industry says the science is weak, but industry always says that.

The new standards, now open for public comment, lower the acceptable
concentration of ozone by 25 percent.  And there is a new standard for
extremely tiny soot particles -- the ones most easily inhaled deep into the
lung.  Meeting the new standards would, says the EPA, improve the health of 37
million adults and 13 million children and prevent 20,000 premature deaths,
500,000 asthma attacks and 9.000 hospital admissions per year.  AND cut haze in
national parks and $1 billion worth of agricultural crop losses.

It would be worth giving up fireworks and barbecues to produce that result, but
of course fireworks and barbecues are not major sources of air pollution.  The
folks who bring you the real air pollution just made that up.

Medical and environmental groups are saying the new standards aren't tough
enough.  Industry lobbyists are telling us how much they will cost.  In 1990
they predicted the new acid rain standards would cost $1500 per ton of abated
sulfur dioxide.  The EPA said it would be more like $500.  The real cost turned
out to be under $100.  Now industry says the new Clean Air standards will cost
$200 billion a year.  The EPA says $7 billion.  Make your own guess about the
real number.

If industry heads were not caught up in a system that forces them to be
irresponsible, they would stop hiring PR firms to spread nonsense.  They would
admit that there is no scientific reason to doubt that the tons of pollution
they emit make the air bad and people sick.  They would recognize the
immorality of earning profits for a few, while throwing costs onto everyone who
breathes.  They would stop plotting to deceive government and citizens, as if
we were their enemies.  They'd come around to our side.

They'd say -- I can picture it now -- "You know, it's important to manufacture
things, to employ folks, to make money.  But it's wrong to make money at the
expense of someone else's health.  We don't want to do that.  So let's figure
out together how we can have clean air and a sound economy.  We'll put our best
technical minds to work on it.  And in an open, democratic process, we'll
decide on a fair way to split the costs and benefits.  Let's work together to
make the air clean."

After the comment period, the final EPA standards will be issued in July.
There's still time for industry to turn itself into a good guy.

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