Reacties (4)

• Auteur

  Joanne

  Datum

  op 06-10-2009 18:29

  Reactie

  Het is een interesant verhaal over't woestijn= stof en ja het komt overal,want dankzij de weerman van radio West(te Den Haag)Huib Mizee weet ik dat woestijnstof uit de Sahara neer kan slaan in een bescheiden regenbui op mijn balkonhek en dat heb ik zelf gezien en dat is een raarfenomeen !! Succes met alle onderzoeken met bijbehorende verhalen/foto's enz met vriendelijke groeten van Joanne uit Nederland

• Auteur

  TwincamRS

  Datum

  op 06-10-2009 19:53

  Reactie

  Thank you for a great photo & one of the most interesting programs.
  It told me about how important the wind systems are and the dire consequences if they are interfered with.Well done.Best regards.

• Auteur

  Margreet

  Datum

  op 07-10-2009 08:18

  Reactie

  Nooit geweten dat stof zo belangrijk was. Eerst denk je: die stofzuiger en dat onderzoeken is wat stoffig. Maar het heeft blijkbaar veel gevolgen voor ons dagelijks leven. Uit mezelf zou ik niet een wetenschappelijk boek over dit onderwerp lezen. Net zoals het plankton verhaal. Dat waren voorheen voor mij wat al te kleine beestjes, waarvan ik alleen wist dat walvissen ze eten. De VPRO slaagt er in mijn nieuwsgierigheid naar deze onderwerpen te wekken. Chapeau!

• Auteur

  Gerty Bataillle

  Datum

  op 08-10-2009 05:19

  Reactie

  I have been reading the article of the Standaard a bit, and maybe I am wrong, but one or two of the suggestions that I read in this article, to prevent climate change from getting worse, make me think of Star Wars to a very high degree. Remember that in the eighties there was an American president who wanted to put up a shield so that no missiles from an enemy could to reach his country anymore. It was a costly and crazy idea that made no sense at all. So are we going the same way now to keep climate change from getting worse? It seems to me, and I feel very strongly about this, that it would be far better to invest in renewable energy that is not damaging the environment, instead of putting more crap in the universe. Of course, these are very intelligent ideas and I admire that, but they can also be dumb in another way. Trying to explain this better, let me go back to the eighties. Here was a country trying to protect itself from a foreign enemy wasting billions of dollars, instead of making peace, and that money could have been used to feed people who were starving in developing countries at the same time. So how decadent can we get in the developed world? And are we going to do the same now?
  Besides, in the past I have heard of ideas where people wanted to put chemicals in the sea so that a certain area would become more fertile for better fish harvests. They were, however, forgetting that eutrophication cannot not be confined to one area in the water and could have thrown the entire marine ecosystem off. What I am trying to write is this: We once thought that it was a wonderful idea to use pesticides for better crops, until there was a marine biologist in the U.S.A., Rachel Carson, who wrote the book called "Silent Spring" and proved that this stuff was killing life on earth. I am not suggesting that we plan to put anything toxic in the sea as a result of what I read in the Standard. What I am writing, however, is that we often do not know well enough what we are doing when we try to correct something. What I am also writing is that the earth has always been able to have its own ecosystems get healthy again. It has us right back with Darwin. Consequently I can only ask: Would is not be far better to find different solutions for our self-created problems? Change our lifestyles and do something to stop overpopulating the world? I think we can be more creative and should be wiser than wasting our money on solutions like this. Or
  is the state of the world so bad when it comes to climate change? I would be welcoming your comments on this as I think that this is where the Beagle discussion is also about.
  
  Fair Winds,
  Gerty Bataille, a sailor of Clearwater from Amsterdam