Søndags film i bunden af posten
Begreberne “radikal” og “populisme” anvendes i flæng om og mod hindanden blandt deltagere i den politiske debat. For at gøre det endnu mere forvirrende så betyder det alt efter i hvilken sammenhæng det anvendes både noget godt og dårligt. Af til endda samtidig. Lad os se lidt på hvad begreberne betyder og hvor de kommer fra. Bortset fra at enhver jo kan slå den bogstavelige betydning op i en ordbog.
Modsat “radikal” har populi vidst ikke nogen naturvidenskabelig (det der ikke skabt (af mennesker)) mening udover, at man selvfølgelig kan popularisere f.eks. videnskabelige artikler så de henvender sig til en større eller mindre kreds udenfor den kreds der dyrker netop det emne.
Hvis man har et ønske om almindelig og højest mulige (modsat speciel) indflydelse på den politiske dagsorden så må det program man præsentere nødvendigvis være et program et flertal, dvs +50%, kan være med til uden at få alt for dybe rynker i panden. videre må det være sådan, at personer og grupper fra alle sektorere og klasser, f.eks. segmenteret efter indkomst, principielt kan tilslutte sig, uden at dit træder egne interesser under fode. Dette er opskriften på det klassiske, almindelige, folkeparti. Om det sker på baggrund af et sæt af ideologisk betingede ideer er ligegyldigt. Hvad der betyder noget er, at man i det mindste forsøger række henover flere specielle interesser og grupperinger.
At man designer sit program herefter er der intet odiøst i, og at man tit og ofte høre skrigeri om “populisme” siger mere om afsenderen af kritikken end om den kritiserede. Et af parametrerne man kan måle på, hvis man vil se på hvor dygtigt eller udygtigt et bestemt folkeligt parti ledes er i hvilken grad den gruppe partiet henvender sig til, rent faktisk bakker op. I danmark har vi cirka fem af den slags partier, der hver især designer efter en +50% gruppe, som vel potentielt omfatter 75% af vælger korpset, hvorfor det gennemsnitlige “gode” lederskab bør ende med en gennemsnitlige 15% tilslutning. At DF er nået dertil på mindre end 20 år må betegnes som særdeles godt.
Overfor denne type partier står partier der sigter mod, at varetage specielle gruppers, f.eks parasit klassens eller ansatte med en løn mellem 300k og 400k årligt, interesser eller en speciel ideel interesse eksempelvis muhammedaner import. Et sådant parti er pr. defenition og som modsætning til det “almindelige” eller folkelige, “radikalt”, idet det må bruge andre metoder end almindelig tilslutning for at nå sine mål. Dette er der heller ikke noget odiøst i, så længe det foregår åbent og lovligt. Bedømmelsen af hvorvidt et parti falder i den ene eller anden gruppe afhænger naturligvis ikke af hvad det kalder sig eller skriver i et manifest, men af hvad det faktisk foretager sig.
Ofte, hvis man kigger efter det, støder man på den definition, at “radikal” er hentet i biologi og kommer fra radius, der betyder rod, en plantes rod, og at den radikales “metode” er at gå til roden af et eller andet man vil have ændret. Man skal, efter min mening, være varsom med at overføre koncepter og metoder fra naturvidenskab til anvendelse på sociale og politiske forhold. Og i hvertfald er det meget snævert hvor det giver mening. Til gengæld er det helt fint til, at give fingerpejling på, hvad det er for nogle underliggende ideer der er i spil.
Det kemiske radikal
Den korte definetion er at det er et atom eller molekyle med en ledig elektron, som desårsag kan binde sig til noget andet, hvad der så har en eller anden effekt. F.eks. kan det hvis styringen af produktionen af et eller andet radikal svigter, føre til organismens død.
I levende organismer er der masser af kemiske radikaler og wiki opslaget herom fortæller bl.a.:
Free radicals play an important role in a number of biological processes. Many of these are necessary for life, such as the intracellular killing of bacteria by phagocytic cells such as granulocytes and macrophages. Researchers have also implicated free radicals in certain cell signalling processes,[7] known as redox signaling. Some of these signaling molecules involve the free radical-induce peroxidation of tissue stores of polyunsaturated fatty acids such as linoleic acid, arachidonic acid, and docosahexaenoic acid. For example, free radical attack of linoleic acid produces a series of 13-Hydroxyoctadecadienoic acids and 9-Hydroxyoctadecadienoic acids which may act to regulate localized tissue inflammatory and/or healing responses, pain perception, and the proliferation of malignant cells. Free radical attacks on arachidonic acid and docosahexaenoic acid produce a similar but broader array of signaling products.[8]
The two most important oxygen-centered free radicals are superoxide and hydroxyl radical. They derive from molecular oxygen under reducing conditions. However, because of their reactivity, these same free radicals can participate in unwanted side reactions resulting in cell damage. Excessive amounts of these free radicals can lead to cell injury and death, which may contribute to many diseases such as cancer, stroke, myocardial infarction, diabetes and major disorders.[9] Many forms of cancer are thought to be the result of reactions between free radicals and DNA, potentially resulting in mutations that can adversely affect the cell cycle and potentially lead to malignancy.[10] Some of the symptoms of aging such as atherosclerosis are also attributed to free-radical induced oxidation of cholesterol to 7-ketocholesterol.[11] In addition free radicals contribute to alcohol-induced liver damage, perhaps more than alcohol itself. Free radicals produced by cigarette smoke are implicated in inactivation of alpha 1-antitrypsin in the lung. This process promotes the development of emphysema.
…
Because free radicals are necessary for life, the body has a number of mechanisms to minimize free-radical-induced damage and to repair damage that occurs, such as the enzymes superoxide dismutase, catalase, glutathione peroxidase and glutathione reductase. In addition, antioxidants play a key role in these defense mechanisms. These are often the three vitamins, vitamin A, vitamin C and vitamin E and polyphenol antioxidants. Furthermore, there is good evidence indicating that bilirubin and uric acid can act as antioxidants to help neutralize certain free radicals. Bilirubin comes from the breakdown of red blood cells‘ contents, while uric acid is a breakdown product of purines. Too much bilirubin, though, can lead to jaundice, which could eventually damage the central nervous system, while too much uric acid causes gout.[13]
…
Loose definition of radicals
In most fields of chemistry, the historical definition of radicals contends that the molecules have nonzero spin. However, in fields including spectroscopy, chemical reaction, and astrochemistry, the definition is slightly different. Gerhard Herzberg, who won the Nobel prize for his research into the electron structure and geometry of radicals, suggested a looser definition of free radicals: “any transient (chemically unstable) species (atom, molecule, or ion)”.[16] The main point of his suggestion is that there are many chemically unstable molecules that have zero spin, such as C2, C3, CH2 and so on. This definition is more convenient for discussions of transient chemical processes and astrochemistry; therefore researchers in these fields prefer to use this loose definition.[17]
Arsenik
Således kan arsenik i passende doser være hjælpsomt og i højere doser dødeligt.
Nappet her, hvor man bl.a. kan læse følgende:
Enthalpies of one-electron reduction and oxidation indicate that increasing the degree of methylation makes it harder for AsIII to be reduced but easier to be oxidized. The order of increasing favorability for arsenical activation by ROS is O2 < O2•– < HO•, and the oxidation of DMAIII to DMAV is highly exoergic in multiple redox pathways with concomitant generation of radicals. This is followed by MMAIII and by iAsIII being the least favorable. Spin trapping studies showed a higher propensity for methylated arsenicals to generate radicals than iAsIII upon treatment with H2O2. However, in the presence of FeII,III, all showed radical generation where MMAIII gave predominantly C-centered adducts, while acidified iAs III and DMAIII gave primarily HO-adducts, and their formation was affected in the presence of SOD suggesting a AsIII–OO/OOH radical intermediate.
Så ingen tvivl, videnskabeligt set, skabelse af forkerte radikaler i forkerte mængder til ikke ædkvate formål bør undgås.
Mht arsenik så kan det sågar være nyttigt at spise det. Således var det almindeligt i den østrigske del af Tyrol at spise det når man skulle arbejde oppe i bjegene. Det fortæller videnskabelige observationer fra 1851, her. Bl.a. kan man læse:
In 1851, the medical world learned of the practice of arsenic eating among peasants in Styria (now a region of Austria) through an article in a Viennese medical journal. The author was a Swiss physician, naturalist, and traveler named Johann Jakob von Tschudi. According to Tschudi the stimulus for his 1851 paper was a trial involving a poisoning case that had recently taken place in the town of Cilli, part of the Austrian empire. During the trial, the question was raised as to whether or not a certain military officer was a “toxicophagus.” Tschudi explained that since the “toxicophagi” were “more or less unknown to the medical public, I have thought it my duty to publish some information and observations on the subject.”
…
Although some skepticism remained, the medical and scientific literature of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries suggests that many, if not most, physicians and chemists came to accept the validity of the accounts of the Styrian arsenic eaters. In 1905, Henry Roscoe firmly repeated his belief that there were well-authenticated cases of arsenic eaters. An article in the British Medical Journal in 1901 claimed that: “It is a matter of common knowledge that arsenic and its salts exhibited for a time in small doses establish a tolerance, and the arsenic eaters of the Austrian Tyrol are the classical proofs of the fact.”
Fowler’s Solution, Public DomainThe publicity given to this practice helped to popularize the use of arsenic in medicines and cosmetics from the middle of the nineteenth century. Arsenic had long been used in medicine, going back to antiquity, and was finding widespread use by the eighteenth century. Arsenic preparations were taken both externally and internally. Of the various solutions of arsenic compounds, the most important was Fowler’s Solution, introduced by English physician Thomas Fowler in 1786. Fowler’s solution quickly achieved widespread popularity in medicine. While used for numerous conditions, it was especially valued for its tonic and stimulant properties.
Undskabens Hotel 