Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Tainted water raises risk of thyroid cancer


Japan Earthquake multimedia:

Interactive slideshow Interactive gallery shows the destruction caused by the tsunami. View gallery
Latest videos of Japan disaster Videos show how Japan is trying to cope with the aftermath of the earthquake disaster. View videos

 

The analysis found that the amount of radioactivity found in Tokyo's tap water could cause approximately six excess thyroid cancers for every 10,000 1-year-old girls and one for every 10,000 boys of the same age, says Owen Hoffman, of the consulting firm SENES Oak Ridge Inc., which has evaluated the cancer risk of fallout from Cold War nuclear tests for the National Cancer Institute.
Scientists say the cancer risk is so low that it would likely be impossible to distinguish in future decades between radiation-induced cancers and those unrelated to radiation.
Still, in exposed children, the small increased risk of thyroid cancer would persist for decades, if not for life. It would take at least four or five years for any radiation-induced cancers to occur.
"At these dose levels, the vast majority of thyroid cancers would be spontaneous and not due to this exposure," says Fred Mettler, leader of the team that assessed the health effects of the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986, who reviewed Hoffman's calculations. "That's not to say one should drink contaminated water when you don't have to."
David Brenner, a Columbia University radiation expert, pegged the average risk of developing thyroid cancer as even lower, with a risk of dying from drinking the irradiated water at "virtually zero," not least because thyroid cancer is more than 90% curable.
The Japanese government this week advised parents of infants in Tokyo to avoid giving babies tap water — alone or mixed with infant formula — because it carries 200 bequerels of radiation per liter. A bequerel is a measure of radioactive decay per second.
Japan also has called a halt to consumption of dairy products and produce from the area around the Fukushima reactors after tests revealed contamination with radioactive iodine and cesium.
The U.S. government restricted dairy and vegetable imports from Japan.
Those restrictions also reduce the risk of cancer, Hoffman says.
For adults consuming 2 liters of tap water a day, the risk would be much smaller, roughly three excess thyroid cancers for every 100,000 adult men and 20 for every 100,000 women, Hoffman says. "These risks are small fractions of the usual risk in an unexposed population," he says.
The risk shrinks even more with every day that passes, because radioactive iodine disintegrates quickly, losing half of its radiation every eight days, a measure scientists call its "half life."
"Within about 80 days, there's almost a complete decay of radioactive iodine," Mettler says.
"Because of its short half life and volatility, a lot of the iodine that was initially in the reactors has already come out and is decaying. Unless there's a new source of radioactive iodine from the plant, the iodine should go away."

Japanese nuclear plant’s safety analysts brushed off risk of tsunami

Yukinobu Okamura, a prominent seismologist, warned of a debilitating tsunami in June 2009 at one of a series of meetings held by the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency to evaluate the readiness of Daiichi, as well as Japan’s 16 other nuclear power plants, to withstand a massive natural disaster. But in the discussion about Daiichi, Okamura was rebuffed by an executive from the Tokyo Electric Power Co., which operates the plant, because the utility and the government believed that earthquakes posed a greater threat.
That conclusion left Daiichi vulnerable to what unfolded on March 11, when a 9.0-magnitude earthquake struck off Japan’s northeast coast. Experts now say that Daiichi, as designed, withstood the quake. It was the ensuing tsunami, with waves more than 20 feet high, that knocked out the facility’s critical backup power supply and triggered a nuclear emergency, resulting in widespread releases of radiation.
The disaster highlights the government’s miscalculation in prioritizing one natural disaster over another and casts scrutiny on a review that more often reaffirmed NISA’s and Tepco’s standards than challenged them.
“Now I regret that I didn’t stress this more strongly, to push them to research this,” said Okamura, a director at a government-funded research institution.
The triple catastrophe, Japan’s greatest crisis since World War II, has left more than 23,000 people dead or missing and caused more than $300 billion in damage, according to a government estimate. The consequences from the nuclear crisis, though, are likely to have the broadest and longest-lasting implications, as nations reexamine their own nuclear safety standards and their reliance on nuclear energy.
No tsunami expert sought
In earthquake-prone Japan, an island nation that depends on its 54 reactors at 17 power plants for 30 percent of its energy supply, the disastrous 6.9-magnitude Kobe quake in 1995 prompted the government to require improved nuclear safeguards and construction standards. The new guidelines tailored standards for each plant based on historical seismic activity in its region.
In 2008, NISA appointed a panel of engineers, geologists and seismologists to review the safeguards and suggest revisions. Tepco officials were not on the panel but attended the meetings.
The experts were assigned to examine each nuclear power plant, but what they focused on was largely predetermined by NISA, based on such factors as geography and the historical record, according to a member of the group. For example, at the Hamaoka facility in Shizuoka prefecture, to the southwest of Tokyo, the reviewers were asked to look closely at the risks posed by both earthquakes and tsunamis. That power plant is located along a major fault line.
But at Fukushima Daiichi, along the northeast coast, the review panel was instructed to focus on earthquakes because a major tsunami was considered unlikely, said Takashi Azuma, a panel member who studies earthquake fault lines at the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology.
Of the seven panel members assigned to study Daiichi, none was a tsunami expert, Azuma said. From April 2008 through June 2009, the group met 22 times, he said, talking mostly about the earthquake dangers posed by the fault line closest to the plant. The risk of a tsunami “never came up,” Azuma said.
The Daiichi panel wrapped up its review and, on June 24, 2009, presented its findings to a larger working group of 40, which included just two tsunami experts. It was there that Okamura, who also works at the science and technology institute, first raised the idea that a tsunami could be as risky as an earthquake.
In A.D. 869, Okamura told the panel, a massive quake struck off the coast of Sendai, in northeastern Japan, sending a tsunami wave more than two miles inland. Only in recent years had a handful of Japan’s tsunami experts concluded that the disaster was more than allegorical, based on evidence collected in geological layers and sediment deposits.
“Research results are out, but there is no mention of that [tsunami] here, and I would like to ask why,” Okamura asked a Tepco official at the meeting, according to a transcript Azuma provided to The Washington Post.
Initially, the Tepco official downplayed the danger, saying that the guidelines for Fukushima had instead factored in a far more recent earthquake, whose magnitude measured 7.9. Okamura pressed on, pointing out that the so-called Jogan earthquake of 869 knocked down a castle.
“As you know, it is a historic earthquake,” the Tepco official said, dismissing its relevance.
“I don’t know how that conclusion can be drawn,” Okamura said. “To have no mention of that, to me, leaves me unsatisfied.”
According to the transcript, a NISA official ended the debate by promising to follow up. At the next meeting, the working group approved the Daiichi safety report that declared the complex’s safeguards sufficient.
Review was in progress
Tepco’s defenders say that the power company made a good-faith effort last year to learn more. Japanese tsunami expert Kenji Satake said that company executives consulted with him last year, asking about the 869 disaster. “They were in the midst of analysis when this earthquake hit,” Satake said.
Masaru Kobayashi, of NISA’s seismic safety office, described the panel’s work as part of a mid-term report and said NISA and Tepco were building on it with more research on tsunamis, landslides and other risk factors.
“We were about to start moving on to the next check and this disaster occurred,” Kobayashi said. “It is now too late to say that we wish we checked earlier.”
Yoshimi Hitosugi, a Tepco spokesman, said there was little reason to predict a quake the size of March 11’s, noting that scientists believe the Jogan earthquake had a magnitude of 8.4.
The Fukushima Daiichi plant had been built with retaining walls to withstand a 20-foot-tall wave, according to panel members and Japan’s nuclear agency. Tepco officials now believe a wave reached well above the retainer wall and flooded the low-lying backup generators.
The tsunami overwhelmed the facility, drowning the generators and shutting down the cooling system essential in preventing spent fuel rods and reactor cores from overheating.
“The diesels were in a very low area,” said Ken Brockman, former director of nuclear installation safety at the U.N.-backed International Atomic Energy Agency. “That would make them very susceptible to a tsunami or even an internal flooding event.”
The resulting nuclear emergency raises questions: To what degree must regulators design expensive safeguards against once-a-millennium disasters, particularly as researchers learn more about the world’s rarest ancient catastrophes?
“This is a question that addresses very much the political will of the country,” Brockman said. “The engineers will say, ‘You tell me what you want, we’ll protect it to that level.’ It’s just an issue of raising the elevation, building the retainer walls. The engineering can be done. You just have to give them the criteria.”

Special correspondents Kyoko Tanaka and Akiko Yamamoto in Tokyo contributed to this report.
nakamurad@washpost.com

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Why Obama isn't pushing for Yemen president to go: Al Qaeda

By Howard LaFranchi, Staff writer / March 22, 2011
Washington With Yemen looking like it could be the Middle East’s next domino, the United States faces one of the bigger challenges of the region’s ongoing revolution.
Skip to next paragraph President Obama has come down on the side of protesting populations more or less quickly as uprisings have mushroomed from Tunisia to Egypt and beyond. But Mr. Obama has refrained from joining Yemeni protesters and one-time government loyalists in calls for President Ali Abdullah Saleh to step down. The reason can be largely attributed to an acronym: AQAP.
That is the abbreviation for Al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula, the Al Qaeda offshoot that has directly targeted US soil – remember the Christmas Day bomber of 2009 and last year’s package bombs destined for the US – and that makes stability or chaos in Yemen a US national security interest.
“The places to be worried about are the north and into the east of the country, places that are fairly ideal for people who wish us ill to congregate,” says Charles Dunbar, a former US ambassador to Yemen who now teaches international relations at Boston University.
Officials and foreign policy experts continue to debate the existence of any vital national security interests in the Libyan conflict, but American interests in Yemen appear to be more clear-cut.
“We are obviously concerned about the instability in Yemen,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said during a visit to Russia Tuesday. Noting that the US considers Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen to be perhaps the most dangerous for the US, he added that “instability and diversion of attention from dealing with AQAP is my primary concern about the situation.”
The pace at which Yemeni military officers and government officials are abandoning President Saleh has quickened since Friday's bloody crackdown on protesters. Some prominent Yemeni journalists in the capital of Sanaa are predicting Mr. Saleh’s imminent downfall, despite the president’s recent offer to shorten his tenure, which otherwise is to last until 2013.
Earlier, Saleh announced he would not seek reelection and would not seek to have his son replace him, in a bid to quell mounting protests.
France, which has spearheaded international action against Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi, became the first world power to call for Saleh’s resignation in the aftermath of the government’s violent put-down of Friday’s street protests in Sanaa. On Monday, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé said, “We estimate today that the departure of President Saleh is unavoidable.”
But concerns that instability in Yemen could be a boon to Al Qaeda's freedom of action there are very likely behind Obama’s reluctance to abandon Saleh, say experts such as Boston University’s Mr. Dunbar.
Dunbar notes that Obama’s senior counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, called Sanaa Sunday and “read Saleh the riot act” about Friday’s violent repression. On the other hand, he suspects the US is still clinging to Saleh though many Yemenis have long sought an end to his 33-year reign. “I can imagine that the [CIA], powerfully represented by [Director Leon] Panetta, could be saying, ‘Leave him alone, he’s all we’ve got,’ ” he adds.
Saleh’s rise to becoming Washington’s “ally in the war on terror” suggests how things have changed since Dunbar was ambassador in Sanaa in 1988-91, he says. Saleh approved US missile attacks on AQAP targets and acted to facilitate the American targeting of Anwar al-Awlaki, the US-born Yemeni cleric the CIA is out to kill or capture.
The US is spending millions of dollars to train and equip new Yemeni counterterrorism forces.
But the millions of dollars in US aid – or Obama’s eventual abandoning of the Yemeni president – may not in the end play a decisive role in Saleh’s fate.
“I don’t see how we’re going to be able to do very much,” Dunbar says. “When it comes down to it, we don’t have a lot of influence over this problem.”

Lights restored at Japan nuclear reactor

Lighting has been restored in the control room of one of the most badly-damaged reactors at Japan's stricken Fukushima nuclear plant, officials say.
It is hoped the development will speed up work to restore cooling systems vital for stabilising the reactor.
Meanwhile, the UN's nuclear watchdog says radiation is still leaking from the quake-hit plant, but scientists are unsure exactly where it is coming from.
Japan estimates more than 21,000 people died in the 11 March quake and tsunami.
The lights came back on in the control centre of reactor 3, hours after power cables were connected to all six reactors for the first time.
The BBC's Mark Worthington in Tokyo says the hope is that as visibility within the plant improves, so will the chances of restarting cooling systems and monitoring equipment.
The Fukushima Daiichi plant's operators, Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), said engineers will try to power up water pumps to reactor 3 some time on Wednesday.
However, they warned that safety checks had to be made to damaged equipment and any volatile gases vented, to avoid an explosion when the electricity is switched back on.
They said restoring power to all the reactor units could take weeks or even months.
Workers have been battling to cool the reactors and spent fuel ponds to avoid a major release of radiation.

FUKUSHIMA UPDATE

  • Reactor 1: Damage to the core from cooling problems. Building holed by gas explosion. Power lines attached.
  • Reactor 2: Damage to the core from cooling problems. Building holed by gas blast; containment damage suspected. Power lines attached.
  • Reactor 3: Damage to the core from cooling problems. Building holed by gas blast; containment damage possible. Spent fuel pond partly refilled with water after running low. Power lines attached.
  • Reactor 4: Reactor shut down prior to earthquake. Fires and explosion in spent fuel pond; water level partly restored. Power lines attached.
  • Reactors 5 & 6: Reactors shut down. Temperature of spent fuel pools now lowered after rising high. Power lines attached.
Emergency teams at Fukushima have also poured seawater into a boiling storage pond housing spent nuclear fuel rods, cooling it and stopping clouds of steam - possibly radioactive - rising from it.
On Tuesday, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said that radiation was continuing to be emitted from the plant but it was difficult to pinpoint its exact source.
Senior official James Lyons said the IAEA and Japanese officials could not confirm that the damaged reactors were "totally intact" or if they were cracked and leaking radiation.
"We continue to see radiation coming from the site... and the question is where exactly is that coming from," Mr Lyons told a news conference.
The government has evacuated tens of thousands of people within a 20km (12-mile) radius of the plant and told residents 10km beyond that to stay indoors. The US has recommended an 80km exclusion zone.
Tepco vice president Norio Tsuzumi has visited evacuation centres to meet those forced from their homes.
Bowing deeply, he said: "Since I have tried to manage this problem hand-in-hand with the government, my visit here to directly meet you was belated. For this I also apologise from the bottom of my heart."
Higher than normal levels of radiation have been detected in seawater about 16km (10 miles) off the coast near the plant, but the government said they did not pose an immediate danger to human health.
Officials did however stop food shipments in nearby prefectures after detecting higher-than-normal levels of radiation in milk and certain vegetables, although authorities again insisted there was no health hazard.
Meanwhile, strong aftershocks are continuing to rattle the north-east of Japan, adding to the misery of more than 300,000 people still huddled in evacuation centres across 16 prefectures.
Tens of thousands of homes are still without power and more than two million people have no running water, officials say.
Police say the confirmed death toll from the earthquake and tsunami is now 9,079, with 12,645 missing.
BBC news graphic

Monday, March 21, 2011

Twitter: What It Means to Us


Happy 5th Birthday, Twitter. A few days ago I learned that I too had just passed a sort of Twitter-versary. On March 19, I received a tweet from TwopCharts reminding me that I'd been a member of the micro-blogging service for four years. Little did I know that I'd joined almost exactly a year after the service first launched. Twitter's five years, and my four on the service has been quite a ride.
I joined Twitter months before my own life changed. In the summer of 2007, I was named Editor-in-Chief of PCMag.com (and PC Magazine) and just as I was grappling with my new job, I also struggled to find meaning in Twitter. I slammed Twitter, along with Second Life and MySpace in 2007 (hey, two out of three ain't bad). I even laughed at John C. Dvorak, who predicted tweets would be saved for posterity. The Library of Congress has since said it will be archiving tweets. Nice work, John.
By 2008, I'd changed my tune. I still didn't entirely believe that Twitter would become something special, but I was well aware of its lightening-like bursts of relevance. Real news was being shared on the service—sometimes it was breaking on Twitter. I was tweeting more often, but still didn't understand how to grow and keep a following.
2009 was a turning point for me and Twitter, and January was the month Twitter transformed from entertaining social sideshow into something more. The fact that one heroic pilot guided passenger jet Flight 1549 to a safe landing on the Hudson River is quite remarkable, all by itself. The image of a partially submerged passenger liner and crew and passengers assembled on the wing and piling out the front door onto a life raft looks, even to this day, like a scene from a disaster movie. Twitter member iconic photo became the "shot seen around the world." Up until then, I doubt many average people knew of Twitter or that people were not only sharing snippets of banal information, but breaking news and photos on services like Twitpic and yFrog.
I spoke to Mr. Krums this week about that moment. I was curious why he chose Twitter to broadcast the photo, and about all that happened afterwards. Krums told me that although he'd only been on Twitter for a few months, he "was on Twitter at the time we were pulling up to the plane; [it] was the easiest way to send out a public message about the crash." Krums was shocked by the reaction. He "did not expect the photo to be picked up by so many people and media outlets. At the time I only had 170 followers."
One hundred and seventy followers to ignite a near global reaction. No wonder that moment - and that digital image -crystallized Twitter's somewhat amorphous existence into one of a solid tool for information sharing and, possibly, action.
As the year progressed, Twitter was thrust into the spotlight again and again. First it was the sudden celebrity fascination with the service. Actor Ashton Kutcher had been on Twitter for some time and then Oprah Winfrey joined in the spring. By this time, I'd become something of an insufferable Twitter snob. I thought I knew what was good for the social service and Oprah did not. Celebrities drew followers like flies. Soon Oprah and Ashton were in a race to 1 million followers (Ashton raced with CNN, too). I hated this contest, but in hindsight, it helped shine a spotlight on Twitter. Things got so crazy that there was an early April 2009 rumor that Google was going to buy Twitter. It turned out to be more of a late April's Fool's joke (or wish) than reality. By the end of spring, it seemed as if everyone was talking about Twitter.
That summer, the unexpected deaths of Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett created an as of yet unseen Twitter frenzy. As millions of Twitter members strove to be the first to tweet the death news, some decided to sprinkle in some dark flights of fantasy. Soon other notables were dropping like flies and the quite healthy stars were forced to drop into Twitter to proclaim their still-breathing status. I guess this kind of viral outbreak of misinformation was inevitable on a service like Twitter. Since then it's become more self-regulating and nonsensical rumors are snuffed out long before they reach critical mass.
Throughout 2009, the number of Twitter users continued to grow and the big news kept on coming. Twitter was clearly straining under the weight of a vastly more engaged user base. The adorable-until-you-know-what-it-means Fail Whale was an almost daily Twitter visitor, making it impossible to post or read Tweets for minutes, even hours at a time. The low point came in August 2009 when Twitter went down for hours, not because of over use, but abuse. Twitter was hammered by a denial of service attack that probably came from thousands of unsuspected computer users. In hindsight, this DDoS attack was a clear sign that Twitter had arrived. Malefactors don't attack a site that nobody cares about.
Last year was all about Twitter's maturation and by May I was declaring that Twitter is the new CNN. A bold, seemingly insupportable statement, but I had study findings to back me up. The research painted Twitter as something other than your traditional social network. Instead it looked and worked like millions of little news feeds. Your followers were really "subscribers" and Twitter could be defined as "a news medium." Twitter's timeliness was proven over and over again as people learned first on Twitter about Flight 1549, a bomb in Times Square, and the deaths of their favorite celebrities. While early Twitter was stuffed full of random musings, half of 2010 Twitter's tweets were headlines.
Yet, for all this validation, there was trouble brewing in the Twitterverse. Twitter was big, exciting and maybe even powerful, but not yet a truly successful business. Twitter launched promoted tweets and a major redesign that put some third-party Twitter clients on notice. Then things got worse for all those services sucking on the Twitter API teat. Twitter started building in more and more features found in third-party tools and warned partners to "stop filling[Twitter Service] holes." The change prompted me to publicly beg Twitter to not kill my favorite third-party Twitter app: TweetDeck. TweetDeck has survived, but this year Twitter told everyone to stop building Twitter clients.
This year will likely be Twitter's most important year. It's gotten dead serious about making Twitter not only a service but a destination for its millions of users. It will, one way or another, become a viable business, even if that means it rises up amidst the corpses of its one-time, third-party Twitter tool friends. Will Twitter be successful? Can it survive these growing pains for another successful half decade of growth and innovation? I don't know, but I can promise you that's I'm riding the Twitter train to the end of the line, wherever that may be.

Charlie Sheen may be headed back to TV

(Reuters) - Charlie Sheen may be out of a job, for now. But according to reports swirling on Monday the actor may be back on television sooner rather than later.
NBC News quoted sources close to Sheen as saying that CBS had offered the actor back his job on the hit comedy "Two and A Half Men", but no deal had been struck and discussions were ongoing.
Elsewhere, The Hollywood Reporter said Sheen met with senior executives at rival network Fox last week for talks. The actor sent a cryptic Tweet over the weekend reading "perhaps a new lair...? A Fox and a Warlock? epic" accompanied by a picture of a Fox television logo.
Sheen was fired from "Two and A Half Men," the most-watched TV comedy in the United States, on March 7 after a stream of public insults toward its producer, Chuck Lorre.
Earlier, the actor had been the subject of numerous media reports about his wild partying, and he spent time in drug and alcohol rehab, leading Warner Bros. Television, which makes "Two and A Half Men," to call Sheen's conduct "dangerously self-destructive."
Celebrity website Radaronline.com on Monday also reported unnamed sources as saying that CBS chief executive Les Moonves wanted to get Sheen and "Two and A Half Men" back on the air, and had spoken with the producer and co-creator Lorre -- the target of much of Sheen's ire.
Sheen's spokesman said he had no comment on the various reports. CBS and Warner Bros. Television declined to comment.
It was unclear whether Sheen would want to go back to his role as a womanizing bachelor on "Two and A Half Men" despite filing a $100 million lawsuit claiming he was unfairly dismissed.
The show is a cash cow for CBS and Warner Bros. Last week, Forbes.com estimated that it made an estimated $2.89 million in advertising revenue per half-hour show.
Sheen's public profile has soared since his March 7 firing. He has accumulated more than three million followers on Twitter, invented popular catch-phrases such as "winning" and "tiger blood", and organized a series of one-man stage shows that swiftly sold out in several U.S. cities.
CBS and Warner Bros Television have about six weeks to decide whether to bring back "Two and A Half Men" for a ninth season, with or without Sheen.
The TV network presents its annual fall TV schedule to advertisers in New York on May 18 at the so-called "upfronts", where broadcasters hope to sell the majority of the upcoming TV season's commercial slots.
(Reporting by Jill Serjeant; Editing by Bob Tourtellotte)

2nd UPDATE: Obama Defends Libya Actions In Letter To Congress

By Jared A. Favole
   of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--President Barack Obama on Monday defended U.S. military strikes in Libya amid criticism from lawmakers that the U.S.'s role isn't clearly defined and Congress was left out of the deliberation process.
Obama, in a letter to Congress, said U.S. military actions in Libya would be "limited in their nature, duration, and scope." He didn't provide a timetable for U.S. action but said the military strikes will set the stage for further action by other countries.
Obama's order last week for military strikes in Libya, aimed at quelling civilian casualties at the hands of loyalists to Col. Moammar Gadhafi, has come under increasing scrutiny from lawmakers who feel they weren't sufficiently consulted.
House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) said in a statement Sunday that the U.S. has a moral obligation to stand with those seeking freedom. He said the administration has a "responsibility to define for the American people, the Congress, and our troops what the mission in Libya is, better explain what America's role is in achieving that mission, and make clear how it will be accomplished."
Obama said the strikes became necessary as Gadhafi refused to abide by a ceasefire. "Gadhafi's continued attacks and threats against civilians and civilian populated areas are of grave concern to neighboring Arab nations and...constitute a threat to the region and to international peace and security," Obama said.
Obama has given two speeches in the last several days on U.S. military action in Libya. He also met with a bipartisan group of 18 Congressional leaders last week before authorizing military action. Top military officials, including Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, have also discussed publicly the U.S. role in Libya.
Still, some lawmakers say Obama hasn't done enough outreach. "I find it very troubling and unacceptable that President Obama has committed American forces to the conflict in Libya without any consultation or consent from Congress," Rep. Candice Miller (R., Mich.) said in a statement Monday.
She also criticized him for leaving the U.S. after deciding to use force in Libya. Obama is touring Latin America to help boost economic ties. He has been updated by his national security officials about the military strikes in Libya since he left the U.S. on Friday.
It is unclear whether the criticism prompted Obama to pen the letter. Obama says he wrote the letter "as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution."
Obama repeated that the U.S. won't deploy ground troops to Libya and would be working with other countries. Military action by the U.S. and other countries came after the U.N. Security Council voted to institute a no-fly zone over Libya.
The initial aim of U.S. involvement is cutting off supply lines for the Gadhafi regime, Mullen said in an interview that aired Sunday morning on CNN. U.S. military officials have said the U.S. will eventually move to more of a supporting role.
While Gadhafi likely will still be in power after initial attacks against his supply lines, the U.S. still wants him to step down.
"We have been clear that in the long term we don't see Gadhafi as a legitimate ruler and we believe he should step down," said Mark Toner, acting deputy spokesman at the U.S. State Department. He added, "It's not for us to present him with some kind of golden parachute after what he's done."
-By Jared A. Favole, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9256; jared.favole@dowjones.com

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Oil prices jump as air strikes escalate Libya war


West Texas Intermediate Crude Oil Futures $/barrel

Last Updated at 18 Mar 2011, 17:15 ET *Chart shows local time West Texas Intermediate Crude Oil Future intraday chart
pricechange%
101.54 +
+0.12
+
+0.12
Oil prices have climbed after the US led a series of air strikes against Libya.
Brent crude rose as much as $2.26 to $116.19 a barrel, while US light crude rose as much as $2.12 to $103.19.
Analysts said there are concerns about crude supply disruption. Libya is the world's twelfth-largest oil producer.
Crude prices have been volatile in recent weeks as markets have dealt with a number of issues including the Japan earthquake.
"I can see uncertainty and fear driving the price of oil higher in the short term," said Matthew Lewis of CMC Markets.
"At this stage, it looks like Libya has further to play. Gaddafi still seems very defiant.
"We'll see further spikes and shocks in the oil market this week."
Analysts said that as well as the military action in Libya, there are also concerns about the spread of unrest across the Middle East.

Egyptian voters say ‘yes’ to speedy elections

CAIRO — Repressed for decades, the Egyptian people have spoken: They want a democratic government to go along with their revolution, and they want it fast.
On Sunday, judicial officials reported that 77 percent of those who cast ballots in a historic referendum Saturday voted “yes” on constitutional amendments designed to speed Egypt’s transition from temporary military rule to credible parliamentary and presidential elections.
About 18 million out of more than 45 million eligible voters went to the polls — or 41 percent, below the optimistically high estimates officials had issued Saturday but still a remarkable display of democratic vigor as Egyptians embraced their first chance since the colonial era to participate in a political process whose outcome wasn’t essentially rigged.
The constitutional changes, drafted by a military-appointed panel of legal experts, will encourage the formation of political parties, restrict future presidents to two four-year terms, rein in executive powers, and limit emergency rule to six months, subject to parliamentary approval, rather than the 30 years that marked the tenure of former president Hosni Mubarak.
The voting Saturday was largely calm and almost entirely free of irregularities — about 171,000 ballots nationwide were invalidated, officials said Sunday — but the referendum exposed some sectarian and class fault lines in the Arab world’s most populous nation. The well-organized Muslim Brotherhood urged a “yes” vote, whereas the Christian Coptic community opposed the amendments. So did many secular political leaders and organizers of the student movement that gathered forces to oust Mubarak, who resigned Feb. 11.
Referendum opponents said the quick timetable for parliamentary elections, which could come as early as September, favored the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as Mubarak’s National Democratic Party. They called for a clean break from the past by scrapping the 1971-era constitution entirely, rather than grafting on amendments — noting that some of the changes were proposed by Mubarak in his effort to assuage protesters in his final days in office.
Other “no” voters in well-off areas raised alarms that approving the changes would tilt Egypt toward Islamist fundamentalism and pointed to the Muslim Brotherhood’s strong following among the poor and less educated. But a Muslim Brotherhood spokesman, Essam el-Erian, scoffed at the suggestion that the vote was sectarian.
“Voting was based on patriotic common ground,” he said. “Voting was based on political ideologies rather than religious ones. . . . We are looking to the future, looking for a complete civilian state.”
But Ahmad Maher, a coordinator of one of the revolutionary youth groups, insisted that the voting broke down along sectarian lines. “In the coming period, we will try to spread political awareness among people and combat this shameful tendency of using religion for political goals,” he said.
To Kristen Stilt, an Arabic-speaking law professor from Northwestern University who talked to many voters Saturday as part of her research on Egyptian constitutional law, the landslide “yes” signaled the public’s yearning for stability.
“Despite the revolution, most Egyptians still cling to the structures of the past — a government, a president — and say that these are the structures we must have now,” she said. “People say, ‘When will the economy get better, when will the tourists come back? When we have a government in place.’ ”
That reflected the hopes of “yes” voter Mostafa Hassan, a Cairo dry cleaner. “Egypt is a free country now,” he said. “Of course, I am very happy. It will be good for business.”

Special correspondents Muhammad Mansour and Sherine Bayoumi contributed to this report.
leibyr@washpost.com

AT&T Has to Fend Off Regulatory Scrutiny to Win Nod for ‘Unthinkable’ Bid

The acquisition would push AT&T past its largest rival, Verizon Wireless, to become the biggest U.S. mobile-phone carrier. AT&T and T-Mobile combined have 39 percent of the market, according to research firm EMarketer Inc.
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission and consumer groups may be concerned the deal will reduce competition and consumer choices, pushing up prices. AT&T anticipates regulators will require it to divest wireless spectrum and subscribers as a condition for approval, said a person with knowledge of the situation. A failure to complete the deal would mean AT&T may need to pay to a breakup fee of $3 billion and some spectrum, said two people with knowledge of the matter.
“AT&T-T-Mobile is apt to be scrutinized more thoroughly than any other merger to date by the Obama administration,” said Jeffrey Silva, an analyst with Medley Global Advisors LLC in Washington. “The FCC is expected to come under heavy pressure from consumer advocates, public interest groups and congressional Democrats to block the deal.”
The combination of the second-largest wireless carrier with the fourth-largest is "unthinkable," Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a Washington-based advocacy group, said in a statement. "We know the results of arrangements like this –- higher prices, fewer choices, less innovation."

Confident About Approval

AT&T, based in Dallas, could also be required to build out more rural networks or provide data roaming to rural carriers, increasing the reach of Internet access in the U.S., a goal by President Barack Obama’s administration, said Roger Entner, an analyst at Recon Analytics LLC in Boston.
Robert Kenny, a spokesman for the FCC, and Gina Talamona, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, which may also scrutinize the deal, declined to comment. Cecelia Prewett, a spokeswoman for the Federal Trade Commission, another agency that reviews acquisitions, also declined to comment.
AT&T rose 20 cents to $27.94 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading on March 18. The stock has lost 4.9 percent this year. T-Mobile’s parent, Deutsche Telekom AG (DTE), is little changed in 2011 and fell 1.3 percent to 9.59 euros in Frankfurt.
AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson said the company had been in discussions with Deutsche Telekom for about three months. He didn’t say where talks took place or between whom, specifically. He said AT&T had done its own review and determined that it was likely to get regulatory approval before it proceeded with extensive talks with Deutsche Telekom. The companies said completing the deal may take a year.

‘Terminator’

The history of AT&T goes back to 1875, when Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone. The company became the parent of the Bell system, which offered U.S. phone service as a monopoly. The Justice Department broke up AT&T in 1984 into eight so-called Baby Bells, including one that has grown to what is now AT&T.
“AT&T was broken up and now it’s back with a vengeance,” said Bert Foer, president of the American Antitrust Institute, a Washington-based non-profit researcher that challenges what it sees as abuses of concentrated economic power. “We have to decide if we’re happy with the idea of going back to monopolistic treatment of the telecom industry. AT&T has come back to monopolistic power just like the Terminator.”

Dwarfing Sprint

In addition to surpassing Verizon Wireless, AT&T could leave Sprint Nextel Corp. (S) as a far weaker No. 3 player in the industry, said Rebecca Arbogast, an analyst for Stifel Nicolaus & Co. in Washington. Sprint also held talks with Deutsche Telekom about buying T-Mobile, people with knowledge of the matter said this month.
“The question is whether the government will be satisfied with other ways to maintain competition in the wireless industry and let this deal go through,” Arbogast said.
The Free Press, a media reform group in Washington, said the concentration of the market will lead to higher prices and fewer choices for users and urged regulators to reject the deal.
The FCC said last year concentration is rising among U.S. mobile-telephone providers, a conclusion that AT&T Senior Vice President Robert Quinn in a statement called “a dramatic break” from precedent. The FCC under Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat, has increased scrutiny of wireless carriers for actions such as exclusive contracts with handset makers and fees that may thwart competition.

Spectrum Crunch

Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat, said last year that wireless industry concentration had “skyrocketed,” a circumstance he said “should flash a bright caution light for this commission.”
The potential scrutiny from regulators would have to be weighed against the benefit of delaying a possible exhaustion of available mobile-phone spectrum, said Larry Freedman, a partner at law firm Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP, which focuses on telecommunications. By combining, AT&T and T-Mobile would be able to share resources, including airwaves.
“One of the interesting things that’s going to help them at the FCC is the compatibility of the networks,” Washington- based Freedman said in an interview. “The spectrum crunch would be alleviated because you have complementary networks and the ability to use each other’s spectrum. That could be viewed as a positive.”
With video-capable devices such as Apple Inc.’s iPhone gaining in popularity, the carriers have said they expect their current spectrum allocations to last for another three or four years. President Obama proposed last year almost doubling the airwaves available for smartphones, laptops and other wireless devices to meet demands for mobile broadband services.
Still, the spectrum benefit alone is unlikely to be enough to convince regulators the acquisition won’t harm the industry.
"It is unlikely that AT&T would attempt a deal that they knew would fail; however, we can’t see how they would get this through without massive divestitures and concessions," Jonathan Chaplin, an analyst at Credit Suisse Group AG in New York, said in a note. "We have never seen a deal with more regulatory risk be attempted in the U.S."
To contact the reporters on this story: Amy Thomson in New York at athomson6@bloomberg.net; Sara Forden in Washington at sforden@bloomberg.net; Todd Shields in Washington at tshields3@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Peter Elstrom at pelstrom@bloomberg.net

Friday, March 18, 2011

Gunmen Kill 45 Protesters in Yemen .

[0318yemen] Reuters
Anti-government protesters carry an injured fellow protester in San'a March 18.
SAN'A, Yemen—Armed men opened fire on crowds of antigovernment protesters Friday in Yemen's capital, killing an estimated 45 people and injuring hundreds—prompting Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh to declare a state of emergency and suggesting his government has shifted to a hard line against its hardening opposition.
Friday's bloodshed marked the most significant escalation in violence in Yemen's capital since protesters began in January to call for the end of Mr. Saleh's 32-year regime. The one-day death toll stood higher than the estimated 40 demonstration-linked fatalities in Yemen until now.
The day's violence began after Friday prayers, a time city residents have in recent weeks joined protesters who are camped near San'a University. Several people who saw Friday's crowds estimated the demonstrators numbered 100,000 or more, San'a's largest protests yet.
Yemen's president declares a state of emergency after around 30 protesters are killed at an anti-government rally. Witnesses said official forces opened fire, but this was later refuted by the president. Video and image courtesy of Reuters.
Gunfire rang out. Gunmen could be seen firing into a crowd of thousands from atop buildings. Black smoke poured from the edge of the demonstration site. Some witnesses said the smoke came from burning tires, in a screen that helped mask the gunmen's position.
Within hours of the incident, Mr. Saleh declared a state of emergency that clamps down on freedom of movement, the right to gather and the publication of materials. The emergency law exempts police from Yemen's criminal code when they are carrying out inspections and arrests, according to local media.
Recent clashes in San'a have been marked by large numbers of security forces firing live ammunition, rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannons to disperse demonstrators.
Witnesses said there were no security forces visible during Friday's shooting. Those who fired on the crowds, they said, were wearing civilian clothes.
Mr. Saleh, in the news conference in which he announced emergency measures, expressed sorrow and blamed protesters for the violence. "It is clear there are armed elements inside these tents and they are the ones who opened fire," he said.

Regional Upheaval

Track events day by day.
The U.S., in an unusually blunt statement directed against a U.S. ally and aid recipient, sharply criticized the use of force.
"I strongly condemn the violence that has taken place in Yemen today and call on President Saleh to adhere to his public pledge to allow demonstrations to take place peacefully. Those responsible for today's violence must be held accountable," President Barack Obama said in the statement.
Top White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, speaking in New York, said he planned to call Mr. Saleh on Friday. He said the U.S. "condemns in the strongest terms" the use of violence against peaceful protesters. The statements were the strongest U.S. condemnations yet of Yemen's response to the unrest, reflecting growing tension with Mr. Saleh, a key U.S. partner in the campaign against Yemen-based al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
Yemen's opposition members saw the declaration as a last bid by Mr. Saleh to suppress protest under the protection of the law. "The widespread killing that took place today, followed by the declaration of emergency law, demonstrate that the power of the people on the street has become greater than that of the government," said opposition spokesman Mohammed al-Sabri.
In the weeks since the January fall of Tunisia's Zine Abedine Ben Ali sparked Yemen's protest movement, Mr. Saleh has offered a host of political and economic concessions to opponents, including a pledge to step down in 2013. But public distrust of his regime, coupled with confidence inspired by the ousting of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, have seen the opposition continue to grow. A week ago, opposition representatives were swift to reject Mr. Saleh's most sweeping reform proposal to date, an offer to turn the government into a parliamentary system.
Mr. Saleh said the decision to impose emergency law came from Yemen's national security council, a body of military leaders. He didn't say how long it may last. The Yemeni constitution says the president must present the law within a week to the country's house of representatives, a body largely loyal to Mr. Saleh.
Friday's events suggest the space for dialogue may be closing. "This may be a point that shows that the regime has chosen a violent path and that it will continue to use violence to retain power," said Yemeni political analyst Abdul Ghani al-Iryani.
During Friday's initial chaos, demonstrators charged toward the center of the violence amid bursts of gunfire, screaming that the movement must be united. In the middle of the densely packed area where shots were fired, some held open their jackets in defiance.
 At one point, protesters captured one of the men they believed to be involved in the shooting. Dozens seized upon the man, who disappeared beneath a flurry of fists and sticks and was dragged away. His fate was unclear.
AP Photo
Antigovernment protesters gather Friday at a field hospital to check on friends and relatives in San'a, Yemen.
A stream of dead and wounded bodies were rushed to a nearby mosque, now a makeshift hospital staffed by volunteers. Inside the inner prayer room, 21 young men lay dead, nearly all from bullet wounds to the head or neck. More bodies had been taken to a nearby hospital. By day's end, Dr. Wasim al-Qershi, who was on the scene, said 45 people had died and more than 500 were injured.
After the gunfire had subsided, protesters stormed a building where gunmen had been spotted, claiming it belonged to the governor of al-Mahwit province. They then torched the building.
 As violence has intensified in recent weeks, thousands of tribesmen from outside the capital have come to San'a to join protesters. Until today, many believed that their presence acted as a deterrent to the use of excessive force. Yemen's tribes are known for retaliatory violence and are heavily armed.  Those tribes that have joined the protests have done so in peace, they say, without bringing weapons.
"Ali Abdullah Saleh says that we are the violent ones, that we are terrorists," said Salah al-Rashid, a tribesman from al-Jowf, a conflict-prone region where clashes with the government have broken out as recently as this week. "Look at what happened today. He wants a violent response from the tribes so that he can turn this into Libya—but we are committed to peace.
Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
www.djreprints.com
More In Middle East

Confusion, Anxiety Abound Near Fukushima

 March 19, 2011
Smoke billows from wrecked unit 3 at Japan's crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Okumamachi, Fukushima Prefecture, March 16, 2011
Photo: AP
Smoke billows from wrecked unit 3 at Japan's crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Okumamachi, Fukushima Prefecture, March 16, 2011

Share This

The following is an account based on reports and experiences of VOA correspondent Steve Herman during his time covering the nuclear crisis in Japan.

KORIYAMA, JAPAN _ Confusion and anxiety abound in the communities closest to the Fukushima-1 nuclear power plant. But even experts, in Tokyo and other world capitals, attempting to keep track of the situation at the crippled plant, say the information from the Japanese government and the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) has been sometimes contradictory, opaque and obtuse.

Prime Minister Naoto Kan, speaking during a nationally broadcast news conference Friday evening, assured Japanese all information is being shared with them about a situation he acknowledged is "very grave." His only reassuring words, without providing specifics, were that "quite soon" the whole situation would be under control.

Mainstream domestic media, including on-set announcers on the quasi-official NHK, have criticized the widening credibility gap between officials and the public. However, the Japanese media themselves appear to have been overly restrained in their reporting, perhaps to avoid panic and a patina of sensationalism, by giving little attention to particular nuggets of data, such as the official twice-a-day radiation readings for cities and towns here in Fukushima Prefecture.

While these readings are not of a level to spark immediate health concerns (such as the figures showing 20 microsieverts per hour at Iitate village on Friday) they are significant. They demonstrate that radiation is drifting from the plant in measurable quantities to the northwest (Fukushima City also has been recording elevated readings).

By comparison, TEPCO says some of the workers at Fukushima-1 have already been exposed to more than 100 millisieverts (note that milli is 1000 times micro.)

Some of the international media, on the other hand, have hyped the overall story without providing much context. That has sparked near panic among those with access to these foreign language reports. Even in Tokyo there are numerous foreigners who have concluded it is prudent to quickly leave Japan.

The U.S. State Department, in its latest travel warning issued late Saturday in Washington "strongly urges U.S. citizens to defer travel to Japan at this time and those in Japan should consider departing."

While Japanese officials say there is no reason to flee the country because of the crippled nuclear plant, what is starkly evident north from Tokyo, based on information exchanged among various correspondents this week, is store shelves have emptied and most businesses, including restaurants, are closed.

In Koriyama on Saturday morning long lines snaked for more than a kilometer outside several gasoline stands where drivers were told they can only purchase a limited amount of fuel, usually 10 liters.

If there is re-criticality of exposed fuel rods, or, less likely, a reactor core meltdown, news of these events would only exacerbate panic buying and hoarding. It will also make truck drivers reluctant to pass through Fukushima to re-supply this prefecture, as well as Miyagi and Iwate, the two hardest hit by the magnitude 9.0 earthquake and ensuing tsunami.

That will mean extended misery for hundreds of thousands of survivors living in paralyzed communities damaged by the natural disaster or who have moved to makeshift shelters.

So what is the situation at the nuclear power complex? It is not one that can be summarized in a paragraph.

Compared to the Three Mile Island 1979 partial core meltdown incident in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania, this is evidently worse. But nearly all experts quoted by domestic and foreign media, in recent days, explain that the plant design and current circumstances at Fukushima mean we should not see a catastrophic meltdown on par with that in 1986 at Chernobyl, history's worst power plant accident.

Fukushima-1 is 40 years old, although some of its six reactors are newer. During the March 11 quake, all the reactors did what they were designed to do in such a large seismic event - safely shut down. What failed in the entire design was adequate property protection to prevent a huge tsunami from destroying the power lines feeding the system to keep the fuel rods cooled.

Here is a more specific breakdown for each of the reactors at Fukushima-1 based on information from TEPCO, the Japan Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, the Kyodo wire service and other sources, as noted:

-- Reactor No. 1 - Operations suspended after the quake, suffered a cooling failure, partial melting of core, vented vapor, building housing reactor damaged March 12 by apparent hydrogen explosion and the roof was blown off. Seawater was pumped in meaning the reactor can never again be used.

-- Reactor No. 2 - Operations suspended after the quake, cooling failure, seawater was pumped in (destroying the reactor), the fuel rods were fully exposed temporarily, vapor was vented and the building housing the reactor was damaged March 14 by blast at reactor No. 3. A blast was heard near the suppression pool of the containment vessel on March 15, raising fears that the containment vessel housing the reactor fuel has been cracked. Since the outer building has not blown off, water cannot be sprayed in from the outside. Reconnection of electrical power to the reactor to re-start the cooling process was expected Saturday.

-- Reactor No. 3 - This reactor, fueled by MOX (containing highly toxic plutonium) is getting the primary attention, at present. Its operation was suspended after the quake. But it also suffered a cooling failure, partial melting of the core is feared, vapor vented and seawater was initially pumped in, meaning that as is the case with Reactors 1 and 2 it will never be used again to produce electricity. Additionally the building housing the reactor was damaged March 14 by an apparent hydrogen explosion, high levels of radiation were recorded in its proximity the following day and a plume of smoke was observed March 16, presumably from the spent-fuel storage pool. Seawater was dumped over the pool by helicopters on March 17 but much of it appeared to be dispersed by the wind. On-site water spraying has been under way since Thursday. TEPCO says it hopes to have power restored for cooling to the reactor late Sunday.

-- Reactor No. 4 - This is the second most serious situation, at present. The reactor was under maintenance when the quake struck and its fresh fuel rods (much more dangerous than the spent rods in other reactor buildings) were all safely submerged at the time to keep them cool. However, the temperature in the storage pool reached 84 C on March 14. There was a fire the following day, possibly caused by a hydrogen explosion at the pool. A fire was observed Wednesday at the building housing the reactor. A renewed nuclear chain reaction was feared after the pool water level dropped. Only the skeleton of the building survived the fire. TEPCO says it hopes to have power restored for cooling to the reactor late Sunday. But The Los Angeles Times and The New York Times report the floor or sides of the spent fuel pool appear to be damaged, which would make it very challenging to refill the pool. The New York Times report, quoting an unnamed engineer, said that the stainless steel lining of the pool and the concrete base possibly were damaged by the quake. The pool's steel gates could also be leaking water if they no longer can close tightly.

-- Reactors No. 5, 6 - They were under maintenance when the quake struck. Water temperatures in the spent-fuel storage pools increased to about 64 C on Thursday. Plant operators said on Saturday that engineers were able to restart a diesel pump to cool reactor No. 5.

The top Japanese government spokesman on Thursday, before military helicopters made a futile attempt to cool the number 3 and 4 reactors with water drops and the initial spraying of water commenced from fire trucks, termed it the "last ditch effort." On Friday and Saturday, similar relays of trucks with powerful hoses targeting the number 3 reactor have been under way.

So far, no Japanese official is declaring these efforts a success. Because the emergency workers on the site can only remain at the plant for brief periods and cannot get too close to the damaged reactors and spent fuel ponds it is impossible to ascertain the full extent of the damage and the level of the pools after three days of water spraying.

The best clues come from radiation monitoring, both on and off site. Those are the numbers to watch closely and which the domestic and international media should be quickly reporting while attempting to provide scientific context for those numbers.

_____________

VOA's Northeast Asia Bureau Chief Steve Herman, spent the last week in Fukushima Prefecture. His experience with nuclear-related issues began in the late 1970s as a teenaged journalist at a Las Vegas radio station, reporting on activities at the Nevada Test Site and covering a highly-technical federal court trial stemming from the accidental release of radiation into the atmosphere from the U.S. government's 1970 Baneberry nuclear test.