The Statement No-3-2011 of ABMA+88GS+ABFSU_Japan-1
The Statement No-3-2011 of ABMA+88GS+ABFSU_Bur
The Statement No-3-2011 of ABMA+88GS+ABFSU_Bur-2
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Radioactivity soars in Japan reactor - Asia-Pacific - Al Jazeera English
Radioactivity soars in Japan reactor - Asia-Pacific - Al Jazeera English
Workers evacuated from a plant building after high doses of radiation were detected.
Workers evacuated from a plant building after high doses of radiation were detected.
| Radiation at a hobbled nuclear plant in Japan was 10 million times more than normal, officials said. Workers were evacuated on Sunday from the reactor building in Fukushima to prevent exposure, the plant's operator said. The high radiation levels were detected at reactor number 2 in water that had accumulated in the turbine housing unit, Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO), the plant's operator, said. Officials said the high levels of radiation was probably caused by leakage from reactor vessels. Japanese engineers have struggled to pump radioactive water from the plant 240 km north Tokyo two weeks after it was hit by an earthquake and tsunami. Engineers trying to stabilise the plant had to pump out radioactive water after it was found in buildings housing three of the six reactors. Meanwhile, tests by the Japanese nuclear safety agency revealed levels of radioactivity up to 1,850 times the usual level in seawater offshore the crippled plant compared to 1,250 measured on Saturday. "Ocean currents will disperse radiation particles and so it will be very diluted by the time it gets consumed by fish and seaweed," said Hidehiko Nishiyama, a senior agency official. Speaking to Al Jazeera, George Dracoulis, head of Nuclear Physics department at Australian National University, said that, "They have to map the areas, see where the radiation is and sample the sea life and that would determine what they do in the future." The nuclear crisis has overshadowed a big relief and recovery effort from the magnitude 9.0 quake and the huge tsunami it triggered on March 11. Official death toll from earthquake and tsunami now stands at 10,489, with the number of missing put at 16,621. Nearly a quarter of a million people are living in shelters. 'Failure of communication' On Thursday, three workers were taken to hospital from reactor number 3 after stepping into water with radiation levels 10,000 times higher than normal. That raised fears about the core's container being damaged. TEPCO said "the radiation exposure on Thursday occured because there was bad sharing of information". "We have to apologise. We want to make efforts to share information within the company." Experts still had to determine where to put some of the contaminated water while engineers were still trying to fully restore the plant's power, the company said. It said it was now using fresh water instead of seawater to cool down at least some of the reactors after concern arose that salt deposits might hamper the cooling process. George Dracoulis said that "The issue with using sea water is that it is corrosive, salt in water can become activated and it can cause further contamination." Two of the plant's reactors are now seen as safe but the other four are volatile, occasionally emitting steam and smoke. However, the nuclear safety agency said on Saturday that temperature and pressure in all reactors had stabilised. The government has said the situation was nowhere near to being resolved, although it was not deteriorating. "We are preventing the situation from worsening - we've restored power and pumped in fresh water - and making basic steps towards improvement but there is still no room for complacency," Yukio Edano, the chief cabinet secretary told a news conference. 'Serious emergency' Radiation levels 40 per cent higher than the yearly limit for the general public have been detected just over 30k from the Fukushima plant. The government has not told residents outside the 30km radius of the plant to evacuate, or even to stay indoors. The science ministry says a reading of 1.4 millisieverts was taken on Wednesday morning in Namie Town northwest of the plant. Someone staying outdoors for 24-hours at that location would exceed the annual limit of one millisievert. The limit is based on a recommendation by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. The science ministry obtained the reading after monitoring 10 locations outside the 30km zone following reports that relatively high levels of radiation were found outside that area. Exerts say the amount of radiation detected does not pose a health risk. But they advise residents in the area to stay alert for any possible rise in radiation levels, because the power plant is not likely to stop releasing radiation any time soon. Yukiya Amano, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the New York Times that the emergency "is a very serious accident by all standards" and could go on for weeks. The IAEA has sent new teams to Japan to monitor radiation and assess contamination of food. Prolonged efforts to prevent a catastrophic meltdown at the 40-year-old plant have also intensified concern around the world about nuclear power. Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General, said it was time to reassess the international atomic safety regime. |
| Source: Al Jazeera and agencies |
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Quake strikes Burma, shakes Bangkok buildings
- http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/228451/quake-strikes-burma-shakes-bangkok-buildings
- Published: 24/03/2011 at 10:11 PM
- Online news: Local News
An earthquake of 6.7magnitude on the Richter scale jolted the northeastern region of Burma, about 56 kilometres from Chiang Rai's Mae Sai district, the Meteorological Department reported on Thursday.
The epicenter of the earthquake was located 20.87 degrees latitude and 99.91 degrees longitude. The department said people living in Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Chiang Rai and Nan provinces also felt the quake.
People living in buildings in Bangkok's Asoke, Sathorn and Sukhumvit districts posted on Twitter that they felt the buildings sway.
The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center says it was located too far inland to generate a destructive wave.
Magnitude-7.0 quake hits Burma
- Published: 24/03/2011 at 10:32 PM
- Online news: Asia
A magnitude-7.0 earthquake struck eastern Burma Thursday, the US Geological Survey reported.
A scientist points to a seismograph. A magnitude-7.0 earthquake has struck eastern Myanmar, according to the US Geological Survey.It was located 90 kilometres (56 miles) north of Chiang Rai in Thailand and 235 kilometres (146 miles) north-north-east of Chiang Mai, Thailand's second city and a popular tourist destination.
No tsunami warning was issued, with seismologists saying the quake was too far inland to generate a devastating wave in the Indian Ocean.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
International alliance divided over Libya command
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theenvoy/20110321/ts_yblog_theenvoy/international-alliance-divided-over-libya-command
By Laura Rozen
President Barack Obama, speaking in Santiago, Chile on Monday, defended his decision to order U.S. strikes against Libyan military targets, and insisted that the mission is clear.
And like a parade of Pentagon officials the past few days, Obama insisted that the United States' lead military role will be turned over—"in days, not weeks"—to an international command of which the United States will be just one part.
The only problem: None of the countries in the international coalition can yet agree on to whom or how the United States should hand off responsibilities.
The sense of urgency among White House officials to resolve the command dispute is profound: with each hour the U.S. remains in charge of yet another Middle East military intervention, Congress steps up criticism that Obama went to war in Libya without first getting its blessing, nor defining precisely what the end-game will be. (On Monday, Obama sent Congress official notification that he had ordered the U.S. military two days earlier to commence operations "to prevent humanitarian catastrophe" in Libya and support the international coalition implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1973.)
Below, an explainer on the military mission in Libya, the dispute over who should command it after its initial phase, and whether the military is concerned about mission creep.
What is the U.S. military task in Libya?
The military mission in Libya is implementing U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, which calls for Gadhafi's forces to pull back from rebel-held towns, and the establishment of a no-fly zone to protect Libyan civilians from attack by Gadhafi, and for civilians to be allowed access to food, water and other humanitarian supplies.
Is the U.S. military trying to kill Gadhafi?
No, the U.S. military is not authorized to kill Gadhafi, said Gen. Carter Ham, the commander of U.S. African Command at a press conference in Stuttgart, Germany, Monday. Ham's command is currently leading the first phase of the international coalition effort to establish a no-fly zone in Libya, together with the United Kingdom and France. Nor is the U.S. military currently coordinating with anti-Gadhafi rebels or authorized to provide them military support, Ham said.
The main objective, Ham stressed, is to protect civilians from attack. "The military mission is very clear, frankly. What is expected of us to do is establish a no fly zone to protect civilians, to get withdrawal of regime ground forces out of Benghazi," Ham said. "What we look forward to is the transition to designating the headquarters" of the command of the next phase of operations.
How can the coalition reconcile a military mission that could leave Gadhafi in power with the many calls for his removal?
On Monday, Obama answered this by underlining the language of UN Security Council resolution 1973, which calls for protecting civilians from attack. That narrow military mission is distinct, Obama said, from the larger political goal of seeing Gadhafi step down—a call that Obama himself has repeatedly echoed, along with other major Western diplomatic players such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. The international community has other non-military tools to achieve that goal, Obama said, such as economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, international war crimes investigation, and cutting off the Gadhafi regime's access to financial assets abroad.
"First of all, I think it is very easy to square our military actions and our stated policies," Obama said in Chile Monday. "Our military action is in support of an international mandate from the UN Security Council that specifically focuses on the humanitarian threat posed by Gadhafi to his people."
Who is currently commanding the international military coalition?
U.S. African Command (AFRICOM), the U.S. regional military command dealing with the continent of Africa, and its commander Gen. Carter Ham, are leading the first phase of what the Pentagon has dubbed "Operation Odyssey Dawn" to suppress Libya's air defenses to establish a no-fly zone over Libya.
Other early members of the international coalition imposing a no-fly zone over Libya include France and the United Kingdom, joined Monday by Belgium and Canada.
Ham and other Pentagon officials have said the U.S. is eager to turn over the lead role in the operation to international coalition partners, but as yet the command of the next phase has not been agreed.
What's really at issue in the dispute over who should command the next phase of the international mission over Libya?
Put simply, the members of the international coalition are at odds over whether the international coalition command should be led by NATO, or not.
The French, Turks, and Germans reportedly object to NATO running the operation, all for their own reasons. The Italians, the UK, and the United States, among others, think that NATO is best equipped to be able to take swift control of the mission.
"There is not only one problem. Each player has its own perspective, sensitivity, priority," said one European defense official on condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the dispute Monday. "You have the weak, the prudent, the strong, the opportunists."
"The problem is, the Italians are calling for it to be a NATO operation, but it's not clear all members of NATO support this," said Anthony Cordesman, a veteran defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It's also clear that the French initiated part of this operation. And behind it is the reality that it is only the United States that has the combination of satellite targeting and precision strike capabilities in terms of cruise missiles that are critical to overall command and control and situational awareness."
Why do the French and others object to a possible NATO command structure?
"There are technical considerations and political ones," said Justin Vaisse, of the Brookings Institution Center for the United States and Europe. Sarkozy has two basic objection, Vaisse explains: "One, NATO is radioactive in the Arab world and seen as a tool of US imperialism. And two, there's also the question of not having Turkey and Germany [who have expressed reservations about the Libya military mission], impede" the international mission in Libya, given that NATO is a consensus organization.
Turkey reportedly resents that French president Sarkozy did not invite Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to his Paris summit on Libya Saturday with other world leaders. (The perceived insult is "completely absurd," a French official said, explaining that the summit was open to any country interested in implementing the Libya UN resolution, and France did not "send 200 invites to all members of the UN." A Turkish official said the Ankara would have gladly sent a representative had they been invited.)
Germany reportedly is not interested in participating in a military mission in Libya, but could opt-out but approve NATO being otherwise involved.
NATO ambassadors met in Brussels Monday to debate the issue.
When is the command issue likely to be resolved?
U.S. officials insist it has to be resolved soon--"days, not weeks," as Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes said Sunday.
"I would not put a date certain on this," Gen. Carter Ham said Monday. "The first thing that has got to happen is identification of what that organization is. We have been from the start planning how to effect this transition once that follow-on headquarters is established. It's not so simple as to have a handshake and say, 'you're now in charge.' "
Does the top U.S. commander worry about mission creep?
"No, I don't worry too much about mission creep," Ham said after a pause Monday. "I think the mission is clear, and moving forward and achieving the military objectives consistent with our mission."
(A group of protesters angry about international intervention in Libya blocked the path of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon as he left a meeting at the Arab League.: Nasser Nasser/AP)
By Laura Rozen
President Barack Obama, speaking in Santiago, Chile on Monday, defended his decision to order U.S. strikes against Libyan military targets, and insisted that the mission is clear.
And like a parade of Pentagon officials the past few days, Obama insisted that the United States' lead military role will be turned over—"in days, not weeks"—to an international command of which the United States will be just one part.
The only problem: None of the countries in the international coalition can yet agree on to whom or how the United States should hand off responsibilities.
The sense of urgency among White House officials to resolve the command dispute is profound: with each hour the U.S. remains in charge of yet another Middle East military intervention, Congress steps up criticism that Obama went to war in Libya without first getting its blessing, nor defining precisely what the end-game will be. (On Monday, Obama sent Congress official notification that he had ordered the U.S. military two days earlier to commence operations "to prevent humanitarian catastrophe" in Libya and support the international coalition implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1973.)
Below, an explainer on the military mission in Libya, the dispute over who should command it after its initial phase, and whether the military is concerned about mission creep.
What is the U.S. military task in Libya?
The military mission in Libya is implementing U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, which calls for Gadhafi's forces to pull back from rebel-held towns, and the establishment of a no-fly zone to protect Libyan civilians from attack by Gadhafi, and for civilians to be allowed access to food, water and other humanitarian supplies.
Is the U.S. military trying to kill Gadhafi?
No, the U.S. military is not authorized to kill Gadhafi, said Gen. Carter Ham, the commander of U.S. African Command at a press conference in Stuttgart, Germany, Monday. Ham's command is currently leading the first phase of the international coalition effort to establish a no-fly zone in Libya, together with the United Kingdom and France. Nor is the U.S. military currently coordinating with anti-Gadhafi rebels or authorized to provide them military support, Ham said.
The main objective, Ham stressed, is to protect civilians from attack. "The military mission is very clear, frankly. What is expected of us to do is establish a no fly zone to protect civilians, to get withdrawal of regime ground forces out of Benghazi," Ham said. "What we look forward to is the transition to designating the headquarters" of the command of the next phase of operations.
How can the coalition reconcile a military mission that could leave Gadhafi in power with the many calls for his removal?
On Monday, Obama answered this by underlining the language of UN Security Council resolution 1973, which calls for protecting civilians from attack. That narrow military mission is distinct, Obama said, from the larger political goal of seeing Gadhafi step down—a call that Obama himself has repeatedly echoed, along with other major Western diplomatic players such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. The international community has other non-military tools to achieve that goal, Obama said, such as economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, international war crimes investigation, and cutting off the Gadhafi regime's access to financial assets abroad.
"First of all, I think it is very easy to square our military actions and our stated policies," Obama said in Chile Monday. "Our military action is in support of an international mandate from the UN Security Council that specifically focuses on the humanitarian threat posed by Gadhafi to his people."
Who is currently commanding the international military coalition?
U.S. African Command (AFRICOM), the U.S. regional military command dealing with the continent of Africa, and its commander Gen. Carter Ham, are leading the first phase of what the Pentagon has dubbed "Operation Odyssey Dawn" to suppress Libya's air defenses to establish a no-fly zone over Libya.
Other early members of the international coalition imposing a no-fly zone over Libya include France and the United Kingdom, joined Monday by Belgium and Canada.
Ham and other Pentagon officials have said the U.S. is eager to turn over the lead role in the operation to international coalition partners, but as yet the command of the next phase has not been agreed.
What's really at issue in the dispute over who should command the next phase of the international mission over Libya?
Put simply, the members of the international coalition are at odds over whether the international coalition command should be led by NATO, or not.
The French, Turks, and Germans reportedly object to NATO running the operation, all for their own reasons. The Italians, the UK, and the United States, among others, think that NATO is best equipped to be able to take swift control of the mission.
"There is not only one problem. Each player has its own perspective, sensitivity, priority," said one European defense official on condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the dispute Monday. "You have the weak, the prudent, the strong, the opportunists."
"The problem is, the Italians are calling for it to be a NATO operation, but it's not clear all members of NATO support this," said Anthony Cordesman, a veteran defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It's also clear that the French initiated part of this operation. And behind it is the reality that it is only the United States that has the combination of satellite targeting and precision strike capabilities in terms of cruise missiles that are critical to overall command and control and situational awareness."
Why do the French and others object to a possible NATO command structure?
"There are technical considerations and political ones," said Justin Vaisse, of the Brookings Institution Center for the United States and Europe. Sarkozy has two basic objection, Vaisse explains: "One, NATO is radioactive in the Arab world and seen as a tool of US imperialism. And two, there's also the question of not having Turkey and Germany [who have expressed reservations about the Libya military mission], impede" the international mission in Libya, given that NATO is a consensus organization.
Turkey reportedly resents that French president Sarkozy did not invite Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to his Paris summit on Libya Saturday with other world leaders. (The perceived insult is "completely absurd," a French official said, explaining that the summit was open to any country interested in implementing the Libya UN resolution, and France did not "send 200 invites to all members of the UN." A Turkish official said the Ankara would have gladly sent a representative had they been invited.)
Germany reportedly is not interested in participating in a military mission in Libya, but could opt-out but approve NATO being otherwise involved.
NATO ambassadors met in Brussels Monday to debate the issue.
When is the command issue likely to be resolved?
U.S. officials insist it has to be resolved soon--"days, not weeks," as Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes said Sunday.
"I would not put a date certain on this," Gen. Carter Ham said Monday. "The first thing that has got to happen is identification of what that organization is. We have been from the start planning how to effect this transition once that follow-on headquarters is established. It's not so simple as to have a handshake and say, 'you're now in charge.' "
Does the top U.S. commander worry about mission creep?
"No, I don't worry too much about mission creep," Ham said after a pause Monday. "I think the mission is clear, and moving forward and achieving the military objectives consistent with our mission."
(A group of protesters angry about international intervention in Libya blocked the path of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon as he left a meeting at the Arab League.: Nasser Nasser/AP)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)