Europe fiddles as Libya burns On military intervention, there are almost as many opinions as there are EU members, and no one wants to act without the US

Cached:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/15/europe-libya-intervention-eu-us

Simon Tisdall

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 15 March 2011 14.59 GMT

The G8 ministers' meeting in Paris. Photograph: Gonzalo Fuentes/Reuters

Disagreement between European countries over Libya has moved from the merely embarrassing to the wholly humiliating, after Germany again blocked Anglo-French no-fly zone proposals at a G8 meeting in Paris. The EU’s Libya debacle is now the foreign policy equivalent of last year’s eurozone meltdown, and similarly damaging to its global credibility and influence. Once again, Europe is being forced to confront an unpalatable truth: unless the US takes the lead, nothing gets done. Europe has not been entirely passive in the face of Muammar Gaddafi’s accelerating counter-attack on rebel forces. The EU has imposed sanctions, frozen the assets of leading figures and backed an arms embargo. It has also loudly proclaimed that Gaddafi must go. But these measures have made no appreciable difference on the ground.

On the question of military intervention, there are almost as many opinions as there are EU members. Britain and France are the most outspoken advocates of a no-fly zone. Germany has been the most vocal opponent. Italy – Libya’s former colonial power – havers and trims like a Berlusconi defence lawyer. Last week’s EU summit refused to back a no-fly zone. So did Nato. Today’s G8 communique does not even mention it.

Alain Juppé, France’s foreign minister, suggested Europe had left it too late to stop Gaddafi winning. “If we had used military force last week to neutralise some airstrips and the several dozen planes that they have, perhaps the reversal taking place to the detriment of the opposition wouldn’t have happened,” Juppé told Europe-1 radio. “But that’s the past. What is happening today shows us that we may have let slip by a chance.”

A new UN security council resolution, being prepared by France, Britain and Lebanon, could include tighter sanctions, some form of maritime blockade and a threat to impose a no-fly zone at a future date. But none of these steps seems likely to deter Gaddafi, either.

Similarly, Downing Street says Britain favours curbs on Gaddafi’s use of African mercenaries and expropriation of oil revenues. But this will not prevent the fall of Benghazi or the murderous reprisals that will certainly follow a regime victory – and David Cameron must surely realise that.

The reasons for Europe’s disarray are familiar. German chancellor Angela Merkel’s refusal to get involved is an echo of the “Germany first” attitude that has so annoyed economically struggling EU partners such as Ireland and Greece. It is not as though Germany is a significant military power these days. Its forces would not take a leading role in any intervention, any more than they did in Afghanistan. But Berlin worries its current membership of the UN security council might suck it in.

Speaking at the EU summit last week, Merkel lambasted France’s recognition of the Libyan rebels’ transitional council as Libya’s government, according to Der Spiegel. She was also scathing about the Anglo-French no-fly zone idea. “What is our plan if we create a no-fly zone and it doesn’t work? Do we send in ground troops?… We have to think this through. Why should we intervene in Libya when we don’t intervene elsewhere?”

While the Germans are accused of selfish short-sightedness, Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, is accused of self-aggrandisement. Sarkozy, it is claimed, backs intervention in Libya not because of some notion of a glorious democratic future but because he is anxious to bolster traditional French influence in a post-awakening north Africa – and was galled by his government’s misjudgment of the Tunisian revolt. Meanwhile, Italy, a close Gaddafi partner in the past, suggests Russia will block an NFZ at the UN, so why bother?

Addressing the Commons this week, Cameron made a persuasive case for strong action serving all of Europe’s interests. “Do we want a situation where a failed, pariah state festers on Europe’s southern border, potentially threatening our security, pushing people across the Mediterranean and creating a more dangerous and uncertain world for Britain and for all our allies, as well as for the people of Libya?” he asked.

Whether or not military intervention is thought a good idea, the answer to Cameron’s question is clearly “no”. To his proposition, as stated, Merkel surely has no answer. Yet Britain and France still hesitate, even though together they control most of Europe’s fighting forces. They say they need legal justification for military intervention, that they need Arab support. Both are true. They would certainly prefer unanimous EU support. But the real reason they and other like-minded countries hold back is the refusal of the Obama administration to take the lead.

Thus are the EU’s pretensions to act as an independent global power once again cruelly exposed. Europeans live closer to Libya than Americans. Like Bosnia, it’s on their patch. It’s their problem. But without the US, it seems, they cannot help themselves.

Inside Story – Who is winning the Libyan conflict?

 

—

Germany blocks plans for Libya no-fly zone

G8 talks stall after Germans refuse to support military intervention backed by Britain and France

Cached:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/15/germany-blocks-libya-no-fly-zone

Simon Tisdall

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 15 March 2011 13.27 GMT

Germany has again blocked Anglo-French plans for the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya.

Reports from talks held by G8 ministers in Paris said German objections, backed by Russia, meant the communique from the meeting would make no mention of a no-fly zone.

Speaking during the meeting, Germany’s foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, said his country remained “very sceptical” about the prospect of a no-fly zone.

He recommended instead more “political pressure” against the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi. He said Germany did not want “to get sucked into a war in north Africa”.

“We need to send a clear signal … Gaddafi must stop his civil war against his own people, he must be held responsible for his crimes. The security council must take action.” But Westerwelle also made clear Germany would not support military intervention.

His comments echoed the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, who told an EU summit last week that the no-fly zone idea was potentially dangerous. “What is our plan if we create a no-fly zone and it doesn’t work? Do we send in ground troops?” she said. “We have to think this through. Why should we intervene in Libya when we don’t intervene elsewhere?”

The EU summit failed to endorse a no-fly zone. So, too, did a meeting last week of Nato defence ministers.

Earlier, the French foreign minister, Alain Juppé, suggested European countries had left it too late to assist the rebels. He said he had so far been unable to convince G8 colleagues to back a no-fly zone.

“If we had used military force last week to neutralise some airstrips and the several dozen planes that they have, perhaps the reversal taking place to the detriment of the opposition wouldn’t have happened,” Juppé told Europe-1 radio. “But that’s the past. What is happening today shows us that we may have let slip by a chance.”

Libya’s opposition has appealed for the international community to set up a no-fly zone, warning that “half a million” people could die if Benghazi, the rebel stronghold, fell to Gaddafi’s forces. The Arab League has also asked the UN security council to authorise a no-fly zone.

But many countries, including the US, are reluctant to get involved and suggest a no-fly zone would not make much difference on the ground.

The G8 meeting was expected to recommend fresh measures to be included in a possible new UN security council resolution on Libya. They range from tighter sanctions and a maritime blockade to the threat of a no-fly zone at some future date.

The outcome of the G8 meeting was another blow for British policy. William Hague, the foreign secretary, says the time for decisive action is approaching. He said during Tuesday’s talks: “There is a common appetite for further discussion at the UN security council. We are clear here at the G8 that there is a need for further measures, a need to respond urgently.” Hague admitted that participants did not see eye to eye on a no-fly zone.

Speaking in the Commons on Monday, David Cameron said a Gaddafi victory could create a pariah state on Europe’s doorstep, threatening the interests and security of all EU states.

Radiation fears after Japan blast

Cached:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12722435

By Richard Warry BBC News

The Japanese authorities say radiation levels from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant have started to climb to potentially harmful levels.

Residents living within 30km (18 miles) of the plant have been advised to leave the area, or to stay indoors, and try to make their homes airtight.

Experts have stressed that swift action should be able to minimise any impact on human health.

What are the immediate health effects of exposure to radiation?

Exposure to moderate levels of radiation – above one gray – can result in radiation sickness, which produces a range of symptoms.

Nausea and vomiting often begin within hours of exposure, followed by diarrhoea, headaches and fever.

After the first round of symptoms, there may be a brief period with no apparent illness, but this may be followed within weeks by new, more serious symptoms.

At higher levels of radiation, all of these symptoms may be immediately apparent, along with widespread – and potentially fatal – damage to internal organs.

Exposure to a radiation dose of four gray will typically kill about half of all healthy adults.

For comparison, radiation therapy for cancer typically involves several doses of between one and seven gray at a time – but these doses are highly controlled, and usually specifically targeted at small areas of the body.

Radiation dose	Effect
Source: World Nuclear Association
2 mSv/yr (millisieverts per year)	Typical background radiation experienced by everyone (average 1.5 mSv in Australia, 3 mSv in North America)
9 mSv/yr	Exposure by airline crew flying New York-Tokyo polar route
20 mSv/yr	Current limit (averaged) for nuclear industry employees
50 mSv/yr	Former routine limit for nuclear industry employees. It is also the dose rate which arises from natural background levels in several places in Iran, India and Europe
100 mSv/yr	Lowest level at which any increase in cancer is clearly evident.
350 mSv/lifetime	Criterion for relocating people after Chernobyl accident
1,000 mSv single dose	Causes (temporary) radiation sickness such as nausea and decreased white blood cell count, but not death. Above this, severity of illness increases with dose
5,000 mSv single dose	Would kill about half those receiving it within a month

How is radiation sickness treated?

The first thing to do is to try to minimise further contamination by removing clothes and shoes, and gently washing the skin with soap and water.

Drugs are available that increase white blood-cell production to counter any damage that may have occurred to the bone marrow, and to reduce the risk of further infections due to immune-system damage.

There are also specific drugs that can help to reduce the damage to internal organs caused by radioactive particles.

How does radiation have an impact on health?

Radioactive materials that decay spontaneously produce ionising radiation, which has the capacity to cause significant damage to the body’s internal chemistry, breaking the chemical bonds between the atoms and molecules that make up our tissues.

The body responds by trying to repair this damage, but sometimes it is too severe or widespread to make repair possible. There is also a danger of mistakes in the natural repair process.

Regions of the body that are most vulnerable to radiation damage include the cells lining the intestine and stomach, and the blood-cell producing cells in the bone marrow.

The extent of the damage caused is dependent on how long people are exposed to radiation, and at what level.

Radiation and cancer

• Most experts agree even small doses of ionising radiation – as low as 100 millisieverts – can increase the risk of cancer, but by a very small amount.
• In general, the risk of cancer increases as the dose of radiation increases. Exposure to one sievert of radiation is estimated to increase the lifetime risk of fatal cancer by around 5%.
• The thyroid gland and bone marrow are particularly sensitive to ionising radiation.
• Leukemia, a type of cancer that arises in the bone marrow, is the most common radiation-induced cancer. Leukemias may appear as early as a few years after radiation exposure.
• Other cancer can also result from exposure to radiation, but may not develop for at least a decade. These include cancers of the lung, skin, thyroid, breast and stomach.

What are the most likely long-term health effects?

Cancer is the biggest long-term risk. Usually when the body’s cells reach their “sell-by date” they commit suicide. Cancer results when cells lose this ability, and effectively become immortal, continuing to divide and divide in an uncontrolled fashion.

The body has various processes for ensuring that cells do not become cancerous, and for replacing damaged tissue.

But the damage caused by exposure to radiation can completely disrupt these control processes, making it much more likely that cancer will result.

Failure to properly repair the damage caused by radiation can also result in changes – or mutations – to the body’s genetic material, which are not only associated with cancer, but may also be potentially passed down to offspring, leading to deformities in future generations. These can include smaller head or brain size, poorly formed eyes, slow growth and severe learning difficulties.

Are children at greater risk?

Potentially yes. Because they are growing more rapidly, more cells are dividing, and so the potential for things to go wrong is greater.

Following the Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident in the Ukraine in 1986, the World Health Organization recorded a dramatic increase in thyroid cancer among children in the vicinity.

This was because the radioactive materials released during the accident contained high levels of radioactive iodine, a material that accumulates in the thyroid.

What risk does Fukushima pose currently?

The Japanese authorities have recorded a radiation level of up 400 millisieverts per hour at the nuclear plant itself.

A sievert is essentially equivalent to a gray, but tends to be used to measure lower levels of radiation, and for assessing long-term risk, rather than the short-term acute impact of exposure.

Professor Richard Wakeford, an expert in radiation exposure at the University of Manchester, said exposure to a dose of 400 millisieverts was unlikely to cause radiation sickness – that would require a dose of around twice that level (one sievert/one gray).

However, it could start to depress the production of blood cells in the bone marrow, and was likely to raise the lifetime risk of fatal cancer by 2-4%. Typically, a Japanese person has a lifetime risk of fatal cancer of 20-25%.

Prof Wakeford stressed only emergency workers at the plant were at risk of exposure to such a dose – but it was likely that they would only be exposed for short periods of time to minimise their risk.

The level of exposure for the general population, even those living close to the plant, was unlikely to be anywhere near as high.

How can the Japanese authorities minimise the cost to human health?

Prof Wakeford said that provided the Japanese authorities acted quickly, most of the general population should be spared significant health problems.

He said in those circumstances the only people likely to be at risk of serious health effects were nuclear workers at the plant or emergency workers exposed to high levels of radiation.

He said the top priority would be to evacuate people from the area and to make sure they did not eat contaminated food. The biggest risk was that radioactive iodine could get into their system, raising the risk of thyroid cancer.

To counter that risk, people – in particular children – could be given tablets containing stable iodine which would prevent the body absorbing the radioactive version.

The Japanese already have a lot of iodine in their natural diet, so that should help too.

How does Fukushima compare to Chernobyl?

Professor Gerry Thomas, who has studied the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster, said: “It is very unlikely that this will turn into anything that resembles Chernobyl.

“In Chernobyl you had a steam explosion which exposed the reactor core, which meant you had a lot of radiation shooting up into the atmosphere.”

Prof Thomas said although the Chernobyl disaster had led to a rise in thyroid cancer cases, the only people affected were those living in the immediate area of the explosion and who were young at the time.

Health Effect of Radiation Poisoning: Questions and Answers

Cached:  http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-15/health-effect-of-radiation-poisoning-questions-and-answers.html

By Simeon Bennett

March 15, 2011, 3:38 AM EDT

(Adds comparison with Chernobyl, mechanisms of radiation spread, cesium risk.)

March 15 (Bloomberg) — The danger of radiation leaks from Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant is rising after explosions at the site caused by Japan’s earthquake and tsunami, Prime Minister Naoto Kan said today.

As of 10:22 a.m. local time, radiation as high as 400 millisieverts was detected at the plant’s No. 3 reactor, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said at a briefing. That’s 20 times the annual limit for nuclear industry employees and uranium miners, according to the World Nuclear Association, a London-based advocate for the nuclear energy industry. A radiation dose of 100 millisieverts a year is the lowest level at which any increase in cancer is evident, the London-based WNA said on its website.

“This is a level that could harm people,” Edano said. The station is about 220 kilometers (135 miles) north of Tokyo.

Here are answers to some frequently asked questions about radiation poisoning. The information is drawn from the World Nuclear Association, the Science Media Centres of Japan and Australia, the World Health Organization in Geneva, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington.

Q: How does the situation at Fukushima compare with the 1986 disaster in Chernobyl, Ukraine, and 1979 Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania? A: The International Atomic Energy Agency has rated the seriousness of the nuclear situation at the Fukushima reactors as 4 on a scale of 7. Three Mile Island was rated as 5/7 while Chernobyl was rated 7/7. Each additional point on this scale represents a factor of ten, so the situation at Fukushima is 1/10th as serious as that at Three Mile Island, and 1/1000 that at Chernobyl.

Q: What level of radiation is dangerous to human health? A: One hundred millisieverts a year is the lowest level at which any increase in cancer is clearly evident. Above this, the probability of cancer occurrence increases with higher doses.

A cumulative dose of 1,000 millisieverts would increase the incidence of fatal cancer by about 5 percent. A single dose of 1,000 millisieverts causes temporary radiation sickness and decreased white blood cell count, but not death. A single dose of 5,000 millisieverts would kill about half those receiving it within a month.

Air crew on flights over the North Pole between New York and Tokyo are exposed to about 9 millisieverts of radiation a year, and a chest x-ray radiates about 0.1 millisieverts. Humans are exposed to about 2 millisieverts a year from naturally occurring radiation in soil and cosmic rays.

Q: What are the health consequences of radiation? A: Exposure to high levels of radiation can cause acute radiation syndrome, or radiation poisoning, resulting in substantial damage to human body tissues, premature aging and possibly death. Prolonged exposure to lower levels is also associated with increased risk of ill health.

A: How is radioactive contamination spread? Q: People who are externally contaminated with radioactive material can contaminate other people or surfaces that they touch. For example, people who have radioactive dust on their clothing may spread the radioactive dust when they sit in chairs or hug other people.

People who are internally contaminated can expose people near them to radiation from the radioactive material inside their bodies. The body fluids (blood, sweat, urine) of an internally contaminated person can contain radioactive materials. Coming in contact with these body fluids can result in contamination and/or exposure.

Q: What are the symptoms of radiation poisoning? A: The first symptoms of acute radiation syndrome are typically nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. These symptoms can start within minutes to days of exposure and can last for days. After that, a person with acute radiation syndrome may look and feel healthy for a short time, then become sick again with loss of appetite, fatigue, fever and possibly seizures and coma. This stage may last a few hours or several months. Radiation poisoning also typically causes skin damage.

Q: How is radiation poisoning treated? A: Potassium iodide can be used to block radioactive iodine from being taken into the thyroid gland, protecting it from injury. It cannot protect other parts of the body or reverse damage to the thyroid once it has occurred. Prussian blue, a dye used by artists and manufacturers since 1704, can also be used to remove certain radioactive materials from the body. It should only be used under medical supervision.

Q: What is being done to protect human health? A: Japan has distributed 230,000 units of stable iodine to evacuation centers from the area around Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushima Daini nuclear power plants. The iodine has not yet been administered to residents; the distribution is a precautionary measure in the event that this is determined to be necessary.

Q: What is the worst-case scenario? A: It depends on how much radiation leaks and the prevailing weather conditions. Radioactive iodine, or I-131, is heavier than air and won’t spread far in mild wind. Iodine 131 has a half-life of eight days, meaning it takes eight days of decay to decrease by half.

Q: How do radioactive materials contaminate food? A: Atomic bomb tests in Nevada during the 1950s and 1960s released I-131 into the atmosphere that was blown thousands of miles away. Animals grazing on pastures contaminated with I-131 had the radioactive material in their milk, which poisoned some children. People exposed to I-131 may have an increased risk of thyroid cancer.

Q: What is ionizing radiation? A: Ionizing radiation is the energy or particles produced by unstable atoms of radioactive materials. Humans are exposed to low levels of radiation naturally from the Earth and the sun.

Q: What risk does Cesium-137 pose? A: External exposure to large amounts of Cs-137 can cause burns, acute radiation sickness and even death. Exposure to Cs-137 can increase the risk for cancer because of exposure to high-energy gamma radiation. Internal exposure to Cs-137, through ingestion or inhalation, allows the radioactive material to be distributed in the soft tissues, especially muscle tissue, exposing these tissues to the beta particles and gamma radiation and increasing cancer risk.

–Editors: Jason Gale, Michael Tighe

To contact the reporter on this story: Simeon Bennett in Singapore at sbennett9@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jason Gale at j.gale@bloomberg.net.