|
|
|
|
|
Pranab
irritants dumped Taming the
Haqqanis |
|
|
Man and
his Curiosity
Ensuring
nuclear security
Railways
— a way of life
The
great organic myths
|
|
Taming the Haqqanis
Pakistan
agreeing with the US to launch a joint military operation against the Haqqani network of extremists indicates that something bigger may happen in the Af-Pak region. As Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US Sherry Rehman has pointed out, the Pakistan government “is committed to moving with the US in (achieving) many shared goals”. Perhaps, Islamabad had been told clearly during recent meetings in Washington DC between officials of the two countries, including CIA chief David Petraeus and ISI head Lt-Gen Zaheer-ul-Islam, that it had to choose between the Haqqanis, patronised by the ISI, and the US financial and military aid. Obviously, Islamabad had no choice but to accede to the US demand because Pakistan’s economy is in deep trouble with the Saudis being the only major aid providers. And the Saudis have their limitations under the circumstances when they have to spend considerably on protecting their interests in West Asia. There was another problem Pakistan had been faced with: the Haqqanis had been providing sanctuaries to anti-Islamabad Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan leaders. The Haqqanis had been getting different kinds of aid from Islamabad, but the extremist network had been operating almost independently for some time. Thus, Islamabad also felt that the network, once committed to protecting Pakistan’s interests in Afghanistan, needed to be chastised. The US had been finding it difficult to bring the “good” Taliban to the negotiating table and make them join the Hamid Karzai government mainly because of the Haqqani network. Washington DC was not successful in taming the Haqqanis owing to Pakistan’s disguised help to the terrorist group. Pakistan may get another advantage. There is the possibility of US drone attacks in Pakistan’s tribal areas coming to an end as a result of its cooperation with the US in the operations to be launched against the Haqqanis. But is it that easy to eliminate this extremist network? Some elements in the ISI may still secretly help the Haqqanis to save their bases on both sides of the Durand Line. The ISI is known for having taken many times in the past a line different from that of the government in Islamabad.
|
|
|
Man and his Curiosity
The
quest to know the red planet that started in 1960 with a failed Soviet flyby mission has taken a giant leap forward with the terrific landing of American spacecraft Curiosity. Whether the goals of the latest mission to Mars are achieved or not will be known over the next few months and years as the SUV-sized 1-tonne craft deploys its equipment, but the landing — described by NASA as ‘seven minutes of terror’ — itself has been a major advancement in space exploration. Being able to land heavy equipment means more complex experiments on Mars become possible, which is important as thus far sample-return trips to our neighbour in the universe are a distant dream. There have been dozens of missions and probes sent out to Mars over the past half a century — only about one-third successful — and the evidence gathered thus far suggests there may have been life on Mars at some time, or the conditions may exist to support it sometime in future, if not present right now. And that is what sparks the imagination of mankind, even if scientists may, in the immediate context, be curious more about the composition of the dusty planet’s surface and atmosphere. Curiosity is equipped with a Mars Science Laboratory to study the dust, rocks and air to see if they contain elements that can support life as known to humans. It has taken $2.5 billion and eight years to send out Curiosity, and it is only one more launch in a long series. People wonder if spending such huge amounts on exploring space is worth it, when humans on earth are suffering from hunger. Space exploration today may be compared to the period when man on different continents was experimenting with seafaring boats, before setting out to explore other continents for resources to support people back home. Even as space technology teaches us a whole lot about telecommunications and the earth’s own terrestrial and weather systems as immediate benefit from the expenditure, exploring the universe is part of man’s unending quest for the unknown — spurred by, well, curiosity.
|
|
|
One must ask children and birds how cherries and strawberries taste. — Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
|
Ensuring nuclear security Why
is the problem of nuclear security invisible? The underlying issues do get confused, but nuclear security is different from nuclear safety, which is basically concerned with avoiding accidents to atomic reactors. The nuclear accident that occurred in Japan last March involving three Fukushima Daiichi reactors after a major earthquake followed by a tsunami had led to core meltdown and high radioactivity releases. Mercifully, no deaths occurred nor have any cases of radiation sickness been reported, but some 100,000 people needed to be evacuated to safer places where they continue to remain as refugees. A knee-jerk reaction, no doubt, but Japan has announced it would be shutting down all its atomic reactors despite the serious industrial and economic repercussions of this drastic action. Nuclear security is different. It is concerned with securing weapons-usable nuclear materials, assuming that nuclear weapons arsenals are being maintained under absolute control. The historical narrative informs that President Obama came to office believing this aim to be his primary objective, as is clear from his seminal Prague speech in 2009, and his promoting the two nuclear security summits in Washington (March 2010) and Seoul (March 2012). The angst that non-state actors (read terrorists) might acquire these nuclear weapons-usable materials, manufacture nuclear weapons and use them is his motivating force. Clearly, the strength of the chain of installations and facilities manufacturing or storing nuclear weapons-usable materials would be its weakest link. Organisations determined to acquire such materials would concentrate their attention on these weak links rather than where these materials are being stored in large quantities. The Washington-based think-tank National Threat Initiative (NTI) has listed some 32 countries worldwide that have more than one kilogramme of nuclear weapons-usable materials, and graded their security arrangements along an index that has invited much consternation in New Delhi. Without getting into this controversy, it can be argued that the danger of losing such materials ensures that their manufacture and storage would be stringently controlled. Sadly, this assumption is not true. Some days back in end-July this year three anti-war advocates managed to enter the Y-12 National Security Oak Ridge Complex in Tennessee, where they dumped blood, put up placards and wrote on its buildings. Apparently, they had wandered around for two hours before being detected and arrested. The facility undertakes the production of nuclear weapon components and stores US reserves of nuclear weapons-usable uranium. This facility has been described as invulnerable and lethal for any intruder. Yet this incident happened. The complex had to suspend its activities for a week to undertake mandated personnel retraining. Meanwhile, the intruders have pleaded “not guilty”, and trial is set for October 9. A similar incident occurred in Pelindaba (South Africa) that housed the facilities associated with its now defunct nuclear weapons programme. On November 8, 2007, four armed men entered the facility and headed towards the control room after deactivating several security alarms, including an electrical fence. On being detected, the intruders escaped using the same route by which they had entered. They were not detected earlier because, apparently, no one was monitoring the closed-circuit television cameras, although their images had been captured. A clear case, therefore, of human failure which can recur again. Earlier, an even more alarming lapse occurred in September 2007 when a B-52 bomber flew from the Minot Air Base in North Dakota to the Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. Nothing unusual in a long-range bomber aircraft traversing the United States on a training flight. But it was discovered that the B-52 was carrying six nuclear-armed cruise missiles on the pylons under its wings. What could have happened if there was an accident should better be left to the imagination. Disciplinary action was taken against those responsible for this gross security lapse. Later investigations revealed that the nuclear warheads were in safe mode — implying that the electronic codes to arm the warheads had not been activated. But it is fantastic that the checks and cross-checks to ensure that such a contingency did not occur had collectively failed. In fact, the US Air Force is said to have a computerised account of where its nuclear weapons are located at all times. And, nuclear weapons are normally transferred between bases within transport aircraft, and not under-wing pylons. Did an individual override these standard procedures? This is the most worrisome aspect of this incident. And what of India? A general belief prevails that delivery vehicles (aircraft and missiles) and warheads are situated in different locations. Further, warheads are being maintained in a dis-assembled state with their nuclear explosive elements (cores) being kept separate from the (conventional) parts of the nuclear weapon. The delivery vehicles and assembled nuclear weapons are intended to be put together in an emergency. Have any exercises been held to ensure that these arrangements will take place smoothly? Who is ensuring this? Currently, no assurance is also available that nuclear weapons-usable materials are being manufactured and stored in a secure manner, except for vague statements that access to sensitive areas is protected by electronic codes and identification measures. Personnel reliability programmes are also believed to be operating. Apropos of this, a weak Nuclear Regulatory Authority exists to review nuclear safety measures. But the equally vital issue of nuclear security seems to be free of supervision, regulation and control. There is no transparency here, and a thick blanket of secrecy surrounds all information about how India’s nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons-usable material stocks are being stored and maintained. The likelihood of an incident occurring in India like the three instances described above can be dismissed as being very unlikely. But they did occur, and in a high security environment. It might be appreciated that such incidents, no doubt, have low probability, but very high consequences. One cannot, therefore, oppose the thinking that ensuring the security of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons-usable materials needs constant independent review. And there is always scope for improving the existing arrangements as science and technology progresses. The government should provide some greater public reassurance in
this regard.
|
||||||
Railways — a way of life Excuse
me, sir. May I see your ticket?” I woke up from my sleep after hearing these words. On opening my eyes, I saw an alien looking at me with two vivid eyes, emitting white light. I got up suddenly to realise that he was the TTE (Traveller Ticket Examiner), asking for my ticket. He wore spectacles which had two little LEDs on both ends. On asking the reason for these innovative pair of glasses, his reply had a profound impact on me. “Sir, these prevent me from switching on the lights in the compartment and, at the same time, enable me to check the details of the passengers conveniently. Others are not disturbed.” I was touched and got up to shake his hand. People often complain about railway officials’ apathy and how bad railway services are. This topic is debated everywhere. I was also one of such critics until I got selected to the civil services and joined the Indian Railway Traffic Service (IRTS) last year. I agree we are not a perfect organisation. We have problems. But the above incident is just one of the many anecdotes showcasing how the railway staff go about their work. How committed, hard-working and enthusiastic lot they are. My perception about the railway working certainly changed as I became an insider from an outsider. Let me share one more such experience. One day I was asked to go to Harauni, a small road-side station on the Lucknow-Kanpur railway line. My task was to understand the station working and to interact with the staff there. I reached there; the summer heat and the blowing “loo” (hot dry wind) took its toll on me, resulting in a sun-stroke. I must admit that the circumstances were not conducive for working. Each one of the personnel had been working for more than 12 hours a day due to the paucity of staff. Most of the workers were involved in multi-tasking. The drinking water facility was 2 km away and I could easily count the blades of the 1950-made fan rotating above me. And to add to this, I must tell that it is a war-like situation when you deal with train operations. Any complacency can lead to the death of hundreds of travellers. Thus, the work involves not only physical exertion but also mental alertness at every stage. What confounded me was the commitment of the staff who worked in such inhuman conditions. Yes, they had complaints, and I admit they were genuine too, but nobody wanted to quit his job for other lucrative opportunities. I was pleasantly surprised, and to compound my surprise came a young son of an employee, carrying home-made tea for us in a steel bottle. On asking what he aspired to become in life, he replied, “I want to become a DRM one day, and please guide me to become one.” I smiled, wished him luck and patted his
back.
|
||||||
The great organic myths Myth one The
study of Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) for the UK, sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, should concern anyone who buys organic. It shows that milk and dairy production is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). A litre of organic milk requires 80 per cent more land than conventional milk to produce, has 20 per cent greater global warming potential, releases 60 per cent more nutrients to water sources, and contributes 70 per cent more to acid rain. Also, organically reared cows burp twice as much methane as conventionally reared cattle – and methane is 20 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. Meat and poultry are the largest agricultural contributors to GHG emissions. LCA assessment counts the energy used to manufacture pesticide for growing cattle feed, but still shows that a kilo of organic beef releases 12 per cent more GHGs, causes twice as much nutrient pollution and more acid rain. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) relates food production to: energy required to manufacture artificial fertilisers and pesticides; fossil fuel burnt by farm equipment; nutrient pollution caused by nitrate and phosphate run-off into water courses; release of gases that cause acid rain; and the area of land farmed. A similar review by the University of Hohenheim, Germany, in 2000 reached the same conclusions (Hohenheim is a proponent of organic farming and quoted by the Soil Association). Myth TWO Organic potatoes use less energy in terms of fertiliser production, but need more fossil fuel for ploughing. A hectare of conventionally farmed land produces 2.5 times more potatoes than an organic one. Heated greenhouse tomatoes use up to 100 times more energy than those grown in fields in Africa. Organic yield is 75 per cent of conventional tomato crops but takes twice the energy – so the climate consequences of home-grown organic tomatoes exceed those of Kenyan imports. Defra estimates organic tomato production releases almost three times the nutrient pollution and uses 25 per cent more water per kg of fruit than normal production. However, a kilogram of wheat takes 1,700 joules (J) of energy to produce, against 2,500J for the same amount of conventional wheat, although nutrient pollution is three times higher for organic. Myth three Food scares are always good news for the organic food industry. The Soil Association and other organic farming trade groups say conventional food must be unhealthy because farmers use pesticides. Actually, organic farmers also use pesticides. The difference is that “organic” pesticides are so dangerous that they have been “grandfathered” with current regulations and do not have to pass stringent modern safety tests. For example, organic farmers can treat fungal diseases with copper solutions. Unlike modern, biodegradable, pesticides copper stays toxic in the soil for ever. The organic insecticide rotenone (in derris) is highly neurotoxic to humans – exposure can cause Parkinson’s disease. But none of these “natural” chemicals is a reason not to buy organic food; nor are the man-made chemicals used in conventional farming. Myth four The proponents of organic food – particularly celebrities, such as Gwyneth Paltrow, who have jumped on the organic bandwagon – say there is a “cocktail effect” of pesticides. Some point to an “epidemic of cancer”. In fact, there is no epidemic of cancer. When age-standardised, cancer rates are falling dramatically and have been doing so for 50 years. If there is a “cocktail effect” it would first show up in farmers, but they have among the lowest cancer rates of any group. Carcinogenic effects of pesticides could show up as stomach cancer, but stomach cancer rates have fallen faster than any other. Sixty years ago, all Britain’s food was organic; we lived only until our early sixties, malnutrition and food poisoning were rife. Now, modern agriculture (including the careful use of well-tested chemicals) makes food cheap and safe and we live into our eighties. Myth five To quote Hohenheim University: “No clear conclusions about the quality of organic food can be reached using the results of present literature and research results.” What research there is does not support the claims made for organic food. Large studies in Holland, Denmark and Austria found the food-poisoning bacterium Campylobacter in 100 per cent of organic chicken flocks but only a third of conventional flocks; equal rates of contamination with Salmonella (despite many organic flocks being vaccinated against it); and 72 per cent of organic chickens infected with parasites. This high level of infection among organic chickens could cross-contaminate non-organic chickens processed on the same production lines. Organic farmers boast that their animals are not routinely treated with antibiotics or (for example) worming medicines. But, as a result, organic animals suffer more diseases. In 2006 an Austrian and Dutch study found that a quarter of organic pigs had pneumonia against 4 per cent of conventionally raised pigs; their piglets died twice as often. Disease is the major reason why organic animals are only half the weight of conventionally reared animals – so organic farming is not necessarily a boon to animal welfare. Myth six The Soil Association points to a few small studies that demonstrate slightly higher concentrations of some nutrients in organic produce – flavonoids in organic tomatoes and omega-3 fatty acids in organic milk, for example. The easiest way to increase the concentration of nutrients in food is to leave it in an airing cupboard for a few days. Dehydrated foods contain much higher concentrations of carbohydrates and nutrients than whole foods. But, just as in humans, dehydration is often a sign of disease. The study that found higher flavonoid levels in organic tomatoes revealed them to be the result of stress from lack of nitrogen – the plants stopped making flesh and made defensive chemicals (such as flavonoids) instead. Myth seven Less than 1 per cent of the food sold in Britain is organic, but you would never guess it from the media. The Soil Association positions itself as a charity that promotes good farming practices. Modestly, on its website, it claims: “... in many ways the Soil Association can claim to be the first organisation to promote and practice sustainable development.” But the Soil Association is also, in effect, a trade group – and very successful lobbying organisation. Every year, news outlets report the Soil Association’s annual claim of a big increase in the size of the organic market. For 2006 (the latest available figures) it boasted sales of £1.937bn. Mintel (a retail consultantcy hired by the Soil Association) estimated only £1.5bn in organic food sales for 2006. The more reliable TNS Worldpanel, (tracking actual purchases) found just £1bn of organics sold – from a total food sector of £104bn. Sixty years ago all our food was organic so demand has actually gone down by 99 per cent. Despite the “boom” in organics, the amount of land being farmed organically has been decreasing since its height in 2003. Although the area of land being converted to organic usage is scheduled to rise, more farmers are going back to conventional farming. The Soil Association invariably claims that anyone who questions the value of organic farming works for chemical manufacturers and agribusiness or is in league with some shady right-wing US free-market lobby group. Which is ironic, considering that a number of British fascists were involved in the founding of the Soil Association and its journal was edited by one of Oswald Mosley’s blackshirts until the late 1960s. All Britain’s food is safer than ever before. In a serious age, we should talk about the future seriously and not use food scares and misinformation as a tactic to increase sales. —The Independent
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
