China reveals Iran’s nuclear secrets to UN

China has betrayed one its closest allies by providing the United Nations with intelligence on Iran’s efforts to acquire nuclear technology, diplomats have revealed.

Concern over Tehran’s secretive research programme has increased in recent weeks after officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog, discovered that Iran had obtained information on how to manufacture nuclear-armed weapons.

Beijing is believed to have decided to assist the inspectors after documents seized from Iranian officials included blueprints for “shaping” uranium metal into warheads, the testing of high explosives used to detonate radioactive material and the procurement of dual-use technology.

Much of the new material was presented to the governors of the Vienna-based IAEA in February. That meeting is said to have triggered China’s change of heart.

President Ahmadinejad on National Nuclear Day: China reveals Iran’s nuclear secrets to UN inspectors
Ahmadinejad on National Nuclear Day

Diplomats described Beijing’s decision to provide material related to Iran to the IAEA as a potentially significant breakthrough.

Chinese designs for centrifuges that refine uranium into a “weaponised” state have been found in Iran but these are thought to have come through a network controlled by the disgraced Pakistani scientist AQ Khan.

John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations, said suspicions over the leakage of technology from China to Iran had long centred on uranium enrichment technology and their bilateral ballistic missile trade.

A spokesman for the IAEA said it did not comment on intelligence it received from its members.

Beijing has long-established ties with Iran’s clerical regime and has emerged as one of the country’s biggest customers for oil and gas.

It has allied itself with Tehran’s attempts to prevent the IAEA referring Iran to the UN Security Council, which can impose sanctions.

China has not used its veto powers to block US and British sponsored sanctions but it has ensured the measures were watered down.
advertisement

The council has levied three rounds of financial sanctions on Iran in an attempt to force the country to declare all its nuclear activities.

IAEA weapons inspectors report that Iran has not provided full co-operation.

An American intelligence assessment judged it likely that Iran stopped efforts to produce a nuclear weapon in 2003 but there are strong fears it has resumed the work under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Michael Hayden, the director of the CIA, said this week that he believed that Iran is still developing a nuclear bomb.

Meanwhile, Israel has accused Iran of setting up listening stations in Syria to eavesdrop on its military communications network.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/02/wiran102.xml

Review raises questions over aspartame and brain health

03-Apr-2008 – Excessive intake of aspartame may inhibit the ability of enzymes in the brain to function normally, suggests a new review that could fan the flames of controversy over the sweetener.
The review, by scientists from the University of Pretoria and the University of Limpopo and published recently in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, indicated that high consumption of the sweetener may lead to neurodegeneration.

Aspartame is made up of phenylalanine (50 per cent), aspartic acid (40 per cent) and methanol (10 per cent). It is commonly used in food products for the diet or low calorie market, including soft drinks and chewing gums. It was approved for use in foods in the US and EU member states in the early 1980s.

The sweetener has caused much controversy amid suspicions on whether it is entirely safe, with studies linking the ingredient and cancer in rats.

It has also previously been found that aspartame consumption can cause neurological and behavioural disturbances in sensitive individuals. Symptoms that have been reported include headaches, insomnia and seizures.

Despite strong concerns being raised from some quarters over the sweetener, both the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have not changed their guidelines regarding the safety of the ingredient or intake advice.

The new review also challenges finding published last year in the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology (Informa Healthcase) that considered over 500 studies, articles and reports conducted over the last 25 years – including work that was not published, but that was submitted to government bodies as part of the regulatory approvals process.

The earlier review concluded: “The weight of existing evidence s that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption… No credible evidence was found that aspartame is carcinogenic, neurotoxic, or has any other adverse effect on health when consumed even at quantities many times the established ADI [acceptable daily intake] levels.”

New review

Writing in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a Nature journal, the scientists behind the new review state: “The aim of this study was to discuss the direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain, and we propose that excessive aspartame ingestion might be involved in the pathogenesis of certain mental disorders, and also in compromised learning and emotional functioning.”

The researchers found a number of direct and indirect changes that occur in the brain as a result of high consumption levels of aspartame, leading to neurodegeneration.

They found aspartame can disturb the metabolism of amino acids, protein structure and metabolism, the integrity of nucleic acids, neuronal function and endocrine balances. It also may change the brain concentrations of catecholamines, which include norepinephrine, epinephrine and domapine.

Additionally, they said the breakdown of aspartame causes nerves to fire excessively, which can indirectly lead to a high rate of neuron depolarisation.

The researchers added: “The energy systems for certain required enzyme reactions become compromised, thus indirectly leading to the inability of enzymes to function optimally.

“The ATP stores [adenosine triphosphate] in the cells are depleted, indicating that low concentrations of glucose are present in the cells, and this in turn will indirectly decrease the synthesis of acetylcholine, glutamate and GABA (gamma-aminobutyric acid).”

Furthermore, the functioning of glutamate as an excitatory neurotransmitter is inhibited as a result of the intracellular calcium uptake being altered, and mitochondria are damaged, which the researchers said could lead to apoptosis (cell death) of cells and also a decreased rate of oxidative metabolism.

As a result of their study, the researchers said more testing is required to further determine the health effects on aspartame and bring an end to the controversy.

Source: European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
2008, doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602866
“Direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain”
Authors: P. Humphries, E. Pretorius, H. Naude

http://foodqualitynews.com/news/ng.asp?id=84424

Confidential Doc Warns Of Conflict Or Revolution For US

WMR has learned from knowledgeable sources within the US financial community that an alarming confidential and limited distribution document is circulating among senior members of Congress and their senior staff members that is warning of a bleak future for the United States if it does not quickly get its financial house in order. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is among those who have reportedly read the document.

 

The document is being called the “C & R” document because it reportedly states that if the United States defaults on loans and debt underwriting from China, Japan, and Russia, all of which are propping up the United States government financially, and the United States unilaterally cancels the debts, America can expect a war that will have disastrous results for the United States and the world. “Conflict” is the “C word” in the document.

The other scenario is that the federal government will be forced to drastically raise taxes in order to pay off debts to foreign countries to the point that the American people will react with a popular revolution against the government. “Revolution” is the document’s “R word.”

The origin of the document is not known, however, its alarming content matches up with previous warnings from former Comptroller General David Walker who abruptly resigned as head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in February of this year after repeatedly publicly warning of a “financial meltdown” disaster if America’s $9 trillion debt was not addressed quickly. Financial experts have warned that the national debt, corrected for inflation, could reach $46 trillion in the next 20 years. A month earlier, Walker warned the Senate Banking Committee about the reaction of creditor nations in Asia and Europe if the U.S. did not address its debt problem.

http://www.rense.com/general81/conflict.htm

Bush Wins NATO Backing on Europe Missile Shield

BUCHAREST, Romania — NATO leaders agreed Thursday to endorse a United States missile defense system based in Europe and provide more troops for Afghanistan but they declined, as expected, to back President Bush’s proposal to bring Ukraine and Georgia closer to NATO membership.

While the rejection of Georgia and Ukraine was seen as an a capitulation to Russian concerns, Mr. Bush persuaded NATO to endorse his missile-defense plan as well as an agreement with the Czech Republic to build a radar for the system, both in the face of Russian objections.

“There has been, over 10 years, a real debate as to whether there is a ballistic missile threat,” Mr. Bush’s national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, said. “And I think that debate ended today.”

The Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, has objected repeatedly to building parts of the missile defense system in former Soviet bloc states, despite Washington’s assurances that the system is a response to threats from Iran, not Russia. Mr. Putin, saying the system would fuel a new arms race, has even threatened to target the system with Russian missiles, while also offering a substitute system in Kazakhstan.

NATO’s final statement invited Russia to cooperate with the United States and Europe on developing defenses jointly.

Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the international affairs committee of the Russian Parliament, said that missile defense would be high on the agenda for the Bush-Putin meeting in Sochi, scheduled after the NATO conference, which Mr. Putin is to attend Friday.

Mr. Kosachev said Russia doubted Washington’s motives. “We still do not have a proper explanation of this project,” he said. “It is not about the number of interceptors. It’s about undermining mutual confidence and trust.”

Regarding the increased troop levels in Afghanistan, a Washington priority, the main contributor was France. President Nicolas Sarkozy said Paris would send another battalion — some 700 troops — to eastern Afghanistan, freeing up American soldiers to deploy more in support of Canadian forces in the south, where the fighting against the Taliban is heaviest.

Mr. Sarkozy, in a joint press conference with the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, repeated his stance that France intended to reintegrate fully into NATO once a separate European defense pillar became a reality. “Let Europe’s defense pole advance and we will continue to advance toward NATO,” he said. “I repeat, these are two things that go together, not one or the other, so let’s wait for the summit” in 2009, he said.

He praised Mr. Bush for comments “on the need for European defenses that would complement the alliance, which was, in my opinion, a historic turning point in U.S. policy,” Mr. Sarkozy said. “It was a gesture we have been waiting for, that has been noticed. It’s a gesture that shows understanding for what is happening in Europe.”

Mr. Bush praised Mr. Sarkozy, too, saying his trip to the United States last fall had an impact “like the latest incarnation of Elvis,” a senior American official said.

Mr. Bush traveled to Ukraine on the eve of the summit here and strongly endorsed Ukraine’s eventual membership. But the alliance decided not to offer Ukraine and George entry into its Membership Action Plan, or MAP, a set of requirements and reforms necessary to achieve full alliance membership.

While the administration was clearly disappointed, American officials focused on NATO’s agreement that the alliance’s foreign ministers would reconsider Ukraine and Georgia when they meet again in December, before President Bush leaves office. They suggested that invitations to the MAP program might come in a year, at the next summit meeting, to be jointly held by Germany and France, or in 2010.

Mr. Hadley, the national security adviser, said that most of the former Communist states that have joined NATO since the collapse of the Soviet Union had supported the American position. He and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice emphasized NATO’s final statement declaring that Georgia and Ukraine would become members someday, as would any other aspiring democracy in Europe, a policy the administration calls “open door.”

“If there was an open door, there’s now a wide-open door,” Ms. Rice said.

Still, the division within NATO was considered by some countries of Central and Eastern Europe to have sent a message of alliance weakness to Moscow. And German and British officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, criticized the Bush administration for not coming to grips soon enough with the Ukraine and Georgian problem. They suggested that Mr. Bush’s failure to try to work through the issue with Russia in advance created doubts among key allies like Germany and France, who also feel that Georgia’s leadership is unstable and that Ukraine, with a divided population and a new government, is not yet ready to enter MAP.

Boris I. Tarasyuk, a former Ukrainian foreign minister and close ally of President Viktor A. Yushchenko on NATO membership, said in an interview: “Moscow will be very satisfied with the outcome. But I’d like to say to them that this is not the end of the story. Sooner or later it will happen.”

Georgia’s foreign minister, David Bakradze, said: “A ‘no’ for Georgia will show those people in the Kremlin who think that by a policy of blackmail, by arrogance and aggression” they can influence NATO’s decisions.

NATO did extend full invitations to join the alliance to two key countries of the Western Balkans, Croatia and Albania. But in an embarrassment for NATO, which runs by full consensus, Greece insisted on vetoing the membership invitation of tiny Macedonia. Athens insists that the country must have a name different from Greece’s northern province to avoid any sense of territorial claim and “instability,” objections that NATO officials regard as ludicrous.

“This is a huge disappointment,” said Macedonian government negotiator Nikola Dimitrov. “It goes against the values that stand behind NATO. It’s very much against stability in the Balkans.”

Mr. Bush, addressing his NATO colleagues, praised reforms Macedonia has put in places and said that the “name issue needs to be resolved quickly, so that Macedonia can be welcomed into NATO as soon as possible.”

He did not mention Greece. Nor did Mr. Bush mention Ukraine and Georgia.

Judy Dempsey contributed reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/world/europe/04nato.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin