|
Iran, China Close to Signing Major Oil Deal
Kyodo News International, Tokyo 2/17/2006
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=29566
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
Iran and China aim to sign a multibillion-dollar deal at an early date to develop the Yadavaran oil field in southwestern Iran, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday in its online edition.
The deal involving the oil field, estimated to be able to produce a maximum 300,000 barrels of oil a day, might thwart efforts by the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush to isolate Iran, the business daily said.
Iran recently resumed uranium enrichment on the pretext of developing nuclear power plants.
The deal, if concluded, would be the first major contract of its kind for Iran since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an outspoken critic of the United States, took office as president last August.
According to the memorandum of understanding signed by Iran and China in 2004, Iran will grant a 51 percent stake in the Yadavaran oil field development project to China Petrochemical Corp., or Sinopec Group, and China will purchase 10 million tons of liquefied natural gas annually from Iran for 25 years.
Iran wants to strike the deal with China before the U.N. Security Council votes for economic sanctions, said Iranian oil ministry officials quoted in the Journal.
Delegates from China's National Development and Reform Commission might visit Iran as early as March to confirm the agreement, an official with the commission was quoted as saying.
Iran is prepared to retaliate, experts warn
By Bryan Bender
Globe Staff
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11881.htm
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
02/12/06 "Boston Globe" -- -- WASHINGTON -- Iran is prepared to launch attacks using long-range missiles, secret commando units, and terrorist allies planted around the globe in retaliation for any strike on the country's nuclear facilities, according to new US intelligence assessments and military specialists.
US and Israeli officials have not ruled out military action against Iran if diplomacy fails to thwart its nuclear ambitions. Among the options are airstrikes on suspected nuclear installations or covert action to sabotage the Iranian program.
But military and intelligence analysts warn that Iran -- which a recent US intelligence report described as ''more confident and assertive" than it has been since the early days of the 1979 Islamic revolution -- could unleash reprisals across the region, and perhaps even inside the United States, if the hard-line regime came under attack.
''When the Americans or Israelis are thinking about [military force], I hope they will sit down and think about everything the ayatollahs could do to make our lives miserable and what we will do to discourage them," said John Pike, director of the think tank GlobalSecurity.org, referring to Iran's religious leaders.
''There could be a cycle of escalation."
President Bush has said military force should be the last resort in international efforts to deter Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb. Yet Bush has stated unequivocally that the United States would not tolerate an Iranian nuclear arsenal, which the CIA estimates could be in place in three to 10 years. Iran maintains its nuclear program is solely aimed at producing electricity, not weapons.
Israel, which Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has threatened to annihilate, asserts that Tehran is much closer to going nuclear and has been far more direct with its counter-threats.
The Israel Defense Forces, which destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981, has said it is perfecting ways to launch a preventative strike against Iranian nuclear sites, including outfitting its Air Force with American-made, bunker-busting munitions.
US intelligence officials have said that Iran, which fought a war with Iraq from 1980-1988 that cost one million lives, still has the most threatening armed forces in the immediate region. Its combined ground forces are estimated at about 800,000 personnel. The CIA has concluded that Iran is steadily enhancing its ability to project its military power, including by threatening international shipping.
But it is Iran's unconventional weapons and tactics -- rather than its conventional military -- that would pose the greatest threat, according to the intelligence officials.
Bush's new intelligence chief, John D. Negroponte, outlining the conclusions reached by a variety of US spy agencies, warned in his first overall annual threat assessment this month to Congress that Iran is capable of sparking a much wider conflict it comes under threat.
A major worry: newly acquired long-range missiles. Obtained with the assistance of North Korea, the Shahab 3 could strike Israel and perhaps even hit the periphery of Europe, according to a recent report by the Pentagon's National Air and Space Intelligence Center.
The missiles could also be tipped with chemical warheads and threaten US military bases in the region.
Iran is believed to have at least 20 launchers that are frequently moved around the country to avoid detection.
''Iran has an extensive missile-development program and has received support from entities in Russia, China, and North Korea," the Pentagon report said, estimating their range to be at least 800 miles.
New missile designs under development could travel 400 miles farther, it said, while Iran purchased at least a dozen X-55 cruise missiles from Ukraine in 2001 that are capable of carrying a nuclear warhead as far as Italy.
Meanwhile, Iranian agents and members of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, widely believed to have a large presence in Iraq, could attempt to foment an uprising by the their fellow Shi'ite majority in Iraq or join insurgents in directly attacking US troops there, Negroponte warned.
He reported that Tehran has ''constrained" itself in Iraq because it is generally satisfied with the political trends in favor of the Shi'ite majority and to avoid giving the United States another excuse to attack Iran. But that could change if Iran were targeted militarily.
A leading Shi'ite cleric in Iraq, Moqtada al-Sadr, whose militia has clashed with US troops and rival Shi'ite groups, vowed in a visit to Tehran last month to defend Iran if it were attacked.
The assessment presented by Negroponte said the Iranian regime already provides ''guidance and training" to militant groups in Iraq and ''has been responsible for at least some of the increasing lethality of anticoalition attacks by providing Shia militants with the capability to build" improvised explosive devices.
Government and private analysts assert that Iran's intelligence apparatus and Revolutionary Guard Corps could cause serious damage to US efforts to pacify Iraq.
''The Iranian ayatollahs may deploy an 'asymmetric' answer and incite a Shi'ite rebellion in Iraq," the respected Russian military publication ''Defense and Security," warned last month, referring to a military strategy that employs such tactics as guerrilla warfare. ''That would be disastrous for the United States."
Iran, believed to be responsible for the bombing of a US Air Force barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996, also would be expected to enlist its terrorist allies around the world to come to its aid if attacked, US officials and private specialists contend.
''Tehran continues to support a number of terrorist groups, viewing this capability as a critical regime safeguard by deterring US and Israeli attacks, distracting and weakening Israel, and enhancing Iran's regional influence through intimidation," according to Negroponte's assessment to Congress.
Primary among them is Hezbollah, the Lebanese terrorist group that killed 241 US Marines when it bombed a Beirut barracks in 1983.
''Lebanese Hezbollah is Iran's main terrorist ally, which . . . has a worldwide support network and is capable of attacks against US interests if it feels its Iranian patron is threatened," according to the report.
''They have all kinds of people that would like to embrace martyrdom," Pike said of Iran, raising the specter that a terrorist group allied with Iran would be capable of launching attacks inside the United States to avenge a strike against Iran.
Intelligence officials also point out that Iran controls a small island at the mouth the Strait of Hormuz and could use missiles and gunboats to temporarily shut off access to the economically vital Persian Gulf, sparking an oil crisis.
''Military attack is not the solution to this problem," Mohammad Mohaddessin, chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, the leading dissident group, said in a telephone interview from Paris. ''The regime is absolutely focusing on nonconventional responses. Missiles and terrorist operations are the strong points."
Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mideast oil imports
BY KEVIN G. HALL
Knight Ridder Newspapers
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=29092
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.
What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025.
But America still would import oil from the Middle East, because that's where the greatest oil supplies are.
The president's State of the Union reference to Mideast oil made headlines nationwide Wednesday because of his assertion that "America is addicted to oil" and his call to "break this addiction."
Bush vowed to fund research into better batteries for hybrid vehicles and more production of the alternative fuel ethanol, setting a lofty goal of replacing "more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."
He pledged to "move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."
Not exactly, though, it turns out. "This was purely an example," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said.
He said the broad goal was to displace foreign oil imports, from anywhere, with domestic alternatives. He acknowledged that oil is a freely traded commodity bought and sold globally by private firms. Consequently, it would be very difficult to reduce imports from any single region, especially the most oil-rich region on Earth.
Asked why the president used the words "the Middle East" when he didn't really mean them, one administration official said Bush wanted to dramatize the issue in a way that "every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands." The official spoke only on condition of anonymity because he feared that his remarks might get him in trouble.
Presidential adviser Dan Bartlett made a similar point in a briefing before the speech. "I think one of the biggest concerns the American people have is oil coming from the Middle East. It is a very volatile region," he said.
Through the first 11 months of 2005, the United States imported nearly 2.2 million barrels per day of oil from the Middle East nations of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. That's less than 20 percent of the total U.S. daily imports of 10.062 million barrels.
Imports account for about 60 percent of U.S. oil consumption. Alan Hubbard, the director of the president's National Economic Council, projects that America will import 6 million barrels of oil per day from the Middle East in 2025 without major technological changes in energy consumption. The Bush administration believes that new technologies could reduce the total daily U.S. oil demand by about 5.26 million barrels through alternatives such as plug-in hybrids with rechargeable batteries, hydrogen-powered cars and new ethanol products.
That means the new technologies could reduce America's oil appetite by the equivalent of what we're expected to import from the Middle East by 2025, Hubbard said. But we'll still be importing plenty of oil, according to the Energy Department's latest projection.
"In 2025, net petroleum imports, including both crude oil and refined products, are expected to account for 60 percent of demand ... up from 58 percent in 2004," according to the Energy Information Administration's 2006 Annual Energy Outlook. Some experts think Bush needs to do more to achieve his stated goal. "We can achieve energy independence from the Middle East, but not with what the president is proposing," said Craig Wolfe, the president of Americans for Energy Independence in Studio City, Calif. "We need to slow the growth in consumption. Our organization believes we need to do something about conservation" and higher auto fuel-efficiency standards.
---
© 2006, Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.
U.S. Compromises on Wording of Iran Nuclear Resolution
February 4, 2006
By ELAINE SCIOLINO
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/international/europe/04iran.html?
_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
VIENNA, Feb. 3 - The 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency put off a vote on a landmark resolution on Iran's
nuclear program on Friday, largely because of American opposition to a clause indirectly criticizing Israel's nuclear weapons status, according to several diplomats.
But late Friday evening the dispute was apparently resolved after the Americans backed down and accepted compromise language, an American official said.
In Washington, R. Nicholas Burns, under secretary of state for political affairs, said the way had been cleared for the adoption of the resolution on Saturday. "The I.A.E.A. board is now poised to adopt a very important resolution declaring the international
community's lack of confidence in Iran," he said. "This is a major development on this issue."
Earlier in the day, diplomats here had predicted the United States would have to accept a compromise on the clause, which mentions
support for the creation of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East. The clause was insisted upon by Egypt, with the strong backing of the nonaligned nations on the agency's board.
Egypt and other Arab states routinely demand references to a "nuclear-free zone" in the Middle East in Security Council documents. They argue that Israel - which has never admitted that it has nuclear weapons and, unlike Iran, has never signed the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty - should be made part of a general security framework in the Middle East.
The issue temporarily exposed a split between the Americans, who opposed the Egyptian demand, and Russia, China and the Europeans, who supported it.
On Thursday night, Britain circulated a new, informal draft that added a clause that recognized that "a solution to the Iranian
nuclear issue would contribute to the goal of a Middle East free of all weapons of mass destruction, and their means of delivery."
That language reflected the official position of the 25-member European Union. But the United States delegation, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, initially opposed the compromise language, saying it could be used by Iran as a propaganda weapon against
Israel, four senior diplomats said.
"The Americans are worried that once it is there, it will stay there forever and allow the Iranians to hide behind it," one ambassador involved in the negotiations said.
It was not immediately clear which compromise Washington had agreed to, though a senior official said the resolution would make reference to a nuclear-free zone. Earlier, a State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, had said the United States accepted in principle that "we all hope for a day when the Middle East achieves a state where there are not nuclear weapons." Throughout the day on Friday, the Europeans pressed the Americans to change their position.
"It's five against one," said one European ambassador.
Another key ambassador called the Americans "dogmatists," predicting that for the resolution to pass, "The Americans will have to give in."
Gregory Schulte, the American ambassador to the agency, told reporters that he expected strong support when a vote was taken. "We
are convinced we have a solid majority for the resolution that reports Iran to the Security Council," he said. "And that majority is growing."
Many diplomats here also said the resolution might not pass with as strong a majority as many had hoped, because of opposition among the 16-member bloc of nonaligned countries.
Diplomats met behind closed doors throughout the day to meet some of the demands of the nonaligned countries, which wanted to delete all references to the Security Council or at least delay any report to New York until after the nuclear agency makes its full assessment of Iran's nuclear program in March.
The current text is a compromise between the American push for immediate action against Iran by the Security Council and Russia's
preference for a monthlong delay for more diplomacy.
The resolution mentions Iran's "many failures and breaches of its obligations" under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and "the
absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes."
In one important concession, the draft resolution was changed to reflect the fact that actions taken by Iran to build
international "confidence" that it is not pursuing a nuclear weapon are "voluntary and non-legally binding."
In another development, Javad Vaidi, the head of Iran's nuclear delegation, told reporters on Friday that if the resolution reported Iran to the Security Council, it would be the end of a Russian proposal under which uranium would be enriched for Iran's energy purposes at a site in Russia under solely Russian authority.
Underscoring the fluid nature of the diplomacy, however, a Russian diplomat said that talks on the proposal were continuing.
On Thursday, Iran informed the I.A.E.A. in a letter that all "voluntary" nuclear cooperation with the agency would end if the
agency's board reported Iran's nuclear case to the Security Council. That would mean that the agency would no longer be allowed to do voluntary spot inspections and would lose access to important sites and installations.
Steven R. Weisman contributed reporting from Washington for this article.
[“The Niger delta is already classified by international agencies as a danger zone on a par with Chechnya and Colombia.” This is an interesting fact buried halfway into the story. Two things are clear. No oil major can afford to pull out of Nigeria’s onshore operations. And Nigeria will not be abandoned to the Chinese. There will be escalating violence and instability in Nigeria. A deployment of US Marines to the region has already been delayed once. But rest assured, the Marines will go.
This is another reason why an attack on Iran is unlikely and would be utterly stupid. The military can’t handle the strains of a world at war and Nigeria remains a larger oil exporter to the US than any country in the world except for Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Venezuela. -- MCR]
Oil delta burns with hate
Escalating violence means western firms are thinking of quitting Nigeria. China may be quick to fill the vacuum, writes Nick Mathiason
Sunday January 29, 2006
The Observer
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1697002,00.html
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
Levels of thuggery that once seemed acceptable to major oil firms operating in the Nigerian delta are now spilling over into widespread, vicious attacks. Will murder and kidnapping force them to pull out of the country altogether?
Fears are growing from investors, oil workers and agencies working in the Niger delta that the escalating violence may force the four major oil companies - Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, Exxon and ENI - to close onshore operations.
Paul Horsnell, head of commodities research at Barclays Capital, said: 'There's always been low-level violence about not enough money trickling down or local difficulties, but this is different. There's a sliding scale of events that could happen and at one end it gets to the stage where it becomes impossible to continue operations in certain areas of the delta. There's no getting away from the fact that this is a possible outcome.'
And, in a new report out last week, Stakeholder Democracy Network, an anti-corruption campaign group active in the region, said: 'We, and most experts on the region, are gravely concerned by many strong indications that, despite the outward appearance of a year-long ceasefire, various factions are quietly arming as though for war... The most pessimistic assessments suggest Shell and foreign oil operators may have to go offshore altogether by 2008 as security and public order deteriorates.'
The report suggests that the crisis could worsen once the election primaries begin in a few months: 'This is far sooner than the 2007 horizon line ... previously suggested by many analysts.' Attacks last week on Italian oil firm Agip resulted in the death of nine people. This followed the blowing up of a major pipeline and the kidnapping of four foreign oilmen working offshore.
Shell relies on Nigeria for 11 per cent of its global output. But it has suffered four attacks in recent weeks and had to cut production in the delta by 10 per cent. Now some Shell insiders are privately questioning how secure its operations are and to what extent it can rely on production there. Shutdowns would not only hurt the revenues of oil majors but also threaten a surge in oil prices.
The Niger delta is already classified by international agencies as a danger zone on a par with Chechnya and Colombia. The number of guns in circulation has increased dramatically since 2003, the year the last presidential elections were held. Those elections were widely condemned as being rigged, with armed gangs seizing ballot boxes and intimidating voters.
Since then hopes have dwindled that Africa's largest country, with a population of 129 million, would transform itself into a functioning democracy. The state has failed to protect its citizens from criminality and impose anti-pollution measures to curb the worst excesses of the oil industry.
Criminal gangs with international connections make billions of pounds by 'bunkering' - illegally siphoning off - a tenth of all Nigerian oil. Some say the oil firms must know oil bunkering happens but tolerate it so operations can continue. Bunkering gangs then launder their cash abroad and buy machine guns to bolster their criminal empires.
Then there has been the recent rise of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (Mend). The organisation claims responsibility for the kidnapping of Shell workers and is demanding $1.5bn compensation from the firm for the pollution it says Shell has caused.
'Mend has so far perpetrated the most brazen act of terror in the region for years and taken it on to a new level,' says an aid worker. 'There's a feeling of fear in communities near oil installations who are braced for government reprisals.'
Oil shutdowns in Nigeria would have serious implications as the light, sweet crude that lies beneath the delta is excellent for making gasoline. One analyst said: 'The Saudis have offered to make up for any loss of production but its oil is not of the same quality.'
In 50 years, Nigeria has earned more than $350bn from oil, but the consequent wealth has remained in the hands of a ruthless, corrupt elite. Former president Abaja moved several billion dollars out of the country and much of that cash went through banks in the Square Mile.
The country could have earned more: increased refining capacity would allow it to diversify its economy and charge more for oil exports.
Glasgow Labour MP John Robertson, chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Niger Delta Group, led a Commons delegation to the region last year. He said signs of corruption were everywhere. Examples include roads of short distances costing several billion pounds that taper off into pot-holed dirt tracks. Ostentatious wealth - cars, jets, jewellery - taunt the majority of those living in poverty in the delta. But the dam appears to be breaking.
Meanwhile, the oil firms have lost credibility with communities, who blame them for failing to tackle gas flares and for the contamination of creeks and waterways that is ruining the fishing industry. The oil firms' attempts to engage with communities have been disastrous. Plans to provide facilities such as hospitals and schools have come to nothing. Empty buildings stripped of all valuable materials litter the countryside. And oil firms face accusations of paying militants to act as security for their operations, thereby fuelling the flames of gang rivalry.
Some suggest that the wave of violence will see oil majors sell out to Chinese firms desperate to secure oil supplies, who will come into the country with a clean slate. Two weeks ago, Cnooc, the state-owned Chinese energy company, said it would pay nearly $2.3bn to acquire a large stake in a Nigerian oil and gas field, one of the biggest overseas acquisitions by a Chinese company.
Others say that the Nigerian government has plans to take control of the oil industry in a tactic similar to that used by Russia's President Putin. One thing is clear, though: the oil supply from Nigeria is now far from secure - and it could not have come at a worse time for the global economy.
U.N. Council Agrees on Iran Nuclear Review
Washington Post
31 January 2006
http://www.iranpressnews.com/english/source/010306.html
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
The United States and other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council reached surprising accord that Iran should be taken before that powerful body over its disputed nuclear program. But it is not clear that Tehran would face punishment.
Foreign ministers from China and Russia, longtime allies and trading partners of Iran, signed on to a statement that calls on the U.N. nuclear watchdog to transfer its Iran dossier to the Security Council, which could impose sanctions or take other harsh action.
Russia, in particular, has sought to avert the Security Council route in favor of further talks and scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov agreed to the move only after a dinner meeting that, at nearly four hours, went far longer than expected.
Russia, China, the United States, Britain and France said the Security Council should wait until March to take up the Iran case,
after a formal report on Tehran's activities from the watchdog agency.
Foreign ministers from Germany and the European Union also attended the dinner and agreed to what amounted to a compromise: taking the case to the Security Council but allowing a short breather before the council undertakes what could be a divisive debate.
Iran's top nuclear negotiator responded to the move by saying Tuesday that hauling his country before the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear ambitions would mean the "end of diplomacy."
"Referring or reporting Iran's dossier to the U.N. Security Council will be unconstructive and the end of diplomacy," state television quoted Ali Larijani as saying.
Any of the five permanent members of the Security Council, all nuclear powers themselves, can veto an action voted by the full
council membership.
Iran broke U.N. seals at a uranium enrichment plant Jan. 10 and said it would resume nuclear fuel research after a two-year freeze. Tehran said the research would involve what it called limited uranium enrichment, but the action raised fears Tehran was using its pursuit of atomic power as a front for a nuclear weapons program.
Iran insists its nuclear program is intended only to produce electricity. The United States and some allies say Iran is hiding
ambitions to build a nuclear bomb, but the Security Council members have been divided about how strong a line to take.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other foreign ministers issued a joint statement Tuesday calling on the IAEA to report on the Iran case when it meets Thursday in Vienna.
The statement was silent about what the Security Council should do once it has the Iran case before it, and world opinion has been
widely divided on the various options, which range from letting the case languish to slapping severe economic penalties on the oil-exporting nation.
The group agreed that the IAEA "should report to the Security Council its decision on the steps required of Iran, and should also report to the Security Council all IAEA reports and resolutions as adopted relating to this issue."
The IAEA has already found Iran in violation of nuclear obligations and issued a stern warning to Tehran in September. Thursday's vote would be the next step, one long sought by the United States.
It is still not clear how Russia and China would vote if the questions of sanctions came before the Security Council. It is also
not clear that the United States will win the broad international consensus it seeks when the IAEA votes.
The IAEA "will report on the situation in Iran and the way the Iranian authorities are not cooperating with the international
agency," said a French government official, speaking on the customary condition of anonymity.
He said the Russian and Chinese ministers had initially been reluctant to agree to refer Iran to the Security Council, but were
persuaded of the need for the council members to show a united front.
"It was very important to make sure they are all together on this issue and all agree on the same position."
European foreign ministers met with Iran's deputy nuclear negotiator in Brussels on Monday but said they failed to make progress.
The EU said a Russian proposal to enrich uranium and send the fuel back to Iran, allowing more oversight of the process, could be the solution, but Rice has questioned the drawn-out negotiations over the offer.
"This has now been several months. So when the Iranians now evince interest in the Russian proposal, one has to wonder if that isn't because they now face the prospect of referral to the Security Council," Rice said before the dinner meeting.
Can you “catch” obesity?
Courtesy American Physiological Society
and World Science staff
Jan. 30, 2006
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060130_fatvirusfrm.htm
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
There is a lot of good advice to help us avoid becoming fat, such as eat less and exercise. But if some researchers are right, you may soon be hearing a surprising new piece of advice: wash your hands.
There is growing evidence that some viruses may cause obesity, thus making obesity contagious, said Leah Whigham of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, lead researcher in a new study on the subject.
The idea isn’t new, but it has been controversial among scientists, Whigham said. “It makes people feel more comfortable to think that obesity stems from lack of control,” she remarked. “It’s a big mental leap to think you can catch obesity.”
Her study found that a human-infecting virus called AD-37 causes obesity in chickens. Previous studies had linked two three related viruses with obesity in animals or humans, the researchers added.
The study appears in the January issue of the American Journal of Physiology—Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology.
AD-37 and its kin are adenoviruses, members of a family of viruses that commonly cause upper respiratory tract infections including the common cold.
Whigham said more research is needed to find out if Ad-37 causes obesity in humans. One study was inconclusive, she said, because only a handful of people showed evidence of infection with Ad-37, not enough to draw any conclusions.
Researchers should now identify which, if any, viruses cause human obesity, she added. Further steps could be to devise a screening test to identify people who are infected, and to develop a vaccine.
“If Ad-36 is responsible for a significant portion of human obesity, the logical therapeutic intervention would be to develop a vaccine to prevent future infections,” wrote Frank Greenway of Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, in an editorial in the same issue of the journal. “One would want to ensure that all the [subtypes] of human adenoviruses responsible for human obesity were covered in the vaccine.”
Whigham said there has long been evidence that factors other than poor diet or lack of exercise may be at work in an obesity epidemic that has affected many nations.
“The prevalence of obesity has doubled in adults in the United States in the last 30 years and has tripled in children,” the study noted. “With the exception of infectious diseases, no other chronic disease in history has spread so rapidly,” and the causes have not been clearly identified, she added.
Other diseases once thought to be the product of environmental factors are now known to stem from pathogens, she added. For example, ulcers were once thought to be the result of stress, but researchers eventually implicated H. pylori bacteria as a cause.
“The nearly simultaneous increase in the prevalence of obesity in most countries of the world is difficult to explain by changes in food intake and exercise alone, and suggest that adenoviruses could have contributed,” the researchers wrote in the study. “The role of adenoviruses in the worldwide epidemic of obesity is a critical question that demands additional research.”
The theory that viruses could play a part in obesity began a few decades ago, the researchers said. That was when Nikhil Dhurandhar, now at Louisiana State University, noticed that chickens in India infected with the avian adenovirus SMAM-1 had significantly more fat than non-infected chickens.
Since then, Ad-36 has been found to be more prevalent in obese humans, Whigham and colleagues noted.
In the new study, the team worked to determine which adenoviruses might be associated with obesity in chickens. The animals were separated into four groups, each of which was exposed to one of three adenoviruses, or no virus.
Chickens inoculated with Ad-37 had significantly more fat compared with the other three groups, which included those infected with Ad-2 or Ad-31, the researchers found.
Detroit's endless winter
More bad news is on the way for Ford and General Motors, and they are running out of time for a turnaround.
By Alex Taylor III, FORTUNE senior editor
January 30, 2006: 12:39 PM EST
http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/30/news/companies/
pluggedin_fortune/index.htm
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
NEW YORK (FORTUNE) - When Super Bowl XL kicks off this Sunday in Detroit, it should provide some much-needed diversion for the hometown Big Two. January already ranks as one of the cruelest months ever for General Motors and Ford and more bad news is on the way.
It arrives Wednesday, when automakers report their sales for the month just ended. A forecast by Merrill Lynch projects a January downturn of 2 percent for all manufacturers, but sees GM (Research) and Ford (Research) falling far more than that. Merrill analyst Jon Murphy figures GM sales will fall 10 percent for the month, driving its market share down to a measly 24.1 percent -- down two full percentage points from a year ago.
Ford is expected to suffer a 5 percent decline, shrinking its market share half a percentage point to 18.2 percent. JD Power and Associates, which only tracks cars sold at retail, is looking for a more alarming decline. It says sales are running 11 percent below a year ago, with GM's retail business down 28 percent and Ford's off 25 percent.
The continuing market share slide -- 2006 now becomes the 11th consecutive year that Ford has declined -- adds further evidence to the sense that time is running out for both of these companies to fix their North American operations. Without a massive reversal of customer preferences, GM and Ford simply will have a hard time staying in business.
They can't expect much help. The United Auto Workers is showing little interest in relaxing its onerous wage and benefits requirements, and the federal governments shows no sign of arranging a bailout like the one Chrysler got in 1979. In an interview last week, President Bush helpfully suggested that GM and Ford improve their results by creating "a product that's relevant."
That was the least of the week's bad news. GM shocked investors by announcing that it lost $4.8 billion in 2005's fourth quarter. All by itself, North American operations lost $1.5 billion, bringing its total losses for the year to a shocking $5.6 billion.
Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner blamed legacy costs and GM's tardiness in reacting to falling vehicles sales this year -- especially big SUVs. "2005 was one of the most difficult years in GM's history," he said. GM is slashing its production capacity by one million vehicles and cutting 30,000 jobs to get profitable again.
Across town, the damage at Ford was smaller in magnitude but just as painful. In an otherwise profitable year, its North American operations lost $1.6 billion. Chairman and CEO Bill Ford announced plans to lay off 25,000 to 30,000 workers and cut production capacity by 1.2 million car and trucks. Ford called the reductions "painful sacrifices to protect Ford's heritage."
Is there any hope for these two wounded giants? Wagoner, a former college basketball player, lofted some low-percentage shots from beyond the three-point circle. He pointed to faster new model introductions and additional cost cutting as ways for GM to make "significant improvement" in its North American operating results. But headlines about multi-billion dollar losses aren't going to help GM lure customers back to its showrooms, and without them, nothing can save the company.
Bill Ford, meanwhile, is trying a different tack. He's launching a makeover plan for his family's company called the "Way Forward." The most radical part calls for transforming Ford's hard-nosed production-driven atmosphere into a softer, customer-focused culture.
But Ford has been down this road before under ousted CEO Jac Nasser. And Ford has provided few details about how this transformation is actually going to occur, leading to significant skepticism on Wall Street. Deutsche Bank analyst Rod Lache put out a report bluntly headlined, "The plan is unconvincing."
Ford might be better served by following the example set by DaimlerChrysler last week. New chairman Dieter Zetsche has been so shocked by the backbiting and infighting at the company's corporate headquarters that he has blown it up.
He announced that he was emptying out Daimler's modern office complex and moving all the corporate executives downtown to an old engine plant at Mercedes-Benz headquarters. That way, they will be kept busy with day-to-day problems of the auto business like boosting market share, and won't have time for office politics.
|
Iran, China Close to Signing Major Oil Deal