Shrinking proton puzzle persists in new measurement



































A puzzle at the heart of the atom refuses to go away. The most precise measurement yet of the proton's radius confirms that it sometimes seems smaller than the laws of physics demand – an issue that has been hotly debated for two years.












The latest finding deepens the need for exotic physics, or some other explanation, to account for the inconsistency. "If we were in a hole before, the hole is deeper now," says Gerald Miller of the University of Washington in Seattle, who was not involved in the new measurement.












The saga of the proton radius began in 2010, when a group led by Randolf Pohl at the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany, determined the width of the fuzzy ball of positive charge – and found it was smaller than had been assumed.












Previous teams had inferred the proton's radius, which is impossible to measure directly, by studying how electrons and protons interact. One method uses the simplest atom, hydrogen, which consists of one electron and one proton. A quirk of quantum mechanics says that an electron in an atom can only orbit its proton at certain distances, corresponding to different energy levels. The electron can jump between levels if it absorbs or releases energy in the form of a photon of light.











Ball of charge













By measuring the energy of photons emitted by an excited hydrogen atom, physicists can figure out how far apart the energy levels are, and thus the distances of the permitted electron orbits. A theory called quantum electrodynamics then allows them to calculate how far the proton's ball of charge must extend to keep the electrons at those distances.












This method gave a charge radius for the proton that was about 0.877 femtometres, less than a trillionth of a millimetre.












Pohl and colleagues used a novel method. They created an exotic version of hydrogen that replaces the electron with a muon, a particle that has the same charge as the electron but is 200 times heavier. Its extra bulk makes it more sensitive to the proton's size, meaning radius measurements based on muons are orders of magnitude more precise.












The new method didn't just make the measurements more precise. It also changed them: the muonic hydrogen gave a radius of 0.8418 femtometres, 4 per cent less than before.











Scandalous result












That might not sound like much, but in the world of particle physics, where theory and experiment can agree to parts in a billion, it was scandalous. A lively discussion sprang up, with some physicists claiming problems with Pohl's experiments and interpretations, and others suggesting gaps in the standard model of particle physics.













Pohl and colleagues have now repeated their experiment. The measurement of the radius is now even more precise than in 2010 – and it is still 4 per cent smaller than the value from hydrogen-based experiments.












Pohl reckons that there are three likely explanations. His experiment could have errors, although the confirmation makes that less likely. Alternatively, the electron experiments could be off. "This would be the most boring possibility," says Pohl.












The third, and most exciting, possibility is that muons do not interact with protons in the same way as electrons. In other words, the proton's apparent radius changes a little bit depending on which particle it is interacting with.












If true, that might require the existence of unknown particles that alter the way the muon interacts with the proton. Those particles could, in turn, solve some of the problems with the standard model of particle physics. They could, for instance, provide a candidate for dark matter, the mysterious stuff that makes up more than 80 per cent of the mass in the universe.











Monumental idea













Miller, Pohl and Ron Gilman of Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey helped organise a workshop with 50 proton experts in Trento, Italy, last October to hash out the details of the problem – and arrived at a verdict of sorts. "Because the muon experiments seem to be so solid, the most popular answers were that there's some beyond-the-standard-model physics differentiating between muon and electron, which would be very important," Gilman says.












"That would be monumental, truly," Miller says.












But Miller also has a less radical suggestion, which could reconcile all the measurements without invoking new particles. According to quantum electrodynamics, two charged particles can interact with each other by exchanging a photon – it's as if they spontaneously create a basketball and throw it between them, he says.












The equations also allow for a more complicated interaction where the particles create two balls, and juggle them. Until now this type of interaction was considered too rare to be important, but Miller reckons that the muon's greater mass could make it a better juggler. That would strengthen the proton's interaction with it and make the proton look smaller to the muon without requiring any new physics.












All these ideas will be up for review in a few years' time when new experiments, including shooting muons at protons to see how they scatter and building muonic helium atoms to measure their energy levels, are completed.












"It's quite likely that through other experiments, in two to three years we might get an end to this," Miller says. "It shouldn't take forever."












Journal reference: Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1230016


















































If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.




































All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.


If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.








Read More..

Japan's inflation slips in 2012






TOKYO: Japan's inflation rate slipped 0.1 per cent in 2012, data showed Friday just days after the Bank of Japan set a new target to beat the deflation that has haunted the world's third-largest economy for years.

The figures marked the fourth straight annual price decline. The core index, which excludes volatile prices of fresh food, slipped 0.2 per cent in December alone, meeting the market's expectation.

Deflation is bad for the economy because it encourages consumers to put off spending in the belief their intended purchases will be cheaper in the future, softening demand and hurting producers and their own capital investment plans.

On Tuesday, Japan's central bank adopted a two-per cent inflation target and set out plans for indefinite monetary easing in a bid to turn the economy around, although analysts have been mixed on whether it would stoke growth.

Switching from an inflation "goal" to a more explicit "target" was driven by the "importance of flexibility in the conduct of monetary policy in Japan", the Bank of Japan said.

However, two of the nine BoJ policy board members voted against the new inflation target demanded by the country's hawkish new Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who swept to power last month on a promise to heap pressure on the bank for more aggressive policy action as part of his plan to fix the long-suffering economy.

- AFP/fa



Read More..

N. Korea plans nuke test in U.S. threat


























Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military





<<


<





1




2




3




4




5




6




7




8




9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19



>


>>







STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • NEW: U.S. places sanctions on Korean financial entities

  • The U.S. secretary of defense says predicting a North Korean test is difficult

  • Pyongyang says it plans a new nuclear test and further long-range rocket launches

  • North Korea is upset by a recent U.N. Security Council resolution, an analyst says




Seoul, South Korea (CNN) -- North Korea said Thursday that it plans to carry out a new nuclear test and more long-range rocket launches, all of which it said are a part of a new phase of confrontation with the United States.


The North's National Defense Commission said the moves would feed into an "upcoming all-out action" that would target the United States, "the sworn enemy of the Korean people."


Carried by the state media, the comments are the latest defiant flourish from the reclusive North Korean regime, whose young leader, Kim Jong Un, has upheld his father's policy of pursuing a military deterrent and shrugging off international pressure.


U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said Thursday there are no "outward indications" that North Korea is about to conduct a nuclear test, but he admitted it would be hard to determine that in advance.


"They have the capability, frankly, to conduct these tests in a way that makes it very difficult to determine whether or not they are doing it," he said in a Pentagon press conference.


"We are very concerned with North Korea's continuing provocative behavior," he said, but he added that the United States is "fully prepared" to deal with any provocations.


Read more: U.N. Security Council slams North Korea, expands sanctions


North Korea's statement prompted France and Great Britain to express exasperation with the secretive regime.


Britain's mission to the United Nations called on North Korean leaders to "refrain from further provocation." France said it "deplores" North Korea's statement, telling its leaders that they need not to threaten, but instead to work toward dismantling their nuclear and missile programs.


In addition to Panetta's statement, the United States responded by adding sanctions against more bank officials and a business linked to the regime's nuclear weapons program.


The Treasury Department announcement targets two Beijing-based representatives of Tanchon Commercial Bank and a company -- Leader (Hong Kong) International Trading Limited -- that the U.S. government says shipped machinery and equipment in support of North Korea's nuclear program.


The organizations are "part of the web of banks, front companies and government agencies that support North Korea's continued proliferation activities," said Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David S. Cohen.


"By continuing to expose these entities, and the individuals who assist them, we degrade North Korea's ability to use the international financial system for its illicit purposes," he said.


North Korea's statement followed a U.N. Security Council resolution approved Tuesday that the United States pushed for, condemning a recent rocket launch by North Korea and expanding existing sanctions.










Read more: North Korea silences doubters, raises fears with rocket launch


The statement "should have been the expected outcome" from the U.N. decision, said Daniel Pinkston, senior analyst for the International Crisis Group covering Northeast Asia.


"I think they are completely outraged and insulted by it," he said.


Read more: N. Korea's launch causes worries about nukes, Iran and the Pacific


North Korea, which often issues bellicose statements in its state media, said Thursday that it rejects all Security Council resolutions concerning it, describing the most recent resolution as "the most dangerous phase of the hostile policy" toward it.


Read more: U.S. official: North Korea likely deceived U.S., allies before launching rocket


Analyst: Threat meant as a deterrence


The threats toward the United States, a constant theme in the North's propaganda, have more to do with deterrence than a desire for full conflict, Pinkston said.


"I don't believe they have the capability, the intention or the will to invade or destroy the United States," he said. "They wish to deter interference from the U.S. or any outside powers."


Read more: North Korea's rocket launches cost $1.3 billion


North Korea's successful rocket launch last month nonetheless changed the strategic calculations for the United States, showing that the North's missile program is advancing despite an array of heavy sanctions imposed on it.


Analysts say it still has a lot of work to do to master the technology necessary to mount a nuclear warhead on a missile or accurately target it.


At the same time, Pyongyang has been hinting for a while that a new nuclear test could be in the cards.


Read more: South Korean officials: North Korean rocket could hit U.S. mainland


Just before the North sent out its latest hostile statement Thursday, a U.S. State Department official was telling reporters in Seoul that Washington hoped Pyongyang wouldn't go ahead.


"We think that that would be a mistake, obviously," said Glyn Davies, the U.S. special envoy on North Korea. "We call on North Korea, as does the entire international community, not to engage in any further provocations."


North Korea has carried out two previous nuclear tests, in 2006 and 2009, both of which were condemned by the United Nations.


Read more: Huge crowds gather in North Korean capital to celebrate rocket launch


Pyongyang didn't say Thursday when exactly it would carry out a third test, but it could happen "at any time," according to Pinkston.


He said it is hard for anybody outside the North Korean nuclear sector to know if the country is technically ready to carry out the test, but that politically, "it seems an appropriate time."


Demands unlikely to sway North


South Korean defense officials said last year that they believed the North was in a position to carry out a new test whenever leaders in Pyongyang gave the green light.


North Korea's nuclear program is "an element of threat to peace not only for Northeast Asia but also for the world," Park Soo-jin, deputy spokeswoman for the South Korean Unification Ministry, said Thursday.


"North Korea should immediately stop its nuclear test and other provocation and should choose a different path by cooperating with the international community," Park said.


That appears unlikely at this stage, though.


After a failed long-range rocket launch in April, North Korea ignored international condemnation and carried out a second attempt last month. That one succeeded in putting a satellite in orbit, Pyongyang's stated objective.


But the launch was widely considered to be a test of ballistic missile technology. And it remains unclear if the satellite, which the North insists is for peaceful purposes, is functional.


Both North Korea's previous nuclear tests took place weeks or months after long-range rocket launches.


Those tests were carried out under the rule Kim Jong Il, the deceased father of the current leader, and the man who channeled huge amounts of money into North Korea's nuclear and missile development programs.


Kim Jong Il died in December 2011 after 17 years in power, during which the North Korean people became increasingly impoverished and malnourished.


Economically, the country relies heavily on trade with its major ally, China.


On Tuesday, China's Foreign Ministry appealed for calm.


Spokesman Hong Lei urged North Korea and the West to "keep calm, remain cautious and refrain from any action that might escalate the situation in the region."


The U.S. Treasury Department on Thursday prohibited future transactions between Americans and two North Korean bankers and one financial service company the agency said support North Korea's nuclear program.


Read more: For the U.N. and North Korea: Game on


CNN's K.J. Kwon reported from Seoul, and Jethro Mullen from Hong Kong. CNN's David Hawley in Seoul contributed to this report.






Read More..

Battery expert: "I would not fly in a Dreamliner"

(CBS News) WASHINGTON - Investigators say they still don't know what caused batteries to burn in two Boeing 787 Dreamliners, and until they figure that out and how to fix the problem, none of the planes will be allowed to fly.

More than any other plane, the Dreamliner relies on lithium ion batteries to help power its advanced electrical system. They're lighter and more powerful than older battery types, but they contain a highly flammable liquid electrolyte.

U.S. officials defend handling of 787 mishaps
Boeing 787 probe turns to battery companies

Boeing plans to carry on with Dreamliner production

Federal investigators are examining the disassembled battery from the 787 that caught fire in Boston January 7, spewing molten electrolyte.

George Blomgren worked for Eveready, a batteries and flashlights company, for 40 years. He says lithium ion batteries are bundled together for the 787, and that increases the risk.

"These fires burn at very high temperatures, so they are just very dangerous fires," he said.


George Blomgren, a battery expert for Eveready

George Blomgren, a battery expert for Eveready


/

CBS News

The Boston fire, and the burned-out battery on a Dreamliner in Japan, is not the first time lithium ion batteries have caused problems.

In 2011, a Chevy Volt lithium ion battery was damaged in a crash test. Three weeks later, it burst into flames. Chevrolet installed a number of fixes to prevent fires.

Safety features also were added to lithium ion batteries in some cell phones and laptops after 56 million were recalled for risk of overheating and exploding.

Boeing says lithium ion batteries "best met the performance and design objectives of the 787" and "Based on everything we know at this point, we have not changed our evaluation."

Blomgren considers the safety of lithium ion batteries on planes questionable.

"From what I know about incidents, I would not fly in a Dreamliner tomorrow. I just wouldn't feel that it was appropriate or safe," Blomgren said.

Many experts believe in the promise of lithium ion batteries, including for airlines, but they just aren't sure its safety has been perfected.

Read More..

Will Women Register for Selective Service?


Jan 24, 2013 5:53pm







ap women combat nt 130124 wblog Will Women Register for Selective Service?


Defense Secretary Leon Panetta today lifted the ban on women serving in combat positions, opening the door to more than 200,000  new military posts and raising a number of important questions, including: Will women eventually be eligible for the draft?


By law, all male U.S. citizens and permanent residents must register with the Selective Service System within 30 days of their 18th birthday. Registration puts those “male persons” on the list the government uses if ever the draft returns and conscription in the military is deemed necessary in a time of war.


As of a 1994 review, women were still exempt from registering because they did not serve in combat positions. Today’s change in Pentagon policy, however, could ultimately result in a change to the law.


But it will take more than just the stroke of the defense secretary’s pen for the Selective Service Act to include mention of women.


With any change to personnel policies, the Defense Department  is “required to provide an analysis of its impact on the Selective Service Act,” said a senior Pentagon official said on the condition of anonymity.  “So that will be part of the notification to Congress.”


But what comes next is  unclear.


“With regard to what will happen from there, I can’t say,” said the official.


Defense Secretary Leon Panetta later admitted to reporters that he, too, did not know the potential impact of the change to the Selective Service Act.


“That’s not our operation,” said Panetta.


Known for his use of colorful language, Panetta then said, “I don’t know who the hell controls Selective Service, if you want to know the truth.”


“But, you know,” Panetta added. “Whoever does, they’re going to have to exercise some judgment based on what we just did.”


The Selective Service System is a federal agency independent of the Department of Defense.




SHOWS: World News







Read More..

Wallace: Wonders of nature have been solace of my life






















Alfred Russel Wallace discovered natural selection independently of Charles Darwin. Through his letters, available online for the first time, he tells us of his research, expeditions and enduring fascination for nature's mysteries.






















You are famously joint author, with Darwin, of the first paper describing the origin of species and natural selection, published in 1858. When did you first get the idea?
I begin [in 1847] to feel rather dissatisfied with a mere local collection – little is to be learnt by it. I sh[ould]d like to take some one family, to study thoroughly – principally with a view to the theory of the origin of species. By that means I am strongly of [the] opinion that some definite results might be arrived at.












This desire led you to Brazil to collect birds, butterflies and beetles to try to discover what drives the evolution of new species. Were there any incidents on the voyage?
On Friday the 6th of August [1852]… the Captain (who was the owner of the vessel) came into the cabin & said "I am afraid the ship's on fire. Come & see what you think of it."












Despite that harrowing experience, you next undertook an 8 year expedition to the Malay Archipelago, where you discovered the invisible boundary between the animals of Asia and the Australian region, which would later be called the Wallace Line in your honour. What fascinated you most on that trip?
The Birds have however interested me much more than the insects, they are proportionally much more numerous, and throw great light on the laws of Geographical distribution of Animals in the East… As an instance I may mention the Cockatoos, a group of birds confined to Australia & the Moluccas, but quite unknown in Java Borneo Sumatra & Malacca… Many other species illustrate the same fact.












You have been famously good-natured about sharing the discovery of natural selection with Darwin…
I also look upon it as a most fortunate circumstance that I had a short time ago commenced a correspondence with Mr. Darwin on the subject of "Varieties", since it has led to the earlier publication of a portion of his researches & has secured to him a claim to priority which an independent publication either by myself or some other party might have injuriously effected












What did you and Darwin have in common?
In early life both Darwin and myself became ardent beetle-hunters. Both Darwin and myself had, what he terms "the mere passion of collecting"… Now it is this superficial and almost child-like interest in the outward forms of living things, which, though often despised as unscientific, happened to be the only one which would lead us towards a solution of the problem of species.












Do you feel your contribution has been overlooked?
The idea came to me, as it had come to Darwin, in a sudden flash of insight: it was thought out in a few hours – was written down with such a sketch of its various applications and developments… then copied on thin letter-paper and sent off to Darwin – all within one week.












I should have had no cause for complaint if the respective shares of Darwin and myself in regard to the elucidation of nature's method of organic development had been thenceforth estimated as being, roughly, proportional to the time we had each bestowed upon it when it was thus first given to the world – that is to say, as 20 years is to one week.












You helped Darwin with the puzzle of bright colouration in animals, which led to the concept of warning colours. To ask his question again, why are some caterpillars so brightly coloured?
[Since some]… are protected by a disagreeable taste or odour, it would be a positive advantage to them never to be mistaken for any of the palatable caterpillars… Any gaudy & conspicuous colour therefore, that would plainly distinguish them from the brown & green eatable caterpillars, would enable birds to recognise them easily as a kind not fit for food, & thus they would escape seizure which is as bad as being eaten.












How did you feel looking back on your life's work, at the age of 89?
The wonders of nature have been the delight and solace of… life. Nature has afforded… an ever increasing rapture, and the attempt to solve some of her myriad problems an ever-growing sense of mystery and awe.












Do you have a message for our readers?
I sincerely wish you all some of the delight in the mere contemplation of nature's mysteries and beauties which I have enjoyed.






















































If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.




































All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.


If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.








Read More..

Assange hits out at WikiLeaks movie






LONDON: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange hit out on Wednesday at a Hollywood film about his secret-spilling website, calling the movie "a massive propaganda attack".

Speaking to students at Britain's prestigious Oxford University by videolink from the Ecuadoran embassy in London, Assange revealed that he had acquired a copy of the script for "The Fifth Estate", due to be released in November.

"It is a lie upon lie. The movie is a massive propaganda attack on WikiLeaks and the character of my staff," the Australian Internet activist told the audience at the university's Oxford Union debating club.

Assange, 41, also blasted the movie for "fanning the flames" of war against Iran by implying that the Islamic republic was working on a nuclear bomb.

Reading from the script, he said the opening scene was set inside a military complex in Iran with documents containing nuclear symbols.

"How does this have anything to do with us?" Assange said from the embassy, where he has been holed up since June after claiming asylum in a bid to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faces allegations of sex crimes.

DreamWorks Studios announced on Tuesday that it had begun shooting the WikiLeaks movie, which stars British actor Benedict Cumberbatch as Assange.

A photo released by the company showed Cumberbatch with lank hair dyed the same platinum shade as the WikiLeaks founder's, with German actor Daniel Bruehl standing beside him as former WikiLeaks spokesman Daniel Domscheit-Berg.

"'The Fifth Estate' traces the heady, early days of WikiLeaks, culminating in the release of a series of controversial and history changing information leaks," DreamWorks said, adding that the movie would open in the United States on November 15.

Director Bill Condon, who directed the final two instalments in the "Twilight" vampire saga, said the movie "won't claim any long view authority on its subject, or attempt any final judgement".

"We want to explore the complexities and challenges of transparency in the information age and, we hope, enliven and enrich the conversations WikiLeaks has already provoked," he said.

Ecuador granted asylum to Assange in August but Britain refuses to grant him safe passage out of the country, leaving the former computer hacker stuck inside the embassy.

Britain says it is obliged to see Assange extradited to Sweden. Assange denies the sex crime allegations, which he says are a politically-motivated attempt to see him sent to the United States and prosecuted.

WikiLeaks enraged the United States in 2010 by publishing hundreds of thousands of classified documents on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a huge cache of US diplomatic cables that embarrassed governments worldwide.

- AFP/jc



Read More..

Clinton angrily rejects GOP criticism on Benghazi






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • NEW: Secretary of state completes more than five hours of sometimes contentious hearings

  • Libya wanted to provide security, but lacked the capacity, Clinton said

  • "I take responsibility," Clinton tells Senate committee

  • Clinton's appearance before Congress was delayed due to health issues




Washington (CNN) -- At times angry and choked with emotion, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday took on Republican critics of her department's handling of the September terrorist attack in Libya that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, but repeatedly distanced herself from a direct role in specific situations.


"As I have said many times since September 11, I take responsibility," Clinton told two long-anticipated congressional hearings examining the attack that became a major issue in the November presidential election.


Conservative Republicans challenged Clinton on the lack of security at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, where Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others were killed, as well as the erroneous account provided four days later by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice that the attack grew spontaneously from a protest over an anti-Islam film produced in the United States.












Sen. Ron Johnson, a tea party backed Wisconsin Republican serving his first term, persistently questioned Clinton on Wednesday morning about what he described as Rice "purposely misleading" the American people.


Security Clearance: Clinton lays out daunting security challenges in North Africa


"We were misled that there were supposedly protests and something sprang out of that, an assault sprang out of that and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact," Johnson said, adding that "the American people could have known that within days."


Shouting and gesturing with her arms in frustration, Clinton shot back: "With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided they'd go kill some Americans?"


Her fists shaking, she continued: "What difference, at this point, does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, senator."


Another conservative, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, told Clinton she should have been fired for not reading cables from Stevens and others in Libya.


Later in the day, conservative GOP Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina accused Clinton of "national security malpractice" by letting the Benghazi consulate "become a death trap."


Duncan also questioned Clinton's claim of taking responsibility, noting she still had her job and the State Department officials cited for culpability by an independent review also remained on the payroll, though on forced leave pending possible further steps.


#whatdifferencedoesitmake: Clinton quote goes viral on Twitter


At both hearings, which together totaled more than five hours, Clinton acknowledged the "systemic breakdown" cited by an Accountability Review Board she appointed and noted she had accepted all 29 of its recommendations, adding her department was taking additional steps to increase security at U.S. diplomatic facilities around the world.


However, she also told both the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee that she had no direct role in the handling of requests by Stevens and other diplomats for increased security that were denied, saying: "I didn't see those requests. They didn't come to me."


In reference to the erroneous talking points by Rice that were aired on September 16, Clinton told the Senate panel that she was focused at that time on ensuring the safety of U.S. personnel at other facilities where protests were taking place.


"I was pretty occupied about keeping our people safe, doing what needed to be done," Clinton said, adding "I wasn't involved in the talking points process."


Ticker: What Benghazi hearing could say about 2016 White House


At one point, Clinton attempted to wrap up the issue, saying: "If you wish to fault the administration, it's that we didn't have a clear picture, and we probably didn't do as clear a job explaining that we did not have a clear picture, until days later, creating what I think are legitimate questions."


The independent report from the review board said it did not find "that any individual U.S. government employee engaged in misconduct or willfully ignored his or her responsibilities" leading up to the attack. However, one State Department official resigned and three others were placed on administrative leave after the report was released in December.


One of the GOP's harshest critics of the administration over the Benghazi attack, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, called Clinton's testimony unsatisfactory.


He said her department had yet to fully disclose all e-mails and other communication from Stevens and others in Benghazi, noting the American people, including the family and loved ones of those killed, deserved full answers.


Critics also complain the assailants remain at large, and Clinton noted that "we continue to hunt the terrorists responsible for the attacks in Benghazi and are determined to bring them to justice."


She told Wednesday's hearings that the FBI is pursuing what she called "very positive leads."


In her opening statement to both panels, Clinton said the Benghazi attack didn't happen in a vacuum but was part of a "broader strategic challenge in North Africa and the wider region."


Clinton's Benghazi statement: 'Not just a matter of policy -- it's personal'


She defended her department's response, saying there was "timely" and "exceptional" coordination between the State Department and the Pentagon on the night of the attack


"No delays in decision making. No denials of support from Washington or from the military," Clinton said. The review panel's report "said our response saved American lives in real time -- and it did," she added.


Clinton also said she directed the response to the attack from the State Department that night and "stayed in close contact with officials from across our government and the Libyan government."


In addition, Clinton said she immediately took steps to beef up security at U.S. posts around the world and to implement the review panel's 29 recommendations.


Clinton made clear that the security situation in North Africa and the Middle East remained threatening in the wake of the Arab Spring upheaval, with longtime leaders ousted in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.


The fledgling Libyan leadership turned out to be unable to fulfill traditional security commitments to the U.S. diplomatic compound, she said.


"What I found with the Libyans was willingness but not capacity," she said.


Clinton also warned that weapons from Libya have turned up in Algeria and elsewhere, adding that "this Pandora's Box if you will" represented a major security threat.


"The Arab Spring has ushered in a time when al Qaeda is on the rise," she said. "The world in many ways is even more dangerous because we lack a central command [in al Qaeda] and have instead these nodes that are scattered throughout North Africa and other places."


Clinton expressed particular concern at events in Mali, where well-armed Tuareg militia, who had been working for former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, came home just as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) gravitated toward the area.


The size and topography of northern Mali, with its endless desert and caves, made for a long but necessary struggle, she said, adding that "we cannot permit northern Mali to become a safe haven."


Overall, she said, at least 20 U.S. diplomatic outposts "are under a serious threat environment as I speak to you."


Wednesday's committee appearances were some of the last acts for Clinton before she leaves her post as long planned, and Clinton showed a personal side in discussing what happened.


"For me, this is not just a matter of policy," she told the Senate panel. "It's personal."


In reference to the return of remains of the four slain Americans, Clinton said in a voice choked with emotion: "I stood next to President Obama as the Marines carried those flag-draped caskets off the plane at Andrews. I put my arms around the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters."


Democrats on both panels made a point of praising Clinton's service and noted that House Republicans have voted to cut funding for diplomatic security. However, Republicans rejected any connection between budget resources and vulnerability at the Benghazi compound, citing a report by a State Department financial officer.


Clinton faces hearings with numbers on her side


The hearings provided Republicans with a final opportunity to question Clinton, considered a possible presidential contender in 2016, on camera before she leaves office. After the September attack, conservative Republicans focused on the issue to attack the Obama administration's handling of the Libyan revolution and the overall Arab Spring upheaval.


Several legislators made references on Wednesday to Clinton's possible political future, with Republican Steve Chabot of Ohio drawing a laugh from the secretary when he said: "I wish you the best in your future endeavors. Mostly."


Polls show strong public support for Clinton and her performance as secretary of state, with an ABC News/Washington Post survey released Wednesday showing 67% of respondents had a favorable impression of her.


Clinton was originally scheduled to testify last month but postponed her appearance as she was treated for illness, a concussion and a blood clot near her brain. The country's top diplomat returned to work just over two weeks ago.


Pentagon releases official timeline of Benghazi attack


CNN's Jake Tapper, Elise Labott, Tim Lister and Ted Barrett contributed to this report.






Read More..

Women now equal men in lung cancer deaths

U.S. women who smoke today have a much greater risk of dying from lung cancer than they did decades ago, partly because they are starting younger and smoking more - that is, they are lighting up like men, new research shows.

Men who smoke have long had higher lung cancer death rates, but now women have caught up in their risk of dying from smoking-related illnesses. Lung cancer risk leveled off in the 1980s for men but is still rising for women, the study found.




Play Video


New cancer screening guides for heavy smokers



"It's a massive failure in prevention," said one study leader, Dr. Michael Thun of the American Cancer Society. And it's likely to repeat itself in places like China and Indonesia where smoking is growing, he said. About 1.3 billion people worldwide smoke.

The research is in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine. It is one of the most comprehensive looks ever at long-term trends in the effects of smoking and includes the first generation of U.S. women who started early in life and continued for decades, long enough for health effects to show up.

The U.S. has more than 35 million smokers - about 20 percent of men and 18 percent of women. The percentage of people who smoke is far lower than it used to be; rates peaked around 1960 in men and two decades later in women.

In 2009, 205,974 people in the United States were diagnosed with lung cancer, including 110,190 men and 95,784 women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That same year, 87,694 men and 70,387 women passed away from the disease.

Researchers wanted to know if smoking is still as deadly as it was in the 1980s, given that cigarettes have changed (less tar), many smokers have quit, and treatments for many smoking-related diseases have improved.

They also wanted to know more about smoking and women. The famous surgeon general's report in 1964 said smoking could cause lung cancer in men, but evidence was lacking in women at the time since relatively few of them had smoked long enough.

One study, led by Dr. Prabhat Jha of the Center for Global Health Research in Toronto, looked at about 217,000 Americans in federal health surveys between 1997 and 2004.

A second study, led by Thun, tracked smoking-related deaths through three periods - 1959-65, 1982-88 and 2000-10 - using seven large population health surveys covering more than 2.2 million people.

Among the findings:

- The risk of dying of lung cancer was more than 25 times higher for female smokers in recent years than for women who never smoked. In the 1960s, it was only three times higher. One reason: After World War II, women started taking up the habit at a younger age and began smoking more.

-A person who never smoked was about twice as likely as a current smoker to live to age 80. For women, the chances of surviving that long were 70 percent for those who never smoked and 38 percent for smokers. In men, the numbers were 61 percent and 26 percent.

-Smokers in the U.S. are three times more likely to die between ages 25 and 79 than non-smokers are. About 60 percent of those deaths are attributable to smoking.

-Women are far less likely to quit smoking than men are. Among people 65 to 69, the ratio of former to current smokers is 4-to-1 for men and 2-to-1 for women.

-Smoking shaves more than 10 years off the average life span, but quitting at any age buys time. Quitting by age 40 avoids nearly all the excess risk of death from smoking. Men and women who quit when they were 25 to 34 years old gained 10 years; stopping at ages 35 to 44 gained 9 years; at ages 45 to 54, six years; at ages 55 to 64, four years.

-The risk of dying from other lung diseases such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis is rising in men and women, and the rise in men is a surprise because their lung cancer risk leveled off in 1980s.




5 Photos


Shocking ads: Tips from smokers



Changes in cigarettes since the 1960s are a "plausible explanation" for the rise in non-cancer lung deaths, researchers write. Most smokers switched to cigarettes that were lower in tar and nicotine as measured by tests with machines, "but smokers inhaled more deeply to get the nicotine they were used to," Thun said. Deeper inhalation is consistent with the kind of lung damage seen in the illnesses that are rising, he said.

Scientists have made scant progress against lung cancer compared with other forms of the disease, and it remains the leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide. More than 160,000 people die of it in the U.S. each year.

The federal government, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the cancer society and several universities paid for the new studies. Thun testified against tobacco companies in class-action lawsuits challenging the supposed benefits of cigarettes with reduced tar and nicotine, but he donated his payment to the cancer society.

Smoking needs more attention as a health hazard, Dr. Steven A. Schroeder of the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in a commentary in the journal.

"More women die of lung cancer than of breast cancer. But there is no `race for the cure' for lung cancer, no brown ribbon" or high-profile advocacy groups for lung cancer, he wrote.

Kathy DeJoseph, 62, of suburban Atlanta, finally quit smoking after 40 years - to qualify for lung cancer surgery last year.

"I tried everything that came along, I just never could do it," even while having chemotherapy, she said.

It's a powerful addiction, she said: "I still every day have to resist wanting to go buy a pack."

Read More..

Clinton on Benghazi: Afghanistan Diverted Resources













House Republicans slammed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today for her lack of awareness of State Department cables warning of security threats in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the Sept. 11 attack that killed four Americans, including Amb. Chris Stevens.


In the second congressional hearing of the day reviewing a report by the Accountability Review Board on the State Department's security failures, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, asked Clinton this afternoon why her office had not responded to a notification from Stevens about potential dangers in Libya.


"Congressman, that cable did not come to my attention," Clinton calmly told the House Foreign Affairs Committee hours after her Senate testimony this morning. "I'm not aware of anyone within my office, within the secretary's office having seen that cable."


She added that "1.43 million cables come to my office. They're all addressed to me."


Hillary Clinton's Fiery Moment at Benghazi Hearing


Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., asked Clinton whether she thought that signaled the need for a shifting of priorities to make sure she is notified about these kinds of threats in the future.


"That's exactly what I'm intent on doing," Clinton said. "We have work to do. We have work to do inside the department. We have work to do with our partners in DOD and the intelligence community."


Such answers failed to appease members like Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., who accused Clinton of letting "the consulate become a death trap."


Clinton also told the House committee that an emphasis on security in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past decade diverted resources from other outposts around the world.


She told Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., that legislation he championed reorganizing the State Department in the 19990s had "been very important in protecting our people around the world," but that the need for funding was ongoing and unmet.


Clinton reprised her role as defender of the State Department this afternoon in the second half of congressional testimony on the security failures that led to the deaths of Stevens and the other Americans.


Stevens understood the significance of the mission, she told the committee several hours after a morning Senate appearance.


"That's why Chris Stevens went to Benghazi in the first place," she said. "Nobody knew the dangers better than Chris, first during the revolution and then during the transition. A weak Libyan government, marauding militias, even terrorist groups … a bomb exploded in the parking lot of his hotel. He never wavered. He never asked to come home. He never said let's shut it down, quit, go somewhere else."


Representatives repeatedly asked about U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's assertion on Sunday morning talk shows in September that the attack was fueled by outrage over a video attacking Islam.






Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images











Hillary Clinton Cites Lack of Funding in Global Outposts Watch Video









Clinton: Security Request Not Brought to My Attention Watch Video









Hillary Clinton Gets Choked Up at Benghazi Hearing Watch Video





Clinton's response was to refer to the ARB report, which said the motivations behind the attack were complicated and still not all known. She maintained that Rice was speaking based upon talking points given to her by the intelligence community.


Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., asked why the secretary of state herself did not appear in Rice's place to give those televised explanations to the country.


"Well, I have to confess here in public [that] going on the Sunday shows is not my favorite thing to do. There are other things that I prefer to do on Sunday mornings," Clinton replied. "And I did feel strongly that we had a lot that we had to manage, that I had to respond to. And I thought that should be my priority."


The afternoon appearance followed morning testimony from an energized Clinton, who stood her ground and told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that she has overseen plans to secure diplomatic outposts around the world while cuts in State Department funding undermine those efforts.


Citing a report by the department's Accountability Review Board on the security failures that led to the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, during an attack last year, Clinton said the board is pushing for an increase in funding to facilities of more than $2 billion per year.


"Consistent shortfalls have required the department to prioritize available funding out of security accounts," Clinton told the Senate this morning, while again taking responsibility for the Benghazi attack. "And I will be the first to say that the prioritization process was at times imperfect, but as the ARB said, the funds provided were inadequate. So we need to work together to overcome that."


Clinton, showing little effect from her recent illnesses, choked up earlier in discussing the Benghazi attack.


"I stood next to President Obama as the Marines carried those flag-draped caskets off the plane at Andrews," Clinton said this morning, her voice growing hoarse with emotion. "I put my arms around the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters."


The outgoing secretary of state was the only witness to giving long-awaited testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee this morning, and appeared before the House Foreign Affairs Committee at 2 p.m.


The secretary, who postponed her testimony in December, started today by giving context to the terrorist attack.


"Any clear-eyed examination of this matter must begin with this sobering fact," Clinton began. "Since 1988, there have been 19 Accountability Review Boards investigating attacks on American diplomats and their facilities."


But the secretary did not deny her role in the failures, saying that as secretary of state, she has "no higher priority and no greater responsibility" than protecting American diplomats abroad like those killed in Benghazi.


"As I have said many times, I take responsibility, and nobody is more committed to getting this right," Clinton said. "I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger and more secure."


Among the steps Clinton has taken, she said, is to "elevate the discussion and the decision-making to make sure there's not any" suggestions that get missed, as there were in this case.


Clinton testified that the United States needs to be able to "chew gum and walk at the same time," working to shore up its fiscal situation while also strengthening security, and she refuted the idea that across-the-board cuts slated to take place in March, commonly referred to as sequestration, were the way to do that.


"Now sequestration will be very damaging to the State Department and USAID if it does come to pass, because it throws the baby out with the bath," Clinton said, referring to the United States Agency for International Development, which administers civilian foreign aid.


While the State Department does need to make cuts in certain areas, "there are also a lot of very essential programs … that we can't afford to cut more of," she added.


More than four months have passed since the attack killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Libya. These meetings, during which Clinton discussed the report on State Department security failures by the Accountability Review Board, were postponed because of her recent illness.


Clinton told the Senate that the State Department is on track to have 85 percent of action items based on the recommendations in the ARB report accomplished by March, with some already implemented.






Read More..