From Hiroshima to Fukushima, An Ugly Journey

The tsunami of 2011 has caused the worst nuclear disaster in Japan's Fukushima and this can be the saddest tragedy the country suffered after 1945 when a single bomb struck Nagasaki. According to experts, the radiation readings at the Fukushima site have reached alarming levels. This disaster has triggered a serious debate about the safety of nuclear energy. This being the case, there is no wonder people shiver at the very thought of the devastation that can be caused by nuclear weapons.

In this context, survivors of the 1945 bombing are very actively campaigning against nuclear power. But, at the same time, there are allegations of a collusion between industries and governments. It is also alleged that governments are trying to cover up many things and are also engaged in a pattern of denial. These allegations are targeted against not only the government of Japan but other governments also.

Responding to the disaster at Fukushima, Sumiteru Taniguchi, aged 82, who is a hibakusha and the director of the Nagasaki A-Bomb Survivors Council, said, "Nuclear power and mankind cannot coexist. We survivors of the atomic bomb have said this all along. And yet, the use of nuclear power was camouflaged as 'peaceful' and continued to progress. You never know when there's going to be a natural disaster. You can never say that there will never be a nuclear accident." This response definitely represents the opinion of any hibakusha, as a survivor of the atomic destruction of Hiroshima or Nagasaki is called.

So, Fukushima has clearly exposed the safety myth surrounding the nuclear power. Nations need to change their energy policy on an urgent basis. At the same time, workers of the nuclear plants and people who are living close to these plants should be subjected to periodical health examinations.

These survivors of the devastating Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been complaining that though they have been demanding help from the government for treating their illnesses caused by exposure to radiation, they have not got any assistance. So, these survivors have genuine doubts if those who are affected by the Fukushima radiation will get any help from the government.

The observations of Nassrine Azimi, a senior adviser at a United Nations Institute must be considered seriously. "When it comes to nuclear issues-from atomic weapons to nuclear power-no two nations could be more irredeemably intertwined. After the atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, despite dissenting voices of some of its own citizens, America drew mostly wrong conclusions as it plunged into nuclear expansion." A few experts also concur with her and allege that the purpose of the Faustian bargain was to blind the Americans and the people of other nations to the damages of radiation. According to these experts, even eminent journalists fell a prey to this campaign and embraced what was called the 'Dawn of the Atomic Age'. This campaign ultimately led to the "nuclear entrapment" into which America fell and this "entrapment" continues till this day.

Raman Kuppuswamy has been writing excellent and informative articles on many topics for the last many years. You may kindly visit http://rkuppuswamy.blogspot.com/ and also http://dreamdamodar.hubpages.com/ to read his other articles on many other topics.

http://EzineArticles.com/6493324

Leadership in Times of Crisis - The London Riots

The London Riots began on Saturday 6th August 2011 with a handful of people who were angry at the death of a civilian, shot by a police bullet. Over the course of the next week, the riots grew to encompass the majority of London, as well as some of the other major cities in the UK, and the after-effects have left the whole of the country reeling with shock.

The Prime Minister and the Mayor of London cancelled their holidays to return to the city, and whilst they were never going to don riot gear and tackle the problem in that way, it was vital that their leadership was visibly present. However, it was disappointing that their leadership constituted trying to tiptoe around and make everyone happy, rather than boldly marching in to solve the situation. Sometimes leaders need diplomacy - sometimes they need action. And the defining point of a good leader is that they know which approach to use in every situation they face.

No matter what the leadership challenge being faced, there are three things that remain a constant way to begin the process of getting the best out of a difficult situation.

The first thing is to lead your people rather than herding them. A son once tried to take on his mother's usual role of getting their chickens into the hen house each night to keep them safe from foxes. Try as he might, he could not round them all up into the hen house, so the next evening he watched to see how his mother achieved the task. Instead of trying to round the chickens up, she walked among them, dropping handfuls of grain. Once the chickens started following the trail of grain, the mother was easily able to lead them inside the hen house, and they willingly followed.

The same principle applies to human beings - if we have trust in our leaders, and a reason to follow them, then it makes for a much easier process.

The second thing is to ensure that as a leader, you set realistic expectations. These expectations need to be high enough to challenge your people and push them to the best of their ability, but it is also very important that they are set realistically enough to be achievable, or there is a risk of damage to morale, and an air of "can't be bothered to try any more" can set in.

The third thing is to remember that as a leader, you cannot be all things to all people. You cannot be the friend, the colleague, the sympathetic ear, the supporter, the inspiration, the motivation and the firm kick-up-the-behind all at the same time. In pleasing some people you are going to end up offending others, and leadership is about having the courage to believe in your choice of actions, and to see them through to the very end.

Finally, those in leadership should always remember this - people will not remember what you say to them. People will not even remember what you do. But people will always remember how you made them feel. Therefore, a good starting point for leadership is to regularly ask yourself "How do I want my leaders to make *me* feel?"

Lucy Cadman Developing People Limited Helping individuals, teams and organisations maximise their performance.

http://EzineArticles.com/6497715

Freedoms a Princess Surrenders When She Gains Her Official Regal Title

The highly publicized wedding of Prince William to Catherine Middleton was an event that took the world by storm. Interested viewers in the United States woke up at 4am to watch the ceremony and to catch a glimpse of the new princess. Every detail of the wedding was captured, analyzed and commented on. Catherine's dress, her make-up, her hair, every inch of her was analyzed and scrutinized. Can you imagine what amazing gifts the couple would get for such a special day? However, instead of accepting royal princess gifts from their high profile guests, Catherine and Prince William instead provided a list of recommended charities for their guests to give donations to in their family's name. But what was missing from this fairytale? Reality! This particular wedding wasn't just a union between a man and a woman; it was a change in the way of life for both of these young people. By signing the marriage license and saying her vows, Catherine was also certifying that she would change a few things in her life. With all the things that Catherine will be able to do now that she is princess there are some things she can't do. Is becoming princess really worth all the hype?

As a freshly minted princess, Catherine is prohibited to vote. Now as royalty, she must refrain from voting because it would be seen as unconstitutional for her to do so. Catherine's new public role dictates that she must appear to be politically neutral. As a member of the Royal Family, Catherine must follow in the footsteps of the Queen and other members of the Royal Family when Prince William and Kate present themselves as identifying with every faction of society. Catherine must display strong support for all English constituents and part of that is giving up her right to vote. Is this something you would be able to give up? Is giving up your right to vote to become princess a fair trade? It seems as though as soon as you marry into royalty you are under the rule of the family you just married into.

In addition to giving up her right to vote, Catherine is also prohibited from holding a job. Now I'm sure most of you are thinking, "She's a princess, why would she want to work?" But what if she wanted to work? What if she were passionate about her career? Due to the fact that she married a prince, Catherine's career came to a halt. Luckily for Catherine, she has a degree but doesn't seem to be in a rush to do anything with it. She has decided that she is content with just being a housewife to her prince and will make public appearances with her husband when necessary. Why shouldn't Catherine be able to choose for herself whether or not she would like to work? Why does this decision have to be made for her? Is this "royal rule of law" setting a good example for the future women of the world? Leave all of your ambitions behind because now you're married and have to become HIS housewife. Is this sending the message that it's acceptable for women to be educated, but if you're lucky enough to find a wealthy man early on, you won't have to use your degree? Is a degree to some women a "nice to have" and only serves the purpose to complete your "MRS" degree? Catherine is considered the oldest spinster to get married to a future king at the age of 29.

Most people might think that once you're a princess you have some authority to boss people around and do whatever you want, but in fact you are still under the reign of the Queen. And when the princess has the pleasure of eating with Her Majesty the Queen, she is to stop eating the minute the queen does, fork in hand. No matter how hungry Princess Catherine might be, once the Queen decides she is done eating - so must all princesses stop eating. Not that she looks like she eats a lot, but Catherine or any princess for that matter should have the option to finish her meal if she wants to. What if she has to go to the bathroom during dinner and by the time she walks all the way down the palace hall to the restroom and comes back and the Queen has since been stuffing her face and she's now full and Catherine can't finish her meal? That doesn't sound like something that is desirable. It seems like a princess would be able to decide when she's full and when she's not. Princesses should be setting the example of healthy eating.

Additional liberties that Princess Catherine gave up when she took her royal title is the ability to sign unofficial papers (I guess that includes the right to sign autographs!), do or say anything controversial, and believe it or not - Catherine can no longer play Monopoly - it's true. Prince Andre Duke of York found that the game got "too vicious" when played by the Royal Family, so it was banned from royal grounds. Are these prohibitions easy to adjust to, or are they going too far? For us "common folk" it seems that with royalty comes freedom and the authority to do whatever you choose, but it seems that in some respects it's the complete opposite. Catherine's royal ways will be so severely scrutinized that everything is predetermined for her all the way down to what board games she is allowed to play. Does that sound like happily ever after?

Is wearing the tiara worth relinquishing freedoms that most of us take for granted? It depends on the woman, but one thing is for sure, being a real princess is a lot different from what the fairy tales portray and for some it may not seem worth it. There are lists of other specific liberties Catherine has given up now that she's a princess, but only a few examples were discussed here. She is now going to live her life under a microscope and under the control of the Royal Family with particular guidelines to follow. Is she sacrificing too much? Is she sacrificing anything really, besides the opportunity to play Monopoly?

We don't have royalty in the US, but we do have Everything Princesses where you can select a great princess gift for your royal-in-waiting family members, and for those ever so special events in her life, including princess birthday supplies.

http://EzineArticles.com/6505282