Sunday, December 17, 2017

Nuclear Analytical Techniques to Solve Criminal Cases

Vienna (ABC Live): Nuclear Analytical Techniques : Helping to solve criminal cases, identify art forgery and catch food adulteration are the goals of a new research project using nuclear techniques.
Experts from around the world, representing both practitioners of nuclear analytical techniques as well as forensic science stakeholder communities, met in Vienna last week to discuss the objectives of a new Coordinated Research Project on utilizing nuclear analytical techniques in forensic science. The project aims to determine how existing forensic methods can be complemented by the use of nuclear techniques to aid the work of police investigators, courts and customs officials.
The project, which will be four years in length, is divided into three main areas of focus: glass analysis, food authentication and cultural heritage. Nuclear analytical techniques may be effective tools for a variety of forensic purposes, such as the analysis of glass shards from a crime scene to support the prosecution of hit-and-run cases, the examination of food composition to detect adulteration and the investigation of art forgery.
“This is the first Coordinated Research Project that the IAEA has been involved in that focuses on the use of ion beam accelerators and research reactors for forensic analysis,” said Aliz Simon, an IAEA nuclear physicist specializing in accelerators. “We aim to identify new practical applications for these technologies, build capacity and facilitate networking in this area.”  The project will also develop synergies between accelerator and research reactor techniques for forensic purposes, she added.
During the week-long research coordination meeting, physicists from several countries described the nuclear analytical techniques they have used in case studies to determine their feasibility for forensic applications. The techniques, including particle-induced x-ray emission (PIXE) and neutron activation analysis (NAA), have been used to analyse the elemental composition of paintings as well as the origin of glass samples, among other applications.
“There is great potential to interact with forensics practitioners to assess their needs and see how better solutions can be developed,” said Marco Musumeci, a programme officer with the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI). UNICRI could support the needs assessment phase and engage stakeholders in support of this project, he added.
The project participants formed three working groups and established a work plan to be carried out over the next four years. They will meet again in 18 months to review progress on the endeavour.
Dinesh Singh Rawat Views:
This is innovative technology to assist administration of justice in delivering Justice and should be adopted  in the interest of justice and proper filed trials.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Read Nuclear Suppliers Group’s Public Statement on Seoul Plenary Meeting

The twenty-sixth Plenary Meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) 1 , chaired by
Ambassador Song Young-wan of the Republic of Korea, was held in Seoul, Korea, on 23 and 24
June 2016.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea, H.E. Yun Byung-se, welcomed the
Participating Governments on behalf of the Korean Government, reaffirmed his country’s strong
support for NSG activities and noted the significant contribution of the NSG to global efforts to
counter ever evolving nuclear threats, thus substantially reinforcing the spirit and purposes of the
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The Foreign Minister also
highlighted the importance of the thorough implementation of UNSCR 2270 (2016) for the
resolution of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) nuclear issue and asked the
NSG to continue its efforts to cut off the DPRK’s access to its nuclear program’s supply chain.
Within the framework of the NSG’s mandate, the Group expressed its concerns regarding
continued global proliferation activities and reaffirmed its determination to continue to cooperate
closely in order to deter, hinder and prevent the transfer of controlled items or technology that
could contribute to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Participating
Governments reiterated their firm support for the full, complete and effective implementation of
the NPT as the cornerstone of the international non-proliferation regime.
Deploring the nuclear test conducted on 6 January 2016 by the DPRK, the Participating
Governments reconfirmed their commitment to UNSCRs 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013),
2094 (2013) and 2270 (2016) which strongly condemned the DPRK’s challenge to the nuclear
non-proliferation regime and underlined that export of all controlled items within the NSG to the
DPRK is prohibited according to the abovementioned resolutions.
The NSG welcomed the announcement on 16 January 2016 of the Implementation Day of the
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Following up on the Extraordinary Plenary held
on 21 January and 26 April this year, the NSG expressed interest in continuing to be briefed by
the Procurement Working Group coordinator on the procurement channel established under the
JCPOA and UNSCR 2231 (2015) as appropriate. The NSG agreed to keep this under active consideration.
Participating Governments called upon all States to exercise vigilance and to ensure effective implementation of all UNSCRs relevant to the work and purposes of the NSG.
The NSG had discussions on the issue of “Technical, Legal and Political Aspects of the of non-NPT States in the NSG” and decided to continue its discussion.
At the Plenary meeting, the NSG also
• maintained its focus on technical issues important to the implementation of the Control Lists by exchanging views and agreeing on a number of proposals to clarify and update the NSG Control Lists and Guidelines;
• discussed and reaffirmed  the importance of balancing confidentiality with transparency in NSG activities; and the significance of updating the NSG Guidelines to keep pace with the evolving global security landscape and a fast-paced nuclear and nuclear-related industry.
• welcomed the growing number of States that have harmonized their national export control systems with the NSG Guidelines and Control lists;
• discussed options for enhancing outreach such as dedicated briefings for and meetings with interested non-NSG partners on the work of the Group;  increased visibility of the NSG at appropriate international meetings to improve public awareness about the work and mission of the Group; and a dedicated response to non-NSG partners seeking assistance and practical experience in developing, updating, strengthening and implementing national export control systems; and
• shared information on all aspects of the 2008 Statement on Civil Nuclear Cooperation with India and discussed the NSG relationship with India.
The NSG Plenary invited all nuclear supplier states to express their responsible approach to nuclear exports by adhering to the NSG Guidelines.
Finally, the NSG confirmed that Switzerland will assume the Chairmanship of the NSG from 2017 to 2018 and welcomed Switzerland’s plans to host the next Plenary.
About Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG)
  The NSG is a Group of 48 nuclear supplier countries that seeks to contribute to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons through the implementation of two sets of Guidelines for nuclear exports and nuclear-related exports (see Currently the participating Governments of the NSG are Argentina, Australia,Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Republic of Korea, Latvia,Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania,Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission and the Chair of the Zangger Committee participate as permanent observers.
Click for Original Statement of Nuclear Suppliers Group 

Thursday, June 23, 2016

How to Mitigate the Toxicity Level in Human Body?

The rapid urbanization and its shortcuts lifestyle have sharply hiked the toxicity level in Human Body thus created a situation where natural equilibrium gifted by Nature has been badly disturbed. The immune system of body comes under great stress as all systems provided in Human body have to work out of their capacities to keep the body moving.
Before we know how to mitigate the toxicity level in Human Body lets Know how our body gets these and which are the body parts/systems responsible for the same. To know my query I met Dr. P D. Gupta, a Ambala Based allopath doctor who has the successfully treated thousands Thyroid Eye Diseases (TED) patients by his naturopathy researches explained me the science behind this aspect of our human body.
There are three body systems through which a Human Body can intake Pesticides/ Insecticides/ Air pollution.
1.    Mouth( Digestive system)
2.    Lungs ( Respiratory  system)
3.    Skin ( Sensory System)
Also, there are Three systems through which Human Body tends to get rid of unwanted toxicity to keep natural equilibrium among all systems present in our body to work as a unit.
1.    Kidneys, Liver, Skin (Excretory system)
2.    Lungs, Nose (Respiratory System)
3.    Digestive system
The first defence against toxicity is that we can keep check over these three doors of our body by avoiding Pesticides/ Insecticides injected food, polluted air and not touching toxic substances.
The second guard against toxicity is regular cleansing of organs/systems responsible for getting out toxicity from our body like Kidneys, Liver, Skin (Excretory system), Lungs, Nose (Respiratory System) and (Digestive system).
First protection is a open fact can be drawn but not beneficial in case our body already has got diseases out of the over toxicity, as in present scenario most of us have past the stage of first defence thus we have left with option to know about the ways to get toxicity by cleansing the systems that only through natural ways not by medication as it will additionally burden our body with extra toxicity.
The million dollars question is what the practical ways for cleansing the organs/systems responsible for getting out toxicity from our body and how regular it could be done and under whose recommendation?
That in next blog I will explain how Dr. Gupta has opened my eyes by taking me into deep in human body science and its natural ways to keep itself in balance, before I can understand the concept behind the ways to clean the systems responsible for removing toxicity from the human body.

   Dr. P. D Gupta can be access via his official website  

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Free Access to Fair Justice Guarantees Rule of Law

Free Access to Fair Justice is a basic principle of the rule of law. In the absence of access to justice, people are unable to have their voice heard, exercise their rights, challenge discrimination or hold decision-makers accountable.
The Rule of Law emphasizes the right of equal access to justice for all, including members of vulnerable groups; Delivery of justice should be impartial and non-discriminatory. The independence of the judicial system, together with its impartiality and integrity, as an essential prerequisite for upholding the rule of law and ensuring that there is no discrimination in the administration of justice .

One of the major obstacles in accessing justice is the cost of legal advice and representation. Legal aid programmes are a central component of strategies to enhance access to justice but in India lack of funds and absence quality of Legal professionals for want of professional fee are hampering the real objectives of right of equal access to justice for all.

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Rule of Law: The Fundamental Prerequisite for Developed India

The Constitution of India guarantees "Rule of Law" on one side and discretion in the interest of Public Interest/National Interest other side. Past experiences of 67 years of  democratic rule in India has unambiguously established that authorities occupying various thrones under Indian democratic system are more interested in delivering services to citizens as matter of their discretion not as  "Rule of Law" asks them to delivered the same as matter of right of citizens.

That's why we as Nation is still deprived of status of "Developed Nation" even after passage of 67 years of independence from British colonial rule, contrary to the fact that countries who had experienced freedom long after India have developed as Nation

The rule of law and development are strongly interrelated and mutually reinforcing, that the advancement of the rule of law at the national and international levels is essential for sustained and inclusive economic growth, sustainable development, the eradication of poverty and hunger and the full realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development, all of which in turn reinforce the rule of law, and for this reason we should work for this interrelationship of Rule of Law based development.

Monday, February 23, 2015

Proactive Approach in Excise Policy 2015-16 May Bring More Revenue to Haryana

The Haryana government led by Mr. Manohar Lal Khattar is all set to announce its New Excise Policy for the year. 2015-16, it will be the first public policy document by BJP government in Haryana after taking over the charge of state affairs of Haryana.

The New Excise Policy for the year. 2015-16 will manifest the real intention and determination of Khattar government for good governance; whether it will follow the footsteps of Mr. Bhupinder Singh Hooda led congress government, who allow under carpet support to liquor manufacturing companies in the name of abolishing the monopoly in retail sales of liquor in the state.

It is mention worthy that Haryana Excise and Taxation Department had invited suggestions from general public/ all stake holders for formation of its New Excise Policy for the year. 2015-16. as per suggestions and opinions gathered by the writer there are three schools of thoughts.
The first says that the retail sales of liquor in the state should be aimed to fetch more revenue to the state exchequer with quality liquor to its consumers, this opinion holders say that there should not be shop wise allotment of license to sell liquor in retail instead of it there should be some definite circle level which will not only give some business space to the retailers but also indirectly ensure government revenue to the state exchequer through New Excise Policy for the year. 2015-16. Apart from above it will keep some sort of controlled check on liquor manufacturing companies who usually manufacture more than its allotted volume of liquor in black market by evading state excise revenue in connivance of some corrupt officers with political patronage. If there will be less authorized buyers (retailers and whole sellers) then it will put some sort of deterrent pressure on liquor manufacturing companies and will stop excise tax evasion by liquor manufacturing companies along with quality liquor to its consumers.

The second school of thought says that the retail sales of liquor in the state should be aim at to end the monopoly in retail sales by shop wise allotment of license to sell liquor retail and bring new employment avenues along with quality liquor to its consumers at comparative price, theoretically this is good equation but on ground it hampers the interest of the state and as well as the consumers of the liquid, whose excessive use is injurious for health. If there will be price war among retailers, their margin will come down and new entrant with least capital could not be able to survive that will directly loss revenue of the state and businessmen. Also against the main thought of this school to generate employments through retail of liquor sales sector and quality liquor to its consumers as to fight price war they have either have capacity to bear loss or they will compromise with quality of liquor. This situation suits liquor manufacturing companies, corrupt  excise and taxation officers and their political bosses which offer retailers low price liquor by manufacturing more than allotted quota without paying even single to state exchequer.

The third school says that government should play some proactive role to enhance its revenue, ensure quality of the liquor and to create conducive atmosphere for authorized businessmen indulged in sale of liquor in the state. The opinion holders of this school say that government should play some sort of proactive role in sale of liquor in the state in larger public interest by taking whole sale of all liquor manufacturing companies allowed to sell their liquor in state directly then allot the liquor to retailers as per their demand/quota, it will not only curb the illegal manufacturing of liquor by liquor manufacturing companies and selling it retailers and whole sellers without paying excise duty to the state but will also ensure quality of liquor along with additional amount of revenue to the state in shape of whole sale margins and excise duty to be levied on additional volume of liquor that earlier produced by companies evading  excise duty with connivance with corrupt officers.

After going through the opinions of all three schools of thoughts it will be in the interest of general public all stake holders to take all good thoughts all three schools for good governance aimed BJP government that to enhance the state exchequer  and quality liquor, the idea of whole sale business should be with government and to make retail liquor business viable , Idea to allot some sort minimum cluster of retail shops should offer so that it can ensure some stability and profitability  in retail business and also guarantee the realization of estimated license fee  from all the vendors timely. 

Dinesh Singh says, " We are living in welfare State, where ultimate goal of state is to do maximum welfare of its citizens. The governments irrespective of its political affiliations perform all   their ethical or unethical actions under the name of public interest, so there no harm if government should do liquor business itself to earn more revenue for social welfare."