What the world is reading

In an American election focused on a lousy economy and high unemployment,conventional wisdom holds that foreign policy is one of Barack Obamas few strong suits. But he is strikingly vulnerable in this area. Heres how to beat him. First,the Republican nominee should adopt a confident,nationalist tone emphasising American exceptionalism,expressing pride in the United States as a force for good in the world,as the preeminent global power. Obama acts as if he sees the US as a flawed giant,a mistake that voters already perceive, write Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie. Next,the nominee should use Obamas own words and actions to portray him as weak on foreign affairs. Obamas failed promises,missed opportunities suggest he is out of touch and in over his head8230;During the 2008 campaign,he also argued Iran was a tiny country that didnt pose a serious threat. How foolish that now seems.

Slate

Sarkozys dilemma

Will the recent Toulouse incident work in President Nicolas Sarkozys favour,asks Yascha Mounk. Not long ago,France seemed headed for the most predictable presidential election in living memory. French President Nicolas Sarkozy was deeply unpopular, writes Mounk. Then came the incident in Toulouse. All of this presents Sarkozy with a dilemma. In the aftermath of the attacks,he has played the serious statesman,eloquent in the expression of his grief and conciliatory in his insistence that all citizens are equally French. Considering his long standing as a divisive rabble-rouser,its a role he has played surprisingly well. But it is doubtful that this response to the tragedy will boost his chances at re-election. The alternative is to try to squeeze every last vote out of this tragedy. Will he be so unscrupulous as to make the most of it?, says Mounk.

New Scientist

Fukushima isnt Chernobyl

Everybody who gets cancer in Japan over the next 40 years will no doubt blame their misfortune on radiation from Fukushima Daiichi. This will probably be the case for many other diseases too as it happened after the catastrophic explosion in 1986 at Chernobyl,a Soviet nuclear power station in Ukraine. This would be understandable but will have no basis in science, writes Don Higson in New Scientist.

He explains that on April 20,2011,a month after the tsunami struck,Japans Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency announced it was raising the grading of the Fukushima Daiichi event from five to seventhe highest level on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale INES. This helped to create the misleading impression that the event was as bad as Chernobyl despite the fact that there is no possibility that the physical health consequences of Fukushima will be anywhere near as bad as those of Chernobyl. There were no deaths attributable to radiation in case of Fukushima. The INES was intended to aid public understanding of nuclear safety but instead it caused more confusion, says Higson.