A top defence executive has a clear message for Europe: the continent needs 10 more years to restock its arms and ammunition. What does that mean to rallying global defence stocks? And how rising geopolitical uncertainty is boosting defence firms.

Big surge in defence spending

E-regulator in Australia has written to big tech owners demanding that they share their strategies for stamping out child abuse material on their platforms or face fines.

Australia: Regulators crack down on Big tech as e-safety commissioner writes to Meta, Apple

Imagine mobilising for a war, but only arming a handful of soldiers. It's a doomed strategy but that's exactly what the world is doing now. Private companies have been leading the global vaccine research. Pfizer, Moderna, J&amp;J vaccines are being developed by big pharma companies. &nbsp;

Big pharma companies are acting like mercenaries as they are singularly focussed on profits. They sell life-saving drugs for a profit, perform life-saving surgeries for a profit.&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-patents-hamper-global-pandemic-response-380622/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

For decades, big pharma has spun money out of health crises using patents. Think of it as a glorified way of calling dibs if you have a patent for something, only you can produce or use it. If someone else does, you can sue them. The whole idea behind patents is to protect ingenuity but it has been misused by pharma companies.&nbsp;

They have locked up formulas of life-saving drugs and created a profit-churning monopoly. Humira is a drug prescribed for arthritis. It is among the most popular ones in the market. There are 132 patents protecting the makers, which means Humira is a guaranteed monopoly for at least 39 years. Then, there is Lantus, a long-acting insulin used in type one and type two diabetes, again, extremely popular in the market. There are 49 patents protecting Lantus for a period of 37 years.&nbsp;

Both these medicines can save lives but there is a monopoly on both of them. It means higher prices and lower output. It's an unfair system and today is a good day to talk about it. It's World Intellectual Property Day, which is supposed to create awareness on patents and trademarks and copyrights to celebrate the innovation of creators. But the way patents are being misused, what exactly are we celebrating?&nbsp;

Patents have put a price tag on human lives and they continue to do so during this pandemic. Right from the start, patents have complicated our pandemic response. Think back to the mask shortage in 2020. It was because American multinational 3m had a patent on N95 masks. So, new firms could not start producing immediately. It was the same story for testing. Companies patented rapid testing kits. So, there was no scope for mass production and now with vaccines, nothing has changed. The formulas are still locked away and only a handful of companies have successfully developed vaccines.&nbsp;

Imagine if they shared their designs with the world, we could end the pandemic in weeks, but that would mean sacrificing profits. So, what's the solution here? How can we side-step patents?&nbsp;

One option is to pool them. The World Health Organization is using this method for HIV and tuberculosis. In it, multiple patent holders come together and form a consortium. And within this consortium, they share patents. So now, there are more producers for each medicine. You could say a patent pool is one step below open source.

Another option is to do away with intellectual property rights in pharma. This might sound impossible, but there is a real-life example for it:&nbsp;the WHO's global influenza surveillance and response system. Their scientists meet every two years and update each other on the developing strains and finalise a vaccine design. The jabs are then produced in government-funded labs around the world. There are no private players. This could become the future of public health but knowing big pharma, they will fight back, which is where governments come in. No monopoly can thrive without the state's ignorance as international law puts public health over patents. So technically, governments can force pharma companies to share their designs, but they still haven't done it. Instead, what they have done is hoard vaccines. &nbsp;

The arithmetic of vaccination is simple. Two shots per person. So, it's not tough to calculate how many shots you actually need to buy but the United States and Europe are on a buying spree. Around 16% of the world population has bought more than half the output and they are just sitting on this stockpile. The US has ordered around 40 million doses of AstraZeneca's vaccine, but they don't need these jabs. Once the next shipment of Pfizer and Moderna arrive, the US will have enough shots to inoculate every adult thrice. This is a classic case of hoarding. &nbsp;

Monopolies and hoarding kill competition but here, it is killing people. This world IPR day, let's bring back the original motto of patents, which is&nbsp;to enrich human lives, to further human capacity, etc. And if big pharma doesn't relent, it's time for governments to put the foot down.&nbsp;

Imagine mobilising for a war, but only arming a handful of soldiers. It's a doomed strategy but that's exactly what the world is doing now. Private companies have been leading the global vaccine research.

Imagine mobilising for a war, but only arming a handful of soldiers. It's a doomed strategy but that's exactly what the world is doing now. Private companies have been leading the global vaccine research. Pfizer, Moderna, J&J vaccines are being developed by big pharma companies. Big pharma companies are acting like mercenaries as they are singularly focussed on profits. They sell life-saving drugs for a profit, perform life-saving surgeries for a profit. For decades, big pharma has spun money out of health crises using patents. Think of it as a glorified way of calling dibs if you have a patent for something, only you can produce or use it. If someone else does, you can sue them. The whole idea behind patents is to protect ingenuity but it has been misused by pharma companies. They have locked up formulas of life-saving drugs and created a profit-churning monopoly. Humira is a drug prescribed for arthritis. It is among the most popular ones in the market. There are 132 patents protecting the makers, which means Humira is a guaranteed monopoly for at least 39 years. Then, there is Lantus, a long-acting insulin used in type one and type two diabetes, again, extremely popular in the market. There are 49 patents protecting Lantus for a period of 37 years. Both these medicines can save lives but there is a monopoly on both of them. It means higher prices and lower output. It's an unfair system and today is a good day to talk about it. It's World Intellectual Property Day, which is supposed to create awareness on patents and trademarks and copyrights to celebrate the innovation of creators. But the way patents are being misused, what exactly are we celebrating? Patents have put a price tag on human lives and they continue to do so during this pandemic. Right from the start, patents have complicated our pandemic response. Think back to the mask shortage in 2020. It was because American multinational 3m had a patent on N95 masks. So, new firms could not start producing immediately. It was the same story for testing. Companies patented rapid testing kits. So, there was no scope for mass production and now with vaccines, nothing has changed. The formulas are still locked away and only a handful of companies have successfully developed vaccines. Imagine if they shared their designs with the world, we could end the pandemic in weeks, but that would mean sacrificing profits. So, what's the solution here? How can we side-step patents? One option is to pool them. The World Health Organization is using this method for HIV and tuberculosis. In it, multiple patent holders come together and form a consortium. And within this consortium, they share patents. So now, there are more producers for each medicine. You could say a patent pool is one step below open source. Another option is to do away with intellectual property rights in pharma. This might sound impossible, but there is a real-life example for it: the WHO's global influenza surveillance and response system. Their scientists meet every two years and update each other on the developing strains and finalise a vaccine design. The jabs are then produced in government-funded labs around the world. There are no private players. This could become the future of public health but knowing big pharma, they will fight back, which is where governments come in. No monopoly can thrive without the state's ignorance as international law puts public health over patents. So technically, governments can force pharma companies to share their designs, but they still haven't done it. Instead, what they have done is hoard vaccines. The arithmetic of vaccination is simple. Two shots per person. So, it's not tough to calculate how many shots you actually need to buy but the United States and Europe are on a buying spree. Around 16% of the world population has bought more than half the output and they are just sitting on this stockpile. The US has ordered around 40 million doses of AstraZeneca's vaccine, but they don't need these jabs. Once the next shipment of Pfizer and Moderna arrive, the US will have enough shots to inoculate every adult thrice. This is a classic case of hoarding. Monopolies and hoarding kill competition but here, it is killing people. This world IPR day, let's bring back the original motto of patents, which is to enrich human lives, to further human capacity, etc. And if big pharma doesn't relent, it's time for governments to put the foot down.

The tale of patent misuse by big pharma companies 

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/watch-as-shutdown-bites-trump-invites-guests-to-feast-on-burgers-pizzas-french-fries-190375">McDonald</a>'s Corp has lost its rights to the trademark "Big Mac" in a European Union case ruling in favour of Ireland-based fast-food chain Supermac's, according to a decision by European regulators.

The judgment, provided to Reuters by Supermac's, revoked <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/indian-man-racially-abused-assaulted-by-teenagers-at-australias-mcdonalds-restaurant-13853">McDonald</a>'s registration of the trademark, saying that the world's largest fast-food chain had not proven genuine use of it over the five years prior to the case being lodged in 2017.

The Spain-based EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) did not respond to phone calls and emails requesting comment.

McDonald's was not immediately available to comment on the decision, which the company can still appeal.

The ruling allows other companies as well as McDonald's to use the "Big Mac" name in the EU.

Supermac's said it can now expand in the United Kingdom and Europe. It said it had never had a product called "Big Mac" but that McDonald's had used the similarity of the two names to block the Irish chain's expansion.

"Supermac's are delighted with their victory in the trademark application and in revoking the Big Mac trademark which had been in existence since 1996," founder Pat McDonagh told Reuters in an email.

"This is a great victory for business in general and stops bigger companies from "trademark bullying" by not allowing them to hoard trademarks without using them."

McDonald's, which sells its flagship "Big Mac" burgers internationally, submitted printouts of European websites as evidence, as well as posters, packaging, and affidavits from company representatives attesting to "Big Mac" sales in Europe.

The EUIPO said the affidavits from McDonald's needed to be supported by other types of evidence, and that the websites and other promotional materials did not provide that support.

From the website printouts "it could not be concluded whether, or how, a purchase could be made or an order could be placed," the EUIPO said. "Even if the websites provided such an option, there is no information of a single order being placed."

McDonald's has historically been "extremely litigious" in the area of trademark law and typically does not lose, said Willajeanne McLean, a law professor at the University of Connecticut.

In 1993, McDonald's won a court order blocking a dentist in New York from selling services under the name "McDental."

In 2016, McDonald's defeated an effort by a Singapore company to register ‘MACCOFFEE’ as an EU trademark. 
&nbsp;

McDonald's Corp has lost its rights to the trademark "Big Mac" in a European Union case ruling in favour of Ireland-based fast-food chain Supermac's, according to a decision by European regulators.

McDonald's Corp has lost its rights to the trademark "Big Mac" in a European Union case ruling in favour of Ireland-based fast-food chain Supermac's, according to a decision by European regulators. The judgment, provided to Reuters by Supermac's, revoked McDonald's registration of the trademark, saying that the world's largest fast-food chain had not proven genuine use of it over the five years prior to the case being lodged in 2017. The Spain-based EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) did not respond to phone calls and emails requesting comment. McDonald's was not immediately available to comment on the decision, which the company can still appeal. The ruling allows other companies as well as McDonald's to use the "Big Mac" name in the EU. Supermac's said it can now expand in the United Kingdom and Europe. It said it had never had a product called "Big Mac" but that McDonald's had used the similarity of the two names to block the Irish chain's expansion. "Supermac's are delighted with their victory in the trademark application and in revoking the Big Mac trademark which had been in existence since 1996," founder Pat McDonagh told Reuters in an email. "This is a great victory for business in general and stops bigger companies from "trademark bullying" by not allowing them to hoard trademarks without using them." McDonald's, which sells its flagship "Big Mac" burgers internationally, submitted printouts of European websites as evidence, as well as posters, packaging, and affidavits from company representatives attesting to "Big Mac" sales in Europe. The EUIPO said the affidavits from McDonald's needed to be supported by other types of evidence, and that the websites and other promotional materials did not provide that support. From the website printouts "it could not be concluded whether, or how, a purchase could be made or an order could be placed," the EUIPO said. "Even if the websites provided such an option, there is no information of a single order being placed." McDonald's has historically been "extremely litigious" in the area of trademark law and typically does not lose, said Willajeanne McLean, a law professor at the University of Connecticut. In 1993, McDonald's won a court order blocking a dentist in New York from selling services under the name "McDental." In 2016, McDonald's defeated an effort by a Singapore company to register ‘MACCOFFEE’ as an EU trademark.

McDonald's loses 'Big Mac' trademark case to Irish chain Supermac's

Bernie Sanders upstart US presidential campaign may be headed to defeat, but his goals of reining in Wall Street, ending big money in politics and eradicating income inequality were the big winners in the Democratic race. 
 
Sanders, who started as a little-known long-shot, pushed the party and established front-runner Hillary Clinton sharply to the left during a long primary battle. 
 
Along the way, the 74-year-old US senator from Vermont energized young and progressive voters and prepared the ground for what his allies predict will be a lasting influence on the party. 
 
Clinton, one of the best-known political figures in the United States, clinched the Democratic Party&#39;s nomination in a last round of state nominating contests on Tuesday. But even before her victory, Sanders began taking steps to turn his newfound political influence into an enduring progressive movement. 
 
In the last few weeks, he has lent his influence and fundraising power to progressive congressional and state legislative candidates who share his agenda, urging his supporters around the country to donate to their campaigns. 
 
Sanders also appointed prominent activists to the panel writing the issues platform for the party&#39;s convention in July, ensuring a strong voice in the process. 
 
His convention delegates will push for changes to party primary rules, including letting independents vote in primaries and reducing the influence of superdelegates, the hundreds of party elites who can support any candidate regardless of voting in their constituencies, and who in this primary season have largely backed Clinton. 
 
&quot;I do think we are going to see real changes in the Democratic Party going forward because of Bernie. The future of the party is with the people supporting Sanders,&quot; said Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America, a liberal Vermont-based group that rose from Howard Dean&#39;s failed 2004 presidential bid and endorsed Sanders this time. 
 
&quot;He has proven the power of this message,&quot; Chamberlain said. 
 
During the campaign, Sanders forced Clinton to tack left repeatedly on issues ranging from her support for a higher minimum wage to her opposition to the Asian trade pact and Keystone XL oil pipeline. 
 
Sanders&#39; progressive allies said those shifts by Clinton will be helpful in the November 8 election against presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, who has touted an anti-trade and pro-jobs economic agenda, and for Democrats in their efforts to recapture a majority in the US Senate. 
 
&quot;When the story of the 2016 election is told, a major part of it will be that Bernie Sanders helped the Democratic Party turn up the volume on economic populism issues,&quot; said Adam Green, co-founder of the liberal Progressive Change Campaign Committee. 
 
&#39;FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHTS&#39; 
 
If Democrats win back the Senate in the November election, Sanders will be in line for either the chairmanship of the Budget Committee or the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee, both powerful platforms to advance his ideas. 
 
Chamberlain said Sanders would create a formidable one-two punch in the Senate with Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts senator who has been the leader of the party&#39;s progressive wing. 
 
&quot;Bernie Sanders is going to fight all the good fights,&quot; he said. &quot;With Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren we&#39;re going to see a Senate team that will be very powerful.&quot; 
 
Sanders&#39; investment in the next generation of progressive politicians, meanwhile, is aimed at spawning a new generation of liberals who back his agenda. 
 
He has sent emails to his grassroots fundraising list urging his donors to back six insurgent congressional candidates and eight statehouse candidates who echo his economic message, sparking a flood of donations to their campaigns. More endorsements are expected. 
 
&quot;Our movement is so powerful that we can change congressional elections overnight. Let&#39;s keep going,&quot; Sanders said on Tuesday in an email to supporters asking them to support two more candidates for Congress - Eric Kingson in New York and Paul Clements in Michigan. 
 
Justin Bamberg, a first-term state representative from South Carolina, said he received about $70,000 in small-dollar donations after Sanders sent an email to his supporters backing Bamberg. In Bamberg&#39;s first campaign, he raised $21,000 during the entire cycle, he said. 
 
&quot;They don&#39;t know me from Adam, but they believe in Senator Sanders, and because of that they believe in the people that Senator Sanders has supported,&quot; Bamberg said, adding he was also getting calls offering to volunteer on his behalf. 
 
Terry Alexander, a South Carolina state representative backed by Sanders, said he also had received about $70,000 in donations after the Sanders email. The money freed him from worrying about raising funds, giving him more time to focus on meeting voters, he said. 
 
&quot;It has made a difference in how people see my candidacy, it&#39;s created a lot of enthusiasm and a tremendous boost in fundraising,&quot; he said.

Bernie Sanders' goals of reining in Wall Street, ending big money in politics and eradicating income inequality should have a lasting impact on generations of young American voters

Bernie Sanders upstart US presidential campaign may be headed to defeat, but his goals of reining in Wall Street, ending big money in politics and eradicating income inequality were the big winners in the Democratic race. Sanders, who started as a little-known long-shot, pushed the party and established front-runner Hillary Clinton sharply to the left during a long primary battle. Along the way, the 74-year-old US senator from Vermont energized young and progressive voters and prepared the ground for what his allies predict will be a lasting influence on the party. Clinton, one of the best-known political figures in the United States, clinched the Democratic Party's nomination in a last round of state nominating contests on Tuesday. But even before her victory, Sanders began taking steps to turn his newfound political influence into an enduring progressive movement. In the last few weeks, he has lent his influence and fundraising power to progressive congressional and state legislative candidates who share his agenda, urging his supporters around the country to donate to their campaigns. Sanders also appointed prominent activists to the panel writing the issues platform for the party's convention in July, ensuring a strong voice in the process. His convention delegates will push for changes to party primary rules, including letting independents vote in primaries and reducing the influence of superdelegates, the hundreds of party elites who can support any candidate regardless of voting in their constituencies, and who in this primary season have largely backed Clinton. "I do think we are going to see real changes in the Democratic Party going forward because of Bernie. The future of the party is with the people supporting Sanders," said Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America, a liberal Vermont-based group that rose from Howard Dean's failed 2004 presidential bid and endorsed Sanders this time. "He has proven the power of this message," Chamberlain said. During the campaign, Sanders forced Clinton to tack left repeatedly on issues ranging from her support for a higher minimum wage to her opposition to the Asian trade pact and Keystone XL oil pipeline. Sanders' progressive allies said those shifts by Clinton will be helpful in the November 8 election against presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, who has touted an anti-trade and pro-jobs economic agenda, and for Democrats in their efforts to recapture a majority in the US Senate. "When the story of the 2016 election is told, a major part of it will be that Bernie Sanders helped the Democratic Party turn up the volume on economic populism issues," said Adam Green, co-founder of the liberal Progressive Change Campaign Committee. 'FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHTS' If Democrats win back the Senate in the November election, Sanders will be in line for either the chairmanship of the Budget Committee or the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee, both powerful platforms to advance his ideas. Chamberlain said Sanders would create a formidable one-two punch in the Senate with Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts senator who has been the leader of the party's progressive wing. "Bernie Sanders is going to fight all the good fights," he said. "With Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren we're going to see a Senate team that will be very powerful." Sanders' investment in the next generation of progressive politicians, meanwhile, is aimed at spawning a new generation of liberals who back his agenda. He has sent emails to his grassroots fundraising list urging his donors to back six insurgent congressional candidates and eight statehouse candidates who echo his economic message, sparking a flood of donations to their campaigns. More endorsements are expected. "Our movement is so powerful that we can change congressional elections overnight. Let's keep going," Sanders said on Tuesday in an email to supporters asking them to support two more candidates for Congress - Eric Kingson in New York and Paul Clements in Michigan. Justin Bamberg, a first-term state representative from South Carolina, said he received about $70,000 in small-dollar donations after Sanders sent an email to his supporters backing Bamberg. In Bamberg's first campaign, he raised $21,000 during the entire cycle, he said. "They don't know me from Adam, but they believe in Senator Sanders, and because of that they believe in the people that Senator Sanders has supported," Bamberg said, adding he was also getting calls offering to volunteer on his behalf. Terry Alexander, a South Carolina state representative backed by Sanders, said he also had received about $70,000 in donations after the Sanders email. The money freed him from worrying about raising funds, giving him more time to focus on meeting voters, he said. "It has made a difference in how people see my candidacy, it's created a lot of enthusiasm and a tremendous boost in fundraising," he said.

Sanders plants seeds for a lasting progressive movement

Aliens may take another 1,500 years to contact us as Earth&#39;s physical attributes are not unique, making it difficult for the extraterrestrials to locate us, a new study has found. 
 
&quot;We haven&#39;t heard from aliens yet, as space is a big place, but that doesn&#39;t mean no one is out there,&quot; said Evan Solomonides, from the Cornell University in the US. 
 
&quot;It&#39;s possible to hear any time at all, but it becomes likely we will have heard around 1,500 years from now,&quot; said Solomonides.&nbsp;&quot;Until then, it is possible that we appear to be alone - even if we are not. But if we stop listening or looking, we may miss the signals. So we should keep looking,&quot; he said. 
 
Astronomers from Cornell University deconstructed the Fermi Paradox and paired it with the Mediocrity Principle into a fresh equation.&nbsp;According to the Fermi Paradox, billions of Earth-like planets exist in our galaxy, yet no aliens have contacted or visited us. Thus the paradox: the cosmos teems with possibility. 
 
The mediocrity principle - proposed by 16th-century mathematician Copernicus - states that the Earth&#39;s physical attributes are not unique, as natural processes are likely common throughout the cosmos, and therefore aliens would not discover us for a while. 
 
Hunting for extraterrestrials means sending out signals like television broadcasts, for example. As Earth&#39;s electronic ambassador, TV and radio signals are sent into space as a byproduct of broadcasting. 
 
These signals have been travelling from Earth for 80 years at the speed of light. 
 
For aliens receiving these transmissions, they would likely be indecipherable, said Solomonides, as the extraterrestrials would need to decode light waves into sounds, then parse 3,000 human languages to grasp the message. 
 
Earth&#39;s broadcast signals have reached every star within about 80 light years from the Sun - about 8,531 stars and 3,555 Earth-like planets, as our Milky Way galaxy alone contains 200 billion stars, researchers said. 
 
Combining the equations for the Fermi Paradox and the mediocrity principle, the researchers suggest that the Earth might hear from an alien civilisation when about half of the Milky Way Galaxy has been signalled in about 1,500 years. 
(PTI)

'We haven't heard from aliens yet, as space is a big place, but that doesn't mean no one is out there'

Aliens may take another 1,500 years to contact us as Earth's physical attributes are not unique, making it difficult for the extraterrestrials to locate us, a new study has found. "We haven't heard from aliens yet, as space is a big place, but that doesn't mean no one is out there," said Evan Solomonides, from the Cornell University in the US. "It's possible to hear any time at all, but it becomes likely we will have heard around 1,500 years from now," said Solomonides. "Until then, it is possible that we appear to be alone - even if we are not. But if we stop listening or looking, we may miss the signals. So we should keep looking," he said. Astronomers from Cornell University deconstructed the Fermi Paradox and paired it with the Mediocrity Principle into a fresh equation. According to the Fermi Paradox, billions of Earth-like planets exist in our galaxy, yet no aliens have contacted or visited us. Thus the paradox: the cosmos teems with possibility. The mediocrity principle - proposed by 16th-century mathematician Copernicus - states that the Earth's physical attributes are not unique, as natural processes are likely common throughout the cosmos, and therefore aliens would not discover us for a while. Hunting for extraterrestrials means sending out signals like television broadcasts, for example. As Earth's electronic ambassador, TV and radio signals are sent into space as a byproduct of broadcasting. These signals have been travelling from Earth for 80 years at the speed of light. For aliens receiving these transmissions, they would likely be indecipherable, said Solomonides, as the extraterrestrials would need to decode light waves into sounds, then parse 3,000 human languages to grasp the message. Earth's broadcast signals have reached every star within about 80 light years from the Sun - about 8,531 stars and 3,555 Earth-like planets, as our Milky Way galaxy alone contains 200 billion stars, researchers said. Combining the equations for the Fermi Paradox and the mediocrity principle, the researchers suggest that the Earth might hear from an alien civilisation when about half of the Milky Way Galaxy has been signalled in about 1,500 years. (PTI)

Aliens may take 1,500 more years to contact Earth: Study

India and the US welcomed preparations that could lead to the building of six nuclear reactors in India by US-based Westinghouse, in what would be the culmination of some 10 years of work to resolve civil-nuclear issues. 
 
The joint statement said India and the US&nbsp;Export-Import Bank were working to complete a financing package for the project and that the Nuclear Power Corporation of India and Westinghouse had confirmed engineering and site design work would begin immediately. 
 
It said Westinghouse and the Nuclear Power Corporation of India would work toward finalizing the contract by June 2017 - a year later than Westinghouse&#39;s chief executive&nbsp;Daniel Roderick&nbsp;said he had hoped for.&nbsp; 
 
The text of a logistics agreement, which will allow the countries&#39; militaries to&nbsp;use each other&#39;s land, air and naval bases, would be signed soon, a US&nbsp;official said. 
 
Modi&nbsp;told an event organized by the US&nbsp;India Business Council that relations between India and the United States were &quot;closer than ever&quot;. He said the planned reactor purchases would mark new era in nuclear and scientific cooperation. 
 
Modi&#39;s address to a joint session of Congress will be a significant personal step. Although this has become a&nbsp;tradition for Indian prime ministers, he was once banned from the United States for his alleged involvement in 2002 Gujarat riots. 
 
More than 1,000 people, mostly Muslims, were killed in sectarian riots in Gujarat in 2002 when Modi&nbsp;had just become the state&#39;s chief minister.&nbsp;Modi&nbsp;has denied any wrongdoing, and India&#39;s Supreme Court in 2010 ruled there was no case. 
 
In the joint statement, the United States said it now recognized India as a &quot;Major Defence Partner&quot; and would work on technology sharing &quot;to a level commensurate with that of its closest allies and partners&quot;. 
 
Tensions between the United States and Pakistan, as well as regional concerns about China,&nbsp;have served as a backdrop to increased security cooperation. 
 
Senator John McCain, chairman of the US&nbsp;Senate Armed Services Committee, said the address to Congress was &quot;entirely appropriate&quot; given the new partnership. 
 
&quot;There&rsquo;s no doubt there are significant tensions and challenges in the region, which argues for closer coordination between our militaries,&quot; he said. 
 
While&nbsp;Modi&nbsp;is generally popular with the US&nbsp;lawmakers, they criticize what they see as lingering unfriendliness to US&nbsp;firms and a stifling bureaucracy, in spite of&nbsp;Modi&#39;s pro-business image. They also question New Delhi&#39;s record on human rights. 
 
Modi&nbsp;got a boost on Tuesday when Amazon Inc&nbsp;Chief Executive Jeff Bezos said his company will&nbsp;invest an additional $3 billion in India, increasing&nbsp;its committed investment in the country to over $5 billion.

The US said it now recognized India as a "Major Defence Partner" and would work on technology sharing "to a level commensurate with that of its closest allies and partners"

India and the US welcomed preparations that could lead to the building of six nuclear reactors in India by US-based Westinghouse, in what would be the culmination of some 10 years of work to resolve civil-nuclear issues. The joint statement said India and the US Export-Import Bank were working to complete a financing package for the project and that the Nuclear Power Corporation of India and Westinghouse had confirmed engineering and site design work would begin immediately. It said Westinghouse and the Nuclear Power Corporation of India would work toward finalizing the contract by June 2017 - a year later than Westinghouse's chief executive Daniel Roderick said he had hoped for. The text of a logistics agreement, which will allow the countries' militaries to use each other's land, air and naval bases, would be signed soon, a US official said. Modi told an event organized by the US India Business Council that relations between India and the United States were "closer than ever". He said the planned reactor purchases would mark new era in nuclear and scientific cooperation. Modi's address to a joint session of Congress will be a significant personal step. Although this has become a tradition for Indian prime ministers, he was once banned from the United States for his alleged involvement in 2002 Gujarat riots. More than 1,000 people, mostly Muslims, were killed in sectarian riots in Gujarat in 2002 when Modi had just become the state's chief minister. Modi has denied any wrongdoing, and India's Supreme Court in 2010 ruled there was no case. In the joint statement, the United States said it now recognized India as a "Major Defence Partner" and would work on technology sharing "to a level commensurate with that of its closest allies and partners". Tensions between the United States and Pakistan, as well as regional concerns about China, have served as a backdrop to increased security cooperation. Senator John McCain, chairman of the US Senate Armed Services Committee, said the address to Congress was "entirely appropriate" given the new partnership. "There’s no doubt there are significant tensions and challenges in the region, which argues for closer coordination between our militaries," he said. While Modi is generally popular with the US lawmakers, they criticize what they see as lingering unfriendliness to US firms and a stifling bureaucracy, in spite of Modi's pro-business image. They also question New Delhi's record on human rights. Modi got a boost on Tuesday when Amazon Inc Chief Executive Jeff Bezos said his company will invest an additional $3 billion in India, increasing its committed investment in the country to over $5 billion.

Obama and Modi talks touch on nuclear power, military cooperation and Big Business

Babies born prematurely may grow up to have weaker bones, according to a new study which also found that low birth weight plays a big role in developing osteoporosis. 
 
&quot;Our study shows that both those born prematurely with a very low birth weight and those who were born full term, but small for their gestational age, had lower bone mass than the control group, who were born full term with normal weights,&quot; said Chandima Balasuriya, a specialist in Internal Medicine and Endocrinology from the&nbsp;Norwegian University of Science and Technology. 
 
Researchers found that adults who were born full term but were small for their gestational age also had lower bone mass. 
 
These findings are important since peak bone mass is a major determinant of future osteoporosis, the researchers&nbsp;said. 
Researchers looked at 186 adults who were 26-28 years old.&nbsp;They found that 52 of the participants were very low birth weight babies, with a mean birth weight of 1.2 kilogrammes, and a mean gestational age of 29 weeks. 
 
Another 59 participants had been born to term, but were considered &quot;small for gestational age&quot;, with a mean birth weight of just under 3 kilogrammes. 
 
Researchers also had a control group of 77 adults who were born at term with normal weight. 
 
For all three groups, researchers measured bone mineral content and density in the spine, neck, hip and the whole body, and looked at current height and weight, smoking, level of physical activity and a variety of other measures. 
 
When they looked at the data from adults who were born small for their gestational age at term, they found that this group had lower bone mass than adults who were born with normal weight at term. 
 
When researchers corrected the bone mass measurement for the heights of this group, who tended to be shorter, they found that the low bone mass was partly due to their smaller body size. 
 
In contrast, body size alone did not account for the lower bone mass researchers found in adults who had been pre-term babies. 
 
&quot;Ensuring that children with low birth weights have a diet rich in calcium, vitamin D and protein, in combination with exercise that involves weight-bearing physical activities may help reduce risk of bone fractures later in life,&quot; Balasuriya said.

Babies born prematurely may grow up to have weaker bones, according to a new study which also found that low birth weight plays a big role in developing osteoporosis.

Babies born prematurely may grow up to have weaker bones, according to a new study which also found that low birth weight plays a big role in developing osteoporosis. "Our study shows that both those born prematurely with a very low birth weight and those who were born full term, but small for their gestational age, had lower bone mass than the control group, who were born full term with normal weights," said Chandima Balasuriya, a specialist in Internal Medicine and Endocrinology from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Researchers found that adults who were born full term but were small for their gestational age also had lower bone mass. These findings are important since peak bone mass is a major determinant of future osteoporosis, the researchers said. Researchers looked at 186 adults who were 26-28 years old. They found that 52 of the participants were very low birth weight babies, with a mean birth weight of 1.2 kilogrammes, and a mean gestational age of 29 weeks. Another 59 participants had been born to term, but were considered "small for gestational age", with a mean birth weight of just under 3 kilogrammes. Researchers also had a control group of 77 adults who were born at term with normal weight. For all three groups, researchers measured bone mineral content and density in the spine, neck, hip and the whole body, and looked at current height and weight, smoking, level of physical activity and a variety of other measures. When they looked at the data from adults who were born small for their gestational age at term, they found that this group had lower bone mass than adults who were born with normal weight at term. When researchers corrected the bone mass measurement for the heights of this group, who tended to be shorter, they found that the low bone mass was partly due to their smaller body size. In contrast, body size alone did not account for the lower bone mass researchers found in adults who had been pre-term babies. "Ensuring that children with low birth weights have a diet rich in calcium, vitamin D and protein, in combination with exercise that involves weight-bearing physical activities may help reduce risk of bone fractures later in life," Balasuriya said.

Premature babies may grow up to have weaker bones: study

Big, News on Big, stories on Big, articles on Big, Big stories at Wion, Big news, Big latest news