على هامش عيد الحب/ د. لطفي الياسيني

على هامش عيد الحب/ د. لطفي الياسيني

برنامج Internet Download Manager

برنامج Internet Download Manager

Is the Gulf of Mexico safe?

Gulf Coast residents, fishermen, seafood distributors, and scientists believe that living on the coast and eating seafood from the Gulf has become hazardous to their health.
In response to their oil disaster last summer that released at least 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, BP admitted to using at least 1.9 million gallons of widely banned toxic Corexit dispersants (which have been banned in 19 countries) to sink the oil. The dispersants contain chemicals that many scientists and toxicologists have warned are dangerous to humans, marine life, and wildlife.
Earlier this year on May 20, the EPA told BP it had 24 hours to find a less toxic alternative, but the EPA's request was ignored. Then on May 25, BP was given a directive by the EPA to scale back their spraying of the Gulf of Mexico with dispersants. The Coast Guard overlooked the EPA's directive and provided BP with 74 exemptions in 48 days to use the dispersants.
A March 1987 report titled Organic Solvent Neurotoxicity, by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), states: "The acute neurotoxic effects of organic solvent exposure in workers and laboratory animals are narcosisanaesthesiaia, central nervous system (CNS) depression, respiratory arrest, unconsciousness, and death."
Several chemicals and chemical compounds listed in the NIOSH report, such as styrene, toluene, and xylene, are now present in the Gulf of Mexico as the result of BP’s dispersants mixing with BP's crude oil.
Government testing repudiated
On October 29 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced in a press release, new chemical testing for BP's dispersants.
Prior to the federal government's announcement, a "rigorous sensory analysis" (a sniff test), was the only measure in place to test seafood samples for dispersant contamination. According to the press release, the new testing measure checks for the level of dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate (known as DOSS), a major component of the dispersants.
Surprisingly, the press release admits to dispersant chemicals being present in some of their seafood samples: "Using this new, second test, in the Gulf scientists have tested 1,735 tissue samples ... Only a few showed trace amounts of dispersants residue (13 of the 1,735) and they were well below the safety threshold of 100 parts per million [ppm] for finfish and 500 parts per million for shrimp, crabs and oysters."
"This test adds another layer of information, reinforcing our findings to date that seafood from the Gulf remains safe," Jane Lubchenco, undersecretary for commerce and NOAA administrator, said of the test.
However the press release does not specify which type of analytical testing was carried out on what types of seafood, nor what the "trace amounts of dispersants" were. Al Jazeera's requests last week for this information from both NOAA and the FDA have not been answered.
Hugh Kaufman is a senior policy analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) office of solid waste and emergency response. Kaufman, a leading critic of the US government's decision to use Corexit, told Al Jazeera this about the press release: "They say it perfectly clear: the purpose of the test they developed is to make the public confident, not whether the seafood was safe or not.
"They selected the one compound that doesn’t bio-accumulate, as opposed to testing for the toxic ingredients that have a low safety threshold and do build up in tissue. They are not looking for those."
Kaufman, who has been the EPA's chief investigator on several contamination cases, including Love Canal and Times Beach, said: "They want to be able to tell the public the seafood is safe. But if you are going to test seafood to see if it’s safe or not, you want to test for the ingredients of Corexit that have a low safety threshold and do bio-accumulate in tissue."
"However, if you want the public to think everything is fine, then you do what they said in their press release they are doing, which is to look for an ingredient with a high safety threshold that doesn’t build up in tissue."

"They told you they are doing a cover up, how they are doing the cover up, and notwithstanding that, they still have some positive results for chemicals."
Inaccurate safety levels
Chemist Bob Naman with the Analytical Chemical Testing Lab in Mobile, Alabama, has been testing samples from across the Gulf for oil and dispersant also takes issue with these recent government statements.
"500 ppm is an incredible amount," Naman explained to Al Jazeera, "I don't know what moron set that level, but 500 ppm is an extreme amount. It is probably 100 times too high. A reasonably insignificant number would be five parts per billion [ppb], not something being tracked in ppm."
Naman gave an example of a government standard that seemingly undermines information in the recent press release.
"The amount of chemicals the EPA allows in storm water draining from a site containing salvaged cars into a body of water is 15 ppm," he said.
"If the EPA won’t allow more than 15 ppm of that, why in the hell would they consider a number that is 33 times higher than that as acceptable for something you are going to put in your body? Their people that are setting that kind of number apparently don't have a clue what that number even means. The threshold limits they are setting are extremely absurd to a chemist like me. I'm appalled they would use such high numbers for their thresholds."
Naman also expressed concern over the fact that from his understanding neither the FDA nor NOAA are testing for propylene glycol and 2-butoxyethanol, the two marker chemicals for BP’s dispersants.
"Since they are testing in ppm, these two marker compounds are not being picked up," Naman said.
"They are not using low enough detection limits. They need to be looking for parts per billion, not parts per million. It's a world of difference."
The EPA's website states that, "EPA believes dispersants should only be used sparingly and when absolutely necessary," yet conversely stated that while BP’s well was gushing oil, "[dispersants] appeared to be having a positive effect on the oil at the source of the leak and thus far has had no significant ecological impact".
Al Jazeera requested information from the EPA's Region 6 Public Information Centre about their ongoing testing of the water and air for chemicals associated with the oil disaster, also asking for information the EPA has that is related to illnesses caused by the oil disaster.
Last week we were told by Joe Hubbard in EPA's office of external affairs that this information would be provided, but Al Jazeera has yet to receive this information.
Kaufman believes one of the main problems with federal response to the oil disaster is that, "BP called most of the shots, and that was the problem, and clearly from this press release, looks like they still are. The more the public thinks everything is back to normal, the less people who were harmed by the mess will be reimbursed. Follow the money".

Seafood concerns
Fisherman from Louisiana and Florida have voiced their concerns to Al Jazeera about the safety of seafood they are catching.
Karen Hopkins, who works for the seafood distributor Dean Blanchard Seafood, in Grand Isle, Louisiana, told Al Jazeera: "I will never again eat any seafood that comes from the Gulf of Mexico."
Clifford Troxler, also from Louisiana, worked in the seafood distribution business for 25 years, and told Al Jazeera: "You couldn’t force feed me a shrimp from the Gulf."
Hopkins is also concerned about what she sees as an attempt by the federal government to shift responsibility of seafood safety "away from BP and the feds and placing it square on the shoulders of fishermen and distributors".
Hopkins provided Al Jazeera with a letter from Best Sea-Pak, a seafood distributor Dean Blanchard Seafood works with, that says: "Due to the recent Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and customers concerns of oil tainted seafood, we must implement measures to prevent oil tainted seafood from entering the food supply.
"A new mandatory requirement by the United States Food and Drug Administration is to ensure no fish (seafood) may be harvested from an area that is covered by a Local, State, or Federal closure or for which there is additional information that indicates potential hazards related to an oil spill."
"Our lawyers looked this over and told us it is basically an attempt to make us and the fishermen take full responsibility for the seafood, even though it has been BP and the feds that have pushed to open up all the previously closed waters for fishing," Hopkins said.
"That means that we’ll be the ones who get sued if somebody gets sick from contaminated seafood, instead of BP or the feds, who are the ultimately the responsible parties for all of this in the first place."
Ongoing sickness
Al Jazeera is finding a growing number of people along the Gulf Coast who are exhibiting symptoms they attribute to chemical poisoning and exposure to BP's oil and dispersants.
Susan Price is a small business owner who lives in Chauvin, Louisiana. While volunteering for a community outreach program in Grand Isle, Louisiana in late August, Price became ill.
"When I drove over the bridge to Grand Isle, I felt heavy exposure to chemicals," Price told Al Jazeera. "My nose instantly clogged, I began to cough, my throat hurt, my voice became instantly hoarse, and my tongue felt and tasted like I'd licked a battery."
A return trip to the island a short while later brought her symptoms back, so Price saw a doctor.
"I was diagnosed with pneuminitis, which is an inflammation of the lungs that the doctor told me is caused by inhalation of chemicals," Price said. "He gave me an inhaler and pumped me up with antibiotics, but I’m still sick."
Furthermore, Price said that while she was engaged in her community outreach work on Grand Isle, "every person I was dealing with was sick and had the same symptoms I did. Those people that are living there, heaven help them".
Donny Matsler, a commercial fisherman from Dauphin Island, Alabama, has been suffering acute symptoms for months that have led him to several emergency room visits, time in intensive care, and finally to detoxification treatment with Dr William Rea in Dallas, Texas, at the Environmental Health Center.
The centre tests and treats human health problems related to chemical exposure, among other environment related ailments.
"Dr Rea told me I am Corexit-drunk," Matsler told Al Jazeera, "My wife is the same, and everybody in Dauphin Island is sick from this stuff."

China-Japan boat crash video posted

Japan has said it is investigating whether online video clips that appear to show a Chinese fishing boat colliding with Japanese patrol vessels are authentic.
The collision in September near disputed isles in the East China Sea, the site of vast potential gas and oil reserves, sparked a diplomatic spat between the two Asian giants.
Japan detained the Chinese skipper of the trawler, which made him a hero in China.
The clips were  posted on the video sharing website YouTube early on Friday, threatening to reignite the China-Japan row.
Naoto Kan, the embattled Japanese prime minister, has faced heavy criticism domestically for freeing the captain and tensions between the two countries have chilled since the incident.
"We need to look into the authenticity of such clips," Yoshito Sengoku, the chief cabinet secretary, told a news conference.
Japanese TV news programmes also aired the video clips, which showed a blue boat bearing a Chinese name colliding with two patrol boats as sirens blared and Japanese crew shouted "halt".
Investigation
"Generally speaking, if documents in a criminal suit have been released on YouTube and to the public, then that is a ... grave situation for investigation authorities," Sengoku added.
Japanese prosecutors released the captain but are still technically investigating whether to charge him.
Sengoku said China had inquired about the videos through a diplomatic route, and added that he hoped Kan and Hu Jintao, the Chinese president, would meet bilaterally at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Yokohama, near Tokyo, next weekend.


The government had released the video for viewing by a small number of legislators but refused to make it public for fear of inflaming anti-Chinese sentiment.
Japan's opposition Liberal Democrats threatened to delay a 4.4 trillion yen ($54.51bn) extra budget for the fiscal year to March 31 over the government's handling of the matter.
"This issue is related to national interests and sovereignty, so if the video is not released (to the public), I am not sure what will happen to the extra budget deliberation," Nobuteru Ishihara of the Liberal Democratic Party told reporters.
Tokyo, Washington and Southeast Asian nations have grown increasingly wary of a rising China's intentions as it spends heavily to modernise its military, sends its navy further afield and asserts sovereignty over the contested South China Sea.
Beijing this week attempted to calm the fears.
"China's overall national strength is rising rapidly, and this is making an important contribution to promoting Asia's peace and prosperity, global economic growth, and reform of the international financial system," Hu Zhengyue, the Chinese assistant foreign minister, told the official Xinhua news agency.
Sovereignty dispute
Beijing has staunchly asserted its sovereignty over the islands, known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China, and stressed that the video would not alter its stance in the feud.
"It was illegal for the Japanese coast guard vessels to interfere with, chase, block, surround and seize the Chinese fishing boat in the seas off the Diaoyu islands," Ma Zhaoxu, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, said.
"The so-called video cannot alter the truth of the matter, and cannot disguise the illegality of the Japanese actions."

Indonesia reels from Merapi havoc

At least 64 people have been killed in the last 24 hours after clouds of blistering gas erupted from Indonesia's Mount Merapi volcano, prompting the country's president to call the eruptions a "national disaster".
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono promised on Friday that his government would take "extraordinary measures" to respond to the ongoing crisis.
Many villagers suffered severe burns from the searing hot dust and debris that spewed out of the country’s most volatile volcano. The deadly clouds raced down the mountainside at more than 100km an hour, forcing villagers to flee.
Volcanologists said Friday's gas eruption was not only the largest since the the volcano first erupted on October 26, but the worst in a century.
Al Jazeera's Step Vaessen, reporting from the capital, Jakarta, said the gas eruption was still under way.
"It has not stopped erupting for the last 40 hours. Last night there was a huge eruption," she said.
"Villages were on fire, houses burned. Lots of people had to flee. Many wounded and many dead, but there are still people living on the slopes of Merapi."
Worse may be yet to come
More than 100 people in total have been killed by the eruptions.

Millions of people live in the vicinity of the volcano, in what is one of the most densely populated regions in Indonesia.
The increasingly violent activity defied initial predictions from volcanologists that the first eruption on October 26 would ease pressure inside the mountain.
To the contrary, the eruptions have only continued to amplify. And the gas pressure inside the mountain is increasing; leading experts to fear a much bigger eruption might be next.






"It is very hard to predict in the first place what the Merapi is doing as well, it is the most unpredictable volcano in Indonesia. But this pattern that we've seen now in recent weeks is totally different from what we've seen ever in the past," our correspondent said.
While Yudhoyono said 2,000 soldiers would be sent to the area to help relieve efforts, he made no announcement of any plans to evacuate the area, our correspondent reported.
"Many people have been evacuated … But still people have to go back and forth to their villages, because their animals are there.
"So people are pleading to the government to help them so that not just the people are evacuated but the animals as well, so that they don’t have to go back to their villages all the time," she said.
The president said on Friday that the government would buy villagers' cattle in a bid to prevent them from returning and putting their lives at risk.
'Danger zone' extended
More than 75,000 people have been moved from the danger zone around the volcano.
That area was widened from 10 to 15km from the peak on Thursday after an eruption gave concern for a heightened threat. It has now been extended to 20km, but experts say it may need to be widened even further. The president made no comment on this in his appearance on Friday.
Merapi last erupted in 2006, when it sent an avalanche of pyroclastic ash - hot gases and rock fragments - racing down the mountain and killing two people.
A similar eruption in 1994 killed 60 people, while 1,300 people died in an eruption in 1930.
There are more than 129 active volcanoes in Indonesia, which are spread across 17,500 islands.
The country is prone to eruptions and earthquakes due to its location within the so-called Ring of Fire - a series of fault lines stretching from the western Hemisphere through Japan and Southeast Asia.

Osama bin Laden and the Sahel

Aside from the polemics that surround all of Osama bin Laden's occasional pronouncements, namely whether he is still alive and their authenticity, their importance lies in the extent to which they are believed and acted upon.
In the case of the audio-tape released to Al Jazeera on October 27, in which he castigated France for its treatment of Muslims, its role in Afghanistan and its intervention in the affairs of Muslims in North and West Africa, few of his (or al-Qaeda's) pronouncements have had greater resonance. Certainly, none have had more impact on North and West Africa, France, nor possibly the EU as a whole. It is likely to have profound implications on the so-called war on al-Qaeda in the Sahara and Sahel, as well as on French and European policies in the region.
The first thing to say about this intervention is that the international publicity given to it has ensured that a relatively obscure crisis in the hitherto little known Sahel has attained international prominence - especially in Europe where the Sahel topped the agenda at the EU Council of Foreign Ministers in Luxembourg on October 25.

Indeed, it seems hardly coincidental that bin Laden's audio-tape was released less than 48 hours after the EU Council meeting. In other words, while the Sahel crisis, or perhaps more appropriately France's crisis, was being discussed within the hallowed and scarcely publicised precincts of the European Council, it was bin Laden who brought it to global attention.

Bin Laden's 'blessing'
His pronouncement sent out several messages. Firstly, it will be seen as a 'blessing' on those who abducted seven hostages - five French nationals, a Togolese and a Madagascan - in the Niger uranium-mining town of Arlit on September 16. "The kidnapping of your experts in Niger," bin Laden said, "is in retaliation for the tyranny you practice against our Muslim nation."

Secondly, such a 'blessing' is likely to have transformatory implications. This is because al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) in the Sahara-Sahel was a creation of the Algerian DRS (Direction du Renseignement et la Sécurité) with its three main emirs in the Sahara-Sahel - Abdelhamid abou Zaïd, Yahia Djouadi and Mokhtar ben Mokhtar (all with many aliases) - being strongly suspected of being DRS agents.
Between the end of 2008 and this year, as the group's estimated strength increased from around 200 to some 300 to 400, its composition changed. As young Mauritanian Islamists have become increasingly attracted to the Sahara Emirate, as they call it, so they have come to outnumber Algerians, possibly diminishing DRS influence and control over the group.
Indications are that AQIM recruitment from young and more 'Islamist' and 'jihadist' elements in the region leapt in the wake of the disastrous Franco-Mauritanian raids into Mali on July 22, ostensibly to liberate the French hostage Michel Germaneau, and again after September 16 when France's ally ('proxy') Mauritania, which had joined France in 'declaring war' on AQIM, was given a very bloody nose by AQIM fighters at Ras el Ma (west of Timbuktu).

The outcome of this surge in recruitment, for which France must take much of the credit, is that it will almost certainly lead to changes in AQIM's internal organisation with the possibility of the Islamists, as distinct from the DRS, exercising more influence and control over its general strategy and operational activities.
Bin Laden's 'blessing' will almost certainly have accelerated this transformation by giving both a huge pat on the back to the more Islamist and jihadist elements of the organisation and a boost to their further recruitment. This will be of particular concern to the EU.

A French crisis
Thirdly, bin Laden's message may give clues as to the nature of the demands that AQIM may make of France for the release of the seven hostages and thus how those demands might be negotiated.

France's plan to ban the wearing of full face veils in public could quite easily be dropped, but a withdrawal of France's 3,500 to 4,000 troops from Afghanistan, or a withdrawal from uranium mining in Niger, if that is what is meant by "taking a lot of our wealth in suspicious deals," are likely to be 'no deal' areas.
If that is the case, then the message could perhaps be interpreted as a warning of either the hostages' execution or long drawn-out negotiations designed to humiliate France. These two possible outcomes are believed to reflect the possibly different goals of the DRS and Islamist elements within AQIM.

France's reaction to the audio-tape is indicative of the precarious and uncertain nature of the direction in which this crisis could move. While bin Laden's message has raised the security alarm even higher in France (and Europe), with Brice Hortefeux, the interior minister, saying that France is under a "real" terror threat which needs "total vigilance," Bernard Kouchner, the foreign minister who is the subject of resignation rumours, has tried to down-play the significance of the audio-tape by saying that the threat was expected and that bin Laden has little influence over AQIM.
France is facing a crisis to which there are no immediate and obvious solutions. After seven weeks, AQIM has still not stated its demands. Nevertheless, one can envisage possible face-saving and realistic options for France. But, they remain unspoken as they concern the 'elephant in the room' - Algeria.
Let me explain: If, as many believe, Algeria's DRS has such influence over AQIM in the Sahel, it is conceivable that it could arrange the release of the hostages, possibly on religious, humanitarian or some other such grounds, along with a series of not too onerous gestures by France.
The price demanded by Algeria would be high, involving perhaps greater freedom of operation for the DRS in France, French influence either directly or through the EU on weakening Morocco, etc. These would be politically acceptable to Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, who is primarily responsible for getting France into this predicament, as they would not be of direct concern to or much understood by the French public.

A loss for Algeria?
Far less positive for Algeria is a scenario which could conceivably result in Algeria, not France, coming out of this situation as the ultimate loser. This is as follows: Most of Algeria's neighbours have recently begun to accuse it of being in some way responsible for the development of the AQIM 'terrorist' threat in the Sahel.
Cheikh El Moctar Ould Horma, Mauritania's minister of health, recently 'suggested' that Algeria was the 'porte-parole' (spokesperson) for AQIM; elements in the Moroccan media have accused Washington of appeasing Algeria in its relationship with and use of AQIM as a 'terrorist' organisation; a senior member of Mali's security forces accused the DRS of being 'at the heart of AQIM'; Niger is angry with the role played by Algeria's DRS in the political destabilisation of its northern regions; while Muammar Gaddafi, Libya's leader, has suggested euphemistically that the problem in the region is Algeria's DRS.
This increased regional antipathy towards Algeria was clearly evident at the security conference held in Bamako on October 13 and 14. The conference, initiated by France, angered Algeria, the one regional power with the military capability to eradicate AQIM in the Sahel.
Algeria, however, with the broad support (or what Morocco might call appeasement) of the US, has been using AQIM's presence in the Sahel to further its own hegemonic designs on the region. It is therefore strongly opposed to any external intervention and has consequently established, somewhat theatrically, a number of regional security-intelligence institutions that are exclusive to Algeria and its three weaker neighbours - Mauritania, Mali and Niger - and thus designed to maintain Algeria's management and control over the situation.
Mali's temerity in suggesting that Morocco, who Algeria has been trying to exclude from any participation in the Sahel security situation, should be invited was a red rag to a bull.

Algeria's boycott of the conference - attended by anti-terrorism experts from all G8 members, namely Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the US, and their counterparts from Burkina Faso, Mali, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria and Senegal, as well as representatives from Spain, Switzerland, Australia, the European Union, the African Union (AU) and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) was its most noteworthy aspect.
This much higher than expected attendance at Bamako could be interpreted as an international repudiation of Algeria's role in the fabrication, exaggeration and even management of 'terrorism' in the region since the DRS's involvement in the abduction of 32 European hostages in the Algerian Sahara in 2003.
If the regional tables continue to be turned on Algeria in this way, then France might have an opportunity to re-establish and perhaps even enhance its influence and standing in the region. While this scenario might not necessarily secure the lives of the hostages, it could conceivably ensure that Algeria and not France is the ultimate loser.
However, there is only one outcome of this situation that is certain. And that is that the countries of the Sahel - Mali, Mauritania and Niger - stand to acquire a huge increase in development/security aid and related assistance from the EU in the New Year.

Can you trust a leader who cries?

Celebrating the Republican - and his own - victory, the incoming speaker of the US House of Representatives John Boehner's voice choked with emotion.

"I spent my whole life chasing the American dream. I put myself through school… working every rotten job there was and every night shift I could find," he sobbed.

"I poured my heart and soul into running a small business - and when I saw how out of touch Washington had become with the core values of this great nation, I put my name forward and ran for office."

A loyal crowd cheered and chanted as Mr Boehner, chin wobbling and welling up again, finished his speech.

For the audience, it was probably not the first time they have seen a few tears threaten to escape down the face of a political figure.

'Hard-wired response'

Most modern-day US presidents or candidates have succumbed to their emotions on occasion. Former presidents George Bush - both junior and senior, Bill and Hillary Clinton, even Barack Obama, have all been caught weeping at some point.

The outgoing Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is known for his emotional outbursts, memorably shedding tears in 2009 after the announcement that Rio de Janeiro would be the host for the 2016 Olympics.

And, in September, Afghan President Hamid Karzai made headlines across the world when he wept while lamenting the state of Afghanistan.

The list goes on। Bob Hawke, former Australian prime minister and one of the country's most popular leaders, became famous for crying during his time in office.

Despite his tough-guy image, he cried while talking about his daughter's drug addiction, his infidelity and - perhaps rather more surprisingly - the 1989 killing of Chinese students at Tiananmen Square.

Even former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher - known as the Iron Lady for a reason - welled up when she left Downing Street in 1990.

But why do they do it?

Most psychologists agree that it is seen as far more acceptable to cry in public than it was several decades ago.

Moreover, says Judi James, a behavioural expert, many politicians meanwhile believe it will increase their support by making people warm to them, which - at a basic level - it does.

"Crying has a profound effect on someone," she says.

"It's something that babies do to get nurture and attention and love, and we are almost hard-wired to have an empathetic response and a sympathetic response and that will still occur," she says.

Mr Blair's "Diana moment" was said to have captured the mood of the nation

But, she says, then the intellectual part of your brain kicks in and, for many of us, that includes cynicism - especially if the person is perceived to want something.

For the British, she believes former Prime Minister Tony Blair began a new trend in politics, when he blinked back tears after the death of Princess Diana.

"Because we were all tearful over Diana's death, it was seen as a shared emotion," she said.

'Faking it'

But the act soon lost its effect, she said, as the British began to get more wary of Mr Blair's emotional displays.

Continue reading the main story

We can tell when politicians are faking it. We don't necessarily know how we tell but we pick up signals”

End Quote Lucy Beresford Psychotherapist

"He would begin to do the 'blinking back the tears' as a political gesture, and that was when people began to doubt it. It began to look rather contrived," she said.

"In the past, countries have been mesmerised by charismatic leaders," she says.

But, at least in Britain's case, things have changed, as we are used to "programmes like the X-factor where everyone cries to get our votes".

"As a nation we have become deeply cynical," she says.

Lucy Beresford, a psychotherapist, says the problem is that while what we are looking for in a politician has evolved over time, there is still an inherent contradiction in our requirements.

"The thing is we want our [male] politicians to be very strong and almost like father figures and therefore we don't like the sense that they will fall apart," she says.

Brazil's outgoing President Lula is known for his emotional displays

"But at the same time we want our politicians to be human."

In Mr Boehner's case, she believes it was genuine because it was congruent with what he was saying - he was revisiting emotional parts of his life.

And when it appears less real, that is probably because it is, she says, because as humans we tend to pick up intuitively whether it "rings true" or not.

"We can tell when politicians are faking it. We don't necessarily know how we tell but we pick up signals," such as facial twitches or hand gestures to the face, she says.

Ms James says that the most obvious difference is that politicians may shed a tear, but the rest of their body language fails to match up.

"Genuine tears make us desperate to hide our faces. This is where people go wrong," she says.

"The whole of the lower face crumples," she says.

No politician wants to be caught out pretending, but shedding real tears can also have its drawbacks.

When Spanish foreign minister, Miguel Angel Moratinos, cried after losing his post in a re-shuffle, it prompted novelist Arturo Perez-Reverte to comment that he "he had no balls even when leaving".

And when Hillary Clinton cried during her presidential campaign, the event was seized on by critics as "proof" that she was "not tough enough" to take it in the top job.

But, undoubtedly, at the right time and in the right place, tears can soften our hearts and make often distant-looking politicians appear human.

As French novelist Jean Giradoux once said: "The secret of success is sincerity".

"Once you can fake that, you've got it made."